Saturday, June 04, 2005

Whose Side Are We On?

Sometimes I can't believe the culture with which we are at war. Remember, this is a country that is our ally.

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - All he was asking, says Mohammad al-Zulfa, was that his fellow legislators think — just think — about studying the possibility of allowing women — not all of them, just some — to drive.

But circumspect though he was, he has touched off a fierce controversy, pitting women's rights campaigners against conservatives who believe that lifting Saudi Arabia's ban on women drivers is un-Islamic and will lead to permissiveness.

There have been calls to kick al-Zulfa off the Consultative Council, the all-male legislative arm appointed by the king, and even to strip him of Saudi citizenship. His cell phone constantly rings with furious calls accusing him of encouraging women to commit the double sins of discarding their veils and mixing with men. A phone text message prays Allah will freeze his blood. Chat rooms bristle with accusations that al-Zulfa is "driven by carnal instincts."

Conservatives, who believe women should be shielded from strange men, say women in the driver's seat will be free to leave home alone and go when and where they please; to unduly expose their eyes while driving; to interact with strange men such as traffic cops and mechanics.

"Driving by women leads to evil," Munir al-Shahrani wrote in a letter to the Al-Watan daily. "Can you imagine what it would be like if her car broke down? She would have to seek help from men."

Can you imagine? Oh my Allah!

I couldn't write this if I tried. These people are saying this with a straight face.

What is amazing is that they overlook the most compelling reason for the ban. Women driving won't lead to permissiveness. It will lead to accidents! Think saftey on the roads! *smile*

And the Left claims that our Christian right is just like these people because they want to outlaw abortion. Riiiiiiggggghhhhhhhttttttt!


At 9:48 AM, Blogger Jehane said...

I can't believe I beat the inevitable snarky commentary from one of your readers.

I await it with resignation.

At 10:26 AM, Blogger Pile On® said...

Did you drive to this site by yourself Cass?

Such permissiveness, I must have the Units number and warn him about frozen blood.

KJ, that last line is not very neo-libertarian of you. I think you guys are supposed to squawk that you are never voting republican again anytime the social-cons open their mouths or do anything besides all the work and winning elections.

At 1:28 PM, Blogger KJ said...


It wasn't a comment on abortion policy. It was a comment about perspective.

FWIW, there is a crowd in the normal libertarian party that is pro-life. It is real easy to be libertarian and pro-life. It is just, again, perspective about whose freedom from force you are speaking.

At 6:50 PM, Blogger Pile On® said...

I was not referring to abortion policy in particular.

I have just been noticing a trend among some libertarian bloggers to want to bolt the republican party anytime the social-cons do or say anything.

I am not saying you are one of these, we pretty much share a common and might I say correct perspective. Another blogger whom shall remain nameless has dubbed a group of libertarian bloggers high-maintenance republicans.

At 7:05 PM, Blogger KJ said...

Yeah, most of the libertarians I know, even the social con frightened, would tend to go republican before democrat. I thought of myself as a democrat before I realized I was libertarian leaning. Now the national party dems are so far off the plantation that I could never take that label. I do lean republican most of the time, especially in the post-9/11 world. There are some self proclaimed libertarian blogs I have visited strike me as hostil to religion (as opposed to areligiou, which is certainly a part of the libertarian big tent), and anarchist, neither of which is should be part of a libertarian philosphy. This may be a labeling or ignorance problem on the self proclaimed libertarian. Bill Maher claimed to be libertarian once, but that was only because he is for drug legalization. He is a bed wetting liberal on just about everything else, social and economic, and has no claim to the libertarian label.

I claim to be a Christian, but my libertarian political views clash at times with my Christian conservative friends. I am fine with that. I know where they are coming from, and they are usually quite reasonable folks. I always worry about my growing faith being choked out by the worldly, but at this point I am more than happy to let sinners be so long as they keep it amongst their voluntary adult selves. Some issues though, no matter how you slice, are going to involve government action. For example, despite libertarians who claim the government shouldn't be involved in recognizing marriage, our history and society is going to demand it. Besides, think of the all the legal interaction that requires dealing with marriage -- child custody, property division at times of divorce, descent of property at death when there is no will, etc. These legal issues require a government that defines and deals with marriage. Thus, a policy choice has to be made. It isn't enough to say, "doesn't affect me."

At 10:15 PM, Blogger Pile On® said...

I respect the views of some conservatives and libertarians who want to legalize drugs. Like my good friend Bill Buckley. But lLiberals who advocate drug legalization are a hoot.

In the next breath they will want smoking banned anywhere except under a fume hood and they will want to sue a pharmaceutical company out of existance whenever someone has an adverse side effect regardless of what good the drug may be doing for some patients.

At 12:00 AM, Blogger KJ said...

Yeah. And I just watched Team America Pile. What a hoot.

Puppet sex, funny.
Puppet sex with body pee/poop funtions, wierd and gross.


Post a Comment

<< Home