People on the left can't understand why I praise the Economist. Of course, I ignore its editorials, and there are clear political problems in its coverage, but it remains...the best magazine there is. In the US, you very rarely read critical article about Saudi Arabia--especially as of late since Prince Bandar brokered the Saudi-Zionist honeymoon. Even the liberal Jonathan Curiel of the San Francisco Chronicle, wrote a most hagiographic profile of Prince Turki prior to his departure. This is from the Economist: "They have reason to be concerned. After the fanfare of the elections, the kingdom's town councils have proved even more toothless than cynics foretold. According to a law enacted in 2005, state employees, who make up two-thirds of the native Saudi workforce, are banned from saying anything in public that conflicts with official policy. Several dozen signatories to a 2004 petition calling for a transition to constitutional monarchy remain forbidden to travel. Three authors of a more recent reform petition are under arrest, charged, almost certainly spuriously, with funding terrorism. Meanwhile, many of the kingdom's real problems, including jihadist terrorism, remain unresolved. This week gunmen killed four French people weekending in the desert. Even Saudis who shrug off such incidents as the work of madmen or criminals admit to shock at the continuing excesses of the formal religious establishment. An appeals judge recently confirmed the forced divorce of a happily married couple on the grounds of tribal incompatibility. Another sentenced four Sri Lankan bank robbers to beheading, invoking a Muslim statute used against bandits. Women are still deprived of simple rights, such as the right to drive or to travel without a male guardian's permission. The kingdom may be envied and respected. But it is hardly a model that many others want to follow."