Mediaboss Marketing

Saudi king Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, then defense minister, is seen in his office in Riyadh, December 9, 2013 (DoD/Erin A. Kirk-Cuomo)

The Saudi stereotype is bleak. Environmental desolation is mirrored by a cultural desert. Religious police meander between buildings, looking for victims. Women hurry between shadows behind their male guardians. The strict interpretation of Najdi Islam dominates nearly every aspect of life. It is a quiet, bleak place, with the only civic engagement at the mosque, whose loudspeakers are the only music the kingdom ever hears.

Its stark and it sticks in the mind. It is, of course, not totally true.

Saudi Arabias approximately twenty million citizens may be dominated by those who wish the kingdom to look like that; theyve done a bang-up job controlling the kingdoms image. Yet beneath the surface, discontent stirs.

Reuters reports:

When senior Saudi cleric Abdulaziz al-Tarifi told his almost one million Twitter followers that musical instruments were ungodly, it helped spark a hashtag among likeminded Saudis that the people reject music academies.

The hashtag, echoing the language of Arab Spring revolts elsewhere, captured the hostility to reforms that introduced entertainment events from rock concerts and comedy shows to kickboxing into the conservative kingdom.

Even having the controversy feeds the monolithic Saudi stereotype: yet more bearded clerics lambasting modernity and innocuous pursuits.

But simply having the debate is proof of strains within the kingdom. Saudi Arabia has embarked on an ambitious program of modernization on as many levels as it can handle. It has set the artificial deadline of 2030 to get most of them done. For the sluggish Saudi state and the stubborn cadre of clerical conservatives that dominate much of it, this is a huge ask.

Saudi Arabia is a nineteenth-century state with twentieth-century institutions lording over a divided and dividing society.

When Saudi Arabia was first founded during the post-Ottoman 1920s, its founder, Abdulaziz bin Abdulrahman, fought a very nineteenth-century tribal war, as sheikhs had for centuries throughout Arabia. He was the state; institutions were fellow sheikhs who commanded different portions of his conquered kingdom.

This lasted until the 1950s, when, after World War II, oil money began to flow in. This coincided with Western, especially American, technology.

To support all this, the Saudis built a twentieth-century state with influences from the postwar West. Ministries sprung up, tribal levies were organized into battalions, passports were issued. The trappings of a twentieth-century state took hold.

Yet the powers that be remained distinctly nineteenth century: sheikhs and princes elevated by blood dominated the top echelons of power, stuffing the ministries full of family and friends. Many of them were, predictably, not very competent or motivated.

When development was merely a matter of writing checks to get foreigners to build things, this did not produce overt complications. Building a highway, or an office tower, is a relatively straightforward affair.

But to get people in that office tower to run profitable businesses? That is a much harder job.

Getting Saudis to work and work meaningfully is already a massive challenge in the most classical rentier state in history. But there are also generational, regional, sectarian and political conflicts.

There is a massive youth bulge. Normally thats an opportunity for a country. But Saudi Arabia is scarce in every resource but oil and oil, right now, is cheap. Providing jobs is tough.

Whats worse, the nineteenth-century patronage-heavy character of the state means most Saudis expect their government to invent jobs for them, not for citizens to create jobs for themselves.

It doesnt help that the conservatives would call just about any job but prayer, construction, military service and food service sinful.

Unemployed youth tend to channel their restless energy into crime, terrorism, protests and anti-state activities. They drove the Arab Spring, they marched into Syrias and Libyas civil wars. Direct cash transfers from Saudi Arabias still-considerable sovereign wealth reserves can buy many off for now, but that fund will dry up should oil prices remain low much longer.

Then theres the issue of regionalism. Saudi Arabias cultural heartland is its Najd province, the conservative core that conquered the rest. Yet western Hijazis, Eastern Province citizens and its southern provinces along the Yemeni border all do not wholly buy into their overlords worldview. People from Jeddah, near the holy city of Mecca, are quick to point out their modernity; people from Qatif, in the Eastern Province, openly call for the overthrow of the king. Meanwhile, the southern provinces have been forced to duck and cover from Houthi bombardment, something sure to cause resentment.

That Eastern Province, by the way? Full of Shia, remnants of the days when the Persian Gulf was very much Persian. Like their counterparts in Bahrain, they choke under Sunni rule.

Yet to focus on the Shia-Sunni divide leaves out the diversity of Saudi Arabias Sunnis, who may profess they are all one religion but have a vast diversity of religious opinion. Some mumble favorably about the dying Islamic State, others scheme for veil-free weekends in Dubai. In between are a gamut of opinions on religion and life.

This diversity is strictly controlled by powerful kings. Saudis are used to being told what to do, even if they dont agree with the decision. The danger is that soon they will have no strong leader to command them.

Meanwhile, Saud Arabias shaky political contract is being stress-tested by a quagmire in Yemen, stagnating economic growth and glaringly obvious corruption.

Corruption Saudis could endure so long as their cradle-to-grave welfare state provided them with easy cash. But Saudi is suffering a housing crisis, cutting bonuses to state employees and is suffering a stagnating GDP. If the state cannot bribe, it cannot endure.

Saudi Arabia and its allies are not winning the war in Yemen and the bodies are piling up. Dead soldiers coming home from a less-than-essential war is always a recipe for blowback.

In democracies or republics, anger would be channeled into electoral politics; new elites would swap out with old ones peacefully. But Saudi Arabias nineteenth-century state has no such mechanism. Old King Salman has neither check nor balance to his power. His brutish security forces are reliable for now. How they feel about all of Saudi Arabias multiplying problems remains a matter of speculation.

The culture wars are just the most overt sign of the Saudi geopolitical bomb ready to go off. Bet on crisis in the next decade.

This article originally appeared at Geopolitics Made Super, April 21, 2017.

Go here to see the original:
Saudi Arabia's Culture Wars Strain the Kingdom - Atlantic Sentinel

Have libertariansand the broader right and/or classical-liberal movementreally lost the "culture wars"? Why are universities in the United States and other advanced nations so "constipated, stultified" when it comes not just to free speech but open inquiry and academic freedom?

While I was in Sydney, Australia a couple of weeks ago to speak at the 5th Annual Friedman Conference (organized by the Australian Libertarian Society), I was interviewed by Claire Lehmann, the founder of the great and essential site Quillette.com, about these topics.

The interview, which appears on Rebel Media, is below.

Spoiler alert: I think libertarians have already won the culture war in the most important ways possible. Whether it's businesses like Whole Foods, Overstock, and Amazon; the massive and ongoing proliferation of platforms such as Netflix, YouTube, and Twitter; or gig-economy titans such as Uber and Airbnb, capitalism and entrepreneurship has been recast as an innovative, disruptive, liberatory system that allows us all to produce and consume whatever we want under increasingly personalized and individualized circumstances. What we need to do next to nail down what Matt Welch and I have dubbed The Libertarian Moment is to articulate the ways in which our society's cultural, economic, and even political operating system has already bought into the idea that decentralization, individualism, innovation, and freedom to experiment.

If the medium is the message (all props to Marshall McLuhan)if an operating system is more important than any specific content generated within that systemwhat has been abjured as "late capitalism" for decades has effectively ended all debates about how libertarian policies and mind-sets have freed us from bland top-downism in all parts of our lives. This isn't to suggest that we are in any way living a utopian dream. It's simply to point out that even after 15 years of drowsy economic growth and a massive expansion of state (and in many ways, corporate) power, our living standards continue to rise. Add to that huge advances in tolerance and change when it comes to racial, ethnic, and gender disparities and transformative shifts on topics as varied as drug policy, sexual orientation, criminal-justice reform, and gun rights too.

Cultural and political pessimism isn't just a losing strategy, it's a misimpression. Again, that's not to say that massive problems don't exist and need to be confronted. Will we ever see an actual federal budget again, much less that cuts government spending? U.S. foreign policy remains a shameful, disastrous, and destructive hodgepodge of hubris and stupidity. Speech and expression are under attacks from the right and the left, and the bipartisan turn against free trade and the easy movement of people across borders needs to be beaten back. As the late, great Arthur Ekirch explained in his neglected masterpiece The Decline of American Liberalism, forces of decentralization and centralizationof liberation and authoritarianism, of individualism and collectivism, of choice and coercionhave been slugging out in the United States since before there was a United States. The question is whether we are moving generally in a direction of more autonomy and less restriction on how we live our lives.

But...well, watch the interview already.

The rest is here:
Nick Gillespie: Libertarians Have Won the Culture Wars, Even Though Universities Are "Constipated, Stultified" - Reason (blog)

Formany years, Donald Trump tweeted Sunday afternoon, our country has been divided, angry and untrusting. Many say it will never change, the hatred is too deep. IT WILL CHANGE!!!!

As persuasive as the ALL CAPS are, I have my doubts.

Put aside Trumps specific shortcomings for the moment. The presidency has become ill-suited to the task of unifying the country, because the presidency has become the biggest prize and totem in the culture war. Like the religious wars between Catholics and Protestants in England, if one side controls the throne, it is seen as an insult and threat to the other. And whoever holds the throne is seen as a kind of personal Protector of the Realm.

The political parties have been utterly complicit in the process. Exploiting social media and other technologies, Republicans and Democrats shape their messages around the assumption that they and they alone have legitimate ownership of Americas authentic best self. Thats why whichever party is out of power promises to take back America as if the other side were foreign invaders.

Barack Obama was elected in 2008 in no small part to fulfill the promise of his 2004 Democratic Convention keynote address: to banish the slicing and dicing of America into Red States and Blue States.

The colors of the electoral map may have been smudged and scrambled over the last eight years, but the underlying polarization Obama inherited from George W. Bush only intensified on his watch. Trump will be the third president in a row to promise to unite the country, and he will almost certainly be the third in a row to fail.

The ugly squabble between the president-elect and Representative John Lewis (D., Ga.) over the weekend offers a glimpse into how bad things will get.

Lewis earned his icon status on the Edmund Pettus Bridge on Bloody Sunday in Selma, Ala. But over the years, hes traded some of his moral capital for partisan chips, insinuating that only the Democratic party has ownership of the civil-rights era and its victories, despite the fact that a higher share of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats. Indeed, the goons who cracked Lewiss skull on the Edmund Pettus Bridge were acting at the behest of a Democratic governor and Democratic local officials. Even the bridge was named after a Democrat.

In 2008, Lewis saw nothing wrong with comparing Senator John McCain (R., Ariz.) to the segregationist Alabama governor George Wallace, adding: Senator McCain and Governor Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division. He did it again in 2012, insinuating that voting for Mitt Romney might lead America to go back to the days of fire hoses, police dogs, and church bombings.

This was not idealism, but poisonous cynicism, and it helped contribute to the feelings of resentment that were so essential to Trumps victory. Now, Lewis is going further still, refusing to attend Trumps inauguration and arguing that Trump cannot be a legitimate president because of Russian meddling in the election. Lewis may have reason to believe that Trump did not win fair and square, but questioning Trumps legitimacy is exactly what the Russians probably wanted from the beginning: to undermine Western and American faith and confidence in democracy. (Its a sign of Lewiss partisanship that he also boycotted George W. Bushs first inauguration because he didnt think Bush was legitimate either.)

Of course, Trump made things worse. He attacked Lewis, saying the congressman should finally focus on the burning and crime infested inner-cities of the U.S. instead of falsely complaining about the election results. Predictably, Democrats rallied behind Lewis, whos basically the partys living saint, and theyre already fundraising off the spectacle.

The Democrats will stop baiting Trump when he shows he can refuse the bait. Which means they wont stop.

Theres an almost literary quality to Trumps insecurities; he craves respect more than almost anything else, and yet respect remains agonizingly elusive in part because he takes everything too personally.

The presidency, normally a job for people with thick skins and a nose for insincere flattery, promises to only heighten Trumps sense of entitlement to respect and exacerbate his inevitable resentment when he doesnt receive it. So well continue on divided, angry, and untrusting.

Jonah Goldberg is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a senior editor of National Review. 2017 Tribune Content Agency, LLC

Link:
Donald Trump & John Lewis: Culture Wars Deepen Party ...

Good morning, readers! Were enjoying an assortment of eclectic longreads today for a variety of tastes, from the frontiers of medicine to sexual harassment scandals in USA gymnastics. As always, were curious to know what youre reading, so drop us a line in the comments!

If you havent already,subscribe to the Global Commentpodcast on iTunes and Soundcloudand catch up on the first episode, a fascinating interview with Omar Saif Ghobash.

Some of the most amazing leaps and bounds were making in modern science involve going backwardslike really backwards, as in, delving into sewers for ancient, yet cutting edge, treatments for severe infections. This is an outstanding read.

But while the scientists in Paris celebrated the 100-year anniversary of the discovery of phages, these biological weapons are nearly impossible to get to patients in the US. Using natures own viruses to treat infections doesnt jive with the FDAs process for approving new pharmaceuticals, nor Big Pharmas motive to sell one-size-fits-all pills for the masses.

The editors at Catapult excel when it comes to finding, and perfecting, thoughtful essays that may read like a stream of consciousness ramble until suddenly all the pieces fall together, click, revealing something elegant and beautiful and complex. This is no exception.

I move. The front of my new house is also brick, but it is real brick. This house was once a mansion on top of a hill where white people forced black people to perform the tasks of their bondage. Our neighborhood is named after this house. The old front of the house has columns and faces what is now our backyard. In the backyard is a church which chimes every hour from eight in the morning to eight at night. At noon and six, it is fancier, a song. The floors are painted green and none of the outlets have three prongs.

When your father has spent most of your life in prison, how do you reconnect? This is a complex reflection on family, culture shock, and how we interact with each other in era heavily mediated by technology and distance.

Id seen my dad approximately four times over 30 years, but I only remembered two of them: a visit when I was 12 years old, and one when I was 25. When I thought of visiting my father, I pictured the beige rooms, the beige uniforms, and how everything seemed to be nailed down. I always brought bags of change to use at the vending machines. I knew he had a sweet tooth, and I wanted to buy him something sweet. He always got reprimanded by guards for holding my hands too long.

Israel needs caregivers. People in the Philippines are looking for new opportunities. Is it an ideal match, or does it come at a dark price thats only visible after commitments are finalised?

The most pressing need for workers is in the caregiving profession. In 2009, there were fewer than 250,000 Israelis over the age of 80; by 2059, there will be well over a million, according to one population projection by the Central Bureau of Statistics. Added to that is a serious shortage of working hands: In the 1990s, the ranks of the caregiving sector in Israel were occupied primarily by female immigrants from the former Soviet Union. But that population is now largely retired, leaving a major vacuum.

USA Gymnastics has been rocked by a series of sexual harassment and assault scandals in recent years. Its also been making headlines for training incredible athletes who are sweeping international competitions. Can the two be separated?

If the press had been expecting to find the women merely happy to receive Olympic recognition, they were sorely mistaken. As she had a decade before, Dantzscher spoke up about their difficult Olympic experiences. Others, though, like 2000 national champion Elise Ray, spoke up about how they felt about how difficult and traumatic those experiences had been.

If you enjoy our work, please consider supporting us witha one time or recurring donation. We believe in paying writers, andwe rely on our readers to help us continue serving up interesting, dynamic, and engaging commentary every weekday. To make sure you dont miss any of that commentary, you can subscribe to our newsletter below and if youre interested in writing for us, check outour contributor guidelines.

Photo: Alec Perkins/Creative Commons

See the rest here:
Must reads: Gymnastics, phages, culture wars, labour, life after prison - GlobalComment.com

Malaysia is fast-becoming ground zero of a global Culture War, as conflicting visions of society struggle for dominance.

Broadly speaking, there are two main forces at work: on the one hand there is a more western-inclined, common-law based outlook. This has been shaped by the country's strategic location at the heart of one of Asia's busiest trading routes, its rich history and the various communities that have settled here.

On the other, there is a purist approach that prioritizes Islamic traditions.

As a writer and onetime lawyer, I very clearly belong to the first category.

However, there's no doubt that that the second is gathering in strength.

For many years, I've avoided much interaction with the other side, if only because the different world views seem so intractable.

Still, with a sense of wanting to understand the conservative community better, I arranged to meet with a charming, newlywed Malay couple, Afiq and Muna, both in their mid-twenties and graduates from the International Islamic University on the eastern fringes of Kuala Lumpur.

With their loose-fitting, modest attire (Muna wears a hijab that reaches down to her waist), they look like quintessentially pious Muslims.

Whilst their attire may distinguish them from other young people, they share many of the same challenges: they are struggling with the high cost of living and prohibitive property prices.

Both also recognized that their lives won't be as prosperous as their parents, which in turn fuels their anger and disdain for Prime Minister Najib Razak and his government.

On a more personal note, I liked the way Afiq encouraged Muna, a trainee lawyer to state her views.

Indeed, as we talked, I was struck by Muna's lovely smile and her calm, authoritative manner.

Currently a chambering student, her legal education she has studied both the Shariah and Civil legal systems has imbued her with an enviable directness.

Afiq's (hes a Shariah compliance officer at a pharmaceutical company) arguments are less so.

Muna is particularly impassioned about a controversial bill to amend the Shariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 (i.e. the RUU 355) championed by the Islamist PAS party with the Government's tacit approval.

While it may seem arcane and irrelevant, the Bill has become a lightning rod for criticism.

Why?

Well, essentially, it seeks to enhance the sentencing powers of Malaysias Shariah courts.

For Malaysia's large non-Muslim population as well as the more progressive elements in the Malay community, this move is viewed as an attempt to introduce hard-line hudud law.

Unsurprisingly, Muna views things differently. For her, the two parallel legal systems are supposed to be equal.

However, it's clear that the Shariah system has lesser powers and she regards this as an injustice.

She talks about how the Shariah system was in existence before the arrival of the Europeans.

To Muna, the seeming subordinate status makes her feel as if our identity as a society that holds true to Islamic values and laws are being slowly eroded."

Afiq is particularly concerned about the failure to deal with pre-marital sex and drinking.

As he explains: "Islam is not just a private and personal relationship between man and God, but it also governs the relationships between men. There are certain acts that are sinful in Islam and I believe that adequate punishments should be meted outEven though these acts only involve the person and God, I believe laws should be made to curb these problems.

Inevitably, we touched on politics and how the controversy would shape the upcoming General Elections Malaysia's 14th since Independence. Since both were PAS members, the discussion was quite heated.

As I questioned the tactical wisdom of pushing the Bill so aggressively and its potential impact on PAS' electoral fortunes, Muna interrupted me: "Pak Karim, PAS is not simply a political party. We are also a movement that seeks to change the society. There are two elements that continue alongside the politics: 'tarbiyyah' (education) and 'dakwah' (out-reach). Our aim is to create a truly Islamic society that embraces the tenets of the Quran."

She also added quite firmly: "Don't forget that most UMNO members share our views on Islam and the need to raise our respect for our faith. Their leaders are a different matter."

Determined and forthright, Muna rebutted my questions at every step, making me realize the enormity of the Culture Wars still ahead.

Whilst I remain a committed advocate of the existing common law system which I feel possesses a unique ability to balance the rights and interests of the different Malaysian communities, I fear that those tasked to deal with the Muna's and the Afiq's of today may lack the passion and drive.

Being secular and liberal has never felt so lonely.

Disclaimer: The views in this blog are those of the blogger and do not necessarily reflect the views of ABS-CBN Corp.

Read the rest here:
Final 'Culture Wars': Afiq and Muna | ABS-CBN News - ABS-CBN News (blog)