I'm getting increasingly annoyed by the media's attempts to create some new and exciting "big bad wolf" in the world. Nevermind that in most cases it's utter non-sense. But now writers are making things up just to support their point? I've bolded the part I'm talking about which has been misunderstood by everyone the world over. I assume it comes from thinking "well, Abu Dhabi is not as modern, so they must be conservative." Bleh. Abu Dhabi is the least conservative of the emirates (after Ajman). Even if Abu Dhabi was more conservative, what does it matter? On the political front, Abu DHabi has ALWAYS been in charge. On the commercial from, cultural/religious conservatism don't play a role and last year's formula 1 spectacle alone is proof enough that Abu Dhabi is not commercially conservative. In the past, they sat back and watched as Dubai did its thing. Now that they have learned the lessons, they are doing the exact same thing the critical difference being that they are one of the most liquid states on earth. The little details don't concern me that much. I'm sure we will get into debates about little things here and there. The main point of my post really has very little to do with Dubai or Abu Dhabi except for the fact that the media has put so much focus on them recently. What concerns me is that a NYT editorial either does not know the facts or is actively altering them. Yes, I know that's nothing new, but it's getting to the point where we need to hold these people accountable for intentionally shaking/altering the market if they are throwing bull**** out there to make a buck. There must be someone sitting in the NYT office who goes over their stuff and says "well, that's a load of crap and in fact is damaging people's understanding." Unfortunately, what's more likely is that there's a dude sitting there saying "great, we need a new bad guy. This will really scare them and if the truth is a bit stretched, so what!" Love to hear your thoughts. Would also love to see any other articles where the truth is blatantly disregarded for commercial reasons. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/opinion/18mon1.html?hp I have a little side question as well... If a country bases its government on culture rather than religion, is it still not secular? (serious question, never considered this before)
Every city in the entire world is conservative compared to Dubai. They make islands and have the world's largest building... just because they could do it. Dubai spent so recklessly, they're billions in debt. Abu Dhabi is more conservative than Dubai; Houston is more conservative than Dubai; New York City is more conservative than Dubai. Don't find insult where there is none.
I think perhaps the OP was meaning social conservatism as well, rather than mere fiscal conservatism. And to the OP, first: thank you for actually discussing your views on the article and inviting others to do the same, instead of just copy-pasting someone else's work to start a poo-flinging war. Second: you are right, of course. Abu Dhabi has always been "the guy behind the guy" when it comes to Dubai, and anyone who didn't know that hasn't really been paying attention. However, Dubai is generally considered by Westerners to be less conservative (if only marginally) than Abu Dhabi and I think the concern is that ANY change that decreases the rise of moderation (or, heaven forbid, liberalism) in the area is cause for concern.
Media? Ignorant? How can it be so! :grin: You're right about their fiscal liberality. However, I don't think that's what the article means when they say, "Some observers worry about the secularly tolerant Dubai being driven into the arms of the much more conservative Abu Dhabi." Why would people worry about Dubai becoming more fiscally conservative? I think everyone would breathe a sigh of relief. Dubai is looking like a drunk with a loaded gun at the moment with the way they spend money. But, besides that, they wouldn't have said "secularly tolerant" if they were talking about economics.
I understand the OP pointing it out, it does seem like a throw away line that really has no point. Okay, so lets say they took a loan from a more "socially conservative" sibling, so what? what was the point of pointing that out.
In the article's and the market's defense, I'd point out that conservative Islam has economic rules that make functioning with Western economies more difficult, such as not being able to earn interest on a loan. Liberal Muslims can get around it by renaming interest to be something more palatable (or ignore it altogether, I suppose), and conservative Islam has other institutions to keep their economy going. But, it would create some turbulence for a liberal Muslim economy like Dubai to suddenly become a bit less cooperative with Western institutions.
Abu Dhabi is fiscally conservative? That's a load of crap as well. It indicates that Abu Dhabi was/is looking for more value in its investments, and that it made its decisions based on feasibility of some sort. Now that Abu Dhabi is spending, it is spending more than Dubai has ever imagined. Just to give you an idea, the average salary for a new employee in Abu Dhabi now (AND before the crisis) is/was at least 2 times that of a Dubai employee. Keep in mind that Abu Dhabi is 40 minutes away from Dubai by car. Emirates Palace is one of the largest hotels in the world. It's design is so horriffic that no one considered a hotel spread over so much land with just 5-6 floors would be a nuisance for everyone. They just did it. You know why? Because if Dubai has the tallest, Abu Dhabi wants the widest. Dubai made islands, Abu Dhabi made more islands. Dubai built a metro, now Abu Dhabi built a metro. The reality is that Abu Dhabi was just sitting on the money and doing NOTHING. They weren't investing sensibly - they were not investing AT ALL despite having FAR more cash than Dubai since 1972. If Abu Dhabi was so against Dubai's strategy, they wouldn't be hiring people straight out of Dubai for three times their previous salary. It's just an attempt to create the big bad wolf in this case. Either that, or the writer does not deserve his job due to the incompetence he/she has shown. The article is ABOUT Dubai. They couldn't do some research? Speak to an expert? NOT write about it? But no. Dubai is the hot topic right now. NYT needs some Dubai in there because they saw how the FT cashed in on their poorly written pieces. The media doesn't give a damn. There's not even one good guy out there when it comes to the media. No one. That's dissapointing.
Some editors don't know beyond what they've read. By trusting them, you're trusting their ability to locate good sources along with their regular duties of piecing together a fine daily publication. Unless they've been to the country itself (editors like to self promote), most trend on generalities or sometimes, orders from their masters to slip in something good. Bowing down to the corporate bottom line is an unending battle between good editors and their parents. Unless you're Fox, where the blatant credo is ratings=credibility. The internet can be a pretty good medium for the willing, but people also need to know how to find good sources. I gotta say, when I read that op/ed I saw nothing of that line. Mostly because I don't have the time nor interest to dig further. I'm sure if I read/hear that reference more often in different sources, it would be a solid impression in my mind. That's how it goes. People specialize. Sometimes with their jobs. And/or with their culture. I take more initiative reading Asian news, so I know more often when the media bull****s common myths (not all the time, I don't care THAT much). You know more about Middle Eastern cultures and your religion. Caucasians know more about sports, fast food, and the next American Idol... It happens because we trust news specialists as the gatekeepers for that particular knowledge. Time is money. More Americans look to that rather than seeing time as knowledge. I think it depends upon the basis of how they create laws. If people vote in politicians who writes the laws, then those laws are secular despite the laws having cultural basis. Otoh, were the laws created through decrees from a different authority, such as a 1,500 year old book, then it wouldn't be secular because there's no chance of overturning it through popular will. A potential rebuttal would be if people voted in a bundle of laws, such as voting in a theocracy, but again, there's no real process for people to vote in their individual concerns rather than "sucking it up" and learning to deal with their culture, which in principle should always be evolving.
