A History of Recent Saudi Arabia

Inside the Kingdom: Kings, Clerics, Modernists, Terrorists, and the Struggle for Saudi Arabia
by Robert Lacey
ISBN: 978-1-101-14073-4

My wife and I are about to begin an assignment in Saudi Arabia that will have us living there for months or possibly years, thus my need to quickly increase my knowledge about the Kingdom and its culture. This book by Robert Lacey is actually a follow-up to a much larger volume titled simply, The Kingdom, that Lacey first published in 1981.  This, basicaly, is a sequel, but one written with the purpose of understanding the events that occurred after 1981 related to Saudi Arabia, specifically the war in Afghanistan, the rise of Al-Qaeda, 9/11, the embassy attacks within Saudi Arabia, and Guantanamo Bay. The title, therefore, is both accurate and inaccurate: if anything, Lacey's premise is that the last 30 years has forced Saudi Arabia to come to the realization that the Kingdom affects and can be affected by events outside its borders, for better or worse, and can no longer be denied by the King.

It's a fascinating book, and Lacey an engaging and smooth writer.  Things I was able to learn from the narrative include finally understanding some of Saudi Arabia's attitude towards its neighbors (as well as sections of its own population) by Lacey's clear explanation of the Sunni and Shia differences.  The book also illustrates the strange shift in Saudi attitudes towards hardline Muslim extremists and business-focused Westerners by focusing on several of the important power brokers in addition to the Al-Saud family.

The book was published in 2009, but based on what I've already learned from my first trip to the country, is in need of a couple of additional chapters, as Saudi Arabia continues to both embrace and fight a rapid pace of change.  Just in the last year, a university dedicated to women's education has been completed near the Riyadh airport and several economic cities dedicated to trade, banking, and manufacturing are due to be completed in the next year.  Women continue to press for more rights (not just the right to drive, but with regards to family and property rights) and the religious police have recently been pulled back from some more egrigious behavior.  All of these are on a pendulum, one that Inside the Kingdom reveals can just as easily swing back in a more conservative direction. 

It's going to be an interesting time here.

Blaming the System for Your Own Failure

Any question of how Newt Gingrich would actually be as a President was answered by his response to the news that he had failed to turn in the requisite 10,000 signatures to qualify for the Virginia ballot. Instead of it taking personal responsibility for not being able to follow the rules, something that both Mitt Romney and Ron Paul was able to do, he instead blamed it on the Virginia system itself. In the words of his campaign director, Michael Krull:

"Only a failed system excludes four out of the six major candidates seeking access to the ballot. Voters deserve the right to vote for any top contender, especially leading candidates. We will work with the Republican Party of Virginia to pursue an aggressive write-in campaign to make sure that all the voters of Virginia are able to vote for the candidate of their choice."

The funny thing about that response is not just the assumption of privilege that is a hallmark of Newt (i.e., "why should I have to follow the rules, I'm Newt"), but how the campaign makes another bad assumption about how it can be remediated.

As David Morgan writes, "They will have to get VERY aggressive: Under Virginia law (§ 24.2-529), write-in votes are not allowed on ballots in primary elections."

Oh, the Greed, the Greed!

This is from a Superman story in Action Comics from 1942. Siegel and Shuster were often critics of the boardroom, and early Superman stories often focused on unsafe work or living conditions. In this story, the millionare at the head of the table has decided to give away his money--to the richest person who can convince him that he will do more with it (it's actually a trick by Luthor to get these greedy gasbags into the same room so he can rob them all).  My personal favorite is the fellow in the lower right corner, representing the Occupy Action Comics contingent. 

Action Comics #47 (April 1942), page 9, story and art by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster

They've Been a Problem for Years

from Adventure Comics, November 1941

Security Theater

There's a lot of current outrage being expressed about the latest manifestation of Transportation Safety Administration measures, including the full body scan machines and the frisking that gets done if you decline the full body scan. Speaking as a frequent traveller, neither the full body scan or the frisking bothers me much.  Or, maybe I should say, as a frequent international traveller neither of these new measures seem any more egregious than what I've expressed in the past. The full body scan, while it has the potential of going awry and hitting you with a big radiation dose, the likelihood of such happening, even given poorly educated operators, is rare (in normal use, the radiation you receive from a scan is equal to 1 min of what you receive naturally while in the air between, say, Newark and Singapore). As for the pat down, in some airports (notably Nepal), you get to experience it twice! In all the times that I've been patted down, I'm happy to say that the frisker has always been professional and quick. Really, you're flattering yourself if you think they actually enjoy touching you.

The point of airport checks is what I heard once termed "Security Theater." The actors in this operation know that the action of the check itself isn't as important as the reaction of the audience. Someone actively trying to sneak something on board will often betray themselves in the process (for an example of which in cinematic form, check out the opening to Midnight Express). It's not going to catch every possible perpetrator, but it will sometimes reveal the dumb ones. I can't remember a time when Security Theater didn't exist, but then I've only been flying since 1990. If you fly, you expect a certain amount of hassle.  That's why you get to the airport early.  If you don't like it, take a train or an automobile and don't cross an international border.

Frankly, I suspect that the outrage isn't about the new TSA measures so much as a growing psychological frustration with government in general, one that has already expressed itself as the Tea Party movement. The TSA, anonymous minions of the federal government, tend to be the most direct manifestation of government interference into people's "everyday" activities (one in which there is an actual person to lash out at), and thus find themselves the whipping boy for all creeds and persuasions. 

Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do

Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do:The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in a Free Society
by Peter McWilliams

I think this is one--if not the--of the most important books that I have ever read. And I do not say that lightly. I'm weighing this single book against all the "great" books of the world, including that perennial bestseller, the Bible. Why is this book so important? Because of its terrifying immediacy. While I say this books is important, I mean here and now. It is my sincere hope that this book will become a historical document (like many of those great books); it is my fear that I am dreaming.

So what is so all-fired important? This book is a history and discussion about consensual crimes--that is, victimless crimes, or, as the author prefers, crimes in which the participants consented to the action. The distinction is necessary, and McWilliams makes a point of clearly stating his position, codified in a single statement, which I will repeat for you here: "You should be able to do with your person or property whatever you please, as long as you don't physically harm the person or property of another." However, for such a simple statement, it is dangerously revolutionary with regard to our society today (but then, most revolutionary statements have been simple, like "Give me liberty or give me death" or "Thou shalt have no other gods before me").

What at first glance might seem the height of liberalism--McWilliams is, after all, recommending the abolishment of laws against drug use, gambling, and prostitution, among others--is actually the basis of libertarianism. Yet McWilliams has solved the problem that I have always had with the libertarian movement, and that is their stand on the environment. Clearly many of the environmental rules and regulations would continue to stand if McWilliams had his way; pollution does physically harm the environment (and the persons) of others.

This book, for the simple nature of its argument, is no half-measure though. Although it is extremely readable, with an interesting layout (included a boxed quote for almost every page), it is still 800 pages. I didn't feel like any of the material was extraneous, however, and sometimes wanted more detail. Some of the interesting details that were included:

• McWilliams documenting Jerry Falwell committing a "false witness" (lying) on national television;


• The history of hemp use (and the evolution of the propaganda on its abuse);


• The play-by-play description of a "Dragnet" episode in which a character dies of an LSD overdose, although there's never been a documented case of such (some have died due to actions performed under the influence [similar to drunk driving?], but not of an overdose);


• "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose." The Bible, right? Wrong. Shakespeare, "The Merchant of Venice," Act 1, Scene 3, Line 99.

While it isn't necessary to agree completely with McWilliams (although you'll be tempted; he is a very persuasive writer), the point is that if you agree with a single argument, it is enough to call for the abolishment of laws against consensual crimes. A strong statement, but clearly evidenced by the facts--that is, if you agree with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Is it needless to say that I highly recommend this book? No, I think I need to state it openly. Even if you don't come to the same conclusions as McWilliams, I think it is vitally necessary that you make the effort to educate yourself regarding the history of these activities and the history of the laws against these activities. Given the amount of dis- and non-information that is available on drugs, prostitution, homosexuality, et al, even if the statistics that McWilliams quotes are only 10% accurate, the figures are still impressive.

This isn't a "dry" book at all, even given the numerous quotes from founding fathers (both American and Biblical); McWilliams understands the necessity of humor (who said, "If I couldn't laugh, I'd be crying"?). Thanks to Laurie Mann for recommending this book.

Conversations with Stalin

by Milovan Djilas

Although I read this as a requirement for one of my classes this semester (East Europe Since 1918), I found it genuinely interesting, enough that I began and finished it in the same day. Djilas was one of the top communists of Yugoslavia, and was part of the first communist foreign missions to the Soviet Union. His book treads from the opening euphoria of the promise of socialism and its new expression, including the near-worship of its manifest leader, Stalin. Then doubts begin to creep in as he is horrified by the actions of the Red Army in his homeland and the relationship that the Soviets--communist comrades--wish to compel upon the Yugoslavs. Quickly this moves to deep disappointment as he realizes that for all their propaganda, the Soviets are truly just a different embodiment of Imperialistic Russia and that the more things have changed, the more they have actually remained the same. His personal insights into the character of the Soviet leaders lend this book a feeling of pathos that goes far beyond its historicity. Here, Stalin is seen as the man that he was, and his monstrosity is only magnified under that understanding.

National Rifle Association:Money, Firepower, and Fear

by Josh Sugarmann

I recently found myself in a gun control debate on co.general. Wishing to back myself up with facts, I started to delve into the books and journals dedicated to this only-slightly-less-hot-than-abortion debate. Josh Sugarmann's book isn't exactly useful as a debate tool for either side of the gun control debate, because he's as damning of the organized gun control organizations as he is of the NRA and the gun lobby (which Sugarmann shows to be virtually synonymous). Sugarmann, who himself is a gun control advocate with the Violence Policy Center, thinks that "the truth lies somewhere in the middle" of the debate, and that the average American should beware of the fanatics on both sides who misuse and misconstrue the evidence of violence in our society for their own agendas. He does this by giving us the history of the National Rifle Association, which is also the history of gun control in America, and shows how the organization has shifted over the years from a sporting idea to "Second Amendment fundamentalism" that characterizes it today. Along the way he visits the topics of whether or not the Second Amendment does indeed guarantee the right for an individual to bear arms, what the real problem of firearms in society is, and the lies told by both the NRA and Handgun Control, Inc. Sugarmann's book is easily read, and damn near necessary reading for anyone who is a member of the NRA. However, I fear that any true "Second Amendment fundamentalist" will be put off by Sugarmann's book, because he often doesn't provide the necessary references for his supposedly objective statements of statistics. Which is too bad, because his book has the potential of getting at the truth in the middle.