January 13th, 2016 at 3:25 PM ^

There were no actual politics here.  Mentioning Peyton is a sports comment, not a political one.  Your post actually has more elements of politics in it than the others do.

I intend to continue enjoying the snarky comments.  YMMV.


January 13th, 2016 at 3:52 PM ^

He was part owner, so he did have to share the profits.  But yes, he did profit from the sale of CurrentTV to Al Jazeera.  Once sold, they were rebranded as Al Jazeera America and utilized the same distribution channels that Current had.


January 13th, 2016 at 5:17 PM ^

LOL, is this the same Qatar that is preparing to spend $250+ Billion to host the 2022 World Cup? Do you really think the few tens of millions that it costs to run Aljazeera America was more than blip on its radar?

Oil prices are down, but Middle East oil is very cheap to extract and refine, which means those countries are able turn a profit at low price per barrel while having a much larger impact on the profitability of rival oil producers (e.g. Russia, Venezuala, Canadian tar sands).  

Qatar in particular has one of the lowest breakeven oil prices in the world and coincidently one of the fastest growing economies. 

This story is about Aljazeera simply being unable to gain a foothold in the U.S. market, not the infintesimally small amount of money that it costs to run.


January 13th, 2016 at 2:46 PM ^

probably not the smartest thing to name a news network with an arab name in the united states at the current moment. Good reporting but bad marketing.


January 13th, 2016 at 3:43 PM ^

I love the disconnect in people like you where you think it is perfectly acceptable to broadbrush smear Amercians as bigots while decrying broadbrush criticisms in the reverse.

I also notice as a woman that men tend to paint concerns about the Arab world solely in terms of "terrorism" when I'd personally think the treatment of women and LGBT people in those contexts would be the most pressing concern of those who profess belief in equality and fairness.


January 13th, 2016 at 4:33 PM ^

How does linking American xenophobia with Islamic sounding names mean I support/don't care about oppression of women/gays in Islamic countries?

You can criticize both. Your equivalency is a figment of your imagination that you would love to bash over some idealistic liberal's head with.

Sorry. Your gotcha moment failed. You'd also be surprised to know much of a disconnect there are between regimes and the populations of the countries themselves... Saudi Arabia and Iran are two interesting case studies on how the leaders of said countries completely differ from the population when it comes to beliefs.


January 13th, 2016 at 4:34 PM ^

Yes, you CAN criticise both. I do. But I consistently see a problem of only anti-Muslim bigotry being discussed by "idealistic liberals." On the left only a subset of liberal atheists, feminists, and ardent secularists (where I fall) really discuss women's rights, LGBT tolerance, and free expression in the Muslim and/or Arab world and in diaspora communities with any frankness or regularity.

Your free to cite two or three liberal critics of Islam of whom you approve if you really wish to put my "equivalency" to rest.


January 13th, 2016 at 5:04 PM ^

I don't think the discussion regarding women's rights specifically is one that even falls on a political spectrum. 

I think many are reluctant to talk about it because it strays very close to the line of what is acceptable for the west to criticize. 

Trying to change cultural norms of countries like a Saudi Arabia is not practically feasible and will be deemed as imperialism by opposing factions. When your population is more conservative than your leaders, like in Saudi Arabia, you will have a hard time changing anything without a revolt that CAN and probably WILL lead to worse outcomes for the marginalized groups you fight for. 

People like to bring up the recent "elections" for women as some form of positive change, yet at the end of the day they still can't be seen in public or drive... Many women, themselves, believe in these types of things whether it be on their own will or cultural brainwashing. This is only in Wahabi Saudi Arabia. Every other country has a vastly different set of beliefs and cultural norms. 

There is no "broad" Islamic discussion to be had here.


January 13th, 2016 at 8:09 PM ^

First of all the fact people heavily downvote my post shows the hypocrisy at work in terms of when broadbrush criticism are acceptable and the kneejerk discomfort being reminded there are serious normative issues with gender equality and sexual freedom in the Muslim world, hardly limited to Saudi Arabia.

As I predicted you failed to name any "acceptable" critics and scoffed at the very notion of critiquing Islam. Here I'll help you: Salaman Rushdie, Asra Nomani, Sarah Haidar, Saif Rahaman, Ali Rizvi,...  I could go on.  I deleiberately only mention critics from a Muslim background, whether presently Muslim ro not, to countermand your risable suggestion that there is a limit to "acceptable" criticism when the topic is women's basic dignity and equality as people from "the west."

The very notion of "acceptable" debate is an ideologically-laden notion that rests in Postmodernism's discomfort with objective truth. If this were a political blog, I'd start goign through major Islamic countries like Egypt, Indinesia, Pakistan, Iran, and (northern) Nigeria to prove my point with hard evidence, but I'm guessing these posts get deleted anyway.


January 13th, 2016 at 11:50 PM ^

I'm well aware of Rushdie's work and commend him for it. That being said, I don't think his stance against cultural relativism is practical b/c truths are shaped by the culture surrounding it. 

Everything influences something else. The question is which form is most accepted by societies. Good luck forcing change using your approach tho. 

Regardless of what we think, globalization will foster change for many conservative cultures around the globe from the Americas to the Middle East etc over time.