Culture As A Weapon

I just finished reading a piece on a car bomb in Sharm el-Shiekh, on the east coast of the Sinai pennisula, and must admit, I am having trouble understanding why there has been a furious escalation of terrorist attacks in the past month. Besides this one, there were the two attacks (one failed) in London, and of course the relentless stream of bombs in Iraq. Granted, Sharm el-Shiekh is no stranger to terrorist attacks, its hotels being favorite destinations of Westerners and Israelis. And furthermore, the attacks were carried out by different groups: In England, it is not clear yet whether the attackers branched from Al-Qaeda or if they operate autonomously; Iraq's bombings have been carried out by Zarqawi's "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" organization; Egypt has had trouble with homegrown terrorists for many years (including the assassination of Egyptian President Sadat in 1981). However, the recent flurry of attacks are only part of a larger, worldwide campaign by Islamic extremists.

This is what truly puzzles me. Terrorism, worldwide, seems to be unique to Islamic fundamentalism. Why is it that a Muslim extremist is willing to blow himself up, while an environmental extremist, for example, confines himself to torching SUVs and houses? Both care passionately for their cause, so dedication is not an issue. And yet, Islamic fundamentalists are waging jihad all across Eurasia.

In the Phillipines and Indonesia, Muslims are fighting their predominantly Christian governments for a homeland in wars that have raged for decades. In Thailand, the President has recent had to declare martial law in parts of the country to attempt to quell a Muslim uprising that has killed nearly a thousand people. In Kashmir, Islamic and Hindu radicals face off, often taking innocent bystanders along with them. A resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan is posing a serious threat to Hamid Karzai's government. Turkey and Saudi Arabia have both had to deal with small-scale attacks from local and foreign terrorists alike. Islamic Chechen rebels have waged a brutal war with Russia since 1994, resulting in the deaths of nearly 200000, numerous terror attacks throughout Russia (remember the Beslan school hostages?), and the total destruction of the Chechen capital of Groznyy. Palestinian groups have been waging a war with Israel since 2000 (though this conflict could probably be more accurately catergorized as a nationalist one than a religious one). In Egypt and Algeria, extremist Islamic groups have been fighting their more moderate governments for years. In Sudan's Darfur region, over 50000 blacks have been murdered, and nearly two million displaced, by Islmaic janjaweed militiamen with government backing. In Europe, where tolerance of Muslim immigrants has been the rule for years, many native Europeans are beginning to issue calls for immigration quotas in the face of a growing radical Muslim community that has proven intolerant of others (such as the jihadist who murdered Dutch film maker Theodore Van Gogh for his documentary that was critical of Islam).

What is it that causes such violence? For a long time, I personally have considered it to be an economic issue - many young Muslims resent being so poor and their countries being so powerless in the face of massive Western wealth and might. And surely the war in Iraq has made the situation far worse. But this is only part of the explanation, since Muslims are not the only poor in the world. Why do Africans, the poorest people in the world, not go to Western cities and kill?

The key is in the culture. Despite Islam's commitment to peace, which is the prevailing message of the two, the Koran, like any other book of scripture, can be read in many ways. No religion expands as quickly and as wide as Islam without some loopholes for violence. Furthermore, the rewards for violence are great. Their is, of course, the heavenly rewards promised by the Koran, the 72 virgins and such. Also, there is the more tangible: The Saud family (rulers of Saudi Arabia) until recently offered a $25,000 "condolence" to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, a huge sum of money where average annual income is under a thousand dollars. Looking at the age group of suicide bombers, most are in their late teens and early twenties. It is very rare to get anyone older. One of the highest rates of suicide, worldwide, is in this same age bracket. What may be realized from this is that the act of suicide is not that shocking; it is the intention of killing others also that makes modern jihad unique. But, as I myself can attest, rational thought is not always the bright spot of a teenager's mind. Intense hatreds can be formed against enemies, real or imagined - this is not unique to any faith or race. And when the common feelings of despair and frustration are mixed with the cultural glorification of suicide attackers (martyrs) and the rewards, both real and imagined, a deadly concoction is made that leads to the practice of suicide bombing. But it is this cultural glorification of violence, and not just that of suicide bombers. It is not a criticism of the religion to say this, but rather, the culture the religion is a part of. Nowhere else in the world (with the exception of North Korea) is the propaganda so thick in society that it is barely noticeable. Saudi textbooks, no joke, have arithmetic equations that go something like "If you see nine Jews, and you kill five of them, how many are left to kill?" It is this insidious hatred, fostered by despotic regimes to divert the attention of the populace away from problems at home, that forms the basis for this cultural glorification. Mix that with a religion that, not unlike others, glorifies sacrifice (which was the driving force behind the Japanese kamikaze pilots), and you have a legend of the suicide bomber that is comparable to the action hero in American films.

It is this culture-wide hatred of outside enemies, especially Israelis and Americans, that creates the epidemic of violence that threatens the world today. The best way to fix this, however, is not intervention. It is, in fact, stopping our current intervention. Beyond leaving Iraq immediately, we must stop supporting oppressive regimes like those in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Once they are no longer provided with American weapons and money, they will be forced to face their population, and will either reform or perish. Only then can the bitter hatreds begin to lessen, and as attention shifts to domestic matters, would-be suicide bombers now can become civil servants and a proud part of a modern Islamic society.

P.S. I apologize for the length. I meant to just mention the Egyptian bombings, but obviously went way beyond that.

The Extra Child Tax

I'm going to start by saying I know how this will be viewed. Fascism!

Currently, our government actually gives families a tax credit for each child they have. I believe that not only should people not recieve money for increasing our massive population further, they should actually be taxed for every child beyond the first two.

The rationale for this is that those who put a larger strain on the social service net (schools, health clinics, and other government-funded child services) should naturally have to pay more. For instance, let us consider you and your neighbor both earn $50000 a year. You have two children you send to public school, he has ten. Currently, even though your neighbor puts five times the strain on the school system, he actually pays less than you pay to support it.

The plan would be a progressively increasing tax based on percent of total taxes paid (not total taxable income). The third child will cost 1% a year until he is 18, the fourth 2%, and the fifth and everyone thereafter 4% (these numbers are just for explanation; they aren't fixed in stone. Besides, this'll never get passed anyway). These are not crippling costs, but enough to give pause to anyone wanting more children.

While the plan may seem very authoritarian, it must be released that this is not a mandatory ban, a là China. It is not even intended as a penalty. People are free to have as many children as they wish; they must merely pay their fair share of costs. Just as those who consume more (sales tax), drive more (gasoline tax, road tolls), and fly more (airport tax) pay more, so should those who consume social services.

Of course, this is not a blanket law. It would not be retroactive - children born before implementation of hte law would not be affected. Multiple births that bring the total over the limit of two (twins making three total, triplets and up for first child) would be exempted. If parents want more than two children, they would be strongly encouraged to adopt, which of course carries no extra fee, and would be great for everyone involved, especially the child.

This is not fascism; This is equality.

I Could Write About The Supreme Court...

But that bores the hell out of me, though I will agree that it is the most important branch of the government as far as social issues go (with the legislative controlling the economic aspects of your life, and the executive responsible for opening up a can of whoop-ass on some unsuspecting island nation). Rather, I'd like to write about George Bush being a dick. And not Dick.

The G-8 summit starts in Gleneagles, Scotland in a few days. The G-8 summit is where the 7 richest nations of the world (and Russia, because they have a lot of nukes) meet to discuss policy, such as, say, the Kyoto global warming Protocol. I bring that up because the two main topics at this G-8 meeting are African aid (which caused Geldof to hold that shit-tacular Live 8 thing) and global warming.

Tony Blair, Prime Minister of Britain, has been pushing for years for the world community to not only meet the Kyoto guidelines (5% reduction in greenhouse emissions, below the 1990 levels, by 2007), but to surpass them. Bush came into office in 2000 and refused to ratify the Kyoto agreements, making the United States the only member of the G-8 (and 100+ other countries) not to take part. So, even though Blair has basically committed political suicide by invading Iraq (the only thing that saved the Labor Party in the recent elections is that the Conservative Party adopted the most idiotic campaign strategy, ever), Bush will not even consider these new guidelines. One of Bush's main lines to pass the buck off to others is to claim that because China is not party to the Kyoto guidelines, they will receive an advantage over US companies that will be forced to pay "hefty sums" to reduce emissions. I won't even debate the merits of a strategy that puts profits ahead of human health right now. Besides, Blair was able to get India, China, and other major developing nations to agree to sign on to his new regulations (50-70% reduction, as opposed to 5%) if the US would, thus negating Bush's main argument. He still wouldn't budge.

Instead, Bush is pushing for the construction of hundreds of new nuclear generators that are "safer" than their predecessors as a solution to global warming. The problem with this idea, aside from the fact that nuclear reactors will never be safe and still can kill millions of people should something go wrong, is that global warming is already happening. By keeping the amount of pollution being emitted the same, the problem does not get better. If anything, it gets worse.

Furthermore, as Mark Hertsgaard points out in an editorial in The Nation (from which I am getting most of this information), nuclear power is extremely expensive. It costs seven dollars to do the same amount of carbon displacement as one dollar does if you invest it in efficiency methods, such as better insulation in houses. Both wind and solar are much less capital-intensive than nuclear (as anyone who has ever played SimCity 2000 can attest), allowing a more grassroots effort to be made at power generation. No one is going to set up a nuclear reactor in their basement, but many already have put solar panels on their roofs.

Luckily, many in power in the United States are sidestepping Bush's intransigence. California is demanding emissions reductions from their cars, and many other states are considering similar legislation. However, without the punch of the federal government, many of these programs will be unable to effect the wide-ranging change necessary for the preservation of our way of life.