A Dose of Sense for Dark Times

I was stunned and saddened by the vicious and unjustifiable attacks on Paris last Friday. We were just there on holiday this past summer and loved every minute of it. We also visited Carcassonne in the south of the country. You could not ask for more kindly, attentive, and helpful people. Paris was attacked precisely because it is the cultural capital of the world. We will go back as soon as we can.

I have been disgusted by what most of our politicians had to say concerning immigration policy, security, and Islam in reaction to these horrendous events. Also by the ignorance and hatred evident in so many Facebook posts. I would like to talk some sense about these matters, but it requires a brief excursion into history. Please bear with me for an instant.

Islam, the religion, and viciously ideological islamism are not the same thing, no more than the crusaders and Christianity are the same. The practice of Islam is based on what it calls the five pillars: 1) the confession that Allah is God (that is, that God is One and there is no other) and that Mohamed is his prophet, 2) five daily prayers, 3) alms for the poor, 4) the feast of Ramadan, and 5) the pilgrimage to Mecca. Practicing these precepts makes people good Muslims. When Europe was sunk in the darkest of the Dark Ages, the areas ruled by Islam (Persia, Arabia, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, North Africa and Spain) experienced a brilliant flowering of culture including literature, medicine, science, and philosophy. They kept alive the knowledge of ancient Greek culture and practiced considerable tolerance toward the Jews and Christians that lived among them.

Ideological islamism is relatively recent, having arisen in the Wahhabi areas of Saudi Arabia in the early 20th century. They added two, strictly unofficial, tenets to the five pillars: 1) the West is still on a crusade to destroy Islam and 2) no Westerner is without culpability. Now official Islam rejects these tenets and they are scurrilously false. However, they drive the actions of the men (and a few women) who buy into them, making them feel falsely justified in killing any Westerner at any time. I see you catch my drift: the perpetrators of 9/11, of the Charlie Hebdo, of the downing of the Russian airliner, of the attack in Beirut last week, of the attacks on Paris on Friday and many other actions are wrongly convinced that they are doing right by God. I beg to differ with them.

Now, what can we do? I think I have some common-sense suggestions. The Islamic State, which is dominated by this ideology I described and has perpetrated the most recent horrors, claims to be a state or nation and has taken territory. We should call their bluff. When we attacked Iraq in 2003, we did it on false premises: there were no weapons of mass destruction and Iraq had nothing to do with the attack by Al Qaeda on New York City. Our uninformed and hubristic administration destroyed everything that made Iraq, so it fell apart and then extremist islamists made their way in where there were none before. Now we understandably do not wish to commit any more troops there and probably will not because it would be politically untenable, but it is what we have to do: Send in hundreds of thousands of soldiers, destroy the Islamic State and try the perpetrators of lèse humanité as war criminals under the Geneva Conventions. We can get many countries to swell our ranks to do just that.

It will not be enough however. Afterwards, there should be a global convocation called in order to have the West listen to and learn from the countries most affected by this scourge, such as Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, and so on. The purpose would be to learn from them how we can help. We must confess we have been ignorant of Islam and of the multiplicity of cultures of the countries which are majority Muslim. We must pledge to help them (in non-military ways) as they wish to be helped and follow up on our pledges religiously, if that term has not been too much tainted by events so that I may still use it without sounding sarcastic. Then there may be some hope of their controlling the extremists in their countries (the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the Wahhabi in Saudi Arabia, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and so on) without curtailing the liberties of the majority of their citizens.

Oh, yes. And we must convince Israel to get serious about helping establish a viable Palestinian state with solid borders and mutual respect and commerce. It is the only hope Israel has to remaining a Jewish state in the long run and it may well do wonders to settle the anger among many in Muslim countries.

Please check out my books at www.progressiverisingphoenix.com

Global Warming and the Energy Companies: a New Approach

The evidence on global warming is there for all to see, so I will not bother you with arguments of any kind. The solution is not in ideological-political debate. We must listen under the noise to resolve it.

Imagine that you own an oil-mining company or that you have a major investment in one, or that you are employed by one in West Virginia. What would the talk of ending the use of coal to power electrical generation say to you? It means closing down the company,  losing your investment, or losing your job in a place where you have little prospects for another. Of course you want to resist. Your livelihood is in danger. I am amazed that the politicians who favor conversion to clean power do not understand this.

I would like to propose an alternative approach. Say we see the wisdom of stopping all use of fossil fuels. We need the support of everyone. So, the government could tell the oil and coal companies that in a specified number of years, all subsidies for oil, gas, and coal production will end and that in a few more years after that, all energy production must be clean. However, subsidies will continue for any company that wishes to convert from fossil fuel production to clean energy production, with preference for solar and hydrogen cell technology. Beyond that, the government would guarantee the continued life of the company and full employment for a specified number of years and give out well-thought-out generous grants as needed. It would be a combination of incentives, deadlines, and guarantees, carefully set out so they will be doable, and with built-in flexibility so the government can continue to help if the progress towards clean energy and the prospects of success merit it.

In other words, see where people feel threatened and honor that. Give those people priority in retooling their business toward clean energy. Give monetary and regulatory support for however much time is needed, so long as significant progress is being made. Remove the threat, remove the opposition. Make it a win for everyone. Is anybody out there listening? That's all I'm saying.

Check out my Angela books at www.progressiverisingphoenix.com