An excerpt:

Could it be true? Could we be going to war because the guy on top is still mad on his Dad’s behalf and his friends either want to broaden their oil portfolios or test out a completely ill-conceived geopolitical hunch? And nobody’s got even the basic competence to effect those goals or evaluate our chances? Really? No. Somebody here has to know what they’re doing…

Nobody did. Nobody who was listened to, anyway. And the President who’d gotten as far as he had by trusting his “gut” reasoned he’d might as well continue to trust it (in fairness, his gut does seem to function a lot more efficiently than his head). He continues to trust it to this day, even as the leaders in his own party have stopped the whole “smiling and backing away” approach and have adopted a new “screaming and running” strategy.

The Libby thing, the Gonzales business, the climate change issue, even the Iraq War are just beginning to show us the tip of the iceberg of blind, selfish, cloddish incompetence that we’ve allowed into our highest offices. The Republicans who are now fleeing towards the exits bear some responsibility for so cynically backing the “most electable” guy in their midst, reasoning that putting their party back in charge was worth electing someone of questionable abilities. And the millions of Americans who voted for the guy and hundreds of reporters who covered him… everybody figured that if [he] really was that dumb, then somebody would’ve stopped him…

Like Al Franken, I become a bit uncomfortable when people focus too much on Bush’s intellectual abilities (or lack thereof), because I feel it diverts attention away from his responsibility for his decisions and lessens his culpability for the mess he created. Some critics even suggest that Bush himself promotes this image to escape responsibility. At this point, I wouldn’t put it beyond him.

Jon Stewart shared a similar view on Bill Moyers Journal:

JON STEWART: Yeah, it’s kind of astonishing. There is I used to have a real disconnect, I think, with the administration, I couldn’t figure out what was going on. I think it’s suddenly become clear to me. They would rather us believe them to be wildly incompetent and inarticulate than to let us know anything about how they operate. And so, they do Constitutionally-mandated things most of the time, but they don’t — they fulfill the letter of their obligation to checks and balances, but not the intent.

For instance, Alberto Gonzales, and you’ve been watching the hearings. He is either a perjurer, or a low-functioning pinhead. And he allowed himself to be portrayed in those hearings as a low-functioning pinhead, rather than give the Congressional Committee charged with oversight, any information as to his decision-making process at the Department of Justice.

And I used to think, “They’re doing this based on a certain arrogance.” And now, I realize that it’s because they believe there is one accountability moment for a President, and that is the four year election. And once you get that election, you’re done.

In re: to his support of Gonzales, I do think there is an obvious rational reason for Bush’s continued support, pointed out in some of the comments to Felber’s post. Would you want a new, almost certainly more independent AG at this point if you were Bush?

(Addendum: If your interested in learning the story of two journalists and an editor who reported on the emperor having no clothes well before the invasion of Iraq, check out this documentary from PBS. Bill Moyers rocks.)

For those who believe that violence in cinema consists of either harmless action spectacles or Martin Scorsese masterpieces, I might suggest heading down to the local multiplex and taking a look at some of the grotesque, morbid creations being projected on the walls. To defend mindless exercises in sadism like “The Hills Have Eyes II” by citing “Macbeth” is almost like using “Romeo and Juliet” to justify child pornography…

Most of us who chose careers in this field were seduced by cinema’s spell at an early age. We know better than anyone the power films have to capture our imaginations, shape our thinking and inform our choices, for better and for worse. At the risk of being labeled a scold — the ultimate in uncool — I have to ask: before cashing those big checks, shouldn’t we at least pause to consider what we are saying with our movies about the value of life and the pleasures of mayhem?

Like Mr. White, in light of the effect of media on all of us, but particularly children, I simply cannot believe that there is no link between media violence and behavior. Yes, the worst violent acts most always have other factors at play, but at the very least media violence desensitizes us to evil or worse, glorifies it in our minds. Addicted to adrenalin, young people (males especially) experience a pleasurable rush at the same time when they should be repulsed.
More serious than the violence in movies is the violence in video games, because the consumer becomes the perpetrator of the violence. How is it that as parents we allow children to perpetrate such acts of violence and cruelty as play? Perhaps the victims are pretend, but the feelings elicited in the players are not. How can any parent guiltlessly watch as their child gleefully shoots/stabs/dismembers another person in a hyper-realistic video game? Are these the feelings and responses toward violence we want to instill in our children? Finally, how can parents who allow their children to be exposed to violent media shamelessly adopt an attitude of mourning when other children become the victims of real violence? Even if they don’t see a causal relationship between their activities and acts of real violence, can’t they see the hypocrisy?

Do you know how many people got blown up in Baghdad on Wednesday? More than 170. A single bomb killed 140 of them. This happened at the same market where a bomb had killed more than 125 people two months ago. That’s four times the body count at Virginia Tech, in a flash. Do you think it can’t happen here? Do you think the people who smuggled a bomb into Iraq’s parliament building, through multiple screenings by U.S. and Iraqi forces, can’t penetrate our security at home?…

When you look at the gun debate from this angle, two things stand out. One is that we should spend our time and money trying to stop bombs, not guns. Lots of schools have a whack job like Cho. For every one of those guys, there are a dozen students ready, if he commits a heinous crime, to say they saw it coming. But the crime almost never happens. If we’d kept guns away from Cho, the Columbine kids, and the University of Texas sniper, we’d have saved about 60 lives. Compare that to a radioactive bomb in one of the 20,000 uninspected cargo containers that enter our country every day.

I see you Second Amendment enthusiasts nodding. Keep nodding, because the next point is just as important: It’s time to stop thinking of rapid-fire weapons and high-capacity magazines as part of the gun world. They’re part of the bomb world, because they give guns the sudden, mass killing power of bombs. Virginia Tech’s football stadium seats 65,000 people. Imagine Cho in that stadium with a gun that sprays 15 rounds per second.

Do you know what happened in Baghdad after today’s bombing? According to the New York Times, “As rescuers thronged the site, a sniper opened fire on the crowd, killing at least one person and wounding two others.” A single fatality. I feel awful for that victim. I feel even worse for the other 139.

Saletan’s comments are more germane than his column states. The worst mass murder to take place in a U.S. school was not Monday’s shooting in Blacksburg, but rather a bomb attack in 1927 that killed 45 and injured 58.

Like Saletan, my thoughts and prayers go out to all who were affected by the Virginia Tech shooting yesterday, including Mr. Cho and his family. Although Saletan focuses on the threats we face in the U.S., it also touches upon our intense focus on the VaTech tragedy to the near exclusion of what happened in Baghdad yesterday, indeed what happens there nearly every day. How much coverage did those Baghdad bombings receive compared to the VaTech massacre? How many Americans are even aware of what took place in Baghdad yesterday? Understandably, the VaTech shooting was close to home, so we feel the pain more acutely. But have we become numbed to the tragedy in Baghdad, simply because it is so common and far away? As a blogger recently pointed out, imagine the VaTech massacre were 30 times larger and happened every day in the U.S., and you begin to understand the trauma people are experiencing in Iraq. I wish we could empathize with the suffering in Baghdad more readily, so that our policy decisions and political support could be applied with greater wisdom.

Some of you may be familiar with the outstanding Portraits of Grief series run by the New York Times in the wake of 9/11. I still find it hard to read those remarkable obituaries without crying. News outlets are already beginning to publish similar obituaries for the victims in Blacksburg, and that is appropriate. I just wish a similar series would be published for the soldiers and victims of the Iraq War, both American and Iraqi, so that we could feel the impact of this pre-emptive war, and have those feelings inform our perspective.

To sum it up, I am saddened by the VaTech tragedy but relieved that we Americans have not lost our capacity to grieve and be repulsed by violence. Unfortunately, I don’t think very much will, or can, be done to prevent a psychopath from doing something like this again, a view shared by at least one other blogger. In contrast, I am dismayed by our comparative lack of awareness of the suffering caused by the Iraq War. But there is a lot more that can done about Iraq.

Here are some of my favorite bits from the interview:

Q: You describe yourself as a socialist.

Black: From the time I was kid, I saw the broader context of how we live here in the U.S. When I was twelve, I saw Edward R. Murrow’s Harvest of Shame and that was it. It led me to uncover the image versus the reality of how people live. I then learned to pronounce “apartheid” and saw the treatment of blacks here in this country as they struggled for civil rights. It made me question deeply and ask myself: How can people like migrant workers who are helping us eat not have a pot to piss in? I started learning about countries that have a “share-the-wealth” system and I said to myself, “There is nothing wrong with that. This makes sense.”

Capitalism’s problem is that it has nothing to say about how to combat greed. For all the moralizing this country does, people don’t get it: They’re greedy. And it’s gotten worse in my lifetime. You don’t even have to have socialism. I am talking about minimal things. Put money aside to fund playgrounds and high school football teams. Are you kidding me? The Grammy Awards has to make a plea to keep music in schools? I mean, what planet are we on? I guess I am asking another question in my work as well: What happened?

Q: What do you think happened?

Black: The false needs like the third house, the fourth boat, the most expensive hoo-ha. I might do, for me, two or three over-the-top things a year like get on a boat and take a cruise. I do that for a week and that’s enough. And now I have people that help me manage my money and recently my accountant said, “You need to do this to pay less in taxes.” My response was that I have been waiting my whole life to pay taxes. This is how it’s supposed to work. This is how we are able to fund the things that make this country work—like roads and schools.

He goes on to skewer Democrats and Republicans alike. You can read the rest of the interview here.

A small but growing number of US churches have started purchasing palms that are harvested in an ecologically friendly manner for Passion Sunday services.

Mr. Corzo, 37, a father of three who has been harvesting palm leaves since he was 5 or 6, used to be paid by how many he delivered, no matter the quality. He would hack away at any old palm and allow the middle man to worry about quality.

No more. Under the eco-palm program, Mr. Corzo is paid only for the quality fronds that he delivers — but at a much higher return, so his trifling pay has nearly doubled. The palms are now bundled in his village by women who had no jobs before.

The percentage of palms that must be discarded has plummeted from roughly half to a tenth. And the forest that Mr. Corzo uses to make a living is slowly becoming greener, environmentalists say.

- from the article linked above

The best part was saved for last however:

But exactly what they are used for up north is not always clear.

“I know it’s used for decoration,” said Moses Macal Maroukin, 69, a veteran palm chopper, who seemed somewhat mystified. He said he had no palm fronds in his home.

But then he revealed what the people here had long believed to be the real use of the exported palms. The juices in the stems and leaves are extracted, he explained in a conspiratorial whisper, and then turned into a special mixture that is used to stain greenbacks green.

“This is how you color your dollars,” he said, waving a palm.

A Blessed Passion (Palm) Sunday to my readers.

As he writes:

Since the beginning of last year, the price of maize has doubled. The price of wheat has also reached a 10-year high, while global stockpiles of both grains have reached 25-year lows. Already there have been food riots in Mexico and reports that the poor are feeling the strain all over the world… According to the UN food and agriculture organisation, the main reason is the demand for ethanol: the alcohol used for motor fuel, which can be made from maize and wheat.

In addition, the European demand for biofuel is being met by palm oil production (palm oil being the cheapest source for biofuel), which has greatly expanded the rate of tropical deforestation.

Already we know that biofuel is worse for the planet than petroleum. The UN has just published a report suggesting that 98% of the natural rainforest in Indonesia will be degraded or gone by 2022. Just five years ago, the same agencies predicted that this wouldn’t happen until 2032. But they reckoned without the planting of palm oil to turn into biodiesel for the European market. This is now the main cause of deforestation there and it is likely soon to become responsible for the extinction of the orang-utan in the wild.

But it gets worse. As the forests are burned, both the trees and the peat they sit on are turned into carbon dioxide. A report by the Dutch consultancy Delft Hydraulics shows that every tonne of palm oil results in 33 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, or 10 times as much as petroleum produces. I feel I need to say that again. Biodiesel from palm oil causes 10 times as much climate change as ordinary diesel.

There are similar impacts all over the world. Sugarcane producers are moving into rare scrubland habitats (the cerrado) in Brazil, and soya farmers are ripping up the Amazon rainforests. As President Bush has just signed a biofuel agreement with President Lula, it’s likely to become a lot worse.

Monbiot provides greater description of the impact of biofuel production here. I have also heard it stated that biofuel production may consume more fuel than if produces, but I have yet to come across a convincing study showing this. (Comments, especially with links, on the efficiency of biofuel production are appreciated.) I do know, however, that as an annual crop corn places a great deal of strain on our soil resources to produce. In my view, a far better source of biofuels would be agricultural wastes and perennial grasses, assuming ethanol could be produced efficiently from them.

I originally hail from Illinois, one of the largest corn-producers among the United States, and I sympathize with the plight of farmers, particularly on the Great Plains. It seems to me, though, that because of their high environmental and societal costs, biofuels are not the answer to meeting our energy demands and the needs of our farmers.

Addendum: The New York Times reports that American farmers plan this year to plant the largest corn crop since WWII. Will this be enough to offset the climbing price of corn globally?

The Guardian reports that development of a $12bn iron ore mine in Australia has been halted by the Australian EPA “after the company unearthed at least five new species of the cave-dwelling creatures.” The animals are collectively referred to as “troglobites”, and described as “tiny, blind spider-like creatures”. Further on, they write:

The tiny animals, which are just a few millimetres long, belong to a group called troglobites that have evolved to live in absolute darkness. Many do not develop eyes, but instead use their front legs as feelers…

Troglobites are ancient organisms, having lived in Australia for more than a million years. They survive by feeding on organic material that accumulates in the cracks of rocks deep underground.

First of all, great news. It’s nice to know that there is still some understanding of our role as environmental stewards, despite most evidence suggesting the contrary.

Second, how much temptation must there have been to squash the buggers when the mining company found them? Okay, they were probably found by an environmental consulting firm working under contract to the mining company, which in turn was legally obligated to perform an environmental impact study. But still. I’m impressed by the honor displayed by the interested parties.

Finally, what the heck are troglobites? Wikipedia provides the following definition: “A troglobite is an animal that lives entirely in the dark parts of caves that have a specific humidity and air mix.” A better discussion of troglobite (vs. troglodyte vs. troglophile vs. trogloxene) is available here. Basically, troglobites are permanent cave dwellers. Obviously, this is a descriptive term and does not represent any particular taxon.

So what are the animals holding up the mine in Australia? The Guardian doesn’t say. The West Australian, however, reveals that the animals are schizmids, which are a type of arachnid. Googling reveals more information on these bizarre and rare arachnids here and here.

“The smoking gun is definitely lying on the table as we speak,” said top U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, who reviewed all 1,600 pages of the first segment of a giant four-part report. “The evidence … is compelling.”

Andrew Weaver, a Canadian climate scientist and study co-author, went even further: “This isnt a smoking gun; climate is a batallion of intergalactic smoking missiles.”

“It’s ridiculous,” says Pat DeLanger, an accountant who was about to climb into her car on a recent Sunday with her teen-age daughter after a service at St. Isaac Jogues Catholic Church. She lives less than a mile away, but expects her Sunday morning drive to stretch to 30 minutes once construction on another church across the street is complete. “We live right there. We probably could walk faster.” (My emphases)

Yes, Pat, that is ridiculous, and I’m not talking about the church construction. If they are even just moderately fit, Ms. DeLanger and her teen-age daughter should be able to walk less than a mile in under 30 minutes. I know I can be cynical, but how much do you want to bet Ms. DeLanger drives an SUV (perfect for the snowy mountain roads found in Florida), replete with a sticker that says “Support our troops”?