When Trees Were Oil
One of the most important resources for Easter Islanders was the huge Easter Island palm, a close relative of the Chilean wine palm. It can be argued that this tree was the very basis for their entire civilization, in the same way that petroleum is the economic basis for ours. It was ideal for constructing the strong canoes necessary for hunting one of their major food staples, the porpoise. It had edible nuts and sap from which sugar, syrup, honey, and wine could be made. It was clearly essential for the massive building projects – huge stone faces – for which the island is best known. It was huge, 80 feet tall and 6 feet in diameter. Somewhere around the year 1400 AD, about 1,000 years after the first human being arrived on the island, someone cut down the very last Easter Island palm. I was struck by the vision of that event, the harvesting of that last tree - presumably for its wood - knowing that there would never be another. Their culture had existed for a millennium, witnessing throughout the successive devastation of their isolated home, yet they didn’t have the wisdom or the discipline to recognize that the last few trees had far greater value as the basis for regeneration. They apparently took the valuable resource these palms represented so much for granted that they couldn’t stop themselves from “business as usual” exploitation, even though reversal of the decline through basic forest husbandry would have been very straightforward. Will we be similarly foolish? I see the recent election as a referendum on this question.
12.24.04 @ 07:55 PM EDT [link]

Paradise Lost
My attitudes on environmentalism were profoundly affected by an insight I gained while once watching a presentation on Easter Island, a presentation that triggered long-term interest and research. Easter Island prior to arrival of European explorers was the place on Earth most analogous to Earth itself, a place where interactions with other places are essentially non-existent. Just as people on Earth have no interaction with whatever other species might inhabit this universe, the inhabitants of Easter Island had no communications with or knowledge of any other cultures. Easter Island is the most isolated small island on Earth, more than 2,000 miles across the Pacific Ocean from the nearest continent. Its original settlement 1,600 years ago must have occurred through blind luck by a very small percentage of the Pacific Islanders who launched themselves into the void with no hope of return. Despite its small size (only 64 square miles), archaeological study has shown that it must have been a Polynesian paradise when mankind arrived. It has fertile volcanic soil and a temperate climate, and an ideal location for diverse bird and marine life. Yet when European explorers first encountered Easter Island, they found a sparsely inhabited wasteland. Despite archaeological evidence of lush forests, not a single tree remained standing. Despite archaeological evidence of a unique abundance of bird, porpoise, fish, and shellfish species, virtually all of these were missing from the island’s biosphere. As archaeologists worked through the remains of the cultures that had occupied the island, the story became clear. The archaeological record showed a rich island civilization that gradually declined as the lush resources of their home were consumed. Tomorrow let’s look at a specific example.
12.23.04 @ 07:47 PM EDT [link]

“Whatever it Takes” Redux
Here’s a repeat Blog from May 11, 2004. It’s of interest because it demonstrates how pervasive the “whatever it takes” attitude that led to Abu Ghraib really was considering the significant number of additional incidents that have recently come to light. These incidents belie the Administration’s assertion that Abu Ghraib represented the acts of a few low-level “bad apples,” and not at all something that any of the big cheeses had any accountability for. This is a preemptive strike against the Cons, who will doubtless begin another round of blame denial. Title: Saddam as a Ruler
Con bloggers and other apologists have been making a big deal of how the recent Iraqi prison hijinks pale in comparison to the volume and general severity of the torture that Saddam inflicted when he ruled Iraq. I take exception with this point of view on a couple of points. First, any acts by conquering foreigners automatically gain a certain intensity. Just watch that movie “Red Dawn” so beloved by the extreme right, where Americans are put into reeducation camps by the conquering Soviets and forced to watch commie propaganda, triggering Harry Dean Stanton’s demand to his sons “avenge me!” Then add the heightened sensitivity that Muslims have to being under the control of non-believers. Then add the sexual element, and then add the angle of the sexual humiliation being perpetrated by a woman. I know from my West Point days that psychological harassment can be far more vexing than physical challenges. But all of this is really beside the point. It makes no sense to use Saddam as any kind of standard against which to assess the actions of a democracy. Just about anyone looks good next to him, so why bother even comparing? It’s like saying that the US has been exercising more mature leadership than Pol Pot of the Khmer Rouge and the Cambodian killing fields. Even Saddam comes out well in that comparison! The bottom line is that evil is evil no matter how you cut it, and the US has no business perpetrating evil, no matter how monstrous the previous regime was. This is particularly true when it’s clear why this evil was perpetrated – because the Administration communicated that US Forces should do “whatever it takes” to find Saddam’s WMD. At least Saddam did what he did for good old fashioned greed rather than political CYA.
12.22.04 @ 10:14 PM EDT [link]

Time for Bush
Many seem outraged by George Dubya being named Time’s Man of the Year, but it doesn’t bother me a bit. OK, maybe just a little bit, but only because the real Man of the Year should have been Karl Rove. After all, it’s pretty clear that “The Architect” was behind the policies that got Bush on the front of the MOTY issue of Time. It was Karl, for example, who pointed out that no President has ever failed to achieve reelection during wartime. But let’s grant that Bush should get the “credit,” since he’s the one who has to actually sign the orders that Karl drafts. So why are people upset about Time’s choice? After all, his margin of reelection wasn’t particularly noteworthy, hardly at all comparable to the last several reelected incumbents (Clinton and Reagan). And consider the depth of polarization that this “uniter” has stimulated. My sense is that most people object to Bush being rewarded for utter incompetence. How else could his record be parsed? In fact, “record” is the right word, since everything Bush has done has set a dubious record for bad results, whether related to jobs, deficits (multiple kinds), estimating cost of pacifications, capture of international terrorists, you name it! Time recognizing Bush is right up there with Bush recognizing Tenet, Franks, and Bremer (has anyone else picked up on the delicious juxtaposition of those events?) But Bush’s record clearly deserves the recognition (let’s not say “honor”) that Time’s spotlighting delivers. The analogy I’d use is Las Vegas Magazine’s gambler of the year (an accolade I just made up – I have no idea whether there is any such magazine or any such feature). Would they pick Joe Sixpack who hit the big slot jackpot? No, they’d want to profile the high roller with the big bankroll who’s at the tables every time you turn around, betting the ranch to the rapt attention of the wannabes. Whether such characters are showing huevos or idiocy, their performance is arresting. Arresting performances of that scale deserve to be spotlighted. The rub, of course, is that it’s our ranch he’s betting. If his high rolling doesn’t pay off (and he’s clearly in the hole), the rent money for the next fifty years is up in smoke!
12.21.04 @ 08:20 PM EDT [link]

Rush and the Environment – A Psychological Profile
Let’s pick apart Rush’s recent rant on the environment. Where to start? How about his direct linkage of environmentalism to communism? Anyone who studied the Soviets (like me, with my soviet studies/Russian language concentration at West Point) knows that Communists are history’s greatest polluters. There were parts of the Soviet Union that were so polluted that the air was virtually black. This was a basic feature of their system, a direct result of having responsibility for both exploiting resources and for protecting the environment in the same institution. This also happens to explain the Bush record on the environment. In his administration, like prior Dittohead administrations, those representing industry – the segment of society that exists to transform natural resources into goods – also call the shots in the regulatory agencies that exist to ensure that exploitation of resources is done in a sustainable manner. In other words, Con-munists employ the same approach to environmental regulation as Communists: non-regulation. How about Rush asserting that global couldn’t be happening because Florida is having colder than usual weather? That’s an easy one. It’s illogical to hold that global warming is baloney just because one day in one place is colder than average. That’s like saying that the Titanic wasn’t sinking because the stern was rising out of the water! Global warming is about long-term trends, and those trends are unequivocal for anyone not in denial. What about Rush’s attitude that we couldn’t change the environment even if we wanted to? History provides examples of environmental disasters that doomed entire societies. Pollution is not God’s plan for his creation. “God won’t allow us to hurt ourselves” has never worked as a strategy. God helps those who help themselves. Stewardship is closer to religious teaching than exploitation, which is essentially the same as greed. This leads us to the final question: why is Rush so worked up about the environment? Here is my list of possible explanations: 1) He’s had too much time on his hands since the collapse of his Soviet bogeyman 2) he got bit by his pet bunny and still has nightmares about it 3) he’s been taking those pills again! I’m thinking it’s probably all three.
12.20.04 @ 08:09 PM EDT [link]

Rush on an Environmental Tear
For anyone that’s been following Rush lately, my sympathies. No, actually I meant that you must know he’s been on an anti-environment tear. (And you don’t really need to endure the pain of following Rush. Why not instead let SherWright.com do the heavy lifting for you?). Just look at some of the entries that have popped up on our “Rush Insight to Ponder” feature. I mean, the man has issues! If you don’t believe me, here are some recent quotes from the show: “More wacko environmental news today. It's just coming out of the woodwork” … “the thing that they don't factor in this story is the literally millions of birds that will get chopped up in windmills that liberals are going to build for power because they don't like electricity.” … “This is incredible! It is unbelievable! Do you notice how rooted this whole global warming razzmatazz is?” … “If there's global warming going on, how in the world here in south Florida -- it's not even Christmas yet which is when these first cold waves usually hit -- can they have opened shelters?” We already heard the one about what would happen if birds had shotguns, which presents a very unique perspective concerning the relationship between man and nature. And here are the clinchers: “you may wonder why do I spend so much time on this global warming stuff. Folks, you got to understand something. I don't go seek this stuff out. This is no different than if it were a story on Ted Kennedy or John Kerry or anything else during the campaign. I get up every day and I do show prep and I find things that are ultimately an attack on institutions and traditions I believe in, like America and like our Constitution, and I feel the need to defend it, and make no mistake what global warming is. Make no mistake what radical militant environmentalism is. It's the new home of communism…” and “It's my belief in God, and my profound awe, and I think this is really where you can separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to environmentalist wackos -- and Communists too.” Boiling all of this down, he seems to be saying 1) exploitation of natural resources at the fastest possible rate is a moral imperative 2) there’s absolutely no chance that the global industrial complex is having any impact whatsoever on the biosphere since God wouldn’t permit that 3) anyone who believes otherwise is an atheist communist. I believe I just offered a dispassionate restatement of Rush’s statements. Next time let’s analyze them for validity and possible psychological sources.
12.19.04 @ 07:38 PM EDT [link]