Tag Archives: United States

Never Forget Our Heroes

Happy Memorial Day, everyone. This holiday may be the unofficial start of summertime in America that allows us an opportunity to get together with friends and family for burgers and beer, as well as the harsh realization that no, it’s not warm enough to go swimming yet, but while it is good that we can observe this lighthearted enjoyment in the company of loved ones, Memorial Day has a somber reason for its existence. Memorial Day was created to recognize those who lost their lives in America’s military.

While the exact date that Memorial Day was first observed is not easy to pin down, it is apparent that it became nationally prominent in the late 1860s following the American Civil War. Since then, Americans of all ages have paid their respects to their fallen military men and women in a number of ways. Typically parades, visits to cemeteries, and the aforementioned cookout with friends are common occurrences, yet today I am turning my focus to a specific group of aides to the American armed forces who deserve our thanks and are still living, although their lives are in serious danger and we need to help them to survive as they helped our service members to survive.

Since the United States’ involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq began, there have been translators who have served as the necessary communicative link between soldiers and engineers working for the military and the native people. These translators have helped to save countless lives and now deserve to be returned the favor, however, this is far from the case as you can learn from this segment from Last Week Tonight with John Oliver:

Translators, even if they were not born or even set foot in the United States, are American heroes and deserve the easy opportunity to become U.S. citizens. We should be fast-tracking these guys and their families on that course of action if they desire it, especially considering the imminent danger most of them are in. It is inexcusable, criminal really, to force them to jump through bureaucratic hoops to realistically attain the goal of citizenship. They deserve to be recognized for their service to America by being welcomed into America. We should be raising a toast of honor to these men and women on Veteran’s Day, not a toast of remembrance on Memorial Day because the United States government did not act as valiantly to serve and save them as they did to serve and save our soldiers and engineers.

The truly frustrating thing is that this episode aired in October of 2014 but things have not vastly improved in the application process. In fact, they have only become harder. Perhaps this is something your local representative should hear about.

Thanks for reading. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions please send them to monotremadness@gmail. com.

Alex

The American Adams Family

Happy President’s Day! The highest executive office in the United States of America has been occupied by 44 men since 1789 and has seen some interesting scenarios over the course of two plus centuries. For example, Grover Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms with Benjamin Harrison’s term sandwiched between them, so Cleveland is counted as both the 22nd and 24th president. Additionally, there is the Curse of Tippecanoe, also called Tecumseh’s Curse, that is the folksy title given to the grim coincidence that saw every president who was elected or reelected in a year that ended in zero die in office. The frightening trend began with William Henry Harrison and continued through John F. Kennedy, before ending with the failed assassination attempt of Ronald Reagan. This seemed to let George W. Bush off the hook, but there was actually an odd assassination attempt against his life back in 2006 (and no, I’m not talking about the pretzel). While in Georgia (the country), a man threw a grenade at President Bush and the Georgian President! Crazy!

Today, I am focusing on one of the unique relationships between a pair of presidents, and how these men have been portrayed in two of my favorite films based in American history. The presidents in the spotlight today are the second and sixth, John Adams and John Quincy Adams. In the case of many a political figure, president included, it has been said that so-and-so would have gotten nowhere without such-and-such, but in the case of the Adams’ it is absolutely true that John Quincy Adams would have gotten nowhere without John Adams. In fact, it is not even hyperbole to say that JQA would not even exist without JA for the plain and simple reason that he physically could not. Even if you are not from the US or slept through all your history classes, you can easily piece together that John Adams is the father of John Quincy Adams, but that is not where it ends, for you could just as easily say that John Adams is the father of America. Okay, that is starting to get into hyperbole, but John Adams is certainly one of the fathers of America, and he is frequently called such as he was one of the most prominent of Founding Fathers who helped to form this country from rebellious British colonies to the United States of America.

John Adams served as the first Vice President, aiding first President George Washington over the course of two terms, before taking up the task of Commander-in-Chief for himself. His attempt at reelection would be thwarted by his close friend Thomas Jefferson. Adams returned to his home in Massachusetts feeling more than a little sour about the whole thing, but eventually he and Jefferson got back in touch and were friendly for their final years. In fact, both men died on the same day, mere hours apart. Adams’ last words were, “Thomas Jefferson survives,” a comfort to himself that the country still had one of its greatest leaders. Unfortunately, he was wrong as Jefferson preceded him in death, however short it may have been. The appropriate coincidences do not end there though, as the day both men died on was July 4, 1826 – 50 years to the day the Declaration of Independence both men worked so hard to draft and ratify, was signed into effect.

If you’re looking for an entertaining film about the birth of America that features the efforts of Adams and Jefferson in uniting their compatriots in creating a new nation, than look no further than 1776 (1972). Originally a Broadway musical in 1969, the film retains its key actors, including William Daniels as John Adams (funnily enough, his first TV role was as John Quincy Adams!). Adams is the chief protagonist, and he is delightfully annoying to the other delegates in the first Continental Congress. Look, or I should say, listen no further than my favorite song from the show where Adams is trying to get someone to write the Declaration of Independence: “But, Mr. Adams”.

In addition to future Presidents Adams and Jefferson, the film showcases one of the greatest Founding Fathers who never sought that office, Benjamin Franklin, who in the film, as he did in life, often steals the show. Look, or, well yeah, look and listen no further than this scene where Adams is trying to win over a crucial vote for independence from Maryland:

We need a musical about that OGFF (Original Gangsta Founding Father). Hip-hop, rock and roll, you pick the genre, but I’m looking at you Lin-Manuel Miranda.

Now let’s look at the man John Adams actually fathered, John Quincy Adams. Where his father is best remembered for his actions prior to being president, Quincy Adams is best remembered for what he did after his presidency. He served for the final 17 years of his life in the US House of Representatives representing Massachusetts. He became an especially loud voice in the opposition of slavery, despite the derision he received from the South for it. His intellect and cleverness served him well when arguing against slavery, even when the there was a “gag rule” in place in the House that prevented the issue from being spoken about during proceedings. In 1836, Adams brought forth a petition from a man in Georgia (the state). In it, the man called for a “disunion” because the South was pro-slavery and the North was not. Essentially, this was the era of grumblings that 25 years later would escalate into civil war, and this Georgia man was not alone in wishing for a separation at the time. Many southern representatives shared these wishes for disunion, but Adams did not. He merely presented the letter as bait that his frustrated fellows would jump on. Quincy done triggered those fools. They took the bait and moved to censure the issue of disunion; Congress at the time was very much a “we’ll talk about this later” kind of place (kind of like today!). This move allowed Adams to offer his rebuttal where he was able to rail into the evils of slavery as much as he wanted without having to worry about the gag rule.

Five years later, Adams would get a chance to directly take a stand against slavery. While it may not have been a full on emancipation (that was still eight Presidents away), Adams was able to argue for the freedoms of illegally obtained slaves who revolted against their captors. The Africans broke free onboard the Spanish slave ship La Amistad and demanded to be returned to their homeland. During the day the ship, which had been near Cuba where it was going to sell the men and women, sailed east toward the sun and their native continent, but at night the crew turned north, and eventually the ship made landfall near New York. This nightly deception led to a series of convoluted court cases, but sense was made of it and the African men and women were granted freedom, until incumbent President Martin Van Buren pushed the case to the Supreme Court because of pressure from southern supporters. Van Buren was not a fan of slavery, and certainly neither was the senior Adams who did not seek to discuss slavery much during his time as president for the same reason Van Buren did not: they feared for conflict arising between North and South. I do not know if either anticipated the full-scale war that would eventually break out, but they were wary on the subject on the national scale. The younger Adams was not during his time as a representative, and when the Amistad case was brought before the Supreme Court, he spoke for four hours on behalf of the Africans who had been stolen from their homes. The court agreed with him and upheld the lower court rulings granting the Africans their freedom.

There is a great film made about the Amistad revolt and court cases called Amistad (1997). Directed by Steven Spielberg, it is often overlooked because of the success of his other films, especially similar themed films like Schindler’s List (1993) and The Color Purple (1985), not to mention he released Saving Private Ryan the next year. Amistad is more than worth a watch though, and Anthony Hopkins is terrific as John Quincy Adams. The movie is certainly played up for dramatic effect at times, including many of Adams’ scenes, but I love the depiction of him as a man who has always been in the shadow of his father, making the most of it while others around him laugh at how he can never measure up to him. The key moment for him is when he is speaking with Cinque, the leader of the Africans played by an equally great Djimon Hounsou, whose respect for Adams is as assured as his knowledge that his ancestors will be with him in his hour of need because he is “the whole reason they have existed at all.” Adams realizes that he too, like all others, is the greatest creation of his parents and those before them because he is the one carrying on their legacy now. He uses this insight in his speech to the Supreme Court, calling upon the Founding Fathers for advice, because “who we are is who we were.” His father may have helped create America, but it is up to John Quincy Adams and those residing in it in his day to continue improving it and make it the idyllic country the Founding Fathers laid the foundation for. For America is also a child of these men who made it, and they will always be invoked for help in guiding this nation in the right direction.

This is the American pursuit we all have a responsibility to strive for, for as grand as this country has been, it can always be better and we must always do what we can to protect the ideals that allow America to grant the freedom and justice that all on this Earth deserve.

Thanks for reading! I hope you enjoy your President’s Day and that you’ll return here next week. Direct any questions or comments to monotrememadness@gmail.com.

Stars and Stripes Forever,

Alex

Royal Rovers: The Marvelous Migration of Monarch Butterflies

Imagine making a tedious journey across 3000 miles over two months without accounting for extreme weather or other factors that might delay you. Now imagine that you weigh less than a quarter of an ounce and are only 3-4″ in size. Seems a little tough, doesn’t it? The farthest I have ran is 6.2 miles in a 10K segment of a marathon and it drained all my energy for a week. Now, I’m no Olympian by any stretch, but I have got considerably more going for me than Danaus plexippus, the Monarch butterfly. I am a larger, less fragile organism aided by a wider diet and intellect, among other things, and I can contently set up shack in the same shelter over the course of the next 80 years with relative comfort. I do not have to worry about predators. Heart disease and motor vehicles offer a greater threat to me than do the likes of birds or other insects, not to mention storms or shifting weather patterns. In spite of everything against them, monarchs in North America make an incredible migration from the northern reaches of the United States and Canada down into the heart of Mexico every fall. They do this to better survive the harsh cold of winter to give rise to the next generation, however, their biggest threat today is not the cold, but the continuing impact of human alterations to their environment.

Monarch butterflies are as delicate as they are beautiful, but they do not need to fear much from predators thanks to a steady diet of exclusive milkweed as caterpillars. Milkweed contains toxins that are poisonous or at least downright distasteful to many mammals and birds, and adult monarchs have bright orange and black wings to stand out to warn potential predators of this. This does not take them off the menu for every animal, especially other insects who don’t mind the milkweed, but it keeps them safe from a high number of hungry creatures. Their warning colors are so effective, that Viceroy butterflies copy it to trick predators into thinking that they are poisonous like monarchs. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery after all.

Monarchs are champion migrants also. As I previously stated, some travel as far as 3000 miles (4828km) to their wintering grounds. This is amazing enough for such a small creature, but especially so when you consider all the work that goes into making a complete cyclical migration to Mexico and back. You probably were introduced to the annual monarch migration early on in your academic career, perhaps even as the first real-world example of animal migration, but did you know that it takes 5-6 generations to make the round trip? It does! The first round of monarchs born in Mexico gradually work their way north, some to the western US, some to the East, and some farther on into Canada. Over the course of the spring and summer 4-5 generations live, migrate, reproduce, and die as they steadily ease on up the States and the land of the Maple Leaf until the final generation is born at the end of summer. This last generation of the year – the one that currently is heading south – is bigger and stronger than their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc. They can be as much as twice as large, all the better to help them make the long trip to Mexico. This final generation is the one that makes the big flight you learned about in grade school. They arrive in Mexico, chill out (literally), and produce the first generation of next year’s journey. Most generations only survive for about 2-6 weeks, but the final, far-flying migrant generation lives for 6-8 months, spending most of it enduring the winter weather.

Yes, even in Mexico it gets chilly. The BBC had a nice segment explaining the overwintering of monarchs in their 2009 nature documentary series Life.

Sorry for the crummy video quality, and more so for the lack of original David Attenborough narration (I guess Oprah’s all right). As she said, predators not deterred by the bad taste and natural occurrences like frost can kill thousands of these butterflies as they wait out the winter, but ultimately their sheer numbers of approximately 300,000 significantly outweigh these natural losses. Nevertheless, that number was once over 1 billion butterflies, and not that long ago either. In the last 20 years, the population of monarchs has dropped almost 90%. This monumental loss in total population does not bode well for such a tiny animal susceptible to even the slightest change. As with any other living thing on Earth, monarchs are detrimentally affected by global climate change and habitat loss (particularly in their Mexican winter sites), both of which have wreaked havoc on the species. The greatest direct threat to monarchs though is the systemic indirect decimation of milkweed.

Monarch larvae (caterpillars) eat only milkweed, not the more variable sugary nectar they consume as adults, so if milkweed decreases, so too do the monarchs. Milkweed is not a plant we harvest as a crop, nor is it as heavily desired as a showy gardening plant as traditional European garden flowers (although interest for the sake of butterflies is growing), so we don’t really give much notice to it when we consider our own eating or aesthetic desires. This is especially the case when we manage our food needs on a mass scale. In order to most effectively protect our desired crops, such as corn and beans, we spray herbicides that kill off those other plants we aren’t going to send to the table. Today this is easily achieved with genetic modifications to the crop plants that protects them against the harmful effects of the herbicide. The plants we want grow healthier than ever while everything else is eliminated. I am not trying to sway you against genetically modified organisms (GMOs), in fact I think they have the potential to help us manage and produce all of our plant-based food needs. Nonetheless, GMOs are a major source of controversy that should be thoroughly discussed with more than our stomachs in mind. One large consideration to be made is in the case of native plants necessary to native wildlife. Milkweed for monarchs is a prime example of this.

Fortunately, there are many people working to remedy the plight of monarch butterflies, and most of them are not sporting Ph.D.s… well, not yet at least. Monarch Watch is the primary source of data collection and research on monarchs. Based out of Kansas University, located in the central flyway of many migrating monarchs, Monarch Watch is one of the largest citizen science programs in North America, meaning that it relies on data collected by people of all ages and trades. Oftentimes it is used as an active teaching experience for students in middle school and up. Monarch Watch provides tags and data sheets that allow those helping to fill out information regarding the release location, date, gender (males have two black pouches on the hind wing that females lack), and whether the specimen(s) released were a wild-caught or captive-raised stock. The tags are stickers placed on the wing that do not inhibit the flight of the butterflies, but make it easy for anyone involved in Monarch Watch to take a look at and report where a specific butterfly is at at any given time. This information is used to track the general course of migration each year and can be used to gauge population health, among other things. ideally, someday sooner than later we can decrease the number of detrimental effects we have on monarchs while simultaneously increasing the number of people involved in citizen science programs like Monarch Watch to better understand the mysterious Monarch.

Thanks for reading! If you are interested in Monarch Watch, check out their website, as well as these sites with some general information that helped me write this post:

Xerces Society

USDA Forest Service

National Geographic

Contact me with any questions, comments, butterfly love, etc. at monotrememadness@gmail.com, and be sure to come back for more fun next week.

Flutter flutter,

Alex

死のホワイトフラッシュ (White Flash of Death)

At 8:15 AM on August 6th 1945, the United States detonated the world’s first nuclear weapon in a war scenario when they dropped the atomic bomb “Little Boy” on Hiroshima. Three days later they detonated the second and only other, “Fat Man”, on Nagasaki. Previous tests were performed at a desert military facility in New Mexico to perfect the bomb’s destructive capability until the day when it would be ready and needed for use in World War II. Many leading scientists and physicists of the day were involved in the production of the atomic bomb, such as J. Robert Oppenheimer who famously recited, “I am become death.” after creating the bomb. Despite their hard work to develop atomic weaponry, most of these men never wanted to see the day when their device of death would ever be used. They did. How this day came to be, and how justified the dropping of the bomb was, are questions that still divide opinions today.

In accordance with most religious views, Christian teachings (of which I’m more familiar with coming from a predominantly Catholic family and attending Catholic schools for 18 years) are used to help determine whether actions are just or not, and nonviolence and then just war are used in regard to war scenarios. When nonviolence fails to resolve the problem, Just War Theory – “legitimate political authorities are permitted as a last resort to employ limited force to rescue the innocent and establish justice” – is followed.

Many people support the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan and feel that they were necessary and moral actions. The main argument for this position is that dropping the bombs caused Japan to surrender, thus bringing an end to the war. Most importantly of all, it ended the war without requiring American ground and naval troops to invade Japan. Had this been the action taken instead, then more American soldiers would have died; how many would die we will never know, but invasions of the native land of a country at war typically prove to more bloody and grueling than battles on neutral sites or occupied territories. We have seen examples of this when Nazi Germany attacked the Soviet Union, as well as when America and Britain fought against the Nazis in Germany. Perhaps because of this earlier experience from the European war, as well as the generally greater intensity of the Pacific war, America opted to use the atomic bombs instead of risking more lives in a battle that would certainly be harder and may not be a successful venture for months, years, or at all.

The atomic bomb drops were not the first attacks the United States had made on mainland Japan. From February of 1945 until the atomic bombs were used, the USA fire-bombed many Japanese cities in an earlier effort to force Japan to surrender. Fire-bombing is just what it sounds like and its effects have been described as horrific. One American military official compared the early fire-bombing raids to the atomic bombs saying, “We scorched and boiled and baked to death more people in Tokyo on that night of March 9-10 than went up in vapor at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.‎” (Selden 1990). According to this account, the practice of fire-bombing was less humane than the use of nuclear weapons. Furthermore, nuclear weapons proved to be a much more effective method of bringing about Japan’s surrender than fire-bombing which had been unsuccessful in doing this for six months. This fulfills the Just War Theory criteria of Probability of Success which states: arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success. The chance for success in achieving Japan’s surrender was much higher with the atomic bombs than it was with the fire-bombs, and most likely would have been higher than an American land invasion’s chances.

At the time of the war, Japan’s leaders had instilled a fear of Americans in their citizens through propaganda in an attempt to rally non-combative Japanese residents to their cause. In some cases, this irrational fear was used to make Japanese civilians more aggressive towards Americans to the point where they would attack any US troops who came through their town. If civilians act in such a way then it can be said that they are more like soldiers than innocent bystanders, thus attacks on them, or attacks that harm or kill them along with military targets are justified because they are behaving more like soldiers than civilians.

It may not be a strong argument supporting the dropping of the bombs, but the ignorance of the terrible effects of their radiation should be taken into account. Had President Truman known that the aftermath would be worse than the explosions then he would have reconsidered sending in the troops. Instead, he and his advisors made what they felt to be the best decision given the known circumstances. One of the main reasons for their decision is the final point of Just War Theory: Last Resort, which states: force may be used only after all peaceful alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted. During the fire-bombing raids, the United States, as well as Britain and China, demanded that Japan surrender. The Japanese government refused several times and the US was left with no choice but to demonstrate the power of their arsenal because a diplomatic solution could not be worked out.

Finally, perhaps the US was afraid of the potential technological advancements of the Japanese. How could we be sure that we were the only one with nuclear weapons? The US started its research into nuclear weapons after Albert Einstein urged President Franklin Roosevelt to do so because the Nazis had begun nuclear research. Even if Japan did not develop these weapons, perhaps Germany did and had given some to Japan before surrendering in Europe. We know now that Japan did not yet have nuclear weapons, but the US leaders at the time probably felt that even just the slightest chance that Japan did justified the urgency to use the bombs when we did – a “bomb him today so he doesn’t bomb you tomorrow” precautionary measure.

Despite these reasons, not everyone agrees with the decision to use nuclear weapons to try to end the war with Japan. The most apparent evidence supporting the argument that dropping the bombs was immoral is the aftermath of the explosions, both immediately after  and many years later. Hiroshima lost 90,000 – 160,000 people, while Nagasaki lost 60,000 – 80,000 of its people; about half of each cities victims died in the explosion, while the rest died slower, more painful deaths from radiation poisoning or burns. Because the US had not conducted thorough research on the post-detonation effects of the atomic bomb they were not aware that its deadliest aspect was the radiation it released upon its dropzone. Many people died because the US did not know its own weapons’ destructive power. Most of these people were civilians too, for neither city had a heavy military presence. This violates Just War Theory’s Noncombatant Immunity, which states: civilians may not be the object of direct attack, and military personnel must take due care to avoid and minimize indirect harm to civilians. Obviously, there was little or no care taken to reduce the risk to civilians, especially considering most of the risks were unknown. This also violates Proportionality, which says: in the conduct of hostilities, efforts must be made to attain military objectives with no more force than is militarily necessary and to avoid disproportionate collateral damage to civilian life and property. Again, the bombs were dropped on large cities with a much higher percentage of civilians than military personnel, and considering they destroy almost everything in sight it becomes clear that little to no effort was made to prevent civilians from being involved. Furthermore, because the bombs annihilated the cities the urging of “just enough force” apparently was ignored.

The US was not even involved in WWII until December 7th 1941 when the Japanese navy attacked the US naval base at Pearl Harbor. After this unprovoked attack, the US launched a counterattack bombing raid over Tokyo, but it could not offset the emotional sting from the surprise attack in Hawaii. The detonation of a pair of atomic bombs could deliver such a blow, though, and would demoralize Japan even more than they demoralized us. However, the circumstances are not the same: Pearl Harbor was a military base and few to no civilians were harmed or even involved in that attack. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were mostly occupied by civilians, and exacting revenge violates Right Intention which states: even in the midst of conflict, the aim of political and military leaders must be peace with justice, so that acts of vengeance and indiscriminate violence, whether by individuals, military units or governments, are forbidden.

By dropping the atomic bombs on Japan, the US certainly ensured that Japan suffered more, bringing up issues with Comparative Justice: to override the presumption against the use of force the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other, and again Proportionality: the overall destruction expected from the use of force must be outweighed by the good to be achieved. Did almost immediately ending the war outweigh all of the expected negative effects of the bombs? Perhaps not considering the bombs would not have been necessary at all if a diplomatic solution could have been reached. Japan had refused previous demands of surrender, but who is to say further insisting would have been a failure? It might have seemed unlikely at the time because of the strong will of the Japanese Empire which proudly declared it would never surrender when the war began; nevertheless, the tide of the war was rapidly shifting in favor of the Allies who had recently defeated Germany and ended the European war. Perhaps if Japan realized it could not repel the inevitable Allied attack and would lose the Pacific war, then maybe its leaders would adhere to Just War Theory’s Probability of Success and surrender. Allied diplomats may have been able to show Japan that continuing the war was a futile cause and convince the country to surrender. Nonetheless, the time they needed to attempt to achieve this goal was cut short by the atomic bombs.

Personally I feel that the dropping of the atomic bombs was necessary to bring about the swiftest end to World War II, but that targeting the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was immoral and unnecessary, at least as the initial targets. The United States had been fighting Japan and other nations since entering the war in late 1941, and some of the other Allied nations had been fighting in the war years before us. By 1945 everyone was ready for the war to be over, and it looked like it would be after the defeat of the Nazis who initiated the whole conflict. However, Japan still remained resilient and refused to give up, even as the US and fellow Allies advanced more rapidly towards the mainland of Japan. After years of the fiercest fighting US troops had yet encountered, Japan’s stubbornness to accept inevitable defeat called for some more efficient method of ending the war. The gradual advance of troops was succeeding, but at heavy costs for the Allies, especially the US. It does not seem unreasonable then that the US would decide to employ nuclear weapons. While there was still much unknown about the bombs’ destructive power, especially it radioactive aftermath, one thing was very clear: the atomic bomb was unlike any other weapon ever used before as it would almost completely destroy its target in an instant. It was a quick fix. From the American standpoint it made sense because Japan could be coaxed into surrender without needing to send wave after wave of American soldiers into battle, knowing that many of them would be killed and not knowing when they would finally succeed, or if they would at all. These factors combined with the worries of what Japan might do if allowed more time to act (keep in mind we did not know if they had similar weapons or not) made American action immediately necessary. We had a tool which would almost certainly force the Japanese to surrender without having to lose another America life. From an American standpoint it is a no-brainer. The atomic bomb was the best card we could play at that point in the war.

Nevertheless, I feel that dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not moral or necessary because they were non-military targets and had large populations of civilians. The film White Flash Black Rain shows that many of the survivors (and victims) of the explosions were children who were left orphaned and alone by the blasts. Furthermore, those few who did survive were disfigured and usually suffered ill effects from the radiation. The US did not know about these harmful effects, of course, but they did know about the civilian populations of the cities. What I believe the US should have done is drop the first bomb away from any civilized town, such as in the mountains or ocean (I know this still would have caused bad radioactive effects, but the degree to which humans would be harmed would have been less, and no one would have died in the explosion itself) so that Japan could have seen the awesome power of the weapon without suffering any civilian deaths. After this bomb, President Truman could have said the next target is a military base unless Japan immediately surrenders. If they still refused, the US could bomb one of the military bases and continued this trend (so as to keep within Just War criteria) until Japan surrendered. This would fulfill Last Resort by giving Japan the last opportunity to end the war and by only acting when there would be no other choice

Alex

References

Fandel, Jennifer. The Atomic Bomb: What in the World? The Creative Company, 2007.

Selden, Kyoko. The Atomic Bomb: Voices from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. M.E. Sharpe, 1990.

Sullivan, Edward T. The Ultimate Weapon: The Race to Develop the Atomic Bomb. Holiday House, 2007.

Here’s to an Ocean of Fun

Happy World Oceans Day everyone! Today we celebrate the largest biome on Earth and all that it provides us with by taking stock of how important it is for us in so many ways. So as I enjoy my dinner of wild Alaskan salmon let me tell you a little about this day of appreciation.

World Oceans Day sounds like something that’s been going on for a while but it is actually pretty recent in global recognition. It was first proposed at the Earth Summit in 1992, an environmental meet-and-greet between nations put on by the United Nations in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil that was also called United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) and the Rio Summit. The purpose of Earth Summit was to discuss important environmental issues and long-term plans to ensure global health for us and the planet. Topics such as climate change, public transportation, leaded gasoline, and the limited supply of clean, fresh water and how to preserve it were the main talking points. The subject of salt water also came up, and it was Canada of all nations that suggested the creation of World Oceans Day. While the Great White North may not be the first place you associate with the great white shark and its fishy fellows, one look at a map will reveal just how connected Canada is to the oceans.

While the United States of America stretch from sea to shining sea, Canada is surrounded by three of the world’s five oceans: the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic. The other two it doesn’t see as much of are the Indian and Southern Oceans. Yet while they can be separated into these five predominant areas, all are connected and comprise the largest and most diverse biome in the world. Within the oceans as a whole are many more sub-biomes such as tropical coral reefs like Australia’s Great Barrier Reef; deep ocean thermal vents that feature creatures specially adapted to survive without sunlight at the hot sulfuric and methanic outporings of volcanic fissures; and polar pools at the extreme top and bottom of the world like the frigid Arctic Circle of northern Canada. From the tiniest phytoplankton to the titanic blue whale, the oceans are filled with a myriad of plants, animals, bacteria, and even deep sea viruses that depend on their fragile habitat and its continued preservation, of which we’ve done a poor job. Overfishing has severely impacted many ecosystems throughout the world by throwing the balance of nature out of whack. The predators of the fish we pull out like crazy are finding it harder to get their fill of food and dwindled populations of fish, sharks, penguins, whales, seals, and many more are the result. This is why it is so important to adhere to sustainable fishing as best as possible. Monterey Bay Aquarium puts forth its frequently-updated Seafood Watch to provide consumers with the best choices for theirs and the oceans’ health. Unfortunately, even with this knowledge it is often difficult to find well sourced seafood. Much of what we harvest from the sea is collected by long-line fishing where hundreds of hooks are trailed behind on thousands of feet of fishing line. It is cost effective compared to the traditional cast-and-catch method and yields a greater bounty, but in addition to more greatly depleting the population of fish such as tuna (which is delicious and very versatile for use in cooking, yet rarely fished responsibly aside from the canned kind), long-line fishing also generates a lot of bycatch, immature juveniles of the desired species or other species, including ones we do not usually eat like dolphins, sharks, seabirds, and turtles. Another major problem is due to the mislabeling of seafood which means that even the fanciest restaurants may be unknowingly serving you something other than what you ordered. One way to avoid these problems is to dine on bivalves like mussels and oysters. They are easily and affordably cultivated on aqua farms and do not have the same concerns of misrepresentation because of their more obvious appearance that is not as easily confused as a steak of red or white fish.

World Oceans Day has only been officially acknowledged by the UN since 2008, but it’s practice has been going on longer in countries like Canada and the US, both of whom recently had leaders present at the G7 (Group of 7) Summit this past weekend in Krun, Germany. They, along with France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom, discussed world issues regarding many things. Ukraine and Russia’s activities there over the last year were the major points of conversation, but I was most pleased by the decision to quit using fossil fuels by the end of this century. This is a major commitment that was presented by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and it will take some doing (and some money at first), but it is very exciting and absolutely achievable (and will be cheaper in the long run). This is good news for the oceans and the rest of the natural and developed world, although it probably is too late for some areas to avoid the impending doom that will be brought on by climate change, as long as we actually make good on this promise we can save a lot of people and places from gradual destruction.

If you can’t get enough celebration of the waters that cover over 70% of our planet then carry on the fun throughout the week. We really could justifiably extend this day of recognition into a longer period of time as it is regarding the major geographic feature of the world. Furthermore, legendary oceanographer Jacques-Yves Cousteau’s birthday is June 11th and I’ll sure as hell be watching my scratchy VHS tapes of The Cousteau Odyssey on Thursday.

Thanks for reading! Hopefully, you find the oceans to be as important and fascinating as I do because they are worth our attention. We have discovered more of the surface of Mars than we have of our own ocean floor, so there is plenty more to learn. And I am eager to see what my favorite animal, the great white shark, spends its time doing when it heads out to the White Shark Cafe in the south Pacific between Hawaii and Guadalupe Island, Mexico. Direct any questions or comments below or send them to monotrememadness@gmail.com. Be sure to swim on back next week for more fishy fun.

Go Cavs!

Alex

Can They See My Dick?

Baseball’s back baby! Earlier today I gleefully watched the Detroit Tigers defeat the Minnesota Twins in their opening game of this 2015 Major League Baseball season. Also in sports, tonight at the oddly specific starting time of 9:18PM is the Men’s College Basketball National Championship between the Badgers and Blue Devils from Wisconsin and Duke respectively. Yet as much as I would like to go on about the impressive offensive and defensive day for Yoenis Cespedes, David Price’s pitching performance, or how Frank Kaminsky’s future NBA success may be directly correlated to his ugliness, there are more important issues to discuss.

Loyal readers of this blog (all one of you, including myself) know that I frequently draw upon the oeuvre of John Oliver. I’ve long been a fan of the Daily Show style of humorously delivered news and their comical correspondents, and Oliver is my favorite right now. After filling in for Jon Stewart as host of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart last summer while Stewart worked on the film Rosewater, Oliver showed his hosting chops and has impressed and amused many with his infectious smile, exaggerated hand motions, conversations with himself, and all around British charm. However, like his colleagues Stewart and Stephen Colbert before him, under all that lovable goofiness is a highly intelligent man looking to cut through the bullshit to deliver the news, albeit with funny pictures and dumb jokes about his penis. Now that he has his own show, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver on HBO, Oliver is at the forefront of what news he wishes to delve into each week. You can see why I’m a fan.

Today I am once again looking to Mr. Oliver for inspiration, and his most recent discussion is one that is very important to the current state of the States and the rest of the world: global surveillance, specifically the spying done by the National Security Agency, better known as the NSA. This has been a hot topic since June 2013 thanks to a 29 year old American computer technician named Edward Snowden. Now 31, Snowden once worked for the CIA and NSA before fleeing the United States for Hong Kong where he leaked US government documents to reporters to reveal the extent of global surveillance conducted by America on enemies and allies alike, as well as on American citizens living in the US and abroad. He currently lives somewhere in Russia, presumably in or around Moscow where he occasionally meets with journalists.

Depending on whom you ask, you will hear Snowden referred to as “hero”, “traitor”, and “Who?” alike. It seems that the jury’s still out on Snowden across this country of mine and everywhere else; I myself am still not sure what to make of him and am certain the story is far from over. Nevertheless, whatever kind of whistleblower he is, Snowden has served a critical role in getting people to question their privacy rights and how much they are willing to give up for supposed safety measures. This is a very important question to ponder at any time, yet especially so now as key elements of the Patriot Act – the controversial law that allows wiretaps and monitoring of suspected terrorists that was quickly signed into effect after the September 11th terrorist attacks in 2001 – are due for dismissal or reauthorization on June 1.

I have included John Oliver’s latest major segment from his show’s YouTube channel. It is just over 30 minutes, but trust me, it’s worth spending a half hour and three minutes of your time on. Oliver actually met with Snowden in Russia last week and interviewed him in his typical, unconventional style. In the interview, he does a good job of not only working in joking quips, but gets at the primary issue of confusion for most people regarding this topic and Snowden’s involvement in it. Oliver correctly identifies that it is difficult for most people to understand how the government acquisition of information occurs and does his best to have Snowden discuss it in terms that we laypeople can more easily comprehend. Enjoy.

Gives new meaning to the term “junk mail”, eh?

No matter what your opinion of Snowden is, it is always important to ensure that your freedoms are both being protected and continued to be granted to you. It is hard to determine where the line is on some issues, and we definitely don’t want anyone to be able to commit any more atrocities, large or small, in America (or anywhere, but especially here!), yet we cannot allow fear to dictate how we behave or what we do. When you do let a group of people scare you into acting a certain way, well, the terrorists win. That’s what a terrorist is: someone who uses fear, usually of things like, oh, I dunno, death, to force you to cease living the way you were (or at all) to fit within the confines of their own agenda. I’m not saying that the United States government is a collection of terrorists bullying its citizens and the world into behaving the way it wants, but I don’t want it to become such and it is more likely to do that by continuing to monitor everyone’s every action. I’m okay with Kim Kardashian’s butt breaking the Internet, as long as it’s not crashed by government servers.

Thanks for reading/watching! My special thanks to John Oliver and his HBO crew for making their show segments so readily available and for once again giving me something smarter to talk about than sparkly multicolored koosh balls (but admit it, you want me to write about that now, don’t you?). If you have anything to add or ask about, or a request for something you’d like me to write about (KOOSH BALLS!) hit me up via email at monotrememadness@gmail.com. Enjoy the final men’s college hoops game of this season tonight, and the remaining 161 regular season MLB games for each club throughout October. Be sure to swoosh back here next week for an in-depth discussion of the latest class of recognized legends of the greatest genre of music.

Go Tigers,

Alex