A Killer of Devils

When I was a kid, like most kids, I gravitated towards the television on those rare occasions when my parents did not insist that I play outside.  Like most of my generation, there were various cartoons and kid shows that I enjoyed and one of those was the smart-alleck, Brooklyn-inspired Bugs Bunny.  Within the show, there were a host of other characters that flittered in and out but one that struck and fascinated me most was the Tasmanian Devil.  So, it was with interest and a little sadness to learn that the population of the little marsupials, exclusively found in the wild on the southern Australian island of Tasmania, is dying out.  However, it is not poachers or global warming to blame for their demise but a rare and contagious form of cancer.   

The cancer first came to the attention of scientists in the 1990s when, in the opinion of those following the situation closely, a single female devil developed a tumor that mutated and spread.  The diffusion of the disease took advantage of a typical devil practice – fighting.  Apparently, the devils fight by biting one another in the face.  Scientists felt that, during one of these fights, a devil bit the female in the face, pierced the tumor and the liquid within entered the bloodstream of her combatant.  Scientists first determined the contagious nature of the cancer when, upon an autopsy of a dead devil, they discovered the cells of the cancer did not originate from the devil itself but from another. 

From infection to death, the devils are dying in about six months’ time.  However, the cancer is more diabolical because, in most cases, it is not the cancer that is killing the devils.  Rather, the tumors make it difficult for the devils to eat and ultimately, they are starving as the cancer kills them.  To make matters worse, the cancers are infecting an animal whose cell defense is not diverse enough to detect the cancer.  The marsupial has struggled with the cancer in the decade or so since its first identification and in that time, it has killed nearly 85% of the Tasmanian Devil population on the island and it is still going strong.   

While both the Australian government and that in Tasmania are actively working and funding research and measures to protect the devil population, scientists are taking the lead.  They are encouraged by the fact that a small population of the devils is developing a resistance but not enough to prevent potential species extinction.  New ideas are also being considered and tested.  One of the major efforts is to relocating a group of unaffected animals onto a nearby island southeast of Tasmania – Maria Island.  By relocating these healthy devils, they are hoping that, were the Tasmania population to die out, the species would stave off extinction.   

There is a certain paradox on the part of the scientists who are leading the effort to the save animals.  Such animal advocates and other activists are always quick to point out, rightfully so, of the actions of man and its impact on the world, the lives of animals and their environment.  Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have a problem for a person to speak up for animals but those same folks who worry about the actions of men and its impact on animals, do not see the problem with the artificially re-bolstering of an endangered population.  I wonder if there will be any ramifications of the scientists’ actions.  I certainly don’t know but any disease that can mutate and spread as quickly as this cancer will continue to pose a threat in one form or another.  Might it reappear once the healthy devils are reintroduced in Tasmania?

 

This blog is called the Non-Sequitur and I suppose an article about the near extinction of the Tasmanian Devil would certainly fit.  When I watched the Bugs Bunny cartoons as a child, I felt sorry for the devil because it seemed as if it really did not have much control of its surroundings or the things happening to him.  His fierce scream seemed a “rage against the machine” but, how ironic would it be if the “machine” would actually manage to save the species.  I will continue to read and learn, keeping abreast of the situation and hope for the best.  I'm glad someone is looking out for them. 

The Dangers of a Second Term

Well, it has been nearly two and a half months and, with the inauguration coming up, I’ve worked through the stages of grief and come to terms with a second term for Mr. Obama.  I try to be philosophical about it and having to keep a neutral face and tone with my government students certainly helps.  In keeping with a purely non-partisan tone and in an attempt to exercise my deep desire to educate people on history, the idea of a two-term president is worth considering and evaluating.  If the past is anything to go on, the president will not have it as easy as his most glossy-eyed acolytes sincerely hope. 

There is a certain ebb and flow when it comes to the two-term presidents.  Of the first seven presidents, only two failed to earn a second term.  John Adams was guilty of running afoul of his own party to uphold his country’s best interests.  John Quincy Adams, the former’s son, was the victim of perception and the fact that many felt he obtained the highest office in a less than dignified way.  Between 1837 and 1912, there were only two who managed to win a second term (save Abraham Lincoln who never really saw his second term).  Ulysses S. Grant goes down in history as overseeing one of the most corrupt administrations and Grover Cleveland likely spent most of his second term wishing he had stayed in Buffalo.  In the 20^th century, war required a steady hand and the voters doubled down (quadrupled down in the case of the latter) with Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.  In recent years, five of the last eight presidents (four of the last five) have earned a second term. 

With regards to the second term itself, history is not pretty.   Six presidents (Jefferson, Jackson, Grant, Cleveland, Nixon and Bush) faced severe economic challenges, many of which would extend beyond their second term.  Four presidents (Madison, Wilson, Roosevelt and Truman) faced conflict abroad.  President Roosevelt had the easiest out with regards to the Spanish Civil War.  Yet, historians argue effectively that his lack of involvement made the upcoming World War more dangerous and difficult to overcome.  Three presidents (Nixon, Reagan and Clinton) faced scandals – two of which were the product of personal weaknesses and the other, perhaps, symptoms of an early onset of Alzheimer’s disease.  Three presidents (Monroe, Eisenhower and Nixon) faced serious domestic turmoil that threatened the unity of the country or the prestige of the government. 

What will President Obama face?  It will be interesting how the French action in Mali will play itself out.  The French and President Hollande have weighed into a situation, the likes of which I thought they learned their lessons from Algeria and Viet Nam.  Yet, the Mali people need help and absent American leadership, who used to direct these sorts of things, the French and the African Union are, for the moment, going at it alone.  It remains to be seen just how far the president is willing to push his Pacific strategy and emphasis but dealing with China and keeping them in check will remain a problematic objective.  Worst of all, the president will continue to deal with insolent Iran and an impending conflagration when Israel loses faith in the U.S. to prevent nuclear proliferation.   

On the domestic front, the president will face the ramifications of his Affordable Care Act.  Nancy Pelosi said we will not know how it will play out until it is in place but once that happens, the unforeseen consequences will be a struggle with which the president will have to contend.  The economy poses an ongoing threat to his domestic policies and the president will be plagued with concern about how the Americans respond.  The gun issue, to the anti-gun crowd, seems self-evident and they often speak as if they are incredulous that anyone would disagree with them.  However, the National Rifle Association is growing in membership and money in light of the president’s anti-gun policy and especially in light of the Newtown massacre.  While opinion inside the beltway seems incontrovertible, beyond lies a different story. 

Will President Obama avoid the pitfalls of presidents past?  History would suggest not.  However, the president’s second term is, to an extent, in his hands.  How well will he work with Republicans?  How well will he be able to control his own party, particularly those in Congress, and get them on board with his policies?  How well will Mr. Obama’s new cabinet meld into their new jobs?  How proactive will he be on those issues unfolding overseas?  As an American, I hope for the best.  As an historian, I know the deck is stacked.

 

Go West Redux

My love is in league with the freeway/Its passion will ride, as the cities fly by
And the tail-lights dissolve, in the coming of night/And the questions in thousands take flight
            Robert Plant, Big Log

Driving appeals to me on a level that, on the surface, is difficult to explain.  Americans have a yearning to drive and have always had a fascination with cars and the miles they cover.  I have friends from Europe who do not see the attraction of driving and are surprised at the distances we will traverse simply to go to work.  On vacation, Americans pack the kids and the car and head off to destinations far and wide.  I will travel hours to reach a quiet respite to pitch a tent and enjoy nature.  However, from the advent of the automobile, Americans have sought far away ports of call and I am infected by our national wanderlust.  With this article, I’d like to explain my fascination with driving. 

The most attractive aspect of driving on the open road is the feeling of control.  On a plane or in a car with someone else driving, I’m on edge and cannot truly relax.  However, behind the wheel, I control the speed, the direction and the purpose.  Seldom in life do we experience such a level of control.  The other drivers are a problem but on the open road, away from the cities and the small avenues cutting through congested neighborhoods, even this obstacle is minimized.  Our entire lives are in pursuit for control and when driving, it can be quite a heady experience.

A second aspect to driving pangs at an instinct that takes up back to the beginnings of our country – exploration.  The highways and interstates compel us to confront those things that make regions, states and towns unique.  Granted, in these days, it is difficult to find the distinctive but they are there.  The feeling of exploration in a day when so much is known to us is a challenging thing to stumble across.  Yet, the power that driving holds for me is that, indeed, there is something to be discovered and experienced.  I’m envious when I read stories of long ago heroes and adventurers climbing and traversing virgin territory.  When I joined the military, part of my excitement for my time there was in the adventure.  I believe that we, as a society, need the unknown to push us and demand more from ourselves. 

Lastly, I grew up in a state that was and is densely populated and covered by trees or concrete.  In contrast, the wide open plains dissected by the highways are an exhilarating experience.  I once took a drive from Denver to Kansas City, across the center of the Sunflower State.  Kansas, for all of its attributes, does not strike the casual observer as terribly exciting or interesting.  However, for myself, the openness and the lack of population is evidence of times past.  I’ve told many of my friends of that drive across Kansas.  I hit the border of Colorado and Kansas around four in the morning.  I pulled over and realized, with no cars, no nearby towns and only the road suggesting modernity, I had traveled back in time.  I laid on the hood of my car and took in my surroundings.  The dark sky with its bright stars was clear to see.  The wind intertwined with the grains of grass, wheat and other crops around me as distant houses could barley been seen.  It was the same sensation I felt on board a ship while in the military, staring out into days and days of open water.  There is nothing like the feeling of inconsequence.  As much as control is a part of the experience, the scale of my existence in the face of such wide open places is telling.

This summer, I'm driving to California and will confront the majesty of the Rocky Mountains and the desolation of the western deserts.  I will be at the wheel and the world will be before and around me.  I will take the trip that Americans have since the early 1800s.  I will experience the expanse of the plains and the desolation of the desert, the awe of the mountains and the exhilaration of viewing the coastal waters.  In an 1865 editorial of the New York Tribune, writer Horace Greely advised, “Go West, young man, go West and grow up with the country.”  This summer, I will have my chance to follow the advice as sound today as it was in the 19^th-century. 

The Business of Deception

As a history teacher, if there is one group of people that annoy me the most…well, annoy might be a strong word…it is conspiracy theorists.  I take my profession seriously and as a historian, I feel a certain obligation to be as accurate and objective as it is possible for me to be.  For most subjects, there is plenty to read and to turn to in order to obtain a better understanding of history.  For a handful of other subjects, the dearth of primary sources is an obstacle to painting a complete picture.  While trained and respectable historians see a scarcity of evidence as a responsibility to speculate with measure, others see it as a chance to build themselves up and muddy the waters.  Entering from stage left are the conspiracy theorists. 

That is not to say that conspiracy theorists cannot be entertaining – a convoluted megillah filled with menacing foreign spies, dull-witted and easily duped/manipulated American agents, unsuspecting and innocent civilian casualties, people who hang in shadows and others who work in plain sight.  What makes conspiracy theories so enticing is that they are so titillating and ultimately, a great deal more interesting than the truth.  In a society that is increasingly addicted to entertainment, we see the truth as mundane and look to the salacious or unsustainable as more “interesting.”  While, as Occam’s Razor suggests, the simplest answer is usually correct, people have made a great deal out of peddling the historical “smut.”   

Some of the most common characteristics of conspiracy theorists begin with disconnected lines of thought, put together has if they are connected.  One of the most famous examples of this is the highly entertaining and masterfully done JFK, Oliver Stone’s jumble of theories as to the cause of John F. Kennedy’s assassination.  The blending of real and fabricated black and white scenes was designed to fuse reality and fiction for the viewer.  The result?  I had a bunch of high school students who swore they now knew who was responsible for President Kennedy’s death.   

There is also a use of “facts” – a plethora of “facts” – that are designed to show an incontrovertible mastery of the situation.  People will usually believe those who are confident in their message, regardless of its validity.  Conspiracy theorists are also known for the citing of a myriad of sources, yet few of them are legitimate journalists or historians.  Most of them are fringe personalities that are just as radical and misguided as those who quote them.  Again, with each of these characteristics, they are hoping that the show of knowledge and expertise will convince when a close inspection of their information would not hold.  There is also a certain amount of narcissism – only they have the real truth.  It is part of the neurosis that pushes them to try and sell the lie.   

Likely the biggest, most recent examples of the conspiracy tendency are the Kennedy assassination and the attacks of September 11.  With most conspiracy theorists, there is a conflicting foundation for most of their arguments – one, the government is hypervigilant and capable of maintaining secrets and organizing deception at multifarious and duplicitous levels to keep their actions hidden but two, there is a plethora of evidence to suggest the dark deeds and collusion of the government.  The two seldom go hand in hand but these two assumptions are at the heart of conspiracy theorists. 

As a historian, I understand that sometimes, the truth will never be known and I must be ok with that idea.  However, as long as people struggle with the unknown, conspiracy theorists will thrive and prosper.  Instead, I try to teach my students the value of research and the assessment of a legitimate and not so legitimate sources.  There is a process, a time-honored one, that historians and students of history have followed to discover the past.  The absence of information is not a license to make up evidence.  Our job is to find the truth, not to ensure we will like the truth.  Historical truth is defined by what can be proven.  I also tell my students to beware of false prophets – the conspiracy theorists.  Some of these folks do not know better and others have agendas but all represent a threat to our national story and legacy.