Bridge of Spies

Posted on by

bridge-of-spiesThis is a wonderful book that describes what is portrayed in the current movie with the same title starring Tom Hanks . I thought Mark Raylance’s portrayal of Soviet spy Rudolph Abel stole the spotlight from Hanks, who was admirable in portraying James Donovan. Donovan was the lawyer who defended Abel and later was the intermediary who arranged the swap of U-2 pilot Gary Francis Powers for Abel and Frederic Pryor, a hapless young intellectual who was snared in Cold War politics.

An interesting aspect of the book is how Powers was treated after he had taken the risk of flying over the Soviet Union to take photographs of secret military facilities. John F. Kennedy as a candidate for Presidency of the United States had successfully used the “missile gap” as a campaign issue against Richard Nixon. The planned Powers flight would have delivered the evidence that the Soviets in fact only had four ICBMs. Powers and his U-2 were shot down instead of presenting the evidence that would have disputed Kennedy’s campaign rhetoric. Kennedy “…promised as a candidate to close a ‘missile gap’ that did not exist and declined to meet Powers on his return to the United States.”

A fascinating bit of theory for dedicated “Conspiracy Theorists” is that the Power’s mission was intended to fail. Eisenhower and Khrushchev had intended to launch a new era of détente until Powers and his U-2 was shot out of the skies. The Paris summit was wrecked and “…threw into high gear the arms race that took the world to the brink of nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 and did not end until the collapse of the Soviet empire nearly three decades later. From the moment Powers was reported missing, there were well-places skeptics on both sides of the cold war who suspected that his entire mission had been planned to fail, and in doing so to prevent the outbreak of superpower peace. It is a theory that lingers to this day.”

The real name of the spy who is the central character in the drama was William Fisher, and he had been born in Britain. There is no doubt he was a brilliant man, since he could speak five languages and was a math genius. “Fisher’s main task was to rebuild the Soviet spy network in America. Perhaps the most interesting part of the Fisher story is that he was completely ineffective as a spy. “There is no evidence that Fisher recruited any useful agents who have not been identified or transmitted any significant intelligence by those who have been. This did not stop both sides colluding in the creation of the legend of Willie Fisher—by another name—as the most effective Soviet spy of the cold war.”  The “Fisher myth” was perpetuated by Soviet officials because he became famous for his loyalty and refusal to betray the USSR to gain personal benefits. Continue reading →

Keep a Weather Eye Out

Posted on by

goat.svg.medI was uncertain if the “weather” in this phrase referred to storms or to the wise old goat that sheep cluster around.

It refers to storms – the origin is nautical, but the definition seems to be changing.

A wiktionary discussion says the phrase is “unanimously” used to mean to watch something intently since it may cause trouble. But the commenter claims the original nautical meaning is to keep half an eye on something while engaged in other tasks.

A number of definition sources are cited that are ambiguous – simply saying to be on guard or alert.

The commenter tries to prove his case by logic – hardly conclusive when it comes to phrases!

dictionary.com includes one dated citation, though it may not be the earliest:

“Only I feel it my duty to say this to you—keep your weather-eye open.”

Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine, Volume 67, No. 411, January 1850

At least I know it’s not a goat.

GMO Salmon Approved

Posted on by

An editorial in the Denver Post announce that the Food and Drug Administration had “…finally conceded the unavoidable scientific reality: AquaBounty Technologies’ genetically engineered Atlantic salmon is safe for human consumption. The salmon has been genetically modified with genes from two other fish that allows it to grow more quickly. In a world needing food, it would seem that a fish that grows to larger sizes would be a good thing. But then there is the drumbeat of vilification of anything GMO to be considered. Should people be willing to eat “…the first GMO animal approved in the U.S.?”

“The answer depends on whether they believe the scientific consensus on GMO foods, which is that they are safe to eat. And it also depends on whether consumers think GMO foods have a role to play in feeding a world whose population is growing.” I think the answer to the second question is crucial. I’ll phrase it differently. Do we think it is better to let people to starve than to offer them genetically modified foods that provide food to more people?

There was a poll about the Post editorial that said sixty percent of those responding would not eat the GMO salmon. Apparently the Food and Drug Administration and the Post opinion that the salmon are completely safe hasn’t convinced the majority, or at least the majority of those who responded to the poll.

Crow Killer

Posted on by

crow-killerThis is one of the books recommended to me by a Great Nephew who is studying to be a high school history teacher. The subtitle of the book, “The Saga of Liver-Eating Johnson” by Raymond W. Thorp and Robert Bunker provides a hint about the descriptions of brutality. I’ve often said flippantly that one of my favorite moves is Jeremiah Johnson because it was a role for Robert Redford in which he seldom spoke. The first observation is that the book refers to John Johnson or John Johnston in Veteran’s Administration records. I don’t recall reading Jeremiah anywhere in the book. The book was published in 1983, and I wonder whether it could be published in the world of today with the radically racist language and many instances of complete disrespect to Native Americans (called Indians throughout) attributed to Johnson and other “mountain men.” The terms “red coons” and “red n…..s” (I decided to not even type that one) are used freely. Johnson and others were willing to act savagery toward hostiles, apparently because that was what was expected by “…the code of the mountain man.” There are several references to shooting foes in a manner that disabled but didn’t kill and then mutilating them before they died and then were decapitated so that their heads could be displayed on stakes. It was taken for granted that foes would be scalped either alive or dead.

The Foreword describes that the sources for the stories were primarily “Del” Gue and White-Eye Anderson (who apparently had one white eyebrow). It’s made clear that the myths about Johnson probably based on enough facts to cause them to spread. However, the mountain men were proud of their ability to embellish stories. The book is described as “…the personal history of Liver-Eating Johnson from 1847 to his death in 1900, pieced from oral legend.” One fact that stands out is that Johnson was a large and powerful man who could break a man’s neck with his hands. He is frequently described as being able to crush a man with a kick. He is even described as fighting off both a grizzly bear and a mountain lion with a frozen leg he had earlier wrenched off a Blackfoot. Even his horses were legendary. “Crow Killer’s big black watched over his master, scented Indians, and allowed none but his master near him.” Continue reading →

Dry Behind the Ears

Posted on by

This expression is often preceded with “not even,” and it originated in describing a new born farm animal.  According to Charles Earle Funk in “A Hog on Ice & Other Curious expressions it is used to describe someone who is “As innocent and unsophisticated as a babe.” That would be an animal that is still new enough to have moisture in the depression behind the ears or a person who is incredibly naïve.

Fracking Update

Posted on by

I thought of using a tongue-in-cheek title, “The Science is Settled: Fracking Doesn’t Endanger Groundwater.” A recent Denver Post editorial titled “More study, same result on fracking” had a subtitle “Hydraulic fracturing isn’t poisoning water supplies.” I commend the Post for the content of the editorial and the fact they even recognize the actual name of the technology is “hydraulic fracturing.” I believe “fracking” has been substituted by opponents of the process because it sounds “dirty.” Getting my personal opinions out of the way early, I also believe the reason for the continued assault on the process is based on the fact that it has resulted in an abundance of relatively inexpensive natural gas. The “dream children” of anti-oil and gas activists want (completely unrealistically) the only source of energy to be wind and solar. Inexpensive natural gas has gotten in the way of that dream. Inexpensive natural gas that also has reduced the United States totals of carbon dioxide emissions, and oponents are willing to do anything they can to vilify hydraulic fracturing. That starts with giving the process a “dirty” name.

I recommend reading the entire Post editorial, which says studies by Yale University and Colorado State University both found no evidence of groundwater contamination caused by hydraulic fracturing. There was the finding of the inevitable contamination of surface spills and methane seepage in two percent of the wells from compromised well casings. The comment about methane reminded me of a friend who asked about the videos on the Internet that shows people lighting their well water and equating it to hydraulic fracturing. Those have been debunked as evidence people have drilled their wells into natural gas pockets that are around coal seams. Of course natural gas from those pockets will burn, but the opponents of hydraulic fracturing don’t seem to care that their claim is bogus. Once on the Internet, always on the Internet, regardless of accuracy.

The closing paragraph of the editorial that inspired this commentary refers to the evidence that hydraulic fracturing hasn’t been shown to cause groundwater contamination and the resistance to that information from opponents. “Such reports haven’t seemed to matter to the green anti-fracking groups that continue to trumpet the alleged dangers to drinking water from oil and gas drilling. But the reports at least ought to reassure the public, which is often caught between wildly divergent claims over fracking, on this one area of bitter contention.”

It is a great editorial, and you should click on the link if you are interested in the subject. I especially suggest that for those who have been influenced to be “anti-fracking.” I don’t expect to change your mind, but perhaps you will intelligently begin to consider that the “science has been settled that fracking is not evil.” As a closing note, I detest the term, “the science is settled.” Science never stops evaluating evidence regardless of the subject.