The expression is used to describe someone who is inconsistent. Charles Dunk explains in his book “A Hog on Ice & Other Curious Expressions” that the expression comes from one of Aesop’s fables. A satyr “…comes upon a traveler in winter who is blowing on his fingers.” The traveler explains he is doing that to warm his fingers. The satyr then offers the traveler hot soup, and the man blows on it. When asked whether the soup is not hot enough, the man explains he is trying to cool it. The satyr orders the man to leave with the admonition, “I will have no dealings with one who can blow hot and cold from the same mouth.”
Colorado Criminal Verdicts and the Death Penalty
There have been guilty verdicts in two horrific crimes in Colorado not resulting in the death penalty that has caused the Denver Post to publish editorials questioning that penalty. The first crime involved a gunman (I won’t dignify him by giving his name) who set off tear gas grenades and shot into a crowded movie audience with multiple firearms. He killed 12, including a 6 year old girl, and wounded 70. He passively allowed himself to be arrested. The jury did not buy his insanity plea and convicted him of murder. However, the jury could not reach a unanimous decision that his penalty should be death, and he was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The sentence actually was one life sentence for each person he killed and an additional 3,318 years for those he wounded and rigging his apartment with explosives. He apparently had wanted to kill those he knew would respond to his actions while they searched his apartment.
The other case involved the stabbing death of five people in a Denver bar followed by arson to destroy evidence. The motive for the crimes was a robbery that resulted in the theft of $170 dollars and resulted in five dead stabbing victims. Two brothers pled guilty to the crimes. One was sentenced to 70 years in prison and the other was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. The third man accused was tried for murder, and the prosecution sought the death penalty. The jury was once again unable to reach the unanimous verdict of death required to impose that penalty.
Denver Post editorials have questioned whether there is any logical basis for the death penalty if these two horrific crimes do not qualify. What crime could he sufficiently horrific to qualify them for the death penalty if these two crimes did not? The most recent editorial presents the opinion, “The death penalty in Colorado has effectively expired.”
Jurors in both cases had testified during selection that they could impose the death penalty. Either they were less than honest (i.e., they lied), or they were influenced by the killer’s mental state in the first case and the abuse of the second killer as a child. I assure those making future jury selections that I would be willing to sentence someone to death if deserved by their crimes. My reasoning is simple. Behave as a human being and be protected from the death sentence. Behave inhumanely and suffer the consequences. I think both the theatre shooter and the bar murderer behaved inhumanely and escaped the logical circumstances, although I freely admit I did not listen to the full body of evidence in lengthy trials presented to those who decided otherwise.
Prisoner B-3087
This book was recommended to me by a granddaughter from her summer school reading list. It is a fictional account by Alan Gratz based on a true story told by Ruth and Jack Gruener of a young Jewish boy in living in Poland when the Nazis invaded and begin imprisoning Jews to either use them as forced laborers or to execute them. The dust cover of the book mentions that the boy “…encounters evil he could never have imagined, but also sees surprising glimpses of hope amid the horror.” The book recounts innumerable examples of evil, but I’m hard pressed to think of more than a very few events that would give anyone a “glimpse of hope.” The book documents countless Nazi atrocities and the extraordinary will to live that was required to survive despite conditions that would make most want to die to escape. The book is dedicated “For Jack, who survived.”
The story begins with a ten year old boy and his Jewish family living comfortably in Krakow, Poland. The boy’s Polish name was Yanek, but the family called him Jakob. Everyone realized Jews were being threatened because of Hitler’s comments about the “Jewish menace,” and making statements such as, “The Jews must disappear from Europe.” Hitler had already annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia and the British and French had declared war against Germany. The ominous conversation one evening was about the German invasion of Poland. Jakob’s father dismissed the threat with, “Mark my words: This war won’t last more than six months.” Only six days after the beginning of the invasion there was an announcement on the radio, “Ladies and gentlemen, we interrupt this broadcast with the news that the German army has reached Krakow.” German soldiers escorted by their panzers soon filled the streets. Continue reading
Dead Ships and Dead Ducks
Funny label for wine
Grammar-monster defines “dead in the water” as a nautical term meaning to have no momentum or chance of progression.
Answers.yahoo doesn’t find the origin either, calling it a colloquialism.
Good old Phrase Finder offers “all the pre-1829 citations I can find of that phrase are literal references to things (fish etc.) that are in the water and dead,” but doesn’t mention the first metaphorical use.
The site diverted me to a phrase with a more explicit origin. The term “dead duck” is called an “old saying” but first found printed in the New York Courier in June, 1829:
“There is an old saying ‘never waste powder on a dead duck’; but we cannot avoid flashing away a few grains upon an old friend, Henry Clay.”
Citizenship Tests for Citizens
The subject for this commentary was from a magazine in a doctor’s office waiting room. Doctors seldom see patients on time, but they do often have a good collection of old magazines.
The Bloomberg article I read centered on how Americans are becoming less and less educated. Late night comedians have been having much fun exposing how little citizens know about their country. I don’t find it funny. One of the highest achievements by citizens was that three fourths of U.S. citizens tested knew that the declaration of independence was against England. Of course that means one fourth had no clue. A third of those tested couldn’t name a single branch of government and three fourths had no idea why the Civil War was fought. Most high school students are required to take a civics class, but only 27 percent “…demonstrated proficiency in the subject…” in 2010.
A movement has developed to require high school students to pass the same citizenship test given to immigrants. Arizona and North Dakota have adopted the requirement with 19 other states considering it. The driving force behind the movement is that “…ignorance has never been an excuse for failing a test in high school—on civics, chemistry, or anything else.”
The federal government’s citizenship test has basic questions about U.S. history and government. “Each year, more than half a million immigrants take the test and pass to become citizens. A survey in 2012 found 65 percent of U.S. citizens tested passed by answering six of ten questions correctly.”
My cynicism is exposed by my thought that the number of people passing the test would undoubtedly improve if it was required before someone is allowed to register to be on the social media sites.
The Nuclear Jihadist
I was surprised at how much I struggled at finishing this book by Douglas Franz and Catherine Collins. The long subtitle for the book is “The True Story of the Man Who Sold the World’s Most Dangerous Secrets…And How We Could Have Stopped Him.” The dust cover description could substitute for reading the full book. Pakistani’s Abdul Qadeer Khan is described as the “…father of the Islamic bomb, a research scientist who stole European nuclear plans, masterminded Pakistan’s successful atomic program, and then established a network of smuggling technology and blueprints to other countries seeking nuclear capabilities. Intelligence authorities (including especially the U.S.) watched Khan for decades and could have stopped him before Pakistan became a nuclear power, but amazingly, our political leaders consciously chose to watch, wait, and concentrate on what they believed to be more immediate strategic priorities.” I’m struggling to explain why I did not find the book compelling reading. The subject matter was something that I should have found interesting and the book seems very well researched. Perhaps I was just put off by the ineffectiveness of the world’s anti-nuclear proliferation efforts to stop a corrupt man who developed a massive network of associates driven by the quest for lucrative profits.
“Khan started down the nuclear path as a patriot, stealing secret European nuclear designs out of determination to protect his country from its archrival, India. After playing a central role in developing Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, he shifted course and employed his global network to sell those same nuclear secrets to some of the most repressive regimes in the world, transforming himself into a nuclear jihadist devoted to payback for real and imagined grievances suffered by Muslims around the world. In the process, Khan grew arrogant, corrupt, powerful, operating with impunity as he amassed a fortune from his black-market deals.” Khan’s network is described as providing technology for enriching uranium and design information for building a nuclear weapon from the enriched material to Libya, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. There were other possible customers including Saudi Arabia. I didn’t find explanation for how he acquired the weapon design information except that it was referred to at least twice as being from a warhead design used in a 1996 Chinese missile test. The CIA learned of Khan in 1975 when it learned he “…had stolen top-secret plans for the latest uranium enrichment technology and taken them home to Pakistan.” The CIA seemed to be more interested in the countries willing to buy from Khan rather than wanting to take action to stop the spread of nuclear technology he was willing to sell. Continue reading