Horse Heads And Other Collectibles

This is a true story. I've never lied to you during this post so far, have I? A decade or two ago I had just gotten home from an extremely hot and tiring day spent working on air conditioners when I got this funny cartoon inside my head. At that time I was a huge fan of the ever popular Far Side comic strip. I was religious about it. Services were held every Thursday evening at 7 pm. So this cartoon had a picture of the devil tormenting prisoners in hell and two guys were just sitting on a booth outside his office. In this single frame of a cartoon we see two rather haggard characters dripping with sweat from the heat and the flames and we see one man looking at the other and simply saying, "It's not the heat that gets to you. It's the humidity." I almost choked on my macaroni and cheese I was laughing so loud. My wife just looked at me in that odd and peculiar way and was probably glad she didn't know what I was laughing about. Growing up in our little oasis known as west central Illinois, the humidity can become unbearable on summer days. Sweat will just soak your shirt and it's not uncommon to see someone take their vehicle and drive over a fire hydrant just to feel the cool stream of water gush forth from it. It gets hot. Growing up I remember my father on more than one occasion saying that line. "It's not the heat that gets to you. It's the humidity." So, after a long day full of sweat from the humidity I got this funny visual of a Far Side cartoon with the two guys stuck in hell and the nonchalant way of expressing the uncomfortable condition created by humidity. Sure, there was flames dancing around and 1000+ degree heat but it's the humidity. No one could have blamed me for the Pepsi spraying out of my nose. I never actually submitted this idea to Gary Larson but he retired a few years later so I never really got the chance. It only made sense in the Hell setting. I tried it with two cows standing in a pasture leaning against a fence but it just didn't seem as funny. But I digress.... So today I'm reading my Blinkfeed on my phone (if you don't know what that is it's okay - I'm still not sure and I look at it every morning in the bathroom) and I'm reading a heading to an article about a hit man who is going to testify about the murders he committed in the trial against a mob boss. So, the question arose in my subconscious and eventually made it to the permanent part of my conscious. Who is worse? The man who pulls the trigger or the man who orders the man to pull the trigger? The man who pulls the trigger is just following orders but is doing it for purely financial gain. He really has no emotional attachment to the victim so it would seem a purely heartless thing to do. There is no motive other than payment. Now the mob boss who orders the hit has a lot invested in killing the victim. Whatever the reasons there is probably some emotional ones involved as well as revenge. Or perhaps it's just business and the mob boss has no real emotional attachment involved with the killing of the victim. So why is one man getting leniency while the other gets tried for ordering the hit? Isn't the man who pulls the trigger guilty of the worse action? Or is the mob boss more guilty because he's paying for the deed to be done? The answer is a complex one filled with cloudiness and haziness and craziness. Who is worse? My own opinion is they should both apologize profusely and expect the same punishment. One man should not hold the fate of a worse conviction over the other because of a willingness to testify. Does the testimony, which is used as evidence, perhaps the only evidence which ties the second man to the murder, invalidate the full punishment of the first man? In the big scheme of things should one man's words bring about a shorter term of punishment? Is a plea deal a justifiable reason to shorten or absolve in any way the punishment of the man who made the final choice to murder another human being? Isn't that in the territory of God's final judgement on each one who is guilty? What if the mob boss orders a final hit on the hit man and the hit man, because he testified, dies as a punishment? Is this enough of a punishment for the hit man? In the end, the hit man and the mob boss will face a final punishment. At least that's what I believe. There is a final authority more astute in rendering such a judgement. But in their lifetimes, while still alive, under the laws of man, is either man any less guilty or deserving of a lesser punishment because one was lured into testifying with the promise of less punishment and without a sincerity of regret or remorse? Is that the lesson for those seeking justice for the loss of their loved one? In the end both men will probably suffer in eternity from the heat and humidity. But they also may have the company of a couple of lawyers who brokered a deal and the company of a judge who allowed a travesty of justice. We are mere mortals qualified to only wonder. My name is Rueuhy and I approve this blog.