Contrary to popular belief (a cliche heard at "hastily called press conferences"), I do not ordinarily slip egregious errors into this column to generate paroxysms of outrage from the Gotcha! Gang. Once in awhile I do, just to see if the gimlet-eyed readership is on the ball. (Calm down; when you're using "a while" as a noun phrase preceded by prepositions like "in" or "for," write it as two words. But when you need it as an adverb to modify a verb, use the one-word "awhile." Mnemonic: Once in a while, relax awhile.)
"After uncovering the spider hole," said Lieutenant-General Ricardo Sanchez at his news conference on Dec. 14 last year announcing the capture of Saddam Hussein, "a search was conducted ... the spider hole is about 6 to 8 feet deep and allows enough space for a person to lie down inside of it."
Hot on a Sunday deadline, I turned to the Google search engine for earlier usages and breathlessly informed readers that the phrase sure to become famous was "Army lingo from the Vietnam era."
Too quick a call. As 180 Gotcha! Gangsters gleefully pointed out to me, both my etymology (study of origins of words) and my entomology (study of bugs) were incorrect.
Though the term was used frequently in the Vietnam War, it apparently (now I'm careful) was first used in its current sense in the Pacific theater of World War II.
"The Japanese did it a lot at Okinawa and Iwo Jima," observes Colonel Charles Payne, professor of military history at Virginia Tech, adding that Special Operations forces today would call a hole dug in the ground a "hide position." The technique is hardly new -- in the battle of Crecy in 1346, French archers popped out of their holes to ambush the English cavalry -- but we are more interested in the origin of the phrase.
Let us not be misled by the blanket weaving of Navajo women described in 1930 by Dane and Mary Roberts Coolidge: "They always left the spider-hole in the middle of each blanket, like the hole in the center of a spider web." In the sense Sanchez had in mind, earliest citation so far comes in from Barry Popik of New York. A Washington Post photo caption dated Jan. 16, 1941, reads, "Soldiers at Camp Ord ... here demonstrate the Army's new `spider hole' method of hiding a soldier."
In 1984, A Dictionary of Soldier Talk defined the term as "small, concealed firing positions from which snipers emerge to shoot at patrolling troops" -- now here comes the entomology -- "probably from the ingenious lair of the Trapdoor Spider, which darts from its hold to snatch unwary prey." This is the insect-eating spider of the family Ctenizidae that builds a silk-lined burrow concealing a hinged lid. Joe Cline of Charlotte, North Carolina, adds that the hiding-place name that Sanchez used was derived from "the lair of the trap-door spider, which waits for prey in a small hole in the ground, covered with a lid (made from spider silk, I believe) to conceal the predator."
The difference between military spider holes and foxholes (in which the Army chaplain William Cummings famously said there were no atheists) is this: the lid, or cover of concealment. The foxhole is shallower, dug for temporary self-protection; the spider hole is for an offensive or suicidal mission. "One could quibble," e-mails Bentley Orrick, "that what Saddam was skulking in was more of a one-man bunker than a spider hole, since it was a hiding place and not a firing position. But it definitely had a camouflaged trap door." Not quite; a trap door is hinged, and the lid to Saddam's lair was not, but one need not quibble.
The Army locution was immediately seized upon by politicians and comedians.
"Howard Dean has climbed into his own spider hole of denial," said the Democratic candidate Joe Lieberman, "if he believes that the capture of Saddam Hussein has not made America safer." And the humorist Marsk Russell observed that "Saddam crawled out of his spider hole, saw his shadow, and that forecast four more years of Bush."
Hair-shirt hell
A few more of last year's goofs need straightening out.
I wrote that the Supreme Court's willingness to hear an appeal of a decision permitting discovery of an energy task force's files "augers ill for government in the sunshine." An auger is a bit; to augur is to foretell. George Washington wrote that General Charles Pinckney's appointment "augers [sic] well of the aid that may be expected of his services." Safire slept there, too.
On the analogy of S.J. Perelman's firm of Whitelipt and Trembling, I wrote of the law partnership of "Nasty, Brutal and Short." Todd Mariano gotcha'd me with the quote from Hobbes' Leviathan about "the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."
Bashing the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, I wrote, "Bashar lied in Colin Powell's face last year." Jane Acheson, present at the creation of McGraw Hill's College Division, gently pointed out that I should have written lied to his face, not in his face. As I started to wish that my too, too solid flesh would melt, Hamlet's voice came through to me: "Who calls me villain/Tweaks me by th' nose, gives me the lie i' th' throat/As deep as to the lungs?" A lie in the throat.
A Google search shows lied to one's face is used three times more often than lie in one's face.
That places my usage in a respectable minority, with no correction needed. I forgive Google for shortchanging me on spider hole, though I suppose if I had entered "tarantulas" the etymon would have popped up and grabbed me.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That