Everyday Mysteries has an extensive and interesting discussion about possible origins of this expression. It mentions that an often quoted incorrect source was that the animals would huddle in thatched roofs during storms and be washed out. The roofs were water resistant and sloped to allow water to run off. The animals would have to be on the top of the roof, and that is an unlikely place to seek shelter.
Author Archives: advocate
Atomic Obsession: Nuclear Alarmism from Hiroshima to Al-Qaeda
The front flap of John Mueller’s book begins with, “Ever since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the prospect of nuclear annihilation has haunted the modern world. And since September 11, 2001 the view that nuclear terrorism is the most serious threat to security of the United State or, for that matter, of the world has been virtually universal.” The author then goes to great lengths to say the risks have been exaggerated… Chapter 5 begins with “Although nuclear weapons seem to have had at most a quite limited substantive impact on actual historical evens…they had a tremendous influence on our agonies and obsessions.” The antinuclear movement is mentioned as an example of the agonies and obsessions.
The author says in the Preface he wanted the book to be a remedy for insomnia and that the purpose is to put to rest “…excessive anxiety about nuclear weapons.” Many others have created anxiety with warnings about al Qaeda acquiring nuclear bombs and the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran. There were similar warnings about China, India, and Pakistan, but no calamity has yet resulted by those nations joining the “nuclear club.”
Part 1 is about the effects of nuclear weapons. “Beyond doubt, nuclear weapons are the most effective devices ever fabricated for killing vast numbers of people…” However, Part 2 discusses why nuclear weapons have had an exaggerated role in international politics. The author repeatedly mentions the enormous financial and resource costs in development of massive arsenals in the United States, the former Soviet Union, and other countries that would have been better spent on other ventures.
Risks from radiation that would be released by a “dirty bomb” are exaggerated because “…ghoulish copy sells.” The greatest risk would be caused by the panic by people who have been inculcated that even traces of radioactive materials are deadly. About 20 percent of the general population will develop cancer, and people in the area where a “dirty bomb” is exploded will have a barely measurable increase in risk. Chernobyl raised the risk of thyroid cancer, but the risk of other cancers was increased by less than one percentage point with no increase in birth defects. (I expect some readers will object to this statement and many others from the book.)
There is interesting information postulating that the Soviets never wanted to see World War III; the memories of the horrors and massive losses of World War II told them another world war was to be avoided. “Indeed, three central rules for Soviet leaders were ‘avoid adventures, do not yield to provocation, and know when to stop’.” They did know when to stop during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Khrushchev said there was not a single person among the Communist leaders who believed that the Soviets “…could defeat the United States, or that we were seriously preparing for a nuclear war with the United States. No one, as far as I know, had this absurd notion.” The United States demonstrated its manufacturing might to the Soviets during World War II by supplying them with hundreds of thousands of military vehicles, millions of boots, and “…over one-half pound of food for every Soviet soldier for every day of the war (much of it Spam).”
Some countries that had nuclear weapons decided to not keep them. South Africa dismantled theirs after deciding they were more trouble than they were worth. Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan sent the weapons in their countries back to Russia after the Soviet Union collapsed. The Ukraine in particular wanted no part of nuclear weapons with the memories of Chernobyl. Libya terminated its nuclear weapons development program when it noticed the ease with which Iraqi military was defeated.
I bogged down because of the redundancies in the book, but became reenergized by Chapter 10 titled “Costs of the Proliferation Fixation,” and Iraq takes center stage. Economic sanctions imposed against Iraq over many years did little to weaken Saddam Hussein. However they did result in “…hundreds of thousands of deaths in the country, most of them children under the age of five…” Madeleine Albright, the Ambassador to the United Nations, was asked on a 60 Minute show whether it was worth it to have a million children die as the result of sanctions. Albright did not dispute the number and answered, “We think the price is worth it.” She later said she regretted her answer. The comments “…went completely unremarked upon by the country’s media. Osama bin Laden did use the sanctions as a centerpiece of his diatribes against Americans. Several hundred thousand Iraqis would then die in the war that began in 2003 with the premise that an invasion was justified because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. (See the blog posting titled “Which President Lied About Weapons of Mass Destruction?” for more information.)
The policy of punishing countries wanting to build nuclear weapons continues. Sanctions are in place against North Korea where millions of people are now underfed or starving. North Korea was called “the world’s first nuclear-armed, missile-wielding beggar.” They have been able to “…hit the Pacific Ocean several times…” with their missiles. Their policy seems to be more extortion than aggression. Sanctions are increasing against Iran where citizens are also suffering.
Part III titled “The Atomic Terrorist” analyzes whether it is likely al Qaeda or some other terrorist group will be able to acquire and use nuclear weapons. The short answer is that it is quite unlikely. Terrorist wouldn’t be able to arm and use a stolen weapon because of all the safeguards all countries build into their weapons. It is also unlikely that a country would sell weapons to terrorists, since forensics after a blast would easily trace the weapon back to its source. No country would be willing to face the certain response to such an act.
The author gave me pause to be skeptical about the views presented in the book by writing that 85 foreign policy experts were polled on whether there would be a nuclear explosion in the world in the next ten years. They “…concluded on average that there was a 29 percent likelihood…” That doesn’t sound sufficiently unlikely to make me comfortable. The author disagrees. Referring back to his goal of curing insomnia by putting fears to rest, he closes the book by saying most states do not want nuclear weapons and they are out of reach of terrorists. “Sleep well.
There are positions taken by the author which disagree with other sources. He trivializes the effect of Soviet espionage against the U.S. during World War II. I’m guessing he never read about the results of the Venona project, which identified hundreds of Soviet agents in the U.S. government and military. Soviet agents were able to steal information and material that allowed the successful recreation of the Trinity nuclear device. He also writes that North Korea had to convince Stalin about their plans to invade the south. Other books report Stalin demanded the invasion as the North Koreans insisted their forces weren’t ready. All of this reinforces the thoughts of the brilliant person who said “History is interpretive.”
Stick in the Mud
The Phrase Finder says that this expression refers to “A narrow-minded or unprogressive person; one who lacks initiative. I’ve more often heard it used as a put down for someone who isn’t willing to take part in some activity because they think it might be unwise. I recall circumstances where I thought the “stick in the mud” was taking the responsible approach. Regardless, it originated with earlier versions of “stick in the briers, clay, mire, etc. that date back to the mid-1500s. Being stuck in mud was referenced twice in writing in 1733.
After America: Get Ready for Armageddon
This book by Mark Steyn is not for politically correct Liberals. There is humor mixed in with the dire predictions, but a friend said he didn’t finish the book because he tired of the “cutesy humor.”
On the dark side, the author writes, “America has caught up with Europe in the great rush to self destruction.” Financial collapse is predicted to be facilitated by “…hapless, indulgent people who think government has the answer for every problem…” An example of wit amidst the doomsday prophesies is that “Nobody writes a doomsday tome because they want it to come true. From an author’s point of view, the apocalypse is not helpful because the bookstores get looted and the collapse of the banking system makes it harder to cash the royalty check.”
To emphasize the insanity of our government and election process there is an insightful reference to Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado, my home state. Bennett voted for all the “…trillion dollar binges…” He then said “We have managed to acquire $13 billion of debt on our balance sheet. In my view, we have nothing to show for it.” Colorado voters then reelected Bennet. The source of the debt is at least as troubling as the magnitude. “If the People’s Republic (of China) carries on buying American debt at the rate it has in recent times, then within a few years U.S. interest payments on that debt will be covering the entire cost of the Chinese armed forces.”
What did stimulus accomplish? Quite a bit if you were a government employee. At the start of the economic crisis there was one Department of Transportation employee earning more than $170,000 per year. Eighteen months later there were 1,690. “In the year after “stimulus” was passed the private sector had lost 2.5 million jobs and the federal bureaucracy had gained 416,000. In 2009 the average U.S. government employee was earning about $123,000 in salary and benefits while the average American in the private sector was earning a total of about $61,000.
The Chinese might be building a military to challenge America, but they have problems too. The one-child policy means that“…unless it’s planning on becoming the first gay superpower since Sparta, the millions of surplus young men…deprived of female companionship is a recipe either for wrenching social convulsions at home—or for war abroad, the traditional surplus inventory clearance method of great powers.”
I found one nugget of hope for America early in the book. Reports about protests of people who want the government to do more for them have dominated the European news. By comparison, millions of Americans have taken to the streets to tell the government they can do just fine if the government will “…just stay the hell out of my life and my pocket.” (Of course much of the media and some politicians have at a minimum made fun of those protestors, and in some circumstances called them racists.)
The book is filled with disturbing examples of how bureaucracy trumps common sense. It now takes so long for the FDA to approve new drugs that people are dying while they wait for the approval to take the drugs. Cynics are calling the new approval process “…the valley of death.” FEMA sent volunteer firefighters who wanted to help out in the Katrina disaster to Atlanta for diversity training. An inspector prevented a Catholic church from selling homemade pies for a fund raiser unless the volunteer bakers paid $35 dollars apiece to be cleared by a health inspection. On the other side was a woman attending a “federal aid” gathering said she was there to get some money. When asked where the money would come from, she said “Obama money.” When asked the source of the money, she said, “I don’t know. His stash.”
Other disturbing signs of bureaucracy are the examples of emergency workers refusing to rescue people. Police wouldn’t rescue a drowning woman because that was the responsibility of the Fire and Rescue service. Three college students did save her. Police stood watching while a 5 year old girl was trapped in a submerged car, because they were prevented from diving in by safety regulations. A fireman did rescue a drowning girl and was sent to disciplinary investigation. A rescue crew stood by after a person fell into a mine shaft because a recent memo had banned the use of rope equipment. There has also been a loss of chivalry. The rule “women and children first” was mostly followed on the Titanic. When a German ferry sank recently only five percent of the women passengers lived. Forty-three percent of the young men 20 to 24 made it. (Apparently women objecting to doors being held for them has had a negative effect.)
Part of our problem is that high schools are graduating young people who aren’t equipped to do a job. We then send them to years of college to that is costly and ineffective. Testing shows that many college students do not improve their critical thinking skills after two years or even by the time they graduate. The students do accumulate tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt.
The author is quite critical of the manner in which the world has dealt with the issue of Muslim extremism. He points out that there was a time when the Muslim world seemed to be becoming “Westernized,” but the radical Muslims have put an end to that. There was a photo of the Cairo University class of 1978 with every woman bare-headed. The 2004 class photo shows “…every woman hijabed to the hilt.”
The author makes his point about the comparison of private enterprise to the government with a story about a bridge in New Hampshire. The government studied the project for six years and estimated the total cost at $655,000. They estimated the bridge could be completed in another several years and admitted the cost would probably more than double. The town contracted with a private firm to build a bridge that complied with safety requirements for $30,000.
The book often refers to the H.G. Wells book “The Time Machine.” There are references to the elegant and oblivious Eloi who are living happy lives while the Morlocks also happily prey on the Eloi. Time travel is used to emphasize how much changed in the world from 1890 to 1950, and how relatively little technology has been developed since. However, the U.S. government has had massive growth.
The book ends with the observation that people still have a chance to change the path of the country if they would only stop voting for politicians who want more money to increase the size and reach of government. “This is the battle for the “American idea…to reprise the lamest of lame-o-lines—you can do anything you want to do. So do it.”
Wet Behind the Ears
All of the sources I checked agree that this expression refers to someone inexperienced and/or naïve. My favorite explanation of the origin is from American farm language that refers to a foal or calf that is literally still wet behind the ears from the birth.
Common Ground, How to Stop the Partisan War That Is Destroying America
I was attracted to this book because I liked the concept of staunch Conservative Cal Thomas coauthoring a book with staunch Liberal Bob Beckel. However, the book misses the mark. There book predicts a less partisan election campaign in 2008 because Barrack Obama was a likely Democratic candidate, and he was viewed by the authors as a moderate. One passage is that “Senator Barrack Obama has already embraced the call for common ground (and an end to polarization) in his campaign for president…”.
I found it difficult to believe that two such astute political observers could misinterpret by such a wide margin. Mr. Obama was the most liberal Senator when he began his campaign. He followed the standard game plan of campaigning to gain votes from the hard left liberals in the primaries and then portrayed himself as moving to the middle in the Presidential campaign. I believe it is safe to say President Obama has not been the moderate unifier predicted by the authors
I believe the book has value for the analysis of recent political history that has led to radical polarization of the two political parties. The far right and left have both been encouraged by the news media’s thirst for stories of conflict. The book criticizes recent leaders of both parties for contributing to the polarization.
It is also pointed out that JFK was given a free ride on his sexual escapades while other politicians have been forced out for less. There is no holding back on what the book calls “bottom feeders,” and Ann Coulter and Michael Moore are named in that category. They are described as “…polarizers who make money by keeping politics inflamed …” MoveOn.org and Focus on the Family are named as organizations that thrive on polarization. “Polarizers could care less about unity. Indeed, finding common ground and consensus is their worst nightmare, especially for the bottom feeders.”
The authors lay a large portion of blame for the evolution of polarization on voters. Middle American stays home for the primaries while political activists select the candidates for the general election. Politicians are clever enough to try to appeal to their base to gain the nomination. It also doesn’t help that moderate voters are showing up in declining numbers in general elections. For some reason not well explained, the authors predict that polarization is coming to an end. That prediction is, for the present, widely off the mark.
The quotes that lead off the individual chapters are the part of the book I enjoyed the most, and the quote leading off Chapter 3 about the impact of voters is a good example. “Bad officials are elected by good citizens, who do not vote.”
Mr. Beckel and Mr. Thomas give arguments for their Liberal/Conservative positions in the preface to the book. One would think that my Libertarian leanings would make me more sympathetic to the Conservative argument. Not so. I agreed with many of Mr. Thomas’s statements, but give Mr. Beckel credit for what I thought was a better presentation.
One of my favorite descriptions of how partisan polarization is destructive is the McCain/Kennedy immigration bill that attempted to “thread the needle” and begin to solve a very difficult problem. The bill was gathering strong support from both parties, and the Bush White House announced support, “…but Harry Reid was not about to let it pass.” Reid could not allow Bush to get credit for a legislative victory. He used a parliamentary maneuver to delay the bill and talk radio eventually destroyed any hope of the legislation being passed.
The book declares that the designation of Red and Blue states is a myth, because Middle America is in basic agreement on most issues regardless of the section of the country. “To characterize an entire state as Republican or Democrat base on the popular vote to one candidate is absurd.” Ohio was given a red state designation because 50.5 percent voted for George Bush over John Kerry. The red state label has stuck despite the fact Ohio has several Democrats in their congressional delegation. In the quest to “color” states, Ohio should be called a blue state.
The book does give at least a partial answer to the puzzling question as to why blacks are dominantly Democrats despite years of “Jim Crow” laws advocated by that party in the past. “The dramatic shift occurred in 1960 when an overwhelming number of black voters—many loyal to the Republicans since Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation a century earlier—moved their allegiance to the Democrats…President Lyndon Johnson sealed that allegiance by signing the Voting Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, and the 1965 Civil Rights Act.” (Legislation opposed by many Southern Democrats.)
Another interesting cultural observation is that blue-collar workers who voted dominantly Democrat saw their sons go to Vietnam while sons of white-collar workers went to college under draft deferments. Growing opposition to that war has led to the Democrats being the party considered to be soft on commitment to national defense.
President Carter advocated reorganizing and streamlining the government, but the large Democratic margins in the House and Senate resisted along with increased lobbying by Liberal special interest groups. All Carter accomplished was flooding Washington D.C. with lobbyists, and the flood hasn’t diminished. Challenges to Carter and then to Ford by their own parties resulted in the political extremists becoming more dominant and moderates becoming more irrelevant. Winston Churchill said, “Some men change their parties for the sake of principles; others their principles for the sake of their party.” An unknown author offered the opinion, “Why pay money to have your family tree traced; go into politics and your opponents will do it for you.”
There is an interesting reminder of the Clinton’s taking up health care as their first priority. The famous “Harry and Louise” commercials showing a couple talking about how the proposed bill would hurt them was instrumental in killing it.
The book was worth reading to find the passage about George McGovern opening an inn after he lost the 1980 election. He said in a Wall Street Journal interview, “…if he had known how difficult it was to run a business, he might have voted differently while in Congress.”
However, the book reminds me in the closing pages how wrong the authors viewed Obama. “Senator Barrack Obama’s message in his presidential campaign is closer, so far, to a common ground message than that of any other candidate in either party.” Cal Thomas does give a warning. “I like Obama’s language, but I want to make sure it isn’t a cover for liberal policies…”