Cultural Gadfly

Categories: Culture, Culture of Death, Culture of Life, Religion

• Burning Origami Samurai

Picture three or four images that sum up the Pacific War for you. The Zero has to be there. It’s really as Japanese as the Samurai or trippy role playing fantasy games. It was even built by Mitsubishi.

A6M Zero, a gorgeous, delicately nimble, flying incendiary death trap

A gorgeous plane in many ways, with very clean lines and well proportioned, there’s plenty to admire in the Zero. It had very good speed, exceptionally long range (longer than anything America could field until second generation planes with external fuel tanks), low stall speed (very large wing area), stability, and incredible maneuverability. Exceptionally lightweight, the Zero had a good climb rate and, at low speeds, was a better dogfighter than possibly any other plane of WW II. It’s diminutive cousin built for the Japanese Army, the Ki 43 “Oscar,” was perhaps even more maneuverable, though underpowered and woefully underarmed. One American pilot described an Oscar pull off acrobatic feats normally seen only at airshows: three Immelman’s (from the straight and level, pulling into a half loop then rolling level, to gain altitude and change direction all at once) in a row followed by a “Hammerhead Stall” (pulling straight up into a stall, then kicking the nose down into a dive).

The Zero, along with many of Japan’s most commonly fielded aircraft, suffered from weaknesses that allied pilots would eventually learn to exploit. Most famously, it had absolutely no survivability if damaged. There was no armor plating, and the primary fuel tank was just beneath the cockpit, and was not self-sealing (a mixture of charcoal and rubber lining that congealed to stop leaks, standard on allied aircraft). Very light damage would usually set the plane on fire. The trade off, light weight, maneuverability and long range, also gave the Zero poor dive capabilities (as odd as that sounds, it proved crucial).

The Zero’s characteristics reflected Japanese design philosophy and pilot culture. Japanese prototypes were fielded tested almost exclusively by front line pilots, who had effective veto power over whether a design would be accepted for production. A joy to fly, pilots loved the Zero’s handling and maneuverability, and didn’t want the plane weighed down by extra armor (pilots always want more maneuverability, even though, as outlined later, dogfighting capability is decidedly not the final word in air combat). First used in China as a bomber escort, the Zero proved perfectly suited for dealing with ancient Chinese biplanes (supplied by Russia and the U.S.) with poor armament. Oddly, the Japanese never seem to have seriously considered the necessity of bomber interception as an important role for the Zero. Against American bombers heavily armed and armored, the Zero’s fragility and light armament was at a disadvantage.

In addition, while no major power considered developing fighters as ground attack aircraft before the war, allied planes proved excellent in a tactical bomber role. The Zero proved adequate against exposed ground forces as a strafer, but was not up to the challenge of withstanding heavy anti-aircraft fire.

At first, the Zero was a terrifying surprise for allied pilots who didn’t think Japan had much of a modern air force. The Zero made it’s reputation almost instantly, as it savaged opponents left and right for the first six months of the war.

Furthermore, the thousand or Japanese naval pilots at the outset flying the Zero were some of the best in the world. Japan spent years training pilots in the run-up to the war, and accepted a very small number of applicants. Most had well over six hundred hours in type, and they were well trained in doctrine, proving superb at bomber escort and carrier warfare. Japanese pilots cut their teeth over China, slaughtering Chinese air force. Like the Germans in Spain, the Japanese received combat experience before WW II kicked off for real. However, while Germany learned mostly the correct lessons from her Spanish adventure, Japan picked up a few bad habits (see above).

In contrast, allied forces were mostly under-manned, inadequately trained, and unprepared. Rag tag collections of American units in the Philippines, Wake, and Guam, and British and Anzac units in Hong Kong, Singapore, the Dutch East Indies, and New Guinea were caught off guard and overwhelmed by Japanese offensives, which brilliantly utilized economy of force (e.g. the eighty or so American fighters on the Philippines faced more than double that number of Japanese forces, with tactical surprise to boot).

That initial disparity in force structure is the biggest single reason the Zero built up such a fantastic reputation, one which it coasted on thereafter. That reputation has in large part covered over most of the Zero’s crippling weaknesses, along with the later advent of second generation American aircraft which ended up being some of the best piston engined fighters of all time. But what happened in between? Continue reading »

Categories: Culture, Foundations of Freedom, History, Military, Miscellany, Technology, Traditions \\ Tags: Air War, Pacific, Robert DeHaven, Saburo Sakai, Warhawk, Wildcat, WW II, Zero

Categories: Art, Culture, Culture of Life, History, Military \\ Tags: The Alamo

Highly realistic dogfight re-enactment

The institutional narrative of WW II in the Pacific runs like this: Japan surprises the allies and romps at will across the Pacific. America gets lucky and turns the tables at Midway. America’s industry kicks into gear and starts building more and better of everything imaginable. Japan’s defeat is inevitable even though they fought like hell for every piece of coral reef in the Pacific. Game over.

Yeah, I’m back on the military history kick, go ahead and groan.

This subject is worth delving into a bit for a couple of reasons, because that narrative isn’t quite accurate; it’s been obscured by the reputation Japan made at the outset when she enjoyed strategic surprise and economy of force, and the reputation America made at the end of the war. But it’s not simply a matter of correcting the record. The true story is darned useful for highlighting the fundamental Japanese weaknesses and contrasting American strengths that won the war. And it’s another lesson in American and Western military history, in the VDH/John Keegan/Archer Jones tradition. Military forces are bound by cultural and traditional traits far more often than we realize.

Eric M. Bergerud’s Fire in the sky: The Air War in the South Pacific has really cut into my sleep recently. At seven hundred pages and proceeding in detail on a topical basis, it’s a lovely blend of good scholarship and readability. And I’m having vicarious flashbacks to childhood, reacquainting myself with the Japanese Zero, F4F Wildcat, Kenney’s 5th Air Force, Guadalcanal, and Rabaul. If you keep reading, you’ll know what those words mean, probably in more detail than you really desired.

But don’t you want to know what skip bombing is? It’s as cool as it sounds. Everything from why the P-40 deserves more credit than it’s been given, to how to use a P-38 Lightning as beer cooler, it’s all here. Continue reading »

Categories: Culture, History, Military, Miscellany, Technology, Traditions \\ Tags: Air Combat, Eric Beregurd, South Pacific, Traditions, World War II

Categories: Politics

A quick late night expurgitation. In pursuance of my previous post on the costume party for a friend, there was an unsettling occurrence in preparation, and I feel morally compelled for the public weal to air this aggrieved sentiment.

No less than two people informed me that I should attend this “Presidents Day Party” in the visage of “Ol’ Hickory” himself, King Andrew Jackson the First.

Two people! And both are characters whose normal sober opinion I value, respect, and trust. What possessed them to propound such an opinion escapes me. Or have I lost my senses?

While granting all merit to Willy Horton’s classic ballad on the Battle of New Orleans and Andrew Jackson’s status as a heroic American General, I had always assumed that his exploits upon the Mississippi were rather overshadowed by his legacy as a President, one of demeaning coarseness in American politics, demagoguery, and the Trail of Tears. On the list of Presidents one would willingly impersonate, Jackson should certainly be in the bottom third.

As Minstrel Boy once told me, “the only good thing Andrew Jackson did was get rid of the Federal bank, and that was probably only because he personally hated banks.” I will grant that Jackson’s actions opened the vastly under-appreciated free-banking era (perhaps Minstrel Boy could write on this topic sometime), but other than that, what’s to his credit?

Categories: Miscellany, Political Philosophy \\ Tags: Andrew Jackson, Old Hickory

It’s Saturday night, party for a friend. Theme is American Presidents and Heroes. We’ve a good lineup.

El Cid as a young Ronald Reagan.

Jacobus as Mr. Rogers.

Romulus as Jack Donaghy from 30 Rock. (all good heroes are mythological).

Symmachus has greyed his hair as a Dubya enjoying retirement (complete with beard).

Cicero is putting in as Joe the Plummer (quite out of character for those who know the everyday Cicero).

And Fabius is paying homage to Tom Landry this evening. If George Allen shows up there will be fisticuffs.

We’ll be back afterwards with updates.

Categories: Politics

Ok, we are sincere when we tell you that this blog isn’t just a poetry blog now (of course you might prefer it became one, which we wouldn’t begrudge you at all for desiring, where else do you find such good original stuff?)

A quick update on the pro-life front. Nebraska could be stirring things up a bit, again. You may recall that they passed an ultrasound bill last year which was the strongest ever passed at the state level. Nebraska has an overwhelmingly pro-life state government, and can push ahead with new forms of pro-life legislation more easily than most other states can (it was Nebraska that first passed a PBA ban).

They’re at it again, with a new line of attack.

Jill Stanek, probably the most prominent single issue pro-life blogger on the web, highlights what’s going on in her recent WND column:

The Abortion Pain Prevention Act takes us into a whole new world of abortion law, banning all abortions after 20 gestational weeks on the basis of a preborn baby’s capacity to feel the pain of it all. At this age a baby anatomically “has the physical structures necessary to experience pain,” states the bill, based on scientific evidence.

The only exception would be if a mother “has a condition which so complicates her medical condition as to necessitate the abortion of her pregnancy to avert her death or to avert serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function,” states the bill.

Watch this legislation. It has the potential to be as explosive in the 2000s as the Partial Birth Abortion Ban was in the 1990s, and just as damaging to the abortion movement. Meanwhile, if passed, it would save exponentially more lives.

And once again Carhart, the ultimate loser of the PBA Ban battles before the Supreme Court, is in the middle of it.

As with the PBA Ban, the focus here is on the humanity of the baby, anathema to pro-aborts.

The Abortion Pain Prevention Act will be exceedingly difficult for the other side to oppose since today wanted preborn babies the same age as late-term babies being aborted routinely receive anesthesia during en utero surgery.

Or if born, particularly at 23 weeks or older, wanted babies often live and thrive.

Likewise, comparing the Abortion Pain Prevention Act to current Nebraska laws regulating the humane treatment of laboratory animals, or requiring that livestock be slaughtered by pain-free methods, will make it difficult to counter.

Not that they won’t try, but fighting the Abortion Pain Prevention Act will be a public-relations nightmare.

This seems like pretty good analysis, especially the comparison to the PBA ban. Some pro-lifers didn’t like the decision to push on partial birth abortion in the 90’s because so few PBA’s were actuall performed, but it was a PR coup for the pro-life movment. As Stanek note’s, “the focus here is on the humanity of the baby,” it’s tough to talk about it while dodging that point. It’s a rhetorical play to our strengths, keeps the terms of the debate on our high ground (that’s half the battle sometimes).

I wouldn’t like to be a Planned Parenthood spokesperson (well, as they’re all badly aging boomer generation hags who would…) going on TV talking about this thing.

“Sure it’s ok to abort after the baby might be able to feel pain…”

That’s the way to win.

Keep an eye on this one, it may very well get kicked upstairs to the courts. Apparently, some of the pro-life lobbyists backing this one think that Justice Kennedy might come around on this one, read the rest of Stanek’s piece for more.

Categories: Culture, Culture of Life, Local Politics, Politics \\ Tags: Abortion, abortion pain prevention act, Jill Stanek, Nebraska, Partial Birth Abortion, Planned Parenthood, Pro-Life

I’ve picked up the bug from Roland, the Nevada Senate race is going to be a fun one. (h/t: Reid-B-Gone)

Assuming the Tea Party doesn’t save Reid:

Tea Party has qualified as a third party in Nevada for this year’s elections. As a result, it will be able to put its own candidate on the ballot for the state’s elections this year, including the U.S. Senate seat that Reid is trying to defend.

Excuse me while I go hit my head against something solid.

If Conservatives effectively reach out to the Tea Party movement now, we’ll do well this November. If not…remember how Lincoln was elected without a majority of the popular vote (perhaps that’s a bad example)?

There’s a trick in working with your voting base, it’s called triangulation. That thing Obama’s been trying to do ever since he was elected Scott Brown was elected and we’ve been laughing at. Clinton did it very well. Actually, to be fair to Obama, he did it perfectly as well as a campaigner, brilliantly really. Remember how Obama successfully ran to the left of Hillary in the Democratic primaries to shore up his base. After getting the nomination, he practically turned into a centrist or even Conservative Democrat with the tone of his rhetoric. It killed McCain, who never grabbed his base in the primary, and had to tack hard Right with the Palin pick. You can’t win elections without your base, and while McCain was shoring his up (in October), Obama neatly stepped in to fill the center that McCain had just vacated.

There’s a huge opportunity right now to pull the Tea Party movement on board for good Conservative candidates. Pull them in now while independents and moderates aren’t worked up yet, and you can tack to the center for the general election.

If you don’t, you spend the last few weeks of your campaign trying to get your base (and the oft overlooked ground game it brings) on fire, not a good idea. In addition, if Conservatives don’t tack hard to the right now, we’ll let the threat of third party candidates grow ever larger.

The whole point of the Tea Party movement is to energize huge numbers of conservative leaning voters, i.e., the base. They’ll be your core supporters, and will provide most of the labor and funds to help you grab the all important middle ground to give you the win.

If Tea Party candidates get any momentum at all, it could kill us in states where we have an otherwise good shot at knocking off incumbent Democrats.

Let’s hope that doesn’t happen in Nevada. Let’s also hope that the GOP primary isn’t so bloody it ends up weakening whoever comes out on top. There’s a good half a dozen candidates announced now, although Sue Lowden and Danny Tarkanian remain the favorites, with State Assemblywoman Sharron Angle not too far behind. All three have beaten Reid in a hypothetical match-up.

Of the other candidates, John Chachas, a former Wall Street investor, has generated some buzz. He’s just recently declared his candidacy, and seems to already have a decent war chest built up. Seems to be a decent candidate in most respects, although he’s lagging far behind Lowden and Tarkanian in name recognition. No idea on his pro-life credentials though.

Categories: Congress, Local Politics, Politics \\ Tags: 2010 Elections, Danny Tarkanian, Harry Reid, John Chachas, Nevada, Reid-B-Gone, Senate Race, Sue Lowden, Tea Party

Professor Jere P. Surber, a philosophy professor at the University of Denver, has a very intriguing piece up over at The Chronicle. Title, “Well, Naturally We’re Liberal,” is half re-freshing honesty, and a cloyingly narrow self-fulfilling prophecy. There’s more in the article to discuss, but I’ll stick to just two of his points.

On the one hand, it’s nice to see a liberal arts professor come out and openly admit most of his peers lean left, and even more so when he admits that:

virtually all instructors in the liberal arts are aware of the disparity between their level of education and their financial situation. There’s no secret that the liberal arts are the lowest-compensated sector of academe, despite substantially more advanced study than business instructors and the equivalent of those in the natural sciences…It’s real simple: Those who have less and want more will tend to support social changes that promise to accomplish that; those who are already economic winners will want to conserve their status.

Liberal arts professor don’t make as much as their colleagues in other fields with comparative training and skill, so they might be inclined to take it out in egalitarian fashion via the ballot box. Fair enough, I can see some merit for that, and it’s nice of him to be honest about it.

Later, however, Surber lists as another reason:

liberal-arts professors tend to be politically liberal is that they have very likely studied large-scale historical processes and complex cultural dynamics. Conservatives, who tend to evoke the need to preserve traditional connections with the past, have nonetheless contributed least to any detailed or thoughtful study of history. Most (although, of course, by no means all) prominent historians of politics, literature, the arts, religion, and even economics have tended, as conservatives claim, to be liberally biased. Fair enough. But if you actually take the time to look at history and culture, certain conclusions about human nature, society, and economics tend to force themselves on you. History has a trajectory, driven in large part by the desires of underprivileged or oppressed groups to attain parity with the privileged or the oppressor.

Consider the Greek struggle against Persian tyranny, the struggles to preserve the Roman Republic, the peasant uprisings of the Middle Ages, the American and French revolutions, the abolitionist and civil-rights movements, and now movements on behalf of other groups—women, Latinos, homosexuals, and the physically impaired. As President Obama recently put it, any open-minded review of history (and perhaps especially American history) teaches at least one clear lesson: There is a “right side of history,” Obama said —the side of those who would overcome prejudice, question unearned privilege, and resist oppression in favor of a more just condition.

If you don’t study history, whether because it doesn’t pad quarterly profits, isn’t sufficiently scientific or objective, or threatens your own economic status, then you won’t know any of that. But most of those in the liberal arts have concluded that there really isn’t any other intellectually respectable way to interpret the broad contours of history and culture. They are liberal, in other words, by deliberate and reasoned choice, based upon the best available evidence.

Whoa Ho!

That’s a full mouth there. If you study history, you’ll automatically become a liberal because you’ll want to be on the “right” side of history.

The obvious rejoinder to Surber is that there is more than one way to study history, and I find it pretty arrogant to assume that his historical narrative (the generic liberal narrative mind) is the one and only historical narrative. In fact, using the liberal narrative of history to prove that all people who study history should be liberals, is a bit circular.

Is it possible that the entire course of history is not necessarily motivated by the study of oppressed/disadvantageous groups struggling for legitimacy (a very late 20th century notion of legitimacy too I might add)? If history is that easy to understand, why is it so difficult that all us dunderhead conservatives can’t get it?

Maybe history is motivated by lots of competing forces and various dynamics? Maybe wars, economic innovations, and intellectual ideas exert a lot more influence? Would anyone with more than a cliched textbook understanding of the middle ages really think that Medieval man was entirely preoccupied with peasant uprisings? Apparently, someone forgot to tell the Cistercians.

We all know how Paris rescued Helen because Priam was “marginalizing” them.

And the Age of Exploration kicked off because Columbus secretly put on dresses and wrote awkward letters to his mother.

Isaac Newton revolutionized the world because of a dispute with the apple growers union.

Something I find funny is that Surber’s very psuedo-Hegelian philosophy of history isn’t all that new, or even widely accepted anymore. I don’t converse with eminent historians routinely, but even I know that historical study has moved away, practically run away, from believing in any sort of neat formula that adequately describes the record of human activity.

Surber gets in a dig at Conservatives who cried bloody murder over the ‘”relativism,” if not “nihilism,” implicit in the (alleged) poststructuralist hijacking of the liberal arts.”

Given Surber’s childishly simple vision of history, I could use a little poststructualism right now.

There’s more to go into in Surber’s piece, and it does bring up a really important point that I do think Conservative’s tend to turn a blind eye to (namely, the opposition still has a monopoly on the humanities. We can pat ourselves on the back about having businessmen and a bunch of the hard scientists, but we’re really really really setting ourselves up for trouble by not worrying more about the humanities). But I’ll leave off for now. I need to go find some good thinkers who have a grasp of history that wasn’t old before the internal combustion engine.

Guess I’ll have to find some liberal history profs then…

Oh, nope. Nevermind. Pomocon.

Categories: Art, Culture, Miscellany, Political Philosophy, Traditions \\ Tags: Conservatives, History, Jere P. Surber, liberal arts, Liberals, Philosophy of History