English as a clue to Russian history

Monday, December 12th, 2011

Russian-born Alexander Boot examines English as a clue to Russian history:

One can learn a lot about Russia by looking at words and concepts she exports into the English language. The 19th century gave us ‘nihilism’ and ‘pogrom’, closely followed by ‘bolshevism’ and then ‘Soviet’. From there we move on to ‘Cheka’, ‘zek’, ‘gulag’, ‘disinformation’ (like ‘nihilism’, the root is Latin but the provenance is Russian), ‘rezident’ (spy master with or without diplomatic cover), ‘collectivisation’, ‘rootless cosmopolitan’ (blueprint translation of the Russian bezrodnyi kosmopolit), ‘thaw’ (ottepel), ‘sputnik’. Forwards and onwards to ‘glasnost’ and ‘perestroika’. And now the on-going court case featuring Berezovsky and Abramovich has made another valuable addition, which London newspapers don’t bother to translate any longer: krysha. For those who don’t read London newspapers, the word (literally ‘roof’) means ‘protection’ for a legal or usually illegal business. Anticipating a linguistic trend now under way, I’d like to to make a few pioneering contributions, words that have entered Russian since perestroika: otkat (kickback), nayezd (shakedown), raspil (embezzlement), razborka (sorting out differences), strelka (razborka involving firearms), bespredel (a situation like strelka, where no moral scruples apply), otmorozok (one who is even beyond bespredel). When these words appear in the OED, I expect to be credited.

Atheist scientists often expose their children to religion

Sunday, December 11th, 2011

Atheist scientists often expose their children to religion:

Rice University sociologist Elaine Ecklund surveyed over 2,000 scientists and found that half expressed “no religious identity.” She pulled 275 of these atheists, and found that at least 17% had brought their children to a religious service in the past year.

What reasons do they give?

  • Scientific identity – Study participants wish to expose their children to all sources of knowledge (including religion) and allow them to make their own choices about a religious identity.
  • Spousal influence – Study participants are involved in a religious institution because of influence from their spouse or partner.
  • Desire for community – Study participants want a sense of moral community and behavior, even if they don’t agree with the religious reasoning.

Other findings:

  • Only 15 percent of those surveyed view religion and science as always in conflict. Another 15 percent say the two are never in conflict, and 70 percent believe religion and science are only sometimes in conflict. Approximately half of the original survey population expressed some form of religious identity, whereas the other half did not.
  • Scientists as a whole are substantially different from the American public in how they view teaching “intelligent design” in public schools. Nearly all of the scientists – religious and nonreligious alike – have a negative impression of the theory of intelligent design.
  • Sixty-eight percent of scientists surveyed consider themselves spiritual to some degree.
  • Scientists who view themselves as spiritual/religious are less likely to see religion and science in conflict.
  • Overall, under some circumstances even the most religious of scientists were described in very positive terms by their nonreligious peers; this suggests that the integration of religion and science is not so distasteful to all scientists.

Ernie Pyle Remembers Clark Kent

Saturday, December 10th, 2011

Ernie Pyle remembers Clark Kent and how they met:

We were on a press plane flying from England down to North Africa just after the troops landed in forty two. The ride was bumpy and we were passing around a bottle of whiskey. I offered it to this big man in the back, and he said, “No thanks, Mr. Pyle, I’m tee-total.” But he said it in a friendly way that didn’t seem stuck up at all. I said, “You know my name, but I don’t know yours. Who are you?” Somebody else said, “You don’t know him, Ernie? That’s Clark Kent, the one who did all those Superman stories.” I whistled, because those had been good pieces, and because I could see how young Kent must have been when he wrote them. I took a longer look at him. Big man, handsome man. He looked like he could have been a football player or a movie star. Half Johnny Weissmuller, half Gregory Peck. “I liked those,” I said. “I always wondered how you got that particular interview.” “It wasn’t easy,” Kent said to me solemnly. “First I had to find out where his favorite bar was. Then I had to buy him a drink. And he wouldn’t talk to me until I put a cape on.” He looked at me so seriously that I knew this was God’s own truth—and then he grinned, that wonderful smile that lit up his face and made everyone fall in love with him, even sergeants soaked in vinegar who weren’t that fond of their own mothers. I whooped until my guts hurt and after that he was the best friend I had in the war.

Read the whole thing.

(Hat tip to Ilkka.)

Hollywood Shooter

Saturday, December 10th, 2011

If you watch this KTLA coverage of the recent Hollywood shooting, the rampage has an extra element I haven’t seen mentioned anywhere else:

Dennis Mangan noticed it earlier:

If you can believe the witness interviewed in this video (starting at 2:42), the gunman was shouting “Allahu akbar!” Oddly enough, neither the news reporter in the video nor any other sources that I’ve seen mentions this or what it might mean.

Strange, this news reporting.

I’m not sure I’d trust a Hollywood witness, but he did seem more down-to-earth immigrant than crazy vagrant.

The shooter has been identified as Tyler Brehm, 26, and his Facebook page suggests that his movie tastes tend toward anything with a bad-ass, money, and a lot of guns — which isn’t all that unusual for a 26-year-old guy.

Shotgun Hit Probability

Saturday, December 10th, 2011

In his Zombie Survival Guide, Max Brooks dismisses the much-loved shotgun as a survival weapon, because its ammo is so big and heavy, but Pat Kilbane counters that with his own point about shotgun hit probability:

If you are shooting at a zombie with a single projectile, your point of aim will have to fall within the 6-inch circle corresponding to the frontal area of his brain (the average human brain is about 6 inches wide extending from the top of the head to just below the nose). That’s a small target to hit, especially when you consider that it will be jerking and swaying as a result of the zombie’s uneven gait.

Exacerbating the problem is the fact that you will be in a horrifying situation, which will likely induce a massive adrenaline dump (and perhaps another type of dump as well). With your heart rate soaring over 150 BPM, your fine motor skills won’t be what they were at the practice range

Circle A The target, a zombie head — brain, really — is roughly six inches across, or three inches in radius.

Circle B At 10 yards, a buckshot load has spread out into a disk roughly 10 inches across, or five inches in radius.

Circle C The lethal point of aim then is anywhere within eight inches of the center of the target.

Discussing zombies makes this all fanciful and palatable, but the real-world British experience in Malaya corroborates exactly this point of combat shotguns hitting more often than other weapons at close range — twice as often as rifles.

Man or Muppet

Friday, December 9th, 2011

If I’m a Muppet, then I’m a very manly muppet:

George R.R. Martin Talks GURPS

Friday, December 9th, 2011

Years ago, George R.R. Martin’s “realistic” superhero series, Wild Cards was adapted for Steve Jackson Games’ similarly “realistic” roleplaying game system, GURPS.

In this brief interview, he mentions moving his own gaming group over from a hodgepodge of systems — Superworld, Call of Cthulhu, The Morrow Project, Paranoia, Dungeons & Dragons — to just GURPS 20 years ago:

Liberals’ and Conservatives’ Favorite TV Shows

Friday, December 9th, 2011

A recent survey reveals liberals’ and conservatives’ favorite television shows.

Liberals’ favorites:

  • The Daily Show With Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report (Comedy Central): As you might expect.
  • 30 Rock and Parks and Recreation (NBC): Literate media-savvy comedies score high among Dems in general, notes Experian-Simmons senior marketing manager John Fetto. “Sarcastic humor is always a hook for them,” he adds.
  • The View (ABC): Shows that skew female tend to do better among Dems, while male-friendly shows tend to do perform higher among Republicans.
  • Glee (Fox)
  • Modern Family (ABC): Last year, the progressive Glee and Modern Family scored surprisingly strong among both political leanings. Among conservatives this year, the shows still do fairly well, but have dropped out of their top ranks.
  • It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia (FX)
  • Treme (HBO): GOP Kryptonite. Not only a Dem favorite, but so unpopular among Republicans that the report scores the show with a “*”  because not enough conservatives in the study group had actually watched it.
  • Cougar Town (ABC)
  • The Late Show With David Letterman and The Late Late Show With Craig Ferguson (CBS): Dems favor late-night programming, with one big exception that we’ll see below.
  • Also in the mix: The Soup (E!), Aqua Teen Hunger Force (Adult Swim), Raising Hope (Fox), Saturday Night Live (NBC), The Office (NBC), Project Runway (Lifetime), Shameless (Showtime), Parenthood (NBC), Conan (TBS).

Conservatives’ favorites:

  • Swamp Loggers (Discovery) and Top Shot (History): Gritty documentary-style work-related reality shows on cable index really strongly with conservative Republicans. Swamp Loggers is particularly polarizing.
  • The Bachelor (ABC): They also tend to gravitate toward broadcast reality competition shows.
  • Castle (ABC): Ranks fairly high among Dems, too.
  • Mythbusters (Discovery)
  • Only in America With Larry the Cable Guy, American Pickers, Pawn Stars, Swamp People (History): If you’re a Republican candidate looking to raise money, put ads on History.
  • The Middle (ABC): Does well among libs, too.
  • The Tonight Show With Jay Leno (NBC): “Did you hear about this? Yeah, this is true: Jay Leno is the late-night choice among conservatives… “
  • The Biggest Loser (NBC)
  • Hawaii Five-O, NCIS, The Mentalist (CBS): Popular crime dramas — except the left-wing Law & Order franchise — tend to draw a conservative crowd.
  • Also: Dancing With the Stars results show (ABC), Man vs. Wild (Discovery), Auction Kings (Discovery), Wheel of Fortune (syndi), Top Gear (BBC America).

Libertarian neo-reactionaries’ favorites:

  • (Old) Colbert Report, before he sold out to The Man
  • Thirty Rock, and its inspiration, The Muppet Show
  • Modern Family
  • It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, in measured doses
  • The Soup, for cultural literacy
  • Top Shot
  • Mythbusters
  • Mad Men
  • Breaking Bad
  • The Ultimate Fighter
  • Game of Thrones
  • Walking Dead

OK, I made that last list up.

The lists of least favorite shows are also interesting.

(Hat tip to HBD chick.)

Deregulating Finance and Over-Regulating Commerce

Friday, December 9th, 2011

The housing market should provide a service (accommodation), Matt Ridley says, but it keeps being turned into a casino:

Instead of deregulating finance and over-regulating commerce, we should have done the opposite.

FDR’s Lessons from WWI

Friday, December 9th, 2011

FDR wanted a provocation, Joseph Fouché notes, but not one that inflicted significant damage on his beloved navy, which he needed to win the war he was asking for:

FDR’s preferred outcome would have been a Japanese (or, better yet, German) sneak attack on Mom, Home, and Apple Pie. An attack on Mom, Home, and Apple Pie would have been a massive symbolic blow, but it would’ve left America’s core war-fighting power untouched.

The critical decision in the care and feeding of a black swan is what you do afterward. This is where faith and fable meet contingency: statecraft sees opportunity or peril in a black swan through the lenses of the truths, assumptions, theories, hypotheses, and guesses that it brings to the scene of the crash. Many of the actions that leaders in this warring states period took were based on the faiths and fables they took away from their fighting the last war.

U.S. Assistant Secretary of the Navy Franklin Delano Roosevelt took away several lessons from his experience during World War I. These were the lessons that led his actions following Pearl Harbor:

  1. The need to preemptively keep a single power from dominating Europe. Thomas Woodrow Wilson intervened against Germany because he feared that the threat of a victorious Germany meant the permanent militarization (“Prussianization” is what Wilson called it) of the United States of America. Wilson’s intervention, for all of its flaws, kept the U.S from Prussianization for another 19 years.
  2. The need to beat Germany (and anyone else) totally into the ground so they’re left with absolutely no illusion that they’d lost the war.
  3. The need for an unconditional postwar settlement that left the defeated no wiggle room to get out from under its treaty obligations.
  4. The need for more robust international security arrangements. FDR wanted the four quarters of the globe patrolled by the “four policemen”: the US, USSR, UK, and China. The facade of this four way division was a more muscular League of Nations 2.0 in the new United Nations. The reality of this four way partition was based on America running China as a puppet, reducing Britain to a compliant poodle shorn of its empire, and mesmerizing the USSR with personal charm.

Zenpundit adds some amusing thoughts on doctrine:

  • For the US Army, doctrine is really “Doctrine”, akin to Holy Writ. Not only do you need to be following Doctrine as a C.O., it sure as hell better be the right one of the moment, or it is your ass.
  • To the Marines, doctrine is a set of suggestions in a book on the shelf of the C.O.’s office.
  • To the Air Force, it is a checklist.
  • To the Navy, it is an acquisitions appropriation.
  • To the Office of the Secretary of Defense it is a record of what the armed services are supposed to do whenever the deputy assistant Secretary for Cool Task Force Acronyms is asked by a Member of Congress during a hearing or Mike Wallace shows up with a TV camera.
  • To a member of Congress, it is what their priest or minister talks about on Sunday.

On the impracticality of a cheeseburger

Friday, December 9th, 2011

It’s impossible to make a cheeseburger from scratch:

Tomatoes are in season in the late summer. Lettuce is in season in spring and fall. Large mammals are slaughtered in early winter. The process of making such a burger would take nearly a year, and would inherently involve omitting some core cheeseburger ingredients. It would be wildly expensive—requiring a trio of cows—and demand many acres of land. There’s just no sense in it.

A cheeseburger cannot exist outside of a highly developed, post-agrarian society. It requires a complex interaction between a handful of vendors — in all likelihood, a couple of dozen — and the ability to ship ingredients vast distances while keeping them fresh. The cheeseburger couldn’t have existed until nearly a century ago as, indeed, it did not.

BlackFive Reviews The Veil War

Thursday, December 8th, 2011

I didn’t realize that BlackFive had given Buckethead’s Veil War a plug.

Part six is up, by the way. Get some!

We rejoin the Marines as they try out their captured goblin arms and armor:

Angelo was painting his corporal’s stripes on the pauldron, the shoulder piece of his armor. He’d already painted a Batman symbol on his breastplate.

How Exercise Benefits the Brain

Thursday, December 8th, 2011

A recent Irish study demonstrated that a strenuous ride on an exercise bike could improve memory, and blood samples taken during the experiment show how exercise benefits the brain:

Immediately after the strenuous activity, the cyclists had significantly higher levels of a protein known as brain-derived neurotrophic factor, or BDNF, which is known to promote the health of nerve cells. The men who had sat quietly showed no comparable change in BDNF levels.

All Charges Dropped Against Customer-Bashing McDonald’s Cashier

Thursday, December 8th, 2011

I’m honestly surprised that all charges have been dropped in the case of Rayon McIntosh, the McDonald’s employee who defended himself against two irate customers:

The fight started when Darbeau tried to pay for their food with a $50 bill, and McIntosh wanted to check the authenticity, as was store policy. The two women allegedly taunted McIntosh, calling him a “bitch ass n—–,” and saying “your mother’s a bitch.”

McIntosh said in an interview that Darbeau spat at him, threatened to “cut me up,” came across the counter and slapped him. When Edwards jumped across to join in, McIntosh says instinct kicked in: “I was being attacked by aggressive people I didn’t know,” said McIntosh. “I was just defending myself. They came in and went crazy on me.”

(Hat tip to Ilkka.)

A Surprise of Capability

Thursday, December 8th, 2011

Pearl Harbor wasn’t a surprise of intent, Shannon Love says. It was a surprise of capability:

Yamamoto surprised the US Navy in two ways: Firstly, he completely inverted the controlling doctrine of the entire Japanese Navy. Secondly, he developed technology to enact that doctrine before anyone else thought to do so.

Japanese navel doctrine in the post-WW1 era was dictated by their belief that any future naval conflict would repeat the battle of Tsurigami, i.e., a US fleet would arrive in or near Japanese home waters, where a single decisive battle would take place in which one fleet or the either would be annihilated and the war would then come to a negotiated end. In such a conflict, long-range vessels would be unnecessary. This doctrine arose in part because prior to the 1930s Japan would have been hard-pressed to get enough oil to fight a long-range conflict.

The home-water doctrine controlled absolutely everything in the Japanese Navy, from technology to training to indoctrination. Every ship was designed from the keel upward for an intense, short-ranged and short-duration conflict. Japanese ships usually had only half the fuel capacity of US or British vessels. All training focused on fighting that one climactic battle. Such a battle was portrayed as not only the only practical solution but the only moral one as well. This concept so dominated Japanese naval thinking that, after Yamamoto’s death, the Japanese navy instantly reverted to it. Making the conceptual leap to a radically different strategy was no trivial feat, and neither was convincing everyone else to go along. American naval planners were well aware of all this and they filed any possible long-range Japanese attacks by capital ships in the highly unlikely file.

After Yamamoto broke the pattern for the controlling doctrine of the Japanese navy, he next had to overcome the technological limitations. He had three major problems: (1) Fueling long-range operations, (2) developing air-dropped torpedoes that wouldn’t bottom out in the relatively shallow water of Pearl Harbor and (3) developing air-dropped bombs that could reliably penetrate the armor of capital ships.

As late as January 1941, none of that technology existed. American planners in December of 1941 assumed it still didn’t exist.

Yamamoto couldn’t just put a bunch of oilers (tankers) with the carrier fleet and set sail. The oilers were just large merchant vessels that couldn’t keep up with the fleet. The normal pattern was for tankers to stay around some island and for the warships to sally out and come back to tranquil waters to refuel. Nobody planned to bring tankers along on a sneak attack. Yamamoto solved the problem by constructing some oilers on some old cruiser keels which made an oiler that could reasonably pace a fleet.

The other problem was that refueling in even moderately heavy seas was tricky. Ships getting bounced around a tug at the wrong time could send flammable fuel everywhere. Yamamato solved that problem with a new kind of coupling system that could safely disengage.

This coupling technology gave the Japanese capital fleets unlimited striking range at good speed. Unknown to anyone outside the upper levels of the Japanese naval command, the Japanese carriers could strike West-East from Madagascar to the Panama canal and North-South from Alaska to Australia. The surprising series of naval air strikes that controlled the first few months of the war depended on the Japanese navy’s ability to refuel on the fly.

Yamamoto solved the other two problems with typical Japanese elegance and simplicity. Attaching wooden fins to the torpedoes allowed them to enter the water at a much shallower angle so they wouldn’t plow into the bottom of the harbor but would run true. Attaching fins to existing armor piercing cannon shells turned them into armor penetrating air delivered bombs.

American planners also took into consideration that even with the technical ability to strike plus the element of surprise, a carrier attack on Hawaii was very dangerous for the Japanese.

The Japanese had no more idea of the location of the US carriers than the US did about the location of the Japanese carriers. The Japanese fleet could have been counter ambushed and overwhelmed by the combined force of the US carriers, battleships and land-based planes from Hawaii. Admiral Nagumo failed to launch follow up attacks on the oil storage and dry docks of Pearl Harbor in part because of this realistic fear of a devastating counterattack.

American planners didn’t believe the Japanese would risk so many capital ships and aircraft in such a risky attack.

The combination of all these factors meant that even though Admiral Kimmel, General Short and others understood the theoretical dangers of a carrier attack on Pearl Harbor, they didn’t think it a likely enough scenario to take counter measures against, especially if that meant exposing Pearl Harbor to more likely forms of attack.

When they began actively preparing for war with Japan in early November 1941, they did not irresponsibly plan for an almost “impossible” carrier strike but instead responsibly planned for likely modes of attacks that the America navy thought the Japanese could carry out: Submarine attacks on ships, submarine shelling of the shore, submarine-landed commandos, aerial bombing from lumbering seaplanes and sabotage attacks by covert agents.

Kimmel seriously ramped up anti-submarine defenses around the harbor. Short put the coastal artillery on high alert. Both configured air defenses to repel a high-altitude attack from large seaplanes. Both guarded all land assets from commando or saboteur attacks. Most famously, both the Navy and the Army tightly clustered all their aircraft together on the airfields so they could be easily protected from a ground attack by light infantry or saboteurs.

Like competent baseball coaches, Kimmel and Short had covered all their bases. Unfortunately, the Japanese were playing football.

Most historical works conflate the surprise of the general public at Pearl Harbor with the surprise of the military. The Roosevelt administration worked tirelessly to downplay the risk of attack from Japan because FDR didn’t want attention distracted from Europe. Negotiations were still underway, and Americans of that era assumed that no one would attack during negotiations. The military, however, was actively preparing for war with Japan and was not particularly surprised that it broke out. They were only surprised by a radical change in Japanese doctrine and capabilities.