Kahuna International

Malum

2008-07-31T15:10:00.000-07:00

There's been some talk of charging members of the Bush Administration with war crimes for their conduct during this Global War on Terror. Talk like this generally disturbs me mostly because my experience with it has shown less malicious intent and more a staggering level of naivete and general incompetence. Were we to begin criminally prosecuting for those sins, there would be no one left in Government-- particularly the State Department. However, I want to address these charges seriously because I do not want to make the same mistake those on the opposing side of this issue are so quick to make-- which is the suspicion of nefarious motives. So let's look at this issue seriously and from several levels.

First, if we are to discuss criminal behavior, we must define it. Simply put, criminal behavior is any behavior that is contrary to the law. That's a simple definition and a good working one but in our complex world, it really tells us next to nothing about how to actually behave. In the modern world, academic definitions are mostly useless. Definitions must give you a capacity for action or they are meaningless. Saying that criminal behavior is contrary to the law is such a definition. Under whose law? Which jurisdiction? What is jurisdiction for that matter? Before this devolves into legal minutiae, I want to bring a broad philosophical point about law. Generally, we believe that laws are necessary for groups of people to live together peacefully. By each person accepting some restraint, everyone gains a measure of security. With this in mind, it becomes ridiculous to believe that laws can give us anything. They cannot. They can only take things away. They are limiting and as such should be limited. We are born free and have rules instilled in us through learning and culture. However, as different as people can be, we are also very much the same. I certainly have more common with a Touareg tribesman in Northern Africa than I do with my Maltese puppy. As humans we share the same basic needs.

Homo sum; humani nihil a me alienum puto.

Broadly, our laws protect against two types of evil: malum in se and malum prohibitum. "Malum in se" is the type of evil we all can instantly recognize. You see it and no matter where you're from, you unquestionably know it as evil. "Malum prohibitum" is regulational evil-- as when you break the speed limit or fudge a little on your taxes. It's bad because the powers that be say its bad-- not because it is necessarily "evil."

Within a set legal structure such as a nation-state, malum prohibitum and malum in se are relatively interchangeable. There may be differences in punishments but it is just as a likely there won't be. (In California, you can do 8 years for murder and 20 years for selling drugs.) Within this nation-state bubble, you can impose whatever standards you wish because the State is the monopolizer of force and the final arbiter for its legitimate use. However, outside of this bubble, the State cannot wield any power because it doesn't have the force to enforce its edicts.

Now, this seems a very pedestrian idea of the law. Can it really be so base? The Romans believed that "justice" was simply what you could compel. In 2008, things aren't that much different. We tip toe around Muslim sensibilities because we're afraid of the violence they might bring to bear. Force, now as always, is the ultima ratio.

Aristotle said that courage is the first of qualities because it is the quality that allows every other to be born. Without courage, nothing happens. No beauty, no art, nothing. In order to have these beautiful things, we must carve out a place in the wild world where these softer qualities can flourish. They cannot exist in nature. True, nature can be beautiful but it is far more often terrible, unyielding and intransigent. Historically, we have always given a special few the right to step beyond our societal norms to protect us from what might burst our little bubble of security. And not to push the metaphor but is is apt. Whatever agreement we have all made to maintain some group security is remarkable fragile. Look at the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. However, well-bred and genteel, we are but a step away from savagery.

Civilization is fragile. We, in the West have already gone through our Dark Ages, and we were lucky enough to come through it intact. There is no guarantee that we would do so again. Because of this-- civilization (and specifically, our civilization) must be protected at all costs. We must be able to sacrifice it all to protect it because without it, there is nothing. True, the administration made mistakes and overstepped in a few areas but to punish them after the fact, instead of merely correctly the mistake is foolish and short-sighted. Fix the problem, not the blame.

Simply put, if you prosecute all the men who risk everything-- even eternal damnation in the afterlife-- to protect our society, how does anyone expect to field such men in the future? Why would I risk everything to defend a Country willing to throw me in jail after it's done with me? Better I should try my hand on Wall Street. It is already hard enough to get smart, capable men to chose a life of poverty, danger and obscurity in service of the country. Start prosecuting them and you'll soon have none. And all the media-types, professors and pundits who are clamoring for their heads will make but a speed bump when the barbarians are at the gate.

Wesley is a Girl's Name, Right?

2008-06-29T12:01:00.000-07:00

For a long time, I have tried to give GEN Wesley Clark the benefit of the doubt. He served our Country honorably as an Army Officer. However, any respect I may have had for the man has totally evaporated with his latest attack on John McCain. Substantively, he says that McCain lacks executive experience. I think that a dangerous knife to pull because it cuts both ways. Obama has even less executive experience and less experience overall. If you take a hard look at his record, you see he has done nothing. People have complained for 7 years that we've had an inexperienced President. We expect to remedy this situation by electing an even more inexperienced one? How does that make any sense? If you were picking the CEO of a company-- pretty much any company-- you wouldn't pick Obama. Can you imagine the Board of HP installing an untried and untested manager to run the entire organization? If you were seriously ill and you could afford it, you wouldn't get some first year doctor even if he did go to Harvard. You'd find the best, most experienced man for the job. Why is it so different with the office of the President?

But that's not really what really pissed me off. Gen Clark said that being shot down while flying a fighter doesn't qualify a man to be President. That's typical of a man who has shied away from actually taking gunfire his entire career. Typical to want to downplay something he would never have the courage to do. It's all well and good to get a "kick ass" reputation on the courage of other, better men. Let's look at this clearly. I'll give Clark the benefit of the doubt for argument's sake and agree that getting shot down in a fighter doesn't qualify one to be President. But surviving years of torture and keeping faith with your men does. Organizing your men so that they might survive and keeping the fellowship necessary to survive such an ordeal does too, Just ask COL Bud Day. And not taking a trip home to safety without your men certainly qualifies him to be President. I doubt GEN Clark would have the fortitude to make the same move. If such bravery, honor and commitment doesn't qualify someone to be President, then nothing does. Certainly nothing Obama has done.

The fact of the matter is this: there is no job in the world that prepares you for the Office of the President. It is On The Job training like nothing else. The experience necessary isn't the experience in running such a country which no one but former Presidents have. No, it's experience of the world and how things work. It's the ability to see thing clearly and to have the courage and conviction to stand up for what yo believe regardless of detractors. John McCain has proven over and over his has such experience even if you do not always agree with his positions. Obama, for all his nice words, has proved nothing. GEN Clark, even less. For either of them to criticize the character of John McCain is a joke. And GEN Clark should be seriously ashamed of himself.

The Coward's Bargain

2008-06-28T15:30:00.000-07:00

My students reached a new level this week. After a year of muddling about, they have finally reached the point where they can engage each other definitively and with malicious intent. They have learned how to increase their emotional content without losing their structure. They can now move with authority to exploit their opponent's weaknesses. Most importantly, they are no longer making the "coward's bargain."

Perhaps the "coward's bargain" irks me so much because I was guilty of it as a kid. It shows itself by a forced courtesy. Apologizing to someone after you have it him as if you were genuinely sorry. It's truly pathetic. Such an impulse does not rise out of compassion. It is born of fear, plain and simple. An apology is meant to blunt the sharp edges of a reprisal. It is using society's norm to take advantage of a situation. It makes me sick.

Think about how much we do this in our lives. We apologize not because we genuinely feel regret. We apologize because we fear repercussions. We know we acted wrongly and fear what might come as a result. It means no more than the mea culpas of a criminal when he stands before the judge at sentencing.

I recognize that this impulse is the birthplace of courtesy. When I shake your hand, I am offering my weapon hand to show you that it's empty. As I often like to say, there is no place in the world more polite than a gun convention. When the expectation is that everyone is armed and has lethal capability, courtesy becomes the norm. But we have taken this too far. Courtesy means something in a society where violence is a possibility. When courtesy is the norm, it becomes a defense for the deceitful. We hide ill intent behind kind words today and think nothing of it. Hence, our litigious society where we parse words and attempt to obfuscate their meanings. When there are no lethal repercussions, spin becomes the weapon of the day.

In the martial arts, we learn to dispel this. You see that the "coward's bargain" gets you nowhere because it exists only in your head. LTC Grossman noted in his book, "On Killing," that in WWII, only 1 out of 10 soldiers actually shot to kill. The rest made the "coward's bargain" which in that case was "if I don't actually try to shoot anybody, nobody will try to shoot me." In countless wars before that time, the primary role of NCO's were to ensure that the men actually fought.

This truth about human nature disturbs me greatly. When we have power over our fellow man, we behave horribly. Take the Stanford prison example where common people who were placed as guards slowly developed habits of cruelty that was incongruent with their everyday behavior. But when our opponent can fight back, we aren't so brave or so cruel. We wither and make a false claim of morality. Is this human nature? Is this what we are doomed to be?

I think martial arts are a way to train this base impulse out of us. Through hard training, I think we can become genuinely compassionate when we do not have to be. We can afford to be gentle because we know we are strong. This strength is where human dignity begins and it is the only place where it can find its foundation.

Knowing...

2008-05-19T18:37:00.001-07:00

I'll tell you what I don't like. I don't like it when people try to make the other party feel dumb to bolster their arguments. I'm with Hume on this. I don't think reason can account for very much. An answer you arrive at through reason may or may not be better than one you get at through faith but whatever the case, it often has nothing to do with the Truth. Reason and Faith are for things you do not know. If you know, you would not require either of those tools. It is always a mistake to apply abstract reasoning to reality as a whole. And when it comes right down to it, it still requires a bit of faith to believe that reason will provide you with the best solution. It's not necessarily so and never can be given its very nature.

I had this conversation with someone who was a recent graduate of Berkeley's philosophy department. Either she slept through most of her classes or the program itself was seriously suspect. I couldn't believe her lack of understanding in some pretty basic modern philosophic principles. We talked about the thought exercise involving the rising of the sun the following day. Like it or not, you cannot be sure that the sun will come up the next day. Perhaps you say that the Earth revolves around the sun and that it will continue to do so. Why do you believe that? How do you know? Is it because the sun has come up every other day? Well, that's poor thinking because the fact that it has come up every other day has nothing to do with it coming up tomorrow. Believing it will is a matter of habit. Knowing is a matter of past experience. Reason and faith are for future events. It is likely that the sun will and it makes sense to live your day assuming as much but that's not the point. You are still taking it on faith, like it or not, that it's going to happen. In fact, the very act of using reason-- especially the principle of sufficient reason-- requires a first leap of faith.

I'm not particularly interested in either of these things. I'm interested in knowing-- the kind of knowing that comes from experience. When I teach my students, I expect them to take nothing on faith except the faith that they have to have in me as their instructor to do some potentially dangerous and definitely uncomfortable things. After they do what I ask, they will know. Before that, it was just a guess. They could reason all they want about how they would deal with a particular situation and what would be effective. Or they could just do it and see what actually happens.

In our society, we have taken the position of the rationalists. We think that reason is the answer for everything. It is not. A well constructed argument can never prove anything beyond the fact that it is well constructed. It has nothing to do with the Truth. Reason is inherently destructive. It's good at poking holes and discovering foolery but it's hardly creative. As I like to say, logic will give you all kinds of reasons not to do something. It takes faith to create. I know many people like this. In fact, San Francisco, with its high percentage of intelligent, well-educated people is filled with many many folks who are unhappy and contributing nothing-- certainly nothing compared to what they have been given. I have a friend who is like this. He's incredibly intelligent but in a vicious way. You can't convince him to do anything or to every push himself because he has explained away everything into nothing. His arguments are always coherent and well-thought out but his intelligence offers nothing to his community around him.

If I were to call him on this, he would give me all kinds of reasons of why this isn't the case and I would not be able to defend my position against his barrage. But even a casual observer would have to agree with me. Arguments are just words and words are ether. People make the mistake of confusing words with Ideas which do, in fact, have weight and substance.

As always, I bring this back to the martial arts. I have, throughout my life, run into many notebook warriors who could argue me to the ground about the intricacies of technique. The conversation would go like this.
"What would you do if I did this?" To my answer they would say, "What if I did..." ad infinitum.

My favorite answer to this line of questioning came from one of my instructors who answered such queries with, "You can do whatever you want. The question is, 'Can you do it?'"

And that's it, isn't it. You can't answer those kinds of questions verbally. A person can always concoct some situation I haven't had to deal with. You have to put it on the mat and that's why I love the arts. It's one of the few places where you can call somebody on their bullshit in a definitive way. You can't talk your way out of getting punched in the face. You either dealt with it effectively or you didn't. Once, when I was working with a military unit, a local instructor came out to our training and tried to challenge what I was doing. He said that my knife techniques were ineffective and that he could take my knife away without suffering any injury 10 out of 10 times. I, of course, offered to have him demonstrate and he agreed. We met in the sand pit and lined up across from each other. I asked if he was ready and when I replied that he was, I immediately drew my live blade.

He backed up immediately and started stammering. He said he wasn't going to demonstrate against a live blade. He might get hurt. I replied that I thought that he had 100% confidence in his technique. He quickly started backpedaling and left the pit saying that I had misinterpreted his words-- the final defense of any academic. What did he think we wre doing? Having a epistemological debate? I wonder if academics would be so forceful in pushing their positions if there was such a cost for being wrong?

Finally, this brings me to Senator Obama. I'm sure he know a lot more than me in quite a few areas. But it's becoming increasingly clear that he knows nothing about foreign policy. What he uses instead of a strong argument is a condescending tone which seems odd to me since he has no foreign policy experience at all. To use Kennedy and Khrushchev as an example to depend his stated position of treating with Iran and Ahmahdinejead shows that he really doesn't understand the importance of that meeting. First of all, the Cuban Missile Crisis was a direct result of that meeting and Khrushchev's reading of Kennedy as a weak man. Secondly, the Soviet Union was a country with rational leaders who had a lot to lose. The leadership of Iran has shown itself to be highly irrational and we know they are actively working towards what they believe will be Armageddon. Comparing those two situations and regarding them as similar is something a senior in high school would do. Such an opinion would get laughed out of any decent first year political science program.

Bottom line-- you either know or you don't. Reason and Faith will never replace knowing no matter how strong they are. And arrogance based on something as flawed as human reasoning? Well, that's hubris and don't we always seem to pay a cost for that?

The Existence of Evil

2008-05-11T16:35:00.000-07:00

I had a great conversation with my friend, Lee Smith last night. Lee's a writer and a great one. He's currently writing a book. I don't know what it's about but I'm guessing it has to do with the Middle East. He's spent a lot of time there, most recently living in Beirut during the unpleasantness a few years ago. Lee's not only a great writer but a serious thinker and I'm tremendously lucky to have him as a friend. To me, he is the best example of journalistic ethics. He seeks to understand, not just tell a story and I always have an interesting conversation when we get the chance to talk.

Last night, I was on Facebook. Lee is my only friend on Facebook. I only signed up so I could have a single source to read his material. Anyway, while I was logged on, I got a instant message from Lee. This caught me by surprise mostly because instant messaging isn't something that I normally. Plus, it was around 0500 where Lee lives in DC. Anyway, I gave him a call and we had an interesting chat at that late hour. We talked about a lot of things but the topic that really stuck in my mind was our conversation of Evil.

He asked me if I thought that a person could believe in the existence of Evil and be secular at the same time. What an interesting question. I never really looked at it that way. I guess I would consider myself secular but I don't deny the existence of God. My God is the Spinozan God who is relatively unconcerned with the day to day matters of my life. He has created this wonderful world and if I can't negotiate it, well, that's my problem, not His. (I like the Spinozan idea of loving God without ever expecting him to love you in return) This has never really collided with my secular beliefs, though there are times that it does. I'm again referring the Straussian notion that our internal conflict (in the West) is a struggle to reconcile out Hellenic cognition with our Hebraic morality. I used to wrestle with this idea mightily. Finally, I was beaten by this Angel and I found (through Spinoza) a way I could honestly believe in both without sacrificing my sense of wonder and gratefulness and my good sense and rationality.

So my answer to Lee would be quite simple. Believing in the existence of the "DEVIL" doesn't mean that I don't believe in science. Like someone once of said of Mussolini or Hitler (I'm not sure which), the regimes of those men made evil banal. When we use our secularism to tamp down our repulsion of evil, we discard the God-given gift of higher reason and deny the best of our humanity. In the movie, The Usual Suspects, Kevin Spacey's character said that the greatest trick the Devil ever played was to convince the world he didn't exist.

The thing is this. I can't prove to you through logical theorems that the Evil exists. If you haven't experienced it, there is simply no way for me to convince you that it does. It's like trying to explain "sweet" to someone who has never tasted anything "sweet." You can't do it. It's a matter of first principles. Now, not every anti-social act is evil. Evil isn't the absence of good or the absence of virtue. Evil is the presence of Evil. Is is positive (not in the moral sense but in the existential sense). It is not the lack of something but the presence of something more. You know it when you see it and it is undeniable.

It is like the notion of "swing" in jazz. You can't define it verbally but you know when something "swings" and when it doesn't.

Americans have a really poor understanding of this-- especially our academics. I think that is the residue of Marxism that makes us believe that everything boils down to materialism. That's simply not true. I think this is because America is a safe society in ways that we cannot measure. Our youth take risks that youths in other countries would never dream of because we have network that will care for them in ways that they take for granted. Conservatism is not a longing for the old ways. It is a philosophy based on the hard-won experience that being wrong is very costly. The levers that academics and social scientists are so eager to pull are attached to human lives. A cogent and cohesive system of beliefs is nothing if it ends in human misery.

We take virtue for granted because we take safety for granted. The basic lawfulness of your average American is the end result of man's combined learning in ruling since the beginning of civilization. Your average American obeys the law not because he is scared of punishment but because he believes it's the right thing to do while at the same time forgetting that this belief is the true benefit of being an American. We have some basic notion that being good works out in the end. But what about all those countries where people do not feel that way? Take practically any city in Asia and you will find people unconcerned for the body politic. I wonder if we could act so virtuously if our safety nets were not in place?

Our "virtue" as a people, such as it is, is a convenient one, based on the conditions of safety provided to us by better men. Yet even in a society such as ours, Evil does exist. Secularists want to write it off as mental defect or psychological abnormality because doing so, gives us the idea that we can eventually defeat such behavior at its roots-- that we can event a pill that gets rid of Evil. That will never happen and I'll tell you why. God's big joke is the the very thing that makes up our human dignity is what debases us as well. Our ability to take a stand a say "No! I will die before I allow this!" is the same impulse that would rather fight than give up it's old ways. Remove this instinct and you have sheep, not men.

Good and Evil are this impulse in action in two diametrically opposing viewpoints. The very same thing that makes a hero makes a villain. At the same time, i don't believe that it is relativist which is which. Some systems are simply different while some systems are in reality better than others. You cannot tell me a system of beliefs that condones the stoning of women for the crime of being raped is on the same moral level as ours. Principles apply to everybody or they mean nothing. If we are to believe that everything falls victim to relativism, then nothing has meaning at all. That may be true but my experience of the world would seem to counter that argument.

So I have attempted to give you reasons for an understanding that I originally stated cannot be achieved through language. You simply have to see it and in American society, you are unlikely ever to so the vast majority of our citizens have no rational idea of how to combat it while our intelligentsia refuses to believe it exists. That we haven't already lost the battle is a testament to the enduring power of virtue. I'm torn with hoping that everybody gets to experience Evil so they would value what we have as a people and the protective instinct to shield people from it's existence.

Lastly, I want to say something about the language of virtue. I'm a victim of the East Coast Intelligentsia (which provided the bulk of my higher education) and because of that, I am uncomfortable using words that evoke morality or virtue. But I am more and more convinced that we have to use those words because what they represent matters and if we fail to talk about them, we will lose them and in doing so, lose our chance for real human dignity.

Not your Average Observer

2008-05-08T22:35:00.000-07:00

I've been working with my group class on awareness. I don't frame that word in new age mumbo-jumbo. I don't particularly care for academic definitions of concepts. Definitions (especially for something like "awareness") should give you opportunities for action. This is particularly true of "awareness."

I've been pretty successful a as a negotiator in my life. I do especially well in high risk environments where most people are taken off their game. Somebody once asked me what I thought was the secret of my success and I finally decided, after much reflection, that it was because of my experience in fighting. When you fight, the first ting you must do is size up your opponent. And the great thing about fighting is that you get immediate feedback to whether nor not your assessments were correct. Plus, the cost of being wrong is high. Years spent doing this allowed me to observe even the smallest things that would be missed by most people, particularly when they're under stress. My observer gets better and sharper when I'm under stress. Something I credit my training with. Now, even when I meet people socially, I go through that same sizing up. I may even them push them on something to see how they react. I then file that information away in case I need it later. Often, I'm more aware of a person's actions than he is.

I explained to my group class like this. Every person has two broad sets of sensors: internal and external. Internal sensors are the ones with which we determine how we're feeling and such. External sensors give us information about the outside world. These two set of sensors are inter-related. You have no measure to empirically judge the accuracy of your internal sensors so you try to make your external sensors as accurate as possible and hope that some if it bleeds over. Interestingly enough, this has no meaning to those people who only see external events through their internal sensors. Those people, to me, are the most unhappy because the world treats them very differently from how they think they should be treated.

But broadly, let's say that you have 100 point of mental and emotional energy you can allocate to your sensors. When it's peaceful and you have time for reflection, you should put 80% of the energy into your internal sensors. However, if you are subjected to stress, it should be the opposite. You should put 80% into the external sensors. The thing is, it is human instinct to do exactly the wrong thing. When you apply stress to the average person, they put all their energy into their internal sensors which takes away their ability to alleviate that stress.

In our class, we train to retrain this instinct. When we apply stress (through sparring) I want my students to gather information about the outside world. The better the gathering, the better decisions they can make. The point is to make it instinctive. Blood pressure goes up and you're instantly putting energy into your external sensors without having to make the conscious decision to do so.

Only be being armed with accurate information can you formulate a good plan. My negotiations generally were successful because I was able to assess the situation more clearly than anybody else. I was able to cut through the emotional fog and address the real issues. It wasn't because I was smarter or had a better plan. It was just because I saw more clearly.

My Mea Culpa.

2008-04-27T21:56:00.000-07:00

I do my best to keep my blog from being overly self-indulgent. I realize the inherent contradiction in that statement as there is nothing more self-congratulatory than a personal blog. Against that accusation, I have no meaningful defense. I could say something ridiculous about intellectual exploration or codification of my thoughts but the reality is really much more mundane. For some reason, I think people would benefit from the way I think. The only thing that keeps this from becoming an exercise in pure hubris is the fact that I recognize all the many mistakes I have made and will continue to make. I am tremendously imperfect but I sense in the martial arts a methodology for addressing those imperfections and character flaws. So, instead of continuing with this lame disclaimer, I ought to get to my point.

When I was 16 years old, I had a very vivid dream. It was around 17th century Japan, during the Tokugawa Shogunate. In this dream, I was the Shogun's Assassin. In Japanese culture, this position was one of great honor. It was generally given to the best swordsman in the land. Beheading someone with a sword isn't an easy task. In fact, too many mistakes during beheadings (which led to undue suffering) led to the creation of the guillotine-- putting the job in the hands of a machine that could cut the same way every time. The Shogun's Assassin was traditionally the "kaishaku" of last resort or a dueling second. If the Emperor thought you had to die, you were given the opportunity to retain your honor and your family's holdings and position but committing seppuku or ritual suicide. Now, disemboweling yourself with a short short required a fortitude most people didn't have. In order not to cause them any embarrassment, the kaishaku would cut the person's head off before he screamed, saving his honor. This wasn't as easy as it might seem. The swordsman had to perform a perfect 35 degree cut, the angle that would allow for a clean cut between the jawline and the upper shoulders. However, he had to leave a piece of skin at the very end so that the head would not roll off into the audience in an undignified manner. If the swordsman screwed this up, he would killed himself so there was great pressure to do this correctly.

The thing about this dream that sticks in my mind was how it made me feel. I can still remember very clearly that sense of melancholy produced by it. I remember feeling very proud that I was given the honor of representing the Shogun but I also recall feeling very sad that my skill involved taking a life. I asked myself in this dream whether it was worth being really good at something if your found that skill to be fundamentally repugnant. I had only been training the martial arts for 10 years at that point and I wasn't up to really digging into the Truth of my dream but I think I was on to something then that I am only beginning to understand now.

I have devoted 31 years of my life to hurting people. Spin it however you like-- at the core of it, you will find this Truth. Perhaps you know the story I tell everyone-- that the arts and my profession were the results of my mother's abuse at the hands of my father and my inability to protect her. Maybe I've told you the story of how I trained because I wanted to protect her and how I feel like am every time I defend someone otherwise defenseless. I suppose there's some truth to that. But really, I just wanted to be strong. Weakness, to me, meant suffering all manner of indignity. Strength meant the ability to say, "No! I will not allow that." But I think I've engaged in what all warriors eventually engage in-- trying to ennoble and dignify something that is horrendous. Unfortunately for me, I happen to be pretty smart and well educated so my justifications are elaborate and convincing regardless of their lack of authenticity.

So I've said it. I wanted to be strong. Then I was injured and I could no longer be strong. Was all this training for nothing? I did not have the fortune of dying gloriously. I was confined to a hospital bed and at the mercy of just about everybody. My worst nightmare had come true. I had spent my entire life focusing on how to be strong so I could ultimately self-reliant. Now, I needed everybody and everything. Most distressingly, I needed their charity.

What made me most sad was something an ex-girlfriend said to me once. She said that when it came down to it, she was physically scared of me because of my physical abilities. That really disturbed me. Here was the woman I loved telling me she feared me-- not at all what I wanted. Because of the situation if which I was raised, I have always been very careful about my interactions with women. I make it a point never to resort to even a threat of physicality and I hardly, if ever, raise my voice. So much so that this stoicism has been confused for apathy by many a woman. It's not that. I'm just well aware of how slippery that slope is and I understand what I could potentially do if I were to ever lose my temper. So, I don't and it's as simple as that.

What my ex didn't understand is that it was because of my training and my fighting that she could trust me never to hurt her. I would never lose my temper no matter how she behaved because I have had years of study and practice at controlling those feelings. Most men tamp down their demons so that when they surface, they do so at their own bidding. I'm not like that. I know my demons well so I'm able to lead them and have them aid me in my endeavors. My old boss once told me that I was like a stock dog. If he didn't keep me busy, I'd tear up all the furniture in the house. I can't disagree. I know that's true. Nothing is more destructive than me, bored. But I think demons are like that. If you don't let them out to play once in a while, they will tear up all the furniture in your house.

I'm not a good guy. If I think you deserve it, I'll break your arm and go have lunch. But at the same time, you can be sure that I won't accidentally hurt you or worse, lose control and do something I can't take back. At least that's been the case up to now. Training and fighting has given me an understanding of myself and my fellow man that I think could have been gained no other way. Having sized up so many people to fight, I can pretty much get any person's number in under 30 seconds. Simple truth no 1. You can't hide who you are in your body. If you are a keen observer and know how to look, you can learn everything you need to know about a person by the way he walks and carries himself. Truth No. 2. If you don't have this skill, there's no way I can convince you it exists.

Example. When Craig started training with me, I told him he was too tense. He couldn't feel it. He thought he was relaxed. Now, a year later, he realizes that I was right. Now he can fix it. As a teacher, I don't fix your flaws. I merely point them out and force you to look at them. Fixing them is my student's responsibility.

Being a fighter is an odd thing. The power you get from it is enticing but the price you pay is steep. I'm not talking about the physical. I'm talking about intellectually and emotionally. You learn things about your fellow man you'd rather not know. It's that way, at least for me.

Voyerism

2008-04-24T18:05:00.001-07:00

I met an interesting young woman at my friend's wedding this weekend. She's a Anthropology Ph.D. candidate at a prestigious university and charming company. Normally, I'm not that fond of academics but she isn't your average academic. She spent 24 months in Sierra Leone which is quite a feat. We talked about our experiences in Africa-- hers being much more intense than mine. It really made me question my right to talk about Africa. I've been there quite a bit but I've always been focused on my objectives. I was never particularly concerned with the locals except as being an obstacle to what I wanted to accomplish. It was really refreshing to talk to someone who knows far more about this topic than I do.

Anyway, we both got to talking about how much we hate it when someone come up and asks for a simple answer to some pretty complex questions. For her, it's when people walk up to her and say, "What's the deal with Africa?" as if Africa is some monolithic identity. The question is silly and it's insulting. Even if it could be answered like that, why would that person deserve it.

I think we're so used to getting things for free in our Country. In many ways, we have become the Cult of the Victim because we make it so rewarding to be a victim. There should be a cost for losing. There should be cost for sucking or even coming in second place. That's what makes you work hard. If there is no difference in standard of living or honor between achievement and failure, why should I work hard or risk to achieve? And I'm always amazed by folks who think they can achieve a great deal without risk. That's absolutely ridiculous. That's the whole sub-prime mess. People thought they could get rich speculating on real estate. They rolled the dice and they lost. Now they're expecting the Government to bail them out. The Government shouldn't be a wet-nurse or a nanny. That's not the foundation of a free people. It's really obvious. Take money from your parents and they have a say in your life. Take money from the Government and it's the same except the Government has the power to put you in jail if you displease it. Why would you want to give it any more power than is absolutely necessary? The idea that you can get something for nothing from the Government is modern day alchemy. It's a fool's errand.

But that's how our Country has devolved. Look at our fascination with horror films. Fear is no longer a real thing. We can rationalize it away. There is no consequence for the fear we experience. We're just spectators and never have to pay a price beyond the ticket. That's all fine but what happens when we come up against a real fear? People don't believe that there's anything to really be afraid of anymore. We've collectively become like the idiot who tries to feed the bear at Yellowstone Park. Wild animals are not cute. They will kill you whether you're scared of them or not. Scared people live. People who don't think there's anything to be afraid of get selected out. Look at terrorism-- specifically Islamic terrorism. People here in San Francisco love to say that there's nothing to be afraid of, that we're making it all up. I was in NYC during 9/11 and I find that sentiment extremely insulting. I think these same people cling to conspiracy theories because the option is simply too terrifying for them to contemplate. Better to think that it's a monster you know than one you can't possibly fathom. So all these people have confused their movie, voyeuristic understanding of fear with something that should really inspire it. And deserves to inspire it. Try to walk down the street in Saudi Arabia holding your boyfriend's hand and you'll see what kind of world is the option.

But back to my friend. She paid dearly for what she knows and understands. She has earned the position she is in and the beliefs she holds. She can back them up with thought and experience. Even if you repeated what she said word for word at a cocktail party, it wouldn't have the same effect because you wouldn't truly understand. Truth exists and can only be experienced. Language-- any language-- is only an approximation. The better we get with language, the more acute our perception, the closer we may get but there will always be a gulf between the Truth and any approximation. "It is like a finger pointing at the moon. Don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory."

Bottom line, you don't know unless you've been there. Even then, you might not be able to make sense of it for quite some time. That's why I think folks should do stuff before they go to school. You should accumulate experience before you learn to make sense of it. Otherwise, all that school will develop for you are lenses with which you may view the world, making you miss something you might have seen without them.

Again, it's like the martial arts. There are Truths contained in the arts which I cannot verbalize. You simply have to experience them. There are no words to accurately describe concepts which much be felt to be understood. As I commonly say, "Understanding is the reward, not the prerequisite." I think all great truths follow this rule.

My Thought on Healthcare.

2008-04-03T21:06:00.001-07:00

I've been wanting for a long time to write something about healthcare. I've waited because the topic is so complex, I haven't felt like I had anything interesting to add. That really hasn't changed but I've decided to put pen to paper more to clarify what I think about the issue more than anything. Which brings me to my first larger point.

How I feel about the situation is very different from what I think about it. I feel like everybody should get healthcare regardless of their ability to pay for it. I feel like every human life is precious and we must make the extraordinary effort to save it, regardless of what we personally believe about the quality of that life. Unfortunately, my brain knows that this is unrealistic.

The response I often get when I bring up this topic is Europe. If Europe can provide national healthcare, why can't we. Well, there are several reasons. At a geopolitical level, Europe has been able to pay for their grand social programs because they have not taken responsibility for their own defense. Their lifestyle is maintained by American blood and treasure. Rightly so-- we entered into the Breton Woods agreement with them after WWII. We assured them that we would be the ultimate consumer for their products and that we would maintain global security so they would not have to rearm. Why did we do this? The results of European arms races were WWI and WWII. Nobody wanted to go through that again.

Even with our deal, this system is fast crumbling because European economies have not kept pace with health care costs. This is especially true with the influx of Muslim immigrants who often consume a great deal of the social programs without contributing very much to the State coffers. Because of this hard economic fact, doctors in France will not perform extraordinary procedures to save a life. If a person comes in needing expensive surgery, they tell that person that such procedures are not covered and send them to the South of France to die in peace. Such is the result of socialized medicine. Life becomes of matter of gross economics.

In addition, because of the raw number of people, the systems are often faulty, particularly in diagnostics. My friends grandfather comes to America from England for all his medical needs because he cannot stand the indignity of British Healthcare. I know what he means. I was, unfortunately, subject to such socialized medicine in Taipei, Taiwan during a stay there. I sat in a room with a doctor who didn't even look me in the eye once. Nor did she examine me personally. She asked me the most personal questions while there were three other people in her office waiting for her attention. It wasn't that I didn't get proper care though I know I didn't. It was the sheer indignity of the event that still sticks with me.

And European countries don't have the population size that we have. I've also had to deal with health care in Hawaii where the health system is strained to the breaking point by a unhealthy population. My doctors neglected me sorely, to the point I had to move to another state to receive proper care. I ran a high fever for 2 weeks and my doctor did nothing. I was urinating blood and he still did not act. I quite sure that I would have expired without much fanfare had I stayed. I don't think he was a bad man. I just know he was overburdened by a backlog of patients. Numbers, as any competent manager knows, can play havoc with a system.

Most importantly, I believe that people make the mistake of thinking that doctors are interchangeable. They are not. I've had close contact with the medical profession all my life given my profession and proclivities. I've probably had the pleasure of meeting over a hundred doctors. Out of all of them, I can confidently say that 3 of them were competent. How do I know? By the results of their treatment. Most of the time, I got better care from a PA or a medic.

So the question is this. Are we willing to give everybody mediocre healthcare just so they can be covered? If we answer "yes" to this, it will require tort reform as the lawsuits that will ensue as a result of the callous care will boondoggle our Court system for a eon. The rich will always be able to afford first rate health care because there will always be people who are willing to cater to them. So are we willing to force those doctors to treat only those uber-rich who can afford them? That is what will happen.

The health care system needs reform but I think it must happen on the Insurance side. Right now, the insurance companies can deny you coverage if you have a pre-existing condition. The only way around this is (in California) is the Major Risk plan which is very expensive and has a long waiting period. Your only other option is to have insurance through you company. They cannot deny you for any reason if you are in a group. If they can pass allow to force the insurance companies to give groups insurance, I don't see why they can't do that for individuals-- especially individuals who would pay. So a good solution, I think is a law forcing insurance companies to insure anybody who wanted insurance regardless of pre-existing conditions. They could have different prices for different situations but the max you should have to pay monthly for insurance is 1000 or so.

Whatever the case, health care should be left as is or made mandatory-- if it is to be a government program. Even if it's cheap, people still won't pay for it and we'll be in the same position we are now. If it's a government program, it has to be mandatory or we really solve nothing.

Ultimately, I think it should be a person's choice. But if they don't have the foresight and discipline to pay for insurance when they are young and healthy, they should have to pay a penalty in price if and when they are older and sick. As somebody who has had close contact with socialized medicine, I know it doesn't work. It's like all grand government programs. They sound good on paper but are hell to administer. I'm reminded of Mosca's Iron Law: For no matter what reason an organization was started, it will sooner or later serve to further the goals of its leaders.

The Gift of Food

2008-04-02T00:45:00.000-07:00

I just got an email from an old friend of mine in NYC. This gentleman is a serious restaurant professional and has worked at the best restaurants in New York. I haven't seen him in years but it was good to hear from him. It made me remember how much I owe him. Through him and his restaurant friends, I was introduced to a world of food I would never have had access to. I don't exaggerate when I say that it changed my life.

When it comes right down to it, my tastes are relatively simple. Nothing in the world makes me happier than a real Hawaiian Bar-B-Q with all the different kinds of foods from various ethnicities. If I were to pick a single food, it would be something simple. Maybe a Shanghai Soup Dumpling or a piece of Southern Fried Chicken. I spent the early years of my adult life traveling the world but never really partaking of all the culinary delights that were offered me. Mostly, I didn't get it. I didn't get why someone would spend so much time preparing a meal or how they could charge so much. My first trip to France was a disaster. There I was, in the Western culinary capital, and I found most of the food distasteful. I realize now that it wasn't the food but my own preconceptions that prevented me from enjoying my experience.

Allow me to digress. I was lucky enough to make friends with Professor Kirk Varnedoe during my tenure in NYC. Professor Varnedoe was an amazing man. He served a term as curator of NYC's MoMA and taught at both Columbia and Princeton. He was one of two men who taught me about art. (The other being Thierry Dreyfus) Not so much the details of it (I still cannot name most of the major artists) but how to look at art and why it is important. Like Thierry, both men were unquestionably men. They were not like the effete art groupies you see using art to find their own identities. Professor Varnedoe was a manly man who happened to know a lot about art. I asked him one day how this happened, especially because he came from the South. He said that his art history professor in college was also his football coach. Because of that, he never felt any hesitation at pursuing his interest in art. He never associated it with the emaciated, chain-smoking, pasty, androgynous male who crossed his legs at the knees.

I think my friend did this for me with food. I used to think that thinking so much about food was a frivolous thing. That that type of self-absorption was essentially feminine in nature. Disregarding the fact that civilization itself is inherently feminine, I looked at eating as an exercise in refueling, nothing else. But then, my friend invited me to a special dinner at Ducasse along with some other restaurant friends. I'd never experienced anything like it. I'm not talking just about the appointments which were justifiably opulent. Nor was it the service which was simply flawless. No, it was the food. Food, unlike anything I had ever put in my mouth. At Ducasse, when you are seated at your table, it's yours for the evening. They only do one turn. Dinner turned out to be a 3 hour experience that changed the way I looked at food and more importantly, the world. Sure dinner was expensive. 500 a head even with the industry discount. Pricey but I can comfortably say that it was more than worth the price. I remember the oxtail gelee clearly even now. It was a beautiful orange color and I could taste every constituent part of the dish clearly. Yet, they all blended together into this flavor I had never tasted before and a mouthfeel that was far more luxurious than the jello I was used to. It felt like running my tongue on the smooth skin of a beautiful woman. The meal was magical, no doubt about that. But, like I said, it was more than just food. It shook my preconceived notions at their very foundation and made me question everything I thought I knew about food and by association, myself. It was identity-shifting.

It also opened a world to me in a whole new way. I believe that food tells you more about a culture than any single thing can. More importantly, a culture cannot lie to you about itself in its food. Contained in its food are its values, its methods, its history. You see what a people value and what they dismiss by what they eat and how they cook it. Previously, I looked at different cultures through a sterile mass of data; through an Aristotlean filter. Now there's nothing wrong with that and it's important to be able to do but now I can draw a richer picture. Whereas before, my view of a culture was prose. Now, it's a beautiful painting. Food can be a vehicle to self-awareness and to reaching out to the world. I'm grateful for having had the experience.

A Question of Factionalism

2008-03-31T18:02:00.000-07:00

With everything going on in politics these days, I often hear complaints about factionalism. First and foremost, I don't consider it, ipso facto, to be a negative thing. Our government was designed to be inefficient to as not to trample on the on the rights of the minority. Federalist 10 makes it amply clear that an elected majority can trample on rights (tyranny of the majority) just as easily as any monarch. Inefficiency keeps government from accruing too much power since government itself is an inherent contradiction to freedom. Be that as it may, I am personally chagrinned by the personal nature of many of these attacks. Both sides are guilty of it. It's pointless to say who's more at fault or who started it. That's a child's folly.

Basically, it comes down to this. How do you feel about government? Do you feel like it is a doting parent or a necessary evil? Do you feel that more of it is better or less of it is more? Every singe policy dispute that we get caught up in ran be distilled into one of these two points of view. There is nothing else. Given that, it is very possible for two people to end up on opposing sides of the issue and have good reasons for why they believe what they do. It has been my experience that those of the socialist bent often have less of a coherent line reasoning for their beliefs. Feeling strongly about something is not a philosophical position. It is no place to make policy decisions from.

I have lots of friends who think differently from me. I don't doubt that they love our Country as much as I do. I don't doubt that they think they are acting in the best interests of our Country. I am just as sure that they are wrong. I will argue and debate and try to persuade them the best I can. I will, however, never question their character or motivations. People who insist that everybody think like they do are just insecure about their positions and are scared of legitimate challenge.

Honest disagreement is a positive thing. Ad hominem attacks are for children and idiots.

Nerds and the Martial Arts

2008-03-28T21:04:00.000-07:00

A few days ago, I had a really nice day. At the end of each martial class, I do a 15 minute debrief with Kung Fu Brothers. We talk about what we did that day, answer any lingering questions and most importantly, we talk about how martial arts have positively impacted our lives. You see, that's really my focus in teaching. I'm not talking about the nebulous benefit of having more self-confidence or focus or discipline. I ask for specifics. I want my brothers to tell me specifically how training has benefitted them. None of my current crop of students are going to be world class fighters. Not one of them has any proclivity for violence of any sort. But the often rough aspect of our class has benefitted them enormously and I'm proud to have played a part in that.

I've taught a lot of people in my life though in the past, it's always been about efficacy in combat. I was never even a little concerned about anything else the arts could impart in a person's life. As far as I was concerned, martial arts were about fighting and winning. Nothing else. Then I got injured and couldn't train anymore. I agonized for a few years about what an incredible waste of time all my previous training was. It was all useless. But then I realized something. I was dealing with my condition with a much better attitude than anybody else in my clinic. So much so that my social worker asked me to speak to the group (which I declined for fear of hubris). I owe this attitude to the martial arts. The fear I felt when confronting my new situation was no different than stepping into a life threatening situation. For this reason alone, I think everybody should practice the arts so that we may deal better with the inevitable bumps and bruises in our lives.

But to get back to my Kung Fu Brothers... Craig recently signed a major contract which has been the crowning achievement of his career so far. In doing so, he created quite a bit of work for himself in a relatively short time period. He mentioned that in the past, he would have panicked and wasted valuable time doing so. Now, he just looked at the work he had in front of him and got down to business-- enabling him to make more efficient use of his time. He mentioned that the feeling was a lot like waiting to mix it up, full contact, with one of his Kung Fu Brothers. I remember Craig said once that he used to have major anxiety for days before coming to class. One day, it just disappeared. I think it had to do with getting his ass kicked and realizing it wasn't that bad. Years ago, I told him once that certain lessons could only be learned through violence and pain. He didn't believe then but sees the truth of it now.

My other King Fu Brother ran into some financial hurdles due to the recent messiness with the stock market. He said that before he trained, he would have panicked and stressed over such an event. Now, he still felt the same rush but he had the emotional tools to deal with the same feelings more effectively. He said that he heard a voice in the back of his head telling him to get over it. He did and got on with business.

I'm not trying to take credit for their new found emotional fortitude. I didn't give it to them. If anything, I created an environment where they would feel comfortable confronting their weaknesses instead of making excuses for them. It's really clear to me that if you do not confront these issues, you cannot get past them and they will always limit your performance. The truth is they had the courage to face their demons and overcome them. They did it themselves and they are now reaping the rewards of their hard work.

What's clear to me is this. You can fake this. You have to risk something. Actually risk. If you don't really risk, you aren't really scared and then you don't get a chance to work on those issues. That's the great thing about the arts. When you're toe to toe with somebody who means to punch you in the face and kick you in the leg, you can't spin the situation. You simply have to get your act together and take care of business. Nobody cares about your excuses.

I'm grateful to have such courageous students. Sometimes, they are complete uncoordinated morons. Other times, I marvel at the courage and tenacity.

Grow Up.

2008-03-28T20:36:00.000-07:00

I never fail to be blown away by unjustified arrogance. I watched a bunch of media pundits today on TV give John McCain a hard time because he admitted that he didn't understand the economy. They all laughed at him as if they did. It's that same schadenfreude that folks exhibited when then candidate Bush didn't know the name of the President of Pakistan. Like anybody else at that time knew.

So, let me say this. I'm an educated man. I've been lucky to attend LSE's Executive courses on Macro and micro economics. I've actually read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations from cover to cover and I'm not ashamed to admit that I don't think I understood it fully. I've got a lot a very smart friends who deal with major economics issues everyday and I spend most of my time trying to understand complex philosophical issues. What's really clear to me is that nobody really understands the economy. It's all a guess and it's all after the fact.

What do I mean by that? It's like fighting. I've been studying fighting for 31 years of my life. I've trained with the very best in the world. I've put together hand-to-hand programs from various forward leaning military units. Safe to say, I know quite a bit about fighting. But when it comes right down to it, I cannot predict how a fight will unfold nor do I have anything wise to say about how all fights will happen. Granted, once I see a person move, I can make some pretty accurate predictions of how he's going to fight but before he moves and engages me, I simply have no idea. And the thing about fighting is this, it doesn't matter how good you are, somebody can always have your number. Knowledge is not a guarantee of victory, though it can stack the deck in your favor.

Fact is, once you engage in a a fight, you simply don't know what going to happen. You cannot account for al the variables. It's beginning to be my impression that the economy is like that. Economists have lots of smart stuff to say after an event. It's meant to make them look smart. I, too, can dissect a fight after it happens in meticulous details and impress you with my perspicacity. What nobody wants to admit is that this 'Monday morning quarterbacking' is relatively useless in predicting the future.

Let me be clear here. The surest way to lose a fight is to have a plan you cannot veer from. There's a saying in the military; No plan survives first contact. The plan isn't important but absolutely nothing is more important than the act of planning. If you plan properly, you force yourself to look at your strengths and weakness and develop strong fundamentals. That allows you to enter a fight in a proper mind state reacting to each thing that comes up. In a streetfight, this is a relatively short span of time. In a longer sanctioned fight, it allows you to focus on strategy and tactics instead of basic responses.

Economically, we've forgotten fundamentals. We expect some grand strategy to allow us to grow unfettered and without consequence. That's ultimately the fatal flaw of our Country. We've forgotten consequences. We want to save everybody from having to deal with them. I'm speaking specifically of the sub-prime mess. Why should we use tax payers dollars to bail out people who foolishly entered into agreements they could not live up to? If we bail them out, how will they learn the lesson? Treating everybody like children will be our downfall. Children can't compete in a world of adults.

Luck of the Draw

2008-03-16T22:29:00.000-07:00

I'm a little disappointed by all the invective directed at Geraldine Ferraro recently. Accusations of racism seem misplaced especially given her history. It seems that these days, what a person says is far more important than how they behave. Is doesn't seem to matter if you devote your life to humanitarian causes if you don't say the right things. Just as tellingly, nor does it seem to matter what kind of bastard you might be as long as you pay lip service to the right points of view. I speak, of course, of Muslims as a group who will loudly proclaim discrimination and a lack of tolerance any chance they get while subjecting their own people to the most draconian and in some cases, evil, intolerance. But that's not really the point I want to make here.

I want to voice my support for Ferraro's point of view. It makes sense to me. Obama certainly wouldn't be in the position he's in were it not for the fact that he is black. I'm not saying that he's not a capable man. He certainly is. But he is nothing special if you disregard his ethnic heritage. Face it, the very worst thing you can call an educated white person is racist. They will tolerate accusations of incompetence, malice and abject stupidity but call them racist and all gloves are off. Support for Obama allows a lot of these types of people to flaunt their "enlightenment." It's not for nothing that more people say they support Obama then actually vote for him in reality.

Obama may or may not deserve to be President. But there's simply no denying that he finds himself in an enviable position. In the past, black people have undoubtedly had to deal with discrimination but those days have changed. Systemic racism is gone in this country. There may be small pockets of it individually but as a policy, it just doesn't exist. I'm living proof of that. I've dealt with racism at a personal level but never professionally. At the same time, I don't deny that many people have looked at me as fulfilling a quota in their lives. I once dated a Southern girl from South Carolina. Her Grandmother remarked that she hoped we would get married because it would be "cool" to have an Asian in the family. Obama is benefiting from the same sentiment. He should recognize this and recall his attack dogs. Ferraro simply doesn't deserve it.

God's Gift of Evil

2008-02-29T00:25:00.000-08:00

The other day, while I was at Stanford for Entrepreneur Week, I happened to notice a flyer on the community bulletin board in the Graduate School of Business. It caught me off guard because I didn't expect to see it. The question posed concerned God and the existence of evil. It's an age-old question. How can an all-powerful God allow for so much suffering in this world?

It caught me off guard for several reasons. First, it was not a question I expected to see at a Business School. But more importantly, I was surprised that they considered this a legitimate question. Not because of context-- I applaud Stanford for creating an environment where they felt comfortable exploring this issue. No, I was surprised that it was, in fact, still a question. It seems obvious to me why there is evil and why a benevolent God would allow it.

I should say now that I do believe in God. Not necessarily the God of the Evangelists. More accurately, the God of Spinoza. I like the idea of loving God without ever expecting to be loved in return. That makes sense to me and dispels the illusion of a quid pro quo relationship. After all, it would be rather silly to think that I had anything God would require or that I could keep it from Him if I chose. It seems to make sense to me also because immaturity is proportional to self-absorption. A good friend of mine told me once that his job as a parent was to instill in his kids of sense of others. As he put it, there's no more selfish creature on this earth than a baby. The parents' job is to move the focus from self to others as the child grows so when he becomes an adult, he can become a productive member of society. If you extrapolate this idea out, it becomes clear that our lives are designed to have an exterior focus. The humor of it exists in the fact that we must have a highly develop internal focus in order to be effective in our exterior focus. For some reason, that cracks me up.

But I digress.

I believe in God and I believe he is a loving God. I don't believe He is a doting parent, though. Let me put it to you like this. Years ago, I participated in a seminar with a world famous martial arts instructor. During one demonstration, he was particularly rough with me. I didn't think anything of it but that 3 minute session left me with a loose tooth and a really bloody lip. I had come from a Japanese tradition so it was no big deal to me but the other participants (NorCal Softies) were shocked. Later, a person asked the instructor if he was mad at me. Somebody told me later of his answer. He said that a flower can be raised in a hothouse where it would be given everything it needed and treated with kid gloves. This flower would grow into a beautiful flower but if something were to happen o the hothouse, there wouldn't be much chance for the survival of the flower. On the other hand, you could make the flower grow in the wild where it would be subjected to all kinds of strife-- wind, rain, sun, animals... If that flower grew up, it would be beautiful and tough and capable of standing on its own.

Needless to say, I was deeply touched by what he said. I think God is like that too. Evil must exist because without it, what would we struggle against? What would we have to prove we are worthy? That's not a popular idea these days. We no longer let our kids compete in school. We've taken away losing from their curriculum. But that does them no favors because it gives them an unrealistic view of life. Some people win and some people lose. And it's always better to be a winner. This struggle defines our humanity. Without it, what would we have?

Like the ancient Greeks believed, this struggle is our special gift. It allows us the opportunity for greatness and true moral achievement. This is something not available to God. God knows nothing of courage. How could He? What does an all-powerful deity know about fear? No, it is in our potential for failure that we achieve anything. It is only through this courage can we really feel our humanity. In our modern society's desire to moderate and eliminate risk, we remove that which makes us human. If there is no failure, no evil then there is no greatness. Evil must exist and it is God's gift to us. In our struggle against it, we find our deepest morality.

Defending Obama?

2008-02-27T14:24:00.000-08:00

I never thought I would write something supporting Barack Obama. After all, he's a Punahou boy. But after reading what Senator Daniel Inouye said about him, I felt compelled to step up. There are plenty of reasons to think that Obama isn't qualified to run the Country but where he went to high school isn't one of them.

Folks who aren't from Hawaii may not understand what Inouye was trying to pull. When he said that Obama went to a "ritzy" school and was "out of touch," he played on the worst part of the local Hawaiian culture. I don't know what Obama's financial situation back then. I'm also unsure what that has to do with anything. As if HRC had it any different. In Hawaii, the first question somebody asks you when you first meet, no matter how old you are, is "Where did you go to high school." You are totally judged by your answer. All kinds of assumptions are made about you. What makes it worse is that you cannot ever change that opinion. When Inouye reinforced the prejudices against Punahou, he was playing the race card in a huge way. Punahou was the school started for the rich, white kids and everybody in Hawaii knows it.

Inouye, a Japanese-American, who lived through the internment camps of WWII should know better. He's been the victim of identity politics. I can't believe that he would subject someone else to the same pointless racism. I'm ashamed and embarrassed by his behavior.

The Media Panel and the Nerds

2008-02-26T22:23:00.000-08:00

I just got back from a panel at Stanford. The discussion topic was business/media relations. Before I went down, Robert Hessen asked me if thought it was truly worth the drive from San Francisco. I didn't really have an answer for him then. Post-panel, I'd have to say it was worth it but not for the reasons you might think.

I have always been suspicious of the media. It was ingrained in me early in my career by own experiences and the experiences of my mentors. At the same time, the media in general has been pretty kind to me. I was first published when I was 22 because the editor of a magazine happened to like some of my ideas and decided to let me run with it. At the same time, I've had to deal with media scrutiny which is less pleasant. I was interviewed by a Wall Street Journal reporter under the condition of anonymity. I have to admit that he was very good at his job because he got me to open up far more than I wanted to. He might as well have named me in his article because it was readily apparent who his quotes came from. That caused me quite a bit of drama.

When I lived in NYC, I made friends with Lee Smith-- a prominent journalist. He gave me hope in the profession. Those hopes were again dashed when I realized there were few journalists of Lee's courage and perspicacity. But it never really concerned me because those in my profession mostly tried to avid media. Attention was a bad thing. Craving it was the ultimate sin.

On a side note, that's what makes me so uncomfortable about Myspace and Facebook. They seem to market in a level of self-absorption I'm uncomfortable with. I know that seems disingenuous given that I have my own blog. The only thing I can say in my defense is that I try to be useful here. i don't assume that the minutiae of my life would be interesting to anybody.

So it's an interesting twist of fate that I'm now in a business that almost requires media attention. I have to deal with the one group of people I've spent my entire professional career up to now avoiding. If that's not some sort of cosmic joke, I don't know what it.

What I learned tonight was that I understand media relations far better than I thought I did. I guess all those years of avoiding media attention taught me something of their habit and forma mentis. It was gratifying to see that my conception of media relations was almost exactly the same as the panel. The only difference really was that they were talking about tech.

Another thing really caught my attention. When it was time for questions, only one person was able to frame a cogent question. The rest were a miasma of buzzwords and delusions of grandeur. It's no wonder why so many tech companies fail. They have the same problem as the restaurant business. Promote a waiter to manager and you have a manager who doesn't know how to manage. Same with an engineer I guess. Adult supervision? Maybe. But how about having the right skill set for the job.

Entrepreneur week at Stanford seems to be a pretty cool thing. I'm really glad I went. It's been a while since I've been to a quasi-education lecture. I really enjoyed it.

Standards and Other Tunes

2008-02-26T13:15:00.001-08:00

San Francisco is filled with writers. Or to be more accurate, San Francisco seems to be filled with people who fancy themselves writers. The only standard here for being a writer is the desire to call yourself one. The only skill you seem to require is the ability to string together a couple of coherent sentences. Or maybe a polysyllabic word... San Francisco is a lot like LA when you think about it. In LA, everybody is an actor. You meet a waitress or a bartender and they'll tell you that they're actually an actor. Here in SF, it's exactly the same except with writing.

Now, maybe I'm being a hard ass but I think standards matter. I published my first article in a national magazine when I was 22. I've perhaps 2 dozen pieces of work strewn out through different national magazines. Still, I don't consider myself a writer. If anything, I'm a philosopher who uses words as his medium for communication for lack of a better method. I've always felt limited by language. That probably has to do with my lack of facility more than anything. I wonder if men like Hitchens feel the same way. A writer is someone like my friend John Hessen. He has written speeches for the UN and for President Clinton. He's a writer. A writer is my friend Lee Smith who is also a vigorous thinker. His way with words often shame to silence.

I recently had to fire an individual in my employ. I let him go for several reasons but primarily, it was because he couldn't do what he said he could do. He majored in English in college. Specifically in poetry. He constantly talked about writing and seemed to be genuinely interested in the topic. I had no reason to believe he could not write. Needless to say, I was shocked at how poorly he actually wrote. It wasn't just substandard. It was complete garbage. I remember looking at his work and thinking that a 5th grader could do better. Yet, this person fancies himself a writer. Tellingly, he told me that he showed his work to several people and they assured him that is work was of professional quality. English must not have been their first language.

This trend is distressing. I personally didn't feel comfortable calling myself a fighter until I was in my 30's. And I started the martial arts when I was 6. I started competing internationally when I was 15. I've spent my entire life fighting in the dojo and in the streets. Yet, it wasn't until I reached a certain level of proficiency that I could give myself the title of "fighter" without embarrassment.

This is all just to say that standards matter. You can't just say you are something because you like the idea. If we all started to do that, then nothing would mean anything. Words used to have an empirical meaning. C.S Lewis wrote about the day when being called a gentleman meant something more than the fact that the speaker thought positively of you. It used to mean something tangible. Now it's just a matter of opinion. I think being a writer should be something observable. Otherwise, it is meaningless.

Big Day

2008-02-24T22:05:00.000-08:00

It was a big day for my company today. About 8 months ago, a friend and I started a hospitality consulting company. It's gone through a quite a few growing pains in this short amount of time. We've changed focus. We've fired and hired personnel. But we also came up with one big idea that seems to have started the ball rolling. Today was the day we unveiled it to the general public and it went far better than we could have hoped.

I don't want to turn this blog into one big ad for my business. There are far too many blogs doing that. I want to keep this blog pure in the sense that I only want to use it to address issues that interest or concern me. Because of that, I'm not going to get into the details of my business right now. Nor will I get into the specifics of why today was so huge. But I will say this. There's no better feeling than coming up with an idea from scratch and seeing it come to fruition. To see what only existed in your mind existing in reality is an incredible rush. Execution is the biggest high there is, I think.

I was asked today how I came up with the idea. The question caught me off guard. I hadn't thought about how I came up with the idea. It came to me while having Chinese food at Ton Kiang. I had been rereading Aristotle's Nicomachean ethics and my head was filled with Aristotlean-type questions. I had applied Aristotle's precepts to many things in my life and it had always brought me success. I used his methodology to increase my ability to learn martial arts. I borrowed liberally from him when I came up with a hand-to-hand program for the U.S. Marine Corps. It's pretty clear that I've never had an original thought of my own. Anyway, I just applied his principles to drink and through some trial and error, we came up with something that really created quite a buzz today.

This idea, in and of itself, is pretty cool but what makes it really great is that it has allowed us to develop relationships with people we would never have had a chance to work with before. This little idea has opened up some huge doors and now it's just up to us to take advantage of them. Maybe, I'll talk more about my business in the future. I don't want to jinx it.

But for right now, I just want to enjoy today's success. I remember what Kawano Sensei told me when I won my first tournament as a little kid. He said, "Boy, you're champion for today only. Tomorrow, you're nothing again." So today, I'm a success. Tomorrow, I'm back at it again-- trying to prove I'm not just taking space on this planet.

The Unintended Legacy of an Iolani Education

2008-02-22T14:46:00.000-08:00

I've been reading Guy Kawasaki's blog a lot recently. Guy wrote a great book called "The Art of the Start." I highly recommend it if you're starting anything. It's a no-nonsense primer written in a way that's easy and fun to read. You can tell Guy doesn't brook a lot of bullshit. Check out his website. www.guykawasaki.com. Anyway, Guy and I went to the same high school. I have to admit I got a really good education from that school even though I had a really difficult time there. Iolani adopts the Asian model for education which mostly focuses on rote learning. Rote learning has its place but it must be balanced out by critical thinking. Iolani not only completely fails in that department but actively works against it. As I like to say, Iolani is training the next batch of middle managers for CitiGroup.

The school has changed quite a bit since I was there. I recently went back to help my friend coach water polo and I was appalled by what I saw. Under Rev. Coon, Iolani was a strict, academically challenging institution where principles mattered and you were treated accordingly. Now, under the new headmaster, it seems that the school has whored itself out. In its zeal to add to its prestige, it sold the only thing that made us better than our better-heeled rivals, Punahou. We always had a pride, a character that came with hard work that Punhou boys never had. Sure, we were generally poorer and lacked their opulent facilities but we had something money couldn't buy-- the pride of hard work and accomplishment that didn't come from a rich Daddy. Iolani has lost that. Sure the academics are still rigorous but it doesn't take much of a teacher to inundate his students with homework. Any fool can do that. My experience the the current crop of students was woefully disappointing. They were an unremarkable group and embarrassingly spoiled. The were like a group of Asian Punahou kids. Pathetic.

But that's not what I wanted to write about. Reading Guy's work, I began to notice an interesting trend. Guy refers to himself as a democratizer of information. He actively works to dispel grand myths and it seems he derives a certain glee in mortalizing the Gods. I wonder if this is a Hawaii thing. Maybe it's indicative of our Iolani education and always playing second fiddle to a better known Punahou. I notice this same desire in myself.

I remember how my European counterparts made me feel on my first trip to Europe. I didn't know anything about wines or beers or cuisine. I was a local boy from Hawaii from God's sake. Heineken was the best beer I'd ever heard of and a good restaurant was any place that had cloth napkins. I remember how those fuckers lorded that information over me and did their best to make me feel insignificant. No matter how I outperformed them in anything else, they would invariably default to this position. It took me a long time but I gradually got to the point where I would not fall prey to such behavior but I still seethe whenever I see anyone who fancies himself better simply because he knows more about wines. Recently, a buddy of mine from Iolani and I started a hospitality consulting company. Our goal is to expose Asia to Western cuisine, customs and drink. Personally, I want to do this because I see how the Europeans mock my Asian brothers for their admittedly boorish habits. i want to completely destroy their ability to hold this over them. I was to demystify food and drink so nobody can use it to create a frivolous aristocracy.

I don't mind people being better than other people. I know lots of people better than me. But knowing more about wine doesn't make you better. Knowing more about scotch doesn't make you better. So in the tradition of Guy Kawasaki, I'd like to democratize this. I want to teach my Asian brothers to drink like gentlemen. Anybody got a problem with that?

Alltop

2008-02-22T00:07:00.000-08:00

I don't often do PSA's but I came across a site that y'all might find interesting and useful. www.alltop.com. It's the top website from all these different categories. It's very cool and a luddite like me could make sense of it. I'm really stoked because it's one of Guy Kawasaki's new ventures. Guy is a Hawaii boy and incidentally, we went to the same high school. He must have been a mediocre student in high school because I think he could only go to Stanford but obviously he's done quite well for himself despite that. I wish I had more to say but unfortunately, I'm not much of a techie. Check it out. Let me know if you like it. I know, it sounds like the last name of a stripper I knew in New York: Bunny Alltop. Or was it Candy Alltop. I don't remember anymore...

CI

2008-02-18T02:02:00.001-08:00

Epistemology is one of my favorite areas of study. According to my dictionary, Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion. It is a theory of knowledge with regards to methods, validity and scope. I was tremendously confused when someone first tried to define this area of study for me. It's really a non-Western concept when you think about it. It's something before cogito ergo sum. Perplexed as I was, I struggled mightily with this subject until Professor Codevilla casually said to me, "It's just a fancy word for counterintelligence."

Counterintelligence can broadly divided into two sections offensive and defensive. Offensive CI is mostly about disinformation and feeding the enemy information we'd like them to believe. As a free society, we've never had much success at this. Defensive CI is about validating information and its methodology is indistinguishable from epistemology.

When faced with any bit of intelligence from a foreign source, CI encourages us to ask some very simple questions. How do I know that this is true? Do I have a particular inclination to believe this? Is so, is anybody aware of this inclination? Who stands to gain if I judge this piece of information as valid? What actions do they believe it will induce me to take? Who would benefit from those actions?

If you take this line of thought seriously, as epistemology asks you to do, you will find yourself soon without bearings. When it comes right down to it, what I know is very limited. Everything is a guess or based on someone else's word and I must judge how much validity to give it. Science is just that way. Unless you've done the experiment yourself, what is touted as science is just somebody else's opinion. It may make sense. It may be commonly accepted but that doesn't necessarily mean it true or valid.

Most people don't have the energy to engage in this type of disciplined thinking. It's not easy. It's also uncomfortable because at the end of the day, all you're left with is a big bunch of uncertainty. And most folks don't like that. It's far easier to believe that someone or something is working actively against you rather than facing the fact that you are totally insignificant to the Universe and its means and movements do not and will not ever take you into consideration.

But this is necessary. Because only after you force yourself to parse down your beliefs to what you actually know, first hand, can you start to separate your justified beliefs from opinion and hearsay. The bottom line is this, unless you have first hand experience with it, you don't really know it and if you don't really know it, you're hardly in the position to judge its validity. So ask yourself: what do you truly know? What do you truly believe? Subject these beliefs to epistemological rigor and if they survive, you'll truly have something worth believing. It still may not be right but you'll have done everything that could reasonably be expected.

The Forms of My Youth

2008-02-18T01:45:00.000-08:00

I was never much on kata. Practicing a form in the air didn't seem to make much sense to me. I've always had a shrewd eye for movement so replicating a movement has never been much of a problem. I could pick up the most omplex katas after a few passes and because of the ease with which I approached this area of study, I've always neglected it-- opting to try to train something I found more difficult and interesting.

But recently, I found myself longing to practice these forms. Obviously, it has something to do with my injury. I'm not as agile and athletic as I once was but I think something deep inside of me wanted a serious practice again. So I've started my training again. It's not much. I practice one Wing Chun form-- Sil Lim Tao-- several times and I start and end with some Chi Kung exercises. It's really all I can consistently do. It may not be much but there is something in my muscles that remembers these movements. I find my mood immeasurably improved, even after just a few days.

I'm a little embarrassed I was so against this practice when I was young. If my teachers could see me now, they would all give me a big, "I told you so." That's the thing about the arts. The older I get, the more I see how wise my teachers were. I was really lucky on that account. With all the shopping mall hacks teaching some version of a martial art, I was tremendously fortunate to have only trained with the best of teachers. Every one of them was a spectacular martial artist. Some had their demons as people but that also taught me an important lesson.

I'm really excited to be training these forms again. It feels like I might on to something; that I might be finally concentrating on the one area of my training that I've neglected for 31 years. I'll keep you posted on how it goes.

A Humble Mind

2008-02-17T15:19:00.000-08:00

A little while ago, I was fortunate enough to get my one of my mentors, Angelo Codevila, on the phone for a social call. Professor Codevilla was and continues to be a major influence on me. I learned a great many things from him but most importantly, I learned how to think. I don't agree with him on everything. (He is far more conservative than I am) Still, I've met no one who thinks more clearly and critically than he does. He showed me that good men of conscience can honestly disagree and arrive at very different places despite working with the same materials. At the same time, he showed me how to avoid all the many errors of thought that trap most people when they attempt to reason. I recommend all his work. Even if you do not find favor with his arguments, I'm sure you will marvel at the lucidity of his thinking.

I met Professor Codevilla when I was in my early teens. At the time, I thought he was crazy. I couldn't see how he could see the world as he did. As I look back, I'm deeply embarrassed by some of the conversations we had. But I picked up one of his books after a few years in the field and everything changed. Bolstered by actual experience, his ways of looking at a problem made sense. When I went to him for counsel, he again pushed me towards Thuycidides, Machiavelli, Plato and Aritotle-- all of whom have become very close friends. Simply put Dr. Codevilla taught me a framework with which I could make sense of the world. More importantly, he gave me the courage to honestly assess new ideas.

Saotome Sensei was asked once what was the difference between his American students and his Japanese students. He answered that if he told his Japanese students to do something, they would do it a thousand times without question. If he told his American students to do something, they would do it 25 times, say they knew and and ask for the next lesson. There are certain lesson that can only be learned through time just as there are certain truths in poetry than can only be divined after you have memorized the poem. For the uninitiated, this makes no sense. Rote learning is not the answer to everything but it does teach lessons that can be learned through no other methodology.

I say all this to indirectly comment on a phenomenon that I find distressing. I'm constantly dealing with thought errors on a daily basis. By thought errors, I don't mean people who think the wrong thing. I mean people who arrive at a conclusion through faulty methodology. I think it has a lot to do with emotion. When I first started teaching my latest group of students, they were highly resistant. They simply couldn't believe what I was saying. They were used to understanding thing before they engaged in an action. The idea that they would have to do the action and achieve proficiency before they understood was anathema to them. To them, understanding was the prerequisite, not the reward. But I come from a different tradition. Perhaps it's because of my martial arts training but I'm totally comfortable with not understanding something. I just have to trust the person asking me to do it. To me, understanding was always the reward. Achieving it was my raison d'etre.

I'm going to write more about thought errors in upcoming blogs. I'll take them apart one by one-- at least the ones I have to deal with but let me end this installment with something to think about. It about "doing." It's about actually being able to move through the world. The man who does something will always have a deeper understanding than the man who just thinks about it because reality is the standard that thoughts must be judged against. There are limitations in language-- major ones for me, less so for a Christopher Hitchens but those limitations exist nonetheless. Epistemology limits our ability to truly communicate with each other accurately. There's a whole lot of truth in Bob Marley's words: He who feels it knows it more.

Be that as it may, language is what we have and we must be precise about it because sloppy language breeds sloppy thinking. Though my friend TheAikidoist doesn't agree with me, our thoughts are shaped and contained by our language. Thinking exists in language. But I digress. We're talking about something basic-- determining validity. To do this properly, you have to rid yourself of thought errors. Unfortunately, this isn't really taught in school anymore where education has become more indoctrination.

Dominican Priest Father Xavier said to me once that one of the keys to understanding was wonder. You had to be able to think about things you didn't understand. You had to allow for ideas that were foreign to you. That's the first thought error that I'd like to talk about-- a lack of wonder. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not true. I think that requires a bit of humility and sadly, that's lacking in academia and humanity in general. In our primal need to feel safe, we default to untested certainty. We accept answers where they may be none. We generate explanations to explain what the human brain may not be suited to understand. So that's what I'll leave you with. Be open to not knowing. Be open to the possibility of not understanding. Be open to something that might simply be beyond you. It is only with that forma mentis can you truly approach the really interesting questions of your life.

Training for Nerds

2008-02-16T21:40:00.000-08:00

I'd like to tell you about my group class. I teach martial arts to a group of brilliant middle-aged men. I'm not exaggerating when I say brilliant. Each is successful enough in his field that he can take a few hours of in the middle of the work day to train. Each is self-employed in a market that is ruthless when it comes to talent. I've written about these guys before. When they started, they were the most uncoordinated and unathletic group I had ever worked with. Not one of them was a fighter and most had never participated in a contact sport. But I have to say: 8 months later, I'm more proud of this group than I am any band of elite warriors I've trained or worked with.

This group has had its ranks thinned since its beginnings. There's nothing like full-contact sparring to separate those who really want to learn and those who simply talk a good game. Our core group is a tough little band of computer nerds and traders. Not what you would traditionally classify as warriors but warriors nonetheless.

That term is thrown around a lot, particularly by those who want to lend some morality to their ass-kicking. I've never used it lightly and I've had major arguments with my mentors and employers about what I thought was their unjustified use of the word. I have some simple rules about warriorhood.
1. Only another warrior can initiate you into the band. It doesn't do any good to have your mother call you a warrior unless she's a warrior too.
2. You actually have to have some physical ability to fight. If not, you're just an athlete, not a warrior.
3. You have to have an ethical code. Without that, you're just a thug.
4. You will have had to overcome some significant obstacle. As George Leonard wrote, "Being a warrior has nothing to do with winning or even succeeding. It has to do with risking and losing and risking again as long as you live.
5. You've got to be willing to put it on the line for something greater than yourself.

My motley crew of nerds have certainly fulfilled all these requirements. In fact, what there were mostly missing was the physical part. That was easy enough to teach them because the core elements were there. The thing that amazes me, though is how much I've learned from them. I don't come from their world. I grew up fighting so I was relatively unfamiliar with the fear and apprehension they felt about training. None of the men I've trained before exhibited any of that fear. If they felt it, they would have had to choke it down for fear of ridicule. But that's a different thing entirely. The closest thing I can relate to was when I got to college. I shouldn't have been there. I was a trouble-maker, a fighter and a world-class martial artist. I had no business being at an institution of higher learning. But I was lucky enough to have some phenomenal professors who took me under their wings (I'm still no sure why) and guide me through my academic life. To my great surprise, I found that I was actually quite good at it.

My nerds, in their approach to training, showed me that I had a lot in common with them. Their apprehension (and mine) was based in a lack of familiarity. If I could be guided through gently (as fearful as I was) hopefully, I could do the same with them. I spent so much time and energy thinking about how to explain things, how to teach certain concepts that were second nature to a fighter but completely foreign to a computer nerd.

When it comes right down to it, I think that these students were all far braver than I've ever been. Fighting, jumping out of an airplane, etc. has always been second nature to me. Sure, I've been scared but it was always mixed with exhilaration. School was terrifying because it made me question my value as a person-- at least in the beginning. My students had far more to be really scared of. None of them, before the started class had ever taken a really good punch before. Now, they are mixing it up like seasoned amateurs.

One of students once said to me that he never used to believe me when I said that there were certain things that could only be learned through physical force and violence. He said that he thought I was just being a macho asshole. It wasn't until after he'd gone through my training that he understood what I was talking about. There aren't words for what I'm trying to say. But I can show you physically. We can talk about it after you understand.

That's the thing with martial arts. You have to trust your teacher because many of the lessons do not make sense until you can do them. I guess that why I favor Spinoza so much more than Descartes. In purely physical terms, a Cartesian mind would never understand the martial arts. You cannot wake up one day and know Kung Fu.

I'm really proud of my nerdy students. I'm also continuing to refine the teaching method. I think, in there somewhere, is a lesson that would benefit nerds of all stripes. This is the greatest gift of my injury. It has forced me to teach a group of men I would have never thought of for a second before. I'm a better man because I know them. I honored to count them as friends.

A Few Good Men...

2008-02-16T15:41:00.000-08:00

A little while ago, an oil geologist friend of mine recommended that a I read a novel called, "The Shell Game." My friend said that the author, Steve Alten, had come up with a pretty impressive piece of conspiracy theory. I'm not much of a fiction reader-- particularly modern fiction but my friend strongly suggested that I read it. He simply said, "People actually believe this." So trusting my friend as I do, I decided to give it a read.

First, let me say that it's an impressive piece of fiction. Well written and timely, I definitely enjoyed the time I spent with this book. Do I recommend it? Sure, it f you are a sane, rational adult who has some sense of how the government actually works. Unfortunately, this book will appeal to stupid people just like The DaVinci Code. Alten goes to a lot of effort to surround insane suppositions with actual fact, giving his conspiracy theories the whiff of the truth. In that sense, it is an impressive piece of work. Obviously, he has an axe to grind with neoconservatives. But just as obviously, he's pretty unclear about actual neoconservative doctrine. Admittedly, the term has been co-opted by members of the current Administration but I'm of the belief that if you are alluding to scholarly discipline, you really ought to have some of it.

The thing about well written conspiracies is the fact that you cannot conclusively disprove them. The DaVinci Code was replete with this type of innuendo. The Shell Game is well-written and well-thought out (for the most part). Occasionally, it went to far in trying to tie up loose ends which only served to distract from the weight of it arguments. Be that as it may, it would be pointless for me to dissect all the little fallacies and misconceptions that the author complied to tell his story. Still, I do feel like I need to address this conspiracy nonsense. So here it goes.

First, let me start with my nemesis, Rene Descartes. I'm sure readers of my blog are quite sick of hearing me rage against him. Well, too bad. Personally, I never tire of besmirching Descartes-- such is the malice I direct toward him. His philosophy for determining validity is the source of an incredible amount of stupidity. To those that are unfamiliar with this, I will briefly explain. Descartes believe that you determined the validity of an idea by testing it against your own experience. This form should be recognizable because this is what most people do. Now, admittedly, on a day-to-day level, this modus operandi is fine. But what if you encounter an idea that is beyond your realm of experience? Do you automatically label it invalid? If so, how do you grow? All real growth is dependent on experiences that expands your understanding;that forces you to question your conception of the world. Descartes simply doesn't allow for that. More than anything, his form is a justification for ignorance.

Sp what does this have to do with conspiracies? Hang on, Im getting there. A good friend of mine hates Fox News. Vocal and virulent in his hatred, he rarely misses an opportunity to malign the network. I asked him why one day. His answer was that Fox was biased. I asked him how did he know? Was he ever involved in any situation that made Fox News? Could he disagree with the reporting from a first-person point of view? He could not. I pointed out that the only way he could accuse someone of bias is if he was personally involved in that event. Otherwise, it's just another uninformed opinion. I cite this example as a classic example of the negative effects of Descartes. Another friend once said that Fox was biased because most of the country is liberal. I asked him why he thought that. He answered because most of the people he met were liberal. I offered that this was more a factor of where he lived, worked and socialized (San Francisco) than what was actually the state of the country. It's pretty easy to have a skewed view of the country if you use the Bay Area as a meter. I think Berkeley just discovered that fact.

The funny thing is this. People who believe in conspiracies rarely know a soldier, government agent of any anybody for that matter who makes his living where the rubber meets the road. I'll tell you why I believe above all reasons why we actually landed a man on the moon. Because those men, John Glenn, Gus Grissom and their brothers are simply not the sort that would lie to America. Not a huge lie like that. You don't get to that position without displaying the strongest ethics and character. Those men would not and could not have been coerced into such a charade.

Let's look at the World Trade Bombing. Lost of silly people believe this to be an internal demolition. These same people often learn about explosives from the internet. The thought is because the building collapsed under its own weight that demolitions were placed at its foundation. I'm not going to get into the physics of this because that's not the point I'm trying to make. What I will say is this. People would have had to place those explosives. Those people would have to had been very good at their jobs and more importantly, proven their reliability on other clandestine jobs for God and Country. You would not use a rookie for something like that. Men who are chosen for that kind of work have to display tremendous reliability and intelligence. They are also judged on their patriotism. After all, you wouldn't train a man to do all manner of dangerous things if you thought there was the possibility that he would use those skills against you. Now given all that, does anybody reasonably think that men like those would willingly kill American citizens on such a grand scale? Or is it possible that these men who are often highly educated in civilian schools could be fooled so easily into thinking that it was for the "greater good?"

The sad thing is that most of the people here in San Francisco do think it's possible. But that's only because they usually don't know any of the type of men I'm talking about. Unfortunately, those men are in short supply in the Bay Area. Berkeley should thank God above for the United States Marine Corps. It's highly unlikely they could muster enough good men to defend themselves from a marauding band of Lilliputians.

Thoughts on Friendship 1

2008-01-16T17:27:00.000-08:00

I got into an argument with a friend of mine the other night. I recently ended a friendship with a mutual friend and this particular person was asking me to explain myself. Very perspicaciously, I said that the person in question was a "shitty person" to which my friend did not agree. I tried to explain what I meant to her but failed miserably so we agreed to disagree. It got me thinking, however, of how little time people devote to thinking about something we all say is very important in our lives. I mean, if you ask what is most important in a person's life, "friendship" is invariably within the top 3. Shouldn't we take more care in thinking about this most precious of things?

When I said this person was "shitty", I was not talking about their morality. I don't believe that this person's transgressions contained any malice. His problem is a weakness of character. This flaw is more than a inability to admit a mistake. It's far worse than that. It's the inability to see reality and to remanufacture events to suit your conception of yourself. This is the ultimate fatal flaw because it prevents all real growth. Why would I want a person like this in my life?

My experience with friendship is different from most people, I think. Because of my life experience and the amount I've travelled, I'm fortunate to have friends over the world. In fact, it would be safe to say that I know more people in any given country that most people know, period. In "Tipping Point" parlance, I am a connector. Now, given the raw amount of people, it would be easy for me to have superficial friendships and consider everyone I know "friends." But friendship means for to me than that. If I tell you that you are my friend, what I mean to say is that if you call me at 0300 and tell me you've just killed a hooker and you need me to help you get rid of the body, I'll drag myself out of bed and find a shovel. I expect the same loyalty in return and if that's not possible (as it isn't for most people) then you are labeled as an acquaintance. I simply cannot devote that kind of commitment to everybody I know. I don't have the energy for that so I'm very selective about whom I deem "friend."

I thought this "friend" whom I recently got rid of was that type of person. I considered him one of my close circle. But then I realized that he wasn't capable of the type of loyalty I demanded. Not because he wasn't sincere. I believe that he thinks that he's that type of person. It's just that his character isn't capable of such loyalty. He is simply too self-absorbed. Now, I think most people would disagree with me. They say intentions matter. I agree. They do matter but they are required; not sufficient. I can't see him as a friend anymore because I have no respect for him. I don't hate him. I despise him as I despise all weakness-- particularly in myself. The way I see it, the world is filled with pleasant people. I need more than that for a friend. Good intentions don't matter to me if there is simply no chance that those intentions will be manifested.

Friendship is ultimately between peers. It doesn't mean you have to make the same amount of money. One of my good friendship is rich like the way small countries are rich but we can still be friends because he considers us equals in other ways. In other words, I'm as good in my field as he is in his. And that's the kind of equality that matters. I could easily forgive my transgressor if I thought he even understood what he did wrong. But he'll never admit it to himself because doing so would confirm that he's not the type of person he believes himself to be. And he simply doesn't possess the character to deal with that eventuality.

Slippery Slope of Infidelity

2007-12-07T14:46:00.000-08:00

Last night I had the pleasure of having dinner with two very beautiful, very married women. During the course of our conversation, we started talking about the infidelity of Mayor Gavin Newsome and former President Bill Clinton. Both were somewhat nonchalant about it which I found and still find kind of strange. I didn't make an issue about it except to say that Newsome was a scumbag for betraying his friend and Clinton lost my respect for his transparent lie, but there's something more fundamental at stake and I kept my mouth shut about it.

I was having a very pleasant evening and i think I was charmed into silence which I'm kind of embarrassed about. I try to be above that kind of thing, you know? To treat everyone equally on the weight of their argument, regardless of their charm or beauty. My intellectual integrity has suffered a blow. Nonetheless, I will press on here where I am safe from their charms.

Fidelity matters to me. Not necessarily my partner's-- I have no control over that-- but my own and for my own reasons. To my mind, there are two types of men. Those that take their oaths seriously and those that do not. If a man makes an oath in front of friends, loved ones and his God, yet does not take it seriously, how can I trust in situations where his life might be at stake. A man who will choose his own pleasure over his oath will invariably choose his life over his duty.I'm not even comfortable doing business with such a man. If he can so easily betray the one he is supposed to love above all, how can I possibly trust him to be a good business partner?

I've written earlier about my feelings regarding Newsome's loathsome actions. I'll not reiterate it here except to say that there would be serious consequences for any friend who betrayed me in such a manner. A man who doesn't understand this most basic tenet of the guy code is simply not a man.

Finally, I would like to say that when women forgive President Clinton and Mayor Newsome for infidelity, they are only excusing it in their own lives. If you tolerate this kind of behavior, you can hardly complain when it visits you.

Blessed

2007-12-07T13:48:00.001-08:00

This past week, I was lucky to be able to spend time with two of my very close friends who were in town visiting. They are a recently married couple and seem to be going through none of the dreaded so-called "period of adjustment" that the rest of my newly married friends seem to be experiencing. I could go on to extol their virtues ad infinitum but rather embarrass all of us with some MEGO (My Eyes Glaze Over) piece of purple prose, I thought I'd just say how grateful I am to have them in my life.

Without question, they have been there for me when I have needed them. But it's more than that. Having them as friends make me a better person because I want them to be as proud of me as I am of them. I think that this should be my standard of who I want to have in my life.

On a side note, I just have to say that pretty much every woman whom I respect in the world as a capable player, I've met through Allison. And I've met an awful lot of when in my life in all kinds of fields. She has the uncanny ability of surrounding herself with first-rate women. Uniformly across the board, I have been impressed and the latest person she introduced me to is no different. But the men? That's a different story. Outside of her husband and her father (whom I love dearly), every other man she's introduced me to has been either a poofter or competitive with me to the point of absurdity. We talked about this and came to no conclusions.

I wish they lived closer to me so that I might see them more often. Whenever I see them or even think of them, I think my injury is the best thing that ever happened to me for without it, I would have never had the chance to have these wonderful people in my life. That's why for all my failings, I still feel like God's favorite son. Whatever good has been taken away has been replaced by blessings immeasurable.

It's like Martial Arts!

2007-12-07T13:23:00.000-08:00

Faith has long been an issue in my life. I speak of "Faith" with a capital "F". I've never been one with much of it in general. I need proof for everything which has made me successful in my general endeavors but woefully, catastrophically miserable in my relationships. After all, faith is the sine qua non of love. No person will ever be able to show you beyond a doubt that they love you. You just have to accept it. But that's not where I'm going here.

I've always thought of religious faith as a binary operation. You either have it or you don't. But recently, I've amended this thinking. I think religious faith is more like skill in the martial arts. Big shock, huh? People often say to me that they would like to learn one thing that will always work so they might be able to defend themselves. If that one thing existed, why would I have spent 31 years of my life studying the craft? I could have just practiced that one thing. True, I can distill practical self-defense in a couple of very basic moves but there is no way I can pass on the experience, the very judgement of how and when and to what degree to use those moves. Elegance in martial arts isn't demonstrative. It's that subtle shifting of your body that prompts your opponent not to attack or if he must, to attack you in a manner of your choosing. The fact of the matter is that I get better at fighting the more I train. To some extent, I could always fight. I wasn't one of those kids who came to the Arts because he got beat up in school. No, I wanted to fight bigger, tougher guys so I trained. I'm certainly not the fighter I was when I was 26 but I get into much less trouble now (thankfully). The point being that this is a constant struggle where my understanding changes and deepens on a daily basis. There are many epiphanies along the way but I would never say for a second that I understand all the martial arts have to offer. It's simply too rich of a subject.

I think religious faith is like that. I'm not trying to get a black belt. I just have to work and struggle and engage daily with the training so that I might find the Truth. The more I learn about the Catholics, the more I like them. Not my parishoners per se, but the priest and the parish staff-- all of whom I find to be incredibly learned.

The thing is, religious thought evolves like martial thought. It has to adapt to reality to be valid. Otherwise, we're just doing a dance. And I don't dance.

RCAA Day2

2007-12-04T22:03:00.000-08:00

Tonight was my second night at what Catholics call their RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation Adults). I've committed to giving it an honest try for at least 8 weeks before making any decision on whether or not to continue. I must say that I'm very impressed with the general academic rigor and scholarly aspect of the class. It's a legitimate class and the instructors are all very learned individuals. The first class last week was interesting and this week's was even better. Immediately, an issues rises to the forefront of my mind.

I don't really get the point of this. Why do I care what the Catholic Church thinks about the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption? I mean it's certainly interesting and the part of my mind that devours information like this is definitely satiated but I don't see what this has to do with becoming a better person through your relationship with God. Does knowing some minutiae about what some men decided about the Mother of Christ have anything to do with anything? I don't know.

The other thing that really bugs me is the intellectual level of my fellow students. Tonight, I got a glimpse of why people get so made at Christians when I had a gentleman indignantly tell me that a person couldn't have character without faith. Ridiculous. I also took another person to task about vague comments she was making and another person jumped to her defense by attacking me. Clearly, intellectual integrity is not very important in this group. I don't think there was anything sinister. I just think they didn't have the intellectual horsepower to think at those levels. All of a sudden, I felt like Christopher Hitchens and that's never a good thing!

Trying to shame people in believing something you cannot defend is always a bad idea. Maybe it works for kids but it's stupid with adults and it's particularly stupid with me because I have no shame.

It seems to me that most people are there for fellowship and while that's nice, cupcakes and lousy company aren't particularly motivating to me.

So what's the upside? I'm not sure yet. I do enjoy going because I like the intellectual challenge. I also like dispelling a lot of the misinformation I've gotten about the Catholic Church. I'll keep you informed.

So Far...

2007-11-26T06:04:00.000-08:00

And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly; I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit. For in much wisdom there is much grief and he who increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
- Ecclesiastes 1:17-18

So I'm 37 today. As I look back on my life, I'm warmed by many things for which I'm justifiably proud. But the sad fact is that I've done little in the last few years but stay alive. This isn't a pleasant thought. I'm up at 0600 dwelling on this unfortunate fact. It's my 5th sleepless night in a row. Pathetic.

But I've realized something living in SF this past year. I have quite a few close friends here but I've known all of them for years. In fact, only a handful of them have been in my life less than 10 years. One of them has been my friend for 31 years and I count him as the best of my blessings. Interestingly enough, I haven't made very many new friends here. That's unusual for me. I'm lucky to have a string of good friends from Honolulu to Islamabad but SF was somewhat of an enigma to me. Particularly because I'm so fond of this City.

But I think I got a grip on this. Never have I been to a place where the inhabitants were so uniformly pleased with themselves. I find this type of smugness absolutely disgusting. It's simply anathema to me. Complacency invariably leads to moral decay and to generally being an asshole. I don't tolerate it in myself which I know can make me difficult to be around. But complacency and excellence are mutually exclusive and I for one would rather be good than happy.

I ran into my old high school water polo coach at the MPSF Championships in Berkeley this past weekend. I was reminded of something he said to me as a kid. "If you're not getting your butt kicked, you're not learning anything." That always stuck in my head so when I read Rilke, I understood its truth.

"Winning does not tempt that man.
This is how he grows.
By being defeated, decisively,
by constantly greater beings."
-Rilke
From "A Man Watching"

I just can't imagine that the point of life is making myself happy. I don't refuse to believe very much but I refuse to believe that. Life is a precious thing. More so than most reaize. It can be snuffed out so easily and for the most insignificant of reasons. I look around at my fellow citizens and I'm blown away by what vexes them. But like my friend Thierry said, "All of us have a box for problems in our head and that box always has to be full."

I believe that we are here to be useful. And to those whom much has been given, much is expected. But this goes beyond making ourselves feel good. Most of the aid workers I've run into in 3rd World nations were insufferable due to their own sense of importance. This was made worse by the fact that many of the things that they did to make themselves feel better actually hurt the people they were supposed to help.

Being useful means not putting yourself first. Ever. Doing the right thing usually means doing the hard thing. I don't know why. I wish that wasn't the case.

I don't mean that you can't have fun. Life should be fun. But can't be about fun. My raison d'etre can't be fun or my own personal enjoyment. If that were the case, life would be a very small thing and I know for a fact that it's not.

This coming year I will endeavor to be more useful, even if it means shortening my overall life. I have no desire to report in a year that I've accomplished nothing. I'll keep you informed.

Mass.

2007-11-26T03:38:00.000-08:00

It's my birthday today and for my birthday, I decided that I would attend a Catholic Mass. I've been thinking about this for a long time but I finally worked up the courage to take the plunge. What swayed me in the end was my own sense of protocol. I give people such a hard time about making assumptions. I figured that there were plenty of men I respected who were Catholic and I can't really say I disagree with their doctrine because I don't know what that doctrine is beyond what I hear people say. So yesterday was my step to finding out for myself and maintaining some sense of intellectual integrity.

Far be it from me to judge (when I am no position to do so) but I was kind of put off by the music. I have always been moved to tears by devotional hymns. I don't know why. I never grew up with them. The music is invariably powerful though and I have always been deeply affected by pieces of music such as Ave Maria and the like. The service I attended was much more contemporary with modern almost "poppy" music. I didn't like that. I would have like to hear some Latin too. But that's just the snob in me.

All those who know me that I have always struggled with religion. My cognition is most definitely Hellenic and I have never been able to reconcile that with my strong belief that I'm one of God's favorite sons. Surely, nobody actually deserves as many chances as I've had to be a good person. Yesterday's sermon only confirmed this hubris. Father Michael mentioned both Alexander and Aristotle-- both major figures in my life. The lesson he spoke of was Aristotle's admonishment to Alexander-- "He who cannot obey cannot lead." I felt like he was speaking specifically to me. I was shocked. Yeah, I know it's ridiculous but Alexander is such an important character to me. When I turned 32, I went through a week of serious depression because I compared my accomplishments to date with his. Of course, I found myself woefully lacking.

Father Michael asked me to rate my level of interest in the Church. I wasn't quite sure how to answer that. I'm not interested in joining anything for the sake of joining. I don't have the pressing need to be a part of any community. But I'd like to understand my spiritual longing better and if there is indeed a plan for me, I'd like to be of some use.

A friend of mine (who is a Buddhist) said to me when I first got out of the hospital and battling a bout of depression revolving around my shit state that even if I spent the rest of my life in a room doing nothing, I'd still be worthwhile as a person. That idea shocked me silly. A man's worth is measured by his usefulness. If I'm sure of anything, I'm sure of that. As the saying goes, "Talent is God's gift to you. What you do with it is your gift to God." My unfortunate circumstance is that my particular talent is mostly centered around violence. I'm not sure what that means.

But as usual, this leads me back to the Arts. At it's core, martial arts are about training specific instincts. For instance, when somebody pulls you, your body instinctive answer is to pull back. Vice versa if the person pushes you. Well,at its highest levels, MA training seeks to change a person's reactive instinct to resist. This is extremely difficult, particularly under pressure but it can be done and reliably so. It's taken me a long time to realize that the true gift of the arts is beyond the physical and self-defense realm. This training method gives me a glimpse of what it takes to train my emotional responses. If I can train my body to react properly under stress, I can do the same with my emotions and much the same way.

So how do you train instinct? It starts with basic foundational training. I have a strong foundation in traditional martial arts and I've always felt that this grounding gave me certain advantages when I started studying the hybrid arts when compared with those who started with the hybrid arts. There were ineffable qualities that a person picked up from doing things by rote, from learning certain inviolable rules that cannot be learned any other way. It is not enough to know the rules, they have to ooze from your pores. My students are most guilty of saying, "I know" every time I make a correction. The fact is they don't know. If they did, they wouldn't make the mistake. Knowing it in their heads means nothing to me. I only care if they can do it. And that's the connection to the emotional. How many times do we know the right thing but fail to do it? It's much easier to see this phenomenon when its big and physical as opposed to when it's subtle and emotional. But despite the difference in proportion, what goes on in the body is exactly the same.

I wonder if this is the same with religion. I've been trying to create an ethical framework for myself out of a million different things and I think what I've come up with is some kind of Frankenstein monster. Is it the same as the martial arts? Do I have to learn to framework, live it, believe, breathe it in the very fiber of my being in order to earn the right to move beyond it? Why should this be any different from everything else I've developed a high level of skill in? All wisdom and skill comes at a price and the more acute my understanding, the greater the price.

I've paid the price with my body to know and understand what I do. I've never regretted it for a second. I suppose that was only preparing me for this. I'll keep you informed.

Mission District Kung Fu Brothers.

2007-11-12T01:54:00.001-08:00

Readers of my blog will remember the martial arts class that I'm teaching. I have about 9 students though only about 4 come very consistently. None of them are particularly athletic but all of them work very hard. (I'm speaking of my consistent students.) Truth of the matter is: out of all the many students I have taught in my life-- many of them world-class athletes-- I am most proud of this group of middle-aged nerds.

I think we've been training maybe 20 weeks and I cannot believe the growth they've achieved emotionally. Physically, they're still kind of retarded but none of them are by nature fighters and there's only one natural athlete in the group. But I've never had a group willing to risk more than this one and I'm proud of them.

Aristotle talks about the courage of superiority. I'm used to seeing that. I've trained many high-level guys in much more intense modules where the potential for injury was much greater. But these guys were used to this stuff so there really wasn't much of a stretch to make them do dangerous drills. My students now have to push themselves and confront personal demons just to come to class. That's big deal. One of my students is a committed pacifist who has only come to train because he agreed with my belief that pacifism means nothing without a capacity for violence. Another student has trained martial arts before but in a way that never gave him the personal growth he sought. Why? Because there was no risk and the training asked nothing personally of him. Both these men have grown incredibly in the last 5 months. They are different people now and live in their bodies in whole new ways.

I think that I'm a better teacher now. After my injury, I had to look at what the arts meant to me. I can't fight anymore. I'm a mere shell of my former self. I can defend myself with a knife but I'm not getting into any streetfights. There was this moment in my life right after my injury where I was incredibly despondent. I spent so much of my life practicing something that was apparently meaningless. It took me some years to snap out of that and realize that the lessons that I took away from the arts were still with me. The broken bones and bloody noses bought me something valuable that I can share. I love the Arts and what they gave me. I'm beyond grateful that I have the opportunity to share what I know.

Rationalized Cowardice.

2007-11-12T01:34:00.000-08:00

I went to dinner with a lovely young lady the other night. We also went to a movie and got to see the preview for Lions to Lambs. I didn't think much of it but at the end of the movie, she mentions to me that she didn't want to see Lions for Lambs because she didn't believe that terrorism was real. She thought it was something made up by the Bush Administration to take away our civil rights. That effectively ended out date and any possible respect I could have had for her. First of all, I wonder what were the rights she was complaining about losing. As a beautiful white woman, I'm rather sure she's not under any risk of being sent to Gitmo. But that wasn't what really bothered me. Her attitude is indicative of the general cowardice I see here in SF. Make no mistake-- this idea that terrorism doesn't exist has nothing to do with reality. It's all about justifying inability.

People here don't want to see Islamic Terrorism for the problem it is because they have no way to combat. it. They cannot fight back physically and all the bullshit they've spouted for some many years prevents them from even considering such an action. So they're left with a couple of options. They can put their fate in the hands of others (thereby indebting them in a way they could never allow) or they an define away the problem and pretend it doesn't exist. That's much simpler because by doing that, they make the bad guys people whom they have some way to affect, not people who just want to kill them. I've asked people here what would they do against somebody who was there to kill them? They invariably say that they would reason with him and try to get on his good side. That's silly and ridiculous. If a person means to kill you, you cannot convince him otherwise. You cannot be on his side. That terrifies most people and rightly so.

Plain and simple: most pacifism here is just rationalized cowardice. These miserable people only show courage against those they know would never hurt them. Pathetic.

Useful or Not

2007-11-11T23:17:00.000-08:00

"Anybody can have the will to win but not everybody has the will to prepare to win."

A old coach of mine used to say that to me all the time and the older I get, the more I see the truth in this statement. At a geopolitical level, it's why I'm not afraid of Al Qaeda. I'm well aware of the damage they can do as well as have done but I'm not fundamentally scared of them. Why? Because any fool can strap a bomb on and blow himself up. That requires no skill and because of that is limited in the overall damage done. But few of those guys have the discipline required to spend years honing a craft and warfare is nothing but the most serious of crafts. I don't see that changing and until it does, I don't see them winning in the end.

It's not just a Muslim thing. People in America are guilty of this type of sloth too. We recently had an oil spill in the San Francisco bay. It's pretty serious and many experts say that there will be environmental effects for the next 30 years. That's bad. But seriously, what do you expect? Shipping is important to commerce and San Francisco runs on commerce. This is the risk you run. But that's not what pisses me off. Tons of volunteers have been inundating the beach to help clean up the spill. They do this out of goodwill but none of them have any hazmat training. I'm not familiar with ship fuel but I know that jet fuel is extremely poisonous. I can't imagine that ship fuel is much different. Okay-- these folks are welcome to help but they shouldn't expect any tax dollars to help with their medical bills if they get sick. And on top of that, they may simply get in the way. If they were truly concerned about something like this, they would have gone to haxmat training long before something like this happened. It's just self-absorption that drive most of these people now. They talk about incompetence but how would they know. What do they know about cleaning up hazardous materials?

I ran into this same problem after 9/11. I was at Ground Zero but I had the training to be there. We had to turn away hundreds of people who were furious. They were frustrated and felt the need to so something. But we simply couldn't use them. Especially in a situation like that were people could have gotten hurt. Basically, if you're not trained and don't know how to folow orders, you just get in the way. It may go slowly but that's because there are too few professionals for that kind of work. Think abut that the next time you have to pay taxes.

Bottom line, you don't have a right to help just because ou want to help. You are either useful or ou are not. It has nothing to do with intentions. In the real world of emergencies, intentions count for next to nothing. And good intentions often do more damage than indifference.

One more time for those who weren't listening...

2007-11-11T11:43:00.000-08:00

Okay. We all know that chicks require time and money. That looks like this.

Chicks = Time X Money.

We also know that time is money so that looks like this.

Chicks = Money X Money or Chicks = (Money)2

It's a given that money is the root of all evil.

Money = Square root of (Evil). Sorry, I don't know how to make the square root symbol on the computer.

Therefore, (Money)2 = Evil and

Chicks = Evil.

That's has to be true, right? The math certainly works. Well, I certainly don't believe that all chicks are evil but I have to say that I have a really hard time dealing with San Francisco women in general. The women here are pretty kooky. Am I generalizing? Of course, I am but that doesn't mean I wrong. I have this theory. If you want to get an idea of what the women in any given town are like, you only have to browse the personals at Match.com. I've always found Match.com to be an interesting tool. Fundamentally, I suppose the idea is sound but it's bound to fail because the personal profiles say nothing about a person as they actually are. They only describe how the person views him or herself and we all know how undependable that information generally is. But if one had nefarious aims, then the information is invaluable because a large part of seduction is playing in with how your target view herself. If she fancies herself smart, you simply spend dinner talking about how smart she is. If she thinks herself kind, you emphasize her kindness. Match.com profiles while doing nothing for meaningful long-term relationships are wonderful dossiers for a person's triggers. Interestingly enough, if you go to different parts of the country and browse the profiles, you'll find them remarkable similar. NYC girls are all the same. As are Atlanta girls. San Francisco girls too. You get an idea of the feminine forma mentis of a certain place which is interesting I think. For example, pretty much every woman on Match in San Francisco considers herself well-travelled and worldly. I know a lot of women in this town and I haven't yet met one who's actually worldly. Spending a summer in Europe doesn't make you worldly. Not hardly. Every woman on Match here fancies herself as smart. That's not true either. I know lots of very smart women but I have yet to meet a truly smart one here n SF. I know that can't be right because there has to be an abundance of smart women here in SF. I'm thinking they must be computer smart because when it comes to IR, they're all pretty uninformed. They all have vibrant exciting careers and value their friends and family. They all are as comfortable in the field as they are at the opera. It's the same old shit. But worst of all, they all seem to want men who are successful in their careers (i.e. rich) but put their family first. Now that's the silliest thing I've ever heard. You don't get to do that. A man who's successful-- truly successful-- in his career is going to neglect him family to some extent. There's no way around it. And it's simply unrealistic to expect a man who dominates his field to capitulate to his woman the second he comes home.

I think this expectation is why there are so many single women in their 30's in SF. They simply have expectations that defy reality. They have this habit of mind that I find annoying. In their need to be nice, they tend to render things meaningless. I used to argue with my ex all the time about her friends who were on psychotropic meds. My feelings about this are simple. A person who acts out is either crazy or undisciplined. A crazy person has a chemical imbalance that they cannot control. Their misbehavior is not a moral issue, it's a medical one and they require medication. An undisciplined person acts out because he is weak and lacks character. He doesn't need meds though they may help him. He needs an ass kicking. A person is either rightfully taking med (which makes him crazy) or taking them because he is undisciplined (and lacks character). It's that simple. But my ex refused to call any of her friend either crazy or undisciplined. She refused to make a call. I thought it was just her but it's not. My buddies fiancee refuses to say a friend's son was emotionally off because he was acting out due to exhaustion. She insisted on calling it exhaustion. Yes, that's true but the result of his exhaustion was being emotionally off. The lack of willingness to call something what it is simply because you wish not to label something is the primary indicator of the level of shoddy thinking that passes for compassion here in SF. It's a flaw of affluence and the result of a meaningless life.

I guess that's why people here are so kooky. Life is just too damned pleasant here. I think pretty much anybody who's spent their 20's in this City will be forever damaged by an inability to comprehend reality.

Okay, this is turning in to a rant so I'll leave it with this-- at risk of offending a lot of women.

I am sick to death of women thinking they're my intellectual equal simply because I've slept with them. I know lots of women who are my intellectual equal or betters for that matter. That fact has nothing to do with whether I've slept with them or not. But why is it that I have to suddenly take a woman's opinion about the danger posed by a nuclear Iran simply because we've been intimate? How ridiculous is that? That makes no sense to me. I refuse to do it. I sick of deferring just because it's expected of me here.

Peritas!!

2007-11-05T07:32:00.000-08:00

I got my dog this weekend. His name is Peritas and he's a little under 5 months. He's a little Maltese-- maybe around 3 pounds but he's a spunky little guy and amaingly well behaved. Right now, he's lying down in his crate with the door open while I'm typing. He's only been with me since Saturday but he's already a big part of the household. He's pretty well trained already. He's used to using the puppy pads and he's been really consistent so far. He does a bit of whining when he's alone as all puppies are wont to do but he calms down quickly and amuses himself. I have to get him some new toys. Everything I've purchased for him is all too big. We haven't started training yet-- beyond housebreaking-- because I want him to get settled in his new environment gently but we'll begin with "SIT" today. I'm excited. He's a really good boy.

He's really changed my quality of life in the short time he's been here. I forgot how much I missed having a dog... If I can figure out how to post pictures, I'll post some of him.

Training-- of Dogs and Man

2007-11-01T23:36:00.000-07:00

I'm getting a dog. I'm really stoked. To prep for this happy day, I've, of course, done my reseach. I've read about a dozen dog training books and I'm relatively well versed on all the different theories of dog training. It remains to be seen if I can apply those theories but it feels good to have an intellectual road map for what I'm about to do. It also made me realize all the mistakes I've made with my dogs in the past. Admittedly, I'm going through a fair bit of guilt now that I realized that I did not take care of my dogs the way I should. I've had to come to terms with the fact that I've been raising dogs for my emotional needs and not theirs. That's wrong. A dog is a living creature and derserves to be treated as such. It doesn't need to be spoiled like a baby but more important, I cannot deal with my emotional issues by humanizing it. Thinking about this has made me think about kids and how they are being raised here in San Francisco.

My ex-girlfriend's sister-in-law still breast feeds her 6 year old boy. Now, that's just simply disgusting. She's a doctor and apparently a very smart one so there's no telling her that she has no common sense. Her arrogance has steeled her against all who would counsel her to make better decisions because it's abundantly clear that she's breastfeeding for her own sake rather than the boy's. Even if it were true that breastfreeding at his age provides his immune system with an advantage, it's simply not worth the psychological damage it is in variably doing to the boy. God forbid if his friends find out when he's older. He'll never live it down. The will tease him unmercifully and he'll never get their respect due to no fault of his own. I'm blown away at how selfish his mother is. She has used her considerable intellectual skills to justify her desires and emotional shortcomings rather than think about what's best for the kid. That's solpsism at it's worst.

The truth is that I like this kid. He's fundamentally a good soul and very concerned with the well-being of others-- a proper tone for the man he will grow into. I remember being very sick around him once and he went out of his way on occassion to check if I was okay. It wasn't manipulative charm like it is with most kids or young girls. He stood nothing to gain from my good will. But this is why this situation makes me rather upset. This good kid is going to be ruined by his family-- mostly because they can't get out of their need to fulfill their desires at his expense. He is going to have to stand on his own two feet one day as a man. He will have to earn the respect of other men-- no mean feat. To start him off at such a disadvantage is unfair. It's far worse than growing up in a poor neighborhood or with physically abusive parents. There is dignity in overcoming those things. But overcoming late-stage breastfeeding will inspire nothing but ridicule. And no man should have to live with that.

I genuinely wish the best for this kid. I have great personal affection for him. He's clearly got athletic genes and he comes from proud family heritage. (His grandfather earned the Navy Cross by ramming his ship into a U-boat in WWII). I hope one day he desires more for himself than the coddling he is receiving. I hope that he sees that he can do more and attempts to receive a commission in the US Military. I don't say this of all little boys but I have the strange feeling he would do well there. We'll see.

But back to my dog. Yeah, I'm already spoiling him and I haven't even received him yet. He's got a mink bed and lots of toys. Expensive food and his own little area in the house. I have no problems getting him the best of doggie stuff but there's no free lunch. To those whom much is given, much is expected. This dog will have some high expectations. He will be allowed to be a dog but he's still a reflection of me. I'll let everybody know how the training goes.

Pacifism must be a choice.

2007-10-27T00:07:00.000-07:00

Today, we will have another anti-war rally here in San Francisco. Tens of thousands of smug people-- way to pleased with themselves-- will high-handedly lecture us from the vaunted position of their unassailable moral authority. Forget for a moment that these events are nothing more than emotional masturbation, a group gestalt and self-congratulatory nonesense. Forget the fact that none of these protests would be possible without the system that so many of the protestors hate. Forget the reality that many of these protests do, in fact, turn violence and are generally permeated with a strong sense of beliigerence. Forget all of these things and you still have the one fundamental point that makes most pacifism rationalization masquerading as morality.

What do I mean by that? Not too long ago, I had a conversation with a lady roughly my age about the war in Iraq. She asked my opinion and to her credit, was genuinely open to hearing what I had to say. But before I could say anything, she said, "You should know, I'm a pacifist." An inocuous enough statement but what caught me was her sense of the moral superiority of her statement. I didn't choose to make an issue of it then but it reemphasized to me what I teach to all my students.

For pacifism to be a moral choice, you have to be able to do the opposite. In other words, if you have no capacity for violence, your pacifism is more statement of fact than it is a matter of morality. Such a statement typifies slave-morality. This swiftly degenerates into cowardice which becomes the foundation of appeasement. For a person who cannot fight, appeasement is the only option regardless of its morality.

What about someone like Gandhi then? Surely his pacifism is a moral one? I don't think so. He chose his tactic very carefully-- against an enemy who had lost his stomach to do the dirty work of counterinsurgency. Had he tried this in Darfur, he would not have been so successful I think. Nor was he able to mount an armed insurrection. He chose the only tactic he had and he was right solely because he had measured his opponent accurately. He was a great strategist but his actions have nothing to do with morality.

Violence is simply not less moral than non-violence. If you can stand aside and promote peace while others around you are being oppressed than your non-violence is of the immoral sort and I have no use for it. For those who truly are pacifists-- people who are capable of violence but walk away from it on ethical grounds-- I have nothing but respect for. But I have met very few such men. None in fact. This type of thinking allows us to confuse happy circumstance with morality. Many of us who fancy ourselves pacifist are lonly allowed to do so because of security provided by other men. Such morality is not moral. It's is the rantings of a spoiled teenager.

Flawed Thinking.

2007-10-11T17:20:00.001-07:00

I don't want the readers of my blog to get the idea that I think I'm smarter than everybody else. I don't think that and I'm always looking to learn more. I'm not certain of much and I'm doubly suspicious of what I am certain of. As usual, I think I developed this habit of thought from my training in martial arts. You can never rest on your laurels or take someone's word for the efficacy of a technique. You have to test it and continually test and refine as long as you live. I think that's tiring for most people and this habit of mine has certainly driven every one of my girlfriends a little crazy in the past.

Still, I'm not willing to give this up. It seems that the Cosmic Joke is that we Humans are only comfortable with certainty and the only thing you can be absolutely certain of is change. As I've said before, it seems to me that most people just want to feel good about themselves-- as though high self-esteem is our raison d'etre as a species. I'm reasonably sure that's wrong. It smackes of solipsistic nonsense; the idea that my primary mission in life is to feel good about myself whether I deserve it or not. I can't believe the ease in which some people let themselves off the hook in our society. But I digress.

I want to discuss the environmental nutbags that I'm surrounded by in the SF Bay Area. I've said for a long time that scientists are the priests of our time. I don't know how many time I've heard someone say, "Well, science says..." without understanding in the least what the science actually says. Parroting science you don't understand is no different from parroting the supposed machinations of God. Scientist, unlike priests, are not bound by a moral code. They are not altrusitic. They want fame and fortune just like everybody else. We question other professions' motives when they involve fame and money. Why not scientists? What's the difference? I'd like to make one major point that pretty much everybody I've talked to has missed.

Global warming is happening. We know that because we have empirical measurements that support that statement. Why it's happening is not so clear. It could be carbon dioxide or it could be the natural geological cycle of the Earth. We're not sure. According to some measurements, there is a corresponding rise in CO2 level and general temperature of the Earth but a corrollation is not a causation. No one can explain fully the mechanism behind the rising temperature of the Earth. Now here's my point. It doesn't matter if 99.9 percent of the scientist believe this to be true. It doesn't make it true. Hard science is unaffected by democracy. 99.9 percent of scientists can agree on something and have it still be wrong. There is a reason why the Earth is heating up and getting a lot of people to agree with your reasoning may feel nice but doesn't make it so.

Many educated people confuse this with the softer fields of study. Take history for example. Historical consensus means something here-- again, not because it is necessarily true but because without a time machine, we have no accurate way of knowing what actually happened. Because of this, we bolster our hypotheses with the works of others and arrive at what we hope to be the truth in some rather obtuse ways. (I'm speaking of Ancient history-- not anything we have an empirical record of) For example, we think we know where the city of Troy originally stood in Asia Minor but we can never really be sure.

Hard science isn't like that. Consensus doesn't mean anything. You either know exactly why or you're making a guess. It could be a good guess but it's still a guess and it's always bad idea to make a policy based on a guess.

And ultimately, that's what I'm writing about. Policy. We should have policy that is environmentally sensitive because we only have one Earth and we cannot start over if, in fact, global warming is caused by humans. But we should not endanger our current prosperity or risk the prosperity of our children for something that is still a guess, no matter how many people believe it to be true. Any environmental policy choice has a cost and yes, that cost may be as great as a 2 foot rise in the oceans. It's a matter of perspective. If I'm a father trying to feed my son, the long term affects of my labor on the planet are the very least of my worries.

Policy doesn't exist in a vacuum. The levels with the educated intelligentsia and the so-called Masters of the Universe so love to pull are attached to very real human lives that exist in the here and now. We can never forget the the status quo which benefits us so greatly does not affect everyone equally. Everyone deserves a chance at prosperity and the real human flaw is believing that some others don't.

Yeah, you're that dumb.

2007-09-24T17:55:00.000-07:00

I had the pleasure of watching President Ahmadinejad's talk at Columbia University on TV today. I wasn't against his speaking. I just thought it should be fair. Okay, Columbia isn't UC but I think it's pretty ridiculous that Ahmadinejad's allowed to speak while Larry Summers isn't. And as of now, we don't know yet if former SECDEF Rumsfeld will be allowed to speak at Stanford. But I'm not going to get into that right now.

Regarding concerns of legitimacy-- I have to say that I'm not worried about him gaining any here in the US. I mean, if you support him now, you clearly have an agenda at odds with the general spirit of the USA. The concern I have is for the weight of such an event viewed from the position of the Iranian national. Any of us with any sophistication know that the Ivy's and higher education in general aren't what it used to be. But I suspect that the average Iranian national is similar to the average Chinese or Japanese national in that their view of Columbia was shaped by the efforts of much better men than the ones who run the school now. The danger is that those who were on the fence about Ahmandinejad in Iran might lean towards supporting him because he has been officially "sanctioned" by Columbia University. I don't know that for sure as I've never run into Iranians who were on the fence regarding the current regime.

But that's not really what surprised me. Ahmadinejad got quite of few rounds of applause. The man is simply uneducated. His constant resorting to the Socratic method was a transparent rhetorical tactic and should have fooled no one. It was the kind on conversation I would have with a petulant child. "Did you break the vase?" "What? You've never broken anything in your life?" This goes back to the common misinterpretation of the Christian idea of "let he who is without sin, throw the first stone." It's the end result of relativism. If everthing is the same, then nothing has meaning.

But again, that's not the major point I'm trying to make. I live here in San Francisco which has no shortage of truly smart people. Unfortunately, those people are still few and far between and I spend a lot of my time sifting through people who either fancy themselves truly intelligent or know enough to fake it and waste 20 minutes of my time. Let me address first the environmental nutbags. There's so much to say about this but I'll confine it to discussing one particularly controversial author- Bjorn Lomborg of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" fame. I was turned on to him because Scientific America devoted an entire issue blasting this guy. Anybody who pisses that many people off that badly has to be saying something interesting. What I leanred after reading his book was similar to the lesson I learned after Professor Sam Huntington's book "Who Are We?" Simply put, most people-- when reading about a topic they are emotional about-- have no ability to read the words as they are written much less read critically. Scientist criticized Lomborg's work because he wasn't a scientist. He never claimed to be. He's a statistician. He took their numbers and applied hard statistic to them. I've said all along and for many years that scientist are really good at finding the data. They are considerably less skilled at telling you what it means. That an entirely different skill set.

They screw up in the same way intelligence operatives do. Your job is to gather empirical facts. Somebody who sees the big pricture will put in into context. The moment you start worry about the context, you can no longer honest gather the data. Scientist can tell me through their research that the sea levels will rise between half a foot and 2 feet the next century. Beyond that-- what that means-- well, that's less clear. Lomborg was just trying to give a different narrative-- a different interpretation of the same facts that the scientist discovered. You can't argue with his numbers because he uses the same ones that the environmentalist use. And to argue with his metodology shows a poor understanding of statistics-- a daunting subject all its own. He may be right. He may be wrong but there's no honestly denying that his narrative is valid.

And that the real limit of the human brain. We don't understand things except in context. That's why motion simulators work so well on us. Our brains are particularly easy to fool. Without context, we have no meaning and the very nature of how we acquired a piece of knowledge shapes how we view it. Think about it. Everything we think about and believe comes with a story. It may commonly accepted or one we just tell ourselves but it a narrative nonetheless. Because we need that story, we often give it precedence over the facts. If the story is compelling enough, who cares if the facts don't support it? A good story is a great smoke screen for a lack of facts. What happens more than that though is just learing the narrative and forgeting the facts entirely if you've bothered to learn them at all.

I've noticed an alarming trend in the supposedly learned class of the greater West. These days, we tend to judge intelligence by what a person believes rather than how he thinks. If he shares these certain set of beliefs, he is then smart. If not, well he's uneducated and stupid. I'm reminded of what my 8th grade Algebra teacher said to me. "Rich, you have to show me your work." I answered, "But I have the answer right there." He replied, "How do I know you didn't cheat and just copy the answers?" Most folks these days just copy the answers. They say what they think will make them sound smart. Ask them why they think the way they do-- to provide a solid philosophical underpinning for their beliefs and they can't. That's not thinking. That's mimicking and I have a bird that can do that.

Ask somebody why they're against the war and you'll get a truckload of reasons. Ask them to explain any one of them and I'm sure you'll be met with a blank stare or some ridiculous monologue. Basically, I've given up being nice about this. I'm taking a page out of Christopher Hitchens' book. If somebody says I hurt their feelings, I'll answer that I'm still waiting to hear their point. The sad fact of the matter is that many of the people who are supposed to be our smartest out here are often the least able to provide context. Sitting behind a computer all day may help you create the next great internet browser but that's about it. Like Elie Wiesel said, the world should not be trusted to the scholars because they have a tendency to turn people into abstractions.

So I challenge you. Next time you say you believe something, really ask yourself why. Question your assumptions. That way, if we ever meet, I won't have to be rude and call you dumb.

The Road to Mastery

2007-08-13T15:44:00.000-07:00

Dr. Thomas Barnett brought an interesting point in one of his books that has been kicking around my brain the last few days. He asked why America consistently produces the world's least impressive 18 year olds but somehow turns them into the world's most impressive 30-year olds. What happens during those years that allow for this dramatic change?

First, I'd like to say that I don't necessarily agree with his basic assumptions. I don't think our 18-year olds are uniformly unimpressive. Any man who has spent time with our armed forces would be hard pressed to say that those young men have not shouldered their responsibility admirably. There are different kind of 18-year olds and I've seen them both. When I was living in Hawaii, I coached water polo at my old high school. I was appalled by the childishness of my players. When I would try to hold them to a higher standard, their parents would invariably balk, saying that their progeny were just 'kids.' That's tough for me to swallow especially when I know an 18 year old Marine who was totally willing to hold a position by himself again a platoon of advancing Taliban. He didn't whimper. He didn't whine. He just asked for another bandolier of grenades.

I think young men and women live up to the responsibility forced upon them. Growth is never pleasant. Achieving maturity is always painful and no one-- ABSOLUTELY NO ONE-- gets there by choice. It has to be forced upon you either by design or circumstance. Personally, I know quite a few very impressive people in their 20's. True, they are not the norm but excellence wouldn't be excellence if it was common. I have high hopes for what these people might accomplish in the future. There is a dearth of good thinking in general and that's a huge problem in a democracy.

So in my arrogance, I'd like to offer a piece of advice to all my friends in their 20's who are striving to do more and better.

Somebody told me once that he'd never met anyone truly interesting who knew what they were going to do with their lives before they were 30. I was in my young 20's when I heard this and I didn't buy it-- chalking it up to simple agism. Like so many of those things that require experience, I see its wisdom now. And that's really the point of what I'm trying to say. Experience matters. Like the Old Spice commercial says, "If you've never had any of it, people just seem to know."

I think a person's 20's should spend all that time accruing experience. You don't need to make sense of it though practice in that area can never hurt. I'm reminded of the words of Rabbi Tarphon: "You are not required to finish the work. Nor are you free to desist from it." Instead of worrying about what you've accomplished or the good you've done in the world, just continue to work and gain experience. The important thing is to develop mastery because future employers and partners want to see that you have the discipline to achieve it. This is a hard thing for type A's to do.

I remember when I was a younger martial artist training with my aikido instructor. I kept harrassing him about what I could do to improve and he always gave me the same answer over and over. I thought he was just shining me on. Now I realize that he was giving me the actual 'secret'-- if there is any-- of achieving mastery. His secret? Concentrate on ukemi. Ukemi is the art of falling. It's the skill of rolling, falling, etc. without hurting yourself. It's valuable because it enable vigorous practice but it's difficult for the Western ego to focus on because of our forma mentis. The Japanese word 'uke' applies to a training partner who takes the fall. There's really no accurate translation in English for all that this word means but it is certainly NOT training dummy. To focus on this is hard on the ego, especially when you're a vigorous young man with a history of competition. But I trusted my instructor so I focused on it. Learning the discipline to do it right and to be a good 'uke' changed everything for me. Most importantly, it taught me to take my ego out of my performance which allowed me to make great gains in my ability. As I got better at it, my instructor and other instructors started to notice and began using me more and more to demonstrate technique. As a result, I got first hand experience of what a proper technique 'felt' like. That information was invaluable.

But this also translated into my professional life. Because I was able to separate my ego from my performance, people wanted to partner with me who would otherwise never take a chance on a young man of limited experience. I think they could see in me someone who would do what it took to accomplish the mission-- who would put the mission before himself. And I hope they could see someone on whom the experience would not be lost. And that's what all instructors want to see. As a teacher myself, I don't want to waste my time. Maybe it would be more egalitarian to treat everybody the same but I don't have the time or energy for that. I will devote my attention to those who I think will get it and the most important thing a student can do is get on my radar. Having said that, the only way to do that is to just work and hope I see your growth. If you try to impress me, I will know it and I will look down on you. Integrity is what you do when nobody else is looking. It is the best, most accurate testament to a person's character and I'm constantly searching for ways to observe my students when they don't think I'm looking.

The point of all this is to say that you have 2 choices. You can develop your forma mentis early and see all your experiences thereafter through that prism or you can accumulate as much experience as you can and then analyze it later when you have more seasoning. The key thing is to gain as much experience as you can as clearly as you can-- uncolored by politics, agenda and ego. Because if I've learned one thing in my life, it's that people see what they want to see. Rarely does that have anything to do with reality. So, to all my friends in their 20's chomping at the bit, I say: relax, settle in, put in your best work and develop mastery. Once you get there, you'll know it and more importantly, so with everybody else who has achieved it.

Why We Must Win (in general)

2007-07-20T17:14:00.000-07:00

I think I was 13 or so when I say this happen. It was a fight and even at that age, I had seen and participated in dozens of fights. The actual fight itself was unspectacular-- a testament to the pedestrian nature of that exchange is that I barely remember it. What happened after the fight, however, taught me one of the most important lessons of my life. After the loser was unconscious, the winner grabbed him by the back of the head, placed his open mouth against the edge of a curb and stepped forcefully on the back of the loser's head. The loser's body jerked unnaturally and then went limp. It was the first time in my life that I saw another man being killed. It was shocking.

There was a lot of talk after that incident among those of us that witnessed the scene and those who had just heard about it. The line was that the loser was killed in a fight. I didn't see it that way and I still don't. The loser wasn't killed during thefight. He was still breathing when the fight was over. He was killed after the fight as a consequence for losing the fight. And that consequence could be the end result of anyone-- whether you choose to fight or not. But what was more clear to me than anything was power. You must win a fight because lying there unconscious, you have so say to what happens to you. You are completely at the mercy of the who just beat you.

There are some folks who say that this is reason enough not to fight-- that being at someone's mercy in such a way is unacceptable. They are only partly right. It is unacceptable to be at another's person's mercy in that way. No person should willingly allow it. But winning a fight is the only way to make sure that person isn't you. You can choose not to fight but that's no guarantee that I still won't knock you unsconscious and then have my way.

It's the "coward's bargain." I learned about this bargain first in the ring because I made it myself. It was my first time in the ring with an actual opponent who stood a good chance of beating me. His first couple of strikes showed me how powerful and fast he was. Without even thinking about it, I made the coward's bargain- I don't hit him too hard, he won't hit me too hard. I spent the entire first round trying to show him my intentions to no avail. No matter how lightly I hit him, he came back at me with bad intentions. When I got back into the corner, my coach called me on it and told me he knew I made the bargain. I was deeply ashamed because he was right. I was trying not to get hurt and in the meantime, I was getting my ass kicked. Men on the battlefield do the same thing. In his book, "On Killing" LTC Grossman talks about how low the actual shoot to kill percentage rate was in WWII because soldiers often made the same bargain.

This bargain is wishful thinking at it's worst. The ability to fight and defend youself give you one very important thing. It creates the possibility of saying 'no.' Peole in our Coutry forget the consequence of losing simply because our Country has generally behaved magnaminously when we have won. But that is an aberration. That's not common or normal. Countries don't rebuild their enemies after defeating them in battle. That's something only we do and have done. But we can only act like that because we are strong. The second we lose convincingly, is the second we realize our unique place in history. There's no reason to believe at all that any other nation, having conquered us and acquired our riches, would behave towards us anywhere near as generous as we have been.

The problem wiht our Country is that losing is no longer painful or shameful. It has become too easy. Why struggle is losing is not that much different than winning? But in the real world, there is a difference and the difference is stark. We must win because that is the only way we can ensure our way of life. Winning is the most important thing. It's the only thing and we must pursue it at all costs.

When To Fight

2007-07-15T23:13:00.001-07:00

A few nights ago, I got into a conversation with some friends about an interesting topic. It's not something often discussed anymore-- not because it isn't an issue-- but because convention has dictated that you never do it and it is always wrong. I'm talking about fighting and when to do it.

Before I get into that, I would just like to remark that in cultures where violence is not only possible but probable, courtesy is more common. I live in San Francisco and you pretty much can't buy a fight here but the asshole density rating here is among the highest in the world as far as I'm concerned. In Hawaii where I grew up, a breach in courtesy was sure to lead to fisticuffs so I learned to be respectul and pay attention to what was coming out of my mouth. I'm positive that most San Franciscans never learned this skill.

Bear in mind, when I'm talking about fighting, I don't mean beating your wife, girlfriend, kids, etc. As far as I'm concerned, a fight happens between two men. I don't care about the size differential or the relative skill levels. All that matters is that all the combatants (not necessarily 2) willingly engage in the fight. Part and parcel of being able to discuss physical violence coherently is the ability to make distinctions and this is my first, most basic one. Okay, let's get to it.

My rule about fighting is simple. If I'm scared-- even a little-- I fight. Let me back up a bit. Most people get into the martial arts to learn how to defend themselves. I could always instinctively do that. I don't remember not being able to fight. Martial arts started off as a sport and it wasn't until I was older that I realized that I could use those skills in a street fight. I know that seems strange but fighting and my sport were naturally kept separate until an instructor showed me where they intersected. When that happened, my ability to fight skyrocketed and the arts then became a technical pursuit. I still hadn't encountered the question of when to fight because at that point in my life, the answer was simple... every time the chance came up. I also realize that I was lucky to grow up in a place where this was possible. Fights were common in Hawaii. Guns were not. I might worry about being stabbed or bludgeoned to death but I never worried about being shot.

Back to my original point. If I'm scared, I fight. Why? My struggle was never with violence per se. It was with fear and more specifically, the lies fear allows us to tell ourselves to escape what we know we must do. At this point in my life, I'm not really concerned with catching a beating but I do struggle with fear everyday. One of my favorite lyrics is from a Henry Rollins song: "Please let me see the faults that my ego denies me." Mine's is more: "Please let me see the lies that fear allows me to tell myself." See what happens is that falling into the fear trap allows a person to justify cowardice. If I choose to walk away from a fight, it'll be because it's the right thing to do, not because I'm scared. Who knows the difference? Only me but in my heart, I will know the truth and if I let myself off the hook at this seminal moment, it becomes progressively easier to do that in other areas of my life.

My friend responded to this philosophy by saying that he doesn't do a lot of things because he's scared. He walks away from fights because he's afraid he might lose. To my mind, that's not okay with me. You don't get into a fight upon measuring that you can win. Where's the honor in that? You fight because it's the right thing to do. I suppose if you're one of those who thinks it's never right, this will make no sense to you. But there are plenty of good reasons to fight. If you have none, then I feel very sorry for you.

Fighting's a serious thing and should be treated seriously. I don't want anybody to think that I go around getting into fights. I haven't been in an unsanctioned altercation in almost 10 years. The interesting thing was that after of few years of this attitude, I just stopped being scared. I regularly walk away from fights and suffer none of the toxic aftermath most men have to contend with after the adrenaline rush wears off. I'm able to de-escalate many a potential fight simply because the parties involved sense no fear in me. What too many of us seem to have forgetten is that fear entices the predator and increases the chances of violence actually happening. I believe that people who chose to engage with me can feel my lack of fear and this often ends it before anything hapens. Fear is the problem. It's always been the problem and until we learn to deal with it effectively, the basest instincts of mankind will always prevail.

Some Thoughts on the South

2007-07-03T15:12:00.000-07:00

I remain ambivalent about the South. Truthfully, the whole area would be easy for me to dismiss except for the fact that Southern people play such an important role in my life. I'm drawn to the Southern sensibility-- its courtesy and regard for tradition and patriotism. But it is this same sensibility that drives me so crazy.

I don't remember what we were discussing but my friend-- a young Southern lady of breeding and intelligence-- remarked that I had bad manners because I had corrected her. I found her comment interesting because it said so much about her on many levels. Was she saying that because she was a lady, it was rude of me to correct her? Or that it's just rude to correct a false statement in general? And clearly, this rule didn't apply to her because she was correcting me. Did she rate immunity because she was a woman or because she simply didn't see the irony.

Whatever the case may be, it really amplified my disconnect with Southern life. The idea of not correcting an incorrect idea because of courtesy seems anathema to me. Sure, I may choose to be discreet if I just met the person in question but among good friends? It that was is to be called "good manners?" No, thank you. Not for me.

And this leads me to an idea that really bothers me in general. So much of the trouble in the world is caused by people who confuse manners with customs. In the South and many other foreign traditional societies, people often see manners as a sign of character. Because of this, outsiders are often seen as lower-class or rude simply because they do not share the same customs. This is unfortunate but even more tragic is the propensity to consider a person with impeccable manners as a person of character. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. Condemning a person simply because he doesn't know your provincial rules is absurd and foolish. As a rule of thumb, I try to adopt the local custom in whatever area I happen to be in but I will not do so amongst good friends who I assume already know my character and love me for who I am.

On the other hand, I've seen a level of consideration in Southern society that I haven't seen in any other part of America. Recently, at a friends wedding, I observed his sons brave the torrential down pour to bring in the guests' shoes which had unfortunately been left in the rain. Not only did they rescue the footwear, they spent the extra time to sort them out properly. And they did this without prompting and without thought of reward. I was impressed both by the young men and with their father, my friend. In fact, of the many reasons I have to be proud of this gentleman's friendship, his sons' behavior do him the greatest honor. Somebody said that you'll only find young men like that in the South. I balked at the idea but after more thought, I had to agree. I've seen behavior like that nowhere else. And while I don't believe that manners are a sure fire indicator of character, I do believe that what a person does while no one is looking surely is.

Southern woman still enjoy this priveleges position in society that makes them decidely difficult to deal with. They still enjoy and expect all the priveleges that go with being a proper lady but they are also claiming the rights and priveleges of the modern, independent woman. Personally, I don't believe that they can or should have it both ways. You either choose to be treated as an equal or you ask for the proper deference a gentleman pays a lady but either way, your behavior has to reflect the choice you make. You cannot ask to be treated as a equal and then cry foul when it gets too rough. Enduring that, asking for no quarter, is what makes you an equal. Anything less is, well... less.

I say this but at the same time, I find that desire to be both charming. Intellectually, I don't like it but it appeals to a certain part of me. I guess that makes me part of the problem even though I'm not Southern.

Baby Gator

2007-07-03T14:58:00.000-07:00

I'd like to tell you about my friend, Baby Gator. I got to see her this weekend and was reminded why I have always been so impressed with her. At 26, she's clearly on the fast track, accomplishing more than some people do all their lives. She's funny, charming, beautiful and most of all smart. Now before you think this is degenerating into some crazy "ode," let me tell you why I'm telling you this.

BG and I were having a conversation about my new business venture. She seemed positive on the idea and at one point mentioned that she would like to come work for me and that she would even learn Chinese to do it. I was flattered. Even if she was just blowing sunshine up my ass, it was a nice gesture to say that she would work for me. But the thing that caught me were her absolute confidence in her abilities-- even to learn Chinese. Now Aristotle talks about the 5 levels of courage in the Nicomachean Ethics. While the analogy is not perfect, I could tell that BG's confidence is the courage of the optimist or the courage of ignorance. It was based on a proven track record of success in tackling difficult projects and knocking them out of the park. That's very different from the swaggering, unproven bravado masquerading as confidence that I see in most people her age.

I think few people bother to test themselves anymore against a true standard. Why--when it's so much easier to believe yourself competent. But BG's compentencies don't come from such an attitude. They couldn't. They came from being tested over and over. They developed from sacrifice. And like Bruce Campbell says, "If you've never had any of it, people just seem to know." It was nice to see my friend again and to hear about her continued success. I think she's a phenomenal example for people of any age but especially for women in their 20's.

Vulnerability

2007-06-20T06:22:00.007-07:00

Years ago, a former mentor of mine wrote in his book : "I'm actually stronger when I'm feeling my vulnerability because I'm not expending so much energy trying to protect myself." Those words immediately rang true to me though at the time, I couldn't really understand them. It has taken me years to find true meaning in those words that left such a mark on me.

Given my training, experiences and upbringing, detaching is about the easiest thing for me. I can compartmentalize like nobody's business and up to this point in my life, I have always resorted to this anytime there was even the remotest of chances that I might get hurt. While that kept me from much emotional turmoil, it also left me with ephemeral relationships. When this mentor is question and I had a falling out, I didn't really feel a thing. I acted like I did because I didn't want others to think me callous but the truth of the matter was that I didn't particularly care. Not emotionally anyway.

But this man was like a father to me-- surely the first positive male role model in my life. I should feel something out of just gratitude if nothing else. I wasn't particularly troubled by the nature of our fallout. I didn't see any other option for him and put in his position, I would have made the same choice. But I didn't shed a tear. Nor did it cause me a moment of heartache. I daresay that even now, I do not miss him.

And I think there's something wrong with me that I'm like that. I feel strongly about my position in our disagreement. Perhaps if I felt I did something wrong, I would feel some longing for our relationship. As it stands, I feel nothing.

But since my kidney problems, everything has changed. The friendships I've made or developed after my problem are richer and deeper. I care and miss people for the first time. I wonder if something got fixed in me when my kidneys went south. Or is it just that my long term brush with my mortality has caused me to look at my relationships differently. I don't know. I do know that I'm keenly aware of my emotional fragility. It has caused me problems especially with one woman I love very much but I wouldn't give up this emotional fragility to make our interaction smoother. It would be like asking a blind man to go back to being blind after regaining his sight.

Things just feel different now. Things aren't better or worse. Just imagine seeing everything in sepia tone and then one day, it's full color. I'm rather new at this full-spectrum emotional exchange so I'm making many mistakes. I'm a fast learner though and I'm sure I'll catch on quickly. I just hope everyone indulges me until then.

Make 'em Cry

2007-06-20T06:22:00.002-07:00

I made a point in my group class a couple of weeks ago and I think it bears repeating on my blog. There's been a lot of talk about whether or not all the anti-war movement emboldens the enemy. They anti-war folks (pretty much everybody here in SF) seem to think that it's nonsense to believe that their actions actually encourage the enemy. Let me say that I don't particuarly have a problem with the anti-war movement as a group. This is America and they are welcome to believe what they want. But what I would like them to do is take responsibility for their actions. It's fine for them to say and do what they are doing. They should just grow up and recognize that there are consequences for their actions.

The problem is pretty simple actually. I would guess that most folks who are in the anti-war movement have never actually been in a fight and if they have, it's at the losing end. Getting picked on as a kid pretty much disqualifies you from being able to speak coherently about conflict. There are some exceptions but they are few and far between.

Let me say this: I've been in a lot of fights. Recreationally and professionally. In the ring and out of it. As a bully and on the side of the Angels. I've won a few and I've lost a few. I've fought to impress the ladies and for my life. Given all those circumstances, one truth is consistent throughout. If I hear my opponent whimper, cringe or even make the slightest indication that I've affected him or he's not enjoying the fight, I become stronger at that very moment. However, I felt previously, at that moment, I know that I have the mental endge and I've won the fight. That's cold, hard truth.

To the rest of the world, we look like a bunch of spoiled whiners. And that in and of itself makes us a target. Add to that our wealth and our standing and you understand that being nice is no guarantee of safety. We need to learn what every kid who grew up in a rough neighborhood knows. Being nice is never as good as being strong because your safety should never be dependant on the whims of another.

Group Class Hierarchy

2007-06-20T06:22:00.001-07:00

My group class is progressing nicely. We've started some light technical sparring and I think it's really reinforced many of the lessons I've tried to instill in my students. Knowing that my students will read this, I still have to admit to a mild amount of frustration. As a group, this is easily the most intelligent group of guys (in terms of raw IQ) I've ever trained but their self-preservation instincts leave quite a bit to be desired. This has caused me to reevaluate the training process to a certain degree. Normally, when I'm training fighters, it's just a matter of teaching tools. The instinct for self-preservation is there. Only the technique or lack thereof is rough. But with my current batch of students, it's as if the instinct just isn't there so teaching the tools ends up being rather pointless because they don't have the internal impetus to use them.

Do I have to teach them the self-preservation instinct first? I'm not really even sure how to do that. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that only one of them has ever been in a real fight. But they've all taken their dings in the last few weeks and they hasn't been a substantial shift in their attitude which makes me think that it's probably my fault. We'll see what happens next week when everybody's a bit more sore. Hopefully then, they won't be so nonchalant about getting hit.

Another interesting thing is that sparring brings up with this group a dynamic I'm sure most of them are unfamiliar with. I always say that when a group starts sparring, you really get to see who's a bit (or a lot) austistic and who may have a touch of Aspberger's. When a group starts sparring, heirarchy develops and here in egalitarian San Francisco, we don't like to talk about heirarchy. I think that's a reason everybody is so out of sorts here. We're fundamentally animals and animals need a firmly established heirarchy to feel safe. In our attempts to deny that or pretend it doesn't exist, we fight our biology and that's generally a losing battle.

How hard you want to go in a sparring match is largely unspoken but definitely communicated. Right now, my guys are all to absorbed in themselves to really communicate with each other physically. Instead of being receptive, they are all focused on doing what they want to do. Hopefully, they'll get past that or they won't and that will ultimately determine their level of ability.

It's one of those counterintuitive truths that in order to fight really well, against a skilled opponent, you have to be open, receptive and sensitive. That's a hard thing for beginners to understand when they are still scared of getting hit, the pain, looking stupid, etc.

One of my teachers said to me once, "When you are no longer distracted by the pain, you can then begin the business of training." He was right. Pain, fear, being tense... all keep you from being receptive and reading your opponent properly. And if you can't do that, it doesn't much matter what you have planned after that.

Fred's My Man

2007-06-05T18:47:00.000-07:00

When Henry Kissinger met with Zhou En-Lai, the Chinese Foreign Minister, during President Nixon's visit to China, he asked him what he thought of the French Revolution. Zhou En-Lai replied, "It's too early to tell."

Truthfully, I'm not so tied to what a person thinks about issues. Things break in their own time and at their own speed and all a person can do is make the best decision they can make with the best information that they have. In my own career, I made decisions that turned out well without much thought and those that have turned for the worse despite epic quantities of hard work. What is important to me (and it's the only thing that is) is integrity.

I don't much care what a person says he believes. I'm concerned with his actions. How does he treat his wife? Is he a good friend? Those are the things you cannot lie about. Integrity, simply put, is consistency in thought, word and action. Operationally, I think it means that a person has a particular code and judges his actions against that code. That's missing in most politicians these days. What they have instead of a code is a poll. In place of a spine, they have the cobbled-together opinions of their consituency.

What is a politician's role. Is it to mindlessly respresent the will of the people or is to use his judgment to make decisons knowing that he probably has more information that those he is responsible to? Where I come down on this is obvious. Strictly representing a mob may go a long way to getting you elected but it is not good governance. The problem with American society today is that too few people are willing to believe that others just know better than they do.

What's lacking is trust and rightfully so given the shenanigans of many in power. From Abramson to Jefferson, corruption runs amuck and why should we trust those who only seek to enrich themselves it seems? That's why integrity is so important. It is the only way a Republic works. We should expect it from our politicians and reward it when we see it.

I applaud Senator Thompson's position on the Iraq War. He put it very well. People don't think enough about what might have happened if we didn't depose Saddam. I supported the need to depose Saddam but early on, I knew that this was going to get messy. Why? Simply put, on the ground, where the rubber meets the road, I could not tell the difference between a Sunni or a Shia. I could not discriminate between a foreign fighter and a native insurgent. I simply would not know who I was to shoot and that's a problem. Also, a counter-insurgency only works when you convince the civilian population that violence is not an option for them. That's why we didn't have very many problems in Japan or Germany. The respective populations were so shattered by war, they were content with anything else. You have to break the pride of the people or you cannot rebuild the country. If I was in charge, I would have levelled Falluja after the first uprising. I would have cordoned off the area and brought in the bombers. I would have killed every living thing within my perimeter. I would have gone Alexander-on-Thebes on them. At most I would have to do this one more time, but everybody would get the picture and settle down. Instead, with all our whining, we embolden our enemy. Those who don't believe this is true have never been in a fight. The first whimper you hear from your opponent makes you stronger. But we, as Americans, don't have the stomach anymore for this type of war. I don't know if that's a good thing. So a conflict that could have been short gets dragged out. But that doesn't change what Senator Thompson says to begin with. WE WOULD STILL HAVE TO BE THERE. War sucks. It's never clean and it's filled with mistakes. It's not a video game. You win it the same way you win a fight-- with will. As the old saying goes, it's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog.

Having said all that, Senator Fred Thompson's my man because out of all the candidates so far, I feel he has the most integrity. Granted, I don't know the man personally and I haven't seen him very much of him on TV but from what I've seen, I would be more comfortable putting my life in his hands than any of the other candidates. Okay, he's an actor and specializes in this type of thing but then I'm not your normal observer either. My life and the lives of others has depended on my being able to read people accurately and quickly, at that. Fred my man. Give him an honest look. I think you'll see what I see.

The Point of It All

2007-05-22T00:02:00.000-07:00

I've been struggling for a long time with this particular post. I know what I want to say but I've never been quite sure how to say it. As many of you know, I recently started a martial arts class. I call it the Mission District Kung Fu Brothers. It's not open to the public and if by "brothers" you assume that it's only men, then you would be right. We're mostly middle-aged guys in our 30's. We have once kid in his 20's but that's it. This is not the most athletic or powerful group I've ever trained by any stretch of the means but it's starting to become my favorite. Why? Because folks are there for the right reasons and I can already see the results in their lives.

I've been a fighter all my life- ever since I was a little kid. I got involved in judo and kendo formally when I was 6 and by 7 I was competing. As I got older, I realized the limitatios of the ring or the mat and I sought to test my skills in the real world. This led to many fights, serious injuries and not just a little bad karma. Looking back, I see that it wasn't the fighting that was so interesting for me. I was looking for truth and combat was my medium. As I got older, I pushed the envelope farther and farther until I came to the place where I was a professional fighter and a professional man-at-arms, for lack of a better term. I basically took it as far as it could go-- fighting against professionals as well as fighting for my life and the lives of others.

I'm reminded of a story. The Zen Master walked over to a gathering of his students and calmly announced, "Suzuki has reached the state of enlightenment" and walked away. His students buzzed around for a while clearly excited that one of their own had reached that exalted state. A few minutes went by and finally Suzuki walked out of a neighboring building towards his freinds. They all rushed around him, congratulating him until finally one of the students asked breathlessly, "How do you feel?" Suzuki answered, "As shitty as ever."

So did I. "This couldn't be the end result of all my years of training and sacrifice." I thought to myself. One of my instructors (I'm not sure if he was trying to console or chastise me) said, "It doesn't matter how good you get. Your Father is still not going to love you." Sad but true. So I struggled with it for years and here's my answer.

The Martial Arts are about training your instincts plain and simple. They provide a methodology for viewing how real change might happen. For example, let's say you have a particular emotional trigger. I could be anything but when somebody pushes that button, you go ballistic. You can't seem to do anything about it. After, you know your behavior was wrong. You even know the right thing to do but you can't seem to do it when that button is pushed because something just takes over you. You go to that place because somewhere in your head, going there makes you feel safe at that moment and nothing else is more important. We all have these triggers and we want to fix them but we don't know how so we compensate by simply avoiding the situation. That's nice and all, if it's something that can be avoided but if it can't, then you are just creating further problems for yourself.

Now look at a simple straight punch to the face. If I throw one at you, chances are you will react in some way. If you are untrained, you will react badly, flailing perhaps and possible stopping or deflecting my strike. The interesting thing is that your body reads conflict, be it physical or verbal, exactly the same way. That being the case, a verbal attack that pushes your buttons accesses the same insecure part of you that a punch to the face does. And both untrained reactions, ineffective as they might be, are designed to make you feel safe. The methodology of the Martial Arts, if you have a good teacher, changes this ineffectual instinct into something usable. Get good enough at it and eventually, the punch doesn't trigger anything more than a predetermined and effective response. The same can be done with emotional issues once you internalize the process. I'll say more on that in a second.

The other interesting thing about this process is the progession of learning. My problem with Western style learning is that in it's rush to be good (how long does it take to get my black belt?) it shies away from progression and progression is the only way that you can ever achieve any proficiency in things that require your body. One of my instructors explained it like this. A defensive response goes through 4 stages: Go - Ju - Ryu - Ki. Using the body as a metaphor, you can say: bone - muscle - blood - breath. So let's take a straight right punch as an attack. The Go (or bone) response would be simply to throw a hard block-- stopping the opponents attacks with the strength of your skeletal system. This is simple and effective but if the opponent is too powerful, your bones will ultimately get crushed. The next response might be to take the blow slightly, but through technique and body mechanics, use the power of the strike to throw your opponent. This will cause you less damage than the bone response but is exponentially more difficult and is not without damage to the user. The next response would be a parry-- a simple redirecting of the strike with little force of your own. This is liguid. The last would be a slip. You are simply not there and no matter how hard the strike it, it's inrelevant because there's nothing to hit. That's breath.

It is my hypothesis that this same progression can be applied to emotional responses. I haven't quite worked them out yet but I'm working on it. I do believe unequivocably that the emotional process internally is the same and that by studying the Martial Arts, you get a glimpse into the inner workings of your emotions. It's one of those things that the human mind will ever be able to access tangentially.

Now it's certainly true that not all martial arts teachers have this approach but that doesn't matter. All that matters is that you train your particular art honestly-- that you search for the truth in your art whatever it may be. Remember, it's about training instinct and you have to make things big before you can make them small. I like to tell my students that if you can't control your left hand or your right foot, how do you expect to control your emotions which are infinitely more subtle?

Good on Prince Harry!

2007-04-30T11:09:00.000-07:00

What is the big deal about Prince Harry going to war? What happened to Noblesse Oblige? I salute the young Prince's adamant refusal to be relegated to a desk job. For a soldier-- a royal no less-- there is simply no honor in that. If I were a young troop, I'd be honored to fight at the Prince's side. What an opportunity for glory! Have the British fallen so far that they can no longer see this? When does one get the chance to fight alongside a future king? Even somebody in line to be king? "Once more unto the breach..."

More importantly, they need this. After the Iranian debacle, the British military needs to show that it still has men with iron in their spines. The British Marines and sailors involved in that incident should be ashamed of themselves. To whatever extent they are not, is the measure of the fall of the British character. I don't necessarily begrudge them their behavior during captivity though they were certainly no Stockdale or McCain. What is truly ridiculous is that they got captured. Didn't they have weapons? Even if they were under orders not to fire, the responsibility always falls to the commander in the field. It's the water for God's sake. Unless the enemy is in a submarine, they can't sneak up on you. I really can envision a situation where a mad minute of weapons fire wouldn't have opened up an avenue for escape. Everybody knows that once you're captured you have to do what you have to do to survive. Obstinence in the face of torture or even possible torture is like infidelity at the Playbody mansion. Of course, it's better to be faithful but no would exactly blame you if you slipped... Knowing this-- if honor is important to you, you do your best not to be captured and you turn down that invitation to the Playboy Mansion. The commander on the scene clearly made a mistake and the honor of Britain suffered for it.

I believe that the young Prince feels this strongly. I believe that what he's doing is not just for his own honor but for the honor of the Service. Even if he is killed, he will show that the Royals aren't just figureheads-- that their hereditary advantages mean that Britain has special claim on them and their very lives. Recently, the British have "held their manhoods cheap." Here's to Prince Harry for restoring some value to the most important of things.

G vs. E

2007-04-19T14:05:00.000-07:00

Dennis Miller said something very intelligent about this whole Cho Seung-Hui thing. He said that he gives everybody a 48 hour pass after something like this. Because of the intensity of the event, people instinctively go to their "safe place" and spout whatever makes them more comfortable without much thought. I suppose I'm not different. Instinctively, I want to say you cannot prevent things like this. Arming everyone seems to be the only way to mitigate such damage. I don't know if that's right.

There's several issues here. The one that interests me is the debate about good and evil. I got into a long debate the other night about this. My friend denied the existence of evil and chalked all "evil" activities to physiological disorders. While I believe that mental illness certainly plays a large role in aberrant behavior, I don't believe it to be the sole reason. There is a difference between wicked-sick and wicked-evil. Here we get to a human tendency that leads to many a fallacy. We want to believe that all evil is illness because it infers that we can cure it. It's the same thing with Global Warming. I don't deny it's happening. We have metrics for that. But whether or not it's caused by man is open to debate. So what if 2000 scientist believe it to be fact. Science, unlike other fields of academia, is not dependant on concensus. Science is science because there is a definitive answer, regardless of what the majority of people believe. And given that, there is simply no direct nexus between CO2 production and the rise in temperature. A corrollation is not a causation. We may be causing it. We may not. All I'm saying is that the jury is still out- so to speak. When I say this to most people here, they go ballistic and I get called all kinds of names. I don't get offended because I understand what's driving it. We want to believe we cause it because the implication is that we can then stop or even reverse it. The thought that the planet will do what it does, quite indifferent to whatever we do, is terrifying.

This same motivation applies when it comes to discussing evil. You know evil when you see it. The only people who seem to dismiss it as something else, even when confronted by it, are those whose common sense has been excised by education. We have a sense of this when we say that small children can judge character in a way that adults cannot. I cannot convince anyone that evil exists. All the evidence I have is anecdotal. I don't have the metic to measure evil. But that's hardly a reason to say that it doesn't exist.

Evil is "badness" taken to an extreme just as virtue is "goodness" taken to the same end. The curse of humanity is mediocrity. When most people speak of equality, they don't mean making the weak stronger so they may compete with the strong. They mean limiting the strong so that they, in fact, become weak. According to Plato, such or morality is a slave-morality, not a hero-morality. Intensity, in polite society, is frowned upon. But intensity is the only way you excell. Before my injury, I was a world-class athlete. At the peak of my abilities, I spent several years involved with people from the Human Potential movement-- the goal being finding the common link between world class athletes. It went far beyond the physical. The difference between someone who competes at an international level and someone who's just very good is all mental. And the HPM folks wanted to find a biological marker for that difference. I was subjected to a barrage of tests. CAT scan after MRI after VO2 max. They did this for hundreds of world-class athletes in different sports. They've found nothing yet. There may be some common link that pushes us that extra ten percent. But apparently, we don't yet have the tools to measure it.

I think the same applies to evil. You know it when you see it even if you can pin it down. It exists and it manifests itself in men like Cho. It shows itself in places like Darfur. Parse it down all you want. Cruelty in action is evil and we all have to potential to behave in such a way. Our test as humans is not to eradicate the evil outside of us but to combat the resentment, the petty jealousies and cruelty inside of us that are the seeds of evil. We, as a society, did not create Cho. He is a result of his own weakness. Our responsibilty, as always, is to better ourselves.

Archaic Pedagogy

2007-04-12T08:14:00.000-07:00

The sad fact of the matter is that most folks who consider themselves martial artists would do a very poor job of defending themselves in a actual fight. This is not because they aren't good students or the art that they practice isn't viable (though that can certainly be true). They can't fight or even defend themselves because proficiency requires a robust and practical training method and most martial arts, mired in the traditions of the East, do not possess them.

Kishore Mahbubani, the former Ambassador to the UN and current Dean of the Lew Kew Yuan School of Public Policy, wrote a book a few years back titled, "Can Asians Think?" Quite a controversial topic I thought though the book never got the attention it deserved. Imagine if it was titled "Can Africans Think?" or "Can Latinos Think?" Anyway, the book asked a very provacative question. Why is it, that given the tremendous advantage of the oldest coherent civilization, all the Asian countries, except Japan, were well behind Western nations is pretty much every category pertaining to standard of living? That's a damned good question. His answer, and one I well agree with, is that Asian countries place too much emphasis on tradtion, stifling growth and advancement. This is true across the board. A friend of mine when to China to study Chinese and he found the pedagogy at the finest Chinese University alarmingly backwards. In conversations he had with his youngers teachers, he heard them lament about the situation. The younger professors knew that there was a better way to do thing but they couldn't change anything because the texts were written by older professors and to criticize them in any way was simply verbotten.

Let me use aikido as an example. My friend, The Aikidoist, said in the comment section of a previous post that the lethality of aikido was on par with the lethality of harder arts, Muay Thai for example. He said that the skills of a fully competent aikidoka were just as effective as anything else. I can certainly see why he would think this. A properly performed shiho-nage will certainly do more overall damage than my best punch to the face. Throwing someone forcefully onto concrete beats any single striking weapon in my arsenal, hands down. The problem is, I've never seen a fully competent aikidoka. Every single person that I've seen and trained with, who had a chance of using aikido effectively in a real fight all had skills from other arts. I haven't met or even heard of anybody who only practiced aikido fight well. That certainly says something.

I understand why this is. If you look at the development of aikido, all its major proponents all had high levels of proficiency in other arts before they came to aikido. They all could punch, kick and throw properly before finding aikido. But because of that, there is no punching in the aikido curriculum. That's a huge problem. Look at the way kote-gaeshi is often practiced. The uke telegraphs something reasonable facsimile of a punch to the mid-section of the nage who uses tenkan to spin out of the way, grab the wrist and perform the technique. The fact of the matter is that if I crack a jab at an aikidoka's mid-section, he will simply not have enough time to do all that. I will pick him apart before he can practice any technique.

Once, while training with Ikeda sensei, we got into it somewhat. Ikeda Sensei is without a doubt the single most proficient practitioner of the art I've come in contact with. He's amazing and has performed feats bordering on the unreal. In this particular instance, he had me punch at his face and I mean really try to punch him. I never hit him and once he adjusted to me, he was able to knock me down everytime he hit me without seriously injuring me. He must have knocked me down more than a dozen times and I only had a bloody lip. That's amazing. I've never been knocked down in the ring. I can take a considerable amount of damage and stay on my feet. How was he doing that? I have some vague idea. He's a master at disrupting balance but it's interesting to note that he didn't use an 'aikido' technique per se. He hit me. I was simply moving too fast and adjusting too quickly for any traditional aikido technique to work. He paired it down to a punch but it was a punch done in an "aiki" way. That's why it knocked me down. He can do that and make that adjustment because he already had effective punches in his repetoire. If he didn't and only had traditional aikido techniques to use on me, I daresay he wouldn't have done so well.

Also, even after personally feeling the efficacy of his technique, I still do not know how an actual fight between us would actually look. I would never just rush in and throw my best punch at somebody like Ikeda Sensei. I would try to pick him apart with jabs and gradually wear him down. If I could slow him down enough with leg kicks (something traditional aikido has no defense for) then I could eventually beat him I believe. I know exactly what a fight between Master Toddy and me would look like. We'd square off and he'd launch a barrage I couldn't endure. Or he'd counter punch me to bits. You get the idea. The pedagogy of aikido doesn't allow me to glove up and see what my instructor would do if I actually tried to fight him as I would in reality. Even at the highest levels, I never saw anybody train like that. It was always that same uke/nage structure that is too limiting for modern self-defense.

When it comes right down to it, it's all about training methods, Take an art like Krav Maga. Developed by the IDF, it's popular with folks who worship all things Israeli. It certainly does possess some interesting things. But simply adding a gun disarm to what basically looks like a Japanese art doesn't do much for its efficacy. As interesting as some of their interpretations are, they are still practiced in that Japanese uke/nage one-step style. Fights just don't unfold like that in any situation. The Japanese training method only works if your opponent is telegraphing his one attack in which he marshalls all his strength, and only him. It doesn't work against a sneakier fighter.

For the East Asian arts to stay relevant, they have to advance. And some do. Look at Kyokushinkai Karate. The training methods have advanced because it's practitioners have gotten into the ring and really fought. If you take competition out of the training method, there is no standard by which to judge technique. It's true that some techniques do too much damage to practice at combat speed. But what's more valuable, a less lethal technique that you own or a massively lethal technique you kind of know and have only pulled off in controlled conditions? Martial arts have already advanced with the introduction of cross-training. Now we just have to advance the training methods and our arts will stay relevant and not become some relic of the past.

Another Benefit of Training

2007-04-11T02:27:00.000-07:00

Yesterday was Burger Tuesday so LeCorn and I went Rosamund Grill to get some. It's generally a madhouse as the staff at Rosamund seem to be reject metal heads from the 80's blasting Motley Crue's first album while they grilled burgers and took orders in a manner befitting the DMV. Despite all that, their burgers are worth suffering through the ridiculous process but the coup de grace is the root beer on tap at the bar next door. SOP is to order your burger and then go next store and wait for it to be ready with a pint of cold root beer. What's better than that? Anyway, yesterday was different because while waiting for my burger, my blood pressure dropped dangerously low and I passed out unconscious. Lucky for me, LeCorn was there to make sure I was safe. Apparently, I was out for 10-15 seconds. I turned to him and said, "I don't feel so good." BAM! I was out and 15 seconds later I remember somebody saying to me, "Are you okay?" to which I replied, "Yeah, I'm okay." I, then heard LeCorn's voice saying, "No you're not okay." It was then I knew something was up.

LeCorn drove me to the Clinic to see my doctor where they took my blood pressure (69/57) and decided that I needed some salty broth. They wanted to give me an IV but my veins were too constricted for that. I hung out for a couple of hours and my blood pressure stabilized and I went home. It was no big deal. With all the exercise I'm getting, I need less blood pressure meds and the amount I was normally taking was just too much. So you could look at this incident as proof that I'm actually getting better health-wise.

There is a lesson to this. Corn told me that while I was passed out, I remained upright on my bar stool. I've seen lots of people pass out before and I know remaining upright in any capacity is uncommon. I'm glad I didn't fall over and hit my head though I'm sure LeCorn would have caught me well before that happened. Anyway, the only thing I can attribute this to is training. Somehere, my body knew enough to keep it together long enough for me to regain consciousness. This saved me from having to be dragged out of the bar which, in the middle of the day, might very well be the most embarrassing thing in the world.

Okay, there's no lesson here. Only some ridiculous anecdote that may or may not have anything to do with martial arts. But it's a nice thought and it's great to have bros like LeCorn who has now saved my life more times than I can count.

Budo

2007-04-09T18:55:00.000-07:00

My good friend recently started a new blog chronicling his journey in his study of aikido. Check it out in the links under "Budo." What he has to say is useful to martial artists of every color and stripe. I recommend that my students check it out regularly and encourage my friend to post with more regularity.

Anyway, his post really got me thinking. What is the purpose of the martial arts? Is it to fight or is it's true purpose the refinement of character? It's the Budo vs. Bujutsu question. Truth of the matter, I'm not very interested in Budo. Let me take a moment and talk about definitions. "Bu" means "martial." "Do" means "way" or "path." It's interchangeable with "tao" and is in fact the same character in Chinese as opposed to Japanese. "Jutsu" (or jitsu) means "art" so martial arts would properly be called "bujutsu" in Japanese and "wu shu" in Chinese. "Budo" on the other hand means "martial way" or "martial path."

Why is this linguistic distinction important? I'm not sure that it necessarily is. It's a good place to start, however, in working on your own personal reasons for studying the art. As for myself, I came to the arts as a sport. I didn't need lessons in fighting per se. I was always a good fighter stacking up well against boys my age and a bit older. I liked the respect that my ability to fight earned me. I liked being treated like a grown man at 14 simply because I could kick a grown man's ass. I was a judoka and a good one but my fights usually involved my fists and not my skill at grappling. Judo was my sport (as was kendo) and I kept them quite separate from my fighting life.

Somewhere along the line, this changed. I think it was when I moved to the mainland-- the Bay Area specifically. Say what you want, the ability to fight here doesn't hold as much weight as it did in Hawaii. It gained me no respect which I found unnerving. It was also at this time that I discovered aikido. I read a book that talked about aikido and I thought, "Yes! This is what I'm looking for!" So I sought out the author and became one of his students. We had a serious falling out but I still consider him my greatest teacher having taught me pretty much everything of value in my life. Anyway, I was absolutely enthralled. I couldn't stop practicing. I never stopped thinking about it. I would drive any distance, sacrifice anything, if I thought someone could give me an answer to this thing called "aiki."

The problem was that my training partners were almost always middle aged people of questionable athletic ability. They may have understood aikido better than I did but by strength and sheer athletic ability, none of them could beat me in a fight. For some reason, that mattered to me back then. I tried and tried. I even sought aikido from rougher teachers like Toshishiro Obata who taught more of an aikiutsu variant. None of them had the answer I was looking for.

So I left aikido and went to study Jeet Kune Do. All of a sudden, a new world was opened to me. Jeet Kune Do was more to my liking-- taking almost an Aristotlean approach to MA-- categorizing them and putting them each in their place. The problem with Jeet Kune Do was that most of the people who studied it treated it as a shortcut to MA proficiency. They didn't have the the hard core background in a traditional martial art so instead of freeing someone from their confines, it just created sloppy martial artists. Think of JKD (different from Jun Fan Gung Fu) as a skeleton or an outline. If you hope to get the most benefit out of it, you must flesh out the arts. So instead of just a couple of functional traps, I went and actually studied Wing Chun. Instead of a couple of kicks and punches, I went and studied Muay Thai. To augment my grappling skills, learned Brazilian Jujutsu. Martial arts was finally beginning to make sense to me.

Muay Thai was the art that finally did it for me. Everything changed when I got into the ring. I guess I needed to prove to myself that I could hold my own against another trained fighter. Most of the streetfights I had gotten into were woefully unsatisfying. They all ended much too quickly and I was always left with a sense that it was more luck than anything. I wanted something where I could accurately gauge my skill against another trained man. Having settled that in my head, I finally understood the archaic aikido training method. I never really got it before because I was too caught up in my own insecurity to see it. Now that I was comfortable with my ability to fight, I could focus on the lessons aikido had to teach.

Do I think one art is necessarily any better than any other? No, I don't. What separates the arts are their training methods. What holds the Japanese arts back is a training method that is hopelessly mired in the past. In my class, we have a specific format which I found to be effective- technique, drills and functional training. Whatever technqiue we learn, we drill and then practice it in a combat format. Aikido would be better served if it adopted this structure.

But what did I learn? I learned that "aiki" is just the manner in which you perform your technique. I can do any art and perform their techniques with "aiki" just as I've seen many aikidoka practice the form of "aiki" with none of the aiki feeling. So what's the point? I'll get more into that in future posts. I don't have an answer right now.

I'm back

2007-04-09T18:49:00.000-07:00

I apologize for my absence. I'd like to say that there has been some great project that has kept me from writing but unfortunately that's not true. I can't even say that my health has been great. Truth is, I haven't felt this good in 4 years. Even before my injury and even while my transplant was viable. My doctor, Rodney Omachi, is simply the best doctor in the world. He's one of the most competent men I've ever come across but what's different about him is that he cares. I have never felt so cared for in my life, even by my mother. God forbid any of you have kidney problems, but if you do, Dr. Omachi is your man. There's nobody better.

So the truth of the matter is I've been really wrapped up in a young lady who has shown up in my life again. Much like the last time around, she seems to have occupied much of my free brain power. I'm not proud of that but what can I do. This thing is doomed to failure. She lives in Atlanta and I have no desire to live there. But until it crashes and burns, I'm going to enjoy whatever it is we have because the it's so much better than anything else I've ever experienced. You can read into this whatever you like. I'm sure most of the cliches are true.

Kicking my Butt

2007-02-03T23:26:00.000-08:00

I'm reading Ethica Thomistica and it's kicking my butt. The Dumb Ox recommended it to me and I believe he may think me smarter than I actually am. I'm taking a break from it by reading a book about Spinoza, if that tells you anything. It's not that I don't "get" it. I feel more like I'm looking at something through a hazy window. What I have been able to grasp thus far has been powerful leading me to believe that working through this will yield some good fruit. In some weird way, it's comforting to bump up against the edge of my understanding. I've always believed that stupid doesn't know it's stupid. So in feeling very stupid right now, I think there may be hope for me.

The Adulterous Mayor Newsome

2007-02-02T14:35:00.000-08:00

Years ago, my father and I had a vicious argument regarding President Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky. He was of the mind that it did not matter. I felt quite the opposite. He made excuse after excuse for the President with ever increasing passion. Finally I realized what was going on. He wasn't forgiving the President. He was forgiving himself for having cheated on my mother countless times. If the President of the United States cheated on his wife, then he, as a regular man, could not be expected to do any different.

Now I am living in San Francisco where Mayor Gaving Newsome has just admitted to having an affair with a subordinate and nobody really seems to care. Many people are saying that what goes on in his private life is his business. That's a child's argument. A person's personal life certainly impacts how he does his job and if his job involves doling out multi-million dollar contracts, then his personal life matters even more. Poor judgment in one area will reflect in another. An old Greek saying states that he who is a righteous master of his household will be a righteous statesman. That's no different here.

Then there are others who say that it's just sex and no big deal. That would be true if he had picked up a girl at a bar and took her home. That would be true if he wasn't married at the time. Taken free from context, it was just sex. But removing it from context is simply ridiculous. First of all, he was married. And to make matters worse, his adultery partner was married too- to Newsome's good friend no less. You have to look at his transgression in context. To do otherwise is to misunderstand the event.

Fidelity matters. When you take an oath forsaking all others, it means something. There are cultures where the taking of mistresses is common but even there, it is not considered virtuous. Whether or not it is okay to cheat on your wife, it is universally agreed that it is more moral not to. For myself, I will not engage in a partnership with anyone who cheats on his wife. The way I see it, if a man can break the oath that he has taken with the one he is supposed to love above all others, what can he do to me? How can I ever trust his sincerity or lack thereof? Either every oath you take means something or they all mean nothing.

And he cheated with the wife of his good friend-- a friend that was running his campaign. What does it say about a man who cheats with a friend's wife? It says that he's a narcissist-- that he thinks he's above any rules of civility. It says that he has the weakest character imaginable. In most places in the world, this is a killing offense. It's a betrayal of the worst kind.

If Gavin Newsome was a businessman perhaps it would matter less. There, he would only be responsible to his shareholders and his Board of Directors. His power would mostly be limited to his employees. But Newsome is the Mayor of San Francisco. His decisions affect how I live my life greatly and I simply cannot trust such a man to make good decisions. He affects the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. I don't think it's unfair to expect him to conduct himself with more propriety. While I've never much agreed with most of his policy choices, I accepted him as my democratically elected mayor and gave him the respect he deserved. Unlike most people, a difference in opinion about policy doesn't make me resort to ad hominem attacks. I still don't hate him but the truth is that he has lost any moral authority he may have possessed. And if that doesn't matter to you, you should seriously ask yourself why.

When To Do It

2007-01-28T18:06:00.000-08:00

A couple of years ago on my birthday I was lucky enough to catch a Victor Davis Hanson lecture on TV. He's a well known conservative pundit but my appreciation for him stems from his work as a classicist. His book "Carnage and Culture" seemed the perfect answer to Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel." Geographical determinism seems very much a pons asinorum to me. Anyway, during this lecture about the Pelopenessian War, he make some profoundly negative comments about Alexander the Great. My girlfriend at the time, unfortunately hindered by a Stanford education, commented that it was inconsistent of me to agree with Hanson's characterizations of the Pelopenessian War and yet disagree with his assessment of Alexander.

I was shocked when she said this. So much so that at first I thought she was joking. I wondered for a moment if this fallacy was common. It seemed silly at any level. As a man, am I too be 100% right or 100% wrong about anything? Not likely. It is much more probable that I am partly right and partly wrong about any topic and the proportion would determine my level of mastery. That makes much more sense. Life is not a neat geometric theorem. Just because you disprove one aspect of something doesn't necessarily make it all wrong. Cleverness is not superordinate to Truth.

This is comes to mind when I speak to others about the existence of God. Do I believe he exists? Of course I do by virtue of the Moral Law or Tao which we and no other animal is responsible. But I don't believe the world is 6000 years old. And to say that God doesn't exist simply because the Bible is wrong about a geological fact is a schoolboy's argument.

Science is about certainty and thus doesn't answer any of the questions I find really interesting. Science considers something true when it is completely free from human judgment but what about my interactions with other humans can be judged by this standard? Science is a method to view the natural world. If the conept and reality of God is to have any power at all, it has to be quite separate from the natural world. It is a logical fallacy to believe that you can use science to prove or disprove the existence of God.

However, this is quite different from Religion. I must discover the Moral Law or Tao myself through honest and relentless inquiry into the nature of things and myself. There is no written rule book. Not the Bible. Not the Koran. They are both signposts to discovery, not clearly laid out codes of conduct.

Again, I refer to the martial arts. People often ask me for one technique that will work all the time. Instructors often try to distill years of training and experience into basic physical movements. Both come from the wrong place. A good instructor doesn't teach you a technique that works. He puts you in a position to have experiences that allow you to discover the validity of a technique on your own. The brilliance of a training method is rated by how much it makes the student think he invented something on his own. That's the spiritual discovery I'm talking about. I don't get caught up in all thing things that are factually incorrect. I look at it as a whole-- as what experiences am I meant to have through thinking in this manner. Sure, you can take it as a Code of Conduct, but I think that's missing the point. I believe we are meant to ask why.

Ridley's book Genome tries to subordinate our recognition of the Moral Law as genetic in origin. From that point of view, the Moral Law is something Darwinian-- our adherence to it benefitted us as a species. Perhaps this is true, but it doesn't change the fact that it exists. Female animals may defend their children to the death but they will not die for the good of the group because of some moral imperative. Aristotle speaks of this distinction in Nicomachean Ethics when he rates the types of courage. A regular man who values his life goes into battle with a great deal of fear but overcomes it with the knowledge that he is defending something greater than himself. This is what raises Hector above Achilles despite the latter's great skill in arms. The community will give that ordinary man who overcame his fear a respect reserved for him and his brothers alone. From this point of view, superiority is somewhat antithetical to courage.

Scientific answers are not enough. They are no guide to live your life. They provide no examples of how to interact with your fellow man in a just and honorable fashion. The questions that I encounter in my daily life are not scientific ones. The Bible, with all its errors, provide a better guide for how I should treat my brothers than any physics text. That's an obvious truth and I don't know what took me so long to get to it. I know this. How many times have I had the adage, "The right tool for the right job" drilled into my head? That's wisdom as far as I'm concerned. It's not just knowing what to do (which is easy) but more importantly, when to do it.

A Nice Surprise

2007-01-26T00:06:00.000-08:00

I had an interesting night. It was a friend's birthday party and I ended up engaging a Cal philosophy major in a refreshing conversation. Foucault was her favorite and I shared with her my love and appreciation for Spinoza. Generally, speaking of Spinoza has had a similar effect as prodigious body odor. So imagine my glee to encounter someone who may not be as familiar with Spinoza as I am but could appreciate my great affection for the man and his work.

She spoke of abstractions and the use of language to free them of the limits of epistemology. I've been thinking about that all night and I don't know if that's possible. Humans think in language. Without language, there are no abstractions or concepts. In using language to describe the new term, you are again bound by epistemological concerns. How can you describe any concept without the use of language? I'm not familiar with Foucault. Maybe he has an answer for this. Please share if anyone can shed some light on this.

But this idea of using new language reminds me of what McInerny calls the tendency of modern philosophers to want to be "strong poets." In the desire to be original, they move away from the daily usefulness of philosophy. I did not come to philosophy from academia. I came from martial arts and fighting. The questions I had were not of my "self" or of "forms." I wanted to know when to fight. I wanted to know what were the limits of my behavior, of my effort and work. Aristotle spoke of men like Achilles and Alcibiades who were so naturally superior, they were a "law unto themselves." While not comparing myself to either of those great men, I found myself limited by convention and what was considered acceptable behavior. I sought personal excellence and when it conflicted with what my parents and teachers expected of me, I was punished.

Being a "strong poet" holds no interest for me. As much as I understand the need for artistry, I find myself mostly uninterested in form and the manipulation it implies. Certainly I find the Republic easier to digest in its form than the Nicomachean Ethics but I feel a great affinity for the starkness of Aristotle's work. "Here is the truth," he seems to say. "Digest it as you are able."

Am I trying to find the language to describe the purity of touch as my friend suggested at one point? Yes. Of course. I came to this from seeing the disconnect from what people said with their mouths to how they lived in their bodies. I am convinced your body cannot lie. It is the sum total of your experiences. If you are confident and open, I will feel that when I touch you. If you are fearful and withdrawn, I will feel that too no matter what you say. She pointed out that this is a futile quest as language, ipso facto, can never hold the purity of touch. While I'm inclined to agree, I still believe that I can develop a methodology for people to understand the truth of touch.

We interact with the world through our bodies and whatever we hypothesize in our minds, we must test with our flesh. The further we get away from this truth, the closer we get to neuroticism. Without the wisdom of experience, all things are equal and in being equal, they have no value.

So philosophy for me is a physical endeavor. It is not so much about what I think but rather how I move through the world. There are many men far more clever than me but I don't believe many are much more capable. And that matters more to me. I want to live my life in the mud, in the marrow-chilling cold, and the heat stopping heat. A life lived in one's mind cannot move through the world very well because it has never learned the world's rules.

Is that what Philosophy is to me? The Tao? Is it that vein of wisdom that every single spiritual teacher has sought to share since the beginning of time? How do I move in harmony with the Tao? What does the Tao expect of me? I don't know. I can only check and test over and over until I distill some sort of wisdom.

One of my teachers once said that being a warrior has nothing to do with winning or even succeeding. It has to do with risking and failing and risking again for as long as you live. Finding that universal truth, that consilience which I clumsily describe by the word "Tao" requires a stout heart-- one that can be broken again and again. Sir Francis Bacon once said, "I know not why, but martial men are given to love." I do know why. We are given to love because in learning our craft, we have had our hearts broken over and over by the shattering of every comforting illusion we might have every possessed. We are given to love not because our hearts are hard but because they are durable. We can make the risk because we can live with the pain. Finding the Tao is the same thing. As Spinoza described, understanding and belief is a single act. It is only after you believe can you test the validity of a premise or construct. You must believe with all your heart and you must bleed if your belief is proven false. Despite the risk of considerable pain, you must test your beliefs because in them lies your blindness.

"The important things is this: to be able at any moment to sacrifice what we are for what we could become."
-Charles Dubois

My Thoughts on Iraq

2007-01-18T21:31:00.000-08:00

I've received a lot of requests for my opinion on the Iraq War lately. I've always hesitated to talk about this because most folks have already made up their mind and it's generally rather pointless for me to say anything. First of all, let me say this. Everybody has an opinon about the War. More importantly, everyone thinks their opinion should be taken seriously. So I wish, before anyone says anything anymore about the War, they ask themselves these following questions.

1. What do I actually know about War?
2. What is an insurgency and how do you fight it? (historical preceden please)
3. What do I know about International Relations? Have I ever worked in the field?
4. What do I really know about the political process in DC?
5. Do I have any first hand information about anything pertaining to the War?
6. How do I determine the veracity of a given account? Because it corresponds with what I already believe?

Okay I got that off my chest. I'm just quite sick of stupid, uninformed opinions.

On to the meat of the issue. Do I think we should have got into the War. That's not an easy question to answer. You have to refer to globalization and whether or not you think it is positive. I do because globalization has done more to raise the living standards of more people around the world than anything else. This is inarguable fact. Just look at China. Globalization requires stability and the freer movement of trade. It is largely dependant on the movement of oil. America only gets 7-11 percent of our oil from the ME. The oil we're protecting there is mostly Europe's and Japan's. And rightly so given Breton Woods 1 which formalized the arrangement of the US taking care of Europe's security concerns in return for Europe not arming which presented nothing but trouble up to 1946. Now Saddam, and especially Saddam with WMD, was a huge destabilizer. Whether or not he had WMD isn't the issue. By very virtue of his desire to acquire WMD should be reason enough to put him on the block. What about India and Pakistan? How is that fair? Fair is for fucking children. It has no place in IR. You play with the cards you're dealt and unfortunately, the ME is more important to us than Southeast Asia. Take into account that you cannot contain ambition indefinitely and the UN is not an answer. Remember that our jets were regularly fired upon throughout the 90's when Saddam routinely defied the terms of the ceasefire of the first Gulf War. So there's lots of reasons to depose Saddam and all of them pretty good in the grand ledger.

But I think the war was a bad idea. Why? Because I can't tell the difference between a Sunni and a Shia by looking at them. How can I can be discriminating about who I shoot if I can't do that? And if I can't be discriminating, I going to create tons of ill will without meaning to and there's absolutely nothing I can do about it. So it just doesn't work where the rubber meets the road. But more importantly, Americans as a whole, don't have the intestinal fortitude to run a proper counterinsurgency. It's dirty work and we're much to dainty to do it properly.

A counterinsurgency succeeds when it does one thing. It has to convince the people of the given country that violence on their part is a really bad and untenable position. Why didn't we have very much trouble with this in Japan and Germany? Because of Tokyo and Dresden. We had beat the piss out of the general populace so badly, they could field much if any insurgency. They were so demoralized and humiliated, they both figured they had to try something else. And throughout history back to the time of the Ancient Greeks and the Achaemenid Dynasty the only thing that has every worked. And we don't have the stomach politically for this type of work.

That's why sending more troops is a bad idea. Unless their ROE changes drastically and they are cleared to do what they must, free from media scrutiny, nothing will happen towards quelling the insurgency. In fact, their will just be more opportunities for troops to get killed and commit mistakes that can be spun as atrocities.

So the War is winnable but not as most Americans would like to win it. And that's dangerous for the world and the advancement of the human condition. In our collective desire to makes ourselves feel good, we shirk our responsibility.

For Whom the Bell Tolls...

2006-12-30T03:07:00.002-08:00

Time marches on.

A good friend of mine sent me an email saying that she had a heavy heart because Saddam Hussein was executed. She went on to say that she found the whole situation just "wrong." I was surprised by this as she had always been one of the most vocal supporters of the war and clearly, Saddam was the face on that war. But, as always, she has made me think and here, however unworthy, is the result.

Did Saddam have to die? Obviously, a person's answer to this question depends on his background and his feelings. Despite the hyperbole, most of the time, a person's logical argument for or against the death penalty are crafted to suit a feeling. So instead of traversing into that quagmire, let's just avoid it entirely. In a space where there is rule of law, the question of the validity of the death penalty matters. In the case of international relations where the law of the jungle more readily applies, death is the consequence for losing; good or bad, deserved or undeserved.

Having said all that, Saddam needed to die. He needed to die because he was a symbol of the old way. I once got to hear a young couple speak about their horrible experience at the hands of a serial rapist/murderer. Unlike most couples who have experienced such trauma together, this one was still together and still very much in love. An experienced NYPD detective remarked on this and asked them why they thought they were still together. The couple looked at each other with confidence and love and said emphatically, "Because he's dead." Saddam need to die so his people could move on. We, in the West, cannot understand the impression he made on the psyche of his people. As long as he was still alive, the chance of his return loomed large in the back of everyone's mind. And everyone knew what happens when you cross Saddam.

This would have been much cleaner if he had died in his spider hole. Another friend of mine had this conversation as well. The trial was a joke and diminished the presence and authority of the convening commission as well as giving Saddam a platform from which to speak. Perhaps in legalistic terms, it's only fair that he be allowed to speak in his defense but in realpolitik? The guy needed to be silenced early because it would have saved lives.

Machiavelli said that the hardest thing in the world to do was to bring about a new order of things because the new way will only have lukewarm supporters-- who have gained nothing yet-- and highly motived detractors-- who stand to lose privilege and position. With the Sunni minority, it's not surprising that we have such a dedicated insurgency. They are fighting for their very lives. There is no reason for them to believe that a Shia majority would treat them any better than they were treated. The Bush administration in it's naivete honestly believed that democracy was the cure-all.They had no understanding of the underlying tensions that Saddam held in check.

Since his capture, those tensions have flared into a full-blown religious war. I don't like to use the term civil war because that's not what's happening. This war between Sunni and Shia isn't powered by an difference of ideas about the nature of governance. It's driven by religious tensions going back hundreds of years. It's safe to say that any government sprung from the body politic of the Shia or Sunni would have at it's base a system of laws based on the Sharia. That being the case, "civil relations" aren't the issue. This is a religious war and we must treat it as such.

But for this reason, I feel that the Iraqi Government made a mistake by not trumpeting the execution more. I think it should have been held publically. What better way to show that you are in charge than the public hanging of the previous ruler? Men like Saddam should die publically because it is the Public whom they've harmed. They do not deserve the dignity of a private execution.

I believe, though, that the relative privacy of his execution had very little to do with his dignity. It was acquiesence to Arab pride-- a silly and despicable idea. Some folks believe that it was to reduce the potential violence. There's no reason to think that would happen. There might be a temporary spike in violence but how much worse can it get? The civil/religious war cannot escalate because neither side has access to bigger weapon systems such a tanks or jets. Sure you can blow a bunch of people up but you cannot positively achieve power.

Let me say something about Arab pride. When I was in China, I got to know the concept of "face." At first, I confused it with honor but I was soon to learn that they were very different things. I wrote to a mentor of mine of this curious cultural phenomenon and he wrote back a brilliant response. He said that face was a content-less version of honor. Face is only concerned with appearing good, not being good. With face, there is no though to what is naturally better as with honor. This is what I feel about Arab pride. Much of the turmoil between people in day to day society occurs because most folks have a very different vision of themselves internally than others on the outside see. So a person goes through his day thinking that he is this type of person and should be treated accordingly. Everybody else sees a different sort of person and that being the only thing they have to work with, treat the person thusly. This is the cause of so much bullshit trouble because one party always feels he has been insulted or hasn't been given his due and everybody on the outside can't understand why. But real growth and maturity is integrity between who you are on the inside and what you appear to be on the outside. People who don't have that stumble through their lives hypersensitive to every insult.

This is Arab Pride. It is built on nothing but the idea that they are owed something. It is the pride built on the accomplishments of better men hundreds of years ago. As a culture, what do they have to be proud of in the last hundred years? One only has to look at the Asian countries to see what is possible. No, Saddam's private execution was a salve to wounded Arab pride which means to war but can only hurt unarmed civilians and police officers who mean to help. It makes me truly sick.

My solution to the ME problem is simple. Divide and conquer. I would make Turkey the offer of full EU membership if they roll into Syria and depose Assad. Their military is capable of such an action and it would positively prove that they are on our side. If they could not muster the will... well, that would tell us something too.

I don't like to celebrate a man's death. Seems kind of macabre to me. But if I can drink to Arafat's demise, I can surely drink to Saddam's execution. And I assure you, I will.

Hostis and Inimicus

2006-12-28T03:35:00.000-08:00

Since arriving in San Francisco, I've been on a few dates with some of the locals. This hasn't been easy because my health hasn't been so good but as an unfortunate possessor of the Kavorka, it is my cross to bear. I'm a social guy when I want to be and I've been on a ton of dates so I know I'm a pretty charming dinner companion despite my inability to be a good boyfriend. Interestingly enough, of the half a dozen women I've entertained since arriving in August, all of them have ended things because I've been too conservative. This is not a guess. They've all come out and said it. In fact, two of them said how they could not face their friends with me in tow.

Now, I've never thought of myself as particularly conservative. I suppose I do believe in smaller government as a rule but I don't think that this is what the ladies have found to intolerable. I'm not against gay marriage. I'm pro choice. Okay, I'm not for a nationalized health care system but only because I've never seen it work effectively in any country. Whatever "conservative" views that I have are well thought out and the result of much effort. I never take a policy position because it feels right. In fact, I'm always very suspicious of my own motives when I'm too comfortable with an idea.

Now I suppose they could be using my political views as an excuse. Maybe they find me repellant and are just trying to be nice. I assure you that this is not the case. All of them have made it quite clear that it was my political views alone that disqualified me from further dating.

But the truth of the matter is that their discomfort with associating with me had nothing to do with my political views writ large. I'm sure most of them wouldn't know Hobbes if he pounced on them. It comes down to one thing or person rather. President Bush. They hate him so much that the mere fact that I don't is enough to disqualify me. That's amazing. How can one man generate so much raw frothing hate?

While I do not agree with all of President Bush's policy decisions-- most notably the creation of Homeland Security-- I don't think he's a bad guy. And I think it's terribly childish to think that folks who disagree with you are bad merely because they disagree.

None of the modern Western languages have a different word for public enemy and private enemy. This presents a problem in our cognition because it is only through language that we form our higher thoughts. Take, for example, the Latin words "hostis" and "inimicus." "Hostis" refers to a public enemy-- like the Japanese during WWII-- while "inimicus" refers to a private enemy such as a political adversary. Whatever you make of this distinction, it is enough to draw it. The Roman citizen of his day would never think of elevating someone he personally loathes to "hostis" status simply because he hated him. It would make no sense.

But people do that here in San Francisco. They have elevated hatred of President Bush to the point where it affects their personal lives. What kind of insanity is that?

Something else I've realized is that this town in overwhelmingly close-minded. Don't believe me? Try to engage anyone in a conversation about the merits of gay marriage. It will quickly devolve into ad hominem attacks.

The liberals and socialist here all uniformly hate religion on which they blame all of society's ills. But what the citizens of San Francisco don't see is that their zeal makes them the Faithful of a different sort. They take things on faith as much as religious people do. Hiding behind science or statistics when you don't really understand them isn't intellectually honest. Unless you've done the work yourself, you're always taking somebody's word for it.

Man likes certainty and will pray to all sorts of "Gods" to get it. Me? I'm comfortable with ambiguity and I don't believe science has all the answers, at least to the questions I find interesting.

Chasing Happiness

2006-12-08T01:38:00.000-08:00

Recently, a good friend of mine sent me a piece about happiness. The gist of it was that when people chase happiness, they usually end of making themselves less happy due to poor decision making. It was an interesting premise and so I spent some time thinking about it. The first most obvious question to ask was if I'm happy? Yes, undoubtedly. Could I be happier? Well, at any given moment I could be intermittently happier but as a mean? No, I don't think I could be happier.

I suppose being happy means different things to different people. Given what I've seen in the world, I guess I set my bar pretty low. I have a roof over my head, plenty of food to eat, good friends, capable medical care and nobody's trying to kill me as far as I know. When I look at my fellow San Franciscans, I would guess that most, if not all of them, set their baseline for happiness considerably higher.

Some folks say that to set the bar low is to pave the way for underachievement. I suppose an argument could be made for that but I've always been pretty easy to keep happy and I don't think I can be accused of underachieving by anyone's meter.

Seneca said that a mindless bustling about is not industry. It is the sign of a hunted mind. I think that in our desire to achieve happiness, we are instead hunted by it. Instead of simply being happy, we ask ourselves how we could be happier. Instead of becoming a condition of peace, it has become our master.

When I was a teenager, I caught a beating from my father from reading the Tao Te Ching. My father insisted that the work was for men who had already accomplished something in life and could afford to be content. I didn't much understand the book, but I disagreed with him vehemently which then led to the beating. While I don't agree with his pedagoical style, I understand his fear. He confused happiness with contentment.

What's the difference? I think most people chase things in their lives because they think possessing those things will make them happy.

To quote Jay-Z:
How do you equate your pain?
Would it all go away if I bought you a Range?
I got two or three of those, nothing's gonna change.
If nothing else, you've got to live with yourself.

People achieve awards, diplomas and such for the same reason. I'm as guilty as the next guy for this. I thought, "Maybe if I get achieve one more thing, my father will love me." Or whatever. But I finally learned that his issues had nothing to do with the plaques on my wall. I could fill another wall and it would change nothing.

At the same time, I thought that my achievements might take me to a level of happiness that I've never experienced.

The Zen master walked into the main hall and said to his congregated students that one of their fellow students had achieved Enlightenment. After he left the hall, the students all ran to find their fellow classmate. The finally found him standing underneath a tree atop a small hill. Breathlessly, they asked, "Master has told us that you have achieved Enlightenment. How do you feel?"

The newly Enlightened student answered, "As shitty as ever."

I guess what I'm trying to say is that Happiness is less about pursuit and more about recognizing the blessings that you have.

I am truly blessed. I am embarrassed by my riches because surely, I do not deserve them.
'

A Shameless Pitch

2006-10-12T00:49:00.000-07:00

The other night, I went to the going away party for a friend and his family. He has since moved to Vietnam with the idea that it might be interesting and beneficial but no real plan. I applauded him for his bravery. We all had grown up in a higher socio-economic bracket meaning that none of us ever wanted for shelter or worried about where our next meal would come from while happily or unhappily ensconced in our parents' homes. It's easy for people like us to think we deserve a remarkable life. We inhabit our comfortable lives and wonder, "Is this it?" I've never felt this way. I have consistently pushed myself and taken risks and I realized that night what I given up for such a lifestyle. It is only now that my health is suspect that these people whom I've known since high school can comfortably inhabit my life. For my situation, I could not have a remarkable life and be in their community of friends at the same time.

One of my mentors said to me once, "School teaches you Xerxes invaded Greece in 480 B.C.E. but teaches you nothing about moving through change elegantly." Another one of my friends said that people just want to get to a place where they can have an opinion that makes them look smart at cocktail parties and achieves the respect of their community. They care little for what the actual truth is. Having spent a lot of time in San Francisco, I find this more true than anywhere I've ever been. People here are passionate about politics but it is the same politics. And they make the very lazy connection between morality and political belief. That is the height of socialist indoctrination. If you believe this then you are a bad person. Because that idea is something only bad people believe, I have no responsibility to explore it. Indeed, I must avoid thinking about it at all costs.

The indoctrination is so deep that otherwise intelligent and educated people have bought into it. Look, socialism leads to fascism. Conservatism leads to libertarianism. Bigger government in one direction. Smaller government in the other. What is so difficult about that to fathom?

Why is this human nature? Why do we consistently believe ideas solely because they make us feel good?

"And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit. For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow."

-Ecclesiastes 1:17-18

The Rough Stone wrote a brilliant and beautiful response to my piece on innocence. I found myself unable to argue with it. But there seems to me to be a difference between the innocence of youth and that of laziness. It seems to me that so many of my fellow Americans are innocent to the ways of the world because they designed their existence as such. Now there is certainly nothing wrong with enjoying a comfortable life. Few things are as good in life as enjoying a nice Barolo with friends. But I believe that there is a danger in believing this to be how life is. It is not.

Feigned innocence allows people to forget all that going on in the world. More importantly, it allows them to morally take themselves off the hook with superficial acts. I got into it once with a gentleman who was waxing on sanctimoniously about Darfur. He was going on and on about how much he cared about those people. I asked him what he had done to alleviate their suffering? Nothing he was forced to reply. Not one cent. Not one trip. Not one call to a NGO to volunteer, much less actually volunteer. I said that it was pretty clear he really didn't care about the folks in Darfur to which he got very offended and threatened violence foolishly. If his is the standard of caring, I can do without it.

I'll say it here. I don't really care about Darfur. I think it's tremendously unfortunate but would I risk my life or the lives of my friends without orders to go there? No way. I don't know any of those people. I save my energy for folks I actually care about. It's all well and good for George Clooney to try to generate interest in international action but people like him fail to realize that boots on the ground are the only way to fix such crises and I just don't see a vital American interest there.

And this is exactly what I'm talking about. We have people in our society regularly teaching social justice though they have no real idea what it means. They can read about this atrocity or that genocide but until they have felt actual injustice, they are merely spectators. Minorities in the US can lay some claim to understanding social justice. Women in our society as a whole, particularly in San Francisco, cannot. It is foolish to think that you're the victim of social injustice because your salary is 3000 dollars lower than your male counterpart. You are simply a bad negotiator.

But this whole thing is really just a pitch for my martial arts class. The way I see it goes like this. Most people get to a place in their lives where they have some degree of reflection skills. They can look at themselves and make a judgement somewhat close to reality. This is a fleeting moment. Most people here realize that there are a great many things they don't like about themselves but they have no idea how to change it. Since they can't change it (make themselves better) they do the next best thing. They spend their intellectual energy justifying their foibles and weaknesses. I love myself the way I am dammit! I don't blame them for this. Without a methodology, it just seems insurmountable.

But there is a methodology for change and it is the martial arts. Taught properly, it can be the bridge between what you want to be and what you are. Anyone who knows me knows that I'm far from perfect. But I hope they would also say that I'm absolutely ruthless when it comes to judging myself. I hold no one else up to the same standard I hold myself. But this doesn't make me any better. It's only because I have a map that I can fearlessly look at my flaws.

How does this work then? Quite simply. You have to make things big before you make them small. If you cannot control your body (within reason), you cannot control your mind or emotions. Dr. Humberto Maturana in his lecture series at Harvard explained that all biological organisms are closed systems. They don't react to what's outside. They react because of what's inside. Why is that useful? It proves scientifically what scholars, priests and teachers have known through the beginning of time. Through my body teach my mind. If I can teach my body to do a certain thing, my mind will follow. And the interesting thing is that it absolutely doesn't work in the other direction.

So my goals as an instructor are simple. I want every one of my students to learn how to teach themselves a new behavior and to make that behavior second nature. We do this physically first because you can't bullshit the physical but I don't want my students to stop there. I want them to apply the lessons to daily life. I want them to be fully present in the midst of the most catastrophic conflict and make the proper decisions from a composed place.

Incidentally, that's what I'm working on too.

Group Class

2006-09-29T03:10:00.000-07:00

In my search for better medical care, I am relocating to San Francisco. As part of my rehabilitation, I'm trying to start a martial arts group class. I'm not going to get into my qualifications but I assure you, I'm more than qualified. In fact, this will be the first time I've trained civilians in 10 years. Come check out a class and see for yourself.

It would look like this:

* Once or twice a week
* Curriculum would primarily consist of Muay Thai, JKD Concepts and Kali
* We will work up to full contact sparring in an intelligent way
* Classes will be kept small and by invitation only
* No girls
* Students would have to buy their own equipment (gloves, gumshoe, wraps, etc)
* 1 to 2 hours per class
* 20 bucks a class

If I get enough interest, I'll start looking for a place to train. Hopefully the group will be no smaller than 4 and bigger than 10. If anyone has any suggestions here, I'd be very grateful. You can contact me at sfgroupclass@mac.com. I promise you'll get a lot out of this class. Besides a vigorous workout, I guarantee you'll learn something about yourself if you have the courage.

The Choice of Freedom

2006-09-12T02:19:00.000-07:00

Only a few prefer liberty-- the majority seek nothing more than fair masters.

Histories
-Sallust

I never had a good feeling about Iraq. While I fully support my President, I didn't think the idea of creating a viable democracy in the Middle East was possible at this point in time. I didn't have any hard facts to back up this feeling. It was just how I felt having worked extensively in that area. According to Prof. Francis Fukuyama, the Bush Administration greatly misinterpreted the neocon doctrine which was very suspicious of social engineering. Social engineering, for the most part, doesn't work and it especially doesn't work until a tight timeline.

History has shown that when a nation conquers and attempts to reshape another, it has to break the target country's spirit. Our most successful ventures in nation building were Germany and Japan. There was unrest in both countries as we attempted to remake them but nothing that could be qualified as an active resistance. Certainly things are different in Iraq. Why? The answer lies in the firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden. Overwhelming violence used to affect the civilian population is the only way to teach them that violence is not the answer. We didn't do that in Iraq so the people who make us the insurgency still believe that they can achieve something through violence. And we prove them right daily by not responding to their actions forcefully enough.

The problem here is that most people who make policy in the United States have never been in a fight-- much less combat. You learn certain things about life when you grow up fighting that you cannot possibly learn any other way. One of the biggest lessons is that some people will not quit because of pain or discomfort. If you want them to stop, you have to make them. You have to damage them to the point where they simply cannot continue because they will otherwise continue to fight. Another lesson is that courtesy of often confused for weakness. And weakness only emboldens certain types of people to behave even more violently.

Everybody knows that our military is the most powerful in the history of man. That's why we look even more like a bunch of skittish schoolgirls when we hesitate to use it. Alexander the Great was able to secure the peaceful surrender of many cities because of this principle. He offered peace. He offered favor. He even offered gold all to avoid war. Many cities took him up on his offer because they knew what he was capable of were they to behave otherwise. With his razing and salting of Thebes, he showed the ancient world the consequence of defying his generosity. People heard of his victories against numerically superior foes (of the most powerful Army of the ancient world) at Granicus, Issus and Gaugamela. Because he was so merciless in battle, his peace was truly received as a gift and not the sign of a weak spine.

We have this arrogant idea that open debate and mindless bickering will somehow show the Islamo-fascists that we are superior and that our very ability to tolerate dissent is the strength of our system. While this may be in fact true, that's just not the way our enemy will see it. They see it as weakness, plain and simple. Nothing will change that.

Was it a mistake to go into Iraq? I don't think so. It had to be done and if something must be done, it's best to get on with it. We could have handled the aftermath much better and our senior commanders could have paid more attention to the men who had spent their time with their boots on th e groud but otherwise, this is going rather as expected. Once again, if you've never been in a fight, it seems like an easy thing. It is not. Your opponent learns and reacts and has an agenda all his own. You can be losing a fight for 11 rounds and win it in the 12th with a knockout. Fighting has nothing to do with spreadsheets.

Regardless of whether or not you think the war is a good idea, it is clear that at this point, we must finish it with a definitive win. We can't use our rhetoric to say that we won. That didn't work with Saddam the first time. Our definition of winning must be our enemy admitting as much. Only when you Iraqi insurgent says, "Yes, we lost. We were defeated" can we say that we have achieved victory. Nothing less.

And what is our choice? I was in NYC during 9/11 and I was shocked at how bloodthirsty the average New Yorker had become. Sure there was love going around but when talk turned to revenge, even your Upper West Side Dakota princess was screaming for blood. That's not surprising. Most people's liberalism and peacefulness is shallow. Scare them a little and it will disappear because as a rule, people want stability more than true freedom. If a nuclear weapon is detonated in any US city, our civil right will evaporate and those who will be screaming the loudest for such a change will be same people who so depise our President and current course of action.

I don't believe that most people are necessarily Good or Bad. There's only Scared and Not. And scared people who haven't spent any time developing their inner resources will invariably make the wrong decision when the time comes.

Further Thoughts on Teaching...

2006-07-30T22:54:00.000-07:00

Human knowledge had become unmanageably vast; every schience had begotten a dozen more, each subtler than the rest; the telescope revealed starts and systems beyond the mind of man to number or to name; geology spoke in terms of millions of years, where men before had thought in terms of thousands; physics found a universe in the atom, and biology found a microcosm in the cell; physiology dicovered inexhaustible mystery in every organ, and psychology in every dream; anthropology reconstructed the unsuspected antiquity of man, archeology unearthed buried cities and forgotten states, history proved history false, and painted a canvas which only a Spengler or an Eduard Meyer could vision as a whole; theology crumbled, and political theory cracked; invention complicated life and war, and economic creeds overturned governments and inflamed the world; philosophy itself, which had once summoned all sciences to its aid in making a coherent image of the world and an alluring picture of the good, found its task of coordination too stupendous for its courage, ran away from all these battlefronts of truth, and hid itself in recondite and narrow lanes, timidly secure from the issues and responsibilities of life. Human knowledge had become too great for the human mind.

All that remained was the scientific specialist, who knew "more and more about less and less," and the philosophical speculator, who knew less and less about more and more. The specialist put on blinders in order to shut out from his vision all the world but one little spot, to which he glued his nose. Perspective was lost. "Facts" replaced understanding; and knowledge, split into a thousand isolated fragments, no longer generated wisdom. Every science, and every branch of philosophy, developed a technical terminology intelligible only to its exclusive devotees; as men learned more about the world, they found themselves ever less capable of expressing to their educated fellow-men what it was thtat they had learned. The gap between life and knowledge grew wider and wider; those who governed could not understand those who thought, and those who wanted to know could not understand those who knew. In the midst of unprecedented learning popular ignorance flourished, and chose its exemplars to rule the great cities of the world; in the midst of sciences endowed and enthroned as never before, new religions were born every day, and old superstitions recaptured the ground they had lost. The common man found himself forced to choose between a scientific priesthood mumbling unintelligible pessimism, and a theological priesthood mumbling incredible hopes.

In this situation the function of the professional teacher was clear. It should have been to mediate between the specialist and the nation; to learn the specialist's language, as the specialist had learned nature's, in order to break down the barriers between knowledge and need, an find for new truths old terms that all literate people might understand. For if knowledge became too great for communication, it would degenerate into scholasticism, and the weak acceptance of authority; mankind would slip into a new of faith, worshipping at a respectful distance its new priests; and civilization, which had hoped to raise itself upon education disseminated far and wide, would be left precariously based upon a technical erudition that had become the monopoly of an esoteric class monastically isolated from the world by the high birth rate of terminology.

-The Story of Philosophy
Will Durant

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Once again I must unfortunately take what is grand and lofty and make it pedestrian though my experience with the martial arts. Mea Culpa. Many of my teachers had performed acts bordering on magic. From taking my balance without physically touching me to holding two grown men back while standing on one foot, I have for years marveled at one impossible ability after another. Some may say these acts are fake but I personally know them to be true. I've felt them and believed despite all my inclination and desire not to believe.

While I have never achieved anything bordering on magic, I've always felt that my gift as a martial arts teacher was to make that which was esoteric and unclear, transparent for the average person. Slowly this became my raison d'etre for most of my learning in any subject. Professionally, my rold was often translating between the academics and trigger pullers and vice versa.

I don't believe anything is so complex that I can't at least understand its basic principles. The technical specifics might be beyond me but the principles, if they are indeed principles, should not be. I am no nephrologist but I understand broadly the way my kidneys work and what my treatment is supposed to accomplish. Because of that, I have caught my nurses and doctors in countless mistakes that would have adversely affected my health. All because I had one doctor who had the ability and inclination to take the time to explain it to me. I think the professional teacher's role has something to do with this.

In Defense of Teachers

2006-07-27T14:08:00.000-07:00

As is my habit, I like to give exceptional contrary responses to anything I've written its own featured place. The following is a response to my post "Active Citizenship" written by my friend who is incidentally, the English teacher who prompted my thought excursion. A passioned, energetic and well-reasoned defense, I think it deserves a serious read. I will respond in the comments section.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because you never discuss the various manifestations of civic duty, I stumble over your pessimistic assertion that “most educators under 50 feel they owe the Country nothing more than a check.” Similarly, because it remains unclear what qualifies for you as “a contribution to the body politic,” it is difficulty for me to understand why you believe most teachers are not qualified to teach citizenship. However, I am sure you would agree that civic duty could take on many forms beyond enlisting in your nation’s military forces. Teachers take on the responsibility of providing rising generations with the core knowledge and skills necessary to actively participate in, and perhaps even improve, their communities. For example, an English teacher’s fundamental goals are to teach a student to read critically and write for a variety of purposes and audiences. Most English teachers I know, myself included, believe there is tremendous power in the written word and that being able to identify and use rhetorical devices in a given text allows us to understand how we are persuaded to believe in another’s ideas and how we can develop convincing arguments ourselves. Such skills, which fall under the nebulous category of critical thinking skills, can prevent us from being snowed into buying material items for the wrong reasons based on slick advertisement techniques or falling victim to more dangerous propaganda. Critical thinking is the keystone of active citizenship. Your friend who decided he could not criticize the Country without contributing was demonstrating just this.

Furthermore, while I agree with you that it is important for teachers to resist the temptation to indoctrinate their students according to their personal political persuasions, teachers, whether they are conscious of it or not, are indoctrinating students in American values. After all, America’s public education roots are firmly planted in this purpose—to gather children from a variety of ethnic and cultural backgrounds and teach them a common and unifying core of knowledge, mythology and skills that serves the country’s economic and political progress. Therefore, teaching children is indeed a civic duty-- it is a contribution to the larger society. In my seven years of teaching, nearly one thousand students have passed through my classroom. Equipping a thousand people with improved literacy skills, not to mention the peripheral skills, ethics, and ideas that are taught through the literature we read and the discussions generated, is a significant contribution to the Country. Therefore, I believe I am qualified to teach citizenship.

However, above and beyond what I maintain is the civic duty intrinsic in the act of teaching our nation’s youth, most teachers I know seem to have an inherent drive to improve and protect their communities, a drive at the heart of civic duty. These teachers create curriculum that models and demonstrates this value, and perhaps even provides students with the opportunity to experience civic participation. At minimum, a Humanities teacher will expose students to a variety of American leaders who have created change in their communities models the character, values and pathways necessary to become an active citizen. But many of us go beyond this level of exposure to experiential learning as well. It is not difficult for me to incorporate civic duty into a grade-based system. For example, during the last election year, my students were required to participate in a campaign effort for a candidate of their choosing running for any level of political office. A certain number of hours, an evaluation by a supervisor, a final paper and presentation all contributed to a cumulative grade.
But even better, I watch students move towards voluntary active citizenship as a result of having this value modeling for them by teachers and their curriculum. And this leads me to respond to your statements on the role that character (or according to you, lack thereof) plays in school. I think civic duty does indeed begin with watching or reading the news, and doing so is not the same as watching or reading sports. The action of educating ourselves in the activities of our nation and other nations is the beginning of recognizing the larger communities to which we belong. Therefore, we begin to care about these larger communities; we begin to realize how we influence (both positively and negatively) them, and then often, our investment in these larger communities grows. For example, over the last two years of teaching at a private school based in a low-income, African-American neighborhood, I became increasingly uncomfortable with the lack of interaction between the school and its surrounding community. My students regarded members of the neighborhood with suspicion, fear and gross generalizations. Furthermore, the community itself is in crisis, wrestling with the usual suspects that emerge in a poor neighborhood—gangs, drugs, homicide. So I started attending meetings at city hall with our district supervisor, who wants to harness the interfaith community in this district to become a force that responds to the community’s problems. This led to the idea of an interfaith teen council. All I had to do is choose 4-5 students who I have watched become increasingly conscious and concerned for the worlds beyond the small one they move through on a daily basis (home, school), who demonstrate leadership and initiative, character traits I am convinced they learned, at least partially, in school. These students started accompanying me at the city council meetings--not because their participation was required or counted towards a grade. But simply because they care and they want to live up to the expectations of mentors they respect. I think this example illustrates that schools are quite capable of helping students build character. Earning an A on a paper after a semester’s worth of Bs and Cs, being caught cheating and suffering not only concrete consequences, but also the disapproval of a teacher you respect, overcoming the fear of public speaking, these are all character building experiences that take place in schools.

The Foolish Dennis Kucinich

2006-07-24T22:23:00.000-07:00

One of my very best friends today remarked that she thinks I operate better when I'm a little pissed off. Sadly that's true. I have ample reason to be rather perturbed these days- personal and professional ones- but I must admit that I appreciate the push of a little emotional energy. My inner conflict often consists of a 'lay by the fire' laziness and an Germanic need for precision. The only thing that keeps me from being abandoned by my friends is the fact that the primary target of my critical lens is me.

That's why I love Dennis Kucinich. Listening to him talk takes the lens of myself for a moment. I may be an asshole but I'm not a naive asshole. In this dangerous world, this difference definitely matters. When asked if the thought the world would be better off if Hizbollah was dismantled, his answer was that the world would be better of without war. Yes, and I would be better off if Jessica Alba was my girlfriend but that's not likely. Uma Thurman, maybe but not Miss Alba.

So caught up in his own ideology, Kucinich completely dismisses the needs of other people. Comfortable in the warm blanket of security provided by the US Military, Kucinich feels no shame at criticizing others who seek the same comfort. He may not be dumb but he is still a fool. He is, in fact, the worst kind of fool convinced of his own intelligence. He and his ilk are the most easily manipulated by the hustler. He's so sure that violence is the ultimate evil that he is willing to reward those who use it as a terroristic weapon. He believes that dialog can solve anything- a childish, Sesame Street view of the world.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
-John Stuart Mill

Kucininch needs to grow up. The world is not the safe, fuzzy places he wishes it to be. Peace doesn't naturally exist. It never has. Peace is earned and protected by men with weapons. And Kucinich's freedom is a gift from those same men too.

Send in the Legion

2006-07-24T11:31:00.000-07:00

All this talk of inserting a peacekeeping force into Lebanon has reminded of a story I heard from a USMC Gunnery Sergeant who had served in Beirut at the time of the tragic Marine Barracks bombing. My question to him was simple, "Who were the most effective at keeping the peace over there?" (actually, my words were "baddest motherfuckers) His answer shocked the hell out of me.

"The French," he said emphatically.

I guffawed. "You gotta be kidding Gunny. The French? Are we talking about the same people?"

"Look, Sir," he said with tension mounting in his voice. "They'd put a single Legionaire with his rifle and a pack of cigarettes in areas we wouldn't put a company of Marines."

The French Foreign Legion. That made a bit more sense. The modern Legion doesn't quite share the same questionable reputation of their predecessors but they were still a hard group of men not to be trifled with. And say what you want about the French, the leadership tends to give the Legion wide parameters in which to work. Apparently, at one point, one of these Legionaires got stoned while standing his post in a section of Beirut. (I don't remember which one.) Not the green bud, 420-type stoned but old school biblical stoned. He made it safely back to his Command but had taken a few hits. Though the Legionaire was no worse for the wear, the commander of the unit decided that he could not tolerate such an offense. He mustered the whole unit and they made their way back to area of the insult. Once there, the Legionaires locked arms and walked up and down the street putting the boot to everybody; men, women, children, grandmothers. Nobody fucked with the Legion after that.

Now I wasn't there so I can't vouch for the veracity of this account. But I have absolutely no reason to doubt the Gunny's word and plenty of reasons not to. Plus, it also corresponds with what I understand about Arab Muslim culture. Kindness is uniformly considered weakness. A culture of people on the make, violence is often the only way to get through to them and to let them know you are serious. It's a universal language and one they understand well.

Unless the Peacekeepers are going to go in and kick some Hizbollah ass, it's criminal to send them. They will be risking their lives for nothing. You cannot negotiate with a terrorist organization as you would a nation-state. The old rule set no longer applies. The problem is we don't have a new one yet so we're making it up as we go. We're bound to make mistakes but let's not make the same ones we did in 1983. There's the memory of 241 Marines who deserve better than that.

The Abolition of Me

2006-07-23T23:37:00.000-07:00

It is pure visceral pleasure to read C.S. Lewis' writing. I'm talking about the unexpected glimpse of a beautiful woman, first taste of a small house Cognac, cassoulet on a frigid day-type pleasure. I've taken to reading his words out load, having discovered that this increased my pleasure. But there is more than just beauty. Unlike a beautiful woman who will seduce you and break your heart. Unlike the Cognac which will lead to a hang over. Unlike the cassoulet that will pack on unneeded pounds and clog your arteries. Lewis doesn't use beauty to distract you from a lack of substence. He uses to make a difficult topic palatable.

In comparison, I offer Dave Eggers. There is no doubt Mr. Eggers is a master storyteller and wordsmith. His sheer facility with the English language is mind-boggling enticing me to read about things I have no interest in. But at the end of it all, I just don't care. Much like candy, the pleasure is great but lacking in nutritional value. I want a Ducasse, a Keller, an Adria. Skill is just not enough for me. I admire great writers. I just believe that they should be great thinkers first.

The Abolition of Man gives shape to my personal quest. I had mistakenly thought that the goals of Eastern spirituality and Western intellectualism needed to reconciled. What I now realize and what Lewis so clearly expounds is the fact that both disciplines come from the same Truth or Tao as he refers to it. I won't go through the book piece by piece. Though short in length, I'm quite sure that I would misrepresent the depth of this work. I will, however, share some of my thoughts as they relate to the book and hope you will find them interesting enough to want to read The Abolition of Man.

The martial arts. Why do I always come back to this? Undoubtedly, part of the reason is because I know this better than I know anything else. But there's more to it than mere self-absorption. The arts continued to fascinate me long after my skills as a fighter stood to gain no noticable improvement because they are a telling metaphor for life. Watch a man train and watch him fight and you will know more about him than he ever would or could tell you himself. I have acquired instructor-level skill in 9 distinct martial arts and proficieny in 7 more. I didn't do this just to pad my CV. I don't believe I truly understood the martial arts until I mastered my 3rd. From there they became easier and easier to learn because they were all derivatives of the same Truth. I'd explain it to my students like this. Everybody eats rice but the preparation depends on where you live. Cooking the rice is basically the same process everywhere but how you spice it, how you dress it gives each rice its own character. Learn to cook the rice properly and then you can spice it however you want. And yes, they would look at me funny when I would say this.

There is some crazy and ridiculous stuff out there in the martial arts world. There are also some pretty amazing skill sets bordering on magic. (See my previous post- the Devil and Sifu Frank) But you can pretty much divide the martial arts world into 2 camps. One has been in real fights. The other hasn't. People who belong to the fighting camp generally tend to agree on most things and their techiques and applications start to look remarkably similar. On the other hand, the people in the no-fighting camp argue about every little detail because they have no standard by which to judge the efficacy of a technique. Actual fighting is to styles like the wind tunnel is to car design. In the name of efficiency and effectiveness, things generally start adopting the same shape.

In his much more intelligent way, Lewis says this is true of Life. He says that there is a universal standard, naturally existing right or wrong that are so, long before we get to them. Whatever we call them, however we might try to manipulate them, they are still inherently right or wrong. And how are we to know this? Only by perceiving correctly, a skill which I maintain has been woefully neglected by Western Thought. (See my post- Descartes! You French Bastard!) He goes on to show how a world without standards taken to its logical ends destroys itself.

Cyrus the Great used to send his young princes to go live in a rugged far off land like Bactria to return to when they were 18. Until then, they were only to be taught 3 things: to ride well, draw the bow, and speak the truth. Only then would they be taught more advanced topics like philosophy. Even 2500 years ago, Cyrus knew that teaching boys to be clever before you taught them to be good creates problems. Lewis takes this concept further and refines it arriving at the conclusion that the study of Ethics will only make sense to someone who has been taught from childhood to love goodness. As he put it, he would rather play cards with a man who was skeptical about Ethics but was raised to believe that a gentleman never cheats than a man who understood the study of Ethics intimately but would try to win at any cost.

My only problem with this book is personal. His reasoning against using the human body as spare parts for medical advancement is very difficult to argue with. He could have just as easily been talking about stem cell research and transplants. As much as I agree with his reasoning, I can't help but feel his logical conclusion is just wrong. I think Lewis fell into the Cartesian trap in believing that a well thought out argument is the same as the Truth. But it's equally likely that I'm wrong as well. I'm alive because of a transplant. Stem cell research holds great promise for my future happiness. I cannot distinguish between what is and what I wish it to be, in this case.

The Abolition of Man completely destroyed my internal philosophical system which, in all honestly, needed destruction. I had gotten too caught up in trying to think an Original Thought- a pointless exercise in ego gratification. I know better than that. I look at all the charlatans starting their own martial art systems which invariably are nothing but new training methods. The Tao is all coming from the same place. The effort should be to discover it fully, not take a piece of it grow it into a monstrosity. This was the wake up call I needed and I have the Dumb Ox to thank for it. My goal as always, is to forget 'me' so I can see reality clearly. This book gave me an intellectual foundation for what I believed was true in my heart. Validation? Yes, but so much more than just that. My apologies to Mr. Lewis for using "Abolition" in a manner counter to what he meant in his book in the title of this post. But the Abolition of Man freed me, however momentarily from my petty and ridiculous attachment to my ego. That is the 'me' that needed to be abolished.

Active Citizenship

2006-07-23T19:58:00.000-07:00

A few days ago, I traded a couple of emails with a friend of mine. She's a high school English teacher and I reached out to her to resolve a grammar issue that stumped my merry band of grammatically challenged hooligans. With all that's going on in the world, the topic naturally moved to the issue of the day and I vented my frustration with people who passionately voiced their opinions despite an ephemeral understanding. She replied with an elegant yet powerful paragraph framing her goals as a teacher.

Her statement was direct. "I teach active citizenship." Dynamic and seductive, who could disagree with a statement like that? But why, then, has that one statement weighed heavily on my mind since I read it? Active citizenship. What about that actually bothers me?

First, I suppose in the interests of full disclosure, I should say that I'm not a fan of democracy. I'm part of the tradition that began with Plato, believing that democracy invariably degenerates into the rule of the flatterer. Flatter the masses, tell them how smart they are and you will win your post. Sad, but true. Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all others." That is, perhaps,closer to what I believe but I'm looking for something better- something to break the cycle of Democracy- Republic- Monarchy- Despotism ad infinitum. Until I find it, the rule of the mob will have to do.

To my mind, implicit in the word 'citizen' is activity. Otherwise the proper word would be 'subject.' In De Toqueville's Democracy in America (an oft quoted but little read book), he writes of how the criminal in America is the enemy of every man because citizens have a stake. In Europe, the criminal is only the enemy of the King. Having spent a great deal of time in Europe, I know this attitude is still true. The European engagement with the poltical process is mostly centered around social services provided.

But what kind of 'activity' shall we have? What about our civic duties? Do we get to decide what they are or does the State? Civic duty is a term that has fallen out of vogue. These day, it seems that people are far more interested in what the Country can do for them instead of what they can do for their Country. Is paying taxes adequate fulfillment of my obligation to my Country? Most people think that it is. And I would suspect that most educators under the age of 50 feel that they owe the Country nothing more than a check. Is this loss of civic duty a lack of citizenship instruction or of substandard instruction?

Teaching a subject, any subject, implies that the teacher is more knowledgable about the topic than the student. In the case of citizenship, how many teachers are actually qualified to teach this topic? Naturally, this leads to a debate about what is citizenship. It's really quite simple. Citizenship is contribution to the body politic. One of my Marines, when asked why he joined the Corps, said that he enlisted because he wanted to be able to criticize the Country and he wouldn't feel comfortable doing so until he made a contribution. Who taught him that? I suspect that this 19 year old Marine didn't come up with such a thought on his own. Another example of this is my friend Baby Gator. At 25, she's as smart as anyone I've ever met coupled with a breakneck work ethic and near limitless ability. Clearly on the fast track, her major concern is that she is not contributing enough, not doing all she could for her Country. And to truly piss you off, she's beautiful to boot.

By this standard, I would have to say that the vast majority of my academic teachers and professors were not great examples of citizenship. Most of them weren't bad either but a teacher should be an exemplar of the topic he is teaching and I only had half a dozen teacher and professors who would qualify. Is this an issue of patriotism? I don't think so. I distrust overt displays of patriotism. I'm reminded of this old Cuban man who told me over a morning Cuban coffee, apropos of nothing, that if my woman started becoming very affectionate with me and telling her friends how great I was, she was definitely cheating on me. I think the principle applies to overt patriotism. But citizenship is something else. It's a matter of focus. It's a question of gratitude.

Duty is the sublimest word in the language. You can never do more than your duty. You should never wish to do any less.
-Robert E. Lee

The fact of the matter is that none of my academic instructors taught me a single thing about duty. And what is citizenship if not duty? I don't think school is where you learn to be a good citizen. I don't think it can be. Your grade is unaffected by your character or lack of it. Citizenship is about character, not cleverness, and academic institutions have been unable to teach it for quite some time. With the emphasis on grades, I think that school often teaches the wrong thing. Perhaps the pedagogy has advanced to the point where this has changed. That's possible. But watching the news and reading the paper makes me no more of a citizen than watching sports on TV makes me an athlete. I learned more about character in the judo dojo. Duty found its meaning when I had teammates on a waterpolo team who depended on me. The books I read that taught me about my duty as an American were ones I sought out myself. There is a fine line between education and indoctrination. And unfortunately, it's a line that the Education establishment doens't draw clearly enough.

We've Seen This Enemy Before

2006-07-21T21:28:00.000-07:00

Though we wish not to admit it, we are at war with Iran. We have been since the 1983 Hizbollah bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut. But the roots of our conflict are far deeper than that. They go back 2500 years to the invasion of the Pelopenesse and Attica by Xerxes and the Asian hordes of his Persian empire. Modern day Iranians hope to rekindle the legacy of the Achaemenids. Having once ruled most of the world, they believe it is in their power to do so again.

From our vantage point, this seems foolish. How can a backwater nation such as Iran challenge the United States? The idea seems absurd. But as I have often maintained, a nation's reasons for war only have to make sense to itself. And challenging the US for supremacy pays homage to their Persian history. In six short years, Cyrus (not yet the Great) had elevated himself from King of a small mountain tribe to absolute ruler of all the lands between India and the Aegean. He accomplished this through conquest, bribery and careful diplomacy. He was ambitious as he was capable.

America has been a superpower for so long that we take national pride for granted. Much as a Harvard graduate may hesitate before claiming his alma mater, many Americans (particularly well-traveled ones) hesitate before showing pride at our Country's greatness. Pride, to us, seems like a childish reason to go to war. But pride alone has started almost as many wars as it has started fights. Far more than being an acceptable casus belli, it is for the humiliated, the greatest one.

Iran, home to political intrigue for almost 3 millenia, has always known that it cannot beat the US in a straight fight. Despite all their bluster, in strict military terms, our military would make short work of theirs. So it has engaged in assymmetrical warfare and been quite successful at it. Hizbollah has since their inception been Iran's proxy, doing Tehran's bidding while given them deniability. This style of warfare goes back to the days of the Persian War as well. Western armies, as a legacy from their Greek ancestors, traditionally look for the decisive fight. Livy wrote that the Romans like their wars "big and short." But the armies of the East eschewed such warfare. They preferred skirmishes, picking away at their enemies over time until they were so weak that a convential fight was guaranteed victory. Our conception of war has a definite beginning and an end. Theirs is decidedly more flexible. 10 years between attacks is not ten years of peace. It is merely a lull in the ongoing battle.

The Persians were also adept at using bribes to weaken their enemy. Knowing how fractious the Greeks were and how tenuous their alliance, Persian made every attempt to win over the Greeks who were on the fence. They are still playing the PR game and by all accounts, they are far better at it than we are. There is something naive in the American character that makes it susceptible to such advances. Perhaps it's because we have been so coddled for so long. Embarrassingly, many of us travel to Europe for one summer and consider ourselves worldly. In times of peace, this is funny. In war, it is dangerous.

With the Persian way of war in mind, we must remind ourselves that there are no innocent Lebanese. They must be taught that tolerating Hizbollah will only bring them pain. No real government would tolerate such an overt challenge to their sovereignty unless they were in collusion. This is nothing new. Total war doctrine was introduced by General Sherman who wanted to teach the Southerners that supporting the war put their lives at risk too. Brutal it was, but it played a huge role in the ending of the Civil War thereby saving countless lives. The Israelis have been clear in telling the Lebanese to vacate any area about to be shelled. In doing so, they have greatly lessened the efficacy of their operations. But they do so to minimize the loss of human life, something that Hizbollah isn't the least bit concerned about.

Iran is using Hizbollah to attack Irael to take the world's attention off its nuclear program. If Hizbollah survives this exchange intact, so much the better. With expectations being what they are, all Hizbollah has to do is remain politically viable and it will have won in Muslim eyes. Israel could never win the PR game because Hizbollah doesn't wear uniforms. Of the dead Lebanese civilians, I wonder how many were actually noncombatants. No, Israel must win and do so decisively because a large part of its safety is found in the mental edge they possess. Arab armies that have achieved nothing but defeat and humiliation at the hands of the IDF. Because of this, countries who have publicly called for Israel's destruction have been hesitant to act beyond assymetrical warfare which can never cause the extermination of a country. But if Israel loses this aura of invincibility, if her mighty military is shamed in Arab (not Western) eyes, then the nations that want to wipe her from the planet might start getting ideas that they could succeed negatively affecting Israel's national security in a very real and substantial way.

I never liked the term 'War on Terror.' I've always thought it ill-advised to declare war on a tactic. We must see these attacks for what they are and treat them accordingly. They are assymetric incursions against the West sponsored by primarily by a State actor. It's an age old struggle and maybe one we will never settle. But we have to start seeing this for what it is- an actual full-blown war. An in this war, we have the one ally with the intestinal fortitude, understanding and competency to fight it. We do not have to rescue her- Israel can take care of herself. But she does need our support on the international scene where anti-Semitism is widely accepted. To constrain our ally is to embolden Iran which will only cause more problems for the world. Iran's day of reckoning will come. The sooner we make that happen, the sooner we can continue to advance globalization in the region and increase the standard of living for everyone.

Failed Assumptions

2006-07-16T23:01:00.000-07:00

I woke up feeling pretty good today which I found strange because the world seems to be taking the express train to hell. A quick inventory didn't blunt my mood either despite the fact that I have a good friend stuck in Beirut right now as well my usual assortment of compatriots in Iraq, Afghanistan and other fabulous vacation spots around the world. Just in the last week we, as world citizens, have had to deal with a tragic bombing in Mumbai, North Korea and Iran's complete defiance of the international community and the Hezbollah-Israel conflict. I've heard a lot of different commentary but all of it seems based on assumptions I would not necessarily agree with.

The first and most egregious assumption I want to challenge is that violence solves nothing. Violence of the the lethal sort is the ultima ratio. A dead man's interests have no weight. When we in the civilized world are shocked by genocides, ethnic cleansings or raw barbarity, we show our naivete. Where violence as a tactic hasn't worked, it's because it wasn't used as thoroughly as required. No, the idea that violence solves nothing has been drilled into our collective consciousness by people who have only experienced violence as the victim. It may be wrong. It may be immoral but there is no doubting its effectiveness. We should not be surprised when those who do not share our morals or those whose morality is only written in their minds and not in their hearts resort to it.

"War is a spectacular expression of everyday life."
-Krishnamurti

Once we are indoctrinated into the anti-violence cult, it is only a short step to "War doesn't solve anything." Now this attitude isn't just foolish but dangerous. According to the ancient Greeks, wars were started for 3 reasons: fear, honor and interests. Or any combination of the above. It is just intellectual laziness to make immorality the only casus belli of this day and age. A State's reasons for engaging in open warfare only has to make sense to itself. Take for example the shame and humiliation felt by many Muslim men in the middle east. Their shame finds its roots in the practices of their own culture and religion. Our very existence humiliates them. What are we to do? Kill ourselves to be polite? Their hatred of Western culture is simply sour grapes. They haven't achieved anywhere near as much so they label our achievements wrong and evil. But this very juvenile reason is enough to mobilize Muslim youth to blow themselves up. It isn't immorality that makes them do so. It is fear, honor and interestes. It also is a history of "might equals right" going back to Mohammed.

War, in fact, has solved every major issue in how we live our lives. The Persian wars of ancient Greece protected democracy from being smothered in the cradle by a despotic Asian hegemon. The 30 Years War ended in the Treaty of Westphalia which gave us the modern nation-state system. WWII gave the US one of two dominant positions in the world. The Cold War ended the reign of the Communist system in national government among major players on the world scene. (China, for all intents and purposes, is no longer a communist country.) While it's certainly true that not every war has decided a major issue, it's equally true that war has decided all the primary principles of every culture directly or indirectly.

So it follows that if both violence and war accomplish nothing, then it must right to avoid violence at all costs. But this can't be true. I learned this when I was 10 years old. My father was giving my mom a pretty good beating and I went in to stop him. Being 10, I was ineffective and caught a beating myself for my trouble. He apologized the next day and promised it would never happen again but it did. I learned a valuable lesson early. Talk wasn't going to stop my dad. Only violence could. The most reliable way to ensure my mom's safety was to be more capable of violence than my father. If the ability were mine then, I could have protected my mother. Would it have been moral to refrain from violence then?

The obvious rebuttal to my experience would be to say I could have called the cops. That's true but what is throwing my father in jail but violence? Law and order works because there is the threat of violence. Comply or we will make you. That's what's lacking on the international scene- the enforcement branch. Any group or State can sign whatever document it wants and there's no statuatory cost for breaking their word. We can't even agree on a rule set. Look at the current conflict in Lebanon. Not even the G8 can come together on a course of action. They issue a proclamation stating that is the conflict is Hizbollah's fault. Is the G8 going to mete out a punishment? One more severe than the Israelis are doing? Whose lesson will Hizbollah better learn?

So it's clear that "avoid violence at all costs" is a dullard's pursuit. So how does one then justify the way of the world with the original inaccurate assumption so indelibly etched into our brains from years of brainwashing? Rather than challenge the original assumption which the vast majority of people are loath to do, we create a doctrine called proportionality. No one who has been in more than 3 real fights can make sense of this foolish thinking. As with anything based on a false premise, it is doomed to be wrong but its danger is that it is seductive. For the moderately educated with no experience in violence, it seems right. But it is not.

One of the basic laws of the jungle is that the person who starts the fight doesn't get to say when it ends unless he ends it (by winning) or has taken enough punishment that the other party is satisfied. To deny the validity of this truth is to give every advantage to the party initiating the violence. Why wouldn't I resort to violence if I could retreat without significant damage? If I win, I will get what I wanted. If I lose, I won't lose much. This describes our current relationships with Hizbollah and Hamas. And to make this worse, we are inconsistent with application. Al Qaeda we eradicate. To everybody else, we issue strong statements and eventually appease. The only thing that has ever worked with Hizbollah is what the Soviets did in Beirut in 1985 when four members of their embassy were kidnapped. The KGB kidnapped someone of their own and sent back pieces until the hostages were released. (1 was killed) Such a response was indeed proportional. The Soviets had more than enough firepower to level every Hizbollah stronghold. But such responses are unavailable to Americans making the idea of proportionality a sham. Prpoportionality cannot be a guiding principle when it loses out to a schoolgirl's morality.

I know the realpolitik arguments for it too. Proportionality gives you someplace to go and room to escalate. I suppose this thinking is fine if you don't actually want to solve the problem. Again, the doctrine of proportionality has led us to our current predicament in the world. Make no mistake, we are in this conflict with the fundamentalist Muslim world because they find us weak. At their core, they are cowards. Look at how they treat their women. Weakness only emboldens a coward. In fact, it is the only thing that does. They attack American interests all over the world, taking American lives seemingly at will and respond by destroying a few insignificant building durings specific hours of the day to minimize casualties. What is to us proportional is to them pathetic. In making ourselves feel better we endanger countless more lives in the future.

Iraq was predictable and not for the reasons most Democrats think. The problem started with President Reagan and his lack of a meaningful response to the death of 241 Marines. President Bush made a attempt to change the status quo with the first Gulf War but failed to win any real changes. President Clinton was more concerned with Europe than he ever was the Middle East. During the last 20 years, our enemy has been probing our defenses, looking for our threshold, seeing how far they can push us before we push back. Eventually, they were going to push us to far and we would tire of it. Whether you agree with it or not, the OIF 1 and 2 are part of the Administration's attempt to deal with transnational terrorism at its roots. No, not poverty, inequality or anything like it. The root cause of transnational terrorism is state sponsorship. It is the sine qua non of Islamic terror.

Look, fighting sucks even if you win. From mano a mano to open warfare, you can't get into a fight without suffering some damage yourself. There is always a price to pay. Now I may have to fight someone but if I do, I'm going to make sure I never have to do it again. What that means depends on the person I'm fighting. If it's just some drunk guy looking for a brawl, it's obviously not going to take much to dissuade him from making the same mistake twice. But if it's a guy who been hired to kill me, well, he may take a little more convincing.

What does Hizbollah want from Israel except its complete destruction? Hizbollah is not an existential problem for Israel but they're enough to be more than a serious nuisance. But why should Israel have to bear that nuisance over and over again? If foreign agents of another country snuck into the US and kidnapped 2 soldiers, there would be hell to pay. Israel's response is proportional. They could have leveled Beirut. Instead they are hitting specific targets. The Lebanese government has more than a little culpability here. A democracy they may be but more a eunuch than a man. The country's balls are held by Hizbollah. Russia and China both have their own financial reasons in calling for Israeli restraint. France, well is France and their anti-Semitism runs deep. We are Israel's only ally and we should act like one. Nations will watch us right now and by our actions decide whether or not they wish to align with us in the future. A country, like a man, is only as good as his word. I'm glad Israel has finally come to conclusion that negotiation with these people is impossible. Hizbollah must cease to exist. They must be eradicated. And if we pressure Israel to discontinue the job that it must do, then we wil be at least partially responsible for the lives Hizbollah will take in the future.

My Favorite Poem

2006-07-07T21:20:00.000-07:00

The Man Watching

by Rainer Maria Rilke

I can tell by the way the trees beat, after
so many dull days, on my worried windowpanes
that a storm is coming,
and I hear the far-off fields say things
I can't bear without a friend,
I can't love without a sister

The storm, the shifter of shapes, drives on
across the woods and across time,
and the world looks as if it had no age:
the landscape like a line in the psalm book,
is seriousness and weight and eternity.

What we choose to fight is so tiny!
What fights us is so great!
If only we would let ourselves be dominated
as things do by some immense storm,
we would become strong too, and not need names.

When we win it's with small things,
and the triumph itself makes us small.
What is extraordinary and eternal
does not want to be bent by us.
I mean the Angel who appeared
to the wrestlers of the Old Testament:
when the wrestler's sinews
grew long like metal strings,
he felt them under his fingers
like chords of deep music.

Whoever was beaten by this Angel
(who often simply declined the fight)
went away proud and strengthened
and great from that harsh hand,
that kneaded him as if to change his shape.
Winning does not tempt that man.
This is how he grows: by being defeated, decisively,
by constantly greater beings.

____________________________________________________________________________

A professor of mine once encouraged me to possess some of the better poetry that I liked by memory. This seemed like a waste of time for me but trusting him as I still do, I went ahead and made the effort to memorize. A remarkable thing happened. The very act of saying the poem aloud gave me a deeper and different understanding than what I previously possessed. Nowhere was this phenomenon more clear than with this poem. A friend of mine learned it in its priginal German and said it yielded even more layers of understanding. We discussed them but not possessing the German myself, the lessons were unavailable to me.

My favorite line: Winning does not tempt that man. This is how he grows: by being defeated, decisively, by constantly greater beings.

Winning tempts us all. Any of us who have achieved mastery in something will instinctively look for opportunities to display that mastery. But such an impulse is trivial. It serves the ego and nothing else. I would see these people on the dojo floor, practicing only what they were good at in situations that provided them with maximum advantage. This methodology gives the illusion of mastery and nothing more. To achieve each of our own individual potential, we must not be tempted by winning. Growth is painful and that's why very few people actually grow.

I like to win too. More than most perhaps. That's why this poem means so much to me. As with all great poetry, I feel as if Rilke wrote this for me specifically.

Descartes! You French Bastard!

2006-07-07T00:05:00.000-07:00

I just purchased an interesting book: "The Pig Wants to be Eaten- 100 Experiments for the Armchair Philosopher" by Julian Baggini. After looking through it, I realized that this would provide me maybe 100 topics for my blog. I will address each example in a separate posting and will, of course, let the reader know if I haven't actually read any of the primary material. Hope this is somewhat interesting and that some of you engage me.

Alright. I'll start at the beginning. Rene Descartes. Why, oh why did this book begin with him? Descartes is my nemesis and I hold him largely responsible for the denegration of modern philosophy. I was once an acolyte instinctively understanding the Spinozan idea of belief coexisting with understanding. Only as a member of the congregation could I honestly appraise the validity of Cartesian thought. It survived for many years at the forefront of my thinking. I don't know when it fell from grace. I don't think it was a grand event, more of a slow and inevitable decay. Now, more and more, I see the damage caused by such a philosophy.

Baggini, in his first thought experiment, brings up the concept of the Evil Deceiver. In brief, suppose you are under the influence of an Evil Deceiver who has tricked you into believing that everything real is false and vice versa. Because of this, everything you believe must be called into question, even the simplest things like if you are awake or asleep. Obviously, the Deceiver doesn't have to be a demon. It could be mental illness or a fundamental set of logical principles. Whatever the case, reality, even as a self-perception, is now open to being challenged.

"The genius of this thought experiment is that, in order to judge its plausabillilty, we have to rely on the one thing the test is supposed to call into doubt: our capacity to reason well. We have to judge whether we are able to think well by thinking as well as we can. So we cannot set ourselves apart from the faculty of thought we are supposed to be assessing to judge it from a neutral perspective. It is like trying to use a suspect set of scales to weigh itself, in order to test its accuracy."

-Julian Baggini
The Pig Wants to be Eaten

We are all familiar with Descartes famous, "Cogito ergo sum." There is no denying his nice tidy logic but the fact remains that he is just wrong. You can separate yourself from your faculty of thought and indeed you have to if you have any hope of perceiving the world clearly. (Notice, I'm not saying accurately which implies something else.) Do to my heritage and my upbringing, I have schooled quite naturally in both Eastern and Western thought. Whereas much of my mental energy as an adult has been used in an attempt to reconcile Greek cognition with Judeo-Christian morality, my youth was spent trying to reconcile Western Christian and Zen Buddhist thought. Only recently have these disparate elements reached some sort of simpatico. For most of my life, it was a battle with both sides giving and gaining ground over time. What I am sure of at this point is that there does exist a space the human mind can exist in before thought. The pre-cognitive place is what yogis, Buddhist Monks, and various adherents can achieve through meditation. Because of the nature of Eastern thought, this event is often referred to as spiritual but understanding it in a Western way isn't accurate. There is a methodology to achieving this space. Everyone has the capacity, if not the discipline to get there. When understanding it like this, it doesn't get in the way of Christianity at all. One of my teachers once described it as quiting the mind so one can hear God free from our own petty judgments. Interesting enough, the founder of Aikido, Morihei Ueshiba once remarked that practicing aikido made it possible for a person to be a better Christian. I know what he means by that.

This understanding was shaped by many things. A few years ago, I started noticing an interesting thing when invovled in high pressure negotiations. I am chagrined to toot my own horn, but I began noticing that my assessment of the various situations I found myself in uniformly led to better results than that of my colleagues. For about a second, I thought I was smarter than everybody else. It didn't take long to shake that delusion. At the level I was working at, everybody was smart, everybody could reason and everybody had done the work. What made my assessments different? After much reflection and many hours of going over videotapes, I realized what it was. I was able to slip into the "zone" in times and situations my associates couldn't.

What is this "zone?" We hear of it all the time in athletics and even in music. Difficult to explain, it has been described as a state of grace. It is unconscious competence and it can only be achieved through practice. That's why we see it in sports and music. In modern American society, these are practically the only pursuits where practice, rote practe, is common. It's easy to see the advantages of the "zone" when we see Michael Jordan or Yo Yo Ma slip into it but what about daily life? How did this help me in negotiations?

The main flaw of Cartesian thought is that it stovepipes information. It fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the acquisition of data. It doesn't work like the Matrix where one's brain can be programmed with kung fu skills. The very acquisition of knowledge shapes that information making unbiased thought, outside of mathematics, impossible. According to Cartesian thought, the process of accepting a piece of information is two fold. First you assess the validity of the proposition then you choose to accept it or not. Spinoza is much more accurate here saying that comprehension and acceptance is the same step. Once you have accepted it, you can only then determine its validity. This is obviously true. When confronted with new information (of the paradigm shifting variety) most people judge according to past personal experience, the only standard a person has. Only by accepting a proposition and expanding you understanding can a person then honest test its truthfulness. The problem here is that when a person is confronted with fundamentally different material, the Cartesian mind is making judgments and assessments as information comes in, preventing the accurate intake of information.

My process is a little different. I try to quiet my mind to the extent I am able in an emotionally charged situation. I am constantly in receiving mode and I'm trying to accumulate as much raw data as possible without judgment. Then as I need to, I slip out of it to make a point or adjust the mood in the room and then I go back to receive. Easy enough right? Simple but not easy. The greater the pressure, the louder the voice in your head gets and the harder it gets to silence it. And the louder it gets, the more inaccurate your reception of all the information in the room. This again is obvious. Even with no pressure, how many people misread a document when it discusses something they are emotional about?

But why am I so upset with poor Mr. Descartes? Because according to him, thinking is everything. The creation of a tight, logical, cogent piece of thought is all. Cartesian thought allows people to believe that it is enough because it is the only thing you can trust, though his point was less about truth and more about proving one's own existence. I don't know how many people I have run into who have mindlessly blundered into situations oblivious to the damage they were causing simply because they were confident in their own reasoning. It doesn't matter how good your reasoning if you misassess the world. It doesn't matter how clever you are if you are working with bad data provided by senses clouded by thought. You will invariably reach the wrong conclusion or learn the wrong lesson from the experience.

Cartesian thought is only part of the big picture. As loyal readers of my blog will attest to, I'm less concerned with proving things right or wrong than I am trying to make an intellectually honest and beneficial blend. The East, having spent millenia trying to learn to perceive clearly, have poor logical and reasoning skills. The West, while advancing logic and reason to it very pinnacle, has spent no time developing the inner technology that allows the body to receive information as pristinely as possible. Neither provides the complete picture and I believe that it is through a blend that we will advance the human condition.

Viva la France! Decimate the whining Italian team!

The Contemptible Watada

2006-07-06T04:54:00.000-07:00

I don't know if Lt. Ehren Watada, US Army, has samurai ancestors but if he does they must be doing backflips in their graves. Lt. Watada is the first officer to publicly refuse to fight in Iraq on the grounds that it was an illegal war. Sounds reasonable enough right? No, it's not. Lt. Watada has shamefully turned his back on his brotherhood and the proud tradition of military officers serving this Country. He has no ground to stand on at all. He is an opprtunistic coward and I'm deeply ashamed that we're from the same state.

He's not a pacifist. He's not a conscientious objector. He's not saying that he's unwilling to fight. Just not in Iraq. Well, he doesn't get to make that call. If he was further along in his service, maybe he could resign his commission but at this early stage in his career, he still owes the American Taxpayer what he took his oath for. As a professional soldier, you go where you're told. You don't get the option of thinking for yourself here and civilians should want that. A military that doesn't willingly give in to civilian rule is one that may not defend such rule when push comes to shove. We have the longest living democracy in the world and not once has it ever been threatened by a military coup. Do you think that is because the military is scared of the civilian leadership? Hardly. The military capitulates to civilian rule, no matter how incompetent it may be, because to do otherwise in any situation sets in the motion the military coup process. There are tragic repercussions if Watada is allowed to escape punishment.

As far as the war being illegal, that's just plain silly. Justice, put simply, is what you can compel. I'm not talking about some divine notion of justice. That's way beyond my pay grade and any other human's for that matter. I'm talking about justice as it is exercised on earth and in reality. For justice to exist, there must be a set of laws and an enforcement mechanism to enforce those laws. If either aspect is missing, then justice becomes meaningless and unobtainable. Personally, I dislike the word. I've seen it used too many times to justify some aberrant behavior. Justice implies kicking ass in a socially acceptable, morally responsible way- what all warriors want. The ethical green light. But all these lofty ideas mean nothing with it comes to international relations and discourse between nations simply because there is no enforcment mechanism with the ability to compel compliance with a specific rule set. We as an international community cannot even agree on a single rule set.

It's is just plain stupid to apply the idea of law and order as we enjoy it in the United States to the world stage. In the United States, the Government holds the monopoly on the lawful use of force. Law and order cannot exist without that precondition. Expecting our foreign policy establishment is ply it's trade on the international scene as an agency might do in the United States proper serves no one. Good intentions are far worse than bad one because they somehow are exempt from accountability. I've seen good intentions cause much more damage than bad ones because good intentions often kill hope before they take life. Countless NGO's in Africa are guilty of this.

Watada's shameful act is more than just about him. If it were, I really wouldn't care if they just sent him home with a dishonorable discharge. His act tears at the very fragile fabric that keeps the American Officer the finest and most ethical in the world. He accuses President Bush of committing an illegal act and emphasized his point by committing one himself. That's not principle. That's the tantrum of a child. If he really had misgivings about deploying to the war, he could have taken his own life. That way, he wouldn't have to deploy and he would still retain his honor. But obviously honor means nothing to him. He's scared and wants what he wants. He's nothing more than a garden variety coward unworthy of even contempt.

Clever, but not the Point

2006-07-06T04:53:00.000-07:00

Clever but not the point. I find myself saying that more and more when engaged in debate these days and it’s becoming more and more frustrating. I like to engage in debate, particularly with someone whose views differ from mine. I’ve found that this adversarial process is a great way to check my thinking and test the validity of my ideas provided I have an intellectually honest debate partner. But to my great dismay, such individuals are harder and harder to find.

I don’t ever debate for it’s own sake. I don’t see the point anymore. I want to solve a problem or at least move towards solving a problem. Winning a debate services only my ego, nothing else. Too many times, I have found myself in a debate about a substantive issue only to have the opposing party blatantly resort to logic theorems and/or debating tricks. Now these devices certainly have their place but when they are used to primarily gain an advantage, they cheapen the debate.

More often than not, resorting to these very obvious devices is just a clear indicator of a lack of command of the facts. Sure if A = B and B = C then A = C but in the real world, A never equals B and B never C. Different people are different judges of a situation and see it more or less clearly. At a certain level, all of us can think clearly and it’s just a matter of the data we have to work with.

In the blogging world, I see so much of this. Each person trying to outwit the other. To leave the last clever word bomb. I suppose I see the sport in this but I just don’t have the energy for it anymore. I want to talk. I want to engage. I want to vigorously disagree. But I want to do it honestly and without an agenda. So let’s do that. Please engage me. Prove me wrong. Show me where I have made a mistake. And to those of you who already have, particularly the Dumb Ox, I hope you continue to do so. Because we can’t advance our collective thinking if we’re not thinking about the

Life without a Code

2006-06-28T02:18:00.000-07:00

How does a man live without a code? What else defines a man but his faithfulness to the beliefs of his heart? This code is the core of a man. It gives his devotion to andreia (manly valor) and arete (excellence) teeth and allows him to transcend those whose stock in trade are clever words hidden in hot breath. The code and his devotion to it must come before anything else- even before God and Country. The code is the muscle, sinew and bone of actions that started in the head and heart.

When a man has no code, he does whatever makes him happy at any point, doing whatever he can to gain advantage for himself. I do not have a problem with self interest but in this case, self-devotion leads only to self-deception. Voltaire once said that if all men were philosophers, religion would not be necessary but since all men are not philosophers, religion is necessary so his wife, cobbler and banker cheat him less. If all men had infallible clarity of sight, we wouldn't need religion either but things in the world are unclear. Nevermind the fog of war. I'm mostly concerned with the thick mist of my daily life.

A code is a man's beacon. It is his lantern. When confronted with a situation, a code allows a man to act in accordance with his beliefs allowing him to remain in integrity. Without a code, a man simply responds to the challenges of the day with pragmatism. He acts according to what he can live with now, not in the future.

Somebody once told me that integrity was consistency in thought, word and action. Somebody else said that integrity is what you do when nobody's looking. I think thy're both true. Integrity is the key to living a fulfilling life and the key to integrity is having a code. The particulars of the code are important but not nearly as important following it faithfully. A code isn't written in stone. It can be modified but only after great thought and never in the moment.

I suppose it would be possible to live without a code but I've seen those who do and that life just isn't for me.

Pride? Okay, but why a parade?

2006-06-25T23:18:00.000-07:00

I'm in San Francisco right now. I came up here for a buddy's wedding in Sonoma and learned when I got here that it was the same weekend as the Gay Pride parade. People say about a million homosexuals and lebians from all over the world came to San Francisco to be "gay" in a way that may not be acceptable in their own community. A friend of mine took his kid through the parade unaware of what it was. While a little shocked, he said that he didn't see anything offensive. I found out later that his is the more staid of the "gay" events- something more family friendly that others.

Now I totally get the desire to be yourself, even for a weekend. I also understand the appeal of being around like minded individuals. But on principle, I generally disagree with events like the Pride Parade. I personally believe that homosexuality is a question of nature, not nurture so I put the Pride Parade in the same category as I would any like the Mexican parade, St. Patrick's Day Parade, and other parades celebrating ethnic heritage.

The way I see it, it's just plain stupid to be proud of something you had no control of and didn't work for. Nobody should be proud just because they're gay, straight or a particular ethnicity. It's totally different if you want to be proud of your association as a fireman, a policeman or a University professor. A person has to work to achieve those things. You don't automatically get to become a fireman simply by virtue of being Irish. Imagine if that was the case? Pride in something you did not work for is anathema to meritocracy.

The implications of such thinking are apparent. Pride in some characteristic, the idea that you have worth separate and solely based in something that you did not create out of will is the flip side of prejudice and decrimination without evidence. As Buster Kilrain said in Shaara's Killer Angels, the idea of America is that each man is judged on his own merits, not what his father did. Indeed, our Country was founded on the idea that heritage didn't mean entitlement.

I think people like to be associated with excellence without actually having to work for it and pay the price. You see this in the martial arts world very clearly. "My teacher is so and so..." as if the fact that you're his student gives you of the teacher's ability. I would always say to my students, "Don't ever brag about me because I won't be in the ring with you and I will not ever fight your fights." People also like to say, "So and so of my ethnic group did this or that!" As if it means that person has that ability too.

You can only take credit for what you yourself have done. Nothing else. You do not get to live off the reputation earned by better men. If we can all really take this idea to heart, we will start lessening the intensity of the manufactured identities that clash with each other. Our apparent separation that drives so many people to depression with begin to dissipate and we will chose to fight the battles that merit fighting and not the ones that are easiest to fight.

The Lose-Lose of Disaster Relief

2006-06-17T05:01:00.000-07:00

With the hurricane season coming up, I'm beginning to hear all kinds of stupidity regarding disaster preparedness. The primary argument involves to two primary facets: prevention (pre-disaster) and reaction (post-disaster). As typical of the analysis of those who have never actually gotten their hands dirty, it sounds pretty good but is completely off base. "Prevention vs. Reaction" just isn't the issue.

We can never adequately prepare for every disaster that may befall us. So 100% of our resources devoted to prevention would be a waste of money. But not prepositioning disaster relief material (whenever possible) prior to a major event is just irresponsible and places too much stress on those who must respond. The real debate that happens among professionals is more tweaking resources towards one thing or the other.

But this brings me to the real issue: disaster relief is about people but not the people you may think. In my opinion, the definition of a disaster is something that we were unprepared for. Now that lack of preparation could be due to negligence or an honest mistake but that's for history to decide long after the first response has taken place. You need to have the right people in the right place to make it through a real disaster because when a real disaster strikes, the systems in place are generally insufficent or completely worthless. All the preparations in the world, all the prepositioned materials don't mean a single thing if the leadership can't deliver the goods. Hurricane Katrina made this very clear. There was a lack of leadership at every level: municipal, State and Federal.

But you know what? We got what we had coming. We get exactly the leaders we deserved. This isn't a Republican/Democrat issue. Both parties are guilty of taking advantage of trying situations to increase their power. If you work for the government in any policy capacity, you can be sure that any plan that you have that doesn't go perfectly or doesn't preciently account for every eventuality will be used by someone to gain power for their party. Our standard has become perfection for even the most complex issues. When did this happen? When did criticizing from the sideline just plain overpower action? Has it always been this way?

Michael Brown was exactly what we deserved because he was able to negotiate the treacherous water of Federal Leadership. He got to his position because he didn't rock the boat. And in the GOV, you don't rock the boat by not doing anything remotely risky. Why should we have been surprised that Michael Brown wanted to adhere to administrative protocols instead of cutting through the red tape? He never did that his entire career. In fact, you can't reach that position unless you are risk-adverse. He watched people through his career get fried over unintended mistakes and it taught him that it is more important to cover your own ass than it is actually do something. But that's not his fault. This system that created him is the system we want.

We want our respective parties to rule so badly that we don't think through the long term repercussions of our actions. This phenomenon is even common in the military where a policy of "zero tolerance" has created Officers who will not risk their careers to give their men realistic, hard training that might save their lives.

One of the lessons I have taught in my leadership courses and to anybody who has ever worked for me is that it is more important to be effective than right. We as a people have to start looking out for the good of the Country and not just our own provincial needs. In this day and age, the idea of wanting to improve your Country has become hoping your Country fails in a war. The idea of "speaking truth to power" has become a teenager's senseless rant. And saying you support the troops has become a cover for spurious vitriol directed at the President.

I don't see a solution to this. Aristotle said that democracies become republics which change into monarchies then slide into despotism. I had always hoped that we might avoid this vicious cycle but due to human nature, we seem to be part of the stream.

My main point in this incoherent piece: It's about the man in charge. Systems will not protect you from an evil man (Enron). Systems will not protect you from an incompetent man (Katrina). Only the right man in the right place in the right time can bring stability out of disaster. And unfortunately for us, in our lust for political power, we often destroy those men before they can save us.

Let's Keep it Honest

2006-06-17T01:13:00.000-07:00

The continued anti-Bush and anti-military bias in the MSM keeps me on the edge of incredulity. The Tibetan Buddhists have a saying I like very much- an aversion is just as bad as an addiction. I'm shocked at how otherwise intelligent people become frothing at the mouth, rabid dogs when it comes to President Bush. It's become so bad that even things that have very little to do with the President, such as the military, suffer due to an association.

I will sit and debate anyone on the topic of the Iraq War but I've found that most of the people I've talked are speaking from emotion and not knowledge. When asked about the legality, I question was international justice is if there even is such a thing. When asked about the morality of the war, I bring up the concept of jus ad bellum and jus in bello. People love to have opinions about this though their usual understanding of IR is worse than a first year college student. I don't see them having the same type of conversation with an oncologist and IR is an infinitely harder topic than medicine.

But all that is not the issue. What with the almost near blackout on the MSM about the declassified reports of WMD finds in Iraq? I've always maintained that there were WMD in Iraq even when we didn't find any. Having looked for things, I know how easy it is to hide something in a country the size of Iraq. There are more reports to come and I hope this gives everyone pause. How can we, who aren't in Iraq, speak with such authority about the situation in Iraq? We don't know what's going on and that's the way it should be. What would your average citizen do with that information anyway? We were going to have to deal with Saddam sooner or later. And dealing with him before he possessed nuclear weapons is certainly smarter though more morally grey to some. Kim Jong Ill? That's what happens when you play this game poorly. You are forced to deal with that madman.

Mansfield's Manliness

2006-06-14T22:06:00.000-07:00

I first became interested in Harvey Mansfield's book, "Manliness", when I saw his interview on Book TV. At first blush, I thought the premise of a Harvard professor writing about manliness would be like Jenna Jameson writing about chastity but I was drawn into the debate because of the interviewer. Not your normal Book TV interview where the author gets to plug his work in a friendly environment, Naomi Wolf was decidedly hostile. She kept cutting Mansfield off, disagreeing with him on everything while not letting him finish any thoughts. Professor Mansfield, for his part, kept a polite but wry smile on his face perhaps understanding the irony of the event. Wolf would not last long in the company of men. Disagreements are fine but rude, hostile interrogations are a sure way to violence.

This book is dense and I don't recommend it unless you have a pretty firm grasp of philosophy. He expects his readers to bring a lot to the table. The funny thing is I don't know who is the target audience for this book? Most of the manly men of action I know are not particularly fond of philosophy. In fact, I can count on 2 hands the number of manly men I know who would be inclined to read this book and fully grasp it. I don't particularly agree with his version of manliness but this is a prejudice of mine. Spend any time around young men and you will see the stronger, more aggressive and outwardly manly men picking on the nerds. That's just kind of the way it goes. And it never ends. Even in the most elite of military units, the lowest performing man is always the target of countless jokes and insults. I think Professor Mansfield's view of manliness might be influenced by this reality. He seems like the kind of guy I would have picked on in school.

He sees the necessity of manliness but it's a forced respect. He doesn't understand that manliness is a relative trait. There are times in my life when I feel that I am the paragon of Manliness. "I rule," I will say to anyone who will listen. But then there are moments when I am with some men who make me feel like an unblooded boy. They don't do this on purpose. They inspire and humble me, simultaneously, just by their examples.

I don't believe manliness is about ego, attention or anything like that. The love of attention is a female trait and one I work on daily to remove from my character. Men shouldn't need attention. We just need to have personally accomplished something. Insofar as one needs the love of the masses or the attention of everyone in a room, he is less manly. Other manly traits may make up for this but they will never completely cover the odor of a vapid school girl.

Manly virtue, "andreia" to use the Greek, is about one thing. It's about putting the needs of others ahead of yourself. Suffering without complaint. Enduring for the greater good. One of my good friends once said that the parents' primary job with their children was to change their focus from inner to outer. That makes a lot of sense as there are no more selfish and self-absorbed creatures on this planet than a human baby. To give society a man who thinks of others before himself is the greatest gift two people can give to our Country. To whatever extent the child becomes a man is measured primarily by his self-absorption. And it's important to remember that this is a process and a test that never ends. A girl is a woman as soon as she can reproduce and grows curves. A man has to constantly defend his manliness throughout his life because a life of leisure and ease is all to easy to fall into. And that wouldn't be very manly.

My Take on Haditha

2006-06-14T16:10:00.000-07:00

I have waited to say anything about Haditha until more information became available. Unlike those in the MSM and I'm sad to say, many of my left-leaning friends, I do believe in "inoocent before proven guilty" as well as substantive due process of law. I have to admit that I am biased. Understanding urban warfare as I do, I'm greatly inclined to side with the Marines in question. I don't do so blindly but out of experience.

I've been blown away at how eager some people seem to condemn these young men. It's not surprising given the one-sided treatment by the MSM. The numbers are staggering. According the Media Research Center, from 17 May to 7 June, 2006, the Big 3 aired 99 stories (3.5 hours of negative coverage) about the Marines and Haditha. Conversely from September 2001 to June 2006, the same media only aired 52 minutes of positive military coverage. And this seems par for the course.

I see two major reasons for this neither of which are treasonous. First, the MSM, overwhelming staffed by liberals and Democrats, hate President Bush so much that they will focus on anything to make him and the Republican party look bad. The Marines in this case are just a means to an ends. Sadly, I tend to believe in this analysis. The rule is generally, the farther away you get from the field, the more selfish interests tend to drive people. This is true of CENTCOM and any major command. When lives at stake aren't men that you know, it's easy to see you goals as more important.

But in my kinder moments (unfortunately brief), I think maybe the MSM just doesn't understand the pressure our Marines are under. Maybe they don't get that we are fighting an enemy who uses our very ROE against us and hopes to sap our national will. It has always been funny to me that the more educated a person is, the more likely he is to be manipulated by the cunning. But let's look at the matter directly. Anytime, a Marine enters a house, he is immediately placed in a shoot/no-shoot position. This is different than what cops to everyday because cops generally assume that they will not meet great violence. Otherwise, the call SWAT to the do the entry. Now, your average civilian can tell the difference between a good guy and a bad guy in 0.7 seconds. For someone to function effectively in that environment, he has to discriminate and act in hundredths of a second increments. Most people (even Marines) can't do that. It's just not biologically possible. But they still have a job to do so they err on the side of their own safety as every one of us who would condemn these young men would do.

In this specific incident, an IED went off and the Marines took fire from a house. As per SOP, they went to clear the house which involves tossing a couple of frags and then making entry. We might never know if there was an insurgent hiding in that house who took a couple of shots and then bugged out before the Marines made entry, hoping to incite just such an incident. We might never know if any of the people killed were involved. After all a kid or a woman with an rifle can kill you just as dead. Whatever the circumstances, we can be pretty clear that this happened in the rush of combat and the level of violence was appropriate to the perceived threat. Folks have to remember that this is an environment where slow thinking and slow action by any leader often leads to letters that he has to write to parents. Any comparison made to My Lai is just plain poor analysis.

That being said, I think the Officers who tried to cover this incident up should see some major punishment. That's the crime here. In this day and age, our Officers should know that winning the hearts and minds is a major piece on the GWOT. A 19 year-old lance corporal may be forgiven for forgetting this but there's absolutely no excuse for the irresponsible behavior of the Officers. It may have been a momentary loss of judgment which I am loath to bemoan, but several Officers seemed to have agreed to this coverup. That a failure of the chain of command and most importantly, it's a failure to the young men and women who expect their Officers to make the right decision.

Great Piece from the LA Times

2006-06-12T17:24:00.000-07:00

LA Times
June 11, 2006
In this paper, war heroes are MIA

Why don't military good guys make the front page?
By Frank Schaeffer
DURING THE last two weeks, the Los Angeles Times has printed at least four front-page articles, and several others on inside pages, about a Marine squad accused of killing 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha and possibly falsifying reports about the incident. Some of the information reported by The Times was based on the military's own investigation. The Times' reports seemed fair, stressing the conditions of combat and confusion faced by our troops.

As the father of a Marine who served two combat tours in Afghanistan and participated in missions in Iraq, I'm glad the newspaper reports military failures. I want the military to be better too. I'm also grateful for the many poignant stories about our troops that Times' reporters such as Tony Perry and David Zucchino have written for the paper.

However, if the "chattering classes" ever wonder why those of us in the military family sometimes bitterly resent the media, they need look no further than the "Haditha story." What bothers me is that I haven't seen one recent story dedicated to the heroism of our troops given such consistent prominence in The Times or other leading papers. Nor have I read a front-page headline about a military medal ceremony and the story behind it, although every year I see front-page treatment in the Tmies of who wins the Oscars.

Apparently some awards are more equal than others — say, for being a supporting actress in a forgettable movie rather than risking one's life to save a group of Iraqi children.

If there is such a thing as "anti-military media bias," it is not in how stories are reported. It is in what stories are ignored and the editorial "values" implicit in those daily choices.

Who decided that dramatic acts of military heroism no longer merit front-page treatment? During World War II, the Korean War and even the early years of the Vietnam War, such stories got Page 1 attention. Where are today's front-page headlines that read "Marine Dies Saving His Squad" to balance "Marines Accused of Massacre"?

The prominence of stories about military malfeasance, absent stories about military heroism, creates an out-of-whack impression. When it comes to reporting on the military, it's as if we're back in the 1950s, only this time the media prejudice and insensitivity are aimed at military service rather than race. In the 1950s, you rarely saw a story about an African American unless he or she committed a crime or was portrayed with condescension as a victim.

What I would like to see is acts of military heroism regarded once again as newsworthy. Here is one story that would have merited a front-page headline if the editorial values of this paper were less dismissive of military valor.

Staff Sgt. Anthony L. Viggiani is one of the recently distinguished heroes of the Marine Corps. On Feb. 24, he was awarded the Navy Cross for his actions in Afghanistan in June 2004. Viggiani had been fighting Taliban remnants who were killing teachers and burning girls' schools. He led his men in combat after being wounded. He chased down and killed or captured the enemy. He humanely tended to the wounded enemy fighters he had been fighting moments before. He led his men to safety and honor. Was a Times reporter sent to cover the medal ceremony and to report on what lay behind it? If not, why not? Whose values dictate that winning a Navy Cross is less important than a Pulitzer, an Oscar or a PEN award?

I have no problem with reporting on the military's occasional failures. But it's unfair and out of context when, at the same time, editors at our best papers ignore much more routine acts of individual heroism that balance this grim picture. The Times should help us be as proud of our heroes as we are disappointed by those very few who dishonor us.

FRANK SCHAEFFER is the author of the forthcoming novel "Baby Jack" and coauthor with Kathy Roth-Douquet of "AWOL: The Unexcused Absence of America's Upper Classes from the Military and How it Hurts Our Country

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In his funeral oration, Pericles says that he doesn't want to overly praise the men who fell in battle because men can only hear so much praise for another man. In addition, they will only believe what they themselves think they would be capable of. I think the MSM's dismissal of our brave men and women in uniform and the daily heroism and superior decision making says more about the character of the folks who run the MSM than it does the people they dismiss.

It's a character flaw to treat the world and the people in it as characters in your personal motion picture drama. The proper goal of journalism to to report the facts that might hopefully lead to the truth, not "speak truth to power."

Akaka Madness

2006-06-10T03:51:00.000-07:00

I am profoundly disturbed by Hawaii’s political leadership’s unanimous support of the Akaka Bill. Their appraisal of the situation in Hawaii is typical of those who earnestly mean to do “Good” and through their best of intentions do irreparable harm. The State of Hawaii, as idyllic as it can be, is fundamentally a 3rd world country. Transparency in business and government is practically non-existent and nepotism is standard practice hidden under the native rubric for corruption: “local style.”

In any 3rd world nation, when a single ethnic group is allowed privileges that other ethnic groups do not enjoy, conflict, very often bloody, occurs. Those who did not grow up here cannot understand how violent life in Hawaii can be. And with the recent upswing in ‘ice’ usage (smoked crystal methamphetamine), the situation is only getting worse. Empowering a single ethnic group that believes itself to be victimized sets the stage for violent and race-based reprisals especially if this group collectively thinks it has a score to settle. In addition, unlike the various Native American groups, the assorted ethnic groups in Hawaii have blended to the point where a conclusive determination of race becomes extremely problematic. Where do you draw the line? How much “Hawaiian” is enough?

To create a separate Hawaiian Nation within the limited confines of the Hawaiian Islands would, at best, create a situation like Cyprus; forcing its citizens to live under an uneasy and tenuous peace. Left to itself and cut off from all external feedback, the Hawaiian culture would wither and die. That is the price cultures pay for attempting to remain static. They invariably lose their relevance and vigor. Education that promotes as its primary virtue an adherence to the “old ways” creates citizens who cannot compete in a global economy. Literacy exclusive to a little-known language devoid of a rich literary tradition is de facto illiteracy. As such a nation would inevitably fall into economic and social despair, the relative wealth of its neighbor would prompt criminal incursions, cross-border harassment and random violence stemming from frustration. Instead of the “melting pot” we currently enjoy, the Hawaiian Islands with a separate Hawaiian Nation would come to resemble Northern Ireland.

The State of Hawaii, if it is to move forward and prosper, needs to focus on the promise of the future and not the transgressions of the past. 9/11 has vividly shown us the perils of depending on tourism. Given our geographical location and ethnic make-up, Hawaii could bridge the social, political and cultural gap between the United States and China. By creating challenging jobs with opportunities for growth, Hawaii can keep its most talented youth instead of driving them away or sapping their enthusiasm. The poor and disenfranchised in Hawaii do not need encouragement that consists of promoting further victim ideology. They require proper training and an opportunity to compete in a global economy if they are to achieve any measure of independence. The Akaka Bill appeals to the basest instincts of the most downtrodden of the native Hawaiians, much as Robert Mugabe’s campaign promises assured Zimbabwe’s beleaguered citizens that their problems were caused by the “white devil.”

Passing the Akaka bill may do much to assuage the misplaced collective guilt of White America but it does so at the cost of the long-term viability of everyone living in Hawaii, particularly those the bill purports to help. More importantly, it sets an incredibly onerous precedent, legislatively affirming that ethnicity grants exclusive privilege- an idea that should be anathema to every American. We once fought our most devastating war to ensure the cohesiveness of our Country and promote the revolutionary idea that ethnicity would never determine a person’s future. The Akaka Bill would be the first step in rendering that sacrifice meaningless. A culture’s value is not defined by its technological or economic base. Nor can it be limited by mindless adherence to the “old ways.” The question that defines the only realistic debate for the positive future of Native Hawaiians is the same one that must be asked by Muslims. “How do we retain the central tenets of our culture while still remaining relevant and productive in a modern world?” Much has already been taken from the Hawaiian people. The Akaka Bill would take the only thing Native Hawaiians really need: a realistic hope for the success and financial independence of future generations.

Zarqawi is Dead!

2006-06-08T22:54:00.000-07:00

Yay! Zarqawi is dead. I know that it is in poor taste to revel in the death of another human being but Zarqawi barely qualifies. He was a world class piece of shit. Anybody who thinks that the actions of our troops and Zarqawi's Al Qaeda are in any way relevant is an idiot. I don't mean that as polemic. I mean you are seriously stupid and need to reassess your capability to understand the world. I'm really happy. This guy had it coming. The only thing that I regret it that it's likely he got it too quickly. This man needed to look into the eyes of his executioner. The man deserved to be very scared before he died.

This what will happen in Iraq: terrorism will increase for the next 6-8 months as the remainder of the insurgency seek to find a new leader as well as prove they are still capable of coordinated attacks. After that, it will begin to taper off until violence reaches an acceptable level meaning that it can be controlled by the locals. This should take around a couple of years. Zarqawi was a logistics man and that's not easy to find in Arab populations. He unique combination of attributes made him the ideal leader for the insurgency. The insurgency's strength was in his perceived invincibility. Like the Boxer Rebellion, once the truth of lead is laid on the table, bullshit rhetoric goes out the window. His middle level managers will try to take over but they will fail much like Alexander's companions could not keep his lands together. They will be killed off and then the insurgency will find less and less support among the populace.

I'm blown away by some of the reactions. Some people simply can't be happy for our Country or anything that might remotely benefit our President. That's sad. That's taking a national security issue and making it a political one. It's like those PETA folks who think they are being brave by terrorizing chefs who serve foie gras. I don't see them picketing the dogfights or cockfights or any of the criminal activities that involve animals. Oh, those guys don't listen and they might hit back. I will eat foie gras until the day I die and I will fight anyone who denies me the right. But these folks who need to politicize Zarqawi's death are cut from the same PETA cloth. They protest the USGOV because the USGOV will listen and not make any moves against them. I don't see Cindy Sheehan going to Iraq to protest the Sunni insurgency. Spoiled cowards and they make me sick.

But today is a great day in the GWOT. Zarqawi is dead. I'm going to have a drink to toast TF 145.

The Villany of Islam

2006-05-30T15:37:00.000-07:00

People have often heard me say that I consider modern Islam's education policy to be the single greatest villany in the world. What do I mean by that? By villany, I mean the willful use of power to subjegate a whole region of people through generations. In fact, I don't know of a single philosophy that has caused more long term harm and sowed more discontent among a populace that has no ability to raise their station.

60% of all people living in the Middle East are illiterate. The number goes even higher is you just count the women. Civilization has no hope if women can't read. Women have always been the protectors of culture and civilization. If the mother can't read, the child has no hope. This functional illiteracy means that the system creates people who are completely unemployable except for the most menial labor. The problem is then that the same system teaches these young men that they deserve the world. It teaches them of the great conquests of Islam and how Allah has only glory planned for them. Islam completely denies the validity of any feedback so it eradicates its chances for growth. No muslim can question the word of the Koran under the penalty of death. What's even more sad is that many of those who quote the Koran liberally have never read it- indeed lack the ability to read it.

A friend of mine with much more ME experience than me once said that the problems of the modern ME exist because the men have a fundamental inability to have a normal relationship with a woman. Because the men are so frustrated- they cannot read; they cannot get a job; they cannot provide- they take it out on the women which dooms their civilization, such as it is, to dwell in the worst of the past.

Relativism simply doesn't apply here. In fact, it's completely irresponsible. The ability to read is a fundamental human right. It should come before anything. Without reading, man is no better than an animal. Man has no ability to change his station without literacy. Islam used to be the cradle of learning. We would not enjoy the Greek classics (which I love) if not for the Muslims. What happened? What was the problem? I don't particularly agree with Prof. Lewis's agrument (The Problem with Islam). I believe the problem lies in Islam itself and its complete inabiility to look inward.

Denying literacy under the guise of religion is the single greatest villany of modern man. I will never tolerate it or capitulate to its existence.

Tommy

2006-05-30T02:45:00.000-07:00

This is my favorite Kipling piece. Catch me on a good night out and I'll recite it for you.

Tommy
-Rudyard Kipling

I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:

O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins," when the band begins to play,
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's "Thank you, Mr. Atkins," when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove in the stalls!

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside";
But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide,
The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
O it's a "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide.

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' huslin' drunken solderis when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.

But it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy how's yer soul?"
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes nor we aren't no blackguard too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints;
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;

While it's Tomy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind,"
But it's Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind,
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind.
O it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind.

You talk o' better schools for us, an' schools an' fires an' all;
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess around the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face.
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Savior of 'is country," when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tomy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you pleas;
But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool- you bet that Tommy sees!

Proud to be Grateful

2006-05-29T01:58:00.000-07:00

When did it become such a burden to be grateful? When did it become so uncool? There's a whole segment of the American population that doesn't understand the debt we owe our servicemen and women. If that's the way you feel, I doubt I'll be able to change your mind but bear with me for a second.

We enjoy a standard of living above any nation in the world, first world nations included. We have more choice, better infrastructure, more opportunity to achieve. This is all pretty great stuff. That being said, what is the primary condition necessary for all these things to happen? I promise not to get overly Maslowian here but the answer is freedom from violence. Nothing really grand can happen until you are free from violence. That's a fact of life.

Another fact of life is that not all men are good at violence. In fact, most aren't. True, any man can oppress and subjugate the weak but to fight and win against a viable opponent requires more than that. And of those men who excel at this dirty and difficult thing, they can either choose to defend or destroy. That's it. Fight because there's something worth protecting or fight for the sheer fucking badness of it.

Priopr to 9/11, America went through the world like a beautiful woman. Whatever their internal difficulties, beautiful women have it easier than anybody in the human race. Folks like to say that 9/11 changed everything. I like to say that it changed nothing. It just woke some people up. The conditions that created 9/11 still exist and unfortunately will continue to exist for the time being. Yet another fact of life. Market economies and globalization are the only things that can raise the standard of living in the poorest or Gap countries. Yet, the countries most involved in supporting terrorism and/or anti-US activities have educational systems that are all Koran, all the time; preparing their students to fail miserably in the modern world. They instill pride and a sense of entitlement and give their students no way to achieve it. It is the single greatest villancy in the history of the world as far as I'm concerned.

If our ways of life are incompatible and they are, we need men and women who are willing to stand on that wall and protect us from those who would destroy just to have sowed destruction. If you can go to work, home or out to play without worrying too much about violence, you have our military to thank. Gratefulness is not a burden. It doesn't require more of you than to acknowledge it. Don't be the spoiled child who feels indignant rather than grateful. I'm very grateful for every single serviceman an woman serving right now regardless of what they do. That they are there holding the line earns them the deepest gratitude of my heart. Happy Memorial Day!

Distinctions of Personal Value (not values...)

2006-05-28T21:32:00.000-07:00

I like to divide people into groups. While I don't believe that you can generalize about everything, there are certainly a great many things you can generalize about. Indeed, our laws themselves, common or otherwise, are nothing but codified rules of general behavior. But why do I like to put people in categories? Well, because it's saves me time. For example, a well-meaning gentleman tried to engage me in a conversation about policy. He went on and on for a good bit, obviously repeating a well used oratory. When he stopped to take a breath, I asked him a simple question. "Do you believe redistributing wealth is Government's primary role?" Simple enough question but one he had trouble answering. Finally, after I pressed him a bit, he finally agreed that he did believe in redistribution. I then informed him that we were having the wrong conversation. If he wanted to argue about something, we should argue about that because if we disagreed so vigorously about the basic role of government, then a discussion about the finer points of policy would get us nowhere. So by defining the large group of "redistribution/anti-redistribution", I can ask one question and save myself a whole bunch of time and aggravation.

One of my ex-girlfriends is immensely proud of her family history. In fact, her self-esteem is based entirely in her family name and the accomplishments of basically one man. Because of this admittedly impressive lineage, she believes she deserves respect and deference that would normally be reserved for him solely because of her relation. Her greatest personal accomplishment was graduating from college but you'd never know that from the way she behaved. You'd have thought she cured cancer or something. Interesting enough another friend of mine has the same attitude but it was born of a Buddhist perspective. This friend told me once, when I was feeling down on myself for my lack of contribution, that even if I sat in a room and did nothing for 20 years, I'd be worthwhile as a person.

Well, I disagree with both of them. I don't think that your value as a person has anything to do with your lineage or exists solely because you exist. I know far too many people who don't contribute to anything at all. Your value is based in your accomplishments. Period. The problem here is how we define value. In my opinion, value is rated in how much you contribute to your fellow man or raising the level of humanity in general. And I don't believe that you're ever off the hook as long as you are alive. There may be some moments in every life where you cannot contribute for personal or health reasons but beyond that, I don't believe that there is any point in time, no matter how much you've already done, that you can just stop and say, "I've done enough."

So that's a distinction I've been thinking a lot about recently. I think it's am important issue because it's at the very core of so many of our issues today from welfare to immigration. Is this a policy issue or a personal one? I'm not sure. I do know that it has nothing to do with love. You can love something that has no value hence my fascination with Family Guy. But value still has its place. It is against the liberal predisposition to want to place value on people but we do that everyday. Instrinsic value matters, even if it's just to the person who must define it for themselves. I believe that it is the human inclination to agree with me but the sad fact of life is that many of us do not become the men we once thought we might. It is also human to make excuses rather than take responsibility. I just don't believe that's any excuse to stop trying.