Archive for April, 2009

In his book “Meditations on Violence: A Comparison of Martial Arts Training & Real World Violence” Sgt. Rory Miller offers his perspective on dealing with violence from his experience as a corrections officer and martial artist. The main concept of Miller’s book is examining the gap that exists in many martial arts training programs and what happens in a violent attack.

Miller starts off by driving the point that violence is complicated. The how, when, and why of a violent attacks are many and you’ll drive yourself crazy trying to figure out all the different scenarios. He also makes the point that the “violence” you see in entertainment or even in your martial arts class is nothing like you see in real life. Miller also points out that the violent situation and how you would respond to them can vary widely. It should be noted that the violent situations that Miller talks about vary from a self-defense situation, to a sporting invite, to actual combat in war.
After giving an overview of what is violence and how responses can be different according to the type of violence, Miller tackles the topic of assumptions of violence and how we think of violence. In this section Miller does a good job of pointing out where many assumptions about violence are wrong. People will tend to discount their own experience or give too much credit to how they think things should work. To address these issues Miller suggests different types of training, both physical and mental. People that have done studying into the mental aspects will recognize items such as the OODA loop and Hick’s Law. Offering my own insight Hick’s Law is probably the one I see violated most often in the martial arts dojo. For those not familiar with Hick’s Law it states that the more options we have the longer it takes to choose one.

The next few sections Miller cover more about violence, the types of violence, the groups that violent people can be classified into, and giving an insight to these people, especially predators. Miller does a good job of classifying types of violence and how many of them can be defused without resorting to physical actions. Also pointed out that if a violent assault does happen it will probably happen much closer, faster, suddenly, and powerful then what many think. Miller covers lots of information in these sections which someone interested in learning more about violent behavior and the people that perform these types of behavior will find useful. While covering these areas Miller does recommend the book “The Gift of Fear” by Gavin DeBecker, a recommendation I would second.

Now Miller moves on to discussing training, especially in the martial arts, to handle violence. Most likely this would fall into the self-defense training that many martial arts classes will cover. Here Miller covers what he sees as many of the flaws of training. The obvious one is how do you practice a technique to break an arm without actually breaking the arm? If you practice always pulling your punches, or making light contact, what will you do in a real situation? These and others are items Miller points out that we need to be aware of and attempt to find ways to deal with them in our training. Here is where many students of martial arts that have only studied some type of set self defense in the class will go “I never considered that.” Miller does offer his advice on how to improve your training, which people who have studied the teaching ideas of Tony Blauer and the SPEAR system will recognize. Miller breaks down his training idea into six phases, which in my opinion provide a good general guideline when thinking about real world self-defense training. Miller also covers the stages of defending yourself from an assault. These cover what many martial artist do practice such as “blocking the motion” (think an upward block to deflect a punch) and “blocking the opportunity” (awareness of your target areas and your attacker’s weapons), but also the topics of “blocking the intent” (the pre-emptive strike), “altering the relationship” (defusing the situation without using physical force), and the “use of terrain” (awareness of your physical surroundings and what it means). Miller closes up this section with talking about the “Go” button and your actions once a violent assault starts. One important point that Miller makes is giving yourself permission to defend yourself, to use physical force. This part may make people go “huh”, but too often people don’t give themselves permission to protect their life. “They are bigger than me” , “they have a weapon” , or “he said he wouldn’t hurt me if I did what he said” are all reasons people give for not protecting themselves.

Miller then closes up his book with dealing with the “after”, what happens after a violent attack? Here are suggestions on handling the mental aspects that occur after a violent event. This can be a very complicated area and Miller offers some of his general thoughts on that matter.

Overall I found Miller’s book a good read with some good advice and insight. Anyone that studies martial arts with one of the goals if studying to be able to protect themselves should pick up a copy of the book.

I never thought Aaron Curry would have been available, but he was. Curry is a great player and will play well for the Seahawks. If Matt Hasselbeck makes it for a couple of more years then it will be seen as a great pick. But if he goes down again this year and the Seahawks need a quarterback they’ll wish they had picked Sanchez.

That is a good motto to remember. Glad to see Ted Mazetier follows this motto too.

If I ever have car trouble I would hope there is a Mr. Mazetier around to offer a hand.  Too bad we have scum in society that attempt to pry on people. Mr. Mazetier also showed that many predators want an easy victim, not one that will fight back. A safer approach would have been to use a cell phone to call for help for the people with “car troubles”.

The world could use more people like Mr. Mazetier and fewer of the scum that tried to carjack him.

I’ve done instruction for handgun safety and personal proection, part of a concealed firearms permit in the state where I live. A misconception that some people would have in the class, and one I still see nowadays is that carrying a firearm somehow makes them safer. I want to try and burst that bubble.

Carrying a firearm can be useful tool in defending yourself IF you can bring it into action. Too many people walk around with their heads up their ass and don’t pay attention to the surroundings and thus missing the cues that their could be trouble. Recognizing these cues and help you either avoid or defuse the situation. Predators tend to want an easy target. If you don’t look like an easy target chances are they will avoid. Learn to recognize the cues that they give you. Study the thinking patterns of these type of people and you’ll lots in this area. If that fails know how to attempt to defuse the situation via your posture and language. Hand in hand with this is fear management techniques.

Now those fail and an attack is launched against you, what are you going to do? Many say “draw my firearm and shoot them” which shows a lack of knowledge in what is going to happen in a fight. Action beats reaction, the attacker is acting and you are reacting, unless you were aware enough to get in a first strike such as an eye poke or a palm to their face. The only way you’ll know how to strike first or to defend yourself to give you a chance to draw a firearm is through hand to hand combat training.

Drawing a firearm from concealment is a complex motor skill which is difficult to do under stress unless you really really practice it a lot. Go with the gross motor skills such as palm and elbow strikes to allow yourself to get clear of the attack in order to either get away or then draw a firearm. Just my thoughts on the matter.

Time Warner Cable and Embarq are looking to shutdown a local ISP, Greenlight, in Wilson, NC. The tech blogs are all over this saying that it is too bad that Time Warner and Embarq can’t compete with Greenlight and they shouldn’t be trying to use the law to force them out of business.

Greenlight is offering 80 channels, 10 MB upload and download Internet speed, and telephone service for around $100 a month. Time Warner and Embarq can’t come close to that price. Hooray the tech bloggers proclaim, too bad for Time Warner and Embarq if they can’t compete with Greenlight. What they aren’t telling you is the city of Wilson paid $26 million to fund the effort and Greenlight just runs it for the city for no profit. Now if the city of Wilson gave went to Time Warner and said “Hey, if we gave you $26 million how much would you charge our citizens for a cable, phone, and Internet package?” I’m sure Time Warner would have come up with a great price, and people would be screaming at the city officials for giving a big business that much money.

My question, what’s the difference? Sure the citizens are getting a cheaper service up front but will end up paying more in taxes and fees to cover the city funding Greenlight.

I can see three main areas where I think the Seattle Seahawks need help:

  1. Quarterback
  2. Offensive line
  3. Defensive backs

I thought of adding tight end in there but I think they will be set there. The above is in the order I think the Seahawks should draft.

Matt Hasselbeck is going to really start to show his age. He’ll probably make it through this season, maybe next, but the Seahawks better have a plan. They should draft Mark Sanchez from USC to be Hasselbeck’s replacement. He has a good arm, and even ore important seems to show good “smarts” on the field. Get him now and give him a chance to learn the offense before tossing him into the ring.

For the other two positions the Seahawks should go with the best available at that time. I would love to see them get a great tackle but with a second pick it will most likely be a good tackle, unless they their second pick and something else to move up.

“Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking” by Malcolm Gladwell and “How We Decide” by Jonah Lehrer deal with the same subject, how we make decisions. While tending to cover the same subject they both approach it in different ways.

Gladwell tends to focus on snap decisions, what he calls “thin slicing”. An example that Gladwell uses is an art expert looking at a work of art and the first thing that comes to his mind is that this is fake, without any concrete reason as to why he knows this. Gladwell also looks at the dangers of “thin slicing”, where our snap thoughts are incorrect. There are some great examples in the book and the only downside I found is that Gladwell sometimes goes into a cause and effect argument without exploring if A really caused B.

Lehrer also looks at these snap decisions, how does a quarterback determine which receiver to throw to in such a short period of time with everything is fluid on the field? Then he dives into how we make decisions that aren’t snap ones, which car to purchase for example. Lehrer ties these two decision tress together with how the mind processes such thinking, the rational mind and the emotional mind. Lehrer covers a bit more in the neuroscience behind decision making, but also at times suffers from the cause and effect syndrome.

Both covered how our thinking is manipulated by others, such as advertisers and politicians. Understanding how they do this makes it easy to spot and a way to increase what I call your “bullshit” filter. Both good books and if you are interested in this subject I would suggest reading one or both of them.

In all honesty both the left and right have their hypocrites. Those on the left are in greater numbers and go unchallenged by the MSM. Mainly because of the amount of hypocrites in the MSM.

First look at free speech. The left and right will both argue for the importance of free speech. It is those on the left that on;y want free speech they agree with. Look at Miss California Carrie Prejean (I’ve looked her several times), otherwise known as Miss California. Miss Prejan was asked her opinion on gay marriage and she gave her opinion. An opinion that not only the majority of the people of the state she was representing agrees with, but also according tot he data the majority of the people in the United States. Doesn’t matter, the liberals didn’t like her answer and she was booed, an unclassy act that is common to the left when they don’t want to hear others, and it probably cost her the crown.

A liberal hypocrite in the news right now is Janeane Garofalo, Miss Garofalo in 2003 had this to say:

“There has been so many inappropriate responses to dissent, which is the most patriotic thing you can do. And the First Amendment guarantees everyone’s right to speak out.”

Great, I agree with her 100% on this. But as often the case with liberals, her statement above only applies when she sees is defending other liberals. If people on the right are trying to be patriotic by showing their dissent, as they did with the recent tea parties, this becomes her opinion:

“Let’s be very honest about what this is about. This is not about bashing Democrats. It’s not about taxes. They have no idea what the Boston Tea party was about. They don’t know their history at all. It’s about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up…”

Two brief recent examples, but watch the news for a week and it is easy to find the hypocrits, and mainly in the liberal camp.

Jean Weiss posted a column on the MSN Living Green web site warning us about the effects of global warming due to us terrible humans. Weiss never said terrible humans but I’m sure the thought was there.

Someone should ask Weiss what the planet temperature has done during the last decade. If the answer is other then “cooled” break out the wet noodles and start doing some slapping. Back before Al Gore started his campaign on global warming the planet was already cooling. These type of people never let data get in way of their agenda.

I would next ask what the data shows on the correlation between carbon dioxide levels and the planet temperature. Knowing that data won’t get in their way, the answer would be CO2 causes the planet to get warmed. The actual data shows that there is no correlation between CO2 levels and the planet temperature, Oddly enough the data does show a relationship between the planet temperature and solar activity. The more solar activity the higher the temperature.

We should do our best to not pollute, but when it comes to policy decisions they should be based on sound science. I know President Obama has promised to return science to the decision making process but I’ll bet it will be “science” that supports the agenda of the left.

But I agree with Paul Krugman on his blog post:

“Except, you know, really it doesn’t. Let’s say the administration finds $100 million in efficiencies every working day for the rest of the Obama administration’s first term. That’s still around $80 billion, or around 2% of one year’s federal spending.”

This is in regards to President’s Obama plan to  cut spending by $100 million. Spending needs to be cut far more then that to make a difference.