I am not sympathetic to cry babies in the USA, who fearing their favorite toys could be no longer available for sale, moan that "the 2nd Amendment guarantees our right threaten the government with firearms, which is the only reason why we still live in a democracy today." The original intent of the 2nd Amendment was guaranteeing the right to control slaves and not about freedom of speech, which is clearly an entirely different amendment.
We shouldn't be restricting what types of guns we can own, we should be restricting who is allowed to own guns. We need a standard training credential for gun ownership, something like a driver's license for guns. I do not think the average citizen should be allowed to own firearms without significant training, qualification, and accountability for what happens to weapons in their collection.
I think gun experts - people who care enough about guns to know how to maintain them and be well trained in how use them - including weekend warriors with constitutional concerns in actual militias, but also most other serious hobbyists ranging from collectors to marksman to hunters - should be able to own any firearm they want, as long as they are going to take real responsibility for what happens to and with those weapons - just like with me and my car.
A final afterthought is that if we are going to regulate hardware, the ONLY consideration should be clip size. Time and again when mass shootings are interrupted, it is usually by a bystander grappling with the shooter as they attempt to reload or switch weapons. Furthermore, there are various hacks that can convert common semiautomatic handguns into viscous fully automatic assault weapons. I see no point in controlling so-called 'assault riffles', forbidding our veterans who have been trained in their proper and expedient uses (speaking of something that could potentially interrupt a mass shooting,) while allowing paranoid untrained soccer moms to purchase hand guns, making those hand guns more likely to end up in the hands of children or criminals:
Normally we think of low kicks as leg kicks, or in other words round kicks to the usually-upper leg. This is swinging your shin like a base ball bat into your opponent's thigh, and it is probably the single most productive kick in the history of the martial arts:
However, this kick has a gory weakness, which is that a proper block of the kick does not completely protect the blocker, but is even more devastating to the kicker. In other words, its preferable to take a leg kick yourself than it is to have one of your leg kicks blocked properly. In extreme cases, a proper leg kick block has been known to break the leg of the kicker in two:
In traditional martial arts low side kicks and "oblique kicks" (stomps with the heel of the foot, with the toe of the foot pointing slightly to the direction of the side of the body from which it is thrown) are more common. The strange looking oblique kick is seen in all kinds of kung fu (every major type I can think of), Hapkido (which supposedly got them from Taekkyon, the ultimate "push kick" style,) some traditional Japeanese striking styles, very old Thai martial arts (even Lynn Thompson covers them in his instructional videos,) and many other martial arts. Starting at around 7 minutes, 45 seconds this Choy Li Fut instructor shows the very common kung fu technique of practicing oblique kicks on a wooden dummy:
However, until very recently, oblique kicks were pretty much unheard of in sport fighting. Low side kicks and oblique kicks are normally illegal in kickboxing and other full contact martial arts. The the closest thing to an exception to this I have heard of is in Taekkyon (real traditional Korean martial arts) battles where Judo-like sweeps sometimes double as low kicks (almost like shin-kicking from the UK):
Then controversially Jon Jones brought these traditional low thrust kicks kicking and screaming back into MMA. Here he is with his coach, Greg Jackson, explaining their use:
But Jon Jones is a notoriously dirty fighter, so I wrote this street fighting off as an anomaly. But then I saw Holly Holm defeat the invincible Rhonda Rousey, using those oblique kicks to help keep Rousey in striking range:
Now Holm is one of the most qualified strikers to ever compete in MMA, and she is using those oblique kicks more than regular leg kicks? I could understand if it was just a short cut so that she didn't have to learn round kicks, but she has a kickboxing background in addition to a boxing background, and she KOed Rousey with a round kick to the head. So where did these oblique kicks come from?
What Jones and Holm have in common in is coach Greg Jackson. It turns out he got these kicks from studying traditional martial arts for self defense as a youth. They come from Kenpo. This is another example of why MMA is the best thing that ever happened to traditional martial arts; now we know how these moves are used, even though they probably weren't sparred with for generations.
Of course this isn't the first time Kenpo has been seen in MMA:
This is a religious post. It may or may not have implications for those who are not LDS, but it is addressed primarily to an LDS audience.
The latest controversy in Salt Lake with the policy regarding the children of LGBT couples has highlighted something for me that has long been my opinion, but which I wonder why isn't well understood by LDS members. This concept is "Church Policy is not the same thing as Eternal Truth."
An example of Church Policy is "what night of the week should Family Home Evening be on." An example of Eternal Truth is "I am a child of God." Church Policy is a necessarily pragmatic operational decision, similar to most other policy by most other organization. Eternal Truth is deep spiritual learning God intends for you to get through participation in The Church.
If The Church changes what night of the week Family Home Evening is on, should this become a crisis of faith for you, since "God is Eternal and does not turn from left or right?" Of course not. Church Policy is not supposed to convey deep spiritual meaning.
However with the mass exodus from The Church planned for today in protest of the children of LGBT policy, it is pretty clear that many people are willing to give up deep spiritual meaning they get in The Church in protest of Church Policy, equating the two as one in the same. This is also true of many of the members who are not leaving, LGBTs being spiritual villains they are being protected against via Church Policy. However this Church Policy is NOT supposed to say ANYTHING about the long-term spiritual well being of the children of LGBT, and the policy itself says so explicitly.
It requires you to do very little research to realize that Brigham Young was fond of what black priesthood holders the LDS had, then was put in a situation where he needed to enact a temporary Church Policy to deny the priesthood to blacks, and then proceeded to mistake this Church Policy as being related to Eternal Truth. ("Whites should never marry blacks" for example.) A number of following LDS prophets made a similar mistake with the same policy.
It is my humble opinion, not to say here official church doctrine, that the same thing goes for Polygamy. Jacob chapter 2 is very explicit about how foul polygamy is considered to be by God, and exactly what circumstances God MAY call for polygamy, and suggests those circumstances are rare. In spite of Jacob chapter 2, many LDS and various prophets have suggested polygamy is a very important part of the afterlife.
However I think this inability to separate policy and spirituality is connected to Fundamentalism in LDS culture. "Fundamentalist" in LDS culture means "apostate polygamist." But "Fundamentalist" in religion generally refers to people who take scripture to be taken completely literally. In LDS culture, the most extreme Fundamentalists are indeed our apostate polygamists, but I think Fundamentalism runs otherwise rampant in the LDS community, the common belief that polygamy is an important part of the afterlife derived from a few chapters in the Doctrine and Covenants being just one example.
LDS believe like many other Christians that Jesus was the mortal form of God, who resurrected himself after his death. When Jesus was here, he did not lecture us on deep history, or try to explain to us detailed scientific principles. Instead he taught through parables THAT WERE NOT EVEN SUPPOSED TO BE LITERALLY TRUE. He sought to educate us on matters of personal character, how we can be better people. LDS believe that God's purpose is to "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." The LDS also believe that the main barrier standing between any given mortal and their eternal life is their own moral character - the kind of person they are and what kind of person they are becoming.
God's teachings are then to inform you how to be a better person, not to lecture you on science and history. We have some debate in The Church about how literal various stories in the Old Testament should be taken. Should they be taken as "literal" - as a history or science lesson, versus should they be taken "symbolically", meant to convey some secret meaning of great supernatural power. Both are misguided - the "moral of the story" is the point of the story, not the symbols, and certainly not the literal text.
Let's take the Book of Mormon for example. The book itself says that the appropriate way to embrace scripture is to "liken it unto yourself," even if you are unfamiliar the exact geography and politics the original story is based on. The book goes on to say that "only matters of spiritual importance" are recorded in the book - so that regardless of what the most important political and social events of their times are, only the events considered to convey spiritual meaning to us are recorded in the book! "Liken the scriptures unto us" plus "only spiritually important events" means "moral of the story is the point of this book." Therefore it hardly matters at all if the events in the Book of Mormon literally took place - the whole thing could be a work of fiction created by an angel to convey important meaning for us for our own salvation as children of God trying to become more like Him. When I hear people fretting over "DNA evidence and the Book of Mormon," I have to shake my head and think that this person has missed the point of the Book of Mormon entirely.
Mormons like many other Christians essentially believe that the Burning Bush that Moses encountered - the being that gave us the Old Testament up to Moses's point in history - was Jesus in camouflage. It was Jesus's personality to teach real life morals through fictional storytelling. Therefore I have to ask you, how much of the Old Testament before Moses was intended to be parable and not deep history or lectures on the scientific origins of the universe? Answer: it doesn't matter in the slightest, because the point of scripture is to make us better people, not to teach science or history.
Taking Church Policy as Eternal Truth was an understandable mistake for earlier generations of LDS who did not enjoy the hindsight we have now. But we - after all the crow we have eaten on so many controversial issues from the past - have no excuse - we should know better. Doing so is an exercise in Fundamentalism - taking whatever words we can get our hands on and assuming that they are God's own explanation of science and history, instead of asking ourselves what the big picture morality questions are of our current circumstances. It is an Eternal Truth that we need to back up our leaders and be supportive in spite of controversy, it is an act of Fundamentalism to get so deeply offended by a Church Policy that you sacrifice your own spiritual practices in protest.
Wrestling has been used to build character, body, and self defense skills throughout the ages. The most influential type of wrestling, Mongolian wrestling, has its earliest documentation dating NINE THOUSAND years ago. Since then it has appeared in every major civilization I know of. (See also my post the ubiquity of wrestling: http://bfgalbraith.blogspot.com/2015/01/ubiquity-of-mongolian-wrestling.html )
At the dawn of Judeo-Christianity, it is said that Jacob wrestled an angel. At the dawn of Islam it is said that Muhammad was a wrestler. Even at the dawn of America's own home-brewed form of Judeo-Christiantiy, Mormonism, it is said that Joseph Smith Jr. was a wrestler. Wrestling has been promoted by many religious and educational institutions because it teaches many moral lessons: sportsmanship, mental focus, will power, reflection/repentance/intentional-personal-improvement, humility, hard work and dedication.
Wrestling is essentially this: the core fighting skills you can spar without striking or submission holds. Wrestling skills are also the most absolutely fundamental self defense skills - explosive physical power, awareness of your body, awareness of your opponents bodies, moving left/right/forward, taking opponents off their feet, sprawling when opponents try to take you down, staying out-from-under/on-top of your opponents, physically manipulating your opponents, and rigorous training:
Wrestling is clearly of massive importance to martial arts in terms of both tradition and technique. In early MMA, wrestling was often overshadowed by more submission oriented grappling styles, though over time it has become considered one of the most important martial arts in MMA. Some of the most sophisticated grappling in the world today is BJJ, but even in that sport it is unwise to neglect wrestling skills:
Full Analysis and Discussion: http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=124723A good example on why takedowns or setting up a solid guard pull is necessary. Notice the Wrestler only disengages after the BJJ player butt flops, the rest of the match he is the one moving forward to engage.
Posted by Bullshido on Saturday, August 1, 2015
(Before reading this post, if you haven't already, read my original Capitalism vs. Socialism post, where I asserted that in a liberal democracy capitalism and socialism are strongly dependent on each other, and that decreasing one also decreases the other.)
The great recession that started around 2008 has been declared a failure of regulation. Deregulation in the decade before led to a massive failure of the economic system. A compromise of socialism (deregulation) led to a compromise of capitalism (market failure.)
My views on this are strongly influenced by one specific book by Jane Jacobs, called "The Nature of Economies." In that book she shows how small communities start off by importing and exporting, but as they grow and their economies diversify, the less and less dependent they become on export and import. A small town might only be able to get microwave Chinese food mailed to them. However as that town grows, its economy will become strong enough to support their own Chinese restaurant.
Let's consider the Chinese Restaurant Owner and Operator, who we will call "Chang," verses the local food inspector, who we will call "James." Chang doesn't like it when James stops by, sticks his nose in Chang's freezer, runs around talking temperatures of random food items, and slaps a bunch of warnings on the wall in Chang's prep kitchen, and finally sends him a minor fine in the mail. Chang, capitalist extraordinaire, would just assume James stop wasting his tax money and go find another job.
But let's look at the CAPITALIST consequences of not having food inspectors. First word would get out that there were no food inspectors. Now people are going to be far more hesitant to go out, and the more exotic and daring the food, the less likely they will be to try it. Chang's restaurant definitely takes a significant hit on customers. Second all the food inspectors are out of work, and their salary is no longer contributing to the economy. This only results in less customers for Chang.
But what is especially concerning to me is how many progressives I talk to think that Chang's business isn't important. If his business folds, there are two catastrophic consequences: 1) his small town is now back to ordering microwave Chinese food and 2) his business no longer contributes to the tax base of his community. Both outcomes are terrible, even for socialists.
The implication of all this going forward, is that more government involvement to build more business is what you want to do. For example:
Instead of doing too-big-to-fail business bailouts, you should establish a small-business welfare system that bales out small businesses in hard times, especially considering that they are the USA's foremost source of employment.
You should be asking for more small business grants and loans - massively more. We do not have enough to go around until the top students in each DECA club in high schools across the country are able to try out entrepreneurship once they graduate. Microloans should not be the exclusive realm of private NPOs!
You should be asking for more regulations, not less. Every part-time cog in a government bureaucracy is another potential customer for these businesses. Also, a magnifying glass taken to the new industries popping up will make customers have more confidence in trying out the new things these new businesses come up with.
But here's the punchline: I am not pro-capitalism or a socialist. I am a Technocracy Inc./21-hour work week type of guy. I don't think capitalism, socialist dogma, unions, careers, etc. are even a good idea. However IF you want our current system to work, you should be asking for MORE of it, not less. Capitalism vs. Socialism is a false dichotomy in liberal democracies, they are in fact the only things that prop each other up.
With the likes of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders running for president in 2016, we are going to hear tons about why socialism is better than capitalism and vice versa. What I will explain here is that they are two sides of the same coin, or in other words, that they act as a yin/yang balance where one supports the other; successful capitalism depends on successful socialism, and successful socialism depends on successful capitalism. Together they form the ideal economic bedrock on which to build liberal democracy.
First let's look at how society has evolved:
In a primal state of hunter gatherers, we are not at the top of the food chain. With no significant government, issues around starvation and being eaten by apex predators trump all other concerns regarding right and wrong, family relationships, or anything else we might regard as morality.
Once we establish permanent villages - even if those villages are mobile - with strong central leadership that can make decisions for large groups in emergencies - right and wrong can now be considered. No longer at the mercy of apex predators and with a variety of adaptions for dealing with food shortages, meaningful family structures can now form. The problem for the primal village is other primal villages - mankind becomes it's own worst enemy.
Once we can establish nations with national leadership - traditionally most commonly monarchies, villages now stop warring with each other, and violence over all is massively reduced, death from natural causes now for the first time in this story becoming more common than being murdered. Most feel strong loyalty to the King and Queen, because they provide the stability everyone needs. Sure there are entrepreneurs in a Monarchy, but they are not able to transcend the peace keeping authority of the royal family. The problem now is that the Royal Family has to more or less decide what is right for everyone, and no matter how intelligent and virtuous they are, it is impossible to make the best decisions for other people.
Capitalism emerges as the entrepreneurs get enough power and influence that as a community, they can challenge the power of the monarchy. Now we have many more people involved in the decision making process of how everyone lives, with a wider range of products and services to help people live their lives. The problem is that if the people with money are the ones best positioned to make more money - and in capitalism they always are - the rich always get richer, and as a community the rich end up getting more and more control over all of the wealth. This can eventually end in a currency crisis where money only matters to those who have it, while everyone else resorts to bartering. This can massively degrade society throwing it back into Monarchy or even something more primitive.
Socialism arises to cure the ills of capitalism. They fix the problem of wealth concentration by seizing the means of production from the rich and making it all government property. The problem is that innovation slows down when all decisions are being made by the same great bureaucracy, and internal politics dictates what products and services are provided more so than what the people actually want or need to have.
Liberal Democracy puts the will of the people first. It is focused on balancing Capitalism and Socialism. The people want the goods and services Capitalism provides but they also want the stability Socialism provides. Liberal Democracies thrive far beyond the more primitive Capitalism of the Old West or industrial revolution because they use taxation and regulation to prevent concentration of wealth collapses. Liberal Democracies thrive beyond the old Socialism of the Cold War because the tolerance of Capitalism provides far more goods and services than a single bureaucracy can manage.
The more Capitalism a Liberal Democracy has, the more Socialism it can have, as there is more money to tax to provide universal stability for the people through social safety nets. The more Socialism a Liberal Democracy has, the more Capitalism it can have as taxes and regulations prevent oligarchies and wealth concentration collapses. My warning here is that in a Liberal Democracy, less of either Capitalism or Socialism leads to less Socialism AND less Capitalism, weakening the Liberal Democracy. If an Liberal Democracy is to grow, it should strive for MORE Capitalism AND MORE Socialism.
Contrary to popular belief, high taxes and robust regulations are exactly how we build Capitalism, while allowing people to embrace investment and consumerism is exactly how we build Socialism. Those who advocate for only one side or the other are ignoring how dependent the two rival systems are on each other when practiced within an Liberal Democracy:
One of my favorite Tai Chi moves is an elbow to the body. It can be done very discretely with a minimum of telegraphing or announcing "hey everyone look at me I am beating on this guy" in a self defense situation. First let's look at basic elbow strike technique:
Now here is what that basic elbow strike technique looks like in a fight:
Elbows to the body can happen in MMA with ground and pound strategies:
But if standing-up elbows to the body specifically were effective, wouldn't they teach them in Muay Thai? Behold:
But that's Muay Thai, not Tai Chi, how similar could the two arts elbows be to each other? Very:
