President Theodore Roosevelt was a very well rounded martial artist, best known for his boxing and wrestling which he had studied since he was a student at Harvard. However he was also known for the indulging in a type of fencing called "Single Stick" which he practiced with his friend Leonard Wood (Governor General of the Philippines.) Single stick is a type of western fencing where a cudgel is used instead of a foil, so that the practitioners can hit any target on the body and can do so with full contact impact (as you would expect from boxing) while the weapon remains solid and hefty:
Some contend that Roosevelt & Wood were actually practicing Canne De Combat from France rather than "proper English Single Stick". However, I insist this hardly matters, because if you take Single Stick as practiced in the video above, and make it continuous without stop and go point-counting, you end up with more athletic, flowing and energetic techniques (see also the difference between Karate "point fighting" and Kickboxing), so that no doubt Canne De Combat is simply French Single Stick:
Single Stick was used as training in the US military during the Spanish American War which Roosevelt fought in as a founder of the "Rough Riders." Single Stick was in the Olympics of 1904, and continued to have competitions held within the UK's military until the 1950's. In other words, for most people who practiced fencing for self-defense or to learn to use a sword for actual combat, fencing was a type of stick fighting all the way through the first part of the 1900's. In traditional ancient Filipino Martial Arts the stick is still used to prepare for sword fighting up to the present day. Before you write off my controversial correlation here, consider that the primary form of sparring for the martial art of Gatka from India is clearly also a type of Single Stick:
But a swordsman is not complete with fencing skills alone. One lucky punch can drop an attacker, but the vast majority of the time it takes many more punches. Likewise a lucky slash or stab from a bladed weapon can end a fight, but from a self-defense perspective it is unwise to expect that it will. The odds that someone can and will get past your sword into close range grappling are good. As Roosevelt got older he became more and more interested in what he called "Jujitsu", the grappling martial art of the Samurai which was developed specifically for grappling encounters while sword fighting. Roosevelt was actually studying Judo, which at that time was much more like what Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu is today:
Thanks primarily to MMA and Filipino Martial Arts (but also thanks to numerous other martial arts) today in the USA this type of training is widely available; you don't have to go to Harvard and then join the military to pick up single stick, boxing, wrestling or jujitsu. The best of the best of these types of martial artists meet regularly at events called "gatherings" (translated from the word "Tipon" in Tagalog.) The most famous gatherings are the "Dog Brothers Gatherings" in California and Europe, but there are local Gatherings such as the Northwest Warrior Tipon-Tipon in the Seattle area and the various "Beat The Crap Out of Cancer" gatherings in Canada (notice the Gatka fighters doing Teddy-style Single Stick at 12 minutes 30 seconds):
WARNING: This is an overtly religious post, though it does have implications for anyone interested in the general subject of religion.
As I see it, there are 3 dimensions to "faith in Christ," and probably faith in other God/s, though certainly the first two dimensions must apply to most religions:
Acceptance
Accordance
Action
Thus someone's over all volume of faith in Christ could be measured by multiplying their Acceptance by their Accordance by their Action.
Acceptance
By Acceptance I mean how much do you believe that the God/s you are thinking of (Jesus or otherwise) exists. But I hereby suggest that there is a massive range of depth in Acceptance. For example:
A secular humanist declaring "I don't think Jesus ever existed, but I do think he exists as an idea as a set of teachings that can help people become better people" is a legitimate depth of Acceptance of Jesus.
A less shallow depth of Acceptance would be "I think Jesus was a historical figure and a great teacher, but I don't think there was anything supernatural about him."
A slightly deeper yet level of Acceptance would be "I really like the story of Jesus, and I want to believe there was something divine about him."
This continues to progress into slightly deeper and deeper levels of faith in Christ, all the way down to the hard-core follower believing in miracles.
Accordance
However, just because you accept a God/s existence, doesn't mean that you agree with (or are in "Accordance" with) that God/s agenda. In James 2 v 19, as part of the debate on Grace vs. Works, James quips "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder." In other words, the devils who openly oppose God/s have a powerful Acceptance, but they fundamentally disagree with the God/s agenda.
Consider this classic from Blutengel:
The story goes that a girl was rejected by her Christian neighbors, got no answers from praying to God, but had a different experience when praying to the Devil instead for the help she needed, which resulted in her falling in love with him and finding a far better level of happiness. This is a great example of how someone could easily decide to disagree the God/s agenda.
Does punishing those who disagree with you, really sound like a good idea to you? It's easy not to be on board with the God/s agenda. Jonah and the Whale in the Old Testament provides a clear example of a follower of the God/s having a problem with the God/s agenda, but generally any time any biblical prophet is chastised by God/s we see this same issue at hand.
Do you agree with the God/s actions, instructions, or agenda? To what degree you do agree with all that is what I call Accordance.
Action
Our actions reveal our true belief more than anything else. I look both ways (action) before crossing the street, because deep down inside I truly believe that I could be hit by a car if I don't look both ways.
Christians add that God/s actually showed up and demonstrated the best way to be mortal in the flesh. In so far as Jesus was actually born, lived, and died, he left an example for how we should behave. He left an example of how to follow his own teachings.
When Christians think "Jesus doesn't happen to be standing right here right now, but I can feel his love, so it is my responsibility to be Jesus right here in this situation, right now" they are realizing their need for Action. Certainly this is what the Jesus archetype suggests in Mathew 22 v 37-39 "‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’"
When we see some major Christian figure doing truly things which Jesus would do if he was here, such as Mother Teresa taking care of the poor, or Pope Francis openly attacking income inequality, there we see examples of Action.
There are Jews and Muslims who believe that Jesus was a great teacher who taught the will of God, that as Jesus taught we should be nice to each other and not let our own egos get in the way of our own happiness. In so far as they allow this limited Acceptance and greater Accordance lead to Christ-like Action, they have a greater over all volume of Faith in Christ than do Christians with high levels of Acceptance and moderate levels of Accordance, yet very little Action to demonstrate faith in Christ. Consider this speech at Christian establishment Liberty University, by Bearnie Sanders, a known Jew:
Product
"Christians" who embrace and take Action on unkind ideals like what Ayn Rand preached, can not be said to have very much faith in Christ at all. Ted Cruz quotes Ayn Rand here in the act of objecting to medical coverage for the poor:
Ted "Son of the Devil" Cruz can have profound Acceptance and Accordance with Jesus, but if his Action is polar opposite of what Jesus would do, Ted's volume of his faith equals nothing at best. As the Apostle James said (2 v 18) on this topic, "Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds."
In fact, the teachings Ayn Rand have been codified in the opposite of Christianity, Satanism. Just because you call your god "Jesus" does not mean your Jesus is my Jesus. If you read the New Testament and walk away with Ayn Rand as your Accordance, and your Action is based on her words, the religion you are embracing in practice is Satanism:
Quite frankly I know many secular humanists who are far better "Christians" and have vastly superior "Faith in Christ" than Ted Cruz does.
Update - Announced at Google I/O 2016, Google is officially going after Windows on the desktop, with a Chromebook update that will allow newer Chromebooks to run Android Apps. In other words, holiday season 2016 Chromebooks should be able to run Android Apps: http://www.networkworld.com/article/3073473/android/google-i-o-2016-every-android-app-really-is-coming-to-chrome.html
However, the following condemnation still applies to all Chromebooks too old for the new update (and to all Chromebooks until such time as this Google I/O promise materializes):
I hereby offer my complete and absolute condemnation of the Chrome Operating System (Chrome OS, and the Chromebooks which are all contaminated by the Chrome OS.) I have tried and come close to making Chromebooks work for me for years now. The only thing they are good for is as stationary web browser terminals for users who are not gamers and who do not do web development: senior citizens.
There are two ways to use a Chromebook, 1st is how it is shipped, exactly as it is out of the box. 2nd is in "developer mode." In developer mode there are numerous hacks you can do to improve the Chromebook that typically fix the Chromebook by allowing you to run operating systems that are not Chrome OS. However, once your Chromebook is in developer mode, there will always be a self-destruct screen, that every time the Chromebook is turned on, will provide simple instructions presented as direct emergency orders - just two key strokes - that result in the Chromebook being completely wiped, deleting all data and operating systems off the Chromebook and reinstalling Chrome OS. All the work you put into installing the other operating systems - and all the work you haven't backed up yet that you could do with that alternative operating system - gone forever.
But aren't gamers or web developers skilled enough to avoid pressing two keys that destroy their workstations? That question presents a very specific lifestyle - one without children, with only highly computer literate friends, one without significant others - only making sense if you have completely sacrificed your social life and family life for your career. Quite frankly it reflects very poorly on Google corporate culture. Thanks to the self-destruct screen me and my friends have lost dozens of hours of work on Chromebooks. "Developer mode" is a non-starter, worse-than-Microsoft/Windows crippling crapware.
But if I was a Real Man, wouldn't I be able to perform all my gaming and web development needs through the browser, on the cloud? There are two problems with this sentiment: 1st the assumption of universal wireless data access, and 2nd the crapware nature of Chrome OS.
Even in the Seattle Metropolitan area there is not complete 3-G or 4-G data coverage geographically. There is nothing even remotely like universal WiFi. Unless you are at a coffee shop, library or home, insofar as internet access is required to make Chorme OS useful, your Chromebook is a brick. Again this assumption of universal wireless access suggests a very insular, privileged culture at Google.
However the real crux of the problem is that the Chrome OS is complete trash even with internet access. Nevermind the fact that Google could have had Chrome OS running Android apps long ago but chose not to, you can't even get the Unity 3D engine to run in the web browser, making the Chrome browser on Chrome OS far less functional for grade school age children than the Chrome browser on Mac, Windows, or Linux. The same is true for flash games in general.
But it gets so much worse. Want to FTP something to your web server or save an image at 150 DPI for use in a PDF? Good luck with that. You might be able to find an expensive 3rd party service that will allow you access to their servers that will allow them to do it for you, but quite frankly if I wanted to spend a handful of cash for every piece of software I need to use, I would just get a Mac. Nothing but condemnation is justified for this being a "feature" on a supposedly budget computer.
This blog is named after Google's failure to support their projects after suckering developers and authors to sink many of their own hours into the projects personally (see "Google Knol.") However Chrome OS and Chromebooks are a project they have allowed to go on far too long - it should have never reached the point where anyone was actually selling Chromebooks in the first place. The fact that Chrome OS doesn't run Android apps, its crippled to the point of not allowing FTP or Unity 3D in the browser, and that the developer mode attacks developers, Chromebooks are a complete betrayal of trust on the part of Google to its customers.
I don't define my success in life by financial success, because I have been down that path before and am fully aware of how painful those self-inflicted wounds are. But for young-of-heart who do, understand that there are two rival definitions of financial success: "career" vs. "financial independence."
For example, if you are making $35,000 per year, even in a low cost of living area, you easily get into a cost spiral where you don't have enough money. If you don't live in a place where you can get to work, church, school and entertainment without a car then that quickly begins to add up. If you are in a place with harsh weather, you may need an even more expensive vehicle, etc.
I know one guy who makes $200,000 per year and supposedly can't afford to pay his own $2,000 per month health insurance. That's shockingly high health insurance costs, but what is he doing with that other $175,000 per year besides paying taxes? This problem of never having enough money leads us to the question of frugality.
Financial Independence
The frugality definition of success says that though financial success is defined by financial independence, the way to get there is primarily to control spending rather than try to achieve career heights. The general game plan is to get the best job you can and spend nearly nothing an anything for 10 years saving it all, and then from that time forward you will have enough money to live on having become used to not spending anything hardly at all. Mr. Money Mustache is the cheerleader of that movement: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/04/08/mr-money-mustaches-own-story/
There are other "life hack" ways people achieve financial independence, such as living in 3+ generational households or becoming successful small business owners or a hundred other things, but all those life hacks are highly dependent on frugality.
A side note is there are no get-rich-quick schemes that work (besides Mr. Money Mustache.) Multi-Level Marketing NEVER works without making you yourself a criminal, and nor do other pyramid or ponzi schemes or any other get-rich-quick schemes.
Conclusion
IF you are going to define your success in life by financial success - and I strongly recommend that you don't - but if you do - you must chose one of the two above paths. You either make plans to make $75,000+ per year, or you make radical frugality plans, or you plan for (self-defined) failure.
I never thought any one of the following changes that has happened in my life since January 2015 was due primarily because of what happened. However it was in in each case a secondary reason I consciously considered:
I moved back to my home town with my kids in tow. We have a much more laid back lifestyle here and I can spend more time with them.
I was asked to take a volunteer position with a church to help with boys aged 12 to 16, which I accepted, where again I am involved directly with my own kids. I make sure they have the philosophical and religious training to understand the nature of virtue, and that striving to become better people does not mean inflicting unnecessary suffering on ourselves.
Though I encourage my kids to pursue things they are interested in, I take it very easy on what expectations I have for them. I encourage them to take their time, enjoy life, and to take life at their own pace, and to not stress out over grades and other deadlines people try to set for you.
I have gone out of my way to set a good example to enjoy life myself, and to make sure my kids understand that is what I am doing. Life is too short to waste suffering.
I have started a (poorly written) novel that allows me to vent a lot of the frustrations I have about the conditions in society which contribute to male youth suicide.
This is not a happy ending. It is an attempt to prevent my kids, one in particular, from suffering Jonathan's fate. I have learned how important it is to focus on family and enjoy life itself, but the price was too steep, I could have learned this another way.
A few words about Jonathan. I knew him since he was born, but I only spent a handful of days with him each year. He was a unique and impressive person. He erred on the side of kindness and bravery. He loved animals, and he had way with them that reminded me of Tarzan. He would be the one climbing up on top of something taller than anyone else would dare climb, just to make some absurd declaration so that everyone would laugh. He would be the one making secret forts for the other children to enjoy. He was the most fun loving person I ever met. The world will always be less without him.
Our world and country's populations have become too big for everyone to be playing real-life Monopoly for keeps. If you think that the "free market" is going to solve the staggering environmental, combat, terrorism, starvation, slavery and other safety challenges our world faces today then you are naive. Ultimately now we have to choose between democracy and capitalism, because the world has become too small for both of them. Choosing capitalism is choosing an end to that world, choosing democracy is to choose for us to keep moving on as a species into the future. Allowing Obamacare to leave so many uninsured while blaming this failed policy on employers is one example of this problem. A higher education system that leaves its students it is supposed to be helping heavily in debt with few job prospects is another example of this problem. Meritocracy itself has failed us.
A vote for Hitlary is a vote to address the cultural problems. A vote for Sanders is a vote to deal with the economic problems. Obviously intelligent educated people with internet access understand that humanity's survival is at stake, and are militantly supporting Sanders. We can not stomach the idea of voting for someone like Hitlary who wants to go backwards from what Obama has accomplished, and who is so closely associated with a man who massively failed the progressive movement in the USA.
However should Hitlary still get the nomination, I may still vote for her, and maybe so should you, and here's why:
In 2008 I supported Hitlary over Obama because her individual-mandate was left of what Obama was suggesting he wanted as a universal health care system. Even though Obama got elected, it was Hitlary's health care system with the individual mandate that prevailed. Obama has suggested Hitlary is playing a smarter political game than Sanders, and can't just brag about how "socialist" she is to taunt the right. Name any given policy that Sanders supports that Hitlary doesn't, and it might be just as likely to culminate with Hitlary as it would with Sanders. Take her lackadaisical attitude towards health care - we can all smell that she intends to let the right take it apart while she blames it all on them. I suspect her plan is to do that with incremental "compromises" that expand medicaid and medicare, so that by the time the GOP is done with their repeal and replace victory we'll have the medicare for all that Sanders (and apparently Trump) are so exited about.
A young father recently asked me "what is the big deal about Justice Scalia, why all the celebration over his death?" I replied to him "almost every crappy thing in our lives can be traced back to this one man." Only partially kidding, I have since realized how literally true that statement was. A supreme court vacancy is no joke. Sure I would be a lot happier with Sanders choosing the supreme court replacement over Hitlary, but am I going to say that her pick would be as bad as what Cruz or Trump would come up with? No way. This is a very irresponsible time to vote 3rd party.
We are in a far more advanced place now when talking about ethnic prejudices than we were before Obama was elected. "Black Lives Matter?" Not if Hillary got the nomination in 2008. This culture war between male and female has to end, too much resources are being diverted to this cause that shouldn't be. We need to move the conversation very far past Men Going Their Own Way and 3rd Wave Feminism. The only way I see us getting out of this left-on-left infighting over genetics and sexuality is appeasing the majority of the aggressors by electing a female president:
I am what most people would call "white." I have an advanced degree from a private university. I have just about as much white straight male privilege as anyone from an economically challenged area could dream of. I don't rub shoulders with economic elites while eating caviar, but I obviously have far more advantage than most others.
I love affirmative action. Here's why: every time I apply for a job or a raise, and I do NOT get it, I really have to ask myself "is this because I am a white straight male?" I applied for a union organizing position in 2010 where they said "minorities and women strongly encouraged to apply." Not only did I write a Master's thesis on organizing worker cooperatives and have management experience, I had the inside scoop on a very specific contract this very specific union was after.
I didn't even get an interview, not so much as an e-mail response or a phone call. You MUST be asking "is this because I was white straight male?" And that's great. It's AMAZING!
Why? Because every time any minority doesn't get a job or a raise they ask for, they have to ask themselves "is this because I was not a white straight male?" The ONLY realistic way to make THAT fair is to make white straight males have to ask themselves the same question. Affirmative action accomplishes that.
I have yet to relay my opinion to any of my many minority friends and have them say "wow, that's great! You are right, that's affirmative action is all about!" Instead they usually reply along the lines of "Wow, that is horrible. See, none of us should have to go through that!"
But if those of us with highly significant white straight male privilege are supposed to be helping those without it, as well as fighting against that privilege, how are we supposed to do that without any empathy or sympathy towards those that feel discriminated against? Even though it is a minuscule fraction of the discrimination of those without white straight male privilege deal with, this small taste of indignation gives us much more opportunity to develop sympathy than we would otherwise have.
