|
|
Sunday, October 4th, 2009
|
|
|
After much dithering, I finally did start a military history blog.
callitaweasel.wordpress.com/
This was started as a request for the professor for whom I TA. So while it is generally a corollary to the class, it also has some personal ruminations on military history. It is not a personal blog, however.
|
|
Comments: Add Your Own.
|
|
Saturday, April 4th, 2009
|
|
|
Music night, apparently.
First, The Dubliner's musical cover of the poem Raglan Road (which was set to music by the lead singer of the band with the express wish of the poet) is kind of awesome.
Second, The Rainbow Connection is STILL my favorite song.
Third, Tori Amos has a cover of Landslide? I like it, she turned it very distinctively hers.
|
|
Comments: Read 3 or Add Your Own.
|
|
Tuesday, December 30th, 2008
|
|
|
I've been thinking, recently, about some popular myths, epics and legends and how they are actually known to most people (i.e. Americans). By this I mean stories and legends like the Robin Hood stories, King Arthur and the Round Table stories, the Iliad and the Odyssey, and so on and so forth. These three are the most popular and the ones I thought of the most, though.
The actual literary provenance of these stories can be either more or less easy to track-- The Iliad and the Odyssey are of course from Homer. However, the Arthur stories are more complicated. The most popular "layman" variant would be Le Morte d'Arthur by Thomas Malory, although some of the stock stories associated with Arthur (perhaps unbeknown to the average person) would be from Geoffrey of Monmouth or Chertien du Troyes for example. The Robin Hood stories are the most complex of all, because the legend has been built up from a bewildering array of poems, songs, games, plays and even passing references. There were folk tales of Robin Hood (as there were of all three legends), but there is no one text from which people "got" Robin Hood.
( Read more... )
|
|
Comments: Add Your Own.
|
|
Sunday, December 7th, 2008
|
|
|
Manny Pacquiao, the boxer, is the current Philippine national hero. He's our Michael Jordan, being a role model to a lot of people, especially to a lot of people who would never have found a positive Philippine figure to identify with. He happens to be mine too, despite my NOT being an underprivileged Filipino, because Pacquiao is just what the country needs and he accepts this role and acts it well. He knows people bank on his every move in fights, so he trains hard and performs well under pressure. He also knows people watch him off the ring and he behaves pretty responsibly for a public celebrity.
So it was a big deal when I found he defeated Oscar de la Hoya, when all the odds suggested Pac-Man was the huge underdog, being outclassed in weight and reach. Kick ass, Manny P! Go Philippines!
|
|
Comments: Read 1 or Add Your Own.
|
|
Monday, November 17th, 2008
|
|
|
Sarah McLachlan has and always will be my favorite singer, but I'm woefully behind the times with her. I did NOT know she released a Volume 2 of her B-Sides album, or a remastered Fumbling Towards Ecstasy (with the Freedom Sessions bundled) OR that she released a Closer: Best of album with 2 new songs.
Worse, I did not know she broke up with Ashwin Sood! I never realized that I was such a true fan, because I actually feel really bad for her. I honestly never cared about stuff like this before...
Well, I suppose I have an idea of how much of a true fan I was because I have ALL of the songs in those albums mentioned above in one form or the other, but I still want to buy the CDs.
|
|
Comments: Add Your Own.
|
|
Sunday, November 16th, 2008
|
|
|
The Internet seems to be a place where people can be quite honest-- by expressing themselves in double speak. That is, people are either unintentionally honest, or they self-righteously hide what they really mean with a few key phrases. For example:
1) "I don't like PC/society is too PC/Stop being too PC." Very often, this is a key phrase for, I want to be a jerk/dick/rude bastard, but can't. Therefore people are all PC. It's not my fault. My favorite example of this was a forum I went to where a person complained about getting fired because he told customer she was being stupid about a product. Then he went ahead and claimed "society is too PC!". Right. He's a fuckwit.
2) "I'm not a racist but..." This statement is very often followed by a phrase that is VERY racist.
3) "I'm not a bigot but..." This statement is very often followed by a phrase that is VERY bigoted.
4) "I don't mean to pry..." This statement is very often followed by VERY prying questions.
5) "No offense, dude..." This statement is very often followed by something VERY offensive. To add to this, the questioner will get mad if you DO take offense because, you know, no offense dude!
6) "Children should be disciplined more..." This is a tricky one, but I often get the impression that it means that the person is very angry with the way people behave, and if people were beaten more as children, everybody would act more to suit that person's convenience.
7) "Government shouldn't decide for my healthcare/government should stay out of my life/there's too much welfare/there's too much public money thrown around." Ah, a political statement. If we're talking Americans, then I noticed this is actually code for: government should stay out of my life where it's inconvenient. However, it also means, "I refuse to pay for other people's stuff, but when disaster strikes me, government should give ME money, not the other guy." I've seen so many Internet discussions where so-called conservatives or libertarians decry government spending on things like "welfare" but then go on to say that the money should go into, for instance, "more prisons" or some such. I.E., something for them and their beliefs. As a historian with some knowledge of labels, I am leery of people claiming to be "conservative" (more so than I am of people claiming to be "liberal") because I don't often get a feeling they know what it means. There's a prestige, an intellectual and ruggedly independent gloss to "I prefer small government" pronouncements, but the people who say them very rarely know what that implies too.
8) "He has the right to free speech!/I have the right to free speech!" This very often translates to: I want to say whatever I want AND you have no right to respond. Seems like people think "free speech" goes in one direction. I have been reading how people who get angry at Michael Savage's dumb comments about autism are violating his right to free speech. Funnily enough, these are the same people who get mad when somebody says something they don't agree with. A gay person talks about his or her right to get married and these same people scream that their "values" are being threatened. Um, I guess "Free speech" isn't a universal value. So really, "you're violating my right to free speech" really just means "shut up."
9) "Racism is a universal thing, the Japanese/Chinese/etc... are very racist." I actually hear this quite a lot. It usually means "therefore I have every right to be racist."
10) "University professors are all liberal/evil/hate America/etc..." I have intimate knowledge of this. It often means, "smarter people than me are making things confusing and/or are saying things I don't agree with.
11) "People are all sheep, they should think for themselves"! I like this one. If you listen to what people who say this really means, what they're actually trying to say is: "They should agree with ME."
There's more, I'm sure. Feel free to add your own! The bottom line... I hate the Internet, honestly. It's why I tend to stay away from it a lot more these days. I am no longer a regular of ANY forum and have abandoned most fandoms. I've always felt that the reason why people are more obnoxiously opinionated, more ridiculously self-righteous, and more nauseatingly self-centered online is because going online is an essentially isolated, self-centered experience. People don't think of the Internet as TRULY public space with demands of civility. In public, face to face encounters tend to demand that we place a veneer over ourselves, but when we go online, we are essentially alone. Further, people gravitate to locations and people online that CONFIRM their value systems. Like finds like online, and I often feel that instead being a truly expansive medium, the Internet can be limiting because all you try to find are people with the requisite number of comforting similarities. Basically, nobody goes online to change their convictions of something-- people go online already convinced. They simply seek reassurance.
It's why the need for "double speak". People fundamentally believe they are right and are good people. Whether double speak is intentional or not, people try to present themselves as being rational, polite, and intelligent. And indeed, such is the nature of Internet speech patterns, I notice that people very often present themselves as the LAST or the ONLY rational, polite, and intelligent people or persons in a declining society. Very often, people don't use "double speak" maliciously too. They genuinely believe themselves.
Amiel: misanthrope.
|
|
Comments: Read 2 or Add Your Own.
|
|
Thursday, November 13th, 2008
|
|
|
Like many people, I paid very close attention to the recent elections-- despite not being able to vote. You could even say I would have been a high-information voter, if I had been able to vote. I took particular interest in Obama's "Green" economic program and, as you can guess from a military historian, national security.
That being said, after weeks of the stuff, I finally got sick of reading about politics. It took a little bit longer than many, but I am perhaps being outlasted by some. I thought the elections would keep me interested in politics but... no dice. The GOP and the Right are even more annoying to read about in defeat and various crazies are just ruining the air. There's just too much crap out there, and I tend to blame it on embittered conservatives or enraged racists. So from reading dailykos, huffingtonpost, fivethirtyeight.com, the New York Times, salon, slate, and a bunch of others, I found myself just reading huffingtpost. Yes, I'm liberal, but I found the dailykos to have returned to its normal brand of "rather crazy". I only go to huffingtonpost for my "news"-- which I prefer to have a left-leaning stance.
I'd like to think I'm still informed on national security. I mean, I have a good idea what's going on, like who launched what, or who's threatening who, but I don't think I care anymore about Ted Stevens or Palin, or whatever. I suppose politics and elections are like mud-wrestling: it's fun to watch, but after a while you realize it's just two filthy people getting dirtier and dirtier. Is there a girl under all that? Is that a boob? No, it's just more mud.
So, good luck Obama, I'm pretty sure he'll do good, but I'm out. Someone call me when the economy is fixed or has collapsed, but I think I'll watch that on Tivo.
|
|
Comments: Add Your Own.
|
|
Saturday, October 18th, 2008
|
|
Wednesday, September 17th, 2008
|
|
|
I've been reading up on American military history for my dissertation and I've noticed... dare we say that the American military reputation is hyped? Is it possible that American military ability is overrated?
Okay, given that wide historical generalizations are fraught with simplification, but I have noticed that many of America's wars have certain characteristics that mitigate against "absolute" claims of American fighting ability.
First, America wins many of its most dramatic "conventional" victories against second-rate powers. Good examples would be Iraq in Gulf War I and II, Spain in 1898, the Philippines in 1899 (first phase), Grenada, and Panama. These are all undoubtedly second-rate countries in that they were not particularly economically strong or militarily strong. Despite this, Spain still gave the Americans lots of trouble.
Second, when America does fight powers considered "first rate" there are qualifiers. Either the country is already fighting somebody else (Germany in World War 2), or America is fighting a country already spent (Germany in World War 1), or a country at the far range of its logistical string (Britain in the American Revolution), or a country with lots of other commitments (Britain during the War of 1812 and the Revolution-- and besides, Britain's military strength was its Navy, not its Army). Another thing to note is that America often fights major powers alongside OTHER major powers or with lots of people helping it out (Germany in both World Wars, Britain in the American Revolution). Third, even when America does win against conventional opponents, it often pays an extremely heavy price. This despite the fact that America often has allies backing it up or the opponent it is fighting isn't a particularly strong one. Korea ended in a stalemate-- America and its allies proved unable to defeat China. Japan gave America LOTS of problems (although, to be fair, America was fighting two wars at once).
Fourth, America has shown a surprising (?) vulnerability to assymetric warfare. The Philippines and Vietnam gave America great trouble, with the latter able to carve out something it could claim as victory. Pancho Villa managed to elude the American Army. The Indians in the West fought for most of the 19th century before being subdued. Iraq and Afghanistan today continue to be unresolved.
I'm not saying America hasn't won clear, conventional victories against fairly equally matched opponents. Mexico in the Mexican War had an army considered far better than America's, and the Americans won that war. Japan is almost a good example: America was fighting on two fronts. However, the bulk of Japan's land army was actually fighting China, and Britain's contribution is not small (Kohima in Burma, for instance)-- although to be fair, America was supplying materiel to both China and Britain, so America had a hand in those victories. You might also add the Civil War here, if we equate America with the Union.
America has not yet fought many power of equal stature and clearly won-- America has not yet fought Russia, Germany (with just America, minus allies), France, and (today) China.
Of course this all may be invalid. I'd have to put so many qualifiers on the examples above (based on the limitations of circumstance) that they might not be useful examples at all. Besides, this doesn't mean that America can't POTENTIALLY win against a first-rate power on its own. We've all played Command and Conquer: Generals. I just note, however, that America hasn't yet, and that a lot of its wars and victories point to a rather... exaggerated military reputation.
|
|
Comments: Read 7 or Add Your Own.
|
|
Sunday, September 7th, 2008
|
|
|
Whether America likes it or not, the balance of military power in the world is increasingly moving towards multiple nodes of power. Reading up on current military spending, procurement, training, and other areas of national security (Globalsecurity.org is a good start), one thing that struck me is how many countries around the world are working on power projection. This means that a lot of their current military procurement and trending isn't just geared towards defense, but to active offensive.
Take for instance the Chinese-- the favorite example among the "rising superpowers." The Chinese are eager to acquire an aircraft carrier. China is therefore actively trying to acquire a blue-water navy. They've also acquired long-range air superiority fighters in the form of the Su-27 derivatives sold by Russia. It's been suggested that the Su-27 (the Chinese have the Su-30 version) along with the medium-range missile (the R-27 Vympel) the Russians paired it with, is currently the best 4.5 generation fighter in service today. They are also trying to acquire marine-landing capabilities (to capture Taiwan, presumably). And, of course, there are all those cruise missiles, SLBMS and ICBMS. China has some ways to go-- no carrier yet, their Su-27 is mainly an air superiority fighter, not an attack platform (it can't bomb things), and it is still essentially a large, force armed with obsolete equipment and tasked with static territorial defense of a vast land area, so that is only slowly transitioning towards power projection. It is more likely that China will develop a small portion of its armed forces to serve as a high-tech, highly-trained expeditionary strike force rather than try to uniformly raise the level of its vast armed force.
The point though, is that China is getting ready have power-projection abilities in both a naval and aerospace ability. China now has, or is developing, the ability to strike at opponents, send forces to wave the flag and bully or "convince" rivals to bow to their wishes, interdict international sea and air routes and threaten opponents with both conventional and unconventional air or missile strikes. China might not be able to invade and hold an enemy country, but it can make its wishes and presence felt.
Russia, India, Britain, France, Iran, Venezuela, Brazil, and Australia are also becoming adept at power projection.
So what's happening? First, America is most likely no longer the military hyper-power that neo-cons said it was in the 1990s. Does this mean that America has ceased to be the strongest military force in the world? I'd have to say, no, it still is. It still has 10 of the ultimate tools of power projection-- the largest aircraft carriers anywhere (each one has more aircraft than most air forces). The Americans have the largest and best marine corps in the world (better equipped and trained than many armies). The Americans are also the only country capable of landing a force of this size and strength on almost any stretch of beach in the world. They have global-range strategic bombers. They have 5th generation air-superiority fighters, like the F-22 or the upcoming F-35, flown by some of the best-trained and best-supported pilots in the world. The list goes on. And, of course, America has more nukes than anybody on the planet.
But... here's the caveat. You don't need to be a hyper-power to thwart American plans. So the second point is that American military power isn't or soon won't be absolute. China doesn't need to match America ship for ship or fighter for fighter to get its way. It just needs to present a credible enough threat so that in an engagement-- even a limited one-- America will realize it will suffer too many losses to make it worth its while. Americans have been deceived by the ease with which their armed forces dispatch lesser-equipped and lesser-trained opponents in a conventional war. In a frontal match between similarly equipped and trained , or closely-equipped and trained enemies, America WILL suffer greater losses than it has against previous opponents like Iraq or Panama. It may take China 2 Su-27s to take down an F-22, but it will do it. Then America will have to take stock. Is it worth shooting down 2 Su-27s ($35 million each) to lose a $137.5 million aircraft? Will America risk loss or damage to one Nimitz-class carrier? The economic and public relations damage potential would be tremendous. Here's the problem with being the top military power in an increasingly tight race: it becomes harder to stay on top. America would lose too much fighting a regional power-- in the process, might lose its top position.
This is exacerbated by the fact that these regional military powers are also regional economic powers-- often ones with crucial economic trump cards to hold over America (like oil, or like being America's primary trading partner). The two are linked, of course. Economic success is what enables military strength.
Basically, China and others like it are going to be regional powers (at the very least). Within their spheres, America will soon have to be much more careful with how it deals with other countries. No more unilateral invasions no more heavy-handed diplomacy. In fact, it's already happening. America can't do more than slap Russia on the wrist on Georgia (currently) because America cannot contend with a regional power of Russia's magnitude. Perhaps it would have been slightly better able to do so if it was out of Iraq, but Russia would have still posed a formidable threat regardless. The same applies to Iran: America can't just attack Iran or even impose truly harsh sanctions because Iran is a regional military power with oil.
So whether foreign policy hawks want it or not, practical military trends point to the fact that America will HAVE to rebuild alliances and re-embark on diplomacy. The future president of America has NO CHOICE on this matter. America's days of global military hegemony are over-- if they ever even began. Impulsive, aggressive talk and hyper warrior's instincts will not be appropriate in a future global environment of multiple powers. Chanting USA as loudly as you can won't be much help either. One of the theories I believe in (not original to me) was that Iraq, more than anything, was an attempt by US policymakers to continue to extend American global hegemony. They tried to do this in the Middle East region by conquering Iraq-- there they could remake Iraq into a reliable ally-- secular and non-hierarchic-- because Saudi Arabia was and is too difficult to handle and increasingly unstable. This regional power would serve as a forward staging post for American forces to threaten Iran and Syria AND also secure America's hold on oil. The increasing shifts in reasons for the invasion (flimsy WMD claims, "remove the evil tyrant", etc...) were all pretexts for what was a geo-political security move. It failed. Iraq may perhaps be stabilized (I fervently hope so), but it has not positioned America in the Middle East. Iran is still rising, Saudi Arabia is still America's only foothold there. It was bad military strategy and it will contribute to America's weakening military position because it showed the LIMITS of American power at just that moment when America needed to preserve its prestige as a military power.
Who knows, maybe one day, military historians will point to Iraq as America that moment when it lost the mystique of its invincibility to its potential rivals, as the Battle of Kursk did to German reputation or Midway did to the Japanese reputation.
|
|
Comments: Add Your Own.
|
|
Tuesday, August 19th, 2008
|
|
|
I say again, if religion (and atheism) is a touchy subject for you, you probably don't want to read this.
Curious about the Philippine contingent's performance in the Olympics, I found out that we failed to secure a single medal. Well, those are the breaks. It's hard to compete with bigger countries (or bigger cheaters, like China). Two things irked me. First, a lot of Filipinos are cattily ripping into the athletes. I saw one especially obnoxious editorial that was particularly galling. This is galling because none of these great and heroic Filipinos were THERE for the Olympics. I'd like to see them do better than the athletes. I understand they're disappointed, these "fans" but one can only imagine how the athletes feel. Filipinos.
Another thing that irked me were the usual invocations to "prayer" and "god" and blah blah blah. I am... not very religious, to say the least. In fact I have an active distaste for certain kinds of faith and belief (but not to all-- and I do NOT disapprove of religion). I DO believe in God, and I do not wish to be anything but Catholic, but I have major problems with the human agencies through which this divine plan has to be distilled.
What pisses me off with human interpretations of religion is how patently unfair it can be in the real world. Filipinos make all these invocations to god. "God will help," "The Lord will provide," "Prayer is what I need," yaddah yaddah yaddah. You know how it goes: if something good does happen, then it's a miracle, and god is good. If the "prayer" doesn't work, well, god works in mysterious ways. Further, many Filipinos become sitting-dumb martyrs, expecting prayer to just go ahead and lift the country and themselves out of poverty. The Philippines is very religious. It's a stronghold of Catholicism. The government adheres to Catholic policy on abortion and birth control. We've abolished the death penalty. Churches are everywhere.
|
|
Comments: Add Your Own.
|
|
Wednesday, July 30th, 2008
|
|
|
Here's a picture: This is Leonidas attacking me for invoking Gowdin's Law.
|
|
Comments: Add Your Own.
|
|
|
|
I just saw the new Batman movie. Now I was never much of a comic book guy, but I have always liked Batman (read Year One and all), so I was predisposed to like the new movies from the start. This movie is GOOD. It's not just a comic book movie, it's art. However, like most people, I really only had one thought when I left: damn, why did Heath Ledger have to die so young? That guy would have been one of the best actors of his time.
|
|
Comments: Read 1 or Add Your Own.
|
|
Wednesday, July 16th, 2008
|
|
|
Being a Robert Jordan fan is like being in abusive relationship, really. He treats you like shit and you keep coming back for more. No really, he loves me, he'll write a coherent book next time. And besides, I remember the beginning, when he was so good to me, giving me a story and everything.
The reason I bring it up is that I tried to read the series again in anticipation of the next (last) book and I failed. I have yet to read any of the last 5 books in full. The thing with the Wheel of Time series is that they're an example of taking stuff way too far. In the beginning, the snobbishness and jingoism of the various cultures (Aiel thinking only Aiel were right, or Seanchan thinking everybody was wrong, etc...) was kind of interesting-- it was a rather shallow take on "cultural difference", but it worked. 11 books later and it's just plain annoying as fuck and you want to strangle every Aiel, Seanchan, Taraboner, etc... in the book. I have developed a special loathing for the Aiel since Jordan uses them as a convenient plot point. Amazing desert warriors that come form the desert... did somebody read Frank Herbert a little too much? But since Jordan lacks subtlety, he makes six billion of them, and you begin to wonder. Where the hell did they get all that food and water? There are other details of combat and weaponry that just make me want to hit the Aiel on the head.
The worst part of Jordan is his writing of women. What was cute and interesting for five books, stretched to 11 becomes downright maddening. Women in the book are terribly, ridiculously, annoyingly written. Yet people claim it's "realistic" and others have commented that they're based on Jordan's wife. DEAR LORD. Does that mean that Jordan is whipped as fuck and that his wife is a bitch of gigantic proportions? Women in the series are bitches, one-dimensionally annoying bitches too. Oh, and with a habit of getting topless and spanked. Jordan is said to be good at writing strong women. I'd say the opposite. Jordan is a terrible SEXIST, since he can only portray women as all condescending, bitchy, and prudish. I particularly HATE HATE HATE Cadsuane. What the hell is the point of this woman? She appears out of NOWHERE, to conveniently replace Moraine (one of the few women there I liked) because Jordan is a hack and needed a Moraine-type character near Rand (and was unable to procure one because he took SO DAMN LONG to bring her back, ala-Gandalf-- and we all knew he would, the asshole). And Cadsuane doesn't do ANYTHING. She humiliates Rand, bosses him around, slaps him, makes fun of him and... teaches him to LAUGH AND CRY?!? Maybe Rand is laughing and crying in disbelief that the WoT series has come to this.
Let me be honest? I'm glad Jordan died. YES, I'm fucking GLAD. The guy they hired to write the new book can't possibly be any worse, and is most likely going to be better.
And really, the reason why I noted these crappinesses, is because I re-read Tamora Pierce. Yeah, THE Tamora Pierce, intended for teenage girls. Well, I think she's a MUCH better writer of similar material (or genre, or whatever). Her characters are a hell of a lot better fleshed out and the relationship between the sexes isn't a one-trick pony like in Jordan (ha, ha, women are powerful in my world you limp dick men), and the world and the "cultures" in it are more interesting. She's also a better prose writer too. To think she's marketed as a "young adult" author. Well, Jordan, most of your readers were young adult when you started... For God's sake, even Brian Jacques interminable vegan epic, the Redwall series, is a lot better than Jordan, despite being ridiculously formulaic.
Bottom line: Jordan is freaking hack.
However: Like any good bitch, I'm still going to buy his last book. Yes, there's an arrow pointing to my ass for Tor to insert stuff into. And I'm going to like it, damn it.
|
|
Comments: Read 3 or Add Your Own.
|
|
|
This LJ is woefully outdated at this point. So much has happened since my last posting. I mean, first, Mary and I visited the Philippines and she got to meet my family for the first time. That went well. I'll likely post more on that later.
Secondly, my older sister is pregnant with her first baby. That's kind of amazing. I mean to say the least. She and her husband are all excited of course, and fortunately, this whole thing developed after we found out that my older sister passed the Bar exam. Still, I'm going to be a bloody uncle.
Finally, I've been thinking of creating a for-real blog for academic purposes. It'll be about unconventional warfare and military history in general. I'd do it in large part to showcase my research. For advertising basically, even if nobody reads it or not a lot of people do, I could direct people I'm trying to attract to it. Or perhaps link possible employers to it. I've been thinking about it in part because this LJ has been dying, with few comments and posts, and also because I figure I'd like a more academic tone to my future internet activities.
|
|
Comments: Read 2 or Add Your Own.
|
|
Wednesday, March 5th, 2008
|
|
|
Like Kent Brockman said: "Fire! Man's oldest foe... " We had a fire at our place. It was an oil fire in the kitchen and it was my fault. I overheated the oil and woosh, up it went. It was a merry little fire, blazing in a stockpot. After a moment of confusion and panic, Mary and I pulled ourselves together. I killed the fire using the apartment complex's handy dandy fire extinguishers. I've never done anything like that before. We also called 911, just to be safe. It was a pretty exciting evening, let me tell you.
The damage turned out to be minimal. The range hood is a complete loss and some of the veneer on the cabinets needs to be replaced. There was a lot of scorching and ash marks but we got rid of almost all of that with some elbow grease and cleaning. The biggest problem is the ash, dust and fire retardant everywhere. There's powder and dust all over the house. We've cleaned the kitchen as best as we can, I have just spent the better part of three hours finally touching things up. But I don't think or feel things will get clean and dust free for a long time. Like Phil Ken Sebben said: "I'm the victim here... I feel so unclean."
For all that we had a fire (and it was my fault for being an idiot) things could have been worse. Nobody got hurt. I mean, nothing was even really damaged. It's all just a little dusty.
So, there ends another chapter in the Amiel bildungsroman. And there I was in the Philippines, worrying I would never really find out how I would handle a crisis (even a fairly minor one like this).
|
|
Comments: Add Your Own.
|
|
Tuesday, February 19th, 2008
|
|
|
To my great surprise and delight, I'm actually in pretty decent shape these days. This is entirely due to a great increase in my sword-related activities. Recently, I started classical foil fencing with the U of O. I used to be an athletic, sport fencer-- varsity team, saber, I even won a silver medal once-- and this is not much different. It's been about 9 or 10 years since I last did any fencing and it shows. My knees murder me after class. If I keep it up, it should improve, but I don't quite do it enough.
I've also upped the ante on the longsword stuff too. Who knew I would be serious enough at this to be something approaching a "martial arts" dude. Well, okay, not really. Seriously, I'm not. I've met those guys. The Krav Maga, Muay Thai, Gracie Jiu Jitsu guys. Yeah, they're hardcore. I'm a fellow with a big metal thing I swish around in an approximation of an "art." It's nice to be able to think of myself as an "aspiring swordsman" though.
|
|
Comments: Add Your Own.
|
|
Tuesday, January 15th, 2008
|
|
|
Here's something for the skeptics. The "master" Yanagiryuken claims to practice a martial art called kiai or something. It's a contact-free art where the master can supposedly throw and hit people without touching them. At all. Now, kiai is a real concept in Japanese martial arts, but it's not taken to this ridiculous level in most of the serious ones I know about.
Yanagiryuken claims to be undefeated (200 fights, 0 losses) and had a $5000 challenge to any MMA (mixed-martial-arts, the UFC, Gracie Jiu Jitsu guys). Somebody accepts and poor Yanagiryuken gets his ass handed to him. Specifically, his nose. There are better quality versions of this video and you hear his nose breaking in some. In many ways, it's sad, as there's this old man utterly convinced of his powers who really gets the crap kicked out of him. The guy he's fighting seems to realize what's happening and you can see him feel guilty about all of it.
The first video shows his "powers", the second one his fight. The second one is not very pleasant.
|
|
Comments: Add Your Own.
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
watersedge1's journal