![]() |
|
Books Lying Open
Soul-Devouring Worry:
Answer of the Day:
Curse of the Day:
Phrase
of the Moment: Hey, it beats, "Shut up!" which is what we used to yell, which had about as much effect on the cat as you might expect. -- August 16, 2004 |
Wednesday October 6, 2004 |
| Quote
of the Day -- QotD Archives
"All my humor is based upon destruction and despair. If the whole world was tranquil, without disease and violence, I'd be standing on the breadline right in back of J. Edgar Hoover." --Lenny Bruce |
|
|
€ This one made me laugh. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations, and was asked about links between Saddam Hussein and Al Quida. Here's what he said.
Okay, it's not news to anyone who doesn't receive their information exclusively from Bush speeches or FOX News, but it's nice to see a rare example of truthfulness from someone in the Bush Administration. As you might expect, it didn't last long.
Note that this statement was put up on the Pentagon's website; not actually issued by Rummy himself. Perhaps he sees the end coming and simply refused to further sully his remaining shreds of personal integrity, so the administration operatives threw up their standard, totally-discredited and misleading argument for it and signed his name on the bottom? Also, read his quotes in that first article. How in the hell was anything "misunderstood" about it? He couldn't have been clearer in what he said. The later website statement clearly and directly contradicts what he said in the first place. Remember in the South Park movie when the army movie narrator is talking and says "the Canadians are being shipped off to death camps... did I say 'death camps?' I meant happy camps..." Exactly. I don't even talk about it anymore, since it's been a done deal for years, but no, no one with any integrity or knowledge of the matter claims that there was any real connection between Saddam and Al Quida, no matter how much Bush wants there to have been, and how often he and Cheney say there was. To quote Washington Monthly:
€ And after I wrote the above on Monday, part two cropped up Tuesday.
Bremer at least changed his story in person, rather than allowing some anonymous website posting do it for him. And yes, of course there's a long public record of him wanting more troops than they had on hand for the "reconstruction" effort. The White House denying requests for more troops, purely for political reasons, is just one of many reasons even a lot of hard-core Iraq war supporters have since soured on Bush's leadership.
Putting the "who said what and when" argument aside for a moment, what is the Bush Administration seriously arguing? That there was adequate post-war planning and sufficient troops and engineers and police and so on? How can they seriously make that argument when we all know there was rampant looting and anarchy in Iraq immediately after the war ended, the terrorist (Or loyal Iraqis engaged in armed resistance against foreign invaders, depending on how you want to look at it.) attacks increase every day, when far more soldiers have died since the war "ended" than during it, etc? I'm not trying to rehash the entire debate, but if the argument isn't that the post-war planning and troop levels were inadequate, what's their excuse for the mess that Iraq is today? They're basically saying they did everything how they wanted to do it, and the ongoing failure isn't the fault of poor planning or insufficient soldiers. Which leaves us with nothing to blame but the leadership, right? Isn't that even worse for Bushco? Why not own up to some mistakes, promise to do better in the future, and move on, rather than continuing to spin a fairy tale scenario where everything was done perfectly and everything is great now? (Obviously, they hope enough voters will fall for their story to re-elect them, and they'll worry about reality again in another four years.)
On a related issue, has Bush said anything about what he's going to do to fix the problems and improve things? I keep hearing "stay the course" but when the course has been steadily downhill towards more and more violence and unrest, it seems pretty obvious (to me, anyway) that some changes need to be made. Kerry gets asked what he would have done/will do differently, but why is it his burden to prove he'll improve things when Dubya was the man who screwed them up so much in the first place? In more general terms, Bush is running for re-election; isn't he supposed to be offering a grand plan to improve things in Iraq, the US, and elsewhere? Isn't that what presidents do after 4 years, when they want 4 more? Come up with bold new visions and initiatives? Since when is "More of the same!" an acceptable campaign battle cry after a long recession, a huge increase in worldwide terrorism, and a steadily deteriorating occupation of Iraq? I guess this is just more evidence of why I'm not a Bush supporter. I clearly don't understand his master plan to make the world a better place. |
|
|
Classes are very small in the first place; 4-8 or so usually with 6 (including Malaya and me) on Tuesday night, plus the instructor. Even numbers are better, since then everyone gets a partner for the sparring and learning process, since most everything is learned one on one, taking turns giving and receiving the technique. You've got to feel what it's like to have it done to you to do it to others, and when you and another student are learning it at the same time, you learn from each other as well as the teacher. Anyway, while we were talking after class, the gura (female teacher) told us that she doesn't get many female students who stick with it. Most students don't stick with it at all in the first place, and women less than men. I don't know how the retention % compares to that of other forms of martial arts, but the gura's theory is that since Kali is such a deadly serious form, with killing techniques being taught right from the start and a learning curve of many years (at least five years to consider being expert enough to graduate to guru quality yourself, which just means that you might be competent to teach classes) that it scares off people who aren't serious about learning the form, and about planning for their lives in general. She told us that few men under the age of 30ish and few women without children stick with it. I didn't see any logical connection between those groups, but in her experience teaching for many years, most women aren't comfortable with the techniques; that the stuff we're learning is too potentially deadly, and obviously so. She said she'd talked to female experts in other forms, women who had been doing Karate or whatever for a decade or more, who saw her do a demonstration with a live (sharp) sword and were freaked out. They were like, "But that's dangerous! You could kill someone!" and gura was like, "Well duh. What do you think a spinning roundhouse kick to the jaw would do? Or an eye gouge?" Not that she said it in quite those words, but it was like the women who were big on other forms never really considered what all that punching and kicking they were working at was for, ultimately. Whereas in Kali, some of the first lessons you learn with knives are diverting an attack with your empty hand, then pushing it aside with your knife hand, slicing your blade along their arm the whole way, and then finishing them with a stab to the throat. Tuesday night in class we were all working with short sticks, and learning to block with one hand in the middle of the stick, redirecting it sort of like shooting a pool cue. I can't describe the whole thing in words and you don't care anyway, but the point was to block that way and then slide behind them and use your staff for a choking device. It was quite cool, all the different arm placements, the footwork required, the potential counters and counters to counters, throws possible from that position, pressure points on the neck and throat, etc. Imagine you're holding your stick in your right hand, making a fist, and the other end of your stick is tucked into the crook of your left elbow. Almost like playing a violin with a very long bow. Now your left arm is bent upwards, and you use that hand to wrap around their head, neck, side of their face... whatever, in order to move their head to the proper angle to crush their windpipe, or hit a pressure point and drop them into submission. Techniques include finding the correct pressure points quickly, finding ones that you can't hit without rolling the stick down at an angle, cocking the stick under their jaw to turn their heads and break the neck, and more. We're working on this with other people, and using hard wooden sticks (Malaya and me just got a lovely pair of dark mahogany sticks that are about as hard as stone.) and yes, you could easily severely injure someone practicing like that, and yes, you could very easily kill a person that way, or at least knock them unconscious, or put them on the ground helplessly gasping for breath. Then kill or cripple them in any number of ways. To me, that's what makes it worth doing. Not that I'm going to murder people with the technique, but that it's immediately and obviously applicable to real life combat, and it's very effective. And according to gura, that's what turns off lots of other people to it. Her theory is that people who are still young or haven't really given much thought to what they want to do with their lives don't like that. They have to think about life and death and how easily they could die or kill, and it unsettles them. Young men, teens and twenties, usually think they're immortal and nothing could go wrong too badly. That's why they drive 120MPH on the freeway, binge drink, get into stupid fights, and engage in all the other reckless behaviors men are so well-known for. You'd think those habits would make Kali attractive to young guys, but they apparently lack the discipline to stick with it long enough to get any good. Also, it's hard for a lot of people, young men especially, to admit they aren't good at something. And when you're in a class with half a dozen other people all of whom could cripple you without even really trying, especially when they're older, or not in very good shape, or women, or whatever, it's humbling, and a lot of young men don't have a strong enough ego to take that. Apparently. As for women not sticking with it, I don't have as much insight into their condition, but as gura said and Malaya agreed, most women don't have that old clichι, the killer instinct. The sort of potentially deadly thing we were working on Tuesday night is a prime example, as gura said lots of women just aren't comfortable with that sort of power. To learn something that they could use not just to fight back or escape an attacker, but to go on the offensive with and even kill with, unsettles them. And, oddly enough, women with children are much more able to deal with it, probably because their protective she-bear instincts come to life once they've got young to protect. Like they can't imagine fighting or killing for themselves, but they can do it for their children. Men who have families are turned onto Kali more as well, since while they might have always had the aggressive impulses, they've now got a family to protect, to stay alive to provide for, and they're accustomed to making hard choices, sacrificing immediate pleasure for long term improvement, and other such adult issues. Gura also said that there is often a drop off after two years or so, when people sort of plateau in their skills and start to get tired of the regular practice, when advancing further in ability is obviously going to take them years more. I dunno if I'll have that problem, and I'm enjoying Kali so far, but feel free to check back in 23 months to see if I'm still at it. |
|
|
<--
Previous -- Next --> |
|
All site content copyright "Flux" (Eric Bruce), 2002-2007. |