Hijack This!

Public service announcement:

OK last week I picked up a very anoying pop-up that Ad-Aware and Spybot would not get rid of. Basically, EVERYTIME I moved my mouse a search box would pop up in my bottom tool bar.

Finally, I stumbled upon something called Hijack This!

Now this little program took care of all my problems. After reviewing this tutorial I was able to remove the malicious lines in my registry.

Anyhow, it's not for the novice but if you've tried everything else it's certainly easier than reformatting your hard drive!

Religion and Politics: Redux

So yesterday while going on a campus coffee run I ran into a Christian faculty member. Knowing that I have an interest in religion, politics, and all things secular, she started to complain to me about the recent filibuster flap (Note: I have already commented on the filli-debacle HERE and HERE). Top on her list was a lengthy rant about James Dobson and how the Religious Right™ has an "agenda" which is intentionally designed to portray liberal Christians as "un-Christian." Naturally, as a self-described (at least to me) "liberal Christian", she was quite upset.

Inwardly I sighed because I predicted that the various groups and news organizations would continue to carp about this. Outwardly however, I was unsure how to respond to her. On the one hand I was flattered that she trusts me enough to consider me a neutral sounding board--especially when the outward display of religious convictions on some campuses often gets faculty into hot water. In fact, this particular faculty member works in a school that is traditionally conservative, so part of the reason she was so upset had to do with some of her conservative colleagues and their views on this topic.

Now I don't know if my answer alleviated any of her angst but here is what I basically said:

Dobson does have an agenda--he always has. However, not all "conservative Christians" have an agenda. In fact, I really think that Dobson has over-reached himself and is fast becoming a liability to the White House and to conservatives (this is why I suspect Bush has distanced himself from Dobson) . Finally, (and unbeknownst to her) I paraphrased something Lee once said in his writings: "Nothing is so permanent that it will never change." However, I suspect that my comment fell on deaf ears because she kept venting.

Interestingly, this morning as I skimmed the news I came across this article from the Denver Post.

Political experts say Dobson's influence on moderate and independent voters is limited, however, and that he and other social conservatives run a risk, with their more confrontational rhetoric, of spurring a reaction against Republican rule. "This is such an overreaching by Dobson, I expect a backlash," said Norman Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "Dobson is now a problem (for Republicans)," said John Podesta, a former Clinton White House chief of staff who heads the Center for American Progress, a Democratic think tank in Washington. Recent polls show a large majority of Americans oppose changing the filibuster rule.

So, this confirms what I hinted to in an earlier post. Moreover, it's a nice seugway which I can use to introduce my Yin/Yang Theory of Politics®:



The Chinese use the Ying/Yang symbol to illustrate the balance of life. Yin (gentleness) and Yang (firmness) are often seen as separate entities. However, this is not the correct interpretation of this symbol. Yin and Yang are part of the whole and it is wrong to separate them. How I had this explained to me is through the metaphor of the willow and the oak: "The firmest tree is easily cracked by the storm while the willow bends and survives."

For Yin and Yang to function properly balance is needed. Nothing survives very long by staying in one extreme. If this notion is correct, then Dobson et al will lose momentum because they are all Yang (firmness).

Now if I only could have conveyed this notion to my colleague! This, of course, leads to my digression of the day:

My employer has a technology support department that constantly annoys me. Granted, in the four years that I have worked for this university, the department HAS made some improvement.

However a recent example should explain why I get so annoyed with this department: A few months ago the entire network went down after 6 PM. Naturally, tech support had gone home for the night and they do not publish the number of their on-call person. So, after one full hour of not being able to work, I followed the instructions in the sacred "computer manual" and called the name listed. After explaining my problem this person asked me if I consulted the manual. I replied: "Yes, it tells me to call you."

His reply: "shit."

So after another 40 minutes of monkey football this person finally gets me the number of the on-call person. Upon hearing my description of the problem the on-call person asks me: "So, do you want me to come in?" Sigh. "Well," I replied, "that'd be nice considering that students have been complying for over an hour. In addition, we cannot check out books or access any documents on the server--much less use the Internet or do our jobs."

So another 45 minutes go by and at approximately five 'til the hour the whole net comes back on line--this, after having been down for at least two hours. The best part: five minutes later the on-call guy arrives and cannot find any problems! (It that isn't an example of karma I don't know what is)

Now initially when dealing with this department I was all Yin (gentleness). However, this approach led to my problems not getting fixed and the technicians blowing me off. So, after about a year I strove for a balanced approach which led to moderate success in problem resolution. Four years later and I suspect that I am losing my patience. Granted, "nothing is so permanent that it will never change", however it sure would be nice if the change would happen before I die!

So, during the last year I've taken the Yang approach--at least when it comes to the computer that I need functioning in order to do my job. So, this is as close to balance as I can come with this problem. The more it affects me the more Yang I rely on, however the less I am impacted I strive for Yin. I suppose this is better than simply doing nothing at all; or, for that matter, going over to this department and recreating the copier scene from the movie Office Space!

Press Conference: Bush Rejects Frist’s Attack

Last night President Bush was asked if he agreed that there was an anti-religious agenda that was seeking to oppose his judicial nominees:

BUSH: … "I just don’t agree with it."

QUESTION: "You don’t agree with it?"

BUSH: "No. I think people oppose my nominees because of judicial philosophy."

QUESTION: "Sir, I asked you about what you think of…"

BUSH: "No, I know what you asked me."

QUESTION: "…the way faith is being used in our political debates, not just in society generally."

BUSH: "Well, I can only speak to myself. And I am mindful that people in political office should not say to somebody, you’re not equally American if you don’t happen to agree with my view of religion."

Some possibilities:

1) Bush is trying to calm a very acrimonious debate. By doing so he stands a better chance of getting his judges elected. (politics)

2) Bushs' advisors encouraged him to defuse the Frist situation because such a blatant interjection of religion into a secular government could potentially polarize the democrats (and voters), causing the power to shift back to the left in 08. (more politics)

3) Bush seriously believes that you can be an American, even if you don't agree with his view of religion. (personal conviction)

4) Various combinations of 1-3.

5) None of the above.

This much is certain: Over the next few days there should be some interesting comments from Dobson, Frist, and others on the uber right.

On Being Irreverent

So for my semester project in my graduate history class I have been studying Hubert Henry Harrison, AKA "the black Socrates." Harrison is considered to be a race and class radical who was largely forgotten by history.

It is very likely that historians "forgot" Harrison for three reasons:

1) His personal philosophy of being true to his own convictions. Primary among these convictions was his intellectually honest and candid criticism of anything that did not fit with the evidence. This candidness inevitably offended many persons or organizations that should have preserved his memory.

2) Being a class and race radical, Harrison was involved with the Socialist Party of America. Consequently, eight years prior to his death Russia had a revolution which causes America's Red Scare. Thus, anyone who criticized our government or was associated in any way with socialism was automatically (and often unfairly) deemed a communist.

3) Harrison was an avowed freethinker. It is my personal opinion that historians are often unkind to those who openly criticize and reject the majority's religion. For example, historians HAD to remember the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and Benjamin Franklin (all deists and freethinkers) because they were part of some major events in U.S. history. The same could be said of the philosopher Bertrand Russell (AKA "the father of analytical philosophy). Some of his many accomplishments can be found here.

However, other freethinkers who were notable in their day, yet were not part of some historically significant even are often forgotten. One such example would be one of America's greatest orators, Robert Green Ingersoll. Were it not for the work of a few diligent (and honest) historians, he would have been written completely out of history.

(First digression of the night: The original freethought movement was spawned in the Italian Renaissance and once was not associated with a rejection of religion. Rather, adherents encouraged a critical examination of all matters with the best science of the day. Eventually freethought turned it's critical eye on Christianity and the rest, as they say, is history.)

So, a combination of these three points coalesced and historians wrote Harrison out of the historical record. Luckily, an independent historian by the name of Jeff Perry rediscovered Harrison and is now sharing his work with the world.

This leads me to the second digression of the night: The value of being irreverent. The OED defines irreverence as: "The fact or quality of being irreverent; absence or violation of reverence; disrespect to a person or thing held sacred or worthy of honor."

Too many times people who are intellectually honest, open, and candid, OFTEN are described as "negative", "skeptical", or are accused of being "irreverent". In fact, more times than I care to count, I am often described in this manner. Interestingly, people who label me act as if they are omniscient--it's almost as if they think that they have a direct pipeline to what I am thinking.

Sadly they are quite mistaken.

While I am certainly no Hubert Harrison, he faced many of the same criticisms that I often have. Thus, it is with the words of Harrison that I respond to my critics:

“The old men whose minds are always retrospecting and reminiscing to the past, who are trained to read a few dry and dead books which they still fondly believe are hard to get—these do not know anything of the modern world…Get education. Get it not only in school and college, but in books and newspapers, in market-places, institutions, and movements. Prepare by knowing; and never think that you know until you have listened to ten others who know differently…Reverence is in one sense, is respect for what is antiquated because it is antiquated…Oldsters love ruts because they help them to “rub along,” they are easy to understand; they require the minimum of exertion and brains, they give the maximum of ease…If you wish to be spiritually alert and alive; to get the very best out of yourself—shun a rut as you would shun the plague! Never bow the knee to Baal because Baal is in power; never respect wrong and injustice because they are enshrined in the sacred institutions of our glorious land; never have patience with either Cowardice or Stupidity…Read, reason, and think on all side of all subjects…And set it before you, as a sacred duty always to surpass the teachers that taught you—and this is the essence of irreverence.”

Excerpt from:

Hubert Henry Harrison, “To the Young Men of My Race,” in Jeffery Perry, ed., A Hubert Harrison Reader. (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 2001), 175-176.

Irreverent and PROUD of it!

Top 12 things Yoda says in the bedroom

1. "Ahhh! Yoda's little friend you seek!"
2. "Urm. Put a shield on my saber I must."
3. "Feel the force!"
4. "Foreplay, cuddling - a Jedi craves not these things."
5. "Down here, I am. Find a ladder, I must!"
6. "Do me or do me not - there is no try."
7. "Early must I rise. Leave now you must!"
8. "You know, this would be a lot more fun without Frank Oz's hand up my....."
9. "Happens to every guy sometimes this does."
10. "When 900 years old you get, Viagra you need too, hmmmmm?"
11. "Ow, ow, OW! On my ear you are!"
12. "Who's your Jedi master? WHO'S your Jedi Master?"

Filibusters

Politics at it worst: filibusters to prevent judicial nominations. So the recent flap is about the democrats who are threatening to filibuster the republican judicial nominations.

Some interesting observations from here:

While a majority of the Senate is sufficient to confirm a judge, it takes 60 votes under Senate rules to overcome a filibuster and force a final vote.

Rather than change the rules directly, Frist and other Republicans have threatened to seek an internal Senate ruling that would declare that filibusters are not permitted against judicial nominees.

Because such a ruling can be enforced by majority vote, and Republicans have 55 seats in the 100-member Senate, Republican leaders have said they expect to prevail if they put the issue to the test.

More excerpts from this source:

But history shows that Republicans did something similar to the Democrats' filibusters five years ago.

In 1999 and 2000, before he became majority leader, Frist was one of the Republican senators blocking President Clinton’s nominee to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Richard Paez.

Frist and others repeatedly prevented a vote on the Paez nomination. In 1999, Frist and 52 other Republicans voted against a motion to proceed to a vote on Paez.

Six months later, Frist voted against cutting off extended debate — a filibuster — on the nomination.

Then he voted for a motion to postpone a vote on the nomination.

And finally on March 9, 2000, four years after Clinton nominated Paez to the appeals court, Frist was on the losing end of a 59-39 vote on the nomination itself...And Frist, once an agent of obstruction, is moving to change the rule on filibustering nominees so that the Senate can, as Schumer said, “vote them up or down.”

“I don’t think it’s radical to ask senators to vote. I don’t think it’s radical to expect senators to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities,” Frist said Sunday at a rally organized by the Christian conservative group Family Research Council.

Observations:

Frist is considering a run for president in 2008. The republicans hold a majority in senate. Rather than change the rule, Frist is threatening to seek a majority vote that removes the option of filibusters. Frist has used the filibuster many times himself. Judicial nominations usually are on the court for a very long time. So, the judges that a president appoints usually has the power to affect legislation well after the nominating president has left office. Now, it is "possible" that Frist is having a "change of heart" and wants to change the rule for the betterment of government. However, I suspect something else is at play here:

Some Christian conservative groups feel that this is an opportunity to reshape the judiciary in their own image and that this chance may be short-lived, reports Chaggaris. Perkins and Dobson talked directly about the issue with supporters last month, with Dobson commenting that time may be running out because he feels President Bush will become a "lame duck" in about 18 months.

In an audiotape recording of their conference, obtained by CBS News from the group Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, Dobson is heard telling supporters, "If we let that 18 months get away from us and then maybe we got (Sen.) Hillary (Clinton, D-N.Y.) to deal with or who knows what, we absolutely will not recover from that."

Most troubling is this statement:

Among the speakers Sunday was R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, who said that putting more evangelicals on the court will mean rulings more in tune with the religious convictions of churchgoers.

"We are not asking for persons merely to be moral," Mohler said. "We want them to be believers in the Lord Jesus Christ."

This smells an awful lot like a theocracy--not a democracy and this concerns me deeply. There are MANY other faith groups in the US and it's my personal opinion that if we move down this road, it makes discrimination based on faith much easier for which ever majority religion that has the most politicians at the federal level--not to mention pushing a particular agenda based on their religion.

Digression regarding Mohler: I remember having a conversation many years ago with the Lutheran pastor who was teaching my Bible study class. We had gotten on the issue of witnessing, when it was appropriate, etc. According to Pastor Bass, he felt that there were many ways to witness and in his opinion prostylizing was a two-edged sword because it often turns as many people off as it wins them over (he compared it to telemarketers and how annoying they can be). His preferred witnessing tool was to lead by example and though he often invited people to "see what the church was about", he did so in a a very un-dogmatic way (this from a man who spent many years in the mission fields).

Moreover, adherents of any religion should know that you can't force or legislate people to believe! Belief is a very personal matter and only their God would know if they really believed. What Mohler is suggesting flys in the face of this!

The other caveat: If Frist pushes the issue and wins the vote then republicans of the future may well face a similar situation when they are outnumbered. So, years down the road when the democrats hold the majority they could push the Liberal Agenda® by nominating ultra liberal judges and force a vote.

Although filibustering is not perfect, it allows for both sides to negotiate over which judicial nominees will be voted on. It's not the best "check and balance" but it is a check and balance.

Finally, I think the points that I made about Elite Theory in my post on secularism apply to Mohler et al.

This is why I believe that religion and politics are a bad mix when it comes to a democracy.

Books: Martial Arts

What follows is a short list of my favorite martial arts-related books:

All of the books authored by Bruce Lee or the Bruce Lee Library.

Explosive Combat: Wing Chung (Volumes 1-2) by Alan Lamb.

A well-rounded introduction to all aspects of Wing Chung by an international master. Included in volume two is a picture-by-picture presentation of Wing Chun's three forms: Sil Lum Tao, Chum Kil, and Bil Jee.

Jeet Kune Do: Hardcore Training & Strategies by Larry Hartsell. Another core JKD book by one of Lee's original students. Included in this book is Lee's mook jong form. Hartsell has authored several books and I recommend them all to any martial artist.

Jun Fan Gung Fu: Seeking the Path of Jeet Kune Do by Kevin Seaman. A solid introduction to core Jun Fan/JKD principles and tactics.

Mastering Karate by Jerry Beasley. Beasley holds dans in numerous arts including karate and Tae Kwon Do. He is also a certified Jeet Kune Do instructor and has authored numerous martial arts books (all of which I recommend). In this book, Beasley applies the philosophy of Jeet Kune Do to core karate techniques. The end result is a book that will help the traditional karate stylist fight smarter in any street situation.

Nunchaku: The Complete Guide by Jiro Shiroma. A solid introduction to nunchaku techniques, katas, and applications.

The Warrior Within by John Little.

A very readable introduction to the philosophy of Bruce Lee. Highly recommended for martial artists and laypersons. Little has authored several other books relating to Bruce Lee and I recommend them all.

Modern Arnis: The Filipino Art of Stick Fighting by Remy Presas.

A good introduction to single and double stick fighting techniques; which, when viewed through the lens of Jeet Kune Do, can enhance nunchaku or Wing Chun's 8-cut butterfly knives techniques.

Wing Chun Kung-Fu, Volumes 1-3 by Dr. Joseph Wayne Smith.

V. 1 Basic Forms & Principles

V. 2 Fighting & Grappling

V. 3 Weapons & Advanced Techniques

This is an excellent overview of Wing Chun forms, principles, and strategies. Moreover, Dr. Smith takes a scientific approach to the biomechanical theories behind Wing Chun while yet preserving its tradition. Finally, in the spirit of advancing the art, Smith incorporates his knowledge of White Crane kung fu and Thai kick-boxing in an effort to add to the art.

Martial Arts Chronology

I received the following as a response to my first post. Rather than respond to it there I have chosen to make it the topic of this post.
Question dated 4/24/05 from "Jim": "I'm studying tae kwon do and have a brown belt...what style are you studying and do you have a favorite?"
Here ya go Jim!
Chronology:

Senior green belt in Tae Kwon Do -- 1991
After 16 months I grew weary of the forms, the over-emphasis on wining awards for the school, the over-emphasis on kicking, the lack of practical application/realistic sparring; and, I also had serious doubts that much of what was being taught by this particular school had much street value.
7th Kyu in Aikido -- 1995
Dropped out in less than 3 months after realizing that this art was not for me.
6th Kyu in Goju-Ryu Karate -- 1995
From a self-defense perspective I preferred this art over Tae Kwon Do. However, this school was somewhat dogmatic and the forms where much harder to learn.
Junior green belt in Tae Kwon Do --1996
You'd think I'd have learned my lesson once!
PPCT Training via the department of corrections --1995 -1998
PPCT stands for pressure point control tactics and is typically taught to law enforcement and corrections officers. There are different levels of proficiency and the two main styles are based primarily on the audience that it is being taught to (i.e., police vs. corrections). What I was annually certified in emphasized the following: 1) Principles of controlling resistance behavior, 2) Stimulus response training, 3) Handcuffing, 4) Joint locks, 5) Pressure point control tactics, and 6) Knife defense.
The problem with this system is that it was developed around a "use of force" continuum. That is, staff should use a level of force that is slightly higher than the resistance the subject is using, thus allowing staff to regain control of the situation without getting sued!
While PPCT has some value for police or law enforcement, in my opinion it is not the ideal self-defense system. In fact, were you to try 60% of the tactics in a street fight you'd likely get yourself hurt. That being said, after looking at PPCT through the lens of the Jeet Kune Do, there are some core techniques that can be kept or slightly modified.
Wing Chun Kung Fu -- 2004
Currently I am studying Wing Chun Kung Fu (or gung fu if you prefer):

Wing Chun has managed to retain its focus as a practical fighting art. It has avoided being modified into a competitive (rule based) point-scored sport or demonstration art. Wing Chun tournaments are rare or unknown.
The more effective Wing Chun strikes (eyes, throat, knee) are too dangerous even for freestyle competitions. Wing Chun is therefore rarely seen in competition.
Wing Chun is not just a collection of unrelated techniques. It has a core set of guiding principles which allows practitioners to decide what is correct or incorrect Wing Chun. This keeps the art a pure and integrated fighting system, while allowing direction for refinement that is consistent with its principles.
These guiding principles are strictly practical and is part of the reason for Wing Chun's uniquely scientific and logical approach to fighting. It is likely that Bruce Lee managed to develop Jeet Kune Do from Wing Chun because Wing Chun trained him to think about fighting in a scientific way.

So, after applying Lee's philosophy of Jeet Kune Do to the styles that I have experience in, I have been able strip away the useless and adapt what is useful. In other words, my personal expression of JKD includes techniques and strategies that I have learned from Tae Kwon Do, Karate, Aikido, PPCT, Wing Chun--not to mention the dozen or so use of force situations that I experienced while employed in corrections. Seen through the lens of Jeet Kune Do, these experiences make up my own personal "style of no style."
In other words I know enough to hurt myself!
;-)