Life As A Surfing Metaphor

 I listen to Andy Stumpf's Cleared Hot podcast, and he most recently had former NFL kicker Steve Weatherford (episode #158) as a guest. A couple things from their conversation struck me as potentially important to living life, possibly ever, but certainly here in the early decades of the 21st century.

First Steve Weatherford's contribution to my continued growth; Roman's 5: 3 - 5:

Not only so, but we also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character hope. And hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us.

Whatever the source of your (or my own) faith, possibly the most important result of that is your individual sense of hope, regardless of external circumstances. Keeping yourself open to inspiration and insight, regardless of source, is an important aspect of developing one's humanity, I think. Taking what we learn and adapting that to our individual circumstances might be the most important lesson we each learn about ourselves. We should make a better effort to learn that (and pass it along) in a more organized fashion.

In the same podcast, Andy Stumpf equated life to a series of wavetops and troughs. Not to equivocate with a man with the accomplishments he has managed to live through accumulating, but I think his view is a bit limited (or more likely his opportunity to discuss it in the context of a podcast is the constraining factor). Whatever the case, I think that a better rendition of this life view is that life is a series of wave-building individual and group efforts that, when successful, result in a wavetop we can all surf down into the next trough. Which is where we start the cycle all over again; build the wave to be able to surf down into the next trough.

I understand why my fellow vets contemplate, and all too often choose, suicide; we spend a lot of time wandering around in life's troughs trying to find the next wave to build after the military spent "x" years trying to drown us in wave after wave to surf down the face of. I do that contemplative thing a lot, personally (one of the "benefits" of retirement). The main reason I listen to Andy Stumpf's podcast is because he so often talks about learning how to build your own life wave (I'm waxing on metaphorical; work with me here!). I was never a Navy SEAL; if not for the Coca Cola bottling company I never could have qualified to just be in the same (if earlier version) Navy as him. That said, all of us can find life lessons from our fellow humans if we're willing to see them and find the connection to ourselves.

Thus endeth today's sermon.

"All right, Lunger"

Via Instapundit comes this item about tobacco smoker's apparent increased immunity to COVID-19 infection. As is only to be expected, the expert-atti in the comments get all Chemical Wedding about it. From my personal experience smoking cigarettes for 40+ years, I suspect one of the principal causative factors for this statistical result might be much simpler; smoker's cough.

People who regularly inhale burnt tobacco enjoy the mildly euphoric effect tobacco use is well known for (until they eventually don't - ask me how I know). At the same time, smokers are regularly irritating the tissue of their throat and lungs which causes them to cough. A lot. Certainly a lot more frequently than non-smokers, and a lot more deeply too. There is an associated phrase to describe the phenomenon; coughing up a lurgy. Tobacco smokers commonly have more mucus in their lungs as a response to the increased levels of lung tissue irritation the smoke causes.

Because tobacco users who inhale the smoke much more frequently cough on a regular basis, and cough up some of the mucus from their lungs more frequently than do non-smokers, my suspicion is that this is at least as likely a source for the apparently slight difference in infection rates between smokers and non. If you more frequently energetically expel the air from your lungs, as well as more frequently expel the mucus that coats lung tissue, any viral material has a more difficult time reaching the capillary network the lung tissue interacts with to oxygenate the human body, and spends less time inside the lungs due to the mucus being coughed out of the lungs more frequently than might be considered a "normal" rate.

A product I found helpful in recovering my lung capacity (less so in recent years - I quit smoking 13 years ago) is the Expand-A-Lung (this Adurance model appears to be functionally identical, and you can buy a singleton for cheaper) which allows you to vary the degree of resistance you experience filling and emptying your lungs. 8 to 12 inhale/exhale cycles between sips of that first cup of coffee while leaning against the kitchen sink is a useful way to get your reps in while you fully wake up. When I'm finished, I rinse the device off and put it back in the dish drainer beside the sink, and make sure all that I coughed up is safely down the drain too (you know how you're supposed to run some dish soap through your disposal regularly? This is a good time for that :)).

Another activity I've found useful once I've finished the restricted breathing is to go sit down at the dinner table with the rest of my coffee and get in some reps of the focused breathing advocated by Wim Hof among others (I'm still working my way up to the whole cold training thing - I'm certain I'll get there any day now).

Between these two activities my "lung sounds" are clear during my regular medical check ups, and I haven't had to resort to my inhaler more than a half a dozen times a year for the past 6 to 8 years. I don't know to what degree, if any, a general feeling of improved well-being contributes to resisting viral lung infections, but I do believe the process I follow to arrive at that feeling does contribute to that.

YMMV and I DO NOT recommend taking up tobacco smoking for its purgative effects.

What's in a name?

Eric S. Raymond has recently posted an intriguing idea on his blog, The Order of Defenders:

I wrote the above after thinking about Rudyard Kipling’s Ritual of the Iron Ring for newly-graduated engineers.

Rituals like this exist to express and formalize what is best in us.

The Order of Defenders does not exist. Perhaps it should.

 I found myself largely in agreement with the sentiments and intents I believed were being expressed by Mr. Raymond, with one rather large exception; who were the intended candidates for the role of Dedicant?

Rudyard Kipling was a more-than-a-little embittered proponent of Victorian Britain's Empire who frequently bemoaned the lack of manly forthrightness evidenced by his fellows in continuing expansion of said empire. While I can appreciate Kipling's frustration-inspired prose, and have little difficulty translating it to frustrating circumstances I find in my own time and place in the universe, I am also of the opinion that those of what can loosely be termed "the Harry Potter generation" (for the purposes of this essay, those born in the 20-odd year period of 1985 to 2005, give or take a half-decade either way) seem unlikely to share the requisite grasp of historical context to spontaneously do so for themselves.

With this difficulty in mind, I proposed re-naming Mr. Raymond's concept as follows:

 I suggest the title, Order Of Defenders, is too Teutonic and feudal in sentiment and therefore too easily vilified and de-contextualized. As an alternative, I suggest the following: The Proponents of The Practicum of Equilibertalious. The membership consisting of those who, through their considered statements and routine actions in the course of ordinary life, personify the beliefs codified in the Practicum they individually swore oath to. The word “equilibertalious” is literally a Harry Potterization of the sentiment: equal liberty for all of us. Thus, a Proponent of The Practicum (individually referred to as a Practicant) of Equilibertalious is one who has sworn an oath before witnesses to live life in compliance with the terms of the oath.

I crafted the admittedly silly-sounding word "equilibertalious" specifically to make use of the Potter-world habit of manufacturing words of power for spell-casting purposes by creating mouth noises that consist in large part of fractions of the words that express the intent of the spell caster. In this example, the intentions of the one seeking admission into the group whose existing membership exemplifies the ideals of equal liberty for all to pursue individual success in cooperation with like-minded others. Yes, that rather downplays the potential contingency of violent defense implicit to the fundamental concept.

It would seem that deliberately structuring a concept to attract the easy recognition of the intended audience is simply too silly an idea to merit more than the briefest of dismissal.

Well, I have been wrong before.

Still, I do wonder if Mr. Raymond hasn't crafted an elaborate troll, rather than suggested a serious idea. If virtue signalling the a priori propriety of one's assumptions regarding the validity of firearms ownership specifically, and one assumes violence-based socio/political stances generally (concepts I by-and-large share with Mr. Raymond, I believe), is the sole purpose of his post, then "Well Done, You!" Mr. Raymond. Once again, the error is mine own. For taking his words at face value. For attempting serious consideration of how such concepts might be enacted (because ideas such as these are never just the one thing they are predicated upon). For developing what I sincerely believe to be modifications to the basic concept that offer greater possibility of success for the idea becoming actual practice.

More fool me, it seems.

On the chance that the idea Mr. Raymond has proposed is a serious suggestion, of creating a fraternal organization that provides its membership with individual purpose and mission, that relies upon the cooperation of the membership with each other to achieve success, I encourage you to go and RTWT. It's an idea worth serious consideration that seems to have merit well beyond the foundational condition of individual gun ownership. You should go offer your thoughts as well.

On Friendship

A couple of long-simmering thoughts on the topic of Friendship and relationships more generally have come to the forefront of what passes for my brain recently, so I thought I'd share.

Firstly, much as in the novel Fight Club, there are rules to Friendship in real life. The First Rule of Friendship being: "Never Lie". Not too surprisingly to anyone who has been party to pretty much any relationship with another human being, there is the Occasional Corollary to the First Rule which reads: "SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP!", which itself has the subsequent Supporting Directive of: "Immediately Change The Subject as compellingly as you can".

Lemme 'splain this last one.

Say your Significant Other asks you: "Does this make me look fat?" (regardless of what "this" is).

Your immediate rejoinder should be something along the lines of: "You and I both know how much thought and effort you put into your diet and fitness, and how much your fashion choices and physical appearance always reflect that. Anyway, you have the ability to make anything look good."

You see how this works? The subsequent fight will be over willingness to accept responsibility (which will be your fault too) rather than your poor (not to mention cruel) judgement. These distinctions matter farther into the future than you may believe (yet).

Unlike the (purely hypothetical, he says) example above, there are those unfortunate situations in real life, when you feel compelled as a friend to abide by Rule 1 even though you know full well that all would be so much more placid in your life if you went with the Occasional Corollary option instead. Should you find yourself in such a circumstance, bide your time until the Placatory Offering tactic becomes acceptable by both (all? who knows these days?) involved (never forgetting the non-involved who have waaay too much to say about not-their-business) parties, then present your best considered offering (and, yes, there's a strategy for getting through this process too :)).

Secondly, the issue of Intra-Species Relationship Courtesies and Considerations has brought itself to my attention - again. Particularly as these involve both genders of the species (look, this issue is complicated enough without trying to slice this particular biological pie any more finely than it comes out of the slot in the usual fashion - don't deliberately make this any harder to live through!).

With no offense intended to Mr. Bill Maher;

New Rule: Anyones personal cell phone, hand bag or wallet is theirs alone, and no one else has any reason for gettin' inside anyone elses!

Now, I understand that the cops claim an exception to this, which basically works out for the rest of us as: "even if you should somehow win this particular segment of the argument, you're still going to lose the rest of the fight, so surrendering as gracefully as you can is usually your best option". Other than the cops though, if it ain't yours, stay out of it!

Look, if my wife/girlfriend/Mother asks me to get her something out of her purse, what's going to happen is I'm going to hand her the entire bag. I don't know what's in there. I don't even want to know what's in there. Should I ever have to ask anyone to hand me my wallet (? it goes in my pocket well before the gun does), I don't think I am at all out of line, or the least bit unreasonable, to expect and insist that all that happens is that the entire wallet - contents unexamined - ends up in my hand. I also don't think it the least bit exceptional to expect such consideration from other's about my or any other cell phone that isn't their personal property (Ok, the exception that proves the rule; if you give your child something like a cell phone, it's a basic term of the transaction that you are only allowing them mutual access to whatever it is - as long as you're paying for it, it's yours too).

If you want to share content from your phone with anyone, Forward it to their email (or whatever) or just show it to them directly. Other than that, nobody has any right to access the contents of your cell phone, handbag, or wallet, and any effort to convince you otherwise should arouse immediate doubt in your mind about the desirability of keeping the person making such an argument quite so closely involved in your life.

Life is a complicated experience, involving an ever-changing matrix of competing influences to impinge upon our decision making process, the result of which often seems to make suicide an option at least briefly worth considering. With Healthy Life Extension scientific research from people like the SENS Research Foundation offering more and better treatments and therapies to consider, it seems a foregone conclusion that we can only expect an even longer time span in which to suffer the consequences of our more poorly chosen actions and statements towards our loved one's. Adherence to a few basic, simple rules should go a long way towards making that extended healthy life a much Happier one too. Never mind the children; think of yourself! 

From My Martial Arts Bookshelf

I have, over the past several months, gradually become more interested in weaponed martial arts (other than firearms, of course :)); specifically Historical European Martial Arts, to the degree that this past weekend I purchased a life membership in HEMA Alliance to compliment my NRA membership.  It will be a few more weeks or months before I'm physically ready to take up active training with others.  In the meantime I am using the inexpensive Cold Steel nylon bastard sword, single-hand sword (that's their description - I don't believe the design can be traced to any specific period or style of sword other than possibly "viking" or "crusader", neither of which would be correct in this instance, just convenient examples of broad sword descriptive types), and dagger I purchased to begin practicing the basic stances, steps and grips for those type weapons.  I'm able to do these alone and in front of my apartment, further confusing the neighbors (it's no secret I'm a shooter; over Christmas I constructed a shipping tube out of PVC to send some fishing rods to my son in Oregon - several neighbors apparently thought I was building a potato cannon or rocket launcher).  I can't imagine what they are going to dream up as a result of my latest hobby.  Hopefully it won't require the participation of the local PD.  :)

I've never been a dedicated martial arts student, and I'm much too old to be a serious one these days, but I do have a rather extensive (and fairly eclectic by most standards, I expect) library of books and a few instructional videos on the general topic of human combat.  A fairly recent acquisition is Guy Windsor's VENI VADI VICI.  In the Introduction (page 17 of the paperback edition, for those following along at home), he describes several word translations that are pretty much essential for any student of historical European swordsmanship to know and understand.  One of these stood out for me in particular, Mezo Tempo.  The following may be pushing the bounds of "fair use", but the quote in full is:

This is literally "half time", but refers to the use of blows that stop in the middle of the target, instead of traveling through to the other side.  Tempo in this instance means "completed movement" or something similar.  So the "half time" is the use of "half blows".  

Anyone who has spent any time training in any discipline involving hand strikes (and even kicks) will recognize the technique being described.  One maneuvers an opponent with footwork, of course, but also by means of the type and force of blows delivered.  Boxers, for an easily accessible modern example, are trained to "punch through the head"; that is, to deliver a strike to the head or face that is from sufficiently close range to reach at least the middle of the opponents head at full extension.  By punching only to the surface of the head, you can conserve energy and deceive an opponent while you maneuver in a manner that makes your footwork more effective in setting up a structured attack.

What I take to be Vadi's meaning in Mezo Tempo is that this same category of tactics from the un-weaponed fighting arts also applies more-or-less directly to sword fighting/sparring too.  It has been my belief from the outset of my interest in swords, and western martial arts generally, that this would indeed prove to be the case. That strategy and tactics from one discipline would apply to swords and other historical weapons just as well (accounting for differences in distance and such, of course).

I will take this opportunity to throw this thought out for consideration and (probably separate would be better) discussion as well; History Begins Yesterday.  My cyclical involvement in Krav Maga is what made the observation above so obvious to me; it would be hard to argue that KM is not a direct modification of European historical martial arts forms, as are a number of modern martial arts (Imi Lichtenfeld's book is quite specific on Krav Maga's historical lineage).  Are there organized courses of study within HEMA that connect the modern expressions of western martial arts to the historical forms we practice?

I would value any thoughts of others, particularly critical ones, about my conclusions and observations.

Bear Baiting And Other Online Sport

The problem with corresponding with old professors, even (or possibly most especially) one's who now make up their own stories rather than contenting themselves with relaying the classics, is that they will insist on illustrating their lesson du jour with a homework assignment for the further edification of the correspondent.

I've had worse.

Hi Jerry,

Read your most recent View entry (August 27) and wished to respond to your off-the-cuff aside about "eternal youth".

First, yes, it was only an aside and you made no attempt to delve into the topic. Second, I’m quite certain you have much greater online research expertise then I, but here’s my amateur contribution to that nonetheless.

Scientists turn skin cells directly into blood

Making pluripotent stem cells from a drop of blood

Young blood makes old mice more youthful

Thirdly, I suppose, while none of this is news to you I’m sure, I suggest the stories above combine into a potential (if only partial) answer to your question(s) regarding the end of work (insert bass, vibrato and echo to taste).

While much research remains, particularly into possible human applications, there seems to me to be a possible social model of – I don’t know, basic stipend? – that could be developed from this. People contributing a regular sample of their blood in order to remain eligible for receipt of their regular stipend payment.

Such a system would accommodate the transition of historic "work" to automated systems while subsidizing the healthy maintenance of humanity and human societal structures. In addition, I presume that you will agree there will always be circumstances where a spontaneously adaptable human could better resolve a short-term or otherwise unusual situation for which a device hasn’t been manufactured and thereby earn added credit to a qualified volunteer’s account.

Not a perfect solution, I know, but the juxtaposition of the two View items seemed worth noting.

Best regards,

Will Brown

I don’t purport to “have a solution” to the problem of preserving a Republic in these times. I do agree that humanity isn’t finished: robots and artificial intelligence will not be our final invention as a recent book put it. But that at the moment is more faith than analysis.

If you are interested in this subject and have not been following Freefall you probably should be. There is a problem. Freefall is incomprehensible if you go directly to the current page. It is a graphic novel with three new panels every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and it has been going on since 1998. To understand it you must go to the story start http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff100/fv00001.htm and read up to the current page before trying to follow it, and that will take an hour or so a day for a week. It is worth the time investment. This began more as a humorous comic, surely with the intention of examining problems of practical implementation of robots and AI, but over time began to look at the problem in a more serious way. It is quite thought provoking. It is also hilarious, so this is not a painful assignment. It will help if you understand that Sam is not the main character although he is an important part of the narrative; and Sam is neither human nor humanoid under that environment suit.

In his View entry for 8/27, Jerry Pournelle (just in case anyone hasn't sussed out which Jerry is "beneficiary" of my insights) commented on the changing nature of work and the economy, during which he noted the potential life extension had for making any solution that much more complex some day in the future.  I sent him three news links about how "young blood" can be made from a sample of your own blood, from that how pluripotent stem cells can be further made and how both these existing technologies seem far more likely to be near-term complexities than commonly thought.

The suggestion that some system of regulating a basic economic stipend payment around conscientiously participating in a health maintenance regimen isn't one I've seen considered-to-death as of yet.  I also don't see any obvious conflict with such a system incorporating a highly automated/robotized/AI development in effecting such a health care process.  It doesn't seem to me that this idea necessarily conflicts with the fundamental structure of the Republic as Franklin, Jefferson and the rest originally envisioned the US federal government and economic model (though I acknowledge how easily it could be made to).

So, homework ... I'm a reasonably practiced reader, but I do read online for a couple hours a day already.  Let's say an added hour a week on average; I'll be 61 late next month, maybe I'll be up-to-date on my Freefall assignment by then.  As to Sam's non-humanoid nature, I've been a variably-complex-tool user and SF reader for over 50 years now; if I'm not minimally functionally past any humanocentric interface biases (that don't involve sex objects - I do have some standards) by now, then the jokes on me, isn't it?

Thanks for responding, Doc.

PS:  For any reader who also might not have heard of Freefall before this, I suggest going to the linked site quoted above and bookmarking the "Index" page.  Give yourself a digital version of dog-earing the page to mark your spot, as it were.

Someone Is Wrong On The Internet (Maybe)

First place I saw it was at Weer'd Beard's and the consensus was that murder had been committed.  Then I read about it at Say Uncle, who thinks there is no "castle doctrine" or maybe "stand your ground" claim involved.  And finally I read it again at Pagun Blog (properly titled Shall Not Be Questioned) Another "Castle Doctrine" Case That Isn't.

With so much authoritative assertion on display, imagine my reaction when I read the Montana Code Annotated.  Better yet, don't imagine, read for yourself:

Montana statute seems to specifically say it is a “no duty to retreat” case.  

See Montana Code Annotated Sections 45-3-102 Use of force in defense of person, 45-3-102 Use of force in defense of occupied structure, 45-3-110 No duty to summon help or flee.* 

The first statute says in pertinent part, “A person is justified in the use of force … to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.” 

The second section says in pertinent part, “A person is justified in the use of force … only if:  

     (a) the entry is made or attempted and the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent an assault on the person or another then in the occupied structure; or  

     (b) the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony in the occupied structure.” 

And thirdly, 45-3-110 reads in pertinent part: “… a person who is lawfully in a place or location and who is threatened with bodily injury or loss of life has no duty to retreat from a threat or summon law enforcement assistence prior to using force.”

Kaarma and Pflegger were in the structure lawfully. Dede (the dead criminal) was apparently in the commission of a home invasion (unlawful entry of an occupied structure, much more dangerous then a B&E) when Kaarma shot him. Kaarma went outside the still-occupied (by Ms.Pflegger) structure and engaged Dede with a firearm, resulting in Dede’s death. 

Montana law would seem to support a legitimate claim of self-defense with the added justification of no duty to retreat from a lawfully occupied “location or place”. I don’t find any requirement in Montana statute that property must be secured in order for the above to have force of law (those arguing that Kaarma and Pflegger “set a trap” must equally believe that cattle ranchers are also guilty because they don’t secure their livestock from tresspassers). 

If that isn’t a reasonable (and actually word-for-word explicit) description of SYG and the so-called “castle doctrine” (verbiage which never appears in any state’s pertinent legal code that I have discovered so far) both, then I think we will just have to agree that we disagree on the definition of “reasonable”. 

As to anyone’s guilt or innocence in this matter, that’s what trials are for, aren’t they? I also have to say that the defense declaring this to be a SYG/CD case seems quite reasonable to me given the statutes that apparently address this type of action in Montana. We’ll see. 

* Source: Self-Defense Laws of All 50 States.*

Quite aside from the widespread reluctance to call the BBC on their bald assertion that Kaarma fired without saying anything (and implying that Dede didn't either) - something not otherwise in evidence, I find the equally widespread ignorance on display by at least three well-respected gun bloggers as to the actual statutory meaning of "stand your ground" and "castle doctrine" in the Montana statutes to be the most disturbing aspect of this whole story.

I don't expect the BBC to get it right - I actually don't expect the BBC to honestly report the facts of this story whether or not they might support the pre-existing bias of that organization.  I do kinda expect at least as much effort to determine the actual facts of the law addressing this case as I made from those who seem willing to accept the mantle of "subject matter expert" that their respective blog reputations provide.  Everybody makes mistakes (and let me just say right now that IANAL and my reading of Montana statute could very easily be completely wrong), but the presumptive bias demonstrated in the reporting of all concerned takes the schaden right out of the freud, doesn't it?

Was this a legitimate case of self-defense or was it murder?  12 Montanans are going to have the duty to make that call, after being presented with all the facts (along with the evidence in support) and with a clear idea of what their states law has to say regarding killing someone in these specific circumstances.  A case to be followed without doubt and I hope we all do so as closely as our personal circumstance allows.

* A book I wholeheartedly recommend any gun owner own a copy of.

The Swirl Of Life?

Posted in Friday's New Scientist is an article that describes the recent - and serendipitous - discovery of how life might have formed without the presence of cells in Earth's early oceans.

Ralser's team took early ocean solutions and added substances known to be starting points for modern metabolic pathways, before heating the samples to between 50˚C and 70˚C – the sort of temperatures you might have found near a hydrothermal vent – for 5 hours. Ralser then analysed the solutions to see what molecules were present. 

"In the beginning we had hoped to find one reaction or two maybe, but the results were amazing," says Ralser. "We could reconstruct two metabolic pathways almost entirely." 

The pathways they detected were glycolysis and the pentose phosphate pathway, "reactions that form the core metabolic backbone of every living cell," Ralser adds. Together these pathways produce some of the most important materials in modern cells, including ATP – the molecule cells use to drive their machinery, the sugars that form DNA and RNA, and the molecules needed to make fats and proteins. 

If these metabolic pathways were occurring in the early oceans, then the first cells could have enveloped them as they developed membranes. 

In all, 29 metabolism-like chemical reactions were spotted, seemingly catalysed by iron and other metals that would have been found in early ocean sediments. The metabolic pathways aren't identical to modern ones; some of the chemicals made by intermediate steps weren't detected. However, "if you compare them side by side it is the same structure and many of the same molecules are formed," Ralser says. These pathways could have been refined and improved once enzymes evolved within cells.

And, quite obviously, have provided the mechanism for the evolutionary development of more complex cellular structures.

Those who argue against the Theory of Evolution like to declare that the theory can't be proven.  Absent a working two-way time machine, this is almost certainly true ... and entirely beside the point behind the theory in dispute as well as Rene Descartes's Scientific Method itself.  It is not the intent to prove how something did happen, only how it could.  The demonstration of possibility is sufficient to justify further experimentation.  At some point, the preponderance of the experimental results will (or will not) demonstrate the reproducibility of the theory - and thereby render a measure of likelihood regarding the outcome.

Faith leaps from assertion to certainty instead.

I like reading these sort of discoveries because they make clear how little we know about what we experience in life.  Claiming to already know the answers, but not being able to "show your work", seems boring and dismissive to me.  Pursuing discovery through doubt and uncertainty seems much more life-like to me.

Srsly W-T-Effin-F

Will somebody (Borepatch, Vox Day, ESR - all of you have written in a knowledgeable-seeming fashion about this) please write a post on what this "Dark Enlightenment" is supposed to be in aid of?  What is it about?  What does it claim to be about?  Is there in fact any "there" there?  In terms of non-internet relevance, where would you rank its claim to moral and human ethical values on a scale between Lord of the Flies and The Alamo?

Yes, I read this Telegraph article; no, I'm still not any better informed than I was before doing so.  Neither, apparently, is Mr. Bartlett, though that doesn't slow his willingness to "explain" things.

A little help here ...

A Circumstantial Problem Of Perspective

One of the instructors at my local Krav Maga school has written an article titled Legal Issues Surrounding Use of Force and Krav Maga which is published on the East Texas Krav Maga school web page.  While generally well written and quite informative, in my judgement the piece suffers from a particularly dangerous failure of perspective as a result of the author's contextual assumptions.

As a former police officer, Paul Landreth-Smith appears to have approached his topic from the perspective of someone who enjoys benefit of the legal notion known as qualified immunity as well as the assumption that individuals interests are best served by providing all the information possible to law enforcement agents following involvement in a violent incident.  While this may in fact be the case for a member of law enforcement (and my reading shows that opinion is not universal), I believe that advice is a particular disservice to the vast majority of non-law enforcement Krav Maga students as well as all people who lawfully carry a firearm in their own right.

The wealth of detail Paul Landreth-Smith offers regarding recording the incident you were involved in is quite comprehensive and useful to your defense counsel.  And here we see how Paul's assumption based on Qualified Immunity misinforms his thesis; Paul is quite correct that all of the data he itemizes is necessary to a proper defense of the Krav Maga student, but the assumption that law enforcement is necessarily concerned with your defense is potentially a tragically mistaken one.

The other error of assumption the author makes is to base the choice of whether or not to engage the skills learned in Krav Maga from any other standpoint than, "Does this act meet the legal standard of self defense?"  Paul Landreth-Smith rightly dismisses the nonsense notion of there being any requirement to declare your martial arts training status (and more generally, that you are armed at all), but he fails to specify the legal requirements for an individuals actions to qualify as self defense.  This, especially combined with the other error cited above, makes his article very problematic.

In brief, a claim of self defense requires that a hypothetical other person would concur that your actions were both reasonable and proper in the circumstances in which they occurred.  In my judgement, every student of Krav Maga (most especially to include anyone who owns or carries a firearm on their person) must base there decision to engage in violence with another on this principle alone.  Unlike law enforcement, as a general rule people do not have any requirement to engage in violence with other people (as I understand it, the requirement for law enforcement to do so is the fundamental justification for Qualified Immunity).  Granted, in most US states people famously have the right to "Stand Your Ground", but all that really means is there is no lawful requirement to retreat from threat.  As Krav students, this means we don't have to try to "run away, run away", but that also doesn't obviate our requirement (just like every other reasonable and law abiding person) to avoid physical conflict whenever circumstance permits.

I commend Paul Landreth-Smith for extending this discussion to specifically include Krav Maga students.  I believe I have illustrated how my fellow students might further benefit from debate about possible refinement or expansion of this discussion as part of our Krav Maga training.  In that vein, I suggest that inclusion of legal experts on this specific topic might be of value.  For now, I encourage my fellow Krav students to adopt the Self Defense legal standard as their own metric by which to weigh their decision whether or not to use their Krav training, in addition to applying as much of Paul Landreth-Smiths advice in supplying their defense council with as much data as possible, should they ever have to choose to fight. 

A Will To Learn

So, as I was saying (2 months ago), I'm 59 now.  This was cause for some reflection and decision-making.  It has been apparent for quite some years now that the employment (and more generally, many aspects of the societal) model arising from the Industrial Revolution have begun to run their course.  What hasn't been (and to a worryingly large degree still isn't) clear is what and how an individual might go about preparing for the even greater changes that appear certain to feature in all our lives in the coming years.

I've decided to educate myself so as to develop the knowledge base necessary to master the skills that nanotechnology and cellular biology seem more and more likely to bring into the individuals grasp.  Additive manufacturing of both inanimate and biological materials to construct the material and devices I desire to accomplish the means of supporting my life without having to necessarily rely upon the whim of any other is a big example of the type of societal and technology change that seems to be in the early stages of development into technique and not just research experiment.

This won't happen next year, possibly not even this decade, but there will be a steady progression of development such that we will achieve a tipping point of change that drags all of human society out of what we now regard as "normal".  I envision this process as a wave breaking upon the shore.  We are only just now beginning to be able to see the start of the swell building; I want to be one of those furiously paddling away just as the first curl appears.  The technology (and other) changes I believe will occur in my lifetime may or may not be the equivalent of Mavericks, but I refuse to be one of those standing around whining in the impact zone as the future washes away the present.

Admittedly being a rather too casual student of classical strategy, I have given some thought to developing one.  What I've come up with likely won't meet many of the needs of others, but I hope will offer inspiration to begin the process of preparing to overcome the risk that is the necessary component of any opportunity.

I've begun by registering as a student at Khan Academy.  I chose this particular venue because of Salman Khan's concept of a transcript being structured as a resume as well as a repository for one's professional work and qualifications (the current examples are publications, software developed, apps, etc but certifications of a technical or trade nature seem a likely possibility also) and that the learning part of education should be free of charge (certification OTOH ...).  Beyond the embarrassingly simple aspiration to remain smarter than my grandson (he's 2 at the moment, but closing fast), I intend to spend the next several years learning math to at least the geometry to calculus level, at least one of the Romance languages other than English (and hopefully an eastern European language as well), and eventually achieve a PhD (or an equivalent certification) in history.  I think it unlikely that I will confine my online studies to only Khan Academy, indeed I think it virtually certain that I won't.

There's more.  I have an abiding interest in things martial.  Mostly this involves modern firearms and in recent years Krav Maga.  Thanks to Eric S. Raymond, I've discovered ARMA - The Association for Renaissance Martial Arts.  I have applied for membership and intend to structure my studies on the historical record of martial theory and philosophy from the Renaissance period onward.  My thought at this point is to connect the historical practice with modern technology and technique and see where that points the thesis further.

With all this decided, I have also decided that I'm going to retire from my present employment around the end of June 2014.  This won't provide me with a great deal of money, but will meet my most basic needs.  Assuming such a thing still exists in 2016 I intend to begin drawing social security at 62 (plus 8 months - 3 years earlier than I could begin drawing "full" benefits).  Fiscal cliffs and all that notwithstanding, actual societal collapse is a drawn out process and I decided the ability to concentrate my efforts for the mid- and late-term portion of my studies was sufficient to justify the longer term risk of retiring from employment at 60.

What makes this different from a complex way to occupy by dwindling twilight years of advancing decrepitude is my conviction that the healthy life extension research that has been underway for most of a decade now has begun (and will continue to) deliver cellular and genetic therapies for age-related diseases and deteriorating physical conditions.  Again, not next year or even this decade necessarily, but within the reasonable expectation of my lifetime without such therapies (the next 20 - 25 years basically).  There are already efforts in place to deliver stem cell type therapies via IV drip and direct injection as well as genetic therapies introduced via benign virus.  The ability to clone one's stem cells and map one's personal genetic code is already within the financial reach of most Americans (well, those of us who have jobs at least); it is only reasonable to believe that this price will continue to shrink over the course of this present decade.  I have begun looking into the procedure required to have both of these accomplished before I retire.  Just one more of those things I expect we will all have to adapt ourselves to if we want to stay out of that futuristic wave impact zone.

And that's pretty much it.  Along the way I will garner as many certifications as I can (I still hope to become formally certified as a Krav Maga instructor even though I don't intend to pursue teaching as regular employment; I'm just not rigorous or consistent enough to be good at instruction - though assisting or filling in temporarily for someone else would be good) with particular emphasis on those related to the creative application of computer technology.  Incorporating firearms and other weaponry into my studies isn't actually a given, more like the pivotal activity around which all else occurs, so I hope to obtain certifications as an RSO and instructor also.  I will have to place greater emphasis on physical fitness than I have (especially of late); it's all well and good to believe in the promise of healthy life extension, but you have to live long enough to have some sort of therapy to receive, don't you?

The blog and my presence online will remain pretty much unchanged for the moment I expect; I want to finish the life extension post series I started in October for only one topic.  I will say that having settled on a course of action to follow has created a sense of emotional as well as intellectual relief for me.  It all may well go straight into the crapper (again), but I feel invigorated and more confident (even if that is the porcelain spinning 'round me) and expect to have a more frequent urge to babble away here once again.