Ism

One of my friends wrestles daily with the problem of racism. He sees it in voices and attitudes, in movies and audiences, in economics and every single person's world view. He is logical and clear: it's not a one-way problem; There is a measurable distrust of anything different; Even if that distrust leads to 3% misunderstanding or 5% of taking extra precautions, it is real and it adds up and it can multiply over generations.

5% of mistrust in business over several generations can result in a profound lack of positive adult male role models. That compounds, too, like interest on a bad debt.

I think he is also aware of the "racism double-binds". Crack and flake cocaine are chemically the same. The penalties for posession and distribution, in many jurisdictions, are wildly different. Is it because crack is used more often by poor black folk in the US and flake tends to be used by richer white people? Is it racism? Or is it because for every death associated with the flake cocaine trade (often a user, richer and whiter) there are at least twenty in the crack trade (almost always poor and black)? Would it be racism to treat the drugs as the same and do nothing to prevent these killings? Can it be racism both ways?

Which will do more damage in the long term- the repressive racism of Jim Crow or the paternalistic racism of Affirmative Action? Treating men like dogs or treating men like children?

This puzzled me, especially with my friend, because he is truly extraordinary on many levels. He is largely responsible for me not just drifting in life, distracted by shiny objects. He is succesful and grounded; a celebrity in some circles; fit.. and still experimenting with his art, his mind and his body. He has shattered barriers... and I expect someone who is so himself to no longer see the labels other people put on him. But he does and sometimes it haunts him. He wonders what he and his life would be like without that three or five percent mistrust and with a strong male role model... I'm pretty sure it would suck- he doesn't do 'easy' well and thrives on challenge and being told 'that's not possible'.

Monday, my new boss set an expectation- the training at the end of the month is going to be very 'cerebral' and she really wants me to pay attention because she knows it will be hard. It will be 'academic' and she knows that 'will be hard' for me...

I have a degree. I write articles. I do statistical analysis (including for her) and read about two books a week (just finished two on terrorism and am in the middle of books on labor law, criminal prosecution and WWII history).

All that pales before the fact that I beat people up (completely aside how often I talk them down or how rarely I injure anyone). Yes I teach and design courses for defensive tactics... but I also do it for crisis communications with the mentally ill.

She sees what I do and who I am every day and I really thought I was adjusting and blending in very well- but for just a minute, I felt something similar to what my friend feels every day. No matter what he does, the people he helps, the world he changes, certain people, maybe most people, maybe everyone, will always see a black man and all their interactions, all of their interpretations of his actions will be seen through that filter, even if it only distorts 3%.

For just a second it was clear that my boss wasn't seeing an investigator or a teacher or a writer. She was seeing a thug, someone whose capacity for violence obviously precluded the ability to learn or think. Obviously.

Worth the Time?

Here's a contradiction in my behavior: I'll fly across a continent to meet a martial artist I've only typed messages to; pick up one at the airport and feed and house him or her for the duration of stay; give up precious sleep and even more precious family time for a few minutes or a coffee with a practitioner...but have absolutely no interest in visiting a couple of local places that are considered to be incredible.

Another invitation will be coming in soon, a cyberwarrior/fanatic has just noticed that I'm located in his hometown and he's eager for me to see the fantastic, wonderful, unbeatable system and world class instructor. I may show up just to be polite, but reaching deep into my soul I'm not picking up a glimmer of interest.

What's the difference?

Simple fanatacism. In religion or martial arts, you have to voluntarily blind yourself to large sections of the world in order to convince yourself that you have the complete truth. Right and wrong changed between the Old Testament and the New ("Blessed is he who dashes the brains of the babies against the rocks" versus "Turn the other cheek"), even things as simple as dietary laws changed just within the Old Testament. Does Universal Infinite Truth change? Which leads to the common dodge, "Human understanding changes." Babies, brains, rocks- not hard concepts. Human understanding hasn't changed that much. And it wasn't a "Stupid humans are going to do it anyway, might as well turn a blind eye..." it was an instruction.

Same with martial arts. Tapping a world class athlete doesn't have any bearing on safely approaching a possibly armed murder suspect. Fighting from the clinch is not the same as drawing a weapon from the clinch or preventing one from being drawn. There are no points for de-escalating the situation in a boxing ring. Facing off and sparring someone is not the same as breaking up a fight between two convicts with seventy more watching.

So I'm eager to meet Fabien and Joe and Toma and Mike and George and Van and Bill and Robert and Tony and Cliff and Mauricio and.... They are all experts (or dedicated students) in what they do. And not one of them, not even once, has gone the kool-aide drinker route and tried to convince me (or themselves) that they know THE TRUTH.

And I'm not eager to spend my precious time with the people who are convinced that if they just show me their special new shiny thing it will somehow revolutionize over twenty five years of training (not counting weapons, military and all that stuff) and over fifteen of experience (only counting jails, not bouncing or barracks brawls or any of that).

Seriously, people- what are the odds that you are going to show me something really knew? I dabbled in muay thai when others were in love with American Kickboxing. I've played with and against Filipino, Indonesian, Chinese, Japanese (of course), and European arts; civilian and military; weapon and unarmed; mystical and pragmatic. The last really new thing I remember was a Yanagi ryu technique for increasing your peripheral vision from about 180 degrees to 270. That's useful.

A couple of hours of playing or rolling or just talking is good (and I've had more better insights over a cup of coffee in one meeting with Joe Graziano than I've had in hours spent with an instructor who was wasting time trying to prove he was a "true Master"- whatever that is). Same thing: I love talking about religion, but not with people who are so locked into their tiny world-view that anything outside their experience is treated as an insult. It's just too much work to protect egos.

No Time for More...

"If Not Me, Then Who?"- Motto of Spetznaz counter-terrorism team Alpha.

"The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking by cowards.”
—Sir William Francis Butler

"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." - Attributed both to George Orwell and to Winston Churchill

Inveniam viam aut faciam - my team's motto: "We will find a way or we will make one."

"This is the true joy in life - being used for a purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one; being thoroughly worn out before you are thrown on the scrap heap; being a force of nature instead of a feverish selfish little clod of ailments and grievances complaining that the world will not devote itself to making you happy." - George Bernard Shaw

Trust is the greatest reward for the fighting man- Niccolo Machiavelli, "On War" (from memory).

"Men don't follow orders, they follow men."- ?

"The right thing to do is rarely the easy thing to do."-?

"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother"- William Shakespeare "Henry V"

"Bones heal, chicks dig scars, pain is temporary." - Evel Knievel

"The unforgivable crime is soft hitting. Do not hit at all if it can be avoided; but never hit softly." Theodore Roosevelt

Some Advice for Life

Last week was spent at the Gracie Academy in Torrance getting certified as a LEO grappling instructor. It was good training. Like all training run by civilians there was good and bad. There were disconnects- many times where their experience fighting the best martial athletes in the world didn't match my experience fighting PCP freaks in slippery cells.

At one point, Rener was demonstrating a technique and one of the students asked about controlling the opponent's free arm. Rener said, "That's irrelevant! It's a detail. He can't do anything with that arm but you can exhaust yourself chasing after irrelevant details. Ignore it."

That's some solid advice- for fighting, for martial arts and for life.

What it is, What it isn't

I tend to think of most training and all competition as 'unitary'. There's one definition of a win. There's one environment it can happen in. You face one type of opponent and he is limited in what he can do.

Unitary training is important. It's hard to concentrate on learning technique if you can't trust your footing. If the students think they are learning about knives and the instructor pulls a gun, the kool-aid drinkers (my word for the semi cultists who believe their instructor or system is IT) will talk about innovation, but in the end he has programmed his students to fail. By making it too complicated in the beginning to succeed, they only learn different ways to give up.

So training individual things and individual skills is important. Training them in a clean environment with limited chaos is important to learning- it is even important to learning about chaos itself. But that's what training is, not what fighting is.

Fighting is it's own thing. Chaos but sometimes with a plan; mistakes but mistakes made by adaptable creatures. Simple actions with sometimes complex and far-reaching results.

When I first started teaching cops, I knew it wasn't unitary. I went one step up for binary: "There are two basic ways a cop has to fight- either fighting for control to get cuffs on someone or fighting for his life. The two are not the same." It was true and clear and helpful and still too, too simple. It explained why people who were good at wrist locks and arm-bar takedowns at the academy were getting pummeled on the street- they were trying to use type 1 fighting in a type 2 situation.

The same thing can happen in each type of fight and mean completely different things. Imagine you are wrestling with a guy to try to put cuffs on him. (Shouldn't have to say this explicitly but by definition if you are wrestling for cuffing it means he is not trying to harm you and you know it). The threat makes space and breaks away. What do you do? Probably tackle him before he runs.

Same situation, but you're fighting for your life, down on the ground, the threat biting and clawing and wrestling for your gun. The threat breaks away. What do you do? You let him run if he runs. Access a force option, get on the radio. If the battle is for your life and the threat leaves, that's a win. Re-engaging when it was in doubt the first time jeapordizes that win.

Nice example of binary, right? But what if he breaks away to grab a beer bottle or a kitchen knife? That could happen in either of these fights. That changes everything. Binary is an improvement, but it is still too simple.

Chaos elements enter the equation. In a unitary environment everything possible has been done to limit them. The martial artists in that environment wants to develope skill in training and test specific skill in competition. In real life, chaos is always there, luck always plays a role and the longer it lasts the more chaos is introduced. Dealing and adapting to the chaos is a skill in itself, one ignored by the koolaid drinkers who already have their answer.

Training Towards

Been away for a week. It was a good week of training, working with some superb athletes and instructors. There will be a lot of fodder for future writing, many things to think about.

Many of the best things happened outside of training. I was free for two evenings to meet with an old friend on one night and some people I only knew from on line on the other. The training itself was weird- it was very, very good but at the same time came from a world completely alien to the one I live in. It was like trying to learn how to run a submarine better from jet pilots. The dinners and talking helped put things in perspective.

One of the big problems in self-defense or combatives training is trying to define what we are training for. Different situations require different mindsets and different tactics. If you look at it too small (what do we do for a punch? A jab? A hook? Left? Right? Uppercut?...) it's overwhelming. There are more scenarios and more possible responses than your brain can hold, much less sift through and act on. If you look at it too big, on too grand a scale (the interaction of dynamic energies in this encounter...) you tend to get your ass kicked because damage is always very particular and specific.

In the end you need something very quick and reasonably universal. You need to learn all the little slices of particulars and then digest and forget them. Maybe you need to forget training, too. At least the idea of training for.

Wrapping our heads around this while eating canoli in Santa Clara, Joe Graziano, a Uechika and retired agent, laid it out: a new way to look at the whole training thing. He didn't think about training to any particular task or for any particular thing. He just trained to be better. To be better day by day, incrementally. Always moving slightly closer to a perfection he will can never achieve. Just better.

Better at what? Let that thought go. A little smarter today, a little more aware tomorrow, a little more insightful or flexible or strong down the road...

Because fighting is very, very complex- but so are you. Your complexity is a match for the problem's complexity. Since you can't know and collect exactly what you'll need, just get better. At everything. Not training to a standard or for a problem, training to be. Training towards perfection, a little at a time.

Thanks, Joe.

The Best Defense III

The best anything is relative. Everything depends on other factors.

The best best defense, of course, is not to be there: avoid likely bad places, avoid bad people, learn to see trouble approaching and step out of the way.

In a real ambush, the initial defense has to be trained to reflex. It must be a conditioned response that is simple and effective for a wide variety of attacks. It must disadvantage the threat and advantage you. It must be paired with realistic and appropriate stimuli. It can not be complex and it won't work in the later stages of a fight and is unlikely to work outside of an ambush- it's hard to plan to use a reflex.

So in this context, I'm talking about the best defense after it's too late for the real best. Follow me?

The point of a defense is to stop him from hurting you. One of my preferences is to make him want to do something else. Palm heel to the face.

He swings a punch, palm heel to the face. He reaches to grab, palm heel to the face. He starts to kick, palm heel to the face. I can show you the mechanics of how a center-line strike spikes most attacks, how by controlling your own elbow you can cut the line even on a centerline strike from the threat... but that's window dressing. The simple fact is that most people will abort their attacks to save their faces from impact. It stops him from hurting you by making him decide not to be hurt himself.

So what does this do? Primary purpose, prevent damage to you. But it also does damage to the threat, can better your position if you follow it up with footwork and, most importantly, it is an action. It steals initiative. With one move you have gone from passenger to driver.

It's a simple example but an easy one. Easy to demonstrate, easy to convince yourself of how well it works, easy to trust.

I prefer 'entries' (irimi), being an infighter and classically trained in jujutsu. These are a combination of movement and structured position that tend to damage and unbalance the threat, bring you to halitosis range and blow through most attacks safely. They give me everything I want, plus putting me in charge and doing so at a range that very few people really know how to fight from.

The thing about both of these attacks is that even more than physical domination (or reversal of domination) they disrupt the attacker's OODA loop. They directly attack his decision making process and freeze his mind.
See: http://chirontraining.blogspot.com/2006/01/ooda-introduction.html
and: http://chirontraining.blogspot.com/2006/01/ooda-insights.html

This continues once you have closed to combat range by constant aggressive action. We used to call this the "flies on shit" or "stink on shit" technique... ( classical jujutsu training, yeah, but I was raised redneck). Constant action with knees, feet, hands, elbows and head, an overwhelming flurry of damage, lots of it aimed at the face. Overwhelming is the key word. I've done this without contact and had the threat freeze because all of that incoming was too much information to assimilate and respond to. That's cool.

And this, at close range or in a clinch, crosses into the realm of core fighting.

Core fighting is the ability to deal with your opponent as a unit. Legs and arms are connected through the shoulder girdle, pelvis and spine. Pressure on an arm or shoulder can prevent or force the movement of a foot. Pressure on the knee, shoulder, hip or spine can abort a punch. The combination of constant aggressive pressure that not only damages but also unbalances and immobilizes is, IMO, the best defense at this stage of conflict

There you have it. The thoughts of an aggressive infighter on defense.

Limits

The Beslan lecture hit hard. Not in an emotional "saw too much icky stuff" way. Icky stuff isn't that new.

People are vulnerable. The very things that make our lives open, free and fun; the very same things that make it safe to be a sheep and graze contentedly without ever once raising your head and looking at the dark forest or the gathering storm clouds leaves us vulnerable. I've always known this. Always accepted it. I've understood the vulnerabilities and I've mapped them. Never planning to become a bad guy but the nature of me- whether it's personality or job- is to explore the problem from both sides.

Sitting in my comfortable sheep-permeated world I've always been aware that other people think that way, somewhere, but I never saw them or their actions. Now I know. Other people are thinking this way. More than that, they are planning this. They are planning not only to take and kill children but to use all of those vulnerabilities as well as the training the protectors get to increase the body count. They plan on using MY training to make sure they kill MY kids.

So the training was big and hit hard. Everything needs to be re-evaluated. I have to deny them predictability (while simultaneously surviving in a bureaucracy).

I talk about big things with Kami. She is the one constant. Not with this, though. She hit her limit with this. Normally the parts that bother her are the details. A particular child, a particular pain or death. The parts that bother me are the implications- what to do if a written policy is a critical piece of the threat's plans? When operators have this information and administrators don't, how do you keep them out of the decision process?- stuff like that.

So I can usually talk about the stuff that bothers me without burdening her with the stuff that bothers her. Not this time, and it felt strange. I don't think I realized that so much of my mental strength and resiliency, the stuff that lets me do things again and again and again when my soul is screaming, "It's somebody else's fuckin' turn!" is something that comes from her. Maybe I did. Losing it right now felt like slipping on an icy rock above a frigid river.

This time, I think the implications got to her, too. Have you ever sat down with your children and discussed what to do if armed gunmen storm their school assembly? The people they will be looking to in that situation- school teachers and counselors- aren't really prepared for it. It's almost worse if they think they are. Talking to teenagers about how hostage takers will try to cow them into submission (shooting any authority figures or people who show leadership, including trying to soothe and calm down the children; demonstration rapes and crippling tortures) and percentage chance responses where some will die but some might live and that's better than staying with the threat's plan...

It's all good now. A couple of days for both of us to let it settle. I have to respect her limits and not take her compassion as infinite or take it for granted. Lesson learned.

The Wrong Audience

I'll get back to the series on defense, but it's core-dump time.
Friday I attended the "Terror at Beslan" seminar presented by John Giduck of Archangel
http://antiterrorconsultants.org/

It was intense and rough and brutal. It was a lot of good information about bad things. Activities of known al-Qaeda cells in America. al-Qaeda training and doctrine. One officer passed out while watching Chechneyan videos and I had to wonder: if he faints watching a movie is there any chance at all that he will be able to keep it together when he can smell the blood and hear the gurgling and it's the face of a child he might know?

I have to re-write one of my chapters on hostage survival now. Everything in the original is still true, provided the hostage taker is a basic criminal. When the bad guys have no advantage in keeping the hostages alive and have trained and studied how police and military units respond, everything changes.

So much big stuff- the chance of saving all or even most of the hostages are nil. Everything I've been taught about hostage rescue will be used against me. Bureaucratic indecisiveness and turf wars will cause bodies. The al-Qaeda analysis of the United States- what we expect, what we will do, how we will respond is terrifyingly accurate (I write as Congress moves to do exactly what the enemy predicted five or more years ago).

Small stuff, too, personal stuff. A little girl crawling back into a burning building because the gunfire outside is loud and scary. A man shot who does nothing but look at his executioner with a dazed look and try to carry on a polite conversation until he is shot againg and his throat is cut and his head taken off, slowly.

There was more. I listened for seven hours and could write for ten.

But the big thing, the terrifying thing, was that this was the wrong audience. Almost everyone in the room was a cop or a soldier. We know there are evil people in the world. Few that we deal with are trained or particularly smart, but we know them. We learned a lot in this class, but the core message was not new to us: There are people in the world who will hurt and kill your children. Somebody has to protect them. If not us, then who?

The amazing thing was the people who were not in the class. Where were the school boards and principals and school administrators? Even on the soldier/cop side, where were the administrators and policy makers? (Derrick showed up, at least). The people who need to see this weren't there. The politicians in Washington and the Hollywood advocates need to learn that the world is not all composed of their country-club friends who believe that contracts are binding and there's always a win-win somewhere and people will like you if you are nice enough and pretty enough.

They need to learn that there are people in the world who would slowly cut off their head with a bowie knife and then give it to their children to play soccer with. That is the mindset we are facing.

If not you, then who?

The Best Defense Part II: Foundation

Let's lay some ground rules so that we're on the same page. In any given fight, one side is driving and the other is along for the ride. One is acting, doing what he or she or they wants, and the other is reacting.

First objection: "But I'm trying to survive! That's doing what I want!" No, it isn't. Survival is an outcome that you hope for, it's not an action.

In order to prevail, you must act. It doesn't always mean take the initiative and bring the battle to the enemy. Sometimes it means take the initiative and run. Sometimes it means scream or hide. But if you are getting out in one piece it will because you took action. You started to drive.

So this is about defensive driving- active defensive actions that do not require you to see and understand what the bad guy is doing. Aggressive defense, in Joe Lewis' immortal words.

In order to understand defense, you must understand offense. I'm going to simplify it a bit and talk about damage, though a skilled fighter can also use unbalancing and freezing techniques.

In order to hurt you, the bad guy (BG) must put three things together- Power, Timing and Targeting.

POWER: If someone barely reaches you or tries to hit while they are falling backwards or just uses shitty body mechanics they can hit you in the throat or the balls or the eyes and you'll be okay...probably. There are many systems of power generation. Most require speed and speed takes distance to develop. Not much distance, with training. Most require solid contact with the ground- the key to a good punch is leg strength, not arm strength. Some use rotational power and snap- the power of the opposite hip snapping back to drive the fist. A few use gravity in a controlled fall. A very few use short range whipping action and bone bounce for shocking short range power. The most common power generator overlooked by martial artists is tool use. The knife is the exception to many defenses- you can kill or cripple while falling or with bad body mechanics.

TIMING: Of all the skills in martial arts, this is the one, in my opinion, that gets most over-complicated. Timing is simple in real life. You hit someone when you can get away with it or when you need to stop them from doing whatever they are doing.

TARGETING: Some places injure easier than other places. Would you rather take a stomp kick to the thigh or a snap kick to the base of the patella? A power punch to your upper chest or a light jab to your throat? This changes too, though- with enough power the whole body is a good target. Some things that are poor targets with a fist aren't too bad with a blade.

Those are the pieces of any attack. Here are the requirements for any movement.

Every action you make in a fight should do three things:
1) Decrease his ability to harm you.
2) Better your position.
3) Not get you hurt.

1) Decrease his ability to harm you: If you knock him out, you're golden. If you knock him flat, take away his wind or destroy his balance you've accomplished this aspect of the mission. If you sprint out of his range, you have decreased his ability to harm you.

2) Better your position. In fighting this means getting into a place where he can uses fewer of his weapons and/or you can use more of yours. One of my primary skills is the ability to get behind a BG in the middle of a fight. It's not hard, it's just that so few people train it because they aren't allowed to do it in competition. BTW- Running fits here too. It doesn't increase your weapons but it does decrease his.

3) Not get you hurt. If you do hit the guy on the jaw, step behind him for absolute control...and look down to see a knife sticking out of your stomach, you probably aren't going to have your best day ever. Offensive fighting and offensive mindset are important, but they are only one aspect of driving. You have to protect yourself and you have to do it actively.

The Best Defense Part I: The Weak Ones

The best defense, of course, is not to be there. Don't be in places where bad things happen or bad, stupid, angry or drunk people congregate. Next best is to alter the relationship between you and the threat... I've written about this elsewhere.

For now, I want to talk about physical defense: about not getting hurt when the fight is on.

Most martial artists learn blocks (and passes and parries, etc.) and evasions (ducking, slipping, weaving, bobbing, cutting the line...). For the most part, these are ineffective. Not because the actions are inefficient or the movements don't have a valid application, they are ineffective because of timing, because they are reactive.

Remember the OODA loop? In order to respond to an event, you have to perceive the event (Observe, the first O) figure out what it means (Orient, the second O) decide (D) what to do about it and then Act(A). If the event you are responding to is a punch, the threat is on Act when you start on Observe. You start three steps behind.

If your strategy involves responding to the opponents actions, you are always behind the curve. You are reactive.

Note- in sparring, like in chess, you can see a few moves ahead. You can tell from foot, body, hand and head position what an opponent is likely to do. This gives the appearance in a good practitioner that the block is faster than the strike.

In an unfamiliar situation, the Orient step is thrown off severely. The attack probably won't be what you are used to and the precursor clues (the telegraphs) also will be very different. If you plan to block the incoming attacks you need to wait to see what they are. You are waiting, he is acting. You are in trouble.

This isn't just in personal combat. Remember 9-11? Planes smash into buildings... how do you defend against that? You don't, because it has already happened. At the point that we saw it (O) and figured out what was going on (O), it was over. Intelligence services than went into a spate of Monday-morning quarterbacking, and that's good. They were looking for the clues, the telegraphs that could have warned us earlier. Now they watch for them.

At it's best, reactive defense is iffy. It requires thinking. Thinking takes time.

Next up are static defenses. These are defenses built in to your stance and hand positioning. Look at your 'fighting stance' in a mirror and pay special attention to the holes. Where would you hit you if you stood like that?

(Note: the quotes around 'fighting stance'- when I think things are about to get shitty I stand in what I call a modified Columbo. Feet more or less in sanchin stance, right hand scratching my right eyebrow, right elbow resting on my left hand, left hand up against my right floating ribs over the liver and middle of the forearm covering the solar plexus. It's conversational, non-confrontational, great for asking slightly slow-witted questions and I can explode out of it for three simultaneous attacks and move into the threat's dead zone.)

Static defenses are as simple as remembering to keep your hands up and keep your elbows in. The hard part (go back to the mirror again) is maintaining them while you are moving. Especially when you are attacking. The static defenses are shells, but the shell is composed of your weapons. Whenever you apply a weapon you open one or more holes in the shell.

Better are zone defenses. If you play or watch basketball, the two basic defenses are the man-to-man and the zone. In the man to man, each player of team A is responsible to cover one member from team B and prevent him from scoring. For man-to-man to work, team A must have better players than team B... and team B can still defeat it with superior team work. Reactive defenses are like man-to-man. If you are better, faster, know what is going on AND the threat isn't tricky you have a good chance of making it work.

Zone defense, on the other hand, is a kind of moving static defense. Each time you attack it opens a hole, but each attack opens a predictable hole. If you know where you are likely to get attacked, you can move move some defense there. Throw a high side kick and the lead hand elbow goes down almost to the hip bone, chin is protected by shoulder, lead hand covers to just under the eyes and the rear hand drops under the kicking thigh to protect the groin. Zone defenses, by pairing a defensive action with your attack, allow decent protection without the slow down of the OOD part of the OODA loop. You're only Observing and Orienting to your own actions, which you already knew and the Decide step was done in training when you paired your left jab with ducking your chin, raising your left shoulder and covering your right ear with your right hand.

The good stuff next post.

Differences

This guy is, without doubt, one of the best in the world. Highly trained. Vastly experienced. Well known and well respected. Also flippant, irreverent and sarcastic. These are a few of my favorite things. He started training about the time I was born. Deep down, I think that he thinks that I'm an arrogant puppy. That's okay, too.

In his living room, talking about fighting and writing and people we know, he brings up a "revolutionary, new" thing: he describes it. It was basic to my early training. It's, in a way, what jujutsu is. Old style jujutsu, anyway. I say words to that effect and his eyes narrow a bit.

We're both products of our training. Not just in what we do or the way we handle problems (and this man has handled a lot of high-end problems) but also in the way that we see things. He learned distance and timing in the ring and reinforced it with the careful attention that road officers pay to proper proximics. My distance and timing comes from a closer range based on an ambush paradigm... and it has been reinforced in a crowded jail. It works for me, very well, just as his has worked for him. But it's different, not just in movement but in thinking.

To illustrate a point he shows a combination- cover, startle blow, damage blow. Cover, not a block, because he knows damn well how rare it is to make a block work in a fight.

NB- This does not mean you give up defense. The best analogy I can make is that your brain is too slow to play man-to-man defense and you must learn to play zone.

Continue: Watching him, his body mechanics are superb. The cover is rock solid, the 'startle blow' is perfectly aligned, bone-to-bone conduction from his knuckles to his rear heel. It could do far more than startle. The action of the first blow ballistically loads the torso muscles for a crushing follow up. In three short moves you can see how good he is.

But it's nothing like the way I would move. Something similar to the same cover, but drop-stepping in to close on the threat. Same hand used for the first blow but because of the distance more circular than linear, designed more to spin the spine than to impact and to lead my feet in to raise my center of gravity so that the power blow would crash...

Differences from early training- he was taught to see conflict as a matter of strategy and timing. I was taught to see it as strategy and controlling the center. His hands were his tools and he learned all the ways you can create speed by messing with the threat's mind. My own body weight was my primary tool and it was drilled into me how to use it as a force and speed multiplier.

We're both experienced enough to see and appreciate the differences and use them sometimes, too, but the differences are deep.

And that's very cool. Because there are very many ways to be good and it's an honor to hang out with someone who is that extraordinary in such a different way.

Sticks and Stones

You used to hear that a lot. Our parents would tell us, "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words cannever hurt me." That's changed. Now you hear: "Words can cut through you like a knife. Words can hold such venom or poison that they can damage, destroy or kill more effectively than a physical weapon."

I can't help but think that this person has never been cut by a knife, or seen anyone destroyed by a physical weapon. Maybe there's a scale, or maybe more: people assume that the worst they've ever been hurt is at the very edge of what humans can feel. So if the worse pain you've ever felt is an unkind word, you think it must be worse that the third or fourth or fifth worse pain I've ever felt which was probably lying on my back after a good fall unable to breathe trying pathetically to scream or at least squeek for help. Or maybe running on a broken leg. Or frostbite (no, recovering from frostbite was the worst or second worst).

Maybe it's just me, but lying on a couch for a few days trying to wrap my mind around the fact that I might be blind in one eye was way worse than being embarassed or insulted or demeaned.

Part of me wants to go into the damage to the body versus damage to the ego talk. (I mean ego as sense of self, not the modern sense of hubris) Your self-image being restructured can be damaging, even crippling. It is a mostly imaginary thing but it is also our life's work.

What I really want to write about, though, is our complicity in damage, how we learn to be hurt. Neither of my kids are cry-babies. If you have young childen, you watched them fall a few times in very early childhood. It was a shock to them, a big new sensation. If you were paying attention, you saw them look at YOU trying to pick up on what the new sensation meant. If you ran over in a huge concern, "Oh poor baby! Are you okay?" the baby learned falling was bad and started to cry. If you looked over and in a neutral voice said, "You okay?" The baby probably just crawled on. (I usually said, "So, you feel stupid now?" which probably warped the kids badly.)

I taught my daughter early that if she had a minor injury, she only had to put pressure on it and breathe out and the pain would lesson. It still works for her.

Psychological... but physical, too. In martial arts one of the things that has always amazed me is the huge difference in ideas of pain and damage between different people. When you start in judo, you take a lot of falls. You go home and your hand is swollen and tender from slapping the mat and your body feels like one huge bruise. But if you stick with it, you eventually do the same number of falls (and harder, because they quit taking it easy on you) without the swelling or the pain. I've taken hard falls on hard surfaces (a 12 foot face plant off a cliff, a bicycle flip at over thirty mph, thrown on concrete with a 260 pound man on top) without a scratch- (okay, forearm bruises in the cliff fall, but I was out of practice). Judo taught me to deal with impact.

Football in highschool, too. (And a little rugby in college). You get hit hard and you learn to hit hard with your whole body and get up and do it again, all the while following a plan. It made the crashing of judo an easy transition.

If you watch a karate or kung fu class that doesn't regularly do hard contact, people freeze when they accidentally make face contact. The first real hit in the face can come as a completely mind numbing shock. Contrast that with someone who hisses, "Sweet!" when he gets hit in the face because he knows the rest of the brawl will be fun.

So a face punch can be freezing or fun and it seems to be a matter of experience and attitude. A decision? How much does this affect the damage incured? What are the variables in a strike? Is it simply a matter of power and placement? Why is it if you hit ten people in the exact same place with the exact same strike some will faint and some will curl up in a ball and some will get angry and one will look at you like you're an idiot?

How much power do we have in accepting or refusing damage? And how much more so when the damage isn't even physical?

The Rope

As a rappel master, I'm very careful. Before each day of climbing or caving, I feel each foot of rope, examine each piece of hardware and webbing. I check each knot and attachment point and so does every last person who is going to use it.

"But I don't know what I'm looking at," the rookie complains, "I trust you, you check."

But that violates the First Rule: NEVER DELEGATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY. You think no rookie has ever noticed something that looked weird because the expert got complacent and screwed up? Look for your self.

We check the harnesses. If I'm strong enough I will lift each of the rookies by the attachment point.

Then I'll hook them up and practice a dry run, leaning away from the chasm (or bridge or cliff) and let them play out rope and tighten it up as they slowly lower themselves until they fall on their butts in the dirt. "Ready to try it for real?"

They back up to the cliff, knuckles white (almost always on the wrong part of the rope and I have to pry their non-breaking hand off the attached side of the rope.) "Step off," I say. Their eyes are locked on mine, showing white almost all the way around. Stepping backwards off a cliff is very hard for most people.

"I..I...I don't know," the rookie stammers.

"Do you trust me?"
"Yes."
"Do you trust the rope?"
"Yes."
"Then go."

The rookie takes a breath, steps backward... and is almost always laughing or hooting near the bottom, face split in a wide grin, eyes bright and skin flushed the way it only gets when you conquer a really primal fear.

I don't know how many times I've used that speech or variations of it to talk people through tyrollean traverses in caves, or to jump off a bridge. It's the same in other places.

Do you trust the teacher? Do you trust the skills?
Do you trust the leader? Do you trust the equipment?

There's part of jumping off a cliff that is all you. You have to do the jumping part. But sometimes it is things outside of you that make it safe. You have to check those things yourself- never delegate responsibility for your own safety- but in order to jump with a whole heart, you have to trust the rope.

It's a metaphor. Take it as far as you want. Don't trust stupidly, but trust is just as much an action as jumping.

After crossing (free climb!) the forty-foot pit in Dynamited cave and setting up the tyrollean, the conversation happened word for you: Do you trust me? Do you trust the rope? Then go...

Kyle caught up with me later, "I used that rope thing. It made a good sermon." God as a rope.

I've seen worse analogies.

Not A Real Cop

People can get used to anything. What's even more amazing is that people who have acclimatized to one extreme are often amazed by other people who have acclimatized to something slightly different.

When you go into a high-risk job at first it is very complex and very dangerous. As you learn the environment, the players and the dynamics you start to understand the clues. You know what's going on and it becomes far less dangerous. You develop some skill in handling the worst cases and it becomes even less dangerous. Sooner or later, if you have the aptitude and the will and work at it and your luck holds through the rookie stage, it's just a job.

Tony U said that he didn't consider himself a real cop, not like... he said a bunch of names. They included a patrol captain and two jail guards (one of whom was me).

It knocked me back on my heels. SWAT operative, undercover officer, leading a homicide task force... how much more of a real cop can you be? But it's his day job. It's what he does. It's his baseline of experience. He called himself a 'glorified investigator'. He's too good at it (not in the sense of spectacular and flashy but in the sense of getting it done with quiet competency) to see it as special.

He thinks what the rest of us do is special, but you know what? I'm just a glorified baby sitter. Sure, some of 'em are upwards of three hundred pounds and lots of them have mental issues and they're almost all criminals but it's just babysitting. Communicate clearly, set your boundaries, use reward and punishment and be professional. It's nothing. It's what I do. It's my baseline.

Think about it- there's something that you do with quiet ease that other people hold in awe. that's pretty cool.

First Feedback

Asher e-mailed me a critique and suggestion for the first MU class. It looks good, both managable in the available time and pertinent. It also leads better into the concept of complexity.

The class would center around the Big Three. The first part would be about awareness, first at the martial art level- by starting with one count and then blindfolded infighting, then expanding it through environment and then into social dynamics- "What haven't you learned to see?"

Then initiative- explosive movement but also disrupting the OODA loop. Go buttons and ruthlessness. Working out your moral issues with battle in advance.

Then permission. Touch my face. Put your thumb against my eye. Press. Who can do it, who can't? Your brain may know it's okay to maim a rapist, but does your body? Does your soul? Where are your glitches? How do you find them? Does any of this martial stuff really matter if you hesitate to use it?

It would be a good first class. Maybe more active and I could shift the toolbox class to third, in place of complexity (which many people will not be ready for).


Here's a thing on a side note: In one of the endless debates about training methods, an acquaintance advocated nothing but sparring. I pointed out all the ways real violence could happen that didn't resemble sparring in the slightest. He shrugged and said, "It's impossible to train for everything."

There is a deep immaturity to that thought. Can you train for everything? No. Yes. At the beginner stage or in some schools they practice by the numbers- he does this, you do that. Training at this stage is all about remembering thises and thats. But you get over it, if you or your instructor are any good. It's no longer scripted, no longer memorized and you can easily wing an answer to an attack you've never seen before.

"It's impossible to train for everything" stretches this attitude not just over techniques, but over training methods and strategies. It takes something that is only really designed for giving absolute white belts a handle on something new deciding that it describes the world.

When a new student starts with "What if?" questions, many instructors say, "Don't worry about that now. Practice what you are doing." "It's impossible to train for everything" takes this dodge and applies it as a strategy. Weird.

Announcement

Got some travelling coming up. My agency is sending me to attend some classes- the Gracie cop grappling school in Torrance, CA March 19-23 and an AELE conference in San Fransisco April 23-25. Any locals want to meet in person?

Tool Boxes

Giving some serious thought to Martial University 2007 in Seattle. What I have in mind will be very, very conceptual. If it hits the right students at the right stage in their development, it will be fantastic information. If I can't pry their minds open, they won't learn anything. That's the point, really. I don't want to teach anything specific, I want to teach how to think, how to organize information, how to strategically envision your training.

Here's the format for the first class. If you plan on making MU, consider it a preview. If you think that there is no chance of pulling it off, let me know that, too. This is stuff that is important to me at my stage both as a practitioner and a teacher, it may not be what other practitioners need or want.

Toolboxes. Fighting at any level can be described, trained and envisioned in many different ways. Here are three different ways to look at infighting skills.

1) Technique. There are only a few general classes of technique: strikes, locks, gouges/pressure points, takedowns, strangles, wrestling/grappling/clinch, entries ...and biting (for KJ). That's it. In training, you work them all and pay particular attention to the areas you are weak on. Especially practice 'live'- sparring or randori- so that you recognize the technique as well as opportunities to apply the techniques. In a fight, you need to recognize when and how to apply one or more of these and do so, ruthlessly. (As well as stack, be able to apply multiple types simultaneously).

The technique toolbox is a good way to train and great for concrete thinkers. It's also the slowest and least effective in a real fight. There are too many specific options to think about.

2) Effects. You can look at the same situations through this lens. With this toolbox, instead of focusing on what actions you can accomplish, you look at the effects you can produce in the threat. In any given situation you can move a threat (unbalance, takedown, throw, wrestle, misdirect, etc.); you can cause pain; you can damage; or you can shut down the system- shock. In application you do which ever one of these (or combination- remember stacking) that is either easiest or best serves your purpose.

You have to be comfortable with a range of techniques to think at this level, but once you can it is much, much faster than thinking at the technique level. It also tends to broaden awareness because it assumes that the threat is your cat toy and you are the actor in the situation, not the victim or the respondant.

3) Critical skills. In some ways, this is an intermediary step between the last two, but it includes some pretty sophisticated concepts. The critical skills for infighting are: damage, unbalance, freeze and clear. Damage is the same as in the effects toolbox and you think of it pretty much the same way- internalize targeting and power generation and move decisively on any opportunity. Unbalance and freezing are two opposite ways to control the threat's body. It introduces "core fighting", using his anatomy to affect his ability to act 'by remote' such as pressure on his shoulder to prevent his foot from lifting. The fourth critical skill, clearing, is based on using or creating negative space in combat. What this means is that instead of fighting his strength, dealing with the threat's arms and legs, you fight against and move into the spaces where he is not- the space between his arms, off his flanks or under his chin, for instance.

In many ways I think this is an attempt to back-engineer what I am doing now. The technique level is important for learning and training and it was definitely my mindset for my first several fights. Effects is a place I go when I need to get stuff done. At the critical skill mindset the threat is just a toy, an incidental.

There's so much more here. Without the Big Three (Awareness, Initiative, Permission) none of this will mean a damn thing. Without integrating environment, you aren't ready for reality. And these are still focused almost entirely on playing with the body, not the mind.

And none of these are reactive- there's no blocking. I just noticed that. No where in my mind is there any though of preventing the threat from doing something to me, that is all an assumed effect of doing something to the threat. Even thinking about reacting cedes initiative.

Still... what do you think? A good first class for this audience?

Perfect Predator Moment

One last story from the training. This is the other side of my character flaw.

We're in position, one changing a tire, unarmed. One hidden in the trunk of his car, ready to pop the latch. He's very much armed. One guy on long cover, watching from inside a bulding. His firing will be the signal (but he's a rookie and has fired prematurely in every scenario so far). I'm waiting behind a door. This time we aren't going to hit the witness on the way in, but on the way out.

I watch from the shadows through a crack in a window. They drive in, wary of the guy changing his tire. They set up a perimeter, move the witness in and fallback to a tight inner perimeter on the 'clinic'. In a few minutes they come out. Someone sees the rookie and the officers respond professsionally, firing back, moving to cover, preparing to roll their vehicles out of the death zone, pulling the witness back to the hard cover of the clinic. The ambush is blown.

I step out. One officer is responsible for my sector- he's in the rear seat of the car with a rifle. He's looking right at me but I fire three shots to his face before he is consciously aware that I am there. The team leader is scrambling to get into the car, the passenger seat on my side. Three more shots ,two to the back of the head and one to the neck, then I fire two over his shoulder into his driver's head and turn towards the clinic. Someone is firing his weapon out the door at my long shooter across the street. I put two sim rounds on his hand and he falls back, cursing. I feel my slide lock back and change magazines without looking. I hear the officers inside. One takes command, "We need to get to the truck!" They file out, witness in a protective sandwich between them. Weapons at the ready, eyes darting. They walk out the door directly in front of me like I am invisible on their left flank. Three shots on each blamblamblam, blamblamblam, blamblamblam. Pastel colors explode all shots in tight groups at the edge of the arm holes in their body armor.

I'm untouched. It was only sims, only a game, but the cold precision of it is settled in my belly. Nineteen rounds, nineteen hits. There's a round in the chamber left and an empty mag in the weapon. I can feel it. The world is huge and fills my senses and at the same time it is exactly the size of the very tip of my front sight.

Inside My Skin

A bad moment in the break from training. Took a quick drive off base to buy the things I had forgotten to pack. For almost an hour, I was completely inside my skin. It wasn't good.

Does that sound good, like I was truly in touch with my inner self? But my inner self was tired and sore and dehydrated and still sick: it colored everything. Without a connection to the world, without empathy, everything became about me. Everything negative became personal. Compassion was gone. An elderly lady, having trouble telling the difference between a five and a twenty dollar bill is in line in front of me and it is slow, excruciatingly slow. I feel anger building, for no reason. My normal default, my ability to slip into other people's head is gone. I'm a yuppie for an hour, self absorbed and annoyed... and there's a dark under current of really vicious thoughts as well.

No one knows. When I get like this I'm very careful to pay attention to the social details- I smile and make sure it shows in the eyes, my body language is elaborately relaxed... the bad side effect is that it seems to encourage strangers to strike up conversations.

The gas station attendant tells me in exquisite detail about his old car. The guard at the base reminisces about his training experiences... they were nice people. Didn't matter. I couldn't see it.

The concept of "inner child therapy" always bothered me. Children are very selfish. They need to learn about their connection with the world and the value of other people. These aren't innate. Kindness isn't innate. Compassion and empathy and sympathy are skills and they are learned.

For about an hour, for what ever reason and only at a superficial level, I lost the connection. It wasn't a good thing.

Character Flaw

Good training, especially good scenario training, can uncover holes in your skill sets and a myriad of bad habits. Sometimes what you learn is so heavy that it can only be described as a character flaw- sometimes it's not what you know or what you did, it is who you are.

Second day of the training and we are practicing witness transport and protection. Drive, stay alert, arrive at drop, bail and set up a hasty perimeter, scan for safety or clear as necessary and touch base with the receiving unit, then remove the protectee from the vehicle and escort inside.

First scenario and we took fire. I hear the 'pop, pop, pop' of sim fire from across the street. I turn and engage, closing. I fire three shots from 25 yards to 20 and the threat turns and runs (odd, we are taught and practice even in a scenario to saty in the fight no matter what). Doesn't matter- another threat to my left and I sprint, tactical reload, sprint to the dead space behind the building that threat is using for cover. He's still firing at my team, tunnel visioned and I pop around the wall at his knee level and fire three rounds into his belly just below the vest, all angled upward. It urn and scan 360, looking for a third threat and my team is screaming, waving me over. While I've gone off on this little murdering hunt they've kept one vehicle in the kill zone waiting to extract me. I sprint, dive in the window and we tear off.

That's it, my character flaw. One of 'em, anyway. When attacked, I counter-attack. Normally, that's a good response. Not here. The mission, the team, my responsibilty as a team leader- all those things disappear and the thing that comes out is what it is- implacable and predatory- just not part of the team.

The goal, now, is to consciously take control. To remember the mission even when this deep button is pushed. To trust my men on the perimeter to do the killing if killing needs to be done. To force myself to look at the big picture. That's going to be hard.

BTW- the guy ran because I shot him right on the tip of the nose. Those suckers can hurt.

Since this is on the edge of true confession time- also at this training I did the most egregious friendly fire kill ever. We were ambushed again and everyone fell back in good order to the hardened (solid cover- a concrete building) drop. The instructor (sneaky bastard, JJ, but I'll never again back into an unknown or take a safe zone on faith) had put one more threat inside the safe house. We backed into a deadlier ambush. One of my team peeled, trying to find a way down a corridor to flank the room the threat was firing from. The rookie pit his weapon and light on the door. I buttonhooked through into the connecting room. The threat was silent, suckering us into crossing the threshhold into another kill zone. I signaled the rookie to kill his light and saw the shadow of the threat on the floor. I dove, sliding on my side and fired four shots into the threats groin and lower stomach at an upward angle (may be seeing a pattern here). It wasn't the threat. The threat had run to the basement. It was the officer who had run down the corridor to flank. Not only had I shot my own man, but I stalked him and assasinated him.

Lots of things would or could have changed this- threats and officers wearing the same armor, officer watching the door instead of the stairs... but those are incidentals. This is the purpose of training at this level- to find holes, to get better. This was great training.

Zen and Deja Vu

"Ready! Fire!"
The weapon comes up, sight picture, sight alignment, front sight front sight front sight, preeeessss the trigger BLAM trigger reset and preeeesssss BLAM. Scan left and right, eyes and weapon together for any possible threat and snapping back to low ready.
"Ready! Fire!" The cycle repeats. Hundreds of repetitions dry fire then hundreds of rounds then hundreds more from the draw....
"Fire!" Left hand snaps to chest as right drops to the holster, breaking retention snaps and then pulling the weapon to the high ready position at my right armpit, cantered slightly out so that if I have to fire from there the slide won't snag on equipment or clothing. The left hand slides around, securing a 360 degree grip and I thrust the weapone forward in front of my eyes -sight alignement sight picture front sight- and preesss BLAM! recover trigger reset and pressss BLAM! scan left and right, snap the weapon to retension and pause for a second and holster.

Then the same, moving foward and back, the universe in one way limited to a two-inch square on a humanoid target, in another way encompassing all that surrounds the range as each scan is a reminder that one shot, one battle, one life happens in the context of the world- to focus entirely on one threat is to miss the enemy on the flank, to focus on one obsession is to miss all of life.

"Ready! Fire!"

Grip. Stance. Aggressive forward lean. Ams locked. Sight alignment. Sight picture. Breathing. Trigger press. It is complex, many things to think about, too much for the conscious mind to handle without letting one facet slip. I decide to throw my mind away. You've done this through enough reps, I tell myself, you no longer need to watch it. I give my body permission to make the shots before I consciously okay it... my groups tighten up. The speed of point shooting with the accuracy of aimed fire.

Caveat and note bene: The ability to let your body do what you have trained without conscious interference is a primary goal of martial arts, self defense, CQB, the whole shebang. It is very easy to delude yourself that you have achieved some kind of mastery when you let yourself loose like that. Letting yourself loose isn't mastery (though a lot of worthless instructors have convinced themselves and their students otherwise). Here's the deal- if it is the real thing, you will get better when you let yourself loose. You need to consciously and critically evaluate the effect. If you aren't better, go back to reps. You aren't ready yet.

It was good, and for a few hours in the pouring rain it was a deep meditation, touching the core, letting things happen, mind open but focused, awareness locked on a two inch square while simultaneously open to the sphere.

Later that night, the LT had to leave. Complications with his wife's pregnancy. I offered to drive him, hinted that it would be a very long drive with some very dark thoughts...

Fifteen years or more ago at this very same military base, while I was in the National Guard, I arrived for an NBC (Nuclear-Biological-Chemical) Defense Instructor course and got a message that my wife, shortly after after the birth of our first born was hemorrhaging badly. I was instructed to leave immediately. It was a two hour drive alone in the dark wondering what my life would be like without Kami. Even then, when the darkness was much farther away, she was still safe harbor, still a bastion of sense and beauty in the world. What would I do facing life without her and with a son only days old... dark thoughts, scary thoughts for a long, lonely drive.

I knew the lieutenant would be facing similar thoughts and he shouldn't have to face them alone. He chose to, and he used the time to compose himself to better comfort his wife.

The first part of the first day of training....

"It's Alive..."

The present is a product of the past. Sometimes it seems that we don't appreciate our own role in creating the life we live or how we have treated people in the past affects how other people expect to be treated... everything we do leaves so many tracks and repercussions. So many of those are predictable.

A very wise man sat across the table from me. He asked not to be named, so I won't. the subject was a stupid thing that some one may or may not have done that may or may not utterly destroy his or her career and reputation. During one of the breaks this wise man and I were talking about other things. I mentioned how stupid it was for a government organization to impose a five year hiring freeze and six years down the road go into a media frenzy about excessive overtime. The wise officer looked at me and said, "They never learn. You gotta live with the monsters you create."

Yeah. You gotta live with the monsters you create.

Training may be cut this year, because they delayed last year's training to this fiscal year to save (or, rather, postpone spending) money.

Years ago there was a bad officer who finally did something so egregious that he had to be fired and prosecuted... but that was preceeded by years of smaller things, never directly addressed by his supervisors.

Politics, violence and money. Even life and love. We create our own monsters and then we have to live with them.

Light and Dark

Over the weekend a lot of time was spent revisiting darkness with an old friend. It was a time for old wounds and talking about gulfs with someone who would listen and not judge, who would understand what they could understand and not pretend to understand the rest. It's frustrating that so many good people can not see their own beauty and grace.

She said that she wanted to be a creature of the light... and she already is. Look at the lives she touches, the way people that know her feel, all around her is the light that she spreads. Like many things, it's hard to see what you are, it's slightly easier to see what you do. And it's very hard to see and understand effects around you that come from your being more than your actions, but they are real.

Light and dark, and anti-light and anti-dark.

There are good people and bad people. There are some truly evil bastards in the world, people who destroy for the feeling of power, people who kill the spirits of children. And there are just scum, people who make you ashamed of humanity just to be around them. They increase the darkness in the world.

And there are people who aren't truly dark themselves, more of an "anti-light". Passive aggressive jerks who never actively do anything bad but try to increase the friction for those who try to do what is right. Office gossip sabotage. Brainless protests. This is far more common than true evil and its effects can be just as large- the difference between damaging a child and merely not loving one can be negligible.

I'm not a creature of the light- I realized that this weekend. I've been in the presence of the light (the big 'L' LIGHT, the feeling of pure joy as you combine with the universe into a single thing) and in a way I worship it- nobility and kindness and love and caring and beauty... and something far beyond those words. But it's not my role. There's an "anti-dark", too, who deals with the true dark in dark territory and there is very little kind and loving and beautiful about that (though there have been loving moments of violence and even nobility here and there). Someone has to do this to leave the people of light free to be what they are.

Damn, this sounds self-righteous. I'll get over it.

Digging and Pushing

I wish there was a rule that would make this easier. A very wise man, Jake Rens, once told an inmate (who was talking a very small issue into a very big one), "Son, when a smart man figures out he's in a hole, he stops digging." Good advice. It's something we hammer in DTs and Officer Survival and Use of Force: If what you are doing isn't working, do something else.

This goes for life and relationships and careers and everything- if what you are doing is not working, DO SOMETHING ELSE.

But.... but... but.... Don't give up. Never, ever, ever give up.

Both these things are true. Both these things are contradictory.

When you are making things worse, you need to stop. But sometimes things get worse just before it's over- sometimes a threat who is exhausted and ready to give up gives it one more burst of speed and power before meekly letting himself be cuffed.

And yet the person who reliably gets hurt is the rookie who got really good at ONE wrist lock at the Academy and tunnel visions on the one technique when he is getting himself slammed. He needs to do something else...

"That's my story and I'm stickin' to it..." people have successfully brazened out things by sticking to a story (no matter how improbable) and other people, who could have have saved friendships and careers by simply admitting... burned all their bridges.

Maybe that's a piece of it. Always stick with the truth... except what is the 'truth' is often opinion. New facts are allowed to influence opinion, but 'truth' is above influence. Many people call things truth far too early.

So, when do you push on in the face of adversity and loss and when do you change your tactics? When is change really just quitting?

I really wish there was an easy rule of thumb.

Integration

Kevin Jackson is a very nice guy. He's personable, charismatic, dynamic and with an ability to sustain a high energy level that is nearly unmatched. He's also a good teacher, a hell of a martial artist and one of the few I know who are both wise and humble enough (sometimes too humble, KJ!) to keep their eyes, ears and minds open.

I will give him the highest compliment I know in self-defense training: I once saw him teach a knife defense class that wasn't stupid.

A couple of weekends ago, Al Dacascos was in town and hosted a mini seminar. Al was teaching and Mac and Sherrill and Kevin so, yeah, I had to go.

Kevin taught a class on biting. I allow biting in my classes and sometimes encourage it and in a rudimentary way can teach it a little: Some places hurt more than others. Nipping for pain and tearing for avulsion are different. Use it to create space. Beware the risk of disease.

Biting has always been a minor tool of mine.

It's still a minor tool. What I learned from Kevin that day was less about technique than about myself and learning and teaching. Okay- I did learn one aspect of technique. I usually use biting to create space. Kevin encouraged me to hold my partner tight so he couldn't escape from the bite, the pain. This was counter-intuitive but it had a wonderful affect. Unable to squirm directly away, the threat almost always broke contact with the ground, giving me a throw.

There are ways to break down fighting. Weapons aside, technique wise there are: strikes; locks; takedowns; gouges/pressure point/pinches; movement; and strangling.

Effects break down to movement, pain, damage and shock.

Skills are unbalancing, immobilizing, clearing and damage.

There are pieces to all of this. Anatomy and physiology; principles of physics and biomechanics; Goal-strategy-tactics-technique; power generation, timing and targeting; Awareness Initiative and Permission... that all effect everything else.

But you can look at a fight at the technique level, the effects level or the general skills level (or two or three of these) very usefully.

I am an extremely integrated fighter. At the technique level that means that usually I can do two or more classes of techniques in a single action eg, the twisting action of a lock providing the power for an elbow strike while simultaneously dragging the threat through a leg sweep. At the effects level, it means I'm not married to a single preference. I'll do damage if it's prudent, force the threat to move if it betters my position, cause pain if it helps the movement or will shut down his thought process and I will shut down his entire system (shock) if it is necessary and legally justified- and when practical I can blend these. Same with the skill level. It's all the same. In my own mind I'm not better or worse at these things or have strengths or weaknesses in them, they are just part of everything else and, in the moment, completely subconscious.

(Does any native speaker of any language ever say, "I'm just way better at verbs than I am nouns?" No, they don't. It's like that. People learning a language, however, say things just like that...)

Working with biting, especially while groundfighting, I found I wasn't thinking that way. I was either brawling or fighting. I would transition my partner into position without even thinking about it and then drop out of the mindset, think about biting (all the while not truly in the zone of brawling anymore), bite, and then watch the effects and transition back to fighting again.

Somewhere over the years I had forgotten that every single thing I know, every class of technique, every strategy and tactic, every effect, every skill started this way. It started as a big lump of stuff that needed to be worked in. That's the way it is for all students.

That's not a good thing to forget. Thanks, Kevin.

Never...

In the jails, working with criminals, in the streets, on patrol... in any emergency services position bad things happen. You will see and feel and be involved in many things, some of them horrible, some of them tragic, some of them funny. You will also be involved in things that are horrible or tragic or funny but also fraught with legal liability.

It's bad enough that you may risk your life to save some piece of shit abusive rapist meth addict from being beaten to death by someone just as bad, but to add insult to injury you may get sued for doing it. In this world, that's just the way it is.

One of the side effects is the "three-year rule". When an officer is involved in a very ugly thing, especially if someone died, he is cautioned not to talk about it for three years. Three years, we are told, is the magic number, the time limit on filing a federal suit.

Aside: as I type this it occurs to me that this is something I was told and it has been passed on through generations of cops and I've never looked it up myself. It may not even be true. Wouldn't that be weird?

The reason for the rule is the concept of "discovery" and how our profession looks at lawyers and civil trials. We hear from inmates all the time that the civil aspect of the legal system is "Money for nothin'..." you just gotta convince twelve people that you are poor and sad and downtrodden and some person or some agency with deep pockets is a great big bully and they will vote for the agency to give you money. (Like many things, civil suits are one of the things that tends to punish good people more. Good people mortgage their houses to pay settlements off. Bad people just say ,"Fuck you" or declare bankruptcy and are rarely ever actually penalized).

Anyway, let's say that on that one bad night things go really, really bad. You're alone, or worse yet with your children and a screaming naked guy with a knife runs out of a house right at you, swinging the knife at your kid and everything is a blur but you tackle him as hard as you can and you hear crunches and something give and he's trying to bite and you shove your arm deeper in his mouth thankful you're wearing a jacket and you punch and grab and gouge and you're terrified and suddenly things get really quiet. You roll away and check on your daughter who is screaming and then you look back at the guy (for a second, you're afraid that since you took your eyes off of him he will disappear like the villain in a slasher flick and attack again) but you look at him and he's not moving at all and then you realize he's not breathing...

There's a good chance that relatives of the dead guy will come out of the woodwork. They haven't talked to him in years after kicking him out over violent outbursts, but now they will be aggrieved and loving family members saddened by their poor little sick brother's horrible and unnecessary death at the hands of you, you violent, evil.... These people who never spent a dime on the psych meds that the deceased desparately needed will go shopping for an attorney...

And here's the genesis of the three-year rule: You are going to feel terrible. No matter how justified the situation, or depraved the attacker, you've taken a human life and that means something and you will feel bad about it and you will want to talk. Talking is how people heal from this stuff.

If you are honest, you will say, "I feel terrible, just guilty. Sick." and "It seemed like I watched him not breathing for an hour before I realized I needed to do something and called 911"

The attorney hired by the EBG's suddenly loving family will do anything he can to find evidence of these statements and will ask you, in court, "Isn't it true that you said you felt guilty? That you were sick with guilt? Guilt is not something the righteous feels..." and "I will produce a witness that says that you stared at the body for an hour before you called 911. If that is not gross indifference I don't know what is."

So we are taught not to say anything.

The upshot is that in the worst emotional times, you are pretty much on your own. By the time three years have passed, you've either dealt with it or it has dealt with you.

This new job is different. The ugly things that I will learn here I can never talk about. Never. I will learn a lot and I will distill lessons and adapt. I'm doing good things. But I will (and have already) seen things that will stay with me...

(Not the old things, like blood and guts and splatter, these are more emotional, more personal)

...and I will never be able to talk about them. Never.

The Blog about Blogging

First off, you all need to know I'm spying on you. The little counter at the bottom also tracks who has been to the website, where they came from (in the sense of being directed by another website) and the location of your IP address.

It also tracks if a search engine was used to find the site and what the key words for the search were. Evidently "How to break a neck" is a popular search and so are 'testicals + big' and 'testicals + rubber'... which leads to the post on castrating goats, a big newfoundland puppy and being shit on by baby racoons. But I wonder what the searchers were hoping to find.

The IP adresses aren't really reliable. My home computer says it's in Utah and Drew's occassionally, but not always, says he's in New York.

But it's kind of cool and I'm curious about the regular readers in Montreal (Mauricio? Theo?) and Virginia and Illinois and Carson California. And the New Zealand readers. And...

Second, a confession of technical ineptitude. I am not ept. Those of you with blogspot accounts may notice that Chiron has one less "edit-me" link space in the margin than usual. I tried to add a link and the whole thing disappeared. Same with pictures. I'm sure my lovely wife could show me how to add them in a few minutes but blogging is not one of the things that we do together. There are better ways to spend time with people you love.

Third, blogging becomes its own thing. This was originally a place to get stuff out of my head, stuff that I was getting tired of poking at internally. It's transitioned, somehow, from excising the negative to creating something. In a few decades I might know what.

Anyway, welcome to the inside of my head.

Balance Sheet

Melissa noted a while ago that the birth of a child, especially to good friends who have wanted a child desperately for a long time, should balance the deaths of the year.

I don't see the world that way.

Deaths are what they are. They mark the time when the person passes from experience to memory. I can selfishly grieve for the loss of future experiences and I will miss them... but death isn't a negative. It just is. I can no more put a number value (that death hurt as bad as 10 dinners with my inlaws) to the pain of someone's death than I can hold positive or negative feelings for a rock. The rock is. Death is. I can appreciate them or feel sad for what I see in them but I can't put them on a scale of good or bad any more than I can ascribe a color to a flavor.

I don't see my life as a balance sheet or as a scalar in any way. Deaths are deaths. Births are births. Stephen is a miracle, like all babies, and the mystery of who and what he will grow to be is fascinating... but Stephen's birth is a separate thing from Andy's death. They are their own little places in my soul. One doesn't make the other more tragic or more precious. They are what they are, their own things. Themselves.

If I'm an asshole but have a really nice car, those are two separate things. One doesn't offset the other. They may combine to influence whether or not you choose to spend time with me... but a nice car doesn't make me less of an asshole.

There are events and stories and objects, but when we try to put numbers on them, try to say, "On balance, I'm happy" or "everything considered it was a good year" it's an attribution and it is a damn convenient way to muffle feelings just a bit. Maybe even to avoid fixing the things that hurt.

A New Word

Invented a word a few weeks ago and I want credit for it before it sweeps the country.

For all the LAN administers and IT supervisors out there: "gekherd".

If a shepherd herds sheep....

TV Land

The flu kicked my ass. Or maybe it was food poisoning. My wife says I have the eating habits of a coyote.

So, about four days at home. Reading (finished "The 33 strategies of War"; "Secret Weapons of Jujutsu" and several manuals on labor law and investigative procedure for the new assignment). Also put in some closet shelving, cleaned up.... whole bunch of boring domestic stuff.

In the process, I also watched a lot of TV. One of the cool things about modern technology is that you can sit down and watch an entire season of a television show on DVD and really follow the plot lines. And really be annoyed by the tropes and writing techniques (K and I were giggling about what the parallel plot line would be in this episode of Smallville).

Here are some observations. They aren't about the fantasy world of television so much as about the way the writers see the world. In their commentaries the writers sometimes talk about how hard they work to make the characters real and believable... and in their world maybe some of this stuff is.

TV heroes don't do anything else. They don't seem to do anything to get their families fed or pay the bills or pay the rent. They talk about being poor, but they go through more vehicles and do more property damage in their own homes than I could ever pay for. Most of them pay lip service to having another obligation- school or work- but it never takes any time, certainly not the 10-12 hours out of the day that many of us spend. And poor 18 year olds with no jobs and an unemployed single parent ride around in $30,000 brand new convertibles.

Does this mean something? Maybe. Maybe Hollywood writers live in a world where they do what they love (writing) and get paid for it and the writing takes up the time that their heroes would have to split between heroing and everything else. Maybe with expense accounts and insurance paid by someone else and stage handymen to fix the sets who are on salary they don't realize that for normal people, this would cost and the price would come out of everything else.

I don't get about the $30,000 dollar car, though. Willful stupidity? Or do they really think that cars are just accessories? (And about cars- there are sports cars, personality cars, upscale SUVs, classic muscle cars and panel vans. That's it. No one drives an economy sedan. Or a dirty jeep.)

In TV land, rich people can do anything they want. The evil head of a corporation can poison an entire small town and cover it up. Just by being rich and evil. The CDC, EPA, state agencies, media, local lawyers (who all live for a high profile and deep pockets target) just... cease to exist. Rich people can wire transfer 57 million dollars instantly. The world is not a cartoon and a rich person's billions are not kept in a vault ala Scrooge McDuck- they are invested to make more money, and invested well, not in a passbook savings account or a checking account.
(Which could lead to two asides- why trickle down economics and the widening gap between rich and poor are mathematical inevitabilities- but not today). They are purposely difficult to access and 57 million leaves a spectacular paper trail.

Perhaps in the insular world of Hollywood, the heavy hitters, the producers and directors, can do anything they want. It seems to be the one industry that actually has the bad habits and snobbish disdain for the common man that they ascribe to all industry. Maybe. I'm an outsider.

In TV land, people don't learn. They do the same things with the same people over and over and over again. It's supposed to be sexual tension, maybe, when the protagonist and the female lead(s) almost get together and then are side tracked by the mission or the villain or the secret in every episode. Real people don't put up with that shit, except in the most abusive of relationships. After a certain time of being jerked around, you move on. Not just emotionally, physically. You quit spending time with that person.

In Hollywood maybe it is an enclosed community and you wind up working with essentially the same people throughout your career no matter how badly they suck. Maybe this really stupid excuse to repeat the same plot lines over and over again is a reflection of their reality. Or maybe it's just easier than originality.

I should just stick to books.

Cube Farm

I haven't been in the jail for three days.

Last year I applied for and was accepted to an off-line position. I just started. It's an interesting transition. For the last several years my identity has been very much tied up in crisis management, dealing with violent criminals, counseling deputies- things that were physical and mental, hands on, where the price of a mistake was blood.

Now, I will be reviewing the deputies uses of force, investigating them if they seem wrong, fielding complaints from citizens.

Part of me still keeps half an ear out for a radio I'm not even carrying.

This will be very, very different.

Tragedy

Normally, somewhere around this time I do a post about the last year. 2002-2005 were in many ways ugly, ugly years. Lots of death. Lots of crud welling up from the past. Lots of realizations about how much the world is not about me. Learning that even with the perfect mate you will still be very alone on some issues.

Last year was good. Not great, not bad, just a good year- the closest I can remember to a relatively normal year. Yeah, my idea of normal is skewed, but I don't think anything happened last year that I couldn't get a reasonably normal citizen to at least relate to. And that's special in its own way.

There were three important deaths last year. Two were tragedies.

Tragedy, I was told long ago, is when the flaws within the hero lead inevitably to his destruction. When you (from the sidelines) can see the train wreck coming but know that because of who the character is, he won't get off the tracks.

Andy died being him. It was fun and youthful and reckless and it was also drunken and stupid and incredibly selfish. He died as what he was, good and bad. If he had been anybody else, he wouldn't have died. Being who he was, it was the best possible way to die... just being Andy.

Brad had fought for years with his fears and inadequacies. He hated losing and he hated competing. He would throw a temper tantrum if you scored on him in training and he would cheat if he could get away with it just for the ego burst and the bragging rights. Yet he stuck with a very difficult discipline for many years (thanks largely to a dedicated and loving instructor) and he survived a knife attack with minor scratches. He was always afraid he wouldn't measure up to some image he had in his head. Always afraid. When he went to attack an aspect of that fear, deep diving, he used up all his air far too soon and when the instructor tried to save him, he fought him off and tried to claw his way to a surface that was much too far away. The fear that had driven so much of his life killed him.

Frenchy alone wasn't a tragedy. He'd survived poverty and war and injuries that he never should have. He'd had bypasses more times than I remember. I wish his death had been delayed and I wish it had been gentler and more dignified. But it was just time.

All three of these men were loved.

"We Just Disagree"

It's disconcerting when two people of intelligence with the same basic values disagree on an issue. An acquaintance wrote recently of how hard it is to hold conversations on certain subjects with certain people, mostly because of the emotional involvement. But somewhere in there, he asked a very good question: How can smart people with the same data he has come to such profoundly different conclusions as he does?

The question deserves an answer. Several answers, really.

The first is that different people read information with different levels of skill and understanding. Auto accidents, for instance: "Fifty-two percent reported they were 5 miles or less from home, and an astounding 77 percent reported they were within 15 miles of home." Some people read this and decide it is much safer to be on the highway in another state than to be in your own neighborhood. Other people realize that they do most of their driving close to home. Even if they are driving 50 miles away, they have to pass through the 'statistical zone of death' to get there. The statistic is meaningless.

Not only is there skill in reading the data, there are very intelligent people who filter information through very different paradigms: The war in Iraq has cost more American lives than any war the under thirty set can remember. It is a huge tragedy and the bloodbath of their lives. A more historical perspective will compare it to single days or battles in other wars and the data, the raw number, will have different meaning and impact.

Then there are sources of information- anyone with access to TV, radio, papers and the internet have access to the information that everyone else does... but they don't access it the same way. No matter how much you deny it, consciously or unconsciously you are cherry-picking your sources to agree with your world view. I can find sources that say global warming is happening and is caused by fuel emissions. I can also find articles from many of the same organization from the seventies saying that the same emissions were bringing on the next Ice Age.

(And these two sources of difference, paradigm and choice of sources can blend such that if my primary source on Iraq are e-mails from soldiers there AND I've been reading "33 Strategies of War" that points out that the best way to beat the US in an altercation is simple to wait until the media turns and, in the cause of better ratings, works to bring down the government that caused the war, I'll be pro-war and anti-media. If on the other hand I've been watching the major news affiliates and reading "Fooled by Randomness" it leads to a 'wait and see, history doesn't decide until much later' attitude.)

But possibly the biggest is that people who live different lives and are exposed to different populations see different results from the same things.

Why are college professors generally for relaxed immigration laws and for government aid and cops, in general are against both?

It's because we see different outcomes. The college professor sees the students who worked hard, took advantage of what was offered and used it to create good and productive lives. Sometimes against great odds and defeating incredibly negative circumstances. They see the good that the programs do.

The cops deal, every day, with the people who took advantage of what was offered to increase their ability to harm or to evade responsibility for their actions.

The programs that allow a young man from Mexico who illegally crossed the border to find a job, get health care for his children, become an asset to his community, pay taxes and have children who go to colleges and make America stronger are exactly the same programs that allow cartels of drug dealers to pack their organizations with relatives from the home country and rule through fear and traditions that were imported right along with them.

The programs that allow a struggling single mother to care for her children and keep them fed and get them to school and give them a chance at a life are the exact same program that enables teen age boys to have contests on who can father the most illegitimate children before graduating from high school, and do so with absolutely no responsibility or penalties.

This is important. Sometimes the argument arises because the friend has a colleague who really made it in life with a little help paid for by the government... and you have either just delivered or just buried a baby addicted two two drugs and underweight with no functioning parent and that, the birth or the burial, were also paid for by the government.

Bad Girls

Irena sent a message today: "You have described the BG (bad guys), and the EBG quite a bit. But, your portraits are all male. Any female BGs?"

Oh, yeah. In general, like most male officers, I don't like working with female inmates. Forget the prison movies, the majority of our female population have had shitty nutrition since childhood, never exercised, have very odd notions of hygiene and (like the men) far too much exposure to drugs and alcohol.

Without the "tough guy" image to maintain, they are also extremely whiny (far more than the male inmates) and used to an environment where offering easy sex is a primary strategy of control and, far too often, making money or getting drugs.

Aside about whining: there are three basic types of criminals. The most common are the low level hustlers- pimps, pros, druggies, dealers, petty thieves etc. They make up the majority of the population in jail. They are not used to doing things for themselves. One of my inmates claims to have fathered "around" 30 children. He thinks he is a good daddy- he brings his kids stuff when he has money (charges are dealing drugs and prostitution). I asked him who paid for the kids basic food and clothes and rent and ... he gave me a disgusted look. That's what welfare is for. I wish, in typing, I could give you the inflection of his voice- he wasn't saying welfare would take care of his kids, he was saying that welfare existed for the sole purpose of leaving him free NOT to take care of his kids. That's what welfare's FOR.

Anyway, raised in an environment where basic needs, including you children's are somebody else's responsibility it seems obvious that if you want something somebody should give it to you. You ask, demand, whine or take. With male inmates, the strategies are heavy on demand and take; with females on ask and whine.

So, to sum up, working a female dorm: imagine 60 sallow skinned, mostly toothless, either meth skinny or McDonalds obese women with bad skin and frequently open sores who are convinced that if they can find the right combination of whining and flirting they can control any man.

Open sores. I was flashed by an inmate once. She yelled, "Sarge, I want you to see something," and whipped her shirt up. I'm pretty sure I know what she was trying to show me, but I've seen those before. What I saw was a boil about half as big as a fist oozing pus all over. Before that day, suppurating pustule was just a word to me....

So yeah, Irena, there are bad girls. Some of them are very nasty and some of the stories are so nasty....

A couple of mild ones- there was a crack whore once who tried to gouge out my eyes with inch-long red fingernails. It didn't work.

And once a three-hundred-pound stark naked woman who had taken all of her dealer son-in-law's meth knocked everyone else off as we were putting her in a cell and some clumsy git of a partner shut the door with just me and the inmate inside. There was a very quick use of force- I swept her legs out and knelt on the elbow like in hiki mawashi (Sosuishitsu-ryu referance, everyone else disregard) and waited for someone to open the door. The worse part of that wasn't the visuals or the force. Really really obese people with bad hygiene smell like rotten cheese. Women with really bad hygiene smell like rotten fish. Yeah, it was like that. In an enclosed cell.

And hinting at a really nasty story: If an OB-Gyn doctor calls from the prison clinic and says, "Sergeant, I think I found some contraband..." you're going to have a very icky day.