P_Obrien's Xanga

I'm Still Alive

Sat, 26 Jul 2008 09:45:11 GMT

I only had one fight yesterday, and I lost it. After the double elimination tournament brackets yesterday, I was up for the third/fourth place finals fight. The finals are fought with MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) rules, meaning that any grappling move goes, except for twisting ankle locks and digit or wrist locks. Which is too bad, I'm really good at wrist locks. Punches are allowed with the light, three ounce grappling gloves. They have just enough padding to protect the knuckles and keep you from cutting your opponent's face with them, but they don't absorb much shock. This, more than anything else, is the reason why MMA fights are always shorter than boxing matches. Kicks are allowed to the legs, body and head of a standing opponent and to the legs of grounded opponent. Knee strikes are allowed to the legs and body of a standing opponent, and to the legs of a grounded opponent.

When the referee said "Fight" I was pretty hopeful about the match. I was obviously in better shape than my opponent, but I don't have the training at standup striking. In retrospect, I think it would have been better if I had stayed on my feet and taken my chances. I'm a heavy hitter and if I had rocked him once with a solid jab I might have been able to take advantage of it and get a TKO. However, since I've been in Afghanistan for fifteen months I haven't been able to train. I was working on basic punches and the basic Thai roundhouse kick before I deployed so I spent the entire deployment working those on the heavy bag. It paid off. My punches are strong, but I don't have any sense of distance, timing, and above all defense that comes from sparring. Punching bags don't hit back. So when he came at me I did the thing which to me is the most natural thing in the world. I trapped his arms and pulled him down into the guard. I won all my previous fights from the guard, or fought them predominately from the guard and it was soon apparent that I was the better grappler. If it had been a straight grappling match I would have destroyed him. The trouble was that he was smart enough to know that. He was so surprised at my pulling guard, I think, that I didn't have the slightest trouble doing it. I almost caught him in an ankle lock, but he spun out and then we spent the next few minutes jockeying for position. A couple of things that I did surprised me and my buddies who were watching. He got the full mount once, which is when he is sitting on your stomach or chest raining down punches on your head, but I managed to deflect or block all his blows and still work back to the guard without taking any serious damage. I almost caught him in another ankle lock. I was literally a second from locking it in, and I don't think he noticed it. His corner coach did, though, and he told him to spin out, so he got away. At one point he was in my guard and he pulled back to get separation for some punches. As he was posturing up I threw up a stiff right jab and caught him hard on the nose. It split his nose open. I was throwing it from the bottom, lying on my back with no leverage. Think what I could do if I had the training to get better position or better yet, to fight from my feet!

Now, bear in mind, I don't have any clear idea of the chronological order of these highlights. I remember them happening but I don't remember which came first, second, third, and so on.

The fight ended when he stood up and dropped back down with a single punch that hit me right between the eyes. The guys told me I went limp, but I don't remember that. I assume I did. Everything went out of focus and blurry and I was thinking something along the lines of "Well, that's a wrap." I was surprised more than anything else. I've never been seriously hit before. It was like looking at everything through water, and like you don't really care about anything. When the ref asked if I was all right I think I said, "I hear birds." For some reason, incomprehensible to me now, that seemed like a really good joke. It seemed like only a couple of seconds, but my buddy said I was on the ground for a good three or four minutes. I think he might be exaggerating, but I'm sure I was down for a little longer than a few seconds. I know what they mean by "punch drunk" now. I was unsteady on my feet, dizzy, and buzzed. The whole thing was hillarious. I was wondering where all the blood was coming from, since my nose was only bleeding a trickle and they stopped it right away. He had hit too high to make it bleed much, and there was blood everywhere. It was then that I noticed that his nose was bleeding badly. There was blood everywhere, and none of it was mine, which made me feel pretty good about myself. I was grinning like a cheshire cat when they helped me out of the ring and over to the medic station. The people on the stands were grinning back as I walked by. Apparently it was funny to them to, though I would imagine for a different reason.

The best part was when an old buddy of mine that I used to train with, who is now training another brigade's team, told me as I was leaving the ring, "You know you can't pull guard in a punching fight, right?"

"Oh sure, now you tell me," I laughed. That was funny too.

The surgeon determined I had a mild concussion. My eyes are set pretty deep in my head, so most of the punishment is absorbed by my forehead and cheekbones. My eyes didn't swell up too badly. Looking at my face now, I wonder if the guy was a southpaw, or whether I just did a better job of trapping his right than his left. I went back to the barracks, I caught a ride with my roommate and let one of the other guys drive my truck back. I ordered a large party pizza and ate all but two slices, while I watched "The Mummy" and "The Mummy Returns" and then I went to bed.

So that was my first full contact fight. I want to do it again. Only next time I'm going to train for it. I need to train for stand-up fighting, striking moving targets, footwork, takedowns, avoiding takedowns, and better offensive positioning on the ground. I have a restrained, defensive style, well suited to my usually superior strength and stamina, and my lack of agility and reflexes. It serves me very well in grappling, but was ultimately my downfall in full contact MMA. For not having trained for that fight, not having trained at all at standup, and going in cold against guys that have been training for months, I don't think I did too badly. If I were to train seriously, I think I could even be very good. We'll see.

This is what I looked like about an hour after the fight. The bruising still hasn't started to come in very strongly. I don't bruise very rapidly, which is a good thing.

Not too bad, actually. I am definitely slow to bruise. Next time I'll be able to take more damage more efficiently, hopefully without getting knocked out.

It is more pronounced today, especially around the right eye, with a little bit around the left eye and a little bit of swelling on my left ear. I remember him hammer fisting my left ear repeatedly for about thirty seconds at one point, and I remember that I barely even felt it. I was almost laughing at it. All in all it looks like I have a moderately thick skull. It also looks as if I either did a really good job keeping my head tucked and protecting my lower face, or he was just an inaccurate striker. There is no swelling around the mouth or jaw except for a cold sore on the inside of my lip. I almost lost my mouth piece at one point and I had to put it back in but while it was out I somehow managed to lacerate the inside of my mouth. The weirdest injury is that welt on my right shoulder. I have no clue how that came about. I wish I had some video of that fight. I know there were cameras there, I'll have to see if I can get a hold of a copy. It's ironic that I don't really care to have a video of any of my wins, just that loss.

Good Day's Work

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:11:04 GMT

Well, I won. I lost my first round to a calf lock (It is ironic that my only injury was sustained in my first match.)

I fought a total of six matches and won five, all by submission. Since we were fighting in uniforms I got three guys with collar chokes.

The tournament was set up in two iterations. The first one was double elimination, regular grappling rules. Brazillian Jujitsu with gi rules. This means that we wear uniform jackets which allow for using the collars to choke out your opponents. I learned that I do indeed fight better from the guard (on my back with my legs controlling my opponent either by locking in the closed guard or blocking in the butterfly or spider guard. I also use a few unorthodox open guard positions which allow me to better control the range. Collar chokes work well because my grip is so strong that once I lock it in on a collar almost no one can break it. After that it is just a matter of time before I can work it and my hand around to cut off their air and make them tap out. I fought four matches in this format.

The second iteration was fought with pankration rules, which means that we were allowed to kick to the legs, body and head while standing, and to the legs when on the ground, knees to the legs, closed fist punches to the body and open hand slaps to the head. I fought two matches there, and almost lost the first one. The Lietenant I was fighting came out running with a Chuck Norris style sidekick. I had just enough distance on him so that when I covered the kick grazed off my forearms. Otherwise I would have eaten the bottom of his foot. It was about at that point that I realized that standup fighting with this guy was not an option. I took a couple of good hits before I closed, and he gave me a lot of grief on the ground. He was squirrely, but I ended up catching him with a straight arm bar that I invented myself.

The last match was so short I didn't even start to breathe hard.

I have to fight in the finals tomorrow so I am going to sleep and rehydrate. I should also try to eat something. All I had to eat today was a dozen baby carrots.

The fights tomorrow are fought with advanced rules, similar to UFC matches, without the elbow strikes. Higher potential for injury, but then again, it's a Friday.

Ready to Rumble?

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:48:06 GMT

The Army Combatives tournament starts tomorrow. I'm fighting in the light heavyweight division. I had to sweat off five pounds of waterweight in half an hour to squeeze in, but it is better to be the heaviest guy in a lighter group than to be the lightest guy in a heavier class. Especially since Heavyweight is unlimited. I'd be up against guys thirty and forty pounds heavier than myself.

I haven't trained in a while, although I would vouch for my strength and conditioning against anyone in my weightclass. I would appreciate it if you guys would pray that I don't get damaged.

The Batman Movie

Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:15:41 GMT

I reccomended londonpiano's review of the new batman movie. He hits on a lot of elements that I didn't mention in my very brief review. I mentioned that it was dark and disturbing, and the character of the joker was pure evil, but that is as far as I went. The problem with this mvie is that it seems to be one of those movies that you either love or hate. People think it is awesome, or they think it is horrible, but no one was bored by it, which some would say is a sure sign of a great movie. I would disagree, if by "great" you mean good. If by "great" you mean merely very well done, a powerful example of the movie maker's art, then sure.

For myself, I thing the movie was both excellent and horrible. Technically speaking, it was excellent. All aspects of moviemaking were par excellence to my untrained eye. That isn't really the issue. The question is whether the good in it outweighs the evil.

Before I begin vivisecting this movie, I realize of course that everyone must decide for themselves how much good outweighs how much evil. There are no movies that are perfect, and not many coming out nowadays that are even close. Some people hold out for no movies at all because of this, others will watch nearly any trashy film if there is one good scene to "make it worthwhile". I am not trying to say here where this line should be drawn. Instead I am going to try to analyze the elements and decide for myself.

The three main areas that most people use in judging the moral content of a movie are: nudity/sex, violence, and language. You can add on to this alcohol/drugs, sorcery and magic (for specific films like the Harry Potter series) and other criterion but those are the main three. After that there is the overall message of the movie.

Nudity/Sex: Everyone is quick to point out that "Dark Knight" was actually pretty tame, comparatively speaking, but it is in that word "comparatively" that we find our problems. Gratuitous immodesty and sexual activity is so commonplace that "comparatively" leaves a lot of room for interpretation. There were several scenes in which women (Bruce Wayne's dates) were presented immodestly. The odd thing is that it was deliberately overdone. No other woman at the same event were dressed the same way. The women were obviously charicatures of a lot of the sort of sycophantic hanger-on type we see around a lot of real billionaires. If they were charicatured to make us like Bruce Wayne less, that is, if they were used to point out how shallow that lifestyle is, I would have less problem with it. However the sense that I get is that they are rather used only to emphasize the complete division between Bruce and Batman. It is more of a "he's the man" moment than otherwise. While it definitely made me like him less, I don't think that was the movie-maker's intent, so that's a negative. Either way, it was not necessary. And of course there was the hurriedly dressing couple surprised in a dark room at Bruce Wayne's party. Completely unnecessary. Out of place in any movie, let alone a children's movie. All told it added up to maybe five minutes total in two and a half hours, so I would be willing to overlook it in an adult movie. However for kids the clips are too short to allow effective use of the remote control, so I don't think that is an option. Ironic, but true.

Violence: To me this is a symptom of our society. Violence in terms of movie ratings is defined entirely in terms of gore, actual blood and mutilation shown. There is no question of whether or not it is purposeful or merely gratuitous. As it is, it is an action movie so violence is a main theme. Numerous fistfights, gunbattles, bombings, slashings and car chases. Batman's violence maintains a thin moral edge by always being for the purpose of getting the bad-guys and he never kills anyone. Actually I would have no problem if he had killed the joker in a couple of his fights. I do have a problem with his complete disregard for innocent bystanders and collateral damage. Magically he never hurts any of the good guys. The main purpose of Batman is not realistic, but rather symbolic. He represents the willingness to take a stand against evil regardless of the cost. Unfortunately he is far from the image of a perfect warrior. If you are going to create a character that is larger than life evil, and oppose him with a larger than life good guy, don't make that good merely an okay guy. A mythic hero needs to be a complete hero.

There has been discussion of his "vigillantism" and to be fair, the movie makers did nod to the idea of Batman being eventually subordinated by Law and Order. It is a fact that when there is no duly appointed authority or perhaps even if there is no effective authority (as is supposed to be the case in Gotham City) individual citizens will have the responsibility of protection. In a mythic setting, this is not so bad. In a realistic setting this is problematic. It is made clear, if you know what you are looking for, that Batman only protects by preventing and stopping crimes in the act, he does not punish. He turns all his catches over to the police. At one point he prevents another character from summarily executing a convicted felon. Overall, I don't have much problem with Batman's violence. It was the cheap, flashy, martial arts violence we have seen many times before with a primitive sense of right and wrong guiding it. Not great, but not terrible.

Then there is the Joker. Everyone is talking about the Joker. Yes, Heath Ledger's performance was asonishing, believable, and terrifying. And yes, that was the most evil character on screen in the last ten years. He has all the characteristics of a horror movie villian, including the worst trait of all: The movie makers and especially Heath Ledger's actions made him funny, sometimes even likeable. He spouts half-baked nihilistic anti-philosophy in witty one-liners and the movie-goers laugh. His influence is throughout the movie as the single driving incident, and he is unbelievably successful (I say unbelievably because from a counterterrorist point of view, or even a serial crimes point of view, he would be relatively easy to track down. Plus that much high explosive doesn't just appear overnight. How do you get fifty barrels of fuel in the bottom of a regularly used ferry, without anyone noticing.) It is this success that I don't like. The movie makers allow him free reign until the last possible second, feeding off the terror and anxiety he causes. It is a classic horror movie ploy. Even at the end he is not definitively dealt with. The Joker, despite being the greatest triumph of moviemaking art is the movies greatest low.

Language: I typically ignore language. I'm in the army. I don't hear it anymore. It was mild vulgarity, with a few instances of profanity, that is, the Lord's name taken in vain. While I don't generally consider this in movie reviews, because I don't notice it anymore myself, I know that that is a product of my environment. The problem with that is just this desensitizing effect. Whether in real life or in entertainment, whenever we surround ourselves with profanity we risk losing some of our respect for the name of God. So what about the movie? Sometimes vulgarity is necessary in storytelling. For instance, in the movie "Black Hawk Down", the language was foul, but not one bit overdone. It would have been ridiculous otherwise. Any war movie based on any current war has to have language because that is how most soldiers talk. I have used it myself in stories. However I try to avoid using God's name in vain even in the characters that I am creating on paper.

I think the language can be overcome, simply by knowing it is there and actively countering it. An effective habit to develop is silently praying to God every time you hear someone use His name in vain and this can be done just as easily at the movies as in real life.

So for sex and nudity, the movie is questionable, but not condemned (in my personal opinion), for violence it is all but condemned, and for language it is only undesirable.

But what about the overall storyline.

I'll be honest. I love the myth of Batman. It is a great myth. The modern twist on it, though is problematic. Other ages could safely tell dark stories without the visual stimulus of on-screen violence and sex, but mostly because of an overriding moral code. They had a defined, and definite sense of right and wrong that the story had to conform to. Batman lacks such a code. He has only primitive platitudes. He wants to protect the innocent, but he does so in a flawed way. The movie makers have no better way to make him a moral hero than to have him refuse to kill, so the joker calls him "incorruptible". However he protects "truth" in the end by perpetrating a lie. The people of Gotham City affirm human life over the Joker's assertion that everyone in the end will turn on everyone else if pushed to it, but Batman himself has no answer for any of the Joker's accusations or hellish philosophies. Moreover the Joker is sometimes portrayed, and sees himself, as not entirely an evil person, but just as someone who is the way they are. He has no responsibility for what he does, it's just the way he is.

This lack of a clear moral stance throughout the movie is its killing factor. It ruins the whole movie for me. As much as I love the hero, even the dark hero so long as he is like Tolkien's Aragorn "Looking foul and feeling fair", I don't like what the moviemakers did with this hero.

I don't say that no Christian should ever see this movie. You could do a lot worse. I do however insist that a Christian should ask why they want to see it, especially if they are going to see it again. I think too many people are going to see it for the cool action, the Batmobile (I want one!), and especially to be creeped out by the Joker (another symptom of a horror movie, that people go to it specifically to be creeped out. To my mind this is not a healthy thing.) If you are drawn to the myth, well, a myth remains a myth no matter how it is told. The language of this one is compelling and inspiring, but I don't think that is enough. If you want to be inspired by a hero tale, there are better hero tales out there. However perhaps we shouldn't ask what we want, but rather what God wants us to do. There are some things that are good, or at least have potential, in the movie, but would God say that it outweighs the evil we will have to imbibe? If we are aware of the evil, why would we want to take it in? There may be a good reason, for some people. I just don't know what it would be.

Uniform Woes

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:13:21 GMT

The army always has to make my life difficult. We are supposed to have a company ball, or dining in, or whatever you want to call it at the end of the month, and it is formal, which means I'm supposed to wear my Class A uniform. Unfortunately, when I tried to get my uniform squared away, I found that the jacket, which was tailored almost four years ago, does not fit anymore. It was a little snug the last time I wore it (a year and a half ago at my cousin's wedding). Now it barely even goes on, and if I were to find myself having to pass the salt or do anything equally strenuous, it would probably rip at the shoulders.

No problem, I think to myself. I'll just toddle on down to the military Clothing and Sales and get it altered. Unfortunately the lady at the desk informed me that it was unalterable. Something about which seams they could let out and which seems they couldn't, I didn't really pay attention to that, but what I gathered was that they could let out the stomach (which I do not need, thank-you very much) but they could not let out the back. So I was going to have to buy a new jacket.

That was not cool. Those jackets are expensive. Still, you gotta do what you gotta do, right? So I went in and looked around, and low and behold, no issue style jackets in my size. However there was a whole rack of complete uniforms against one wall, so I went and picked out one that fit. It was an officer's uniform, which means that they have a black stripe down the pant legs, but my brilliant plan was to toss the pants and just wear the jacket with my old pants. I checked and the jackets looked identical.

Well, after I got yelled at for taking the uniform into the alterations fitting area when I hadn't paid for it (I thought you were supposed to size it first,) the lady informed me that my brilliant plan wouldn't work. My uniform is an issue uniform, the Marlow White uniform is more high speed.

My comment was, "They look the same to me."

I should have known better. Never argue with a woman about clothes, especially a woman who sells clothes for a living.

"Well, they're not," she said. "One is poly-wool, one is polyester. You can feel the difference." She held out a sleeve of each.

I don't know. Maybe my fingers have lost sensitivity what with weightlifting, powertools and explosives. I told her I would take her word for it. With a look that clearly showed what she thought of my intelligence she informed me that they were two different uniforms that could not be mixed and matched and that I had to wait for the enlisted uniforms to get in. They might have a shipment by friday, she said. I felt like I was about two feet tall, and the dimmest person ever to walk the planet, but at least I didn't pay for the thing.

I crawled out of the store a thoroughly cowed and beaten man, thinking to myself, "I just want to get a stupid uniform jacket, so I can wear it to this stupid dinner thing, and then probably not look at it again for another year."

When I came back on friday a different lady was at the desk, and she was not so formiddable. She explained that no shipment had come in, and that the only thing I could do would be to get a hold of the manufacturer, or the Clothing and Sales and Fort Leavenworth and ask them to send it from there.

You're not going to believe this, but I checked the manufacturer's website, and they don't have my size either. The army is phasing out the dress green uniform and replacing them with a new dress uniform, which isn't available yet. So they aren't making new uniforms, just using up the old ones they had in stock. Since I was in Afghanistan I didn't hear any of this, and all of my size are already gone. The new ones will probably come in around October.

October of 2009, that is. And they will be exorbitantly expensive.

In the meantime I don't know what I'm going to do. I will probably need that uniform for a school sometime next year, or maybe even this year, but in the meantime, it is an excellent excuse to not go to the ball.

You have to look on the bright side.

Rejoice Always

Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:01:58 GMT

It's interesting to note that the word "rejoice" is a verb. It is not just and emotion we are supposed to have, but something we are commanded to do, whether we like it or not. It's pretty counterintuitive, to realize we are told to be happy.

It shouldn't be surprising at this point, though. We are commanded to believe, to trust, and to love, all whether we feel like it or not. Chesterton's famous definition of faith as that which is able to survive a mood comes to mind. We believe when the light is on in the mind, so to speak, but when doubts assail us real faith kicks in and we continue to believe when everything seems meaningless. It is easy to trust in God when everything is going easy, but real hope finds its truest expression in our stubborn refusal to lose our trust when everything is dark. And of course love may live in emotional highs but it is tested and strengthened by our choice to love the unloveable. It is the way of God that He commands us to do what we don't feel like doing, because what we don't have is precisely what we need. He forgives us not because we deserve it, but because we need it. The more we need His forgiveness, the less we deserve it, and if we could ever deserve it, we would not need it. So I don't think being commanded to rejoice is so very strange after all.

Rejoicing is more than simply putting up with inconvenience. In fact, inconvenience is really not a tough enough challenge to call out real rejoicing. Inconvenience is a practical joke, it is God poking fun at us to remind us how little control we have, and the best answer to it is a good natured laugh. If we ever become the sort of people who rejoice always, we will mind inconvenience no more than a little kid squirting us with a super soaker on a hot summer day. It is unexpected, but not unpleasant as long as we don't take ourselves too seriously. Joy provides us an unflappable and completely humble serenity because our happiness is so much deeper and more real than the little ins and outs of life.

Joy finds its strongest and most heroic expression in the face of evil, tragedy, darkness, and despair. It does not ignore pain. Pain is real, sin is real, and when we rejoice in God we are not saying that it doesn't matter, but rather that something else matters more.

In the struggle of single Christians to remain pure there is a good analogy. We don't desire intimacy any less than the next. There is no defect of desire in a Christian. God does not make our desires less, He just gives us a stronger desire, or rather a whole slew of stronger desires. A carnal person desires sexual release, pure and simple. Well and good, so does every other person. A human person desires sexual release, but desires personal intimacy and relationship more, and so foregoes casual, meaningless sex for relationships. A Christian desires both of the things above, but desires God more, and so foregoes both casual sex, and relationships that are not His will, in favor of His will. The carnal person does not achieve more, but rather less. That desire is a paltry thing compared to the weight of glory that He is bringing us under. When everything is surrendered to Him He will give it back greater than it ever was before.

So it is with joy. In the face of pain a weak person wants only to be released from the pain. So they run. A strong person wants to be released from the pain also, but more than that he wants to fight through and achieve victory. If he is successful he will have gotten his way, and also become free of the pain. However a Christian rejoices. That is his desire is for the glory of God, and he knows that God is glorified. It is not that the pain is less painful, or that he struggles less valiantly, but rather that deeper than both pain and struggle, he is at peace. He knows that whether we live or die, God will be our good Lord. That knowledge is enough.

The problem is that it is almost impossible (for me at my current level) to simply choose to rejoice. I have to take smaller steps. I choose to believe, I choose to trust, and when I choose to love then I am rejoicing. It requires that I go through the basics to acheive the end result. Someday, God willing, I will become the sort of person for whom joy is a habit rather than a minute by minute struggle. Whether that happens in this world or the next is another question altogether.

Just some unrelated stuff

Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:57:17 GMT

The things I always miss about leave are, in order:

1) Daily opportunity to receive the sacraments.

2) Hanging out with kids

3) the company of ladies

4) conversations.

Then of course a bunch of other things like home cooking, home made cookies, people who don't look at you like you're crazy when you use the Lord's name in conversation, rather than in vain. Of course the first two items are pretty self-explanatory. The third is a little less so. By ladies I don't mean merely girls or women, but rather ladies in the truest sense of the word. Nor am I speaking of anything even remotely romantic. I am probably one of the least romantical people alive (for which I very gratefully thank God.) There is no denying, however, that whatever the relationship involved, society generally takes a decided turn for the better in the presence of good women. It is an ennobling influence.

Then there are the conversations. When I realize that I can hold a conversation with my teenage brother that would leave most of my colleagues bored and/or lost like last year's easter eggs, it tells me something about military culture.

What makes this interesting is that against all these things that I miss from home, there is only one thing that I miss from the military when I'm home. I can't even really describe it. There are ten thousand things I could do outside the military. A lot of them might be easier or more enjoyable, which makes them less attractive. It's counter-intuitive, but I can't see myself leaving the army because somehow that would seem like quitting. I hate a lot of things about the army, and for some reason, that is the very reason why I am bound to it. I guess the best way to sum it up is in the word "adventure." It is an adventure, a challenge, in every sense, sometimes when I am running dangerous missions overseas, but always when I am living with the soldiers here. To be in the military, but not of the military. It sucks. There really is no other word for it. But oddly enough that's what makes it so much fun. So much so that I chose the military over home when I re-enlisted.

Go figure.

I saw the movie "The Dark Knight" today. I would say it is definitely not a kids movie! There was a lot of good in it, particularly in its elements of heroism and its discussion of what makes a hero. However it was very dark and disturbing. The old batman comics were for children, the new movie definitely is not. Of course it was never meant to be a realistic story. It is a myth, and myths have to be larger than life, symbolic rather than literal. The archetype of the outcast hero is very compelling. And to be convincing, evil has to be portrayed as real evil, with real consequences. The compelling moment of the story is when one character proclaims that in an evil world the only morality is chance. Batman, of course, stands for a positive, if limited, morality which is ultimately proclaimed triumphant. The violence is not as intense as many other movies, and in some parts rather poorly done. More disturbing was the violence of the Joker, which was never really shown, but which leaves you feeling sick and disgusted. All in all that was one creepy character, far too evil ever to have been included in a movie supposedly made for kids.

I would not condemn it because of the myth, which is a really great myth. The lone hero shunned even by those he is trying to protect, sacrificing everything to protect the innocent; there is no greater story. It taps into our deepest and most profound yearnings. It is, essentially, the same myth that Jesus fulfilled in history. A lone hero takes on the burden of all the evil for his entire people, and receives only ingratitude and rejection in return, save from a very few. Of course, Jesus stood that myth on his head by sacrificing himself instead of fighting and so made history greater than myth. However the myth should not be forgotten and the batman story is a good way of reminding people of that myth. If you have the stomach for it. Just bear in mind that the story is about evil, and it brings evil to life on the screen, albeit masked in unrealistic fiction.

I went to a brazillian jujitsu training center thursday evening. It was a very eye-opening experience. I did better than I did last time I was there, but I was still nowhere near the skill level of most of the people there. The instructors were taking me out as easily as I would take out a completely untrained person. I definitely need to keep going to that school. Continuing my martial arts education is a long term goal I've had to leave on hold for far too long.

The Story of a Wolf

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:36:07 GMT

Deep in a thicket, a wolf lived alone,
Scorning the pack he hunted on his own.
He fought the puma and the bear and stole their kill.
He roamed free and lived by his own will,
Free and fierce and utterly untamed.
He killed and ate and did all unashamed.
He nothing knew or cared of pity, he stood apart
Exulting in his strength and hardness of heart
And fleet flying paw and earth gripping claw,
That flowed with power behind bone snapping jaw.
All love to him was alien and strange,
Until one day there came a deadly change.

He came upon a meadow and halted at its edge,
A lamb was running there, bounding through the sedge
In the marsh, and clover on the hill.
The wolf's cold heart shuddered and was still.
He watched the lambkin run and leap and prance
With joyous abandon, her young springtime dance.
For the first time he could not slay,
Though he was hungry, nor could he slink away.
He stayed to watch her joy. She spied him there
And danced to his side. Blithely unaware
He was her natural foe, she laid her head
Against his steel gray fur all stained with red.
Then she leapt away and turned with a glance
Most quizzical, inviting him to join her dance.
But he could not dance, his legs were stiff,
And she laughed at him, and pranced as if
He were just too ridiculous and needlessly grim.
Then she laid at his feet to sleep, fearless of him.

He has never left that field, he is wounded to his death.
He guards her now, and will until his dying breath.
Love for her has taken its dreadful toll
His heart drives him on his unending patrol.
Round the field he runs driving off the bear,
And snake and tiger. She is still unaware.
He is driven mad lest harm should come to her by some mischance.
He never lets her out of sight. And he has still not learned to dance.

So it is, and thus will it always be,
Until the Shepherd comes to set them free.

(Jeremiah 11:6-9)

This is an old poem of mine but I think I like it better now than when I first wrote it. It resonates even more strongly. One thing I've learned: sheepdogs need a shepherd every bit as much as the sheep do.

Back To Work

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:32:47 GMT

I made it back to Fort Riley in one piece. I don't have time for a real post right now so instead I will show what I had to go through to go from civillian to soldier, again.

This is what I looked like when I got here.

I went to the PX and got a hair cut and most of the beard cut off. The korean lady at the barber shop told me I didn't look military, but she wouldn't trim the beard around my mouth and chin, only on my jaw, neck and cheeks. So I ended up looking like a biker.

I then borrowed my roommate's beard trimmer to trim the rest. It saved me some razor blades, and a little skin. I got razor burn nonetheless. I really prefer not shaving. But I ended up looking somewhat military. I think I look like a kid.

I've gotten through most of my first day of work. Two of my guys went AWOL while I was gone and are going to get Article 15's. And stupidity has been occurring with astonishing regularity. Par for the course. Give it a few days and I'll start getting my guys doing some training. The problem is the lack of a predictable schedule. I might have to start leaving my phone off so no one can change my plans.

Beyond Modesty

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:10:59 GMT

It's a question of lines, these days. Where can I draw the line? How far can I push the line before I cross it? How many inches above the knee can a hem-line be, how far below the collarbones can a collar be, how tight is too tight, how loose is too loose? What line can we go up to before it becomes immodest? These are the questions that well meaning Christian girls sometimes ask. These are girls who want to dress modestly, either because they have been taught that "good girls just don't wear that" or because they don't want to be a stumbling block or temptation to young men. Many girls, I think, don't understand why they need to adjust the way they dress for the men. Shouldn't men be able to control themselves? I wonder how many actually think we men are perverted in some way because of our visual orientation. We are attracted visually. Every man in the world, if left to his own devices, walks around with his head on a swivel for attractive females at least at some point in his life.

Many women don't understand that, because they live and think with a female set of assumptions. So they ask, why should they have to adjust their behavior to make up for men having dirty minds. Actually the truth is that what I am talking about has nothing to do with a dirty mind. There is nothing in the world you can do to adjust to a truly dirty mind, he will see dirt in a nun, because he is looking at the world through dirty glasses. We are talking about good, honorable, clean-minded men who are comitted to living in purity. Well and good, these are guys who are not fornicating, not looking at porn, not telling dirty jokes. Maybe they have fallen into one or another of these and are now trying to recover and live for Christ, or maybe they have never fallen in this area and don't want to fall. So what difference does a few inches of neckline make? These guys are not going to take advantage of you in their mind, right?

But you don't know what you are talking about. When we were little we used to take magnets out of old broken speakers, the huge stereo speakers from thirty years ago. These were very powerful magnets, several pounds each, with an incredible pull. If you accidentally let two get too close to each other, the north and south attraction was so great that they would actually chip each other when they hit, and we would have to pry them apart from each other. We used to see how close we could get them while still controlling them, before they got too strong and ripped themselves out of our hands, or just dragged our hands with them. Good times for kids not rasied on MTV.

This is a lot like the way it is for men. An attractive woman is like a south magnet, a very powerful one, while our eyes are like north magnets. When she appears there is an instant draw on the eyes. They literally swivel of their own accord, as automatically and unemotionally as a piece of steel to a magnet. It just happens. Once the owner of the eyes notices what's going on, he can then consciously make a decision, or unconsciously if he has years of hard training behind him, to look away, just like pulling the two magnets apart. With training this becomes reflexive. You see the female shape out of the corner of your eye, your brain asesses how much of a threat she is, and you look away. I barely even notice it anymore, much of the time. Your eyes will do what you train them to.

Does this sound familiar? Or scary and somewhat sick? It is not sick. If you start from the Biblical perspective of masculinity, as one whose role it is to seek out and pursue his wife, it is clear that men have to be set up to be attracted from a long distance. And since the five senses are the only ways we can communicate, this limits telepathy. Taste and touch are eliminated. At that point you are already way too close. Humans aren't set up with much smelling capability, so that won't work too well. Hearing is better, I've met some girls who could sing a guy's heart out of his chest, but still too limited. Visual orientation is really the only option. How else could guys be designed, and still able to see someone far off and make a decision to pursue her? Add fallen human nature to the mix and something powerful becomes something dangerous.

So many girls do not consciously understand the level of power they have over men, just by being women. Remember, even though you don't understand men, your fashions are designed by those who do, and who understand men very well indeed, usually with less than innocent motives. However, I think pretty much every woman does understand, if she would take the time to think. I've never met the woman who didn't primp (I am using the word descriptively rather than derisively.) This is the root of many things that people take so absolutely for granted that the opposite is ridiculous. Women in America shave their legs and underarms. I would guess that in an all girl society you would probably be ridiculed if you didn't. I know that any guy who did shave anything other than his head would undoubtedly be mocked unmercifully in any society of men, and probably by any women who knew about it. Women wear make-up, and anyone who doesn't is weird. Men don't wear make-up and anyone who does is probably gay. The root philosophies are so much a part of us that we don't even realize them. Men are designed to be attracted visually, women are designed to be visually attractive. Not too complicated.

So the women who do understand this, and understand how much of a stumbling block they can be quite without meaning to, and don't want to be such a stumbling block, these women now ask how they can do that. "Well what about this outfit? Too revealing? Maybe it would be better if we could just have some guidelines? Which brings us back to the question of where we should draw the lines? Collarbone, cleavage, somewhere in between? Knees, thighs, somewhere in between? And anyway, a thigh is more of an area than a line anyway, so it won't be much of a help. Shape and fit? Or maybe, if you can't give us any useful guidelines, we should all just throw on a burkha. Would that help you guys out? After all it is your problem."

Of course there are a few guidelines. The principle is really quite simple: look like what you would want a guy to look for, and I'm not necessarily talking about someone you would be interested in as a potential mate, or someone who would be interested in you. This is much more universal than that, partially because sexual interest for men is not as focused as it is for women. If you walk through a junkyard with a compass and then walk through a new car dealership, the compass will not know the difference. A man's body doesn't know the difference either, which is why it makes rather a poor navigator. So the first thing you want to do with your appearance is contradict that notion immediately. There is a big difference between a beautiful woman and a hot chick, and you decide which one you will look like. Clothing should emphasize a person, rather than a body. I have heard that women don't really seperate the two in their minds. Men do. A body is a body, a person is a person and men will treat the two very differently, so look like what you want to be treated like. If you want to be treated like a person, arrange your outfit to focus on your face. Ask good, Godly men that you can trust (brothers or fathers) and they will let you know. But even after you have mastered modest dress, that is still not modesty.

It is good that you want to help, but this can not be understood in lines. Of course, there are looks that most guys will find troublesome, but it is not a line. What will hinder one will help another, and there is no way to please everyone. So I think it is time we stopped looking for rules and started seeking wisdom. It can only be understood in God's plan. If men are to be seekers, and we have to train our eyes to seek appropriately, and if women are to be pursued, how can they ensure that they are only pursued appropriately? How does a flower attract the bees? By doing what God made it to do. If flowers could run all over the field, the bees would be in a right old mess. The flowers are still. They are what God made them to be, so it works out.

Think of a hurricane. On the outside there is power, fury and violence, a perfect tumult of wind and water, a spectacle of might so dangerous that humans flee before it, but so magnificent that people risk their lives to get as close to it as possible. But at the center of it there is a calm. In the heart of the most powerful force on earth is the most beautiful, peaceful calm on earth. Quiet, gentle, perfect.

Think of a ship on the ocean, tossed about in a storm. Up above is all noise and flash, the crash of waves, the roll of thunder, the howling of wind and the sting and hiss of rain, the stabs of lightning. The ship may be riding the storm but it will be all right, because it has an anchor. A chain runs to the anchor, sitting at rest on the ocean floor, quiet and still, and that holds the ship. As long as they hold to the anchor, they will be all right, even if it is far away, on the bottom of the ocean.

Think of a waltz. The man may be doing the leading, but he is leading for her. She is the reason.

Think of when you are in a rotten mood, and life is a battle which you are rapidly losing, and a strain of music comes through an open window, and you become at rest.

Imagine you have gone on a long hike on a hot day, through the woods and have walked a good deal further than you meant to. You are hot and dehydrated and stinky and scratched up by thorns, and this walk isn't much fun anymore. And then you turn a corner and find a well, hidden between the cedar trees, deep, cool, and shaded.

It's like coming over the hill and seeing the house lit up in the dark, and family saying "Welcome Home".

It is very close to home, but a mystery we can never exhaust.

Of course, I'm playing with fire here. These metaphors are much more far reaching than simple issues of what you should wear to a party, or to church, or to work. But that is what I am trying to do. I don't think there is much wisdom to be found in trying to determine what lines we can push, and what lines we can't. That reminds me too much of playing with the magnets. The only way you could know you had gotten too close was by losing control. Fine with magnets, magnets are a lot of fun. Not so fine when dealing with humans. Besides, there are no hard and fast lines. They change with different guys. The only way you can know you have crossed the line is to cross it, and that is not an acceptable way. So let's look for a little wisdom in God's plan.

You don't want to look like a thing. You don't want to look like a body. You don't want to look like a hot chick. Great. But what do you want to look like?

You want to be at peace. You want to go beyond just not being part of the problem. You want to go beyond merely not being immodest, and be modest, for true Godly modesty has a positive quality of its own that is incredibly powerful. Instead of just not being harmful, you can become positively helpful. You can be an antidote to immodesty. Instead of simply not being a stumbling block, God has called you to be an inspiration. Never underestimate the power for good a Godly woman can have in a man's life, especially a young man.

The hurricane is what it is because of its heart. It gains its strength from the peace at its center. A ship survives because it is anchored. A soldier fights because he knows someone worth fighting for. She doesn't even have to be a wife or girlfriend. She can be an infant, for all that matters. Men work and sweat and get dirty, but all for the sake of a peaceful place, and for most that place is found in a woman. Men don't understand women, but I don't think we really want to. A deep well loses none of its charm for being deep. That is its beauty, that is why the water is cool and clean and refreshing because it is drawn up from the depths of the earth, beyond anything we can ever fathom.

Peace is like that. It comes from deep, deep springs and can only be held by those who would empty themselves to be filled with it.

Make no mistake, you are an image of the Heart of God. If masculinity is a symbol of His power, His energy, His strength, then femininity is the embodiment of His peace, His kindness, His tender care of us.

Let God shine through you and it won't matter in the slightest what you are wearing, for you will not wear anything that would disrespect His image in you, and whatever you wear will be lit up by His light. I have seen several girls who managed to make rubber boots, overalls and dirty sweaters look gorgeous.

Forget the lines. Forget the collar lines and hemlines and sleeves and slits in the skirt. Forget the tightness, the fashions, the looseness, the plainness or comeliness. Forget everything you think you know about what you are not to look like. Don't even look like something.

Instead embody the peace of God in an ugly world.

Be a woman that a man can simply look at and be at peace.

It will be enough.

* Edit: I do not mean to suggest that guidelines are worthless or unnecessary, only that they are only a beginning. I think as a general guideline at a minimum everything between the cleavage and the kneecaps should be covered when in a skirt or dress. I would say shorts can be considerably shorter but should cover a little more than half the distance between hips and knees. Beyond that, I have never formulated any specific points of reference. I don't generally think about specifics in this area.