Just a quick one:  awaiting my new rank...the red markers are placeholders.  :)





"I'm a karate-man, karate-man bruise on the inside....."    :)

Belt testing soon.  

 I don't know exactly what I'll be if/when I pass.  This is a "modernized" school with a whole bunch of intermediate steps.  That isn't necessarily bad or wrong, I simply observe the dynamic.  My first style only had four different color belts (white, green, brown, black) with a couple of "stripes and tips" (same colors) thrown in.  I confess I haven't learned the belt designation for every belt/step in this style.

So, I'm not sure, but I might actually have to earn my way through a fuschia or teal belt on this path.  ;)

'Course, from my perspective, being a white belt isn't necessarily a bad thing anyway.  :)

For now, I practice my kata, continue to work on "unprogramming" (reprogramming?) old habits from three decades ago (little things like how the fist is chambered), and generally have a rollicking good time with some very cool fellow students and an enthusiastic instructor.

Maybe I'll even post a pic.

Banzai!

Update:  Silly pics below

                        

Still enjoying karate immensely, even if I did pull a calf muscle due to forgetting, yet again, my chonological age.  :)  Happily the muscle has pretty much healed.

Both primary black belts are very good instructors, and interestingly, they each tend to focus different, but complimentary areas.  Before I started, I sketched out my long term involvment (if not always formal in terms of attending a dojo) in the martial arts, as well as my SCA experience.  I didn't want to oversell it, but I didn't think I'd be same as the average new student.

Both are careful to ensure I'm not over-extending myself (though I'm equally careful not to try something that I might know...but am completely out of condition to safely execute), but don't shy away from showing me an advanced technique.  Or even letting me show a technique that might be different (especially during the self-defense portions) that is outside the school's style, but is useful none-the-less.

My classmates are equally cool, and have not looked askance at a white belt with more weapons experience (bo-staff, pole arm...they're just a stick....I'm good with sticks....) than most of them, including the higher belts.  I've even begun teaching a couple of the higher belts basic katana (using bokken) and they're digging it.

It's nice to be learning kata again, I always did enjoy it.  And happily, because of my experience base, I pick it up pretty quickly.

The things I must really concentrate on are the minor, stylistical differences peculiar to this school, like how the fist is chambered, or variations in stances.  If I don't think about it, I fall back into patterns instilled in me during my early years. 

The bottom line is I'm just having fun.

This post would not be complete with an homage to "...the Quart of Blood technique..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUvKIubY6OY

(Internet link thingy now fixed...)

What prompted this was yet another news article about a database of credit card numbers being hacked.  It served as the "tipping point" in a contemplation that had been on-going for a while, one fed by a stream of complaints on Facebook about yet another format change, a discussion about HR offices starting to ask (or allegedly so, I'm not personally acquainted with any stories of it happening) for passwords or information about candidates' presence on social networking sites (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, et al), the increasingly frenzied concern about what our computerized society has done to personal privacy.

I've watched the exponential growth of computer-assisted living in my brief lifetime.  One of my classmates in high school was gifted with one of the first hand-held calculators.  It was four-function, fixed-decimal, with no memory and cost more than some laptops in today's market.  That same hand-held calculator can be purchased at Walmart from the "impulse" shelf for $5.  Not quite the same, the modern one has floating decimal, memory, and usually at least a square-root function.  Laptops and desktop computers are available at prices the average working family can afford, and have computing power that, in my youth, was limited to campus (or multi-campus) level computers.  What started out as DARPA-NET, designed to permit the U.S. to survive a nuclear war with the Soviet Union, is now the Internet and is ubiquitous.

I grew up reading science fiction (and never stopped), much of which posited life in a computer-rich environment.  The original Star Trek's interactive ship's computer predated Apple's "Siri" by 45 years.  For the most part, people of my age were fascinated by the potential that computers represented in positive changes to our social and technological environments.

But the sword always has two edges, neh?  (Well, most swords...)  Or perhaps a better observation is a line I remember from a favorite Zen myth:  "Each attainment brings its own despair."

With an ever-increasing drive to automate, we're running into the downside of living in a cyber world.  The efficiencies that permit us to order what pleases us, from around the globe, present risks as well.  The hacked database of credit card numbers being a case-in-point.  This is exacerbated by the law lagging behind the break-neck speed of technological development.  Assuming someone else's identity was the stuff of spy fiction during my youth.   Identity theft is now an ugly fact of modern life.  Yet, even with "old-style" proofs in hand (e.g., birth certificate, photos, etc.), convincing credit reporting agencies and banking institutions you were wronged is unreasonably difficult.  During my time in uniform, we attempted to discipline a wayward troop who had "hacked" his way into the Commander's file-space on the unit's mainframe computer.  Said miscreant got off with nothing more than a letter of reprimand, as the JAG noted there was no legal precedent in military law at that time for such an act.  (That has, happily, changed.)

Perhaps the biggest impact people are finally waking up to is the rapid decline in privacy.  I consider some of the "surprise" to be disingenuous; you can't go posting pictures of the last four family reunions, comment daily on Facebook or Twitter or fill-in-the-blank, and utilize Foursquare but then act shocked that *so* much is no longer private.

Now, back "in the day" you could still find out information on people.  Many people still don't know that the record of their home purchase is a public record.  And many places never (and still don't) redacted information like social security numbers, which feature prominently on such documents.  As I retired from the military I recall being advised to provide a copy of my DD-214 to the local records office, as it would ensure one copy would always be safe.  Except I do believe that once provided to Town Hall, these are also public records.  Of course, most people were in the phone book, their number and street address available to anyone.  But aggregating all that information took lots of *time.*  Enough time that it was tough to do casually. 

So, it's not just the greater amount of data available, but also the speed with which we can now access it.  Google Street View is alternately amazingly useful and scary as ever-loving hell.

So, what are our options?  There are a handful of modern luddites who eschew the web in general.  Though I'm not sure it helps them much; data aggregate sites scour public records and offer alarmingly complete dossiers on people for a price.  Others throw themselves into the 'Net with abandon.  Somewhere in the middle I think we can, and should, be permitted, to manage our "on-line" life.  Some of it we control.  Yes, you with the Facebook and Livejournal and Twitter and Foursquare and Google+ accounts.  You "own" that information, right up to the point where you splash it over the Web.

Some of it we don't. 

Maybe we should have greater rights to our personal data then we currently do.  This again is a case where the law has lagged behind.  Can I make a case for personal ownership of my "data"?  Not just "identity" theft; but where's my "opt-out" for "Intelius"?  Should I have the right to look at that organization (and others like it) and say:  You may *not* sell *my* information without my permission?   But to make that claim, we must redefine what we have previously accepted as "public record."  Or at least our legal rights as to how that public record may be accessed and used.

I don't have any good answers.  I do know I try to manage what I post on Facebook, and on my Livejournal, and I won't let any vendor maintain my debit card information in their database.  It doesn't absolutely protect me, but it seems a prudent step.

Your results may vary.

I've piped up briefly on a couple of other fora on this subject because, as does everyone else, I have an opinion on this situation.  My opinion may be shown to be wrong as additional facts are released, but I have one none the less.  And I feel moved to speak out on the multiple issues surrounding this tragedy as I watch people whip themselves into a frenzy over whatever piece of this they identify with.  Those various frenzies are taking on lives of their own.

I'll open by staking out my ground:  The scenario as presented by Mr. Zimmerman doesn't pass a "smell check" with me.  NOT because of respective issues of race, or perceptions of race (I'll get to that in a bit), but because regardless of the final decision as to whether or not Mr. Zimmerman was within his rights to pull the trigger; he was automatically wrong the instant he decided to ignore the Police Department's direction to stand down.  That fact is not in dispute.  He called 911, and he was told in clear terms to await a police response.

Now, it has been established that Mr. Zimmerman had no more "authority" than an average citizen.  Neighborhood Watch personnel perform a laudable function (if done correctly) but they are *not* vested with any additional legal authority in terms of law enforcement.  Most states permit citizens to intervene to prevent the commission of a violent felony, but there is always the issue of proportional response.  (I've also been told by several lawyers that "citizen's arrests" are a legal mine field.)  This situation is compounded by the fact that, per media reports at least, Mr. Zimmerman has taken courses in law enforcement.  I would be surprised if he had not received some amount of education on the specific legal authority vested in law enforcement officers, and how that differs from the authority of civilians.

The next fact that is not in dispute is that Mr. Martin and Mr. Zimmerman became engaged in a physical altercation.  The last fact that is not in dispute is that Mr. Zimmerman shot Mr. Martin, killing him.   Only two people know exactly how this went down, and one of them are dead.   Depending on one's prejudices, two possible scenarios for that confrontation and altercation are available.

     -  One may choose to believe that Mr. Martin did indeed have nefarious intentions, and he jumped Mr. Zimmerman in order to escape capture, if not to facilitate his execution of those intentions.  If one accepts this interpretation, Mr. Zimmerman's use of deadly force becomes more plausible.  There have been assertions that Mr. Zimmerman was treated for minor injuries resulting from a simply attack, which would seem, in on the surface, to bolster this assertion.  This scenario has Mr. Zimmerman simply shouting "Hey, what are you doing?" prompting Mr. Martin to immediately attack, with such ferocity that Mr. Zimmerman was put in fear of his life.

The problem with this scenario is doesn't seem to match what facts and information are available at the moment.  It immediately ascribes illegal motives to Mr. Martin, none of which are in evidence. Mr. Zimmerman reported the "suspicious person" and was told to await a police response. Nowhere have I read that Mr. Zimmerman subsequently saw Mr. Martin attempting any felonious activity and intervened based on that. 

    -  One may choose to believe that Mr. Zimmerman was a "wannabe cop," bent on vigilante justice because of the other break-ins in his neighborhood, as well as an inflated sense of self-importance in his role as Neighborhood Watchman.  This scenario has Mr. Zimmerman confronting Mr. Martin, gun drawn, and attempting to detain him pending police arrival.

The problem with at least parts of this scenario is immediately opens the door to accusations of callous racism.  Mr. Zimmerman simply gunned down Mr. Martin because he was black and "in the wrong neighborhood."   If that was the motivation, we don't have any evidence of it.  There have been accusations to be sure, but no evidence.  Mr. Zimmerman's alleged physical injuries could be explained in this scenario by positing that Mr. Martin was in fear of *his* life, being confronted by a random, armed person; and he fought ferociously to prevent being killed.

Based on the paltry information available, here's what I believe the evidence currently supports:  For whatever reason, prejudice or simply over-sensitivity because of other recent crimes, Mr. Zimmerman took it upon himself to step beyond the appropriate bounds of his role as a citizen.  There is evidence that points to Mr. Zimmerman initiating the confrontation, as he's recorded as "tailing" Mr. Martin.   At least one media site reports a phone call between Mr. Martin and his girlfriend just before the shooting, and the picture it paints is that of a young man uncomfortable with being "tracked."

Whatever the final actions that precipitated the shooting, it was Mr. Zimmerman's decision to "act," in the face of direction to the contrary, that triggered the sequence of events.  My opinion is, if he is not charged with manslaughter, it will be an injustice.

Now, what upsets me even more is the side-stories being spun up with this.  Race-baiting from both ends of the spectrum is in full swing.  The web is awash with reprehensible statements by people who clearly believe Mr. Martin was suspect simply because he was black, thus it is a case of another thug "getting what he deserved."  At the other end of this teeter-totter is Rev Sharpton (et al) claiming "whitey is still hunting blacks" (my phrase, but it encapsulates the rhetoric).  Spike Lee "tweeting" a completely wrong address with respect to Mr. Zimmerman didn't help things either.

If Mr. Zimmerman's motivation is actually established to have sprung from bigotry and blind hatred, then it is on him.  It isn't a policy statement.

The other side show is the usual suspects in the anti-gun camp.  Mr. Martin's body had barely made it to the morgue before anti-gun commentaries "blamed" this on the "stand your ground law."  For the uninitiated, "stand your ground" means the law supports the position that you are not obligated to retreat in the face of a threat, if you are in a place you have a lawful right to be.  Associated ideas are the "castle doctrine" and arguments covering the range of self-defense actions.  The anti-gun camp is eager to show that if that Florida didn't have "stand your ground" in effect, then Mr. Martin would be alive. 

Except that given the narrative currently available, "stand your ground" doesn't obviously come into play.  Actually, and even more confusing is; one can easily argue Mr. Martin had a right to stand his ground when accosted by a stranger with no institutional authority to be detaining him.  Mr. Martin had a right be where *he* was, it was Mr. Zimmerman who overstepped his bounds.

But the folks running this line care less about the actual death than the opportunity to push their pet positions forward.  I have seen at least one call from those quarters to use this, not only to rescind "stand your ground" laws, but to again call for significant restrictions in private firearm possession.  The theory being Mr. Martin might well be alive if Mr. Zimmerman wasn't permitted to have a firearm.   That sounds comforting, but historical fact doesn't back it up.

If there is to be any justice in this case, Mr. Zimmerman must be held accountable for his actions.  But the core story is being lost in all the noise.