Best Judo

Judo Book Reviews

You are here: Home

Was Jesus Married?

September 16, 2006 by khadaji Leave a Comment

 

This question brings to light the difference between scholarship and theological doctrine. Most people reading this will quite certainly respond “No, Jesus was not married” – and if you assert this – you are asserting a theological belief, and not Biblical scholarship. There is no Biblical verse that states Jesus was married. There is also no Bible verse stating that Jesus was not married. The correct answer to the question therefore, is “We don’t know”.Interestingly, the Biblical evidence in favor of Jesus being married is, in my view, persuasive. Everyone remember the wedding in Cana? The location of Jesus’ first miracle? Turning water into wine? Let’s take a look again:

“And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now. This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.” John 2:1-11 (King James Version)

Now, let’s examine this simple story in a little more detail. The “Governor of the Feast” would be called today the “Master of Ceremonies”… (Strong’s calls him the “Director of the Entertainment”) and it’s clear from his words that he expected that it was the duty of the bridegroom to provide the wine. “Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.” Yet we know from the Bible that not only did Jesus provide it, but his mother expected him to! This seems pretty ironclad to me… guests don’t provide food & drink at a wedding… and as Mary seems to be involved with providing drink for the wedding party, one of Mary’s children must have been either the bride or bridegroom. With the added expectation of Mary that it was Jesus‘ duty to provide the wine, I find no problems understanding this to be Jesus’ own wedding.

Another interesting note is the amount of wine that was produced… Bamford’s Bible Dictionary specifies a “firkin” as 10 gallons. Vine’s Greek Dictionary puts it at 9 gallons. So Jesus produced somewhere between 108-180 gallons of wine! Keep in mind that this was an additional amount of wine for the wedding. As one person noted, this would be enough to get 750 people rip-roaring drunk, and considering that many would only drink toasts, there’s enough wine here for a wedding party of over 1,000 people! This wasn’t the small wedding that’s implied in the Bible!

Now, there are other indications in the Bible that Jesus was married, and even fairly good indication as to who his wife was. But it’s only implication – so there’s certainly no proof that Jesus was married. Here’s another tidbit:

“Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house. And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus’ feet, and heard his word. But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me. And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.” Luke 10: 38-42

This seems like a fairly simple scene. Jesus is a guest in a home of two sisters, Martha and Mary. Martha is doing what women have done since time immemorial when guests arrive – they rush to the kitchen and prepare food. (Where would us men be without women who cook for us?) And as Martha is busy with the food preparation, she notices that her own sister is just sitting around at Jesus’ feet. Yet rather than berate her sister directly, she approaches Jesus and tries to get Jesus to bid her sister to help her. This makes very little sense in an ordinary way, but if you presume that Jesus and Mary were married, it suddenly makes perfect sense. Martha acts as if her sister Mary is under Jesus’ control and authority, ie; his wife. But again, it’s only an implication, and falls far short of proving that Jesus was married.

If, however, you accept that Jesus was married, there are only two serious possibilities for his wife. They are: Mary Magdalene (who, I might note, is not referred to as a prostitute in the Bible), or Mary of Bethany. The Catholic Church regards these two women as the same person.

I post this as a reminder that theology and Biblical scholarship are two different things.  It can be interesting to see if what you believe is supported by explicit Biblical reference… or if it is derived from church doctrine.

 

Filed Under: Blog, Religion

UFO’s – Do They Exist?

September 15, 2006 by khadaji Leave a Comment

 

Of course they do!  Flying objects that are unidentified – after all, is what “UFO” means… and there’s no-one who can deny that there are objects flying through the air that are unidentified.  Even Project Blue Book, U.S. Air Force – was forced to ‘admit’ that there were sightings that they could not identify.

Most people, however, are actually thinking of ‘Little Green Men’ when UFO’s are discussed.  Yet surprisingly, I suspect that the odds are slightly more than in favor of them existing somewhere… I just don’t have a clue whether they are flying above us, mutilating cattle, drawing circles in our crops, and kidnapping people for sexual experimentation.

All of these traditional alien activities have more mundane explanations… and I do tend to follow Occam’s Razor.  When there’s a simpler explanation, I tend to prefer it.  I don’t need to imagine time traveling future humans… or aliens from 3 galaxies down the road…

There are times when simplicity doesn’t explain the facts (The JFK assassination is one example that comes to mind), but I’m afraid that although I have no doubt that we are not alone in the universe, I’m also not afraid that I’ll be beamed up to a spaceship one night, and sexually violated by some alien female.

Whether you view the universe through the eyes of religious belief in God, or the atheist’s belief of Darwinian evolution – it’s still going to be a fool’s bet to think that we are alone in the universe.

It wouldn’t surprise me to discover that I’m right in my lifetime – and learning that mankind isn’t alone is going to be a disruption and change in our society no less of an upheaval than the change from an agricultural society to an industrial society.

 

Filed Under: Blog, Other

The Cell Phone Revolution…

September 12, 2006 by khadaji Leave a Comment

 

I’ve so far resisted the allure of cell phone ownership.  Actually, I still can’t quite figure out why I’d want to pay for the privilege of having people call me anytime day or night.  (And pay for the call as well!)

Cell phone companies should come up with a button that puts the cell phone “out of range”, and takes a message.  Then they’d have a feature that I’m already using… known as an “answering machine”.  If they can then drop the price to what I’m paying monthly for my normal phone bill, they might get me hooked.

Of course, I don’t have long distance plans, three-way calling, call forwarding, caller ID, Voice Mail, or any other money-costing features that the phone company offers.  Never felt the need for any of it.

The company that I work for recently decided to reimburse their employees for cell phones being used during work.  These employees drive long distances to various accounts, and are often out of radio range.  So the company offered an extra $20 each month if you’ll agree to use your cell phone.  What a deal!!  The company can now instantly speak to you on your dime!  I figure if my company wants to talk to me on a cell phone, they can issue me a cell phone.  (Hopefully, someone will invent the “out of range” button before my company decides to do so.)

We’ve turned into a society where actual physical contact never need take place.  We can speak all day on a phone that we carry with us … regardless of your location or activity, you can be speaking to someone miles away.  One gentleman obtained a bit of fame when he demonstrated the ability to never leave his house – obtaining everything he needed via the internet.

I must admit a tad bit of weakness for the internet myself… I probably spend far too much time sitting in front of a computer screen.  On the other hand, I deal with people all day long – so a bit of personal time spent working on websites … or having discussions and/or arguments on news forums is probably at least as sane a preoccupation as any other.

Hmmm… come to think of it – my preference for newsgroups rather than ‘chat rooms’ probably has much in common with my distaste for cell phone usage.  A chat room is nothing more than a typed form of cell phone usage – if not quite as intrusive.  A news forum, on the other hand – demands thought and preparation.  You read what someone wrote, and you take your time responding to it – even to the point of looking up material to include.  Chat rooms are far more instantaneous and ‘off the cuff’ form of communications.

What this all boils down to is… don’t bother asking me for my cell phone number…  by the time I get a cell phone – I’ll be able to stop you from calling and bugging me anyway…

 

Filed Under: Blog, Other

The Ideal Judo ‘Career’…

September 11, 2006 by khadaji Leave a Comment

 

I’ve always had this concept of what a Judo ‘career’ should consist of.  You start Judo sometime before you reach your teen years (or certainly early in your teens, as I did).  Begin to win a tournament or two here and there… get your brown belt while still in High School.  Earn your Shodan in competition by your freshman year in college.  Begin competing at the national level…

And peak at whatever level your natural talent and drive will allow for in your late 20’s to early 30’s.

Now that competition is over – you begin to train others as you yourself were trained – bringing back to Judo for others what you yourself learned from it.  (Now is the time to go back and pick up the kata you missed out on while competing.)  Time to begin learning to referee at tournaments.

Yet now as the years go by – virtually everything I’ve imagined is wrong.  I’m teaching adults who first stepped into a dojo at the age of 50.  I’m learning from referees who never did serious competition.  I’m learning, for the first time – that not everyone fits into a neat mold.

Yes, it was wonderful to do Judo at an age when my physical attributes allowed me to do anything my mind could imagine… but not everyone has that opportunity.  Are they any less Judoka for it?  I wouldn’t say so.

Although Judo is practiced against others – the real battle is always with yourself.  And this is just as true with a 50 year old stepping into the dojo for the first time as it was for me earning my shodan at the All Marine Corps Judo tournament so long ago.

So there is no ‘ideal’ Judo career.  For every Yasuhiro Yamashita, there’s a ‘Joe Schmo’ in smalltown, USA – who loves Judo just as much as anyone.  And as much as envy competitors such as Jimmy Pedro, I’m just as proud of my achievements, such as they are.

Speaking of achievements – one of our Encino Judo Club’s Ikkyu’s just beat a Sandan in a recent tournament by ippon.  Okurierijime, to be precise.  An achievement to remember for the rest of his life!!  I must admit to never having as great a victory over such a disparity in rank… (again, someone else to envy!!)

 

Filed Under: Blog, Judo

137.5 – An Amazing Number… (The Dangers of Sugar)

September 11, 2006 by khadaji Leave a Comment

 

Back as little as the 1800’s… the per capita consumption of sugar was only around 12 pounds per year in the United States.  But by the 1990’s, it climbed to the amazing figure of 137.5 pounds per year!

‘So?’ …. I hear some saying… tis simple, really… sugar is a killer – just slower than other chemicals.  Obesity is one obvious problem – but did you know that it also impacts the immune system, robs the body of vitamins, and leads to heart disease?  The medical impact of the amount of sugar we stuff into our bodies is not immediate such as shooting heroin… it’s more along the lines of tobacco.  But not any less deadly for the length of time that it takes.

Research has shown that Type II Diabetes, for example, can be directly linked to the sugar intake … An interesting fact that I ran across is that Eskimos, prior to taking up the traditional American diet, had *no* known cases of diabetes.  Yet as soon as they started eating traditional American food… it became as common a problem as it is among Americans.

I’m no doctor or researcher – but from what I gather – when your body detects large amounts of sugar, the pancreas produce insulin, which has the job of regulating and controlling blood glucose (sugar).  The problem that occurs, is that the human body wasn’t designed to handle the amount of sugar that we routinely toss at it nowadays… and the body starts to break down… cell receptors for insulin either stop working or become far less effective (this is what is known as ‘Diabetes’).

Sugar is the number one food additive used in the United States… it’s used 10 times more than all other 2,600 or so food additives combined.  (Salt is a distant second.)  Your typical 12 ounce soft drink, for example, contains about nine teaspoons of refined white sugar.  Sugar can be found even where you wouldn’t think of it… Ketchup, for example … one tablespoon of ketchup contains one teaspoon of sugar!

Everywhere you look you’ll find sugar… breads, soups, cereals, hot dogs, lunch meat, spaghetti sauce, salad dressing, mayonnaise, peanut butter, pickles, tomato juice, canned fruits & vegetables… everywhere you look!

The number one form of sugar that you commonly see is ‘high fructose corn syrup’… which is merely a cheap form of sugar.  ‘Cheap’, of course, means more profits, and who is averse to earning more money??  Start reading labels; you’ll be amazed at what you find.

(By the way – I dislike to too much salt as well, I think the average American diet already has far too much, and you’d be surprised at how hard it is to find condiments and mixed spices that don’t contain salt)

Contrary to popular belief, there isn’t a ‘healthy’ version of sugar.  Many people presume that ‘brown sugar’ is healthier… but the ‘brown sugar’ found in supermarkets is merely refined white sugar with some molasses tossed back in for color.

Glucose, Galactose, Fructose, Ribose, Sucrose, Lactose, Maltose… all simply names for varieties of sugar.  It’s my understanding that the body treats all of these exactly the same… as sugar.

“Fruits and Vegetables”… how many times have you heard these two connected together?  Yet vegetables are far more nutritionally dense and healthy for you than most fruits.  Fruit generally contains far more sugar content as a percentage of the whole than vegetables.  So keep an eye on fruit… particularly fruit juices, which contain all of the sugar, and virtually none of the fiber…

All food can be broken down into just three components… Proteins, Fats, and Carbohydrates.  Quick… which is absolutely essential, and what can be done without?

This may surprise you, but while proteins and fats cannot be taken away without health consequences, you can live quite well without carbohydrates (which is merely another word for sugar).  And despite the cries of vegans everywhere – you can live quite healthy on a diet of just meat & water.

Now, I’m no doctor, researcher, or health specialist… but judging from the health of America as a whole, I’d be careful about accepting what they said without careful consideration.  Some doctors would agree with everything I’ve said here, others would cross their fingers and recite an incantation to rid me of my evil possession.  Draw your own conclusions…

 

Filed Under: Blog, Health

Sports in America – The Failure of Our Educational System

September 6, 2006 by khadaji Leave a Comment

 

James A. Michener might be a name familiar to those of you who like to read – he’s written many fine books, including ‘Sayonara’, ‘Hawaii’, and ‘Texas’ for examples…  But one book that I read long ago sticks in my mind.  (which, of course, is the goal of any good author!)

He detailed in Sports in America how our educational system brought us up with sports that very few will ever continue to play once past High School or College.  Oh, we’ll have the occasional company softball game… but sports that people can play for the rest of their lives are generally not taught in our educational system.  A few are, there are the occasional Golf or Tennis classes being taught.

As might be rather obvious from this website – I’ve gotten lucky with learning a sport that I can practice the rest of my life… I’ve been rather fortunate in having had the chance to start learning Judo while still in High School, and it has definitely been good to me (health wise) over the years.  But Judo isn’t for everyone.

I really don’t have any suggestions… other than perhaps to look into sports that are not quite so team oriented.  After all – who wants to gather up a dozen of their friends each time they want to work out?

But as a society, our problems are even worse… according to the latest news reports that I’ve seen, 17% of our children are obese!  Did you know that only a few states now require physical education in elementary, middle, and high school students?  That’s a sad commentary… isn’t it?

There was clearly a time long ago when physical education wasn’t nearly so important… after all, our grandparents probably had to milk the cows, feed the chickens, and so forth… but today – kids drive or take the bus – and when home, sit in front of the T.V. or a computer.

Today, a sport such as Judo, or any other sport that you can do for the rest of your life, is more important than ever.  Have you found yours?

 

Filed Under: Blog, Health

Deru Pon! Defeating a Higher Ranked Judoka in Shiai…

August 23, 2006 by khadaji Leave a Comment

Have you ever faced a higher ranked Judoka in tournament – and wondered how you can beat him?  There is a way of doing so… it even has a name in Japanese – it’s a tactic known as Deru Pon.

The literal meaning is “To come out – to advance….  Ippon!”  This simply means that when you first take your grip – you immediately attack with your strongest technique.  Now, to do it best, you also have to give up the grip war… the way I’ve done it in the past is after the rei, walk up slowly with your arms out, offering the grip… completely relaxed… and the moment you get your grip – turn into King Kong!

The idea is that your opponent will be underestimating you – after all, he outranks you… and to make your attack before your opponent has a chance to get into his fighting tempo.  Most Judo matches begin with a sort of ‘feeling out’ of your opponent, so the idea of Deru Pon is to bypass this initial test of skill/strength, and immediately commit your entire body to a terminal attack.

Be sure that you utilize a terminal technique!!  By ‘terminal’, I mean that either you, or you and your opponent, go to the ground.  Obviously, it’s to be hoped for that both of you go down … with you on top.  But the attack must be made with total commitment, and if it fails, you must end up on the ground … for if you don’t – this merely proves that your attack wasn’t made with the most complete commitment that it could have been.

(Another advantage of making the attack terminal – is if you fail in your initial attack, your opponent no longer has his favorite grip that you just gave him for free.  Now he’ll have to work for it.)

Give this a try next time in randori… prep yourself to do this so that when you’re next at shiai, you can give it a try.

Filed Under: Blog, Judo

How to Retire Wealthy! (Health & Wisdom Are -Your- Problem!)

August 23, 2006 by khadaji Leave a Comment

 

I’m often amazed when I meet people who haven’t read a book since they left school… it really shocks me… then again, I’m rarely without a book, and often read several books each week.

I consider literacy to be one of man’s greatest inventions… it allows the collection and passing along of knowledge in ways that weren’t possible in a non-literate society.  It’s a way to continue to grow and learn long after you’ve left school…

One of the most interesting books that I’ve ever read – and believe everyone should have in their home is The Richest Man in Babylon by George Clason.   It was first written in 1926… and has been in print ever since.  That might give you a clue to the power of this little book.  And it’s a relatively short read … even those who rarely read a book can put this away in no more than a few days.

I really don’t want to give away the plot or essence of the book – it’s cheap at Amazon… and can even be easily found in many used bookstores.  My father likes to collect ‘em when he finds them in used bookstores, as he gives them away as gifts. I highly recommend that you get it too!  You won’t be disappointed!

 

Filed Under: Blog, Other

Are You a Conservative or a Liberal? What’s the Difference?

August 22, 2006 by khadaji Leave a Comment

 

Most people have only the vaguest idea of the differences between the two major political parties in America today, the Democratic Party, and the Republican Party. As one author comments:

“The secret ballot was a well-intended democratic innovation designed to provide voters with enough privacy to vote their true convictions without fear of reprisal. Unfortunately it is an innovation that also manifests a concomitant desire to think and even learn about politics in private so as to, again, avoid possible reprisals from a public revelation of political positions and, additionally, the acrimony that often accompanies adversarial democratic politics. With such an attitude, it is no wonder that 60-70% of us don’t know the difference between Democrats and Republicans and that by default we send equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans to Washington where they proceed to divide and grid-lock the governmental process.”

In this post, I’m going to concentrate my efforts on describing the differences between a “Liberal”, and a “Conservative”. Party definitions of what a Republican, or a Democrat are, tend to shift over time, but the underlying political philosophy, which can be described with the terms Liberal and Conservative, stay the same. For example, Republicans were defined as the “Anti-Slavery” party in the 1860’s, but that definition hardly applies today. The underlying philosophy that led to these definitions have not changed.

The first attempt for most people is to examine what the dictionary says about “Liberals” and “Conservatives”. From the Random House 1999 Webster’s College Dictionary:

“liberal, adj. 1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. [often cap.] designating or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. pertaining to, based on, or having views or policies advocating individual freedom of action and expression.
4. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
5. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant.
6. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.; openminded.
7. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts.
8. given freely or abundantly; generous.
9. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
10. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts: a liberal education. — n.
11. a person of liberal principles or views.
12. (often cap.) a member of a liberal political party, esp. the Liberal Party in Great Britain. [1325-75]”

“conservative, adj. 1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate: a conservative estimate.
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: a conservative suit.
4. (cap.) of or pertaining to a conservative political party, esp. the Conservative Party of Great Britain.
5. of or pertaining to political conservatism.
6. (cap.) conforming to or characteristic of Conservative Judaism.
7. having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative. — n.
8. a person who is conservative in principles, actions, habits, etc.
9. a supporter of conservative political policies.
10. (cap.) a member of a conservative political party, esp. the Conservative Party of Great Britain.
11. a preservative. [1350-1400]”

This concept of attempting to use just the dictionary meanings can be found in posts by various people, and websites have followed this same path… here’s two examples:

http://www.politicalstrikes.com/thesaurus.html

http://www.thehemperor.net/liberal.html

Here is another rather interesting discussion of the issue.

http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/000052.html

The dictionary meaning give only the barest outlines of what the basic fundamental philosophy that underlies these two political belief systems. Attempting to rely on the idea that Liberals are “generous, progressive, and reforming” and Conservatives are “cautious and tend to conserve/preserve” is to completely misunderstand the terms as used in today’s political debates.

Somewhat better is to look to a dictionary designed for political definitions. The Harper Collins “American Government & Politics” dictionary provides the following:

“liberal: 1. An advocate of political and social reform, expanding government control of the economy, greater efforts on behalf of the poor, and more laws protecting consumers, the environment, and criminal defendants. (Because of this last concern, it is often said that a liberal is a CONSERVATIVE who has been arrested.) During the 1988 presidential election, the Republican candidate George Bush effectively used what he called “the L word” against Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis, who was trying to avoid political labels and run on the issue of competence. Only toward the end of the campaign, after it was too late to do any good, did Dukakis admit he was a liberal — and proud of it. But by that time the Republicans had effectively insinuated that “liberal” was a dirty word, and Dukakis simply wasn’t competent enough to clean it up. 2. When referring to trade policy, relative freedom of controls or restraints. The most liberal trade is free trade.”

“Conservative: One who believes in conservatism. But conservatives are seldom pure. The new right is a major variant and many conservatives are closet LIBERALS. For example, Republican Representative Trent Lott of Mississippi said: “Americans think of themselves as conservatives; they want government reduced. But in their hearts they’re liberals; they want money for sewers and libraries and all the goodies coming in. It’s a fact” (The New York Times, November 18, 1982). Another Republican Representative, Clay Shaw of Florida, confessed: “Every conservative becomes a liberal when he talks about his own district” (The New York Times, January 18, 1981). Even the nation’s leading conservative officeholder, President George Bush, once admitted that he was “a conservative but… not a nut about it” (The Washington Post, November 3, 1984). The reality is that most Americans, the mainstream of society, have both conservative and liberal inclinations depending upon a given issue and how they perceive their economic circumstances. Purity is to be found only among the LUNATIC FRINGE.”

It can be seen that by using a more specific dictionary, we approach more accurately the meanings of the terms as commonly used in politics. But for the underlying philosophy of each term, it’s necessary to move away from dictionaries and begin a little actual research. Taken from the textbook, “The Challenge of Democracy – Government in America”:

“In popular usage, liberals favor a broader scope of government whereas conservatives would narrow the scope. This distinction applies clearly to government action in providing for public goods. Liberals favor generous government support for education, wildlife protection, public transportation, and so forth. Conservatives favor fewer government programs and smaller government budgets. In particular, conservatives favor free enterprise and oppose government activism in economic matters, such as undertaking major job programs, regulating business operations, and legislating working conditions and wage rates.”

As can be seen, by using textbooks on politics, we are moving away from simplistic “reform” and “preserve” definitions that are commonly found in dictionaries. The textbook “Government by the People” offers these definitions:

“In its modern American usage, Liberalism refers to a belief in the positive uses of government to bring about justice and equality of opportunity. Modern day liberals wish to preserve the rights of the individual and the right to own private property, yet they are willing to have the government intervene in the economy to remedy the defects of capitalism. Contemporary American liberalism has its roots in Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal programs, designed to aid the poor and to protect people against unemployment and bank failures. Today liberals seek protection against inadequate or deficient medical assistance and inadequate or deficient housing and education. They generally believe in affirmative action programs, regulations that protect workers’ health and safety, tax rates that rise with income, and the right of unions to organize as well as to strike.”

“In contrast to liberals, conservatives want to keep government small, except in the area of national defense. However, because conservatives take a more pessimistic view of human nature than liberals do, they maintain that people need strong leadership institutions, firm laws, and strict moral codes to keep their appetites under control. Government, they think, needs to ensure order… Conservatives are also inclined to believe that those who fail in life are in some way the architects of their own misfortune and thus must bear the main responsibility for solving their own problems.”

The textbook “American Government – People, Institution, and Policies” comments that:

“Conservatism and Liberalism. To make our discussion of these two leading ideologies as clear as possible, let us begin with the extremes. A person who takes conservative stances across the board would oppose government intervention into the economy, oppose social programs, and favor governmental intervention to uphold morality. He or she would want a strong military and be willing to use force to obtain desired ends in foreign policy. A person who took across-the-board liberal stands would favor government intervention into markets, favor social program to help the needy, oppose governmental restrictions on morals and private activities, and oppose military expansion. Liberalism and conservatism are ideologies because each links together positions across a variety of issues.”

This textbook also includes an interesting chart that shows the inter-relationships and ideology:

More Government ————————————— Less Government
Socialism ———— Liberalism —– Conservatism —– Libertarianism

Values:
Guarantee equal —– Freedom ——- Freedom ——— Individual
Distribution of —— and Political —– and Order ——– liberty;
Wealth, social ——– Equality ——————————— Laissez
Equality —————————————————————- Faire
—————————————————————————– Economy

While this is good, certainly every text I’ve seen agrees when it comes to government, this book lists “Values”, and it seems that there may be an alternative that is preferable. In “Are You a Republican or a Democrat” by O’Leary and Kamber, the statement is offered that:

“Whether you’re a liberal of a conservative has a lot to do with how you view human nature. Liberal philosophers like Jean Jacques Rousseau believed that people were naturally good and only corrupted by the evil world. Therefore, a government that protected and developed that natural goodness was necessary. Conservative philosophers like Thomas Hobbes believed that it was human nature to be subdued by evil and that government should be used to protect people from each other.”

This immediately makes understandable the differences on many issues between Liberals and Conservatives… for example, Liberals don’t believe in the death penalty… why would you offer the supreme punishment to a good man who was corrupted by forces beyond his control? Rather, let us attempt to control those forces that led him to his crime, such as poverty, child neglect, poor education, and so on. Conservatives, on the other hand, see crime as a moral issue, and believe that transgressions against society must be paid for. This explains why Conservatives are for the death penalty.

On almost any issue, it becomes apparent why the Liberal/Conservative takes the position he does, once you understand these two underlying philosophical differences… how one views human nature, and what the purpose of government is.

(Just a side note here: Interesting to point out that Christians are more often found among Conservatives, for as Romans 3:23 points out, “For all have sinned, and come short of the Glory of God”. This is the Conservative view of human nature. And while you don’t have to be religious to be Conservative, it’s a fact that a large fraction of those who consider themselves conservative also consider themselves religious.)

Another example that becomes clear [once the philosophy is understood] is the favor Conservatives appear to show to the “rich”, vice the disdain of the Liberals. Conservatives believe that individuals are responsible for their own actions, and applaud those who have, through their own hard work, achieved wealth. Liberals, believing that all men are equally good, see no reason for one person to so dramatically achieve wealth above others, and will tend to assume criminal behavior. And, as all people are equally good, will prefer to “level the playing field” by inordinately taxing the wealthy.

There can be a greater divide between two people of the same party than between two of opposing parties… for example, Pat Buchanan, who is rather to the right of most Republicans, and John McCain, who would fit so easily in the Democratic Party that no-one would complain of any conservative streak. So it can be difficult to label people on the basis of their professed political party. But there’s no doubt in people’s minds that Pat Buchanan is Conservative, and John McCain is Liberal. This explains why it can sometimes be more accurate to use the terms “Liberal” and “Conservative”, rather than Democrat or Republican.

 

Filed Under: Blog, Politics

The Importance of Shiai for Judoka…

August 22, 2006 by khadaji Leave a Comment

 

The training of combat skills always has one major flaw – they can’t be practiced for ‘real’.  You can’t arrange a mugging to test your skills learned in the dojo – nor is there any easy way to emulate the adrenaline rush and fear of a truly random personal attack.

The best way to see if your Judo has gotten better is to simply walk down a dark alley in New York City with $20 bills hanging out of your back pocket (to paraphrase an old Cosby monologue on Karate).  Unfortunately, such attempts may very well cost your life, and therefore should be reserved for Hollywood movies.

But there is a form of Judo training that comes close to providing this adrenaline rush and fear that an unprovoked attack can give you – and that is Judo’s shiai.  Going to a tournament, and facing someone you’ve never practiced with in the dojo, indeed, don’t even know – can be an emotionally wracking experience.  And while it can’t exactly compete with the mugger on a dark alley – it’s as close as we can come and still have perfect safety.

How many Judoka have had the experience of going to a tournament – and having all their training & experience simply fall to pieces??  I well recall when I was much younger – having been promoted to a rank I didn’t feel I deserved… so I promptly began losing tournament after tournament.  Once I’d grown adjusted to my new rank, and began to believe I deserved it, I again started bringing home the trophies…

Your ability at randori isn’t going to necessarily translate into ability at shiai – there are different factors at play – and it’s the closest a Judoka can get to seeing if his skill works in a self-defense situation.  I know several Judoka who’ve started as adults, and are unsure of whether they should go to tournaments or not.  They consider tournaments to be something for young athletes, not for more ‘mature’ Judoka.  But they miss one of the major training advantages of shiai.

Nothing in Judo comes close to actual self-defense situations, but shiai comes the closest… and you need the ability you gain in shiai to have confidence when facing a stranger in a simulated ‘life & death’ situation.  I highly recommend that all Judoka compete in tournaments.

One last thought – don’t be afraid of the really BIG tournaments… they are precisely the ones you want to go to… you’re far more likely to face someone that is exactly your weight and skill level.  Small tournaments often have many matches that are completely unfair…

 

Filed Under: Blog, Judo

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • …
  • 12
  • Next Page »

Copyright © 2026 · Dynamik Website Builder on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in