BJJ

BJJ - Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. I first heard of this martial art when I got into watching UFC and MMA fights. It's an adaptation of the Japanese martial art and as I understand it the major difference is it has a stronger emphasis on ground fighting and submissions than its Japanese predecessor.

As a wrestler, I've been interested in grappling but BJJ is totally different. For one, it seems like the prime position for skilled BJJ practioners is on their back. In wrestling of course, being on your back means you lose. Wrestlers avoid being on their backs at all costs, however in BJJ this is one of the strongest positions if you have the skills. In fact, I've seen many fights where a BJJ fighter purposely falls to his back to begin the fight and pulls his opponent on top of him. Needless to say it's going to take a lot of getting used to to feel comfortable on my back.

So there's a place near where I work that offers BJJ lessons. They let you take a trial week of classes so I finally decided to check it out. I had always made excuses due to the fact that I was participating in sports leagues or had little injuries but I finally decided to go in. It's house on the 2nd floor of a physical rehab facility. It's basically one room...not very large, kind of run down. A bunch of guys in their 20s and 30s were in there. The instructor today, Mike, looked pretty young...he's probably in his 20s as well.

Anyway, I changed into shorts and a t-shirt, coated myself with some spray on skin protectant and hit the mat. We started with some basic technique drills...the first one involved one guy on his back with guard open while his partner basically just ran circles around him. The point of this drill was just to keep spinning and keep your guard open to stop any attacks. Then we worked on a kimura arm lock as well as a number of holds from top. The practice ended with a live sparring session. The man on bottom had to submit his opponent. The man on top had to pass guard.

I was a bit weary to jump in with these guys since I'm new but I took one try at it. I started on top and of course I had very little idea of what to do. In wrestling you never face your opponent on top when he's on his back. He'll instantly switch to his stomach. So in this case I was in my opponent's guard meaning he has his legs locked around my torso. This prevents me from escaping and getting perpendicular or 'side control'. Basically we just had fought for awhile - I didn't know how to escape guard. He eventually made me tap out with some sort of wrist lock. In retrospect it was pretty weak and I think I tapped because I was getting tired and there was no end in sight.

Intensity-wise this was nowhere as strenuous as wrestling practices. In fact the whole thing only last an hour. I've already learned via youtube videos some ways to break the guard. It seems so obvious now - use both your arms to push down on your opponents leg to break their lock. I'll be back to try it again. I remember the whole first year I wrestled I was clueless - I just didn't know what I was supposed to do. Hopefully this will come a bit faster.

Rock Your Face Off

This girl is amazing. She's 11 or 12 years old. She's playing everything except for the drum track of "Carry on My Wayward Son" by Kansas. The instrument is an electric organ called an "electone". I want one badly but I think they're only sold in Japan.

What's love got to do, got do with it?

"Who needs a heart
When a heart can be broken"
- Tina Turner

Okay, so before you start laughing, I'm not actually a Tina Turner fan. This just happened to be the first phrase that popped into my mind when I thought about the topic I'm going to write about.

So, let's talk about love and marriage - two topics that I have very little experience in. I'm 24 - I don't really have the desire to be married right now, even if I was currently dating someone. However, many of my friends who are the same age as me are engaged to be married. I've been to one such wedding already and have 3 more on the agenda in the next year or so. So I've talked a bit about the topic with these friends as well as with my parents who have been married for ...close to 25 years now I believe.

I've noticed a distinct difference in the marriage philosophies between myself and my parents. I believe the major reason for this is due to a difference in cultures, but another part of it is generational.

I'll start with "my" viewpoint, which is in line with that of most Americans of my generation.

1. You look for 'the one' and you marry someone if you love them and want to spend the rest of your life with that person.
There are people who actually believe there is exactly one person on Earth who is their perfect match. I don't believe in this - mathematically the odds of 2 people finding each other in a sea of 6 billion is close to zero. What if your perfect match falls into a bottomless pit when she's 8 years old and is never seen again? Tough luck, buddy...get used to being single. This is ludicrous. You can love more than one person just like you can have more than one friend.

So you meet someone who you love and he/she loves you back and you think "I could spend the rest of my life with this person" so you jump in the car, drive to Vegas and get hitched for $29.99 at some quik-e-wedding chapel. Then you go home, buy a house with a white picket fence, have 2.5 kids, and live happily ever after!

The viewpoint my parents have:

2. You meet someone who you think is a good person of solid character who treats you well and can provide for you and a future family. You get married and spend the rest of your life with that person.
So what's the difference here? Well, you still end up moving into your white picket fence enclosed property but there's no mention of the magical word "love". Instead of love, the deciding factors are character, how well the person treats you, and the ability for the person to provide. You live happily ever after!

Of course in either situation we know that things don't always last forever. The divorce rate in America exceeds 50% - meaning that every time a couple gets married they are more than likely to get divorced before one of them passes away.

If you subscribe to situation 1, you might say - well that just means they didn't find their true love. This could be the case. Maybe you think you found your true love, get married, stay married for 25 days (or years), and one day wake up and think "Oh no...she isn't the one!"

Likewise, for situation 2 believers perhaps something changed - you misjudged the character, the person started treating you badly or was no longer able to provide for you.

In the real world, neither of the two scenarios comes with a lifetime warranty. Since the bond of marriage is an artificial, man-made one it can be broken. Only ties that are established through the most primitive means (mother and child) are truly permanent.

So back to #1. The idea of finding true love is prevalent in American culture. Take a look at any TV show, novel, or movie. The typical story line involves the hero rescuing the girl, they fall in love, get married and live happily ever after. Disney is a great example of this - pretty much any fairytale uses this structure. The same goes for movies...I won't even start to list titles, but take any movie that's regarded as a chick flick and I guarantee it follows this pattern.

The point to note is that love is a prerequisite for marriage.

#2 - Love is NOT a prerequisite for marriage. However, this doesn't mean that love can't play a role. It's certainly possible for two people to get married and develop love over time.

So which philosophy should you and I be following?

Well, if you don't believe

Quarterlife

So tonight I was watching TV while doing some exercise and the premiere episode of a show called Quarterlife came on. I guess the premise is that there's a bunch of 20-somethings that are dealing with the trials and tribulations of being a quarter of the way through their lives. I assume topics like romance, work, and general direction and purpose in life will be explored. I didn't really pay that much attention to every second of the show but I think the basic character are:

- Dylan, a girl who is the protagonist and narrator of the show - she's a editorial assistant for some newspaper. She starts this videoblog called Quarterlife where she attempts to speak her mind honestly about her friends and housemates - with disastrous consequences of course.
- Deborah (or Debra) - a housemate of Dylan, she wears glasses...not sure if she's employed. She wants to move in with her boyfriend who has a name that I forgot. The guy kinda reminds me of a douchier Dane Cook look-alike.
- Jed - friend and coworker of Deborah's boyfriend - he's some sort of camera guy, videographer? Has the Ashton Kutcher haircut going for him.
- Deborah's boyfriend - I forgot his name but he works with Jed and is a dick
- Weird guy with glasses - works with Jed and Deborah's boyfriend, does audio/video work, seems to be a bit of a weirdo/pervert
- Damnit, I forgot her name too...other housemate of Dylan and Deborah, this girl is an aspiring actress but works at a bar, she's the "hot" one - cleavage central

So the first episode establishes all these relationships - the 3 girls live together, douchy guy is Deborah's boyfriend...Jed works with the douche as does weird pervert guy. A really clusterfuck of a love polygon is revealed next. Jed is in love with Deborah...who is dating his best friend, Mr. Douche. Weird pervert guy is in love with Dylan and matter-of-factly asks Dylan if he can sleep with her. He says he'll impress her with his 'digital control and linguistic abilities'. Dylan is in love with Jed. The actress/bartender sleeps with a lot of random guys because she's a slut.

So, to review -

Dylan loves Jed - Jed loves - Deborah - Deborah loves Douche

Jed reveals his love for Deborah and in a few scenes they almost kiss but Deborah turns away. Douche is aware of Jed's interest and 'changes' so Deborah finds new interest in him. Dylan is about to post a video revealing her love for Jed when Jed barges in full of excitement that Deborah might love him too. Of course, Dylan's heart is crushed and she deletes the video. Bartender/actress woman is told she has no acting ability at all and no sexuality despite her revealing clothing. Her acting teacher is brutally honest with her and apparently also slept with her once despite her lack of sexuality.

Jed and Douche score a deal to record a car dealership commercial but Douche tries to take over the artistic direction of the shots and Jed gets pissed and leaves. Eventually they kiss and make up.

Dylan has an idea for an alternative section in the newspaper geared toward young women speaking their minds. Her boss steals her idea and receives credit for it. Dylan eventually calls her out in front of the big boss - the consequence is yet to be seen.

***

Remember Dougie Howser, MD? This show is basically 60 minutes of the last scene of each episode where Neil Patrick Harris is typing on that Apple IIa computer with that electric keyboard music going while he essentially blogs about what life lessons he learned in his latest caper.

I certainly have interest because I'm in my 'quarterlife' too, but I feel like there are some problems with the show.

1. Everyone is too attractive.
Dylan is supposed to be this dumpy, starving writer who doesn't pay attention to the way she looks. Of course she's naturally gorgeous, despite wearing torn t-shirts. Pretty much everyone in the show looks like they came out of a Polo or Ralph Lauren magazine ad.

2. This love polygon could really spiral out of control a la Friends.
I didn't watch Friends but I've heard they basically exhausted every possible love combination. Hopefully this show doesn't finale with just one big orgy.

3. Too much Dougie.
I don't mind an occasional Dougie moment but I don't know if I can take it if every episode is a constant stream of video confessionals. I think I'm turning emo watching this.

e-Week Part 2

Article in the Poughkeepsie Journal

Friday, February 22, 2008
Egg drops enthrall would-be engineers

By Alice Hunt
Poughkeepsie Journal

BEACON - Eggs were dropped and ingenuity applied Thursday as seventh- and eighth-graders from Rombout Middle School tried their hands at engineering.

Two IBM engineers visited the Synergistics science enrichment classrooms of Glenn Morris and Alison DeSpada Wednesday and Thursday as part of the school's National Engineering Week recognition.

In Morris' class, ****** and Vincent Vazquez, industrial engineers from IBM's Fishkill site, discussed their roles at IBM and what an engineer does. Then they tested the students in a simulated engineering project.

"An engineer would be able to use the principles you learn in science and apply them to a product," ****** explained.

The students then participated in an egg drop, where they used ordinary materials to create an object to hold and protect a raw chicken egg from a 10-foot drop.

"We're going to see if your egg survives," ******** said. "It's like a spaceship - Apollo re-entering the atmosphere. If your egg yolk goes everywhere, you didn't do a good job. The astronaut wouldn't make it."

Costs also a factor
That wasn't the only challenge. The materials - newspaper, construction paper, marshmallows, wooden barbecue skewers and tape - had costs assigned to them. Students also had to keep the project within a budget.

The children broke into three groups of four and began brainstorming.

The group with Mark Hart, Robert Oberle, Michael Nobile and Edwardo Gonzales started with a cone design but realized the design wouldn't work.

"If it tilts, it's gone," Hart said, showing the other three how some parts of the cone would not be padded. The boys then switched to trying to make a cube, padding it with torn-up marshmallows and newspaper.

A group dubbed The Rocket Scientists had a similar design.

"Put the egg in the center of the newspaper, surround it with marshmallows taped into more newspaper," Dionte Wil-liams told Cristian Wassweider.

"We need more tape," Alijah Wilds said, while Ashleigh Arena folded black construction paper into a box to further cradle the egg.

In the end, The Rocket Scientists prevailed, with the only project that did not break, and the least-expensive design.

The project is a fun way of showing students how deadlines, budget and timelines must be considered when working on an engineering project, Vazquez said.

"This replicates a real-life engineering project," he said.

Reach Alice Hunt at Hunta@poughkeepsiejournal.com or 845-437-4819.

E-Week 2008

So it's Engineers Week or E-Week for short. This time period (actually stretched out over a month) is devoted to educating young people about careers in engineering. I volunteered last year so I decided to participate again in 2008.

So yesterday morning around 9 AM I drove out to Rombout Middle School which is located in Beacon and met up with my co-worker and co-educator for the day. We checked in with the security guard and met our host teacher, Mr. Morris. He actually reminded me a lot of a professor I had in college who taught a history of jazz class. Mr. Morris is a science teacher of some sort.

So around 9:50 AM the first class rolled in. Demographically most classes were 70/30 male/female with about 1/3 "minorities" - I'm classifying anyone who isn't "white" (not counting Hispanics as white) as a minority.

Mr. Morris first gave a brief summary of our purpose and his expectations for the class. Then my co-educator and I introduced ourselves, told the class a bit about our jobs and what engineering is in general. Then we moved on to describe our activity which was an egg drop. I actually did a similar activity when I was in middle school Science Olympiad called naked egg drop where we built a container to drop a raw egg into.

However today the activity was a standard egg drop meaning we had to build a container around an egg and drop the whole enclosure from a height of 10 feet onto a hard surface. The materials provided were:

- newspaper
- marshmallows
- wooden skewers
- construction paper
- scotch tape
- raw egg

Each material had an associated cost and maximum number allowed. The total budget for the project wasn't to exceed $200 in imaginary money. For instance each marshmallow cost $20.

The students were told to get into teams of 2-5 members, start by brainstorming a design, sketching it and out and costing it. Once they showed they had a design that was under budget we allocated the materials for the build phase.

During the entire activity my co-educator and I scuttled around the room from group to group asking them if they had questions or required any sort of assistance. It was apparent that some students were quite reserved and sat on the sidelines rather than actively participate in the project.

However 95% of the students were quite enthusiastic about it and hashed out some pretty radical designs. The standard design simply wrapped the egg in layers of newspaper and surrounded the egg in marshmallows. The whole package was then secured with scotch tape. Some more radical designs involved parachutes, wooden skewers acting like stilts, or ripping the marshmallows in half and sticking the pieces directly to the egg. The latter idea actually resembles the airbags on the martian rover landing pods.

After the builds were done Mr. Morris took each pod, climbed to the top of a ladder and held the pod against the ceiling to a height of 10 feet. He then asked the team how much their design cost and what materials were used. Then the class gave a count down...5...4...3....2...1...drop. In most designs it wasn't evident immediately if the egg had survived the fall. Most students tried to guess based on the sound the capsule made upon contacting the floor. Often times it would appear the egg survived but after cutting open the pod we'd see the ominous goo staining the newspaper. The students would groan 'Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww' and then toss their failed creation into the garbage. Sometimes in more exposed designs the egg would literally explode scattering the yolk on the protective garbage bag. Some kids would really freak out over the sight of the egg. One girl almost had a panic attack and was screaming 'EEEEEWW...egg yolk...EEWW EEWW EWW!' A few designs did work and for classes with multiple successes the lowest cost pod won.

Overall the kids were all very enthusiastic and energetic about the process. They all gathered round the drop site and counted down. Some had questions about engineering, others seemed to just enjoy the process of designing, building, and testing. We wrapped up the class by talking a bit more about engineering as a career, fielded any questions, and handed out prizes - e-Week cups that changed color when different temperature liquids were poured in them and keychain carabeeners with LED light.

It was quite a fun and rewarding experience but there were some things I noticed about teaching. It became a challenge to remember what I had already said when teaching classes back-to-back-to-back, etc. Also I could feel myself losing enthusiasm after doing the same exact activity so many times. I can only wonder if real teachers feel this drain if they teach 6 periods of the same class and teach the same class every year.

I do enjoy working with the kids though and I imagine that's the main source of energy and inspiration the teachers use to get them through the day. That and plenty of coffee.

The Patriots and Cheating

So right now a big item in the news is Senator Arlen Specter speaking with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell about the Patriots' "Spygate" scandal. For those of you who aren't familiar, the gist of it is that the Patriots illegally videotaped their opponents in order to gain insight into what plays they were running or what signals they used to communicate during football games. This is a violation of NFL rules.

Anyway, Specter said Goodell confirmed that Belichick had been videotaping since 2000. This of course coincides with the Patriots first Super Bowl victory. Since then they have won 2 additional titles. Of course this casts a shadow of doubt over the Patriots' success in the 2000s. The question is posed 'Are the Patriots 3 Super Bowl wins' tainted by this videotaping activity?

I'm not a Patriots fan and I do have some anti-Patriots bias just based on the fact that I hate them for beating the Steelers several times in the playoffs but I'm going to try and be objective as possible.

Here are two main points that need clarification:
- What is the full explanation of the 'no videotaping' rule?
- When did videotaping the other team become illegal?

I don't know the answers to the above two questions so I'm going to make some assumptions to work with. Let's assume 'no videotaping' is absolute. Under no circumstance are you (a staff member or player of a NFL team) permitted to videotape another team. This means you can't videotape them practicing, in the locker room, during a game, doing a walkthrough or at any instance where the team is convened. Even if you are a spectator you may not videotape the team because you are a member of another team's staff.

If the rule really is absolute it would be amazing because Bill Belichick who many call a 'genius' has repeatedly stated he 'misinterpreted' the rule. If it's as simple as 'no videotaping other teams, period.' how could you misinterpret that?

Let's assume this no videotaping rule has been effect since 1999.

Note: if the videotaping rule was not in effect until 2007 then it is absolutely irrelevant that the Patriots taped opponents from 2000-2006. If there was no rule prohibiting it there was nothing illegal about them engaging in the behavior.

But for our case we'll assume the rule was in effect before the Patriots began taping.

A lot of Patriots fans or defenders use similar rebuttals or excuses to justify the videotaping so I'll list some common ones and give my response to them.

- Everyone else was doing it.
If it was against the rules the fact that other people broke the rule does not change the fact that you broke the rule to begin with. It does not lessen the extent to which you broke the rule. The number of people breaking the rule only reflects either the inability for the rule to be enforced or the lack of respect for the rule.

It wasn't that big of an advantage for the Patriots to tape their opponents -or- The Patriots would have beat them anyway, they stink.
The Patriots were caught for their taping of the lowly New York Jets. Would they have beaten the Jets without the taping, most likely, however this is irrelevant. Just because victory is assured doesn't mean you can circumvent the rules of fair play. The quality of the opponent has nothing to do with the acceptability of breaking a rule. About the advantage - there's really no way to determine if taping provided an advantage or not but once again that point is irrelevant. If you taped the team and immediately burned the evidence you still broke the rule! It doesn't matter if you gained any useful knowledge.

Think of it like this. You have a vocabulary test where you have to give the definition of 10 words. You get stuck on a word so you pull out your cheat sheet...damn, your word isn't on the cheat sheet! It was useless! So does that mean it didn't count as cheating since it didn't help you? I rest my case.

Senators should be worrying about more important issues than cheating in football.
You know, you're probably right. Football in the grand scheme of things isn't that important. But once again, this is a deflection, not a validation. You broke the rule regardless of the whistleblower's work priorities.

You can say the same thing about the police. They probably would best spend their time preventing murders and rapes instead of writing you speeding tickets. However, this fact doesn't change the fact that you were driving 87 in a 65 zone.

You guys are just Patriot haters, you are just jealous!
I admit I hate the Patriots, but what I feel about the team doesn't affect its behaviors. The Patriots made a conscious effort to break the rule without the influence of any of us fans. Frankly, I'm not so jealous of a team that broke league rules during its period of great success. I have no way of knowing how much of the success was due to earnest efforts and how much was gained through unscrupulous methods.

Here's one I hear about the Steelers:
The Steelers in the 70s used steroids.
That may be true, but the question is...was it illegal back then? I don't believe it was so as I stated earlier in this post - it's a total non-issue.

So I've done a lot of blathering and it really comes down to a fairly black-or-white issue.

Let's state it like this.

Rule X: You may not do Y.

You did Y. Therefore you broke Rule X.

Simple as that.

Celebrity Basketball

So tonight at 6:30 I had the first playoff game of my winter basketball league. Our team has done terribly. I believe our record is 0-10 or 0-11. Anyway, we're winless and although we've had some close games we haven't been able to capture the elusive victory. So tonight I knew we had a full squad...8 guys so at least we'd be able to sub in and out. One part of our team's struggle had been to get enough people week in and week out but today that wasn't a problem. Instead our opposition was short-handed. They were missing their point guard and only had 5 people. Granted one of their 5 guys I doubt played in the league (he probably was a ringer brought in from a higher division) but still this was a huge advantage for our team.

We were able to keep a bit of a lead throughout the first half and went to half-time up 9. In the 2nd half I believe the other team got a bit more tired...and their offense was basically 2 people. One long black guy was getting in the lane at will and sometimes dishing to a taller fatter white guy who could score inside easily. But aside from that they had no offense. Our team ended up winning by double digits. I didn't play very well...I took 3 shots, was fouled on 2 and went to the line where I only hit 1/2 FTs both times. I got a few rebounds, made a few assists, but also had a few turnovers. I was playing man defense on their point guard so that really limited my opportunity to get rebounds and blocks.

It's funny, it turns out the guy I was guarding is none other than Rick Zolzer. Now I'm sure no one except for me knows who that is. Basically he comes in and does the sports report on 101.5 WPDH which is the main radio station I listen to. In fact I heard him this morning before I left for work.

Now later in the day I'm guarding him in basketball. I could tell it was him from his voice but it definitely wasn't spot on - the radio mics must make you sound a bit different.

Anyway, this guy used to be the PA announcer for the New Jersey Nets.

Here's his Wikipedia page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Zolzer

Just an odd experience to meet a local celebrity like that. But I'm more happy that our team that went 0-fer in the regular season picked up its first win in the playoffs.

Let's see if we can make like the Giants and go on an improbable run to the championship.

Super Bowl XLII

Last night I attended a party to watch the Super Bowl. I'm a fan of the NFL but with no Steelers participating in the game I had little interest other than watching to see the hated Patriots lose.

I already hated the Patriots just because they have beat the Steelers in the playoffs a few times. However, constantly hearing about Bill Belichick's supposed genius and Tom Brady's latest baby-momma is enough to make anyone develop a hate of the team. Oh yeah and throw in the whole Spy-gate scandal where the Patriots were caught cheating.

And of course this year the Patriots go through the regular season undefeated (16-0) and ESPN is flooded with stories asking 'Are the Patriots the best team ever?' and 'Is Tom Brady the best quarterback ever' and all sorts of other articles praising this team that WAS CAUGHT CHEATING without really taking that offense seriously.

Belichick in general is a very shady and unlikeable character as well. He's evasive, a poor sport, and not very classy at all. He's refused to shake hands with opposing coaches, runs up the score when leading by 30+ in the 4th quarter, doesn't answer questions about injuries, dresses like a hobo, talks in mono-tone, etc etc

Anyway, the Giants were huge underdogs in this game...I believe the Pats were favored to win by 12. I don't like the Giants but I certainly have nothing against the team. I've kinda felt sorry for Eli too since he's been scrutinized for his inconsistent play given he was the first overall pick in 2004 - and was surrounded by the drama involving his unwillingness to play for San Diego.

So it's good to see him mature and solidify the QB draft class of 2004. Now Rivers is the only one of the 3 QBs not to have a SB ring.

I only hope that Moss leaves the Pats in free agency as well as Asante Samuel. It would sicken me to see the Pats steal another prime player for pennies like they did with Moss.

The Giants have a beastly d-line and I hope teams learn to play the Pats more like the Giants did. Taking a chance with the receivers and blitzing to hit Brady. Brady is no god. ANY QB can look amazing given loads of time to throw. NE has a great o-line but simple math...bringing more people than they have back to block works most of the time.

I hope the Steelers can re-tool their defense to bring heat like the Giants. They'll probably stay in the 3-4 for next season but they need to play Woodley over Haggans. They also need Aaron Smith back and Casey Hampton back in shape. The Steelers d-line scared noone this year.

This has been a really disjointed post, oh well.