It's been a long time. Some things change. Some things do not. Since the last time I posted I've worked a few temporary positions.I started (and promptly quit) a warehouse job and security gig. I managed to pick up part time work at Enumclaw Music. That was actually an enjoyable job. The owner just couldn't afford to keep me on for more than three months.

On April 20th I began working for Amazon Fulfillment at BFI4 in Kent. The position started out well. Within a little over a month I'd moved from Stow to Problem Solving (issue assistance to Stow) to ISS (product and customer support role). At that point I assumed I was doing well enough in Stow to warrant the moves because no one who lags in Stow gets moved into these other departments.In addition to being moved and essentially promoted, I was being singled out by leads and managers for additional projects as well as sought being sought out for recommendations for increasing productivity and communicating with the labor force.

I excelled in ISS. It was an excellent fit for me as I have a habit of digging down into issues for resolution. The other factor that helped was that I would come in at the beginning of the shift and immediately start taking on tickets or consolidating product so that we could investigate or migrate. Migrating product from one PO to another involved having to scan multiple UPC & other bar code's and using proprietary software to switch to virtual locations.

Approximately 3 months into my stint there I was moved back into Stow. No explanation was given. I have since surmised that it was an issue with my manager (whom I had NEVER met) and her performance issues. Within a few weeks I'd been written up twice for quality issues. I had at no time previously had any quality issues. I was given no details of these quality incidents so I was unable to argue whether or not I was even the individual responsible. Suddenly I had over a dozen. Less than a month later I had received my final written. This one was for productivity. (I'd slowed down because I was stressing over the quality issues.) The third write up is effectively an exit. I was terminated on September 18th 2016. Yaye.

Honestly, by the time they let me go I was more than ready. I'd had enough. During my 6 month tenure I'd lost 30 pounds and had developed severe issues with my feet, ankles and hands. I took me 3 months to recover from these issues after I left. And ultimately I look on the departure as a very positive thing. I was too intelligent to work there.

At this point, being unemployed for the 2nd time over 2 years I'm determined ot move forward. As difficult to find as jobs continue to be, I'm tentatively employed by Volt as a game tester. I say tentatively because they hired me a month ago and I have yet to get a shift.

Why game testing? Why indeed. This job (if I ever actually work) is on call, part time and minimum wage. However... I'm going to be able to list "test" again on my resume after nearly two years of being sidelined and out of the industry. I'm not looking at the game test position itself to turn into anything. I am however intent on leveraging it into a better test position, first through Volt and then on to other agencies.

I've just completed reading a book entitled "Love Your Work" by Robert Dickie III. I would highly recommend it to anyone who's in a vocational transition either by choice, necessity or misfortune (my particular category).

I've just begun working on Java coding skills at Code Academy. They have free interactive courses that are excellent for practical exercise.This include skill quizzes for the instructional content. In my opinion the hands on method is superior to simply viewing video tutorials. The lessons build upon each other. There are also for fee courses which will take you further along with additional quizzes.

Another resource I discovered is Khan Academy. All content on the Khan Academy site is free. Both of these resources are listed in the aforementioned book along with other training sites and other sites that will assist in continuing education. Some options are free. Others are for fee but the author gives economic alternatives and avenues to pursue your career pathways.

Rather than simply start working on "coding" I decided to investigate Java specifically for software testing. This opened up still more options including an inexpensive course at Udemy. I've taken curriculum from Udemy before and the courses are usually excellent. Again they typically immerse the student in hands on, practical exercises as opposed to video content. (By the way... Udemy is currently having a sale on their courses. Most if not ALL course content is $15! That includes programming courses that typically run up to $199 US! (No... I am NOT an official, paid endorser or instructor for Udemy. I just happen to know that their course content typically gets great reviews from students and I have some limited experience with them and have no complaints.)

Yet another recommendation... which I have given serious though to, is a career assessment. I've done a few of these in the past. They were free online versions and the results were typically disappointing. The recommended vocations that these tools provided "based on (your) interests" were essentially dead ends. Dickie recommends Career Direct. True, this is one of his personal endeavor but two things immediately struck me:

1) The cost is extremely reasonable.

2) The results ARE personalized.

One thing I Noted from reading the book was that Dickie has worked with individuals who have faced the necessity of redirecting (or "pivoting") their careers. This includes a lot of people like myself who've reached a point where they can go no further in a vocation or industry unless they ramp up their education and skill sets. He recognizes the hurdles that we're going to encounter.

I'll leave this post as now but (provided I have time and actually remember) I'll put these links and other on the page.

Still unemployed and I have only had a handful of interviews over the last 7 and 1/2 months. Two that I had at Microsoft last summer went well but because of the 6-month break I could only hv worked until December 31st so I was passed over for those. I interviewed at amazon for a manual test position and bombed. That's not surprising as I haven't done manual testing in over four years. Also they're fairly critical. One additional interview at Microsoft and while I was extremely strong on the test methodology aspects they were also looking for an SDET... so they should probably be interviewing for two positions because according to them none of the code strong candidates had a clue about test methodology. But none of the testers were strong enough in coding.

Now another M$ opportunity has opened up. No news this week thanks to the holiday. I look more qualified for this one... according to the recruiters. (Right.) But I still need to do a bit of refresh and ramp up. So I'm hitting  Beginner SQL Tutorial and a few other sources along with some books on networking and TCP\IP. This is listed as an STE4 position but that's meaningless really. A lot of times the designation is a head count slot and not the actual job. This sounds more like an STE2 or STE3 position.

But as for the trends I mentioned last time... virtually every STE position I've seen listed now demands code. Essentially they want SDET's for STE1 or STE2 wages. So once again the question come up as to whether I want to pursue scripting and coding to enhance my testing skills or just move in another direction.

I was hoping ot get into Green River College for Winter quarter but I'm going to have to wait for another year. At least this gives me an opportunity to apply for financial aid. They have Associates and Bachelors degrees in programming and network administration... which is the direction I'm leaning. I prefer hardware for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it's harder to have a hardware based job outsourced offshore. Outsourcing programming is easy especially when everything is going cloud based. God luc outsourcing cabling. Also I've had a batter head for that than I have for coding. I just haven't trained myself to think in the programmers abstract. But I also don't know how many people actually do that.

Just a quick note... I have an interview @ Microsoft Monday. I actually expected to hear on this a week ago but the recent reorg put things on hold. Different building but back with my old OSG group... if I get in.

I haven't posted in AGES...

Nope. I haven't really thought about it much over the last two years. Certainly not long or serious enough to take the time to write anything. And my last blog certainly wasn't very constructive now was it?

But I came across an interesting article from Black Swan regarding writing; http://time.com/3914538/notebook-writing-life-better/

This caused me to think about starting up again and perhaps working at being more functional this time around. So here's a quick update:

I started a new Microsoft contract back in June of 2011. Why bring this up now? (Why call it "new"?) Because I worked that v- contract for nearly four years. I was laid off on March 27th of 2015. I'd worked that contract for a long enough period that it eroded my goals of getting out of the tech industry and really side tracked me in that regard. It was also one of the first contracts where I was making more than I had been earning working private security. But it honestly ran for too long.

Now I find myself in an interesting circumstance. Microsoft announced in July of 2014 an end to the a- and v- classifications. Going forward (and I think they actually used that terminology if memory serves) there will be no such classification. All contingency staffing will be the same. Contingency staff are limited to 18 months of employment at which time they are required to take a 6-month break in service. (This equates to losing 25% of ones wages earning potential over a two year period.)

Their announced intent was to honor existing contracts until December 31st of 2015. Instead the began dropping current contingency staffers at the beginning of March. During our last two weeks of employment we trained our replacements. All replacements were H1B status hires.

Another interesting aspect of this... based on word of mouth... originally the layoffs were NOT going to be announced. Apparently managers became aware not long before the rest of us did. And we employees became aware before our staffing companies were informed. By nearly a week! One rumor was that some FTE's had leaked the information to staffers on their teams. I have reason to believe this as I heard of the plan at least two days before it became staffer gossip. By that point a few staffers had already been notified by their leads. And yet their staffing companies had not yet been informed. I am unaware whether there was push back from managers demanding the two-week window in order to train replacements. But it was clear that the replacement were already in place by the time the announcement was made. This means that they were planning it two weeks to a month before the announcement. This gives some validation to the "leaked" rumor.

There are a few related issues with all of this. I took a nearly $4k per annum pay cut when I left security to return to Microsoft. It took nearly 6 years to work my way back up to exceed the $17 per hour rate. In the last six months of this last contract I managed to move up to $46k per annum. I was earning the equivalent of about 20% of the others staffers. The majority were making less than $40k per year. Given the new 6-month break requirement and the limitation of 18 months on contract it's highly unlikely that I will again see $46k annually working there. AND ultimately that's the purpose of this move by Microsoft. To drive wages down.

Realistically, wages for contingency staff have not moved much at all over the last decade. An annual income of $40k is still considered "average" as it was when I landed my first "official" testing position back around 2000. I was hired by Volt and was making $20 per hour with minimal benefits. Now Volt offers tehe same pay rate for the same STE2 position (with experience) but offers no benefits package to contingency staffers. The most common entry point jobs (based on the last 9 years of contracting) come in between $1 and $19 per hour. Some companies pay more but have fewer positions available. The larger staffing companies tend to pay less and have more available positions. (Interesting yes? They're clearly making more income due to the larger number of spots and yet they're offering less in the way of compensation to their employees.) The list includes (but is not limited to) the usual suspects; Volt and Aditi.

Another issue is that as a general rule the H1B visa candidates are also working for less. On average about 10% to 15% less... and most often without benefits. So there is an immediate and over riding compulsion to hire these personnel. Because they are cheaper. However the majority of the group that were hired as our replacement had little if any previous experience at Microsoft and some of them lacked essential basic skills even working with Outlook and Excel. Of course the availability of these candidates is increasing (thank you Patty Murray) and so there is no shortage of bodies with which to fill head count numbers. And as we all know, if you hire enough bodies there will be sufficient to cover the gaps created by the dead wood.

I didn't mind training my replacements. All three of them. I did not begrudge those people getting those jobs. They applied for a position. That was the extent of their involvement. They aren't responsible for the business practices of Microsoft. They simply wanted a better opportunity that was offered in India or whatever other forsaken, festering 3rd World crap hole it is their desire to escape. And frankly, even earning what they are, and for only 12 to 18 months, if their frugal they can go home while waiting for H1B renewal and live pretty darned well... having made 10x the national average income of their homeland within that year.

But ultimately, when I think about myself, I MUST look upon this as an opportunity and only a temporary set back. Though it is frustrating because as I view the prospect  of 6 months of ineligibility to rehire at Microsoft I'm also dealing with the issue of being over and under qualified simultaneously.

Anyone who has spent enough time working a specific job and then had to make some kind of career adjustment or jump knows how your resume` can be your best friend and also your worst enemy. I'm getting now traction currently with warehouse or security companies. But I will not be eligible to work at Microsoft again until October and being honest... I have very little desire to return there. This is part of the price of working so many years on that same contract. One becomes comfortable. Paid just enough to keep you from leaving, it develops complacency among a host of other bad habits including abandoning the budget intended to GET YOU OUT FOR GOOD!

I may have mentioned long ago not really having a vested interest in continuing in testing. At one point... again long, long ago... I thought that this was what I wanted to do. But I believe more strongly than ever that it is honestly not the career for me. This became more evident during my last contract. So many years spent performing the same duties in the same environment was detrimental.

Related to this is how the industry overall treats human beings. The tech industry may be one of the most malevolent and destructive atmospheres for the human psyche. The level of narcissism and incompetence is unlike any I have seen in any other venue.

In July of 2014 Microsoft conducted a major layoff of FTE's (Full Time Employees). The largest in the companies history with an estimated total somewhere around 18,000 employees being given notice. While a significant percentage of these were working in foreign offices, many were from the Redmond campus. Several of these people I considered friends. One of them was my immediate test manager. An individual who had dedicated nearly 20 years ot Microsoft. and one of the "old guard" managers. An individual who understood the necessity of best practices and the need for business justifications behind processes and implementation in development. (I suspect this may be one of the reasons they got rid of him.)

The new management left me suspicious and utterly underwhelmed from the first meeting. The mannerisms, the speech, the predictable, patterned phrases... I had heard it all before any, may times. And from people who were much better ta lying to their employees. I wonder now if such behaviors and tactics are taught at some level to management or if these individuals happen to all be sociopaths and so this explains it.

Some things change. Some things remain the same. Since the class action suit back in 2000, I have sen the treatment of contingency staffers at Microsoft degrade at a steady pace. What began as the omission to product release parties and the denial of previous perks opened to all "employees" now has reached a point where managers openly refer to staffers as "dash trash". I have personally witnessed (and received myself on occasion) e-mail comments and diatribes from FTE's as high as Project Managers containing threats and foul language. Such content directed at a full time employee would have resulted in a law suit against the company and the reprimand or firing of the sender for creating a hostile work environment. But contingency staffers have no such recourse. They will receive no support from their staffing company for fear of losing favored vendor status. And the staffers themselves are fearful of losing their jobs.

Many of these comments were things one would never say to an individual who was standing in front of them. Especially another male employee. There is a distinct and recognizable lack of professionalism. It relates directly ans is inseparable from the atmosphere that has been generated by the sociopaths who occupy positions of power within that company. It's reflected accurately by the attitude of the average Internet Tough Guy who hurls insults and threats from a position of anonymity... because that individual has never been dragged to from behind their computer and giving the righteous trouncing that they deserve. Some of these people BADLY need to be walled and possibly water boarded. I'd settle for seeing them get their teeth kicked in.

But I digress. While still being eligible for another 6 months or so I really have little desire to return. And I think it highly unlikely that I will be hired for a contract at this point. Most openings list as "6 to 18 months". They're looking for personnel who can be available for a full product cycle.

While some companies consider such a long tenure at Microsoft (approximately 9 years) others do not. It could be that some companies do not want anyone who they feel would have that type of methodology embedded. It could also be that there's a question of career development and dedication in someone who has contracted for so long. But some individuals enjoy contracting. It gives some variety in an otherwise stagnant and predictable atmosphere. It also allows one to escape undesirable positions without quitting. Work a contract with idiots for a year, take some time off and find a better fit. When asked why you left... "That contract ended (thank goodness)."

My Match experience so far...

    Firstly, I'll tell you that worse than Match is Zoosk or ANY other Farcebook connected dating tool. Don't believe me? Setup up a free account with virtually ZERO personal information and see just how many "women" (or men... depending on your sexual persuasion or bent) are suddenly aware of and interested in you. Oh... you can see their (non-existent) profiles if you sign up. Then delete the account and note that these fictitious personalities are STILL miraculously interested in you... even though your profile no longer exists. This includes the new version Social Love which is the same basic scam with a different name.

    On to Match. The members are real. Though though you'll quickly notice that you get more attention the further away (and younger than you) the parties are. it would seem to the casual observer that if I were living in Florida, Texas or New York for example... I could bury myself with hot little nymphs half my age. Not an unpleasant thought mind you but I've yet to get the angle. Maybe they'll try to sell me dirty photos but there can't possibly be much money in that since you can get pretty much anything you want in the way of porn on free sites.

   I'll tell you this right now... if you are a truly decent, honest, trust worthy guy... you stand virtually NO CHANCE of getting any traction on Match. At least not anywhere near Seattle. Conduct yourself in the fashion of a festering, puss pocket and you'll likely have to manage multiple dates per night.

  Based upon the profiles, 90% of the women on Match from Western Washington are "honest", "bubbly", "fun loving", "caring" or some derivative thereof. Interestingly that percentage roughly matches up with the number of members who are divorced. Something doesn't jibe there. It's my opinion... and this is an opinion shared by MULTITUDES of men (and an awful lot of women) that females are essentially neurotic, hormone driven creatures.  If this is remotely accurate, then the women in the Pacific Northwest are a level above and miles beyond the "average" female.

    I daily see comments within profiles about how the men on Match are rude, lack class, lack manners, are vulgar. Essentially they are describing the very types of repulsive, puerile, human detritus they they are attracted to. Am I mistaken in declaring that women CONTINUALLY gravitate towards the WORST type of male stereotype? The "bad boy". The mouth breathing, ass stinking, players who pollute society and, if there was ANY justice at all would ALL eventually contract syphilis and rot to death slowly and painfully. 

    I have a news flash for the females. These are males. They are not MEN. Most annoyingly, it is the WOMEN who have helped create this unpleasant phenomenon by lowering their own standards in the name of feminism. So women become more promiscuous and men respond. Now the women are SHOCKED that men expect sex without commitment and to be free to roam about and demand gratification with the mannerisms of a fur covered primate. Of course, this behavior is instinctive and even necessary for your fur covered primate. It propagates the species. The human species needs no further propagation. If anything it needs purging.

    The women on match typically follow the same pattern as the males. Looking at the pictures and rarely reading the full profiles. So ultimately it IS about physical appearance despite our being told that women are far less influenced than males by such things. With men it tends to be physical beauty. Money is the second biggest driving interest and I suppose that this makes sense for those women who are divorced or never married) with multiple children to raise.

    Chemistry.com is an off shoot of Match and is run by the same company. Oh... but Chemistry uses "scientific" data to find matches. Funny... because I saw the same three things: Scammers like I encountered on Match, seemingly computer generated "interested" parties and contacts from women I would be interested if it was the only thing preventing the complete extinction of the human race.

    That bring up an interesting side point: Why is it that women find it completely acceptable to pair their nice (and she may indeed be VERY nice - personable) but chubby and unattractive friends upon any unsuspecting male but bring out a similar male to women and they don't want their friends going out with the guy?

    Not just sour grapes here. I am absolutely not the only male experiencing this frustration. Do some digging and read how it plays out for normal. attractive males in their 30's. The story repeats itself. I just don't believe that these systems are all that effective for "finding love".

    Lastly, if you're a guy looking for a pickup... just go out to F*ckbook or some similar site. The ladies on match.com and other sites are not looking for a booty call. Honestly if they stated this up front they'd have to deal with fewer jerks but it doesn't seem to occur to many of them. That's very unfortunate because it purtifies the pool for those of us who have (somewhat) honorable intentions.

    I know I'm no Brad Pit but I do have some standards and frankly the expectation that I would be interested in someone who is far away from my own fitness level, appearance and interests frankly blows my mind. Their matching criteria is skewed. I've even seen matings where the individuals were lookng for mates with an age difference of 10 years. How do thse two people get "matched"? And why are the match-to-Match picks not the PRIMARY ones since they seem to be the ones with the 95% to 97% compatibility ratio?

    I'm not impressed. It wasn't any less frustrating than the bar seen for me. At least sin a bar I get to see live bodies. And you won't waste weeks trying to figure out if someone is interested.





   

I finally tested for Brown 2nd Class. I've got the certificate but I still need to complete the written exam. Wow... a lot of writing involved. I thought that the 3rd Class was lengthy at over a dozen pages. This will probably be closer to 20 pages. I imagine that the 1st Class will be even more so.

Then there's the Black Belt thesis. I finally decided on a topic and have begun a VERY ROUGH outline. Strength training for self-defense: Developing explosive power. I'm not sure if that's the "official title" but that's the subject. That's also going to be somewhere around 30 pages and I'm developing a very keen interest in self-publishing it on Amazon (digital only to start) and seeing if it sells at all.

I've been VERY BUSY over the last few months doing physical training. No... really I have. Since re-dedicating myself to weight training back in April I've dropped from a snug size 40 to a very loose size 38. I think I'm actually fitting into one or two pairs of size 36. I don't have any idea what my body weight is right now but "weight" is actually irrelevant. It's the BFI (and not the ridiculous Federal standard either) that matters.

After only three months I'm noticing the difference and it's slowly beginning to show. I should look fairly good by the end of the year. I'm probably going to look INCREDIBLE by next April.

1st Class Brown will have me developing the Spontaneous Kata along with an additional 6... SIX!... attack combinations.  I really need to devote more time to this stuff because my weak point right now is correctly assigning the techniques to the appropriate belt levels. This is REQUIRED to graduate to 1st Degree Black Belt and I am NOWHERE near ready. So... can I get what I need by getting up 30-minutes early on weekdays (provided I actually do something with that time)? I'm not sure that I can because 30-minutes doesn't really leave much of a window. So it may mean getting up an hour early.... which honestly is going to SUCK! But... a goal is something that yo go after. I either do it at night or I do it in the morning.

And one more thing... I need to quit watching television. Most of teh time I'm not really watching but I'll be setting in the living room and not realy doing any work. A few nights of the week I get roped into watching the various HBO productions that one of the roommates is into. (And it's become  obvious that she enjoys my joining her because her husband won't watch them with her.)

I'm looking at moving out and will probably end up in an apartment in Fife. It's the least expensive location around and I don't think that it will add that much time ot my commute. I hate the thought of spending the extra money every month ut honestly, if I was budgeting properly it wouldn't even be an issue.

I should be testing for 2nd Class Brown sometime in the next month. I may delay until after the holiday break as I can use that time - approximately 1.5 weeks - to review. I'm in better shape as far as curriculum retention than I was for 3rd Class brown.

My written exam for 3rd Class Brown was around 10 pages. A significant portion of that covered the stick topic. I may post some of all of that exam here if I can remember to do it. Work and training tend to consume a staggering portion of my time. That and the commute.

Oh... and I'm scheduled to quit smoking on Saturday, December 22nd. It's the first day of vacation and I'm hoping that having that long break from work will make quitting easier. I've already dropped off consumption. I think I had three or four on Wednesday and only one on Thursday. I didn't really feel any physical withdrawals but it was difficult to focus at work.

I'm also trying ot figure out where t schedule EP training this spring. VDI looks to be the likely location but they don't list the SUV module in the 2013 schedule. This is disappointing as I was hoping to take the basic driving along with the SUV 1-day.

Things are happening...

My test for 3rd Class Brown belt was delayed until Tuesday. It was actually a very short test since I had basically been grilled previously on several components. I knew the curriculum better than I thought I did... and it helped that I'd been reviewing the material for over a month. I need to stay on top of the organization from now on. It will make testign for 1st Degree Black belt much easier.

In preparation for the stick training portion of 3rd Brown, I purchased an LAPD-style baton. I regretted the purchase as soon as it arrived. The quality is not that much of an issue... but I immediately discovered why Professor Steiner recommends (or prefers) a baton without grooves. So this first stick will be relegated to "dirty" duty. I recently ordered a Dymondwood baton from Robert Koga's school. It measures 29"x1.5". it will be on the 'large' side. I had a choice between 1 & 1/4" or the 1 & 1/2". I think that the thicker stick will assist in grip development.

I also have an in-person interview for the Costco testing job. It's been a long time since I've worked anywhere but Microsoft. I've interviewed outside once or twice since leaving security but I've always ended up getting the MS testing gigs. You never know how these will go but I'm working this time so hopefully that will give me a bit more confidence. Plus I've already spoken with their individual over the phone. I think that this may be more of a team meeting session.

As far as planning for training I'm beginning to appreciate yet again that one really needs to plan SPECIFICALLY towards a goal & not simply have an intention to "do some training". I am going to have to make SOLID plans to attend Sexton, EPI, VDI or even the Icon advanced course within 6 months (or less) and begin saving funds for that course without fail.

I may only have the one opportunity to attend this year. That is NOT optimal. I'm honestly hoping to get in AT LEAST two courses in 2012 but it's March already and I'm still farting about. (Well... getting dental work done among other things.) Attending the full EPI Ep & firearms course in October would be fabulous. I really do want to attend Sextons course however & though they haven't yet updated their 2012 schedule on the web site I suspect that they'll have an offering in Las Vegas in September or October. Also, VDI has driving courses in June through December but the SUV supplemental course will only be realistically available in October. That conflicts with the EPI course.

Much of this depends upon funding of course. If I remain at Microsoft, I'll be restricted as to how much I can scrape together over the next 8 months or so. This will probably mean limiting myself to a single course... or two "cheap" ones. VDI & Icon may end up being my workable options.

Unfortunately, it will not serve my purpose to save without a plan (that never works). It also won't be easy planning too far ahead when I have no certainty of what my employment is going to look like. One thing I miss about being an "a-" contractor... the 100-day break-in-service. Seriously... I'm beginning to miss that time off. It would have been perfect for this kind of thing. I would always have that block of time every year to take training. Oh well. That's irony for you. I worked there for years wanting to migrate to vendor status & now that I'm there I miss losing that 100 days of wages because I can't get time off when I really want it.

On another note...

Saturday I'll be testing for 3rd Class Brown belt in Combato. I've been prepping for this for the past two months... though it feels more like 6. I've had to re-learn most of the previous curriculum... not the techniques themselves but where they go in the system.

This is actually required for Black belt as well so we start working on it at 3rd brown because attempting to do so in preparation for 1st Black would make most people go insane and simply toss it in.

It would be nice to be able to reach 1st Black by October of 2012. Yeah... tough run that. I've been busy enough at the test review that I've essentially abandon the Spanish studies for right now. I'll pick them up again once I'm done with this. Pimsleur had been working fairly well up to that point. Now I'll essentially need to start over Green River also has their online Workplace Spanish & I was planning to enroll in that to augment the other tools. I'd like to have at least some basic Spanish skills before I relocate (more than cerveza & banos.

Icon sent me another invitation to attend the Advanced Executive Protection course in April in Minneapolis. I doubt that I'll be able to attend. That's short notice as it's already nearly march, it's $2k plus flight and hotel, I may be changing jobs & I need to fix my teeth & the car. :(

New job?

Yup. It's that time again. Honestly... I wasn't even looking. I was simply attempting to maintain my sanity on this current contract. Insight Global only contacts me a few times a year. They only bother when they have something that's actually close to my skill set or previous job descriptions. (Unlike some other agencies that I could mention. That's a rant for another time though.)

They ended up submitting my resume` for a testing position with Costco's e-commerce division. The drive will be about the same though it may be quicker heading straight out I90 to Issaquah as opposed to having to deal with SR520 or 148th Ave traffic.

It's close to a 50% pay increase. :D I may have to adjust my training plans for this year but if I can manage to work this contract for a full 12-months this may actually be the end of my testing days. Again... :D

Potential Training for 2012

I'm looking at the following schools & courses for this year. Obviously I will not be able to take all of them but I'm currently trying to figure out how my schedule & budget will allow me to get in more than one course.

Vehicle Dynamics Institute:

I'd like to take the Protective\Evasive driving course. Icon has been working on getting a deal for alumni but I have not heard anything on the progress of this plan. They also offer a 3-day Surveillance Detection course which I believe may jibe nicely with the Surveillance Ops 5-day course.

Surveillance Ops

They have 3 & 5-day courses covering surveillance operations. I'm more interested in the 5-day as it is more complete & intensive.

Sexton Security

I want to take their 7-day Personal Protection Specialist course. (I would prefer to attend in Las Vegas because it cuts the air fare nearly in 1/2.) I'm not aware of any "advanced" courses offered by Sexton.

Executive Protection Institute

The EPI course and Sextons are similar. Both qualify the graduate to apply for a PPS license in VA. I understand that many of the Sexton instructors are EPI graduates. If I choose this option I would also like to attend their 6-day Protectors Handgun Training Course. They offer a discount if both courses are taken together.

Icon Services

I'd still like to take the Advanced Executive Protection course. This is actually directed more towards HE scenarios.

Trojan Securities

Trojans Advanced EP course is quite similar to Icon's. The two schools are still loosely affiliated. They actually have a 26-day block that I would LOVE to attend... but we're looking at roughly $8k which is basically my entire budget for 2012 so far. The advantage here would be getting a full course load completed at one facility & with one set of instructors. There's also an advantage as far as the networking prospects.

It is my understanding that Trojans driving course is approved by Vehicle Dynamics.

I also like the idea of having their surveillance course directed toward the high risk environment as this is eventually where I wish to be working. But again...

Tactical Weapons & Foreign/ Domestic Firearms Familiarization (2 Days) 5-6 October

Executive/ Close Protection (PSD) & Risk Management Hostile Environments (10 Days) 8-17 October

Kidnap Rescue, Executive/ Dignitary Hostage & Kidnap Awareness (5 Days) 18-22 October

Advanced Executive Close Protection Security Driving & Vehicle Anti-Ambush (3 Days) 23-25 October

Surveillance & Intelligence Operations Hostile Environments (6 Days) 26-31 October

If I manage to have my current contract extended, I may have a few thousand extra to dedicate towards training and relocation. Of course if I have to keep working here a few months longer I may go insane. I would prefer to be able to take at least one course in the Spring, then perhaps one or two this summer. I haven't mapped out whether I would be able to do that and also take the entire block at Trojan. It doesn't seem actionable at this point.

One final note I wish to add: There's an overriding concern here that the training be VALID and FOCUSED. I NEED most if not ALL of this at some point. Training is an ongoing aspect of the industry. However, there's also a need to be specific in selecting courses which will provide me with the skills necessary to secure entry-level positions.

There's little chance of being hired to work HE based on a 10-day HE course. I believe that I will be better served taking the PPS course curriculum augmented by surveillance & driving skills. Once this is reflected on my resume` I can begin adding the heavier weapons oriented courses. I'm far more likely to secure a higher risk position after having established myself within the corporate realm.

I still like the idea of focusing on surveillance\counter surveillance as not only will it allow me to augment EP employment with investigatory work, but it applies to HE as well as corporate.

Another aspect of the training is the certification in terrorism awareness & Sexton includes this as part of their PPS course. I'm also investigating more intensive courses with CI CENTRE and the University of St. Andrews.

Interestingly the CI CENTRE & St. Andrews courses are inexpensive and very applicable to corporate espionage & terrorism threat scenarios. Both are recognized curriculum in the International corporate arena.

If Ever You Are Confronted By The Prospect Of Abduction

© COPYRIGHT 2011 BY BRADLEY J. STEINER - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sword and Pen – February 2011 Issue

[Reprinted With Permission]

www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com


ABSURDLY (in our opinion) this web site and our other (www.seattlecombatives.com) have been officially firewalled by our Nation’s
armed forces. We got this piece of information from one of our students who is
presently on active duty in our military. We can conjecture why this is so, and it leads to very unpleasant observations about the state of our culture and American society in general, in this 21st century.

Somehow, the idea that soldiers, marines, airmen, naval personnel and coast
guardsmen are peace keepers has crept into that which passes for our “thinking” today. This has led to a dangerous reduction in the capability of our armed forces, and also to a drop in the quality of the motivation in those who are now attracted to enlist in one or another of the services. A “social worker” or “police officer” mentality is not the appropriate one for a warrior whose responsibility is the defense of the nation against tough, hard, armed, aggressive, deadly foreign invaders. We knew this once. And when we did (i.e. at the start of and through to the middle of the last century) we won the righteous world wars in which we fought. American citizens were safe when traveling overseas. The very real threat of the MIGHT of America descending upon any who would dare to threaten a U.S. citizen meant that zanies, freaks, and fanatical killers of all types normally left Americans alone. People were attracted to the armed forces by appealing to their desire to stand up for and fight against the enemies of our Republic. Pride in their ability to attack, destroy, and kill when compelled to engage in a war was commonplace. Soldiers were taught to be proud of their prowess; not to apologize for it. The private citizenry was proud of our Nation’s fighting capability, hardly inclined to apologize for it. We had a WAR Department then, not a Department of Defense.

Failing to appreciate the need for and great value in being able to fight and fight well inevitably leads to weakness and to helplessness — in a nation or in an individual.

Let’s say it plainly: Decent human beings should possess the capacity and the
equipment to be a deadly threat to any who pose a deadly threat to them. Being
armed — with knowledge, skill, and weapons — is absolutely nothing to
apologize for, to anyone. In our opinion it is virtually an obligation upon every citizen to be so prepared; however “politically incorrect” the simpering, feminized weaklings may whimper to the contrary.

And they do whimper. Sometimes officially.

Whenever we teach members of our armed services (and we do so unofficially
today, when they come to us — as they often do) we teach them things that,
amazingly, contradict the policies that they are forced to obey as members of their
service. We never advocate the violation of whatever policies regulate these
people as members of our military, but we do hope that circumstances might
change and therefore allow them to make use of that which we teach them. Until
such time, of course, we simply teach them for academic purposes, only, and ask them to retain what we give them, in hopes that the command structure will issue a green light on behalf of that which we teach, in the near future. (Note: This is something like the situation that existed at the FBI when J. Edgar Hoover first became its Director. Special Agents were trained to use firearms, but they could not yet carry them and use them on the job, as the law had not yet authorized the arming of Federal agents. We give our marvelous fighting men our best — and hope and pray that sanity will intervene on high, and that that which we train them to do, they will be officially permitted to do!).

One thing we teach every serviceman is to go NOWHERE when serving overseas
without being armed with a reliable handgun and a razor sharp fighting knife.
Skill in the use of these crucial implements of personal defense is of course
mandatory. The snatching of our uniformed servicemen and holding them
prisoner by enemies of Western Civilization is not an uncommon occurrence. It
isn’t really all that difficult to accomplish, either. All too often our courageous
fighting men are forbidden to carry any weapons when on leave, abroad. Their present systems of unarmed combat are — in our opinion — laughably absurd and ineffective in the extreme. Thus, when on leave, those wonderful people who risk and lay their lives down to protect us are actually forced to be helpless, by official policy!

As a citizen of the United States of America we resent this and see it as a
disgraceful imposition upon some of the most wonderful young people of each
generation. We want our fighting men safe. We want them ready, willing, and able
to fight back and win, and to be able to save their lives and assist their fellows
under any and all conditions. And we could not care less if this bothers anyone or makes them uncomfortable.

We have no power or authority to influence or to alter “official policy”. However,
we do have the power and the authority to influence and to alter our students’ personal survival and self-defense policies. We hope also to be able to influence our readership — those who visit this site. I.e. Y O U!

The problem of abduction (kidnap) is a very real and serious threat. Perhaps it is a
bit more of a threat for females, but it would be the height of folly to ignore the
very real fact that males are also targeted for this form of violation.

It can happen to you; it can happen to a member of your family. This is but one good reason to make learning close combat and self-defense a priority. And if and when you do finally get off your duff and learn how to use your natural and any available manufactured weapons, applying what you learn by remembering the following tactical principles should make you a very hard individual to abduct:

1. Basic Rule: Never allow yourself to be transported away from the scene of the abduction attempt. If it is humanly possible for you to put up a ferocious battle then and there, do!.

The objective of abductors is to abduct you, not to kill you; and so even when they are armed it is not their intention to use their weapons against you lethally then and there, but rather to coerce you into following their orders, or permitting them to do whatever it is their intention to do (tie you up, gag you, shove you into a vehicle, etc.). You are safer resisting abduction efforts at the scene of the attack than you will be later on, if they successfully manage to take you away.

2. If you find yourself being rushed or seized suddenly, without warning, react immediately and as lethally as your capacity permits. Deadly force is legal, moral, and necessary in order to prevent a determined kidnap attempt from being successfully carried out. This is not the time for hesitation or halfway measures. Use deadly force and any weapon — manufactured or improvised — that is available to you! Your ferocity and animal determination to kill and to get away no matter what you must do must be made evident by your growling, grimacing, and relentless efforts to attack and attack and attack!

[Photo: Female executing chin-jab with bracing arm against male assailant.]

REACT LIKE THIS AND YOUR CHANCES OF THWARTING AN ABDUCTION ATTEMPT ARE
EXCELLENT!

3. If you are confronted by one or more weapon-bearing abductors who have
managed to approach you closely before you realize their intention, pretend
complete submission. Give up. Tell him/them that you will do what they want. Plead, “Just don’t hurt me!” Convincingly assure them, if there is time, that you will offer no resistance. THEN ATTACK WITH DEADLY FORCE WHEN YOU PERCEIVE THAT THEY ARE CONVINCED THEY’VE “GOT YOU”.

4. What you must not permit to be done to you:

• Be handcuffed or tied up
• Be locked in the trunk of a vehicle
• Be proned out or made to kneel on the ground
• Be taken aboard a plane or vessel

Murderous resistance must begin — preferably by surprise — when it is clear that any of the foregoing is about to happen.

[Photo: Female bound to chair & gagged.]

ONCE THIS HAPPENS, FIGHTING BACK BECOMES JUST ABOUT IMPOSSIBLE. THE IDEA IN LEARNING HOW TO THWART ABDUCTION IS TO MASTER SKILLS AND ACQUIRE THE
MINDSET THAT ENABLES YOU TO PUT UP FIERCE, LETHAL RESISTANCE BEFORE YOU ARE
RENDERED HELPLESS.

5. Should you be driving and suddenly encounter a roadblock and attack, or
realize that you are being pursued, DO NOT STOP YOUR VEHICLE. (Obviously we are not now referring to police roadblocks, or to the awareness that a police officer is signaling you to pull over!) Keep driving! Place your hand on the horn and blast it constantly as you drive. Never stop your vehicle. So long as it is in motion you are far safer than when it is stopped. In an urban area, drive to a fire or police station.

6. Should you gain the upper hand during your resistance effort, get the hell out of there! Do not attempt to remain and continue fighting, or to remain and call for help, or anything. Get away, and as fast as you are able to do so.

7. In your home common sense can prevent a successful abduction. Be armed. Be
prepared. Be willing and able to greet any forcible entry to your home with
immediate deadly force.

[Photo: General James Lee Dozier - U.S. Army]

Note: NATO’s Deputy Chief of Staff, General James Lee Dozier, for those who
are old enough to remember the incident, was abducted successfully from his
apartment because he opened the door to the kidnappers when they knocked.

GENERAL DOZIER. EVEN THOUGH A HIGHLY EXPERIENCED PROFESSIONAL SOLDIER —
RANGER QUALIFIED (SEE FLASH ON THE GENERAL'S LEFT ARM) — COULD DO LITTLE
AFTER CASUALLY OPENING THE DOOR TO MEMBERS OF THE RED BRIGADE, WHO
PROCEEDED TO KIDNAP HIM. KNOW WHO YOU ARE OPENING YOUR DOOR TO!

8. While, ideally, you should always be armed — with a razor sharp fighting knife and a powerful handgun (servicemen; and whenever lawful and feasible,
private citizens, too!) — unless you can bring your weapon into play before
physical contact occurs, you need to create distance, time, and space, so that you can effectively bring your weapon into play. Thus you MUST have unarmed combat abilities, and they need to be really good; no “martial artsy” bullshit or competition technique.

9. Ignore completely any injuries that you sustain as you resist. Knife or gunshot wounds are rarely fatal, and only certain death will result if you pause to assess any injuries. Get away, and then you can get to a hospital. Remain at the scene, and you’ll likely end up in the morgue.

While many will doubtless wince or raise their eyebrows in disdain for the advice
that we have presented, this remains some of the most valuable, authentic,
reliable, and practically usable LIFESAVING advice you’ll ever receive. In fact it parallels such instruction that we have given to the highest priority military and intelligence personnel employed by our Nation.

If an abduction attempt can be prevented by security measures — human and
technological — that is of course ideal. But we are now concerned with the last
ditch option: That of resisting an abduction attempt that could not be avoided
through detection, surveillance, and/or security procedures.

Might you not be killed when attempting to resist, for instance, a terrorist or other abduction? Yes, certainly. However, your “chance” of being killed becomes a near certainty if you do not resist. Besides — let’s be frank — is it not better to die quickly fighting for your life, than to die under torture, perhaps being beheaded on the internet? Is that not a preferable manner for you to die, too, as far as your loved ones are concerned? Which manner of death that you suffer — i.e. an immediate death, or a protracted, public, and tortuously prolonged death — is more likely to haunt those who love and who care about you, for the rest of their lives?

Yes, this subject is hardcore and unpleasant. That’s what real world self-defense
generally is.

We will consider describing some methods for escape and evasion if this present editorial discussion has not turned too many off with that which it has doubtless caused to be conjured up in their minds. (We have, for the time being, only described some principles for coping with the immediate abduction attempt.

Suppose you are in fact a captive? What then?)

To be continued then, at some future time.

Experts Tend To Agree Substantially

© COPYRIGHT 2011 BY BRADLEY J. STEINER - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sword and Pen – January 2011 Issue

[Reprinted With Permission]

www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com



WHILE the mythology of MMA and contest “fighting” as the “ultimate” in self-defense and hand-to-hand combat continues to dupe the gullible, it is worth
remembering — for those interested in the truth — that real close combat and self-defense teachers tend to agree virtually across the board regarding what does and does not work in actual combat, and what should and should not constitute the “last of learning” when studying the arts of armed and unarmed individual battle.

The primary difference between the real experts and legitimate teachers
themselves (concerning hand-to-hand and unarmed combat, and the combative
employment of personal firearms) pertains more to minutiae. That is, they agree
on core principles and even on basic techniques and skills. Their difference lies in small variances in how they, in their personal interpretations and practical applications of the solid, proven realities of the individual combat phenomenon, seek to achieve the same result. For example: There is no authentic teacher of close combat who does not recognize, accept, teach, and emphasize the low, lashing side kick to an enemy’s knee. Some, like ourself, emphasize the heel of the foot as the contact point. Others drill in the side edge of the foot as the point of impact. Still others — often with previous backgrounds in the Chinese ch’uan fa (“kung fu”) arts — stress kicking with the bottom of the foot. This last derives from the Chinese “tiger’s tail kick” which the external Chinese “boxing” systems tend to stress.

Every legitimate expert in our field also recognizes the comparative undesirability
of using clenched fist punching in close combat, while stressing the open hand — most particularly the chop, using the side of the hand, and the smash using the heel of the hand, etcetera. The exact formation of the chopping hand might vary between teachers; but there is no one who is worth listening to at all, who does not teach its use, and recognize its superiority. Ditto for the heel of the hand smashing blows.

Experts know that blows prevail over holds and throws in real hand-to-hand combat. Evidence of this is abundant. With initial backgrounds in the grappling arts, giants such as O’Neill, Fairbairn, Begala, Brown, Cosneck, and others, literally dumped grappling as the frontline technique for real combat, and stressed striking, kicking, gouging, clawing, kneeing, elbowing, butting, biting, etc. when closing with an enemy in lethal combat. The blows that these experts personally favored may have varied slightly, but not much. And on no account did any of them ever suggest even remotely that pinning, mounting, or striving for a groundlock of any kind made even peripheral sense when the engagement is for real.

Practice methods and drills vary between the close combat/self-defense authorities
of merit, but all disdain “freestyle sparring” and “match” events, since every real expert needs no reminder of the complete difference between doing battle
according to any rules (and ALL of the competition methods have lots of rules!) and going full bore any way one can, in order to knock out, maim, or kill — before the other guy does it to you.

Some legitimate teachers do include training in control methods (i.e. “holds” and
“locks”), but none suggest that these can be used or ought to be attempted against any form of real attack. These skills are to be relegated to law enforcement and security officer uses; maybe, on occasion, to school teachers, “doormen”(i.e. bouncers), and others with a definite peacekeeping responsibility (something that no private citizen acting in self-defense need bother with, and certainly no soldier should care about).

Modern weapons are universally advocated by legitimate teachers of close
combat and self-defense, and the reason for this should be obvious. The antiquated
weapons of the martial arts are not suitable for modern use in self, family, and
home defense — or for street police work or military warfare. Which specific
weapons are advocated by which individual teachers may vary. Some may prefer
the Remington Model 870 12 gauge shotgun (as we do), while others advocate the
excellent and reliable Mossbergs. No major tactical difference. But you won’t find
a legitimate professional claiming that throwing stars ought to be used instead of a
shotgun against home invaders.

DESPITE HIS TV AND MOVIE ACROBATICS, THE LATE BRUCE LEE RECOGNIZED
THAT LOW KICKS, AND ONLY THE SIMPLEST, MOST DIRECT ACTIONS COULD
BE DEPENDED UPON IN REAL COMBAT.

JOHN STYERS (PROTÉGÉ OF ANTHONY J. DREXEL BIDDLE) ADVOCATED THE
EDGE-OF-THE-HAD BLOW, ALBEIT NOT WITH THE “THUMB UPRAISED” HAND
POSITION TAUGHT BY APPLEGATE AND FAIRBAIRN. OUR VERSION OF THE
BLOW — THE “HANDAXE CHOP” AS WE CALL IT — IS TAUGHT DIFFERENTLY
TOO. BUT THE ESSENTIAL ACTION THAT ALL OF US TEACH IS
FUNDAMENTALLY THE SAME. YOU’LL NOT FIND ANY LEGITIMATE CLOSE
COMBAT EXPERT WHO DOES NOT STRESS THIS BLOW!

There are, of course, many other points of evidence that prove that those who
know what they are about in this field of close combat and self-defense advocate
very similar skills, tactics, and attitudes. Another example pertains to the
importance of strength.

The importance of strength — raw physical strength — is denied only by fools,
insofar as serious hand-to-hand combat is concerned. Like ourself, many other
professionals urge weight training. This might be regular training with adjustable
barbell and dumbbells, or it might be — or include — work with Nautilus
machinery. But every bona fide teacher who knows anything about the subject
pushes progressive resistance exercise. Some interesting fellows prefer “log P.T.” (somewhat quaint, and reminiscent of WWII commando training) and there might
be some friendly quibbling over whether dumbbells or kettle-bells ought to be employed. But no one — no one — who understands anything at all about real hand-to-hand combat discounts the importance of physical strength and fails to urge strongly that students of close combat build their strength to its maximum.

If you are unable to train with us, personally, you might wish to shop around for a
teacher where you live. There are relatively few, compared to the classical
traditionalists and the competition oriented, but certainly there are some. You can test the authenticity and value of that which they offer, from the standpoint of combat and self-defense, by checking to see if the doctrine espoused approximates that which have been discussing here.

Teachers and schools do vary somewhat; but there is no combat/self-defense
school anywhere in the world that disputes war and street proven doctrine and principles, and that deviates from a core, fundamental focus upon that which we all, who do this for real , know to be axiomatic.

Mixed Martial Arts Is Nothing New

© COPYRIGHT 2011 BY BRADLEY J. STEINER - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sword and Pen – January 2011 Issue

[Reprinted With Permission]

www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com

GENUINE martial (i.e. combat) arts have always been “mixed”. That is, if an art can be said to be a “combat art”, or an art that is “of or pertaining to war” then it literally must possess a mixture of techniques THAT WORK, and not be limited or restricted to only one, specific type of skill (i.e. say, throwing).

Fairbairn’s System is “mixed”.

Applegate’s System is “mixed”.

O’Neill’s System is “mixed”.

American Combato (i.e. our System) is “mixed”, etc.

But long before the above listed systems ever came to be, there was ancient Greek
pankration. There was Chinese/Mongolian wrestling, there were variants of the Hindu or Indian form of hand-to-hand fighting called varmannie, and of course there were the many Chinese “boxing” or ch’uan fa forms — today popularly but erroneously referred to as “kung fu”. Several of these forms — notably the ones being promulgated today under the heading of Chin-Na — were the arts that formed the basis of that which the Japanese “borrowed” and renamed ju-jutsu.

And, if you look at the real ju-jutsu that was taught for combat, rather than the esthetic or the so-called “sport” ju-jutsu (this last being really a contradiction in terms; but that doesn’t seem to bother anybody) Chin-Na was once referred to in China as CHI-CHI SU. It was this that became, upon their acquisition of some of its doctrine, the “Japanese’ art of ju-jutsu”. None of these fighting systems were in the least restricted in what they taught. Their emphasis in different arts was on different specific skills, but their curriculums were — as they needed to be for combat — all-inclusive. For the most part, out of practical necessity, arts remaining “pure combat” forms, placed a major emphasis upon blows.

No restrictions or limitations were, however, a part of these arts in their original
(i.e. their combat) forms.

There are five major schools of karate in Japan: the Shotokan, the Shudokan, the Shito-ryu, the Goju-ryu, and the Wado-ryu. Every one of them includes techniques not normally considered “karate” techniques . . . i.e. throwing, holding, and strangling, at the upper black belt levels. The Wado-ryu, which frankly blends ju-jutsu with karate is evidently well “mixed” as a system, even for complete beginners. (Note: Oyama’s extremely hard karate style, the Kyokushinkai, is world renown, is headquartered in Japan — is probably not regarded as a “Japanese” karate system because its Shinan [Founder] was Korean, and the Japanese are, regrettably, inclined to ethnic bias of a rather strong kind — but is absolutely a “mixed” martial art, nevertheless).

What’s more, the Korean arts (most notably Kuk Sool Won, Hauk Sool Won, Hapkido, and the Tang soo do systems) all teach throws, strangulations, holds, locks — in short, a “mixed” curriculum of skills. When we ourself were a student of ChungDo Kwan TaeKwonDo (1960’s), this Korean karate style (rooted in the same original foundation as Japanese Shotokan) included some throwing, as well as a hold or two every now and again. But Young K. Lee who taught taekwondo at the time never advocated the System as a “sport”, or as a form of recreational competition, or “match fighting”, etc. It was a military combat art. And as such, it contained mixed elements of hand-to-hand technique.

So what’s our point?

The sport that goes by the designation “mixed martial arts” (or MMA) today is based upon an idea that is not at all unique, or new. However, in an effort to be “all inclusive” in a sporting form of so-called “martial art”, the MMAers have produced and participate in what some might observe appears to be mere “brawling with sport-oriented techniques”. The techniques are not sharp, powerful, crisp karate blows; nor are they well-executed, bone-jarring ju-jutsu throws. The “holds” are of a submission (rather than a “control him and kill him”) variety, and the chokes are straight from sport judo. There’s a bit of Western wrestling in there here and there; but never done in a manner that a Master Wrestler like, for example, Gene Le Bell would render it. And several of our acquaintances who are real boxers have noted that the smattering of that which is passed off as “boxing” in MMA is, to be kind, somewhat underwhelming. It isn’t good, solid boxing, they assure us.

Okay, so are we criticizing MMA? Only insofar as some might be misled into believing that MMA prepares one for hand-to-hand combat or actual self-defense.
The same mistake that is sometimes made regarding the UFC, cage fighting, etc.

We have no quarrel with anyone who enjoys any of these sports, and we have
not the slightest desire to persuade anyone inclined to be a “champion”
competitor in any of them to abandon his goals. If you enjoy these types of
sporting/competitive venues then go for it! Good luck to you, and we hope that
you achieve the satisfaction and the success as a competitor that you are
seeking.

There is not, however, any correlation between sporting competition and serious individual combat. The danger in attempting to utilize any sport as preparation for hand-to-hand and close combat is that, necessarily, the techniques that you employ to win your matches are and must be “safe” — diluted, watered down, and nonmaiming or killing actions. While this is as it should and must be, it also defines one of the major differences between sport and combat.

MENTAL ATTITUDE/MINDSET , is also (and, to combat veterans, obviously) an enormous difference. The mindset of the sports competitor who is determined to win is not related to the mindset of either the violent felon or enemy soldier determined to kill his adversary however he can do so; nor is it related to that adversary’s mindset, which is equally determined to stop his enemy by any means conceivable — in order to prevail and survive.

The absence of weapons, the nature of the terrain, the absence of multiple
attacking enemies, etc. etc. go further to prove the huge difference between
competition and combat; but sensible individuals will have gotten the message by
now.

To make it even clearer by example:

A “mixed martial sport” might see the champion soften his opponent up with a few punches, use a throw to get him down, and then go for a submission hold.

A combatant would smash into his adversary with chops to the carotid artery, finger thrusts to the eyes, or/and potentially neck-breaking chinjabs. He might then bring his enemy to the deck by breaking his knee with a side kick (or perhaps by applying a cross-buttock — combat-effective — “hip throw”), Then he would conclude the encounter by kicking his downed enemy’s head in or crushing his sternum with a heel stomp. He might even jump on his with both heels.

All hand-to-hand fighters use “mixed” martial skills. Nothing new about this. It is the way it has always been. But the sporting form of unarmed contest that is known as MMA today is NOT hand-to-hand combat.

You Must Have Unarmed Combat Ability

© COPYRIGHT 2011 BY BRADLEY J. STEINER - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sword and Pen – January 2011 Issue

[Reprinted With Permission]

www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com

THERE are those who love firearms (“gun nuts”). There are those who love
knives. Both interest groups enjoy an abundance of monthly periodicals that cater
to their interests, just as “martial arts” aficionados enjoy a ton of monthly appearing mainstream “literature” (albeit 99% of which is of highly questionable value, if not outright bullshit — precisely as is true in the case of 99% of that which appears in the gun and knife rags!), Oddly enough, the overwhelming majority of those in any of those three categories think of their little niche as exclusive, and they disdain involvement in and mastery of that which the other categories offer.

Fatal mistake, as far as practical defense and actual combative preparedness is
concerned.

This much is true: There are times when you need a firearm; times when you need
a knife; and times when you must rely upon your bare hands. If you are thoroughly prepared and competent in but a single approach to individual combat, then you are two thirds unprepared! (We should also consider the stick in our discussion, as stick work is certainly essential in the individual’s total scheme of defensive preparation. And we might thus legitimately assert that by possessing expertise in but one of four necessary areas of training you are three quarters unprepared). You hopefully get the drift of where we’re going with this.

Combat handguns, shotguns, and shoulder weapons certainly occupy an important
place in self-defense training. So do knives and stick implements. However, good
as any particular fashioned and manufactured weapon may be, it is not only
inappropriate to resort to the use of weaponry in all instances, it is often not possible. Those who spend time practicing quick draw at the range because they wish to be able to speedily access a sidearm in a close quarters crisis when, say, they are suddenly jumped in a street attack, have no idea of what real world violence entails, and what — realistically — they will be able to do about it, if it comes unexpectedly to them.

It takes a relatively long time to execute a “quick draw” from a maximum
concealment holster that is worn under normal daily attire (quite possibly attire
that includes a coat), as opposed to simply driving a powerful leg-breaking kick
into an assailant, or chopping him across the carotid artery! More: While you are
attempting to execute that quick draw, your attacker (or attackers) will — a) Have a great opportunity to seize, punch, and beat you into unconsciousness, and b) Be made plainly aware that you are armed, and no doubt will take that gun away from you, either while in the process of carrying out, or shortly after accomplishing “a”.

We have seen and heard of absolutely ridiculous “techniques” being taught — using folding knives (and in the case of law enforcement officers, their
“expandable batons”) — where, having been seized from behind in a mugger’s
strangle, the defender acquires his weapon(!) and executes some technique against
his attacker that frees him from the hold. Again — unarmed action is the only speedy action that stands a chance of being speedy enough in such a situation . . . (unless of course the “attacker” is a practice partner) to actually work. One’s concealed weapon — or one’s holstered sidearm, if one is a uniformed officer — cannot be brought into play quickly enough. That mugger will have snapped you backward and perhaps choked you out before you can even get your folding knife or expandable baton in hand!

We are 100% in favor of the use of modern weapons in personal defense and close
combat. We regard weapons as integral to the overall program that we ourself
teach, and this has always been the case. But make no mistake about it, weapons are not enough.

You must have unarmed combat ability.

Often, in situations where you are not only justified but well advised to access, say, a loaded handgun, you will be unable to do so until and unless you secure sufficient distance, time, and space. Well executed blows of the hands and feet, and practiced maneuvering that works in hand-to-hand situations will enable you to do this — and will enable you to save your life and quite possibly the lives of others. Your “target” in a close quarters combat situation will not be a cardboard outline, conveniently placed ten to 30 feet away, in broad daylight, giving you time to prepare ahead of time for the event, and giving you plenty of distance, time, and space right now to enable you to draw from your range rig, and place two neat holes in the kill zone. Get real.

Gun trumps knife, right? We have heard potbellied, beer-drinking, gun buff
“yahoos” who “roll their own” in their garages assert that, in a situation where a punk pulled a knife they’d “just shoot him”. Really? You think so? Well, if you had a handgun positioned and leveled at the “punk”, and if you were all set to pull the trigger, and if that “punk” was perhaps 25 to 30 feet away, and had not yet drawn his knife, but was seen by you in time to be undertaking to do just that . . . maybe you could “just shoot him”. But in the real world, if you lack unarmed combat skills, any determined would-be killer will get you first. He will get in close and he will have stabbed and slashed you ten times before you can even think of reaching for that holstered sidearm under your jacket.

Not that you could be certain of defending yourself adequately even if you were an unarmed combat expert. The knife attacker still has a great advantage. But if your body is trained to move correctly and to make ferocious and immediate use of your natural weapons, you stand a chance of surviving.

Real world, people; real world.

And the idiocy that is advanced as “self-defense use of the folding knife” would
be comical, if it were not presented seriously, and in a tone that suggests the
advocate of this crap is some kind of “combat expert”!

Yes, certainly a stoutly constructed folding knife can be an excellent weapon in a
defensive emergency. However, it is nowhere near as effective a weapon as a fixed
blade combat knife, and all of those who believe that their “combat folders” make them bad news for muggers are fools.

It takes time to access and then open a folding knife. Time is what you have
precious little of in any violent emergency, and “going for your folding knife”
sets you up exactly as going for your holstered handgun does, in any predicament
where you are attacked by one or more street bacteria up close. And face it: This is how it generally happens.

Again, unarmed skills are instantly available, and will clear the way for your being able to access that folder. What’s more, hitting your attacker — jabbing, smashing, and pounding him real hard in his vulnerable target areas — with the ends of your closed folding knife in hand is often the best preliminary tactic that allows you the time to open the folder, in the first place. Unarmed combat training teaches you how and where to hit your attacker with that closed folding knife, and this is important.

Few weapons are as effective for practical defense as a good, strong walking stick
(or, for a police officer, a simple hardwood baton — NOT one of those damn “expandable” pieces of s—t that deserves to be discarded along with pepper spray and mace). Still, one might find that an attacker seizes one’s walking stick (or baton), and a struggle ensues in which unarmed combat skills will prove essential for achieving dominance over the aggressor.

Quality training in unarmed close combat provides the key foundational elements
for success in all close combat — armed included:

√ It teaches you to have self-confidence (as opposed to confidence in a hand held
weapon).

√ It teaches you how to move, position yourself, and interface with potential and
actual troublemakers.

√ It teaches you how to strike and how to kick, and it trains you in the enemy’s
vital target areas . . . areas as susceptible to weapon as to unarmed trauma.

√ It teaches you attitude and mindset, without which no weapon on earth is of any value; and with which, even some random object-at-hand will serve well and lethally in a dangerous emergency.

√ It trains you in general self-defense tactics and strategy, in the principles of
protection, and in the realities of close-in individual battle.

√ It enjoins you to establish a serious routine of personal physical training, so as
to get and stay fit, strong, conditioned, ready, and confident that you are able to
meet whatever comes.

The modern student of self-defense, as we have been emphasizing since the late
1960’s, needs unarmed and armed modern combat skills in order to be a rounded, balanced, ready-for-anything combatant.

The word to all of you weapons buffs: If you keep those weapons for self-defense, then make certain you’ve got a solid capability with unarmed combat to
bolster and to back up their use!

How Much Do You Know About Psychopaths?

© COPYRIGHT 2010 BY BRADLEY J. STEINER - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sword and Pen – December 2010 Issue

[Reprinted With Permission]

www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com

IF your answer is “Very little, if anything,” you are in excellent company. Most practicing psychologists know very little if anything about psychopaths. And, truth be told, there are almost certainly more psychopaths teaching the martial arts than there are martial arts teachers who know anything meaningful about psychopaths, per se!

In unfortunately too brief and encapsulated an explanation, the psychopath is an individual who possesses no conscience, for whom the person and property of
others means nothing (save that these others represent “things” for his use,
manipulation, and consumption), and who apparently exists in a kind of “world
consisting solely of himself” and in a universe in which “only the gratification of his own personal impulses” holds any motivational power over him. The psychopath may be defined as being, in his philosophy and behavior, antisocial.

Not all psychopaths are violent offenders. Most violent offenders, however —
certainly the horrific violent offenders — do tend to be psychopaths.

Rent or purchase the motion picture FUNNY GAMES. That is a chilling and
outstandingly enacted presentation of the psychopathic victimization of, for want
of a better term, “normal” people. IN COLD BLOOD is another motion picture
that you might wish to search out, as is the documentary HELTER SKELTER. Of
course you could always read those last two books, as we require our students to
do, but if you’re more inclined to sit back and watch and listen than you are to
read (as many people seem to be, today) then rent the two movies.

The psychologist Robert D. Hare is certainly one of the world’s great authorities
today on psychopaths. In fact he may be considered to be the authority on the
subject by many. His books are highly readable by lay people, and we recommend
them strongly.

TWO OF Dr. HARE’S GREAT WORKS ON THE PSYCHOPATH. WE RECOMMEND
THAT EVERY STUDENT OF SELF-DEFENSE OBTAIN AND STUDY BOTH THESE
OUTSTANDING BOOKS.

Alan Harrington authored a wonderful book, PSYCHOPATHS, which has been on
our students’ required reading list for decades. In fact, one of our students, the
late psychiatrist Gary Tucker, MD (who was head of Psychiatry at the University
of Washington School of Medicine, and who appeared in the “top 100 physicians
in America” book) knew Harrington, and agreed with us that the book is
excellent. Unfortunately it is out of print; but it is well worth hunting for.

THE MASK OF SANITY, by Hervey Cleckley, MD is the classic text on
psychopathy, and has long been on our students’ list of required readings, but
many find this valuable tome to be too onerous a task. We think that tackling it is
well worthwhile.

Some visitors might ask: “I am studying self-defense. Granted I need to know how
to recognize and handle potentially dangerous violent threats, but why would you
recommend my studying psychopaths per se in such depth and detail?”

Our answer is: The martial arts is inundated with mystical and fanciful, and also
with utterly irrelevant B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T. Your objective, whether you realize it or not, requires that you become a hardheaded realist and focus upon learning about whatever constitutes the real threats in the real world; and psychopaths — especially the violent ones — are your greatest potential problem. Learning about them, getting to understand how to identify them, coming to grips with the serious life-threatening danger that the worst of them may pose to YOU and to YOURS is critical. Do not think that “you can tell” if someone is or is not a danger, merely by his appearance, his initial behavior, or whatever stated beliefs and convictions he might express. Mundo nulla fides (“trust no one”; at least no one who you do not know, personally and well, and for a long time!). Nothing can achieve the necessary cautionary mindset and — if required — mercilessly aggressive and decisive offensive mindset that you MUST POSSESS for self-defense better than coming personally to grips with a serious understanding of how predators think, feel, function, and will gladly strive to violate and injure you in the worst possible ways.

Some unfortunate innocents believe that we exaggerate or embellish when we
speak of the pure evil and the ferocious danger posed to them by would-be
assailants and trouble-making violators. The cure for this — for them — may well be their independent exposure via a careful study on their own of the works of
psychological and psychiatric professionals, to an explanation of the hideously real
threat that the psychopath presents to all decent human beings in modern society.

Our advice: Throw away the books on fanciful nonsense and the macho crap about
how to be the baddest dude in the world of challenge fighting, and start educating
yourself in that which you really need to know about the very real enemy whom you are likely to face if you are ever attacked, and against whom you will also want to be able to defend those you love.

If you know little about psychopaths, correct that as soon as possible! Study this subject! If you are a self-defense instructor you have an obligation to become educated in this area.

Combat Firing of Handguns (1944)

On The Need To Be Ambidextrous

© COPYRIGHT 2010 BY BRADLEY J. STEINER - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sword and Pen – December 2010 Issue

[Reprinted With Permission]

www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com

WE have said it many times before, and it is a truth that bears repeating frequently: Any form of competitive match “fighting” or sporting contests actually train you to do the wrong things, as far as self-defense and close combat is concerned. There is nothing wrong with sporting competition per se, but you are making a huge mistake if your interest is in personal combat and defense skills, and you believe that you can attain your objectives by becoming a competition fighter.

Remember Bruce Lee? Remember the Bruce Lee fad? One of the notable things
about Lee’s teaching is an excellent representative example of precisely how
misleading it really is to confuse that which prepares a man to spar and to compete, versus that which prepares a man to engage an enemy or an adversary in close combat.

Bruce Lee introduced the idea of the STRONG SIDE LEAD in a fighting stance. Unlike the boxer’s weak hand lead, Lee advanced the idea that leading with your strong side made the most sense in serious self-defense (as Lee erroneously imagined “serious self-defense” to be). The truth is, of course, that the practice of consciously leading with either hand or side makes sense only when referring to competition and to sport. Otherwise, for personal combat in self-defense, the idea is nonsense.

If the speediest and most natural position from which to face an approaching
stranger is your left side, then a left side “lead” position makes sense. If the speediest and most natural position from which to face an approaching stranger is your right side, then a right side “lead” makes sense. And here, of course, when we refer to a “lead” we mean in that which we call a RELAXED-READY STANCE — i.e. off-angled, facing the individual at a 45-degree angle — we most certainly do not mean any sort of formal and obvious “fighting stance” per se.

YOU CAN CANCEL A SPARRING MATCH OR CONTEST IF THIS HAPPENS, BUT
YOU JUST MIGHT BECOME A MORE LIKELY TARGET FOR ATTACK! IN A
SITUATION WHERE ONE ARM IS IMMOBILIZED, YOU MUST BE ABLE TO USE
YOUR OTHER ARM T MAXIMUM EFFECT IN AN EMERGENCY!

Being steeped in the absurdity of “competition-as-preparation-for-combat” it is certain that many will not comprehend in the slightest the idea that a fighting stance per se is not needed for self-defense. This is because only two possibilities exist as far as self-defense is concerned:

1. You will be aware of the troublemaker’s
approach, or

2. You will not be aware of his approach.

If you are aware of the approach of ANY STRANGER you will (if properly trained) assume a relaxed-ready stance. You will be off-angled, distanced just outside of arms’ reach - where you will stay - and your eyes will remain on the stranger’s face, as your own hands rest unobtrusively at your own sternum level. Whether your left or right side “leads” will of course depend upon which side most expediently faces the stranger at his approach. Now, you are ready. You will maintain your relaxed-ready position, and you will keep yourself properly distanced until or unless this stranger initiates aggression. If he does, you will ATTACK, and you will keep on attacking until he is no longer a threat. No assumption of any other “stance” is required. In relaxed-ready you are in as excellent a “fighting stance” (and you telegraph NOTHING) as you would be in if
you were in the most exotic “martial arts pose” imaginable.

If you are not aware of the approach of anyone who attacks you, then he will get his initial action in against you, at the very least (assuming that he does not kill, cripple, or knock you out). While such a predicament is not always or necessarily hopeless, it isn’t good. You will be able to cope with such a situation if — and only if — the attacker’s action fails to neutralize you and if you are capable of generating an effective counterattack. But you will certainly not attempt to assume a “fighting stance” after an attack against you is launched, and you have been seized, struck, or rushed.

Is it really that simple? Yes.

There is NO correlation between close combat and self-defense and competition or sport. None. Nada. And one of the great myths (perhaps cons would be a better term, in some instances) is that notion that there in fact is such a correlation, and that if one wishes to be ready to defend himself or handle an enemy in hand-tohand combat then he’d better become some kind of a contest fighter.

When people face off for a contest (or for a “fight” per se, which only morons agree to) then and only then do they utilize “stances”. And only then might it make some sense to suggest that a “weak side” or a “strong side” lead is more or less desirable for the encounter.

BEING “RIGHT HANDED” OR “LEFT HANDED” AND ASSUMING A “FIGHTING
STANCE” THAT REFLECTS THAT PREFERENTIAL METHOD OF EXCHANGING
TECHNIQUES MAKES PERFECT SENSE IN BOXING, KARATE, AND IN ALL FORMS
OF PHYSICAL CONTEST AND SPORT. BUT THIS IS A MISTAKE IN PREPARING FOR
PERSONAL DEFENSE OR UNARMED CLOSE COMBAT.

But back to ambidexterity.

No hand-to-hand combat student can afford to have a weak side. Preparation for real world personal combat requires that both hands/arms/elbows/legs be equally capable of generating decisive force — and that they be equally able to render accurate and speedy actions under the stress of an emergency situation.

There is a corollary to the above: No hand-to-hand combat student can afford to have a strong side! If you do feel that you have a “strong side” then you will be influenced accordingly in how you attempt to manage a confrontation. This is an unnecessary impediment to simply attacking and destroying, and in serious self-defense and close combat you cannot afford ANY impediments.

Remember that the first awareness you might have that you are in fact under
attack is a sudden injury to, or immobilizing seizure of, your “strong” arm. Then, consider how your ability to resist and your personal confidence at the moment might be affected. But if you are ambidextrous and function with equal efficiency and strength on both sides with all four limbs you will stand a greater chance of effective retaliatory action.

You may have something in your “strong” hand at the time of an approach.
Obviously, if what is in your hand is a weapon, and if you are holding it properly so that an attack can be initiated by employing it, you will not likely be attacked or approached in the first place (except perhaps by a police officer!). If what you are holding is an object that can serve as a weapon, then you will be obliged to employ your “weak” hand to assist in what you do with that improvised weapon. If the object in your hand will not serve as a weapon, then you will throw it into the adversary’s face if you are attacked, and your followup will likely be with your “weak” hand. Should the weapon/object be in your “weak” and not in your “strong” hand, then you will want to have the ability to use that weapon/object with the same authority as you would, had it been in your “strong” hand.

You cannot afford to have this “weak” and “strong” hand dichotomy
operating in a potentially hindering way against you in any emergency! You want both hands/sides to possess the speed, strength, and capacity for accuracy, so that regardless of whether you are unarmed or armed, and no matter how you may be approached or suddenly find yourself confronting anyone, you are ready.

The attainment of ambidexterity in developing close combat and self-defense
skills is not difficult. Mainly, it is something that you must simply be aware needs doin.

Left-handed people, in our experience, tend to be much more naturally capable of using their right hands well than are right-handed people able to use their left hands. Still, except in the rarest of cases, both left and right-handed individuals need to address the matter of cultivating what we call “bad side proficiency” when they come to training in this subject.

The following suggestions should be helpful:

• Obviously, never fail to practice any technique or action on both sides when you learn them and when you train in developing them. At the very least do an equal amount of training on whichever side and for whichever limb initially tends to be weaker than the other.

• It is very often helpful, especially during the first six to twelve months of training, to devote more time and effort to whichever is your weaker side. It does not follow, by the way, that because you are right-handed you will therefore be “right-legged”, etc. Some people do initially favor, for example, their right hand and their right leg (when hand striking and when kicking), but some people do not. If you find that your right-handedness is accompanied by left-leggedness, do not feel that you are abnormal. You are quite normal, as people do tend naturally to vary in this regard.

• During your daily activities consciously make yourself use whichever hand is your “weak” hand. Carry things in your weak hand. Open doors with your weak hand. Turn on faucets with your weak hand, and turn them off with your weak hand. Lift things with your weak hand. Etcetera.

• Until you feel ambidextrous with any given action, do more repetitions of it with the side that lags behind. This will not be necessary for very long. However, it is a truly valuable way to speed up the process of ambidexterity in combative skills development.

• A most valuable training method is to allow yourself only the use of your “weak” hand and arm when drilling in counterattacking and attacking techniques. This forces you to rely upon what would normally be your weaker side, when training in skills that normally allow you the use of both hands.

• If you have access to a chinning bar, practice simply suspending your weight while holding onto the bar with your “weak” hand. This is an excellent strengthener.

• Going through a normal training class or practice session, use a light (2-1/2 or 5 pound) ankle or wrist weight on your “weak” side limb. Caution: Do not do this more than once a week.

• Aside from the attacking and counterattacking (i.e. “self-defense”) techniques that you must drill in, remember always to train both sides when working on the assumption of a relaxed-ready stance, moving in the relaxed-ready stance, and when executing the various evasive steps (“taisabaki”) of side-stepping, pivoting, turning, etc. that play a critical part in reacting to many forms of physical aggression.

We also want to mention this: Insofar as weapons — stick, fighting knife,
tomahawk, handgun, shoulder weapon — are concerned, it is surprisingly easy to develop ambidexterity. You will see this for yourself as you learn and train, and as you are introduced to the use of weaponry, in the course of your combatives development. We mention it now to round out this discussion. It is mainly with unarmed skills that the matter of developing both left and right sides equally requires serious attention and merits concern by teacher an by students.