Scott Bush

On Saturday I, along with two others, tested for my shichikyu (seventh rank) belt in Kei Shin Kan karate at our dojo, Northwest Martial Arts in Bothell. It was both fun and stressful, despite my feeling of preparedness. But, I suppose it wouldn’t be much of a test if not for the mental stress of preparation.

The details of the techniques I and my fellow karatekas had to demonstrate are here if you’re interested. In short, we demonstrated five blocks, three kicks, and one strike: a simple lunge punch. We also performed one kata (heian shodan), which is a sequence of coordinated strikes, blocks, and stances designed to be practiced solo. It’s the physical equivalent of a soliloquy: an expression of your skills performed against opponents who aren’t there. Anyone who questions the efficacy of practicing a set of rote techniques in a pattern hasn’t seen it done well. Watching a focused practitioner perform precise, quick, powerful, and graceful techniques punctuated by fierce kiyas would dissuade all but the most stubborn from attacking them.

But I digress. Our senseis—one karate, one aikido (an art we also practice)—and another black-belt student judged us; our test was video taped as well. Reviewing that tape and spotting the multitude of small errors is not an experience I relish, but I’m sure it will be helpful.

Because there were so few of us testing—and for the sake of the audience of family and friends in attendance—our test included some out-of-the-box components as well. One student was asked to perform heian shodan in reverse; another to do it with his eyes closed. My task was to perform it “left handed,” which meant to do a mirror-image: turn to the right first instead of to the left, and so on. I did it surprisingly well (maybe because I switched my mousing hand to the left six weeks ago at work?).

Where I didn’t shine was the explanation of practical applications from the kata. I explained how one motion could be used in a fight, but when asked for another I stumbled through a poor demonstration of how a knife-hand block could be turned into a throw. I did manage to hold my own against one of the other students testing when she was asked to throw me. She is a second-degree black belt in jujitsu, so the fact I managed to be thrown only two out of four times was a feat. Later, of course, she told me she was going easy on me—and I believe it!

As this is our first test, our belts will not change. Our gis will remain held closed with belts as white as they are. I’m fine with that. The test was an expression of what we’ve learned from our training, not a way to prove to others we’re any better than anyone else.

Last weekend I had the opportunity to check out JJ Abrams‘ monster flick Cloverfield. There’s a ton that can be said (and has been said) about this unique film. I won’t try to recreate all that here, but I feel it does warrant a bit of a review. (Spoiler alert… I’m talking about the film so you may want to read this after you’ve seen it just in case I reveal too much for your taste.)

The good

In a word: I liked it. I actually thought I wouldn’t because I expected the camcorder-style filming to ruin the experience. (I couldn’t stand the fight scenes in the Borne movies—the hand-held filming style was jumpy, too close, and nauseating; Cloverfield promised to amplify this effect.) Though some people found it to be the case, surprisingly I thought it worked. Here’s a hint: sit in the back of the theatre so it’s not overwhelming.

What I found most enjoyable was its Lovecraftian approach to the monster. (If you’re not familiar with HP Lovecraft’s fiction, I suggest you read At the Mountains of Madness and The Case of Charles Dexter Ward, and then dive into his other stories.) By “Lovecraftian,” I mean that you get very little direct exposure to the horror; much of what you learn is second-hand or tangential information. In Cloverfield, this can been seen when the characters watch the mayhem occurring on the streets outside on a TV in an electronics store. Another example is the military personnel telling them what little they know about the creature except that “It’s winning,” a particularly good bit of fear-inspiring dialog. Oh, and what happens to the woman who got bit… that behind-the-sheet silhouette filming was very effective.

In the early stages of the movie, you get only glimpses of the monster. A leg here, a bit of tail there. It’s quite suspensful. A particularly good sequence comes when the group of characters are running along a street one block over from the monster. The character with the camera keeps swinging the lens from what’s in front of him to the side as he runs, giving us glimpses of the beasts legs (including an excellent tank-smashing stomp). Of course, as the movie draws closer to a “conclusion” the monster gets more screen time. It’s well done, indeed. It’s size and unstoppableness is clearly shown from the helicopter scene, when the creature can be seen receiving the full might of the US air force.

What cinched it for me: the subway scene. Watching the monsterlings attack the group in the dark through the camera’s night vision was so intense and, well, real that I found myself gripping my seat’s handrests and shaking with adrenaline. That was worth the price of admission right there.

Comparisons should and will be made with the Korean monster film The Host, which I saw and loved. That movie’s monster had more screen time, was smaller, and had a more in-depth back story. Both films are driven more by characters than by their respective marauding creatures. They’re different enough to complicate comparisons, but if you like Cloverfield you should see its Korean equivalent. (And don’t tell me you can’t read subtitles; if you can suffer through Cloverfield’s handy-cam filming, you can read some English lines on a steady screen.)

The bad

So, you get that I liked it. Doesn’t mean I can’t find areas to complain about. First, the camera… seven hours pass on film, we learn at the end of the movie. There were very few discernible times when the camera went off, but no camcorder can record that long—not to mention the movie’s only 85 minutes. I suppose this is paradox is a testament to Abram’s editing skills? And honestly, who would continue to film when running for his life? I don’t care how intrepid you are; you will drop or at least put down the camera when monstrous creatures are chasing you through a subway tunnel.

And Cloverfield suffers greatly from “stupid movie character” syndrome. The plot revolves primarily around a small group going to rescue the main character’s ex-girlfriend. It’s totally unrealistic, from the first phone call he receives from her to the impossibility of reaching her atop her destroyed apartment building—and down again. Oh well… something was needed to drive the story ahead. It just seemed so glaringly unreal that these people would do what the did in the face of such chaos.

Let’s hope Abrams does as good a job with the upcoming Star Trek prequel film.

File this post under “grammatical rants,” which I know are a favorite for everyone. Irregardless… this little gem of a redundant, repetitious, and repetitive word reared its ugly head twice in contexts where it just doesn’t belong. I must draw the line here!

First, I read it in an aikido book. There it was, page 241, staring me in the face. How’d that slip by an editor?

Then, I heard it in a presentation by an executive at my company. He’s a smart guy… why’d that slip into his lexicon?

For those that don’t share my annoyance with this word, let me explain so you, too, can be annoyed: it’s some  weird blend of “irrespective” (a fine word, to be sure) and “regardless,” (also an upstanding member of the dictionary). Both of these mean “despite of,” as in Tom loves Katie regardless of his jumping on couches on Oprah, or “Scooter Libby deserves his jail sentence irrespective of his administration connections.” Somewhere along the line someone slipped up and put them together and this Franken-word was born. Kinda like “TomKat,” but not as bad. Or is it worse… I can’t tell; they’re both horrible.

The real trouble with it is that it’s a double negative. The prefix  “ir-” negates what it follows, as in “irrelevant,” which is something that’s not relevant. The suffix “-less” following “regard” negates it. We’re left with: negate + regard + negate = regard. It’s the opposite of what the speaker or writer intends.

Help me and the English language: don’t let people say “irregardless.” Tell them why, and then you’ll be smart and helpful. Would you let a friend say “I don’t not want that”? I didn’t think so.

First, a definition: LOLcats are photos of cats in cute/funny situations that have been made extra hilarious by the addition of misspelled captions, ostensibly written by the cat itself. These captions add humor in a manner similar to how batter and deep frying adds deliciousness to cheese.

Second, a resource: LOLcats are everywhere on teh intarwebs, but you should start here: icanhascheezburger.com (don’t question the name; it’s just the way it is). You can also find other great ones here: LOLcat.com.

Third, a contradiction: Schrödinger’s cat. There’s a lot to this thought experiment, so read up on it. For this picture to be hilarious, though, all you need to know are: a) LOLcats are funny, b) the “Schrödinger’s cat” experiment symbolized his assertion that you can’t know the state quantum particles are in, because the very act of measuring them changes them. He drew an analogy with a cat in a box that may or may not be dead. (Sounds nuts, I know. Read the link above for details.)

Getting to the contradiction I mentioned: pairing something as inane and pointless as LOLcat photos with something as heavy and difficult to understand as quantum physics. Excellent.

Other LOLcat “cat”egories you should be familiar with

Invisible things Cats in mid-air positions that resemble doing something with an invisible prop. See more.	In/On Ur stuff, doing Ur whatever Cats in or on things who are eating, watching, breaking, etc. your food, keyboard, etc. See more.
HALP! Cats—especially kittens—getting themselves into situation from which they need your help. See more.

I came across this news in the Seattle Times yesterday: China is banning plastic bags (Other agencies have stories, too). That’s excellent news. Sure, the ban doesn’t take effect until June, and it only bans the thinnest plastic bags (but thicker bags must be paid for; they won’t be free). But it’s a start. And with China’s growing economy and affluence, nipping this environmental blight in the bud is commendable.

I’ve always been astounded by the number of plastic bags checkers stuff groceries into. Yes, a broken bag dumping your eggs and spaghetti sauce onto the parking lot pavement is not good. But does it happen often? No. But to ward off this threatannoyance, I’ve seen checkers put four cans of food into a bag and start a new one. Ever see them put a loaf of bread into a bag of its own so as not to squish it? C’mon.

Trader Joe’s started a trend a few years bag: a $3 canvas bag. The clientele at TJs is more progressive than others and this reusable bag took off (we have three, and know many that have a half-dozen or more). Fred Myers and some other grocers are getting into the game, too—and that’s a positive thing. As more and more stores offer these bags, the stigma of bringing your own bag will lessen. Isn’t it odd that we should feel awkward for bringing in a reusable bag? Doing so saves:

• the petroleum of producing and transporting the bag
• that bag from a landfill, recycling center, or (worse) polluting our environment
• the retailer money by not using that bag

China joins Bagladesh and some “30 remote Alaskan villages” that ban bags. Other countries, like South Africa and Ireland, tax these bags to discourage their use. The Chinese (at least those quoted in news stories) seems to be postive about the change:

“If we can reduce waste and save resources, then it’s good both for us and the whole world,” ~ college student Xu Lixian

Let’s hope the rest of the country joins San Francisco’s ban on thin plastic bags and that we’ll have as positive response as Xu Lixian.

Because I work for the largest homebuilder in the Northwest (and I happened to be in the right place at the right time), I scored two tickets to the observation deck party at the Space Needle: 520 feet up.

We had to miss most of our friends’ annual New Year’s soirée, which is a hardship because they’re Italian and make some incredible grub. But we headed downtown around 8:30 and, mercifully, were in our parking spot (another benefit from my employer) by 9pm.

Some brief banter with the elevator attendant (Jeremiah) about despite having to work on New Year’s, running a glass-faced elevator up and down one of the world’s best-known landmarks was pretty cool.

It was pretty cool, despite the issues with the fireworks. Lesson learned for the next time I’m given free tickets to New Year’s at the Needle: watch the pyrotechnics from “SkyLine lounge,” the banquet area much lower along the Needle. From the O-deck 520 feet up, most of the fireworks were below us, and we only saw a few arcs. There were, however, some spinners attached to the outside of the O-deck that were very cool. (We also saw the spinner that “simply fizzled for about a minute,” according to that PI story.)

A note about the food: my coworkers were enjoying a six-course meal (free upgrade to their tickets by the Space Needle) that we arrived to late to partake in. But don’t cry for us, Argentina; we enjoyed the “hor d’oeuvres” served at the SkyLine Lounge. And by “hor d’oeuvres” I mean baked salmon, chicken quarters, roast beef, salads, ravioli, poached shrimp and pre-cracked crab legs on ice. Oh, and I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention caviar! Yep, the little fish eggs that you hear so much about. (It was mostly salty and nothing I’d spend a ton of money on, personally).

We tried to get on camera while King 5 TV, our local NBC affiliate, did their report from the O-deck. Our mild interest in waving to the camera was nothing compared to the preponderance of obnoxiously drunk idiots clamoring for a second’s screentime. So all we have are some photos and our souvenir noisemakers to prove that we enjoyed the event.