The Importance of History

For those of you reading who don't personally know me, a couple months ago I began working as a mentor for an after school program at an elementary school.  It's been a great experience so far.  One thing I try to do with the students in the program is ask them about their classes and what they've been learning about.  The other day, I had just such a conversation with one of my students.  As we talked about learning and which classes she likes, she told me point blank that she finds history boring.  I was saddened but not at all surprised.  It is a sentiment that all too many people have, and it's a serious problem.

And it's not really their fault, either.

This fall I'll be starting graduate school at San Diego State University, going for an MA in History with the goal of becoming a community college professor.  It'll be a tough road- and I don't just mean my schooling.  There's a good chance I'll be hired as an adjunct professor, and if so, a 25% chance I'll be on public assistance considering how little adjuncts are paid.  It'll be tough, but it will be worth it.

"And that concludes today's lecture about US-Nicaraguan relations during the pre- and post-revolutionary years through the lens of gender.  Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go rummage through a garbage can because I haven't eaten today."

But if you had told me ten years ago this would be my current path, my fifteen year old self would probably laugh at you.  Because back then, I still viewed history the way most people do: a long list of dates and proper nouns to memorize.  A bunch of names, places, and events that told me about the past, but not much else.  Even the war stories that were supposed to be "exciting" for male students held little interest for me.  There were some things here and there that captured my attention, but history as a whole?  Gracias, pero no.

In the time between then and now, however, my view on history has changed thanks to a variety of chances to see it in a different light.  From great teachers and professors, to the community college debate circuit, to underground hip hop (especially Immortal Technique), I was given the chance to learn that history is so much more than a list of numbers and words to memorize.

One of the most oft-repeated sentiments about history is that learning about our past helps us understand the present.  It's one of the most cliche sayings about history, but also one of the truest.  Knowledge of history allows us to give context to the world around us.  As a culture, we don't like learning about the past because we confuse knowing about the past with being stuck in the past (just look up all those feel-good graphics floating around on Facebook about never looking back and always living in the present).  But we miss out on so much of the world when we don't understand where everything came from.

To give an example, in my Top Everything of 2014 post my "Actual News Story of the Year" choice went to the US beginning to normalize relations with Cuba.  Now, to someone whose only knowledge of the history of US-Cuba relations is "Castro took over in a revolution and then there were missiles and the trade embargo happened because... communism?" are missing out on a lot of important information

The most important information: the Cuban rebels were known for their beards,

and were actually called Barbudos (bearded ones) by much of the press.

To give an incredibly brief summary of US-Cuban history, things started with the Spanish American War that began in 1898 between the US and Spain over Spain's territories.  The US won, and in 1903 the Platt Amendment was passed to make Cuba a "protectorate" (read: colony without using the word "colony") of the US.  That meant that whenever Cuba did anything to stand up for itself, and/or did anything to go against US interests, the US would intervene.  Those who came to power in Cuba had to be loyal to US interests, or they would be overthrown.

Revolt was common, but none truly succeeded until the 1959 Revolution, Fidel chief amongst the figures in the revolution.  Fidel's leadership after the revolution involved both good and bad: he mobilized literacy and healthcare campaigns in the countryside, changed the economy from the ground up to an egalitarian model that created a lot of gains for those who had been at the bottom, and overall created a strong socialist state that helped the people who needed it most.  On the other hand, he was a repressive dick who didn't allow the slightest bit of dissent or non-state approved voices.  But, however repressive he was, he wasn't any worse than Fulgencio Batista, his US-backed predecessor that he overthrew in the Revolution.

The Cubans that came to the US immediately after the 1959 Revolution were largely wealthy elites (which is why Cuban Americans are known for being staunchly conservative).  And, with their wealth and disdain for Castro, a strong anti-Fidel lobby was born.  The influence of the first wave of Cuban immigrants in favor of blacklisting Fidel's Cuba, and the lack of wealthy opposition, meant that the embargo with Cuba hadn't gone anywhere even a couple decades past the Cold War.  Politicians who tried in the past were met with fierce opposition from these first wave Cuban immigrants, while not having much of a political base of support in favor of normalizing relations with Cuba (plenty of people are for it, but no one has been for it strongly enough to lobby and organize around it as a cause).

So the embargo remained until the present, where most first wave Cuban immigrants have now died off, and both their descendants and later Cuban immigrants simply don't hold the same anti-Fidel opinions the first wave of immigrants did.  With less of a lobby around to fight against normalizing relations with Cuba, it has finally become a distinct possibility to do so.

Though we all know Pitbull's hardline pro-party outlook
is the most important Cuban American lobby of all.

Knowing just those four paragraphs of information drastically changes how we can look at, and think critically about, the normalization of relations between the United States and Cuba.  There is so much more to this situation than "Cuba and the US didn't get along, communism is bad, trade embargo!"  And it brings up a lot of questions, the proper examination and answering of which are far beyond the scope of this post.

Beyond simply understanding the present, understanding history means we also have extra information that allows us to make more informed decisions when going into the future.  To stick with this same example, I support the idea of normalizing relations with Cuba.  But what will this normalization of relations look like?  Because using historical precedent, we see that when the US and Cuba had strong ties, the US was using Cuba like a colony.  That raises questions that need to be thought about moving forward, questions that we won't think to ask when we aren't aware of the comprehensive history behind a certain issue.  And right now many students in K-12 aren't taught a comprehensive history that challenges them to think critically.

To be clear, I don't think the watering down of history is some grand conspiracy that everyone in the K-12 education system is involved in.  Rather, I think it's a combination of a variety of factors,
none of which involve a bunch of shady Illuminati-types sitting around a table and laughing manically to themselves.

Yet, intentional or not, we have to teach history in a way that feels relevant and important to those learning it.  Otherwise, we are doomed to continue hearing students talk about how "boring" history is as their actual history is being ineffectually taught (or in some cases, like with ethnic studies in Arizona, even denied) to them.  More students like the ones in the program I mentor for, or even fifteen year old me, will continue to avoid history.  And there is no way we should want that to happen.  History is too important.

Nerd Culture, Artistic Merit, and Criticism

I am a proud nerd.  I play video games, read graphic novels and manga, and a few weeks ago I went to Wonder Con to be surrounded by my people.  If there is someone out there who thinks they could ever beat me in a pointless trivia contest about the nerdy shit I like, especially Final Fantasy games, they've got another thing coming.

A picture of me at Wonder Con, my natural habitat.

One of the biggest debates right now involving nerd culture is whether or not video games can legitimately be considered art.  There are a ton of positions people have taken in the debate- some say yes simply because it is a form of entertainment and that's enough to qualify it as art; some say yes because they think well made games have artistic merit beyond entertainment; some say no because they don't think games have any artistic merit; some say no, not out of disdain, but because they believe the interactive nature of games qualifies it as something else instead; some don't care because they think "real" art is a bullshit concept; some don't care because they simply don't care what their games are considered, they just want to play them.

Obviously, gamers as a whole have responded overwhelmingly in favor of considering games to be art.  As for me, I fall somewhere between "yes, video games at their best have artistic merit to them" and "I don't really give a shit because 'artistic merit' is an ambiguous, ever-changing, and often elitist concept" in the way I view it.  I personally play most of the video games I do because I enjoy the narratives in them, and I think the interactivity games have between player and character can add a certain dimension to story telling that other mediums don't have.  I don't really care about the opinion of the type of snobs who debate what "real" art is.  But, since I do think games have a lot to offer as an artistic medium for people who are serious about story telling, I'd therefore like them taken seriously by aspiring story-tellers so that we can continue to see great games get made.  I've written about poignant moments in video games before, and have used video game stories and characters as examples in other posts I've written about story telling.

Yet I've also noticed an alarming double standard in a substantial portion of the gaming community.  We want to claim our games are worth the classification of "art", and therefore have merit to them.  But, at the same time, whenever someone critically examines our medium in a way we don't like- especially when it comes to serious social issues like racism or sexism- a lot of us collectively lose. Our. Shit.

 

On second thought, nah, creating a game where you beat up a woman for gently calling out sexism
in games is a totally healthy and productive form of discourse, and not at all horrifyingly atrocious.

Aside from hordes of misogynists trying to run women off the internet (or out of campus speaking engagements with threats of school shootings) for speaking up about misogyny in games, one of the most common responses from gamers to these types of criticisms is "leave us alone, it's just entertainment!"  And yes, games certainly are entertainment, too.  But if we want our medium to be taken seriously- and it's pretty clear that most of us do- then we have to stop throwing a violent tantrum every time someone critiques our medium in a way we don't like.

Don't get me wrong, I get it.  We used to constantly be given shit for our past time, with criticisms ranging from gaming being a waste of time to it being used as a scapegoat for horrible acts of violence like school shootings.  Now, just when society is starting to take the medium more seriously, and with it also now becoming a popular activity that a substantial portion of the population enjoys, there are social critics saying our hobby has issues with sexism, or racism, or homophobia?  I just want to play video games in peace and have that be respected, damn it!

But here's the thing: we should be happy this is happening.  Because serious conversations about these topics don't happen for shit that no one takes seriously.  Has anyone ever had an in depth, nuanced conversation about race and gender dynamics in Family Circus?  Of course not, because nobody gives a shit.  The only time Family Circus has ever brought anything worthwhile to the table was when the comic was dubbed over by a PG-13 Robot created by a mohawk-sporting badass who wanted to teach that robot about the human concepts of friendship and absolute despair.

Thanks, PG-13 Bot.

We're living during a time where people are having serious conversations about video games through the lens of different social science, humanities, and social justice lenses.  When I went to Wonder Con, there were actually panels about these sorts of topics.  Panels about video games (and comics) and where they intersect with different topics like psychology, sociology, feminism, ethnic studies, anthropology, political science, economics, and more.  This isn't something that would be happening if we didn't take games seriously.

Taking something seriously as an art form doesn't only mean praising what it does well.  It means critically analyzing it, examining the medium through various lenses and trying to make thoughtful observations about what you experience.  We can't expect all of those observations to be ones we as gamers like.  And creating a shit storm each time that happens is like a teenager begging their parents for a car, getting it, and then getting upset whenever they have to pay for gas or take responsibility whenever they get into an accident.

I love gaming, and I will continue to think games have merit as an art form.  For that very same reason, I will also continue trying to think critically about games when playing them.  Including thinking about serious topics that might bring up uncomfortable observations.  Because both games and the gaming community do have some serious issues that need addressing (and subsequent action to be taken).  Not because there is inherently anything wrong with gaming or the people in it, as these issues can be found in anywhere; rather, because these games are created within societies that have these same issues.  And if we can't come to terms with the idea of games being analyzed in ways we don't like, then we have no business claiming games should be taken seriously.

But I think we should.  Because games are awesome for so many reasons, and have a lot to offer beyond only entertainment.  It's on us, as gamers, to decide if we want to recognize that, and everything that comes with it.

The Traditional Martial Arts Renaissance in MMA

The early days of MMA were an exciting, wild time filled with the sort of style vs style battles you normally see in anime or disco era martial arts movies.  Then, as the years went by and fighters began to find what works and what doesn't in MMA competition, certain martial arts were found to be more effective arts to train in for those looking to compete in the ring.  Some of the most proven arts in professional MMA include Boxing, Muay Thai, Kyokushin (or any other hard contact) Karate, Wrestling, Judo, Sambo, and Jiujitsu.

Over the last few years, however, moves from "traditional" martial arts have emerged in the arsenals of top MMA fighters.  Lyoto Machida, using his base as a Shotokan Karate practitioner with extensive experience in point sparring, is the fighter most often brought up as an example.  There are plenty of other examples, as well, such as Anthony Pettis throwing no-setup kicks from his Tae Kwon Do background, or Vitor Belfort (among many others) and his new found love for the spinning back kick.  Other moves like axe kicks and side kicks are now being used by so many fighters it's hard to think of just one example.  Jone Jones, Machida, Robbie Lawler, and other fighters have even began using hand-trapping fights in a way that resembles Jeet Kune Do, which gets a lot of its hand-trapping methods from Wing Chun.

Machida does with his Karate what every 8 year old training Karate at the YMCA day dreams about.

So what gives?

Before we go any further, it's important to make a note about the concept of "traditional" martial arts, as it's an ambiguous and often inaccurate concept.  Traditional martial arts theoretically describe martial arts that have been around for a long time.  However, Aikido is generally considered to be a traditional martial art while Judo isn't, despite the fact that Judo is actually a couple decades older than Aikido.  Wrestling has been around for a damn long time, and yet it isn't considered a traditional martial art by most people.

When people refer to "traditional" martial arts, most of the time what they're actually referring to are East Asian martial arts with a sense of mystique around them and an odd fetish for "tradition", even if the traditions have been fabricated.  These martial arts, such as Karate, Kenpo, Aikido, Kung Fu, Wing Chun, Tae Kwon Do, and Tang Soo Do, are what we talk about when discussing "traditional" martial arts.

So why hadn't we seen more of these styles- and moves associated with them- pop up in the ring until the last five or so years?  Was it because they were inherently inferior?  Was it because they were "too deadly" for the ring?  Was it because their qi blasts only work on the invisible ninjas that follow practitioners of these arts around on a daily basis?

Was it because Shaolin practitioners spent their time kicking ass at soccer instead?

The answer is simple: it's all in the training.

Martial arts are most effective when you pressure test what you've been learning, that way you learn to apply your techniques under fire.  It's a concept I talked about on my previous blog, but really it's something that a lot of people in the martial arts community have already been talking about for a long time.  Martial arts training without real sparring or its equivalent (randori in Judo, rolling in Jiujitsu, etc) is worthless.

In other fields, it seems like the most self-evident concept in the world.  If you said you wanted to become a professional quarterback by only playing games of catch and never actually playing a game of football, people would laugh at you.  If you were a scientist who made a bunch of claims without submitting the evidence for those claims to peer review, you'd probably start at least a dozen rap beefs with other scientists in your area of study.

The same ideas apply to martial arts.  You can't get good at something without actually doing it, and you can't say what you're doing works without actual empirical evidence (and I don't mean anecdotes about how some guy totally used Aikido to take out some nameless mugger on the street).  Yes, learning techniques by applying them against compliant partners is crucial for learning the proper way to execute any technique in martial arts.  But only applying what you learn against compliant partners means you'll never be able to apply what you learn against someone putting up some resistance, whether in the ring or on the "streets" that people love to theorize so much about.

I'm great at shooting hoops, which means I could totally become a high level shooting guard!

And that's where traditional martial arts largely fail.  An overwhelming majority of instructors in these arts avoid pressure testing what they teach.

Now, of course, people have a variety of reasons to train martial arts, and not all of them are actually trying to learn to fight.  There's nothing wrong with that.  The problem is many traditional martial art schools brand themselves as teaching "real" self-defense, and then use ridiculous excuses like "what we teach is too deadly for sparring!!!" to avoid pressure testing their techniques.

As mentioned above, when MMA became big, people from all sorts of styles came to compete.  And those who came from schools that didn't pressure test what they learned got obliterated.  One of the most enduring examples was Rhodes vs Ettish, where experienced kickboxer Johnny Rhodes took on Karate blackbelt Fred Ettish.  The results weren't pretty.

 

Though Ettish has since taken MMA seriously and won a match at 53 years old.

 Because of the horrible success rate of traditional martial arts in the early days of MMA, people largely dismissed them entirely.  As the infant years of MMA passed and people began to see which martial artists were having the most success, they worked off the assumption that those arts producing the most successful fighters were the best to train in.  And they weren't wrong, either- but it wasn't because these martial arts were inherently better.  Rather, it was because those had much more schools training with pressure testing than those of traditional martial art schools.

So, during the '00s, we mostly saw fighters with a background in better-proven martial arts fighting.  Then Machida came and changed the game with his background in Shotokan Karate.

Recently, Jack Slack- one of the best martial arts writers around right now, if not the best- wrote an article about Machida's background in point fighting.  The gist: it's great for getting in and out, but the scoring system means it often turns into a game of tag that doesn't prepare you for an actual fight (hell, considering point sparring teaches you to reset after landing a single hit, it could be argued that it actually makes you worse at fighting than you were before).  But what Machida did was combine his point sparring Shotokan background with the full contact, pressure tested methods and arts that fighters use.

Now, Machida wasn't the first big MMA fighter with a background in a traditional martial art (Chuck Liddell had a background in Kenpo, for example).  But Machida was the first fighter where his traditional martial arts background was both an integral part of his fighting style and how he was marketed to fight fans.  When Machida became the UFC's light heavyweight champion, it was declared to be a success for Shotokan Karate, as well as other point sparring martial arts in general.

The amount of people signing up for Tag-Ryu Karate skyrocketed.

Then, in February of 2011, Machida's training partner and professional Matrix ninja Anderson Silva knocked out Vitor Belfort with a front kick.  Two months later, in April, Machida knocked out Randy Couture with a crane kick.  All of a sudden, not only did point sparring have some credibility as a training tool, but so did flashy kicks that had mostly been disregarded by the MMA world for the previous decade.  These weren't the first flashy kick knockouts to happen in MMA, of course, but they were the first ones that happened on a big enough stage for everyone to take notice and start paying attention.

So now, almost half a decade later, MMA fighters have started experimenting and finding success with techniques from traditional martial arts in substantial numbers.  The spinning back kick and side kick in particular have become popular over the last few years.  And, as I mentioned above, hand trapping has began to emerge for fighters who are in a nebulous area between boxing and clinch range.

I love watching MMA, as well as other martial arts, because I love watching the art and breaking down the science behind everything that is happening.  And it makes me excited that both the art and the science behind MMA keep evolving as this young sport continues to develop.  As fighters and coaches continue to expand their repertoire, everyone in the martial arts community wins.  Except for those "too deadly to spar" dorks.

The Millennial Generation: Entitlement and Cynicism?

I was born in January of 1990, one month after the Cold War was officially declared over by George Bush Sr and Mikhail Gorbachev at a summit held in Malta.  I am, basically, right in the middle of what US society collectively refers to as the "millennial" generation.  As with defining most generations, there's no solid agreement as to when the exact dates are, but the general consensus is that the millennial generation began somewhere in the early or mid-80s and ended in the early 00's.

As millennials, we occupy a unique time in history.  We were around before computers and cellphones were commonplace, coming of age just as they started to take off; we grew up in a world where there was only one global hegemonic power, the United States, unlike most of the rest of human history that had multiple world powers vying for control; we experienced both Anchorman and Mean Girls.

And, just like figuring out the exact period of time that encompasses a certain generation, trying to figure out how to collectively define our generation has generated a lot of different ideas as to how we can do so.  Some of the proposed ideas come from our shared experiences: the internet, globalization, 9/11, the Great Recession.  Others come from traits that we supposedly have: entitlement, idealism, cynicism, sarcasm.

My persistent efforts to get social scientists to collectively refer to us as

"Generation Pokemon Stadium" have, alas, yielded no results so far.

Amidst all the thoughtful analyses about our generation, however, is also a metric shit ton of content by people that were somehow paid to write articles that basically amount to "get off my lawn and stop it with your dag-gum hippity hop music, you hooligans!"  There is no shortage of articles talking about how terrible we are as a generation, saying that we don't have any work ethic and our economic woes are the result of that (rather than, say, that whole Great Recession thing).

It'd be easy to just respond "nuh uh!" and call these people unkind names.  Or even point out that, hey, if you're the generation that raised us, you're actually insulting your own parenting skills each time you talk about how spoiled we are.  But, as usual, a more nuanced and thoughtful response is probably the more productive route.  Why are so many older people so likely to believe we are spoiled and entitled?  And might there, perhaps, be a kernel of truth to that notion?

First off, it's important to get something out of the way: we're inheriting a global economy that is pretty fucked.  There's a reason we're so cynical, and there's not really much room for debate here.  Income inequality is the worst it's been since right before the Great Depression, and on a world wide scale, the 85 richest people in the world have more wealth than the poorest half of the world's population.  Unemployment in the United States is still severe, even for people with a degree, and it will remain so because there are a lot of jobs that are simply never coming back.  It's not just one cause, either, but a number of them: shipping jobs overseas, automating jobs so that people no longer have to do them, less public sector jobs due to lower tax revenues to fund them, and many other reasons, there are a lot of jobs that are now gone forever.

And yet jobs like "millennium falcon pilot" haven't even popped up in their place

And there's something kind of cool about some of those.  Some blue collar jobs are very dangerous, for instance, and making them more efficient or even automated is great.  What isn't great, though, is that all of these factors together get rid of so many jobs and create such an overcrowded job market that many people simply give up, which has also made a lot of unemployment statistics look less severe than they actually are.

Put into the context of recent history, wages have stagnated over the last few decades for the middle class and actually declined for low income people.  Minimum wage, adjusted for inflation, certainly isn't what it used to be.  Meanwhile, healthcare costs, college tuition costs, and other vital living expenses have increased exponentially even when wages haven't.

Basically, we're inheriting a job market and economy in a condition much worse than our parents did.  There's even a pretty great (yet infuriating) meme about this whole shindig.

To any older adults reading this: yes, this is actually a completely foreign concept to us.

So when you read an article about us "choosing" to put off buying houses, or have children, or get married, know that it's not actually a "choice" on our end.  Yes, as a generation, a lot of us question the values of previous generations, and there are plenty of us who actually would choose to put off these things as individuals.  But it's not rebelliousness or laziness or anything like that which explains this incident on the larger level- it's our economic condition.

But, surely, with our Sony Gamestations and Nintendo Playcubes, we're still spoiled, right?  We grew up pampered, even if we inherited a tough economy.  Surely we can find a way to both blame millennials while admitting that they don't have the same labor benefits or opportunities our parents did?

Actually, in a way, yes.  Because prices for consumer electronics, such as computers, have plummeted over the last few decades.  Likewise, 51% of US households own gaming consoles, with the average number per household being not one system, but two.  So all of us as a society, especially us younger folks, do enjoy easier access to electronic entertainment and media.

But here's the thing that often gets missed in these conversations about all the material benefits we enjoy: it connects to our economic situation, because these low prices are the result of lower labor costs.  We enjoy cheaper products, but at the expense of meager wages.  So a 20-something (or someone of any age, really, since the average age of someone who works for minimum wage is 35) working a part time job while also on food stamps or a healthcare assistance program like Medi-Cal isn't a moocher if they happen to own an iPone.  Rather, our current societal reality is that a cellphone is actually way, way easier to afford than medical care and many other costs of living (also, while we still think of cellphones as a luxury good, they have actually become more of a necessity now that everyone [including potential employers] assume you have one).

Feel free to keep posting those shitty, judgmental memes instead of thinking critically, though.

And I think our different economic realities help explain why a lot of older adults think millennials are so spoiled.  Because I don't think most adults who say we have it easy are Disney movie villains who secretly know the truth and are saying we have it easy as some sort of conspiracy to undermine us.

When I was a preteen, a cellphone was something only a few people had.  And now, about a decade and a half later, they're a necessity, along with computers.  That's a weird concept for me to grasp, and I'm someone who came of age during that shift.  For someone who was middle aged (or even elderly) when this shift started, people who grew up in an era without widespread cellphone and computer use, and only a fraction of the entertainment media we have available to us today?  The idea that we have it rough when we have so many conveniences available to us must be hard to swallow.  And they're not completely wrong, either; all of these things are pretty fucking sweet.

And beyond that, the challenges we face are a lot less romantic on paper than those faced by previous generations.  A large chunk of the 20th Century was defined by the Cold War, when almost every country in the world- even the neutral ones- genuinely feared they could get wiped off the map.  There was an immediate, tangible threat.  Before that, it was the Great Depression, where people were starving in ridiculous numbers, and the World Wars, where millions upon millions of people died.

Today, the United States is the world's biggest superpower, and other emerging superpowers like China and India are far too economically intertwined with us for there to be a war any time soon.  There are a lot of problems that stem from this situation (again, especially economic), but all out warfare or famine that threatens humanity as a whole isn't one of them.  And, while my generation was around for the worst attack on US soil that we have ever suffered, none of us actually think that we are in any danger of being invaded and destroyed as a country because of how ridiculously high our military budget is.

Which is outrageous, considering all we needed to end the Cold War was a boxing match

Instead of a big war*, today our biggest problem is trying to navigate a post-employment economy.  It's a big deal, but it doesn't have the same ring to it, especially when as a culture we are taught to look up to the hyper-wealthy elite who have exacerbated these conditions we face.  We have reached a point where, as a species, we aren't really struggling for survival against the elements or each other anymore.  We still suffer from both of those, but we probably won't be wiped out by them.  We're past the point of worrying about warfare or famine sealing humanity's collective fate.

So here we are as millennials, individually struggling for economic survival in a post-physical survival world.  We have a lot available to us that previous generations didn't, but we also face difficulties that our parents didn't.  The conditions we live in and the problems lying ahead of us are unique to our generation, and a lot of older people don't understand that.  So they look down on us- not because there is something inherently wrong with Baby Boomers in particular, but because human beings in general are terrible at putting themselves in other peoples' shoes.

Hopefully, we don't repeat these same mistake and start talking shit about the generation after us.

*It should be noted that while the so-called War on Terror in the Middle East hasn't been a huge war for us in terms of lost lives and perceived threat while compared to other wars, (1)we have still lost soldiers and (2)people in the Middle East have lost many, many lives, including thousands upon thousands of innocent civilian lives, because of the pointless and costly violence we initiated

On Criticism

If you are any sort of creative type- whether you like to sing, dance, sculpt, act, write incredibly good looking blog posts- you will find yourself facing criticism.  By creating something, be it a physical piece of art, a performance, or whatever else, you will be putting something out there for other people to see and give their opinion on.

That can be an intimidating prospect, especially when you're creating or doing something you feel a close personal connection to.  When I was writing my short story collection, I found myself much more reluctant to reach out for feedback than I had been for other short stories I had written in the past, and far more defensive in response to feedback that wasn't glowing praise.  After all, these were the stories I felt a strong enough bond with to publish!  If they weren't actually amazing, what did that say about me, as both a person and writer?

But at this point, I had also been a lot things before seriously trying my hand at writing.  A martial artist, a stand up comedian, a college debater, an activist, and a fair number of other things.  And what I learned through all these activities was a set of criteria for taking criticism that, while not perfect, have been instrumental for me as someone who likes to write, among other creative endeavors.

What is this criteria?  First, a story.

Slick Rick is where I, along with all aspiring storytellers, actually get all of my advice from.

Recently, the 10th Planet Jiujitsu gym I used to train at was having a free rolling session at the beach ("rolling" being the Jiujitsu equivalent of sparring, where people test their skills against each other in a way meant to simulate an actual match).  The gym is pretty tight-nit, so I figured I'd go to get some rolls in and catch up with some of the people there I am friends with.

As I rolled, instructors and senior training partners who were watching would periodically give me and/or the person I was rolling with advice.  "Keep your posture!"  "Don't let him extend your arm!"  "Make sure you run your hand through his hair and whisper sweet nothings into his ear!"  Y'know, typical Jiujitsu stuff from experienced practitioners who know what they're doing.

Since we were in public, people would occasionally stop and watch us, which is totally cool.  But one guy who was watching us from afar decided watching wasn't enough.  He yelled "instructions" to people who were rolling- ranging from basic, obvious stuff that they were already doing to stuff that was hilariously wrong- and referring constantly to his fighting prowess.  He also referred to himself as "The Great White Shark" in the third person throughout the entire affair, which was more than a little weird.

My Google search for "SoCal bro douchebag" pulled up a picture of someone

with an uncanny resemblance to the Great White Shark.

Initially we laughed it off, but he wouldn't stop talking, so we eventually extended a friendly invitation to roll with us.  At first he refused for the usual reasons ("nah, brah, I don't wanna hurt you guys!  When I go against someone I just see red and go berserk!"), but after a few more minutes one of our friendliest members coaxed him into it.  We let him choose who he wanted to go against, and he of course chose the smallest person there.

When the two began their session, the Great White Shark (who from now on will be referred to as "GWS") started doing what looked like a terrible imitation of the Capoeira ginga.  Our 10th Planet guy was unable to take GWS down because of his deadly wrestling prowess- oh wait, scratch that, he was unable to take GWS down because every single time our guy made any move at all, GWS ran away, then stepped in and did a shitty mock uppercut that would have a kickbox cardio instructor shaking their head in embarrassment.  Sometimes he followed up his shitty mock uppercut with a comment like "if this were the streets, you'd be laid out right now!"  Had I known we would be playing make believe, I would have brought a lot more glitter.

Eventually, our guy just started sitting down so that GWS could work his magic.  Turns out, GWS's magic wasn't as deadly as he thought it was.  If he was a tier one Blizzard spell, our guy was a double-cast Blizzaga.  The Monster energy drinks he definitely has in large quantities at home have a far better chance of harming someone than he does.

After our guy made it pretty clear he would always get the dominant position on GWS, GWS decided he was done rolling.  He did this by quickly standing up and boldly declaring "the Great White Shark is done here, I've taught you enough for today" and walking into the distance, ready to spread his gospel of lifted trucks and long black socks with khaki shorts to other beach goers ready to receive his wisdom.

I just cannot stress this enough: he literally referred to himself as "The Great White Shark" in the 3rd person.

Notice there were two sources of criticism people rolling received in that story, not just one.  There were GWS's comments, but there was also the feedback those of us rolling got from instructors and senior students.  They saw what we were doing and, drawing from their pool of knowledge and experience, told us what changes we should make in what we were doing.  Textbook constructive criticism.

There are two types of criticism: helpful and unhelpful criticism.  The problem, of course, is that not all criticisms fit neatly into one of these two categories.  In the story of 10th Planet Oceanside and the Great White Shark, the two types of feedback fit these two pretty unambiguously, but not all criticism does.  In reality, it's more of a spectrum between helpful and unhelpful criticism.  How do we begin the tricky process of deciphering where along the spectrum to place the criticism we receive, then?

I've come up with three criteria that, together, I think answer that question about as well as it can be answered: expertise, intent, and subjectivity.

Expertise
Of the three criteria I came up with, this one is the most straight forward.  In the story above, GWS had only a vague idea of what he was talking about.  He probably watched some UFC at home and thought that made him an expert, the same way watching an NBA match means you could totally take that Lebron James fella in a pickup game if you really wanted to.  On the other hand, the instructors and senior students giving me advice are far more proficient at Jiujitsu than I am, and therefore gave feedback with real know-how behind it.

Of course, with certain endeavors, especially artistic ones, "expertise" isn't really something you can go on.  Sure, with a skill set where there is a tangible way to measure your progress, and where "progress" itself is something you can easily define, having experts give you feedback is a concept that makes sense.  And, even with creative endeavors, there are certain techniques you can learn about from experts that will help your ability to create whatever you want to create.

But when someone reads your writing, or looks at your painting, or listens to your music, how can you determine "expertise" when they tell you how they respond to it?  How can you rank someone's thoughts or feelings on something you've put out there?

"What's a polite way to tell him 'yes, I like your statement on the human condition,

but your piece could use more poop jokes'?"

That's where this next criterion comes into play.

Intent
Let's go back to the tale of the Great White Shark.  This time, instead of framing it in terms of expertise, let's analyze the intent behind the feedback given by the instructors and senior students vs the "feedback" given by GWS.

The people from the Jiujitsu gym giving me and everyone else their feedback came from a place of them wanting us to get better as students.  Partially because they want us to do well when we go to tournaments, partially because they are paid to, and partially because they like us as human beings, they gave us constructive criticism because they genuinely want us to get better as Jiujitsu practitioners.

Now, let's look at GWS.  Spouting bullshit to strangers who practice something he clearly had no experience in means there was no honest intention to be helpful in the "advice" that he gave those of us that were rolling.  Maybe it was for his ego, maybe it was for attention, maybe it was something else.  Whatever it was, it was apparent that he was thinking more about himself than us.

Even outside the realm of talents and creative expression, examining intent can be helpful.  Think of all the name calling you see in "debates" on the internet.  One person (or group of people) starts getting the upper hand, and the other person (or people) starts going out of their way to call the person with the upper hand hypocritical, self-righteous, condescending, and whatever other negative things they can think of.  They're not saying those things because they legitimately want to help you be a better person.  They're saying those things because their ego is bruised from losing ground in a discussion, and they will therefore look to call you these things since they can no longer "win" if they keep to the topic at hand.

Now imagine if someone you cared about, and someone who in turn cares about you and wants you to be the best person you can be, came to you and said "hey, I love you, but me and the homies have been talking, and we think you've been a little condescending lately."  You'd be hurt, obviously, because you want to view yourself as a good person.  But if it was a true friend who said this, someone who truly cares about you and wants you to be the best person you can be, you'd at least consider what they have to says.

"Look, I love you.  And I'm demanding more poop jokes because I care."

And that's what it often comes down to.  When someone makes these comments, ask yourself: what is their intent?  Are they saying these things because they want to help you be better, or are they saying them because they want to tear you down, or make themselves look good, or some other sort of reason that has nothing to do with being constructive?

Yet, even when we've narrowed it down to comments with good intention behind their feedback, that doesn't always mean that feedback will work for you.  Which brings me to my last criterion.

Subjectivity
Let's go back to my short story collection for a moment.  I was lucky enough to have a group of about a dozen or so friends look at a few of the stories in my collection, as well as even more friends who each looked over one or two of my stories, and give me feedback.  There were also two stories that I wrote in a creative writing class I took at UC Irvine (Via Verde and Sun Festival), and I got feedback on those from my teacher and other students from the class in addition to my friends.

Perhaps one of the most surprising things about all the feedback I got was how wildly different people's opinions and comments were, sometimes going in literal opposite directions.  I did my best to listen to all of these comments in good faith because I knew these were comments from bright people who had good intentions behind everything, but at the same time, I literally couldn't follow through with all the feedback I had been given, even if I wanted to.

Pictured: the aggregate feedback I sometimes received.

To give an example, my story Sun Festival is about a man who one day finds himself immortal, and is already hundreds of years old by the beginning of the tale.  During the story I made sure his dialogue occasionally dropped hints that reflected the fact he was profoundly aware of death and how finite life is.  When I submitted this story to the class for review, there was almost a 50/50 divide among those who thought these particular lines of dialogue were brilliant and true to the character, and those who thought it was too on the nose or in some other way not very good.

When it was time in class to review that story, I watched someone say the dialogue needed to be redone, then another person in class- someone whom I barely knew- argue in favor of the dialogue as if she were defending a thesis.

Other times, you'll even get suggestions for improvement that go in opposite directions.  For instance, when you write a short story, for literally every scene you have to decide whether you want to give a broad summary of events ("it was a long day at work.  After work, [...]"), a play by play of the day ("I clocked in at 8:05.  I walked to my desk and sat down, ready to start another day.  I turned on the computer monitor, [...]"), or somewhere in between ("It was a long day at work.  I arrived a few minutes late, and half an hour later I was already waiting anxiously for the day to be over.  Then, two hours into my shift, [...]").  There were multiple times where I would have one person tell me a scene would be better if I went more in the direction of a play by play, and others saying I should just sum up the same scene instead.

"You should  use less dialogue, but also have the characters talk more,

and have less characters, but also more characters, and.."

So, after you have narrowed down all the feedback you are taking seriously to feedback that comes from an informed source and/or has good intentions behind it, the trick is to then take the constructive criticism you have received and use which works for you.  That can, of course, be tricky.  Especially because you have to honestly ask yourself: am I not going with certain feedback because I don't think it works, or am I not going with it because I am being too defensive?

Going back to the Sun Festival feedback, I ended up leaving the aforementioned dialogue largely the same.  But there was a section of the story I did make a big change to: the opening sequence where I describe his back story.  I had kept it vague during my rough draft.  Some people thought it worked, and some people thought I should get more specific.  At first I wanted to keep the scene the way it is, and I could even come up with justifications for why I should do so (we as humans are great at coming up with justifications and self-rationalizations).  But deep down, after reading the feedback from people who thought I should get more specific, I had to admit to myself that their reasons for getting into more detail were too strong to ignore.  I ended up adding a lot more to that section, and am glad I did.

Now, of course, putting ego aside and figuring out which helpful criticisms will work for you is a tough process, and can sometimes be an ambiguous one.  But, with a set of standards to narrow down which criticisms are and aren't helpful, that decision is at least made a little easier.

Top Everything of 2014

 As we kick off 2015, many news outlets, columnists, and bloggers are creating lists looking back upon everything from 2014.  From popular culture to politics to the arts, people are making tons of lists about a year that was, for better or worse, quite eventful.

Instead of making a list about my 10 favorite movies or the 10 most important photos from the year, I've decided to whip up a list that has a little bit of everything on it.  A lot happens in a year, and I wanted to capture as much as I could in summing up the last twelve months.  I chose topics ranging from MMA to politics to science, trying to choose who or what I considered to be most noteworthy in each category.  As for criteria, I used a combination of merit, personal preference (anyone who tries to pretend their "top" lists are objective is lying), achievements in their field, and cultural significance/impact.


Movie: Birdman

After having planned to see this multiple times throughout the last quarter of 2014, I finally got around to seeing it shortly before the new year.  During the time between hoping to see it and actually seeing it, my expectations had built up so much that part of me was afraid I would be let down.  Everyone was raving about the movie, from critics to friends whose opinions on film I hold in high regard.  Could it really live up to what everyone was saying?

Holy shit, yes.  This movie has everything you could wanted: wit, dark humor, well rounded characters, great cinematography, and a lot of very human moments that you don't often see in a dark comedy.  The cast does a great job in their roles, to the point where it's almost hard for me to choose a standout performance.  Michael Keaton as the lead role does a great job as a middle aged actor trying to regain his thunder, which is important considering how closely this movie focuses on him.  Among the rest of the excellent cast, Edward Norton and Emma Stone do especially well in their roles.  Norton plays a man who takes acting very seriously, to the point where he is hardly his own person off the stage; Stone play's Keaton's daughter, a recovering addict who helps him with the production of his play.  Both make their characters interesting and human, and throughout the film you'll feel like you are watching a film about actual people.

This also marks a dramatic change in style for Alejandro Gonzalez Iñárritu, whom I have talked about before.  Though existential undertones still permeate the movie, the comedic tone replaces the somber one we usually see in his films.  Birdman represents not only another great work under Gonzalez Iñárritu's belt, but an expansion of his horizons as a film maker.  I have a feeling that in a couple decades and with a handful more movies to his name, Gonzalez Iñárritu will be a director we consider an all-time great.

Now if he can just make a sequel where Keaton's Birdman, Harvey Birdman: Attorney at Law, and the rapper Birdman from Cash Money Records team up to save the world.


Animated Movie: Book of Life

Even without a Pixar movie gracing our screens, 2014 was a great year for animated films.  The LEGO Movie, How to Train Your Dragon 2, and Big Hero 6 were all outstanding.  At the end of the day, though, I had to go with The Book of Life.

Jorge Gutierrez's Dia de los Muertos themed movie is a beautifully animated film that, like many of his other films, is never lacking in the imagination department.  Gorgeous visuals, an imaginative world, and well-voiced performances are all part of the package.  That being said, the other animated movies I mentioned have those qualities, too.  What made me go with The Book of Life is the fact that, more than any other family movie I've ever seen (except perhaps Up), it's a family movie unafraid to tackle the subject of death.

In most family-oriented movies, a character might die and everyone will be sad, but then they move on.  The deceased character will continue to stay in the characters' thoughts throughout the movie, but the idea of death itself doesn't.  For instance, in the Lion King, after Scar kills Mufasa, Simba grieves and then presses on.  Obviously, his life is hugely affected by the absence of his father, and later on he encounters the spirit of his father, but death itself as a subject matter is still left untouched.

This film, however, confronts death head on.  It does so by imagining an afterlife that is kind and inviting, as long as the deceased are still remembered by those left behind.  This metaphor about the meaning of life being to create meaningful memories and bonds with others is cheesy, but is nonetheless a good one, especially for a children's movie.  I appreciate that this movie is willing to tackle such a serious subject, and do so in a way that is fun and imaginative.


Actor: Chris Pratt

Not only was Christopher Pratt the second highest grossing actor of 2014, but he did so starring in two of the year's most entertaining movies, The LEGO Movie and Guardians of the Galaxy.  Though two very different movies, they share one thing in common: no one expected them to be good.  Everyone, myself included, thought The LEGO Movie was a shameless cash-grab in the same mold as Battleship, and we all collectively raised our eyebrows when Marvel Studios announced Guardians of the Galaxy would be their next film property.  Luckily, our predictions were wrong, and both movies ended up being a lot of fun while creating a new Hollywood star: Chris Pratt.

What's impressive about Chris Pratt is he has built his image on being an affable, lovable dork that people can relate to.  Almost like Seth Rogan, except with abs and a more well-rounded filmography.  Leading up to the release of Guardians of the Galaxy, my Facebook news feed was covered with links talking about how awesome of a guy he is.  While there are plenty of cases of celebrities being decent people, Pratt is one of the few people whose actual image is built on that.  Not only is it great to see a guy like him become so famous, but it's nice to see him get popular [partially] because of it.


Actress: Emma Stone

Emma Stone showed a lot of greatness this year.  She did a fantastic job in Birdman and said a lot of on-point things, from not being afraid to call out sexism to having great things to say about topics like body positive, when not on the silver screen.  Not to mention her appreciation of puns.

Like with Christ Pratt, I appreciate her image.  She manages to combine being down to earth, funny, and willing to talk about important issues women face.  Not only that, but with roles in both the critically acclaimed Birdman and the box office hit The Amazing Spiderman 2, she's shown a wide range of acting ability.  These are all admirable traits, and her ability to balance everything while being likable is phenomenal.

Now, I know what some of you are thinking: "sure, Chris Pratt and Emma Stone have their images built on being nice, but what about who they really are?"  Well, here's the thing: most of the young folks across the world looking to famous people as role models aren't going to meticulously research how these famous people act in their most private, genuine moments.  They are, however, going to see the image created by the celebrity and their PR team.  Yes, we can cry "but celebrities shouldn't be considered role models!" all we want.  I agree.  But it won't change the fact that they are looked to as role models, whether we like it or not, especially for young folks who don't have good role models in their own lives.  With this reality in mind, having positive images out there for younger people to see is most certainly a good thing.


TV Show: Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey

There is no shortage of people on the internet complaining about how intellectuals aren't valued as much as they used to be.  About how the United States is in a fervent place of anti-intellectualism compared to, say, half a century ago.  And, unlike most forms of nostalgia, there is actually some truth to this sentiment.  During the time our parents were coming of age, being book smart was valued a lot more then than today.  In fact, this is true not just socially, but systematically.  A lot of institutions of higher learning used to be free, such as the UC and CSU systems of California, for instance, and a lot of important legislation related to education was passed.

Of course, what is often left out of this idealization of the past is that the flourish in, and encouragement of, public education was fueled by the Cold War.  This was less a time of enlightenment and more a time of an educational arms race between the United States and Soviet Union.  People were terrified at the thought of all-out nuclear war, and wanted to make sure they had the upper hand.  Especially in science and technology.  Education was encouraged, and specifically made more fiscally accessible to people, because of the space and nuclear arms races that were going on at the time.

Costs of education have risen steeply over the last few decades.  Higher education is much harder to obtain today, and being book smart doesn't have the same cultural pride it used to.  Or it least it didn't, until about two years ago.  Enter: astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Neil deGrasse Tyson has done what Carl Sagan did a generation before him: he's made learning, particularly science, cool.  He's charismatic, funny, and laid back.  He was a wrestler in high school and college, and a damn good one at that; in high school he became the captain of the wrestling team and in college he became a letterman.  Yet ever since he was little, he wanted more than anything to become a scientist.  And, after pushing forward despite every obstacle he found, he succeeded.

Fast forward to today, and he's become a huge cultural icon.  And an important one.  In addition to being someone to make science cool, he's also worked to make it accessible.  In a country where about 40% of the population believe in creationism and don't understand the word "theory", someone like him is important. And, unlike people like Richard Dawkins, who ooze elitism and condescension, Neil deGrasse Tyson's approach is much more welcoming and interesting.  Nothing put that on display more in 2014 than Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, the reboot of the previous Carl Sagan show.

Throughout the course of the show, Neil deGrasse Tyson waxes poetic about the earth and stars while teaching science to a new generation.  The excellent series touched on all sorts of topics, from non-controversial topics like the speed of light and supernovae, to topics that shouldn't be controversial but are, such as evolution and climate change.  He does so with an excellent production team, including Carl Sagan's widow Ann Druyan (who is a badass herself, but doesn't get enough credit), and the audiovisual components of the show are extremely well done.  The whole package comes together to make science- and critical scientific thinking in general- fun, engaging, and cool.


Scientific Discovery of the Year: Scribbles on Shells!

This has been quiet a year in science.  From unearthing a shitload of new dinosaurs to evidence suggesting plate tectonics on Europa, one of Jupiter's largest moons, there was no shortage of fascinating new discoveries in multiple fields.  This category, in fact, may have actually been the most difficult one for me to narrow down to a single choice.

In the end, I had to go with a choice in the field of paleoanthropology: that of possibly the oldest art ever made.  What's remarkable about this discovery is that it's not older than previously known artwork by only a few thousand years- which, in the eyes of most fields of science, isn't much- or even tens of thousands of years, but hundreds of thousands of years.  Modern humans, or homo sapiens, have only existed for about 200,000 years; these shells are about 500,000 years old.  In Indonesia, where the shells were discovered, this was during the reign of the homo erectus, one of our hominid ancestors (though many paleoanthropologists argue homo erectus was actually the same as its contemporary, homo ergaster, but just given a different name because of its location being different than that of homo ergaster).

Either way, homo erectus used tools and fire, but were never thought to have made any art.  That all changed with this discovery of sea shells with these basic but distinct engravings.

This may sound small, but in the context of human history, this is the beginning of every creative endeavor we've ever embarked on.  Paintings, sculptuing, film, poetry, literature, music- all products of our creative imagination as human beings.  As with everything else in human history, it's been a gradual process.  This discovery shows that this process has been going on longer than we imagined, longer than we have even existed as humans beings.  What does that mean for who we are?  What does that mean about our relation to our ancestors?  What does that mean about the creative capacity of other non-homo sapien creatures?  I don't know, but with this discovery, you can bet paleoanthropology will have plenty of fascinating things to say about the subject in 2015.


Scientific Achievement of the Year: Philae Lander

Sure, science has figured out some pretty cool stuff this year, but what has it actually done?  Turns out, like most years, it's done quite a lot.  From impressive milestone achievements to innovations in how we tackle global issues like disease and hunger, science has a damn good list of reasons to pat itself on the back.

To me, though, nothing beats the idea that we, as humanity, actually landed on a comet last year.  Let me repeat that: we landed a motherfuckin' spacecraft on a motherfuckin' comet.  That is seriously some scifi shit deserving of its own movie adaptation.  The European Space Agency has accomplished one of the most impressive feats in the history of science.

This event was a long time coming.  The Rosetta spacecraft was launched back in early 2004.  Now it is in orbit around comet 67P-CG, which is the comet it sent the Philae lander on, and will be for quite some time so that it can study it.

With some of the early data, there have already been some interesting discoveries.  For instance, earth's water.  Where did it come from?  Scientists often say a combination of asteroids and comets.  With the findings from this mission, we have learned that- based on measuring the proportions of a hydrogen isotope called deuterium to normal hydrogen- the hydrogen ratio is not only different from earth's, but different from the ratios found in many other comets near Jupiter, as well.  This means that the comets around Jupiter may have come from more diverse sources than we originally thought, and it also gives weight to the idea that more of earth's water comes from asteroids than comets.

As the comet gets closer to the sun, the solar-powered Philae lander will reboot and get down to business.  Let's see what amazing things we discover thanks to ESA's monumental cosmic achievement.  Let's also take a moment to appreciate what fantastic things we can achieve when we aren't busy oppressing and murdering each other.  This is the sort of magnificent accomplishment we are capable of as a species, if we can just pull it together.


MMA Fighter of the Year: Robbie Lawler

To put it lightly, Robbie Lawler had one hell of a year.  After beating Josh Koscheck, Bobby Voelker, and Rory MacDonald in 2013, Robbie Lawler fought Hendricks for the vacant welterweight title in easily one of the best MMA matches of 2014.  He ended up losing by way of a controversial decision after five rounds of technical but brutal war.

Losing a title shot can make or break a fighter.  Usually, it's the latter.  Robbie Lawler bounced back after his "loss", however, knocking out Jake Ellenberger and soundly beating Matt Brown, the latter fight I wrote a breakdown about and consider one of my favorite fights of the year.

These impressive victories earned him a rematch with Hendricks for the welterweight title.  While the match wasn't as electric as the first, it was still a good one.  What it did have in common with the first match, though, was a close decision- this time, in Lawler's favor.

From my point of view, I would say that Lawler inched out Hendricks in the first fight, and lost the more recent fight on a similarly slim margin.  However, in terms of the unfortunately over-wrestling friendly scoring often used in the UFC, Hendricks probably should've won their rematch.  On the other hand, he coasted the last two rounds by trying to hold Lawler to the ground with his wrestling ability and did nothing but try to keep his position.  So, in the end, I imagine the judges voted against him to discourage that sort of dry hump-tastic stalling, a decision I am more than okay with.

Either way, this was a year of phenomenal performances by Lawler, no matter what criteria you use.  He beat big names, used great technique, and was entertaining as hell while doing it.  He is, in my opinion, the clear winner for fighter of the year.


MMA Fight of the Year: Cerrone vs Alvarez

This entry is probably next to scientific discovery of the year in terms of the difficulty I had choosing.  There were some amazing fights throughout the year, including the aforementioned Hendricks vs Lawler I and Lawler vs Brown.  However, in the same way the Oscars often give a different prize to picture of the year and director of the year as a sort of compromise, I decided against selecting any fights with Lawler in them to make way for other equally deserving bouts.

Even with that decision, though, there was difficulty involved.  There were some truly great fights this year, such as Junior Dos Santos vs Stipe Miocic, Lyoto Machida vs Chris Weidman, TJ Dillashaw vs Renan Barão, and Jose Aldo vs Chad Mendes II, just to name some that come to mind.  This was a damn tough one to narrow down.

In the end, I had to go with Donald Cerrone vs Eddie Alvarez.  I chose this bout for two reasons: (1)to talk about how much I love knee strikes and (2)give some recognition to Cerrone.

Eddie Alvarez has always been one of the best MMA fighters of any weight division outside of the UFC.  We as fans were very lucky to finally see him switch over, and he showed in the beginning of the match against an elite level opponent in Donald Cerrone that he belonged there.  His boxing is fantastic by MMA standards, especially his footwork and head movement.  In the beginning of the fight he was giving Cerrone serious trouble, especially during a clinch exchange where he fired a strong burst of uppercuts and rocked Cerrone.

Cerrone came back, though, and he did it with my personal favorite strike in martial arts: the knee.  Cerrone is a tall, lanky fighter for his division, yet in the past he always got sucked into brawls where his reach would actually work against him.  Here, though, he started timing and firing superb knee strikes to the midsection of Alvarez every time Alvarez tried to crowd him.  The damage from these knee strikes started adding up and, as the fight went on, Cerrone's lead became more and more pronounced despite valiant efforts from Alvarez.

Donald Cerrone ended his year with 4 victories, with three of these bouts winning some sort of award.  He's doing extremely well against elite competition, and should he beat Myles Jury (who he faces later today as of this writing), he will prove he is ready for another cracked at Anthony Pettis.


Bullshit News Story of the Year: Microwaved Phones

There has been no shortage of bullshit news stories this year.  Luckily, none of the bullshit stories got as big as the knockout game did the year before, but not for a lack of trying on the part of traffic hungry news and clickbait sites.

I don't know if this existed before the internet, but one thing I see constantly on social media is the need people have to think everyone is stupider than them.  While I'm certainly no psychologist, I can't imagine thinking of everyone who isn't you as unrelentingly stupid is a healthy foundation for your intellectual self-esteem.  Otherwise, when you start to figure out that everyone makes mistakes, and a lot of the world's problems are caused by well-intentioned goof ups, misfortune, laziness, apathy, greed, and other factors not at all associated with intelligence, and that most people are in fact capable of forming basic sentences and putting on their pants in the morning without setting themselves on fire, how can you tell yourself you're better than everyone else?

This is where the viral news story about stupid people comes in.  Haha, look at these idiots!  In this case, it was apparently a wacky amount of people putting their smartphones into the microwave.  Haha, dumb people sure are stupid, am I right?  People are so dumb, it sure is nice to be smarter than everyone else!

Except, y'know, the part where the story turned out to be fake.


Actual New Story of the Year: US-Cuba Relations

This completes the trifecta of "holy shit, how do I choose?!" entries on this list.  So, so many things happened in 2014.  At first I really, really wanted to go with all the protests that have been happening the world over, but I decided that it would be too easy a choice.  And, if I were to make this list a consistent thing (and I'd like to), choosing protestors every single year would get a little stale.  Plus, there were protests about such a diverse range of issues, and in so many places around the world, I couldn't possibly do all of those stories justice in a single entry.  So I decided to opt out of going that route- though, that said, I will still be talking about social movements and current events related to them in a few of the items later down on this list.

Even after making that decision, though, I still had trouble narrowing it down.  But I ended up going with the bid to restore US-Cuban relations because this is actually a topic I am well-educated on.  If I were to talk about, say, the Crimea, I'd be doing little else than rehashing the generic summaries everyone else has given.

The trade embargo with Cuba was strictly a geopolitical event of the Cold War and had nothing to do with human rights.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Fidel Castro is a great guy, but his predecessor- the US supported Fulgencio Batista who Castro overthrew in 1959- was a monster.  While both Castro and Fulgencio were both repressive dicks, at least Castro launched education and healthcare campaigns (including in the oft-neglected countryside), labor reforms, humanitarian aid, and a slew of other changes that benefited a lot of people, especially those lower on the socio-economic chain.

Ever since the end of of the Cold War, the embargo with Cuba has remained in place, and we have stubbornly claimed it is maintained for human rights purposes.  The real, reason, of course, is the powerful Cuban American lobby in this country.  The first wave of immigrants from Cuba were many members of the wealthy elite, who felt afraid of Castro's particular brand of communism.  Since then, they have used their power to make sure that ties with Cuba have remained severed.  On the other end of the spectrum, there really wasn't a lobby to counter them.  Plenty of people have been of the personal opinion that the embargo should stop, but no one actually had enough of a vested interest to organize and lobby around the position.

What has happened, though, is that a lower percentage of Cuban Americans than ever oppose the ban.  This isn't just because the children and grandchildren of Cuban immigrants are now outliving their parents and grandparents, but also because a lot of the Cuban immigrants who came here after the initial fifteen or so years following the Cuban Revolution didn't immigrate because of anti-communist sentiments the way their predecessor did.  They migrated during rough economic times in Cuba, and considered Castro neither a paragon of virtue nor an evil communist dictator.  They were hungry and going to where they thought they had the most opportunity.

Now, with diplomatic relations being restored and prisoners being exchanged, there is more promise than ever for this senseless embargo to end.  What I do find unfortunate about the whole situation, though, is that the talks have centered around talk of US business interests setting up shop there.  I hope that, if this revamp in US-Cuba relations do end up going through, there will still be mechanisms in place to prevent too much US corporate meddling.  I also hope Cuba keeps up their insistence on not handing over Assata Shakur.

Despite being a bit jaded about the hows and whys of this deal, I do think it is ultimately a good thing.  Hopefully this results in family reunification and healing between two countries.


Badass of the Year: Malala Yousafzai

In 2014, Malala Yousafzai became the youngest Nobel Prize laureate of all time.  Like many of the people I've mentioned on this list, and with other people further down on this list, her 2014 continued the momentum she built during previous years.  Hey, would you look at that?  It's almost as if achieving greatness (and shout outs on blogs, perhaps the most important prize of all) comes with putting in years of excellence beforehand.

Anywho, Yousafzai, ever since she was young, has been an advocate for education for all people, especially girls.  This lead to her getting shot on October 9th, 2012 by the Taliban.  Even though one of the bullets hit her in the head she pulled through, and since then her advocacy has only increased.

While she has been paraded around in the West as a paragon of virtue, it's important to also know that she has still been unafraid to be critical of the West, too.  Back in late 2013, she met with Barack Obama and urged him to stop using drones to kill innocent people, arguing that the death of innocent lives creates more terrorists (also, y'know, that killing innocent people is a horrible crime in and of itself).  The Obama administration brushed the comments off and praised her, and unfortunately a lot of the West continues to amplify her criticisms of the Taliban (who, of course, deserve every word of that criticism), but downplay her criticism of their own human rights violations.  The fact that Malala is willing to speak to both, however, is a remarkable sign of courage for anyone, especially a teenager who has survived an assassination attempt.

In 2014, she continued her advocacy worldwide for educational access for girls around the world.  She has also stated that she wants to return to Pakistan and become prime minister someday, in the same mold as Benazir Bhutto, the first female prime minister of Pakistan, whom she lists as one of her heroes.  Considering Bhutto was assassinated back in 2007, that takes guts to say.  And Yousafzai has shown no shortage of guts.  With her courage and advocacy for such important causes, from education to anti-violence, I certainly hope she accomplishes her goal.


Politician of the Year: Elizabeth Warren

In terms of policy stances, Elizabeth Warren isn't my favorite politician.  I'm much more a fan of someone like Kshama Sawant, and on the national stage I prefer Bernie Sanders.  Warren has, in my opinion, been silent or noncommittal on a lot of important issues.

That said, Warren has absolutely electrified the progressive wing of the Democratic party.  Continuing the momentum she built over the last few years, she has been unrelenting in her mission to call out big banks, corporate control of politics, the student loan industry, and Wallstreet regulations (or lack thereof).  Basically, calling out the fiscal mechanisms behind the worst income inequality in the United States since the Great Depression.

What is important about Elizabeth Warren is how (along with grassroots movements around the country) she has helped bring these conversations about this alarming wealth inequality and corporate control of politics into the mainstream.  Plenty of Democrats have touched on this topic- President Obama's campaign promise of hope for change was the central premise of his campaign, after all- but they've always been vague in terms of actually pointing to the mechanisms for said inequality (probably because there are a lot of corporate Democrats out there who are only slightly less fiscally conservative than Republicans, and the Democratic Party as an institution also has plenty of special interests it is tied to).  Elizabeth Warren is actually willing to call out the who, what, when, and where of everything, and has specific, tangible goals for fixing everything.

Whether or not she ends up running for election in 2016, and whether or not she has the chance to beat others like Hilary Clinton, what Elizabeth Warren has done is bring important dialogue to the center of attention in mainstream politics.  Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean there will be a lot of tangible policy differences by Democrats who decide to play progressive to get votes- the Obama administration has been pretty friendly to corporate special interests when selecting people for government positions.  But, by bringing these economic issues to the forefront, which a lot of grassroots movements the country over are currently working around, the possibility for people to become informed, think critically about them, and possibly take action is ripe.  And meaningful change always comes from people who struggle for it, not the people in office.

Hopefully, we are on the precipice of some systematic reforms to address our alarming income inequality and the corporate control of politics.  If so, there is no doubt Elizabeth Warren will continue to play a big part, whether it be continuing her tenure as a senator or as the president of the United States.


Word of the Year: YASSS!!!

Perhaps the most important part of any cynical-asshole-disguised-as-an-intellectual starter pack is the hatred of slang.  In recent years, words like swag and twerk have sparked countless fits of rage from people who think speaking "properly" during situations that don't require it is of the utmost importance if you are to retain your 'smart' person cred, and that using slang somehow makes someone less intelligent.  This year, one of the words getting these folks riled up the most is "yasss!", a term for when you're so enthusiastic about something "yes!" just doesn't cut it.

Beyond poking fun at pseudo-intellectual elitists, part of the charm of this word is how positive it actually is.  The term is, very often, used as one of endearment and encouragement.  When talking about the word in an interview, Nicki Minaj had a perfectly concise way of putting it: "I'm confirming that you're the shit!  [...]  It means eat this up!  Eat it up, girl, it's your world.  Take it all in!"  Basically, its whole purpose is to support someone else in a spirited way.  And when one of the year's most popular slang words is as positive as this one, count me in as a fan.  Swag.


Photo of the Year: Michael Brown?

If you lived on the planet earth during the year 2014, I don't need to tell you about the Michael Brown incident.  In a country where unarmed black men are more likely to be shot than unarmed white men, black people are overwhelming arrested for drug use despite similar rates of use between black and white folks, policies like Stop and Frisk overwhelming target black and Latino people, and, ultimately, black and Latino folks are more like to be shot at by police than white (and Asian) folks, the shooting of unarmed black teenagers like Michael Brown is nothing new.

In the aftermath, many Americans scrambled to find a reason to justify Michael Brown's shooting.  Soon, the above photo was circulating on social media and new sites nonstop.  Look at him, pointing a gun at the camera like that!  And people say Michael Brown was a giant teddy bear?  Ridiculous, Lucky Captain Rabbit King.  Not if this photo is anything to go by!

Well, as it turns out, it isn't, because that isn't Michael Brown in the picture.  It's a guy from Oregon, completely unrelated to Michael Brown.  But that didn't stop the image from spreading like wildfire anyway.  It demonstrates, perhaps more than anything else in this case, the extent to which so many people will fervently go out of their way to defend the murder of unarmed black people.  And to be fair, perhaps in this particular case, maybe Michael Brown really was the assaulter, though considering the fact that cops are almost never indicted and there has been a lot of debate by legal experts about the whole trial, it's hard to take this verdict in good faith.

Since then, there have been more deaths.  This includes a Samurai Champloo Mugen cosplayer shot six times in the back, an unarmed woman with biploar disorder and schizophrenia,  and a 12 year old armed with... a bb gun.  Shortly after the Michael Brown decision, another case failed to get indicted: that of Eric Garner.  The video showed absolutely, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the middle aged asthmatic man was unarmed, unaggressive, and wasn't fighting back, and yet there was still no indictment.

The only silver living from all these tragedies is they have prompted a large social movement under the banner "Black Lives Matter" to raise hell about these horrifying injustices.  Hopefully this movement stays strong, because this state sanctioned murder of black people needs to stop.

Black lives matter.


Video of the Year: Let It Slam

 Space Jam and Frozen?!  Sign me up!