In response to recent news that Lyoto Machida may be fighting Mauricio Shogun Rua in his next match.

Re: Whether Shogun Deserves a Title shot?

I think it's reasonable.  Shogun, had he come in and stormed Forrest, would have been eligible.  He did not, but he has regained some credibility.  Right now, every top fighter in LHW UFC is tarnished in some way.  The only reasonable person to give him, other than Shogun would be Rampage, who they've spent on TUF.  Lyoto has fought and humiliated many of the rest, and the others have serious spots on their records.

Shogun is charismatic, despite his poor English, and I think thematically, it's a fight one could hype up.

Re: Whether Shogun will destroy Machida.

I seriously doubt the word destroy will describe the fight.
Watching the Shogun of old, to me, he relied on instinct and feel.  His fighting flowed from excellent cardio and streams of diverse strikes; some flashy and others very accurate.  He was a fighter that maneuvered opponents with streams of attacks, that created openings as his patients defended.  After Coleman's elbow destroying slam, and the two ACLs, his body doesn't seem to be able to string those combinations together any more.  I haven't seen him display that sort of consistency since the elbow incident.

I think his fight against Overeem really displayed how much cardio he used to have, when he kept going after strenuous defense.  Kept going after Overeem gassed.

Shogun, IMO, thought he had his cardio back, trying to out muscle Coleman in the wrestling game... and gassed again.

Machida wrestles like a Karateka ought to; tries to toss you, but if it doesn't go immediately, he doesn't keep trying - he backs off and goes back to neutral.  It's like Thai boxers, they toss you, and let the drop sap your energy and do mild damage and humiliation, then let you spend more energy getting up.  Then they hit you -- a lot.

Shogun, pre damage, relied on his natural gifting to win.  The one improvement I saw in his fight against Liddell was his game plan.  He no longer went for strings of crazy attacks, but went for shorter combinations, dancing in and out.  In a sense, this masks cardio problems.  He could've fought that way for 3 rounds.

My analysis:  Shogun's fundamental game plan has changed, no longer leveraging great cardio to output long strings of attacks.  Perhaps if his conditioning returns, he can go back to his old style... but that may still be a long while away.  Remember the Shogun of old never had any significant injuries, and was basically enjoying a uninterrupted period of being in good cardio shape.  Never really in trouble from strikes, his losses had all been from submissions, that don't do much to your brain or "jaw" as it were.

I think Shogun actually has the skill set to push Machida's TMA background.  He has the medium - long distance combinations that can force engagement, which none of the boxers can do.  The Karate distance allows Machida to disrespect the initial 3-4 punches that most people throw, because he's already backing up when the other person starts to close.  Mid 2nd closing step, one would typically parry and counter if the guy is at the right range.  (And Machida has done this a lot).  Basically, it's really hard to close in on a Karateka with punches. 

Starting with a skip step, low sweep, or a mid kick is much safer to close the distance.  Most MMA fighters don't do any of these attack-feints to close distance, because it's not necessary, and thus they don't ever integrate such techniques into their practice.

If you think about it, most of the kick punch combos you see from MMA fighting is punch punch (n times) kick, if they combo hands and legs at all.  With Machida you get to see kicks setting up punches and vice versa. Heck, kicks setting up kicks.

If you watch old school Shogun, he does all of that.  In the old days, he really flowed.

Having said all that, I don't think Shogun will have evolved enough.  I would have loved for him to fight a couple more opponents, and continue developing his arsenal, and improving his cardio, getting a feel for what his reconstructed joints can handle.  Machida is a high level opponent, where you need everything in working order.  Shogun no longer has the recklessness of brash, immortal, youth, but I don't think he's yet developed the necessary craftiness and discipline to fight with the mind as opposed by "feel".

In a couple fights, I think he might have matured enough, but not yet.  This would be a match I'd love to see in a year from now.  But as it stands, I suspect he will lose.

I wouldn't mind being wrong, as I love both of these guys -- Perhaps Shogun is already ready.

May it be an epic battle if it happens.

And some xkcd
http://xkcd.com/571/
Taiwan and China - From the Economist
Paths to Politics - From the Economist

---

Sorry - it's been really busy...
Lyoto Machida - Article 1 - Article 2

---

About a week and a half ago, I returned from France from a wedding.  In my final year of high school, I discovered 3 friends who all shared a love of Street Fighter II.  We played so frequently and feverishly, and became irrevocably bonded.  While perhaps there are better, more impressive ways to bond, that bond remained throughout college, graduate schools, differences in faith, creed, foci, and geography.  We played different games from time to time, learning about new ways of entertaining ourselves... although our nostalgia for playing at Shakey's or a particular mall's arcade remains.  We roved the region looking for fresh machines and fresh competition.  It was blissful when we knew that we ruled an arcade in terms of Street Fighting Prowess -- virtually.

And now, 3 of these young lads are now married, two of which now have children. 

At the outset, I'd felt quite tired even thinking of flying to Paris.  It was distant, and the trip would be brief.  I didn't know many of my friends other guests; so there was some trepidation at attending.

Yet, it turned out to be more than fun and memorable -- it was also a time that I got to look at my friends again, and affectionately recall our shared history.  Set in a chapel and celebrated at a chateau, it was positively dreamy.  The weather was exceptional in that it afforded sun without being sweltering.  It was a comfortable  weekend, allowing all of us to explore the chateau and the surroundings happily.  It was really a medieval sort of town with stone buildings and narrow streets.

The drive to Chissey was also breathtaking, with panoramas of verdant fields, interrupted with fragrant fields of golden flowers.  The scent wafted into the car with depth and vigour.  We could scarce believe it was a field of flowers causing this powerful and pleasant sweet scent.

My drive with my brother was such a great time of bonding, experiencing the countryside, skies, roads and even gas stations with glee.

But most of all, I really enjoyed the wedding. 

The guests loved the bride and groom.  Love was in the air... and that too was sweet.

The homily in a heavy French accent, followed by a magnificent reception within the chateau, and a party that contained a 10 minute fireworks show was really almost over the top...

Foie gras freshly grilled was also exquisite, really allowing their guests to share their stories and memories.

Burger, you've got your Fries...
Looking forward to the nuggets...

---

Machida --

I can't wait to see what else this guy does.  He's bloody impressive.

Reforming Orthography - Regarding written Chinese, from the Economist
한글 - Wiki Entry on the formation of Hangul
Phagspa - Wiki Entry on Phagspa, a synthetic script, formed during the Yuan Dynasty.

General Chinese - Wiki Entry (Thanks xpiDmwAtnrfw)

---

tiếng Việt - Wiki Entry on the Vietnamese language and its evolution.
日本語 - Wiki Entry on the Japanese language and its evolution.

---

Articles of most interest:  The first 3, particularly the Economist Article.

Discussing the above topics is almost pointless without reviewing some groundwork in linguistics.  Again, I have to defer to those of my friends/readers with more formal training than I.  However, having had a near morbid fascination for language for decades now, as well as the interplay between language and cultural preservation and development, I think I have a little perspective on the topic.

First, that grammatical rules tend to simplify over time, as evinced by the evolution of Classical Chinese or Greek to more modern forms.  It's been happening in English for quite some time now.  There's a lot of sense to this, because written forms are ultimately ways of codifying spoken systems.  Written forms allow the development of a systematized spoken form... also help creating grammatical standards, and a uniform lexicon.  Without a shared repository of terms and phraseology, the possibility of developing parallel (and contradictory) definitions and meanings becomes very easy... and, actually, happens anyway.

However, written forms aren't developed by the common user, typically, and at least historically, are created by literati of one sort or another -- and simplifications occur either through repeated use, or by reformers who want to allow for more widespread use.

Most modern systems are either alphabetic, syllabic, or phonetic.  There are also universal phonetic systems designed to capture sounds irrespective of the language of origin.  These are designed to represent the sounds themselves, and not the "writing of the origin."

These approaches stress the importance of the "sound" of language, and its importance in communication.

Ambiguous sounds often are accompanied by redundant phraseology or terms that help ensure that the communication is not misunderstood.  Homonyms are thus clarified through adjacent terms.

Hieroglyphics and Chinese share a somewhat different approach in that they can be considered pictographic or ideographic.  Morphemes can be contained in single syllables, but words constructs of several syllables, from a "audible" perspective.  But in another sense, I think one can argue that there is a more interesting interplay available in individual characters.  The idiosyncratic method in which a given chinese character is put together, with elements in a single character may either help communicate meaning, and other times sound; is hard to predict a priori. One has to study the language and memorize.  But in some strange way, studying each word can be like studying a miniature piece of art.  Someone coined the character, and decided what visual elements to put in to make it whatever it is.  Sometimes you like how it looks, and how it works, and sometimes you don't.

In Alphabetic systems, you may or may not like how a given word looks, but we don't normally think of a single word as art.  They do have a visual impact -- but the focus in most alphabetic systems, in my mind, is the sound, and not the "form".  Indeed, the very design of the languages is to emphasize the sounds.

For me, I really do appreciate the "form."  That's why simplification of Chinese to a purely phonetic system strikes me as somehow wrong.

That, of course, got me to think a lot about language construction.  Modern Korean was a highly intentional project.  It helped establish a greater permanance to Spoken Korean, shoring up cultural identification -- and differentiating itself from two neighbouring cultures that shared similar terms with similar sounds, due to centuries of dialogue.

One hundred years ago, four scholars from Vietnam, China, Japan and Korea (please, the order was random!) could sit down and write a discussion, and have some meaningful dialogue, without being able to speak or understand the same phonemes.  That's the peculiarity of those ideograms/characters.  Vietnam has done away with them, and S Korea has all but done away with them. 

Within China, this phenomenon still occurs, but as Mandarin pronunciation continues to grow in universality, this dichotomy will become less and less present.  At some point, perhaps there will be no need for an idiosyncratic writing system -- but to me that's a pity.

I think the very nature of the Chinese writing system helps people understand something; many things in life aren't clear, and there are many ways to do any given thing.  There are so many homonyms in Chinese, and there are just as many times when the same character can be pronounced in different ways.  In database terms, there are many to many relationships for a good number of characters. 

That, to me, builds in a relative understanding of information.  The inherent plurality, I think, opens the Chinese mind to more syncretic conceptualisations.

In contrast, Korean has evolved to a one to one relationship in terms of writing, much like German.  This conceptual uniformity has implications in learning styles.

These are seriously broad strokes, but I think the languages we speak and use and write give us patterns to think with.  Well worn paths that our thoughts take encourage conceptualizations down those very same paths.

If you get bored, look at the Phagspa/Hangul comparison.  It's pretty cool.  It gave me a perspective that I didn't have before.  Many times, I think of language as something to be learned -- memorized.  But the reality is, you can create language too.  The fact that someone sat down and created a system that may have eventually been co-opted for another system that is now in common use is absolutely fascinating.  The study of the evolution of Korean pronunciation is also fascinating, as sounds appeared and disappeared from the language in relation to the understanding of the writing regime...

Very interesting.

I actually think pinyin is doing that to Mandarin, to a certain extent, forcing language users to conceptualise sounds in certain ways.

When you think about it, prior to a phonetic system, there really was no way to systematically teach a people spread across a whole nation how to pronounce the characters/ideas.  Is it any surprise that the pronunciation is so divergent?

In closing, while I appreciate the use of phonetic systems, I would be more than sad to see this very unusual (and successful!) system fall by the wayside, in the interest of efficiency.  The characters, whether you call them Hanzi, Hanja, Kanji or Han tieu, have a life and art of their own.  I enjoy the fact that there is at least some interest by the PRC to "de symplify" the simplified characters -- they did go too far with some words.  Simplification and standardization is an inexorable trend... and, for vernacular use, essential.  But you don't have to hurry the process artificially!

I don't have time, but it would be fun to talk about the evolution of Middle to Elizabethan to near modern and post modern English.

---

I nearly forgot:
Regarding political overtones:
  Chinese is called one language with multiple dialects by some, and others call it a language family, because the grouped languages may actually have mutually unintelligible spoken forms.  (Please see comments).
  One can look at this two ways:  1) it's a purely political, due to the interests of the government to maintain a conceptually intact single country.  2) it's actually reflective of the fact that Chinese is strongly comprised of a written corpus and a linguistic (tongue!) corpus that intermingle but differ significantly.  In some senses, one could make the statement that it's the writing that unifies and that speech divides in the case of Chinese "thought/concept transmission mediums".

  I think in this case, for the PRC, the impulse to call it "Chinese" serves both impulses, and is not an either/or proposition.  For me, I think, given all the nuances, I think of Chinese as both traditions... where it goes, nobody knows...
  But God.

---

Next topic:
The Problem with Credit.

今天早上，滿天濃雲，深色如海。一些地方有陽光，穿破暗暗的雲。
感覺有一點矛盾。
很感動，見到這麽美好的風景。雖然會有雨，太陽可能不會再出現。。。我還是很喜歡灰色的天空。

---

Whisper

What sounds do you make
In cotton sotto voce?
  Do you seduce the raindrops with sibilant pseudo silences
Or sing to the sun, when no eye spies?

Do you serenade Selene and Astra,
  In quiet eventide reverie?

What secret life you hide in doughy evanescence?
  You confess in darkened tears of rain...

4.28.09

---

Remember these?

Incognito - From the Economist, regarding research about insight and consciousness.

---

I promise this will not be long winded.  I've written too much lately!

I don't think we'll know for quite some time how the brain works, but personally, I think that our slow improvements in computer processing/logic is yielding insight into the function of the brain.  In high school, dealing with supercomputers and parallel processing, we used to rant about how to get computers to be "smarter" than humans, and the whole problem was how to get computers to be creative.  I personally suspect that one day we will conclude that the reason we function the way that we do is that the brain is essentially a massively parallel processing system, with subcompenents that are optimized for certain types of signal processing.  You thus have internal feedback loops that provides us all these conflicting impulses -- and only some of them get to the "surface" of consciousness.

I think that the fact that certain types of EEG patterns are detectable prior to conscious awareness trends towards proving that.  Consciousness is almost an epiphenomenon of neural processing.

I'm glad I'm not completely aware of my subconscious.

If you've never met someone with Pick's Disease, or with complete disinhibition -- I promise you, it's an experience.  Phineas Gage, for instance?  A classic example of what happens when the certain pathways get knocked out...

---

An update in the form of comments:
Friction - an old post (now with a quote from Ἡράκλειτος ὁ Ἐφέσιος)

Interestingly, someone at Sherdog voiced a similar concern as mine below:

Blog - Sherdog post: Sport or Spectacle.  I think we're both concerned about the "spectacle oriented" nature of the evolving UFC fan base.

---

A friend of mine asked me recently about what I thought about the UFC as a Christian.  It's a great question.  It's a question well applied to many things... from movies, to video games, fashion and cosmetics, acting and modeling and many more.  Indeed, in the early church, concerns about the compatibility of acting and faith were raised.

How do we even approach this question?

Well... to begin with, let's ask two questions:
1) What are Martial Arts and how does it differ from Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) as a "sports" phenomenon in the US?
2) What are some biblical perspectives on violence and how do they apply to MMA?

A couple baseline assertions:
1) There is no explicit injunction against martial arts as a sport, so by definition, this cannot be a black and white discussion.
2) We're discussing from a biblical context, and making some inferences about the general intent of groups of individuals.  Categorical answers are difficult to apply to individuals.

---

A good working definition of a Martial Art is the study of combat.  Specifically, it connotes combat without the use of fire arms or projectiles.  The word Martial is derived from the Latin god, Mars, thus pertaining to war.  Art is derived the latin word Ars, and is defined by Webster as:

1: skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>2 a: a branch of learning: (1): one of the humanities (2)plural : liberal arts archaic : learning, scholarship3: an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>4 a: the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects ; also : works so produced b (1): fine arts (2): one of the fine arts (3): a graphic art5 archaic : a skillful plan b: the quality or state of being artful6: decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter

Martial Arts then is a very broad term, that may include any number of violent and non-violent elements.  The dominant threads in today's martial arts environment are equally varied, with schools of thought that emphasize sparring, submission, joint attacks and locks, mental/philosophical moorings, and what have you.  Given the breadth of that variability, it is very difficult to pin down a specific code of conduct.

Broadly speaking, however, Martial Arts are "generally" understood to emphasize discipline, defense, and physical acumen.  Another generality is that there is typically respect exhibited between practitioners who love these "arts."

The relatively recent appearance of martial arts in the world of mass media (in the US) differs significantly from the practice of martial arts as a whole.  There are many organizations around the world that promote and display martial competitions, be they K-1, Muay Thai, MMA, boxing etc.  I cannot say that I have exhaustive knowledge of these competitions, but one of the things I have enjoyed in some of the organizations is that the practitioners often display respect for one another.  There is an appreciation of the other's skill.

The general public, however, sees the fights differently.  Blood thirst is a concern.  There is a desire to see brutal knockouts, and viscious injuries.  This stands in contrast to the intent of martial competition; it is to compare skill sets and prowess.  Now admixed are highlight reels of the most spectacular carnage; I do not think I'm exagerating when I say that that is what many viewers want.

I would argue that some really want to see "the better fighter" not just technically, but physically.  To see well matched opponents exert different strengths against different weaknesses is absolutely fascinating.  It's easy to be fascinated when you do not risk life and limb.  That of course, reveals some of the hypocrisy of the sport that is evolving.

Without the blood and savage brutality, would the sport be as popular as it is?

Probably not.

There is a part of us that enjoys the voyeurism present in watching events that feed on strong, if not animal passions.  We experience vicariously the lust for blood.  And if we don't see it, if it's clinical and cool, we might not be as satisfied.

There is a difference between traditional mainstream Martial Art culture and the culture of MMA in the US, and that is the lust for blood.  The first ought to have an appreciation for skill and talent and hard work.  The jeers and booing in fights that don't have spectacular striking suggests a desire for carnage, and a lack of appreciation for what martial prowess is about.

---

"Rescue me, O LORD, from evil men; Preserve me from violent men" 

"And He said to them, “When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?” They said, “No, nothing.” And He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. “For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS’; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.” They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”

Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it."

I watched UFC 97 recently, and got to watch yet another set of matches that were occasionally very interesting, and sometimes very disappointing.  However, the biggest disappointment for me this weekend was the fans in Montreal.  I've always assumed that the Canadians (or Canadiens), would be more respectful than the average American crowd.  I was rudely awakened that our friends north of the border have similar handicaps when it comes to respecting the art to martial arts.

Anderson Silva is an amazing warrior that understands a very important principle to combat arts:  Self Preservation.  To fight 20-30 years, you need to preserve your mental faculties and physical carriage.  Damage to limbs, joints, spine, muscle, ligament, tendon and brain all accumulate; this doesn't take much understanding to appreciate.  To successfully implement a martial art system takes physical acumen and mental clarity.  If one is trained appropriately in a Chinese martial art, and to a certain extent, Karate, there is a large emphasis on self-preservation.  To effectively attack and defend, minimizing damage to self and maximizing injury to the other is balanced fighting.  To overcommit to an attack, to damage at all costs -- that's reckless and will earn increasing amounts of injury as the years progress.

To boo a near perfect execution of that which Silva does best is ludicrous.  Alas, it influences the fight.  Instead watching two professional artists' implement their plans, their physical prowess and art -- people want to see the highlight reel.  That makes me really sad.  Martial arts can be brutal, but it is an art.  You can see beautiful things when you see people match skills and styles.  Art can't be force, and neither can a 5 hit string of strikes finishing with a perfectly executed heel hook submission.

Boos interfere with the concentration of the fighters -- do you boo Kristy Yamaguchi when she falls?  When she does a triple Lutz instead of a quadruple?  If we want the athlete to perform to their highest ability, why would you ever boo?

As competitors figure out Silva's style, they will become conservative to avoid his precision counterstrikes, emphasizing defense instead of a blitz-attack.  This is simple adaptive evolution of styles.  You can't blame one or the other.  I think the Japanese system of penalizing inactivity makes more sense.  Let people unfold their plans... and skills.  Just maybe, you'll get to see another Chonan Ryo flying Heel Hook.  It won't happen in the setting of constant disapproval.

Let the artists do their art, and either applaud or clap when you're pleased.  Respect them enough not to boo or jeer.  It's disrespectful, and shows ignorance of the art and practice.

Another peeve:
When the commentators expressed shock at the "unorthodox" front leg side kicks delivered to Leites' knees, I wanted to shout derisive comments back at them.  If they use unorthodox to mean, "I've never seen those in the UFC before," fine.  But, those are very standard kicks and highly effective.  They're just not used in MMA because most people train in watered down Muay Thai, Wrestling and BJJ.  Ignorance is bliss.

Many fighting systems have been effective for centuries -- have some respect~!

---

Shogun's cardio may still be called into question, but there's no question his triple threat is back -- submissions, strikes (punch/kicks), and wrestling are back.  Back too are the weaves and focus.  Watching him systematically try the defenses of Liddell with consistent variation brought a huge smile to my face.  Gone is the insane explosiveness... replaced with more calculation and humility.  The reckless, indafitigable confidence that marked the early Shogun is gone.  As entertaining as that had been, I prefer seeing warriors in a more mature phase of their careers, when they start understanding their own mortality, limits, and respecting the strengths of others.

I'm looking forward to seeing Shogun's next fight.  He's a great fighter, and I like his keen intelligence.  Hopefully, his prior mistakes and hubris are a thing of the past -- and we'll see sparkling performances for many years to come.

No Booing!

Who says PrideFC veterans are weak?  Anderson and Shogun are both former PrideFC!

Single Ratios - From Junshien's Blog

---

This map can't be right... if this is correct, there should be more men than women in the US, which is... untrue...
Couple points of data:

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/000440.html

http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/people/a_gender.html

The second link is the more interesting one, with regards to this issue.

Take note of the graph looking at gender ratios by age brackets...  By age 24 there are more females than males in the year 1990, by 34 in the year 2000.  If you look at the distribution map, it doesn't match the so-called derived data in xoxo's map.  Xoxo claims to be using census data, but that just doesn't make sense.

If there are n men and m women, and x are married, then n-x/m-x = the ratio of singles, male to female.  Above 1 is male predominant, below 1 is female predominant.

Biologically, there are more males at birth, and this number drops over time.  The death rate for men exceeds women throughout life, typically, after birth-mortality has improved with the advent of modern OBGYN.

Recent data has suggested that birth rates for males has decreased, and in some areas is now below 50% of live births, which reverses a well documented pattern over the last several hundred years (and probably before that, but accurate census data for pre-modern is hard to get).  Some have hypothesized changes in stress patterns, environmental toxins, radiation as well as lifestyle pattern changes.  Bottom line is unknown, but should the trend continue, overall oversupply of females may increase in the next generation.

Unless infant sacrifice becomes more mainstream, vis a vis PRC habits, that has approached a 54% male population ratio.  Not good for societal stability, by the way...

The reactions the general public have had to the financial crisis has been varied and relatively peaceful.  Yet it doesn't take a long walk through history to find situations where the financially elite are publicly defamed, pilloried and even executed.  The communist revolutions in any given country, the French revolution, ethnic unrest of an antisemitic sort in western Europe... violence against ethnic Chinese in Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam, Philippines, Burma...

The list goes on.

When the people go hungry, it's tempting to find people to blame -- and, if they were doing relatively well previously, it might actually be gratifying to see them taken down a peg.

Satisfaction derived from observing the suffering from others is neatly termed Schadenfruede - or pity-joy.

Law and Medicine have long played second fiddle to the enormous compensations available to finance (all of whom avail themselves to far less lucre than successful entrepreneurship!).  From the vantage of these two former professions, we oft see the meteoric rise of our classmates with some mixture of envy and respect.  They work very very hard, and with some luck, are rewarded handsomely.  The long, dreadful hours and potentially abusive relationships in finance yield golden fruit. 

In education, law or health-care, practitioners often can point to the intangibles of service -- the satisfaction of seeing a pupil grow, a patient recover, or justice served -- and console oneself while working with the under-served, for low compensation, or in an environment that is, for whatever reason, inhospitable. That's harder to do in traditional investment banking.  And yet, more than a few likely have wondered at the trade -- would you work harder for possibly a bigger monetary pay-off?

In hale economic times, the trade financiers made seemed a good one, and the expanding credit pools allowed all income brackets to enjoy more material gain.  You might look over with envy at times, but there's a lot of respect of some sort.

In harrowing economic climes, however, it's harder to feel quite the same.  The furor over AIG bailouts and bonuses, the anger at wealth misuse at the Big Three all were elicited because there is far less tolerance for conspicuous wealth as the nation and world groan under newly felt financial strain.

So, I would not be surprised that many now feel some Schadenfreude at the thought of the once infallible finance community being brought to its anthropomorphic knees.

I must admit that the thought had crossed my mind.

And yet, it's too much.

While I've long argued with some of my friends that capital market management will eventually be commodified in some way -- more regulated perhaps, I never expected this current environment.  Having spoken with many a friend in finance fields, I can say that it's very hard for many.  Perhaps at the upper echelons, they can walk away not much poorer than they had started -- perhaps even richer, but much of that workforce now wonders at where to find work and what to do.  Heavily exposed to financial instruments and risk, there is no doubt that many find themselves in much more precarious financial straits than they could have anticipated.

That's stressful -- especially since their financial commitments were predicated on a much more robust outlook on the future.  If one's skillset is invested in this very particular niche, it is not easy to retool.  One might be tempted to encourage financiers to find other modes of employment -- and given that they tend to be quite bright, it should be doable.  The irony is that finance is necessary and a rebound in the need for financial expertise is inevitable.  Thus, leaving the job market for finance may not be the best long term bet.

The framework within this group functions will undoubtedly change, but it's the same sort of mind and skillset that will be required to navigate within that new rubrik.  The same sort of talents will be necessary in any new regime.

Financial markets are necessary and do society a lot of good.  The ability to move capital to a promising enterprise rapidly is of great use to a country.  Businesses can grow very rapidly indeed with the right kind of investment.  Analysing and mobilizing such resources is a great benefit derived from modern investment banking.

It's a function that is of great use, and shouldn't be thrown out with the mistakes that were made.

Many in finance are bystanders, though part of a system that failed.  Heaping abuse on them isn't helpful... They are suffering too.  Ironically, this thinking helps me understand a bit more what auto-workers have been going through these past 2-3 decades.

The labour market really does change, and sometimes, it's a one way pathway.  It's hard to adjust to a world where what you did so brilliantly is no longer able to pass mustard.  Yet maintaining outmoded models is a sure fire way for eventual catastrophic collapse.  Adjusting those labour models earliers might have saved some serious pain in the mid west.

There will be a lot more pain during this season in finance, I have no doubt.  

Yet which ever side of the tracks we sit on, it might be wise to exhibit less antagonism and more real sympathy -- in both times of prosperity and contraction.  Like it or not, the finance industry helped fuel much of our apparent growth in the past decade.  That some of it was predicated on false assumptions is to be expected.  As a society we enjoyed in the better parts of that period... it is unjust to desire retribution in some fashion, when we (as a society) quietly assented to their practices, and abetted by funding it with our stock purchasing and investing.  If one joined in in investing in mutual funds, REITS and what not, hoping to catch some of the rising prices of financial instruments, then one was trying to make use of the very distortions that we now decry.

That's hypocricy.

So, how about it?
Less Schadenfruede, shall we?

我一直都以爲將來，不管是什麽話題，不管是關於什麽事，我們最後都會有一樣的概念。我最近發現這其實只是一種誤解。兩個人，兩個不同的背景的人，真麽可能有一樣的概念？我以爲，我可以找一個跟我一樣的想法的人。。。不可能的！
我發現，最重要的其實是可以自然地溝通。
如果兩個人可以附項好好地聼對方的想法，一直很認真地想理解對方。。。
如果常常誤會對方，兩個人的關係其實也是一種誤解，不會有好過。
還好，有神的恩典，可以幫我們看開對方的缺點。