WonderCon 2017

I'd always wanted to go to a comic/pop-culture convention, or at least I always did from the time I knew that such a thing existed. I finally got my wish a year ago when WonderCon 2016 came to Los Angeles. It was one of the best times I ever had, and I wrote more about that here. This year, the convention was back in its usual home of Anaheim. It was a longer drive, but there was no way I was missing it. I was a little worried some of the "magic" would have worn off from having experienced it before. You can never duplicate that first time. However, despite a sense of familiarity that wasn't in any way negative, I felt as inspired and happy to be there as I remember feeling about 365 days ago. 

It's hard to explain why this matters to me as much as it does. For one, it's just a bunch of creative people who are actively making stuff sharing all the stuff they're making (whether it be comics, films, shows, animation, games, cosplay, toys, whatever) with other creatives and fans in a largely judgement-free space. That's inspiring, since nothing inspires more than seeing all this amazing stuff right in front of you that gives you ideas for creating some of your own (hopefully amazing) stuff. People there really want to be there, and it's a place where strangers can just come up to each other regardless of background or religion or ethnicity or political affiliation and bond over some obscure mutual interest or take a picture together without any negativity or bullshit. That's RARE. And it's special. And we need more of it in our world.

I met a lot of really amazing people while I was there. Some of them are in similar fields as I am and we talked shop for a while. Others were in totally different fields and I could learn from their point of view. I just love hearing someone who's passionate about something really go all-in on explaining that passion, even if it's a subject that normally wouldn't interest me. (IE. I've never been an anime fan, but I'll listen with interest as someone explains why it's the greatest thing in the world.) Caught up with a good friend of mine there Saturday and then was joined by two of my favorite people on Sunday to really make it a successful weekend.

Not that there weren't some speed bumps along the way. Got a bad migraine Friday night, which I've had issues with since I was maybe nine or 10. I get asked about them a lot, but there are some things with them I don't typically discuss. They can cause a lot of physical side effects while they're happening, and it'll sometimes feel like I'm flying an airplane where the controls are malfunctioning when they're at their worst. Hands will shake uncontrollably, speech is slower, etc. Not a lot of fun, but I'm very used to it. It typically takes at least 24 hours to recover after one goes away, but it can take longer in some circumstances. For reasons still not entirely clear to me, a migraine can leave a pretty nasty depression in its wake that sticks with me for a while long after the migraine itself has passed. It's not the pain itself- I have a lot of old injuries and it's not an exaggeration to say that on most days, something hurts. I think I have a pretty high tolerance and most people can't tell. Pain's not the problem. I assume that the migraine affects something biochemically, and the result is really unpleasant. This is nothing new either, as it's something I've dealt with in one way or another since I was really young. It got officially diagnosed over 10 years ago, and docs have been taking a closer look lately thanks to other issues with the nervous system. (Dizzy spells, tremors when I sleep, so I don't dream properly without medication, etc.) It's all likely related to impact injuries and concussions over the years, which is a whole different story. C'est la vie. I'm getting old. :-)

So, Mr. Migraine decided to visit Friday night, March 31st. Woke up Saturday with the pain of the migraine gone, but it left a depressive footprint. A fairly large one. But fuck it, I had a convention to get back to. So back I went. In an interesting turn of events, there was a psychologist on several of the panels I went to who has written books on using pop culture intellectual properties (shows, comics etc) as a means of treating and dealing with depressive problems, traumas etc. The US version of the latest book hasn't been released just yet, but it's something I'll definitely look forward to reading. The timing was just serendipitous.

Sunday, two really good friends came with me as alluded to above. It had been fun sharing in the fandom and enthusiasm with total strangers, but to share in it with people I feel so close to was really special to me and it was a day and experience I'll always cherish. Another migraine hit a couple days later (I get them in clusters) and I've been in a really bad funk since, but I've been using photos and videos of this year's Con to temporarily remove me from my own mind and travel back into better memories for a few minutes at a time, and those reprieves are priceless. I'm really good at internalizing these things to where no one around me can tell anything's wrong (sidenote- Roddy Piper could- we talked about it many years ago, and the last thing he ever said to me years later in the last time I saw him was "I see you."), but that's admittedly exhausting. But, exhausting is usually preferable to feeling like a weight dragging people down around me, so I'll choose exhausting and keep my mouth shut. This is the most open "publicly" (I'm assuming this'll have a pretty small audience, LOL) I've been about this stuff. I wrote out my entire life story once, and only one person has ever read it besides me. I wrote a private blog once about depression and thoughts about post-traumatic stress, and only two people have read it besides me. (One of them is a musician, and I'm listening to one of her songs on repeat to make this process easier.) But, I'm a storyteller- whether that be writing or acting. I'll never really know within myself if I'm any good at either one, but they bring me joy and I work hard at them and am able to scrape by a living with them, so I can take pride in that at least. And some severe physical and nerve injuries coupled with migraines and depressive struggles are an important part of my personal story.

When I was younger, being a fighter in the mental, emotional and sometimes by necessity physical sense was an important part of my identity. I still am in the ways that matter, but I can't pretend I'm bulletproof anymore. Never was, but was really good at faking it. There's a receipt for that, and that's okay. But as out of place as I often feel in life or society or whatever when at my worst, I felt a sense of relief and just being at "home" at WonderCon surrounded by all these stories being told in so many inventive ways by genuinely kind and creatice people. And that's where I love to be. So thank you to WonderCon and everyone a part of it for helping to remind me.

Nakamura and Minorities in Entertainment

This is interesting to me for a few different reasons. Pro wrestling has never had a good history of its portrayal of minorities. If you could do a Russian dialect, you played a Communist. If you were from the Middle East, you were a Sheik or a terrorist sympathizer, etc etc. The Rock is really the only real minority main event breakout star who became World Champion that I can think of, and that was 20 years ago. (You could make a case for Booker-T, but he was never treated as on the same level as Austin, HHH, etc.) Even most recently, the New Day were supposed to be basically black preacher stereotypes until the performers themselves took it in a different direction while on camera, and fans responded to it. Asian characters have had it especially bad, with nearly any Asian wrestler in WWF/WWE having typically "Asian-sounding" music similar to the Tatsu ride at Magic Mountain, throwing salt into people's eyes and never really getting much interview time.

The WWF/E also has had a habit of believing that if something didn't happen in their company, if they did not create it, that fans won't know about it or respond to it. That attitude has started to change with HHH running their recently formed developmental system and making more of an effort to recruit people with international experience.

Shinsuke Nakamura is one of the biggest wrestling stars in Japan, and he's well known around the world. WWE signed him a year ago, and unlike other people signed to developmental deals, they let him keep his real name and let him remain the person and character that made him famous. (He cites Freddie Mercury, Elvis and Mohammad Ali as his biggest creative and cultural influences in his wrestling career. He's a unique dude...) After a year of learning the WWE production style (playing to certain cameras and such) and improving his already decent English, he got called up to the main roster on Tuesday on live television.

The point: he was allowed to be himself, they treated his debut as a very big deal, and the crowd absolutely lost their collective shit over it. (Listen to them when the violinist first comes out onto the stage. They suspect what's coming...) Nakamura could be the first true-blue Asian main event star in the company's history, (which has been around for over half a century) and the first one that the McMahon family hasn't tried to turn into a ridiculous caricature.

If pro-wrestling can start to get its act together in its portrayal of non-white performers, maybe there's hope for Hollywood and the rest of us.

Watch the debut here...

President Trump?!

Here's something I guess I need to vent/rant about before trying to go to sleep. I don't personally identify as a Republican, a Democrat, a Liberal or a Conservative. I don't believe in Red vs Blue, because I don't think there are only two sides to an argument or subject when it comes to matters like social issues, economics or international affairs. Context, nuance and shades of grey matter when it involves people's lives and livelihoods. I am not, in any way, a fan of Hillary Clinton. However, I am deeply saddened and appalled by the circumstances that have now seen us elect someone like Donald Trump into the nation's highest office.

I think it's unfair and inaccurate to say that Trump supporters are all racists, but it is also an injustice to overlook and ignore the clear racism that has followed the man since the 70s when he was found to be illegally refusing to rent apartments to minorities. Regardless of what Trump supporters or the Internet tries to tell you, (that Trump was never accused of racist behavior until running for president) his reprehensible behavior regarding minorities and women goes back decades and is a matter of public record.

If you hold Clinton's feet to the fire for failing the men who died in Benghazi, I don't see how you can justify voting for a man advocating for more lenient usage of nuclear weapons. If you think Obama and Clinton have been disrespectful or bad for our military, I don't understand how voting for a man who blatantly insults a Gold Star family and a genuine war hero like John McCain (regardless of what anyone feels for McCain's politics) rectifies that.

If you're offended that Bill Clinton was/is a serial adulterer (though he wasn't running for president this time around) and that Hillary attacked/influenced the women who accused him of sexual assault, I don't see how voting for a man who openly bragged about sexually assaulting women makes that any better.

If you were angry that Hillary Clinton is a part of the political establishment, I don't see how a Trump vote undoes that. The establishment is a combination of politicians and big business interests. Trump is every bit a part of the big business side of that establishment as Hillary is the political side. It looks like he tried to bribe an official in Florida to prevent a Trump University investigation. Newsweek uncovered illegal business dealings in Cuba during the embargo. He brags about manipulating his tax filings to pay as little as possible and using the loopholes that politicians granted to people like him. Trump has never been anti-establishment- he's a direct product of it.

If you view Hillary Clinton as dishonest and untrustworthy, I think that's fair. But Trump is proven to lie repeatedly even about things he just said in recent history, so how is he a more honest choice? He simply isn't. Talking in a way to inflame people isn't more honest. It's simply rhetoric. Trump is a proven, habitual liar. He always has been.

If you view Hillary as a war hawk who was behind a lot of the unrest in the Middle East, I don't think voting for a man cozying up to Vladimir Putin and talking about using nukes is a solution to that problem. Trump's advocated for actual war crimes by killing the innocent family members of suspected terrorists as a deterrent. Really think about that and the possible consequences of it. That's how groups like ISIS gain strength and leverage, because we give them a cause.

If you viewed Obamacare as a disaster that was negatively affecting your finances, that's a fair conversation to have. But why vote for the guy who basically said he'd blow up the existing system without putting forth any concrete ideas or plans on what would replace it? What about those people with pre-existing conditions who finally have insurance for perhaps the first time in their lives?

All of that's water under the bridge now, because Trump is going to be president. And while a Trump voter can claim that race and sex played no role in why he or she voted for him, it is impossible to turn a blind eye to the racism, misogyny and general ugliness that have permeated his entire campaign. What a vote for him does say is that those issues don't matter nearly as much to you as, for example, the economy or health insurance or "never Hillary no matter what."

And that's the part that's sad to me. Because we, as a nation, just told a large part of our people that their rights, their safety and their quality of life don't matter nearly as much as ours does.

We just told women that their body autonomy doesn't matter. We just told peaceful American Muslims that their Constitutional right to privately practice their religion in their own homes and places of worship doesn't matter anymore. We just told people of color that their complaints, feelings and treatment in society don't matter.

Trump has encouraged people at his rallies to attack and beat up people who disagree with him. (Remember when he told one assailant he'd pay his legal bills?) He's threatened to jail members of the press and his political opponent when there are no investigations that turned up any criminal wrong-doings. (You can disagree with those investigations and their thoroughness, but regardless that's the system that we have in place and we can't jail people "just because.") He's shown either complete ignorance or complete dishonesty in his statements about abortion, and those ignorant or dishonest views (rip the baby out days before birth, as an example) can have very real, long lasting and devastating effects on women and families across the country. These aren't hypotheticals anymore. This is all a reality come January.

Trump's talked about assigning judges who could overturn marriage equality. If you agree with that assessment, it's likely on religious grounds. But the Constitution, the one that Trump keeps promising to defend, guarantees a separation between church and state. Laws can't be enacted on religious grounds, and one religion cannot hold favor over another. Yet, this man wants to ban Muslims, who are simply followers of a religion, and treat the LGBT community like second-class citizens to appeal to a religious contingent that has no right being involved in law-making to begin with.

We talk all about the concept of consent and how important it is prior to engaging in any sort of sexual contact, and in the same breath elect a man who brags that he can grab a woman anywhere on her body he chooses and do anything that he wants to her because he's famous.

I don't like Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump makes me sick.

But Donald Trump will be the President. So now, it really does fall to all of us. Women as a group are more vulnerable now than they were yesterday. People of color are as well. Muslims. Immigrants. The LGBT community. We're talking millions and millions of people have just been potentially marginalized in the span of one night. That fucking matters.

THAT IS IMPORTANT. THEY ARE IMPORTANT.

So now it's more important than ever to look around us and defend the rights of our fellow citizens when they are in danger of being infringed. We have to call out sexual harassment when we see it. Or gay bashing. Or someone making a racist remark. We have to take a more active role in local governments and look out for each other, because I don't think the people running the country will be in a Trump regime unless you're white, male and affluent.

We can't blame a Trump presidency simply on racism or sexism. But we also can't have a Trump presidency and still try making the tired argument that rape culture isn't a thing and that racism doesn't permeate almost every element of society. Tonight, in my opinion, our government failed us and we failed our government. Now let's just try not to fail each other as we move forward into whatever happens next.

Todd Kimsey- 06/06/1962-09/16/2016

A tribute I wrote on September 16th, 2016 following the passing of one of my best friends. I ended up reading it at his memorial service a few days later.

Today, I said goodbye to one of my best friends. I try to fancy myself as a writer of sorts, yet words are completely failing me in this moment to adequately describe the loss suffered today by Todd's family, friends and anyone he could have come into contact with in the future. Todd has always been one of the rarest of souls who never took any person or moment of his life for granted. He appreciated every second of every day and he made sure everyone around him who he cared about knew the fullest extent of his friendship, passion or concern for them.

Then he got sick.

While a serious illness often causes someone to re-evaluate his priorities and look at life with a new set of eyes, Todd never had to do that because he already had his priorities straight and didn't need a tragedy to open his eyes to the wonders in his life. The cancer that nearly killed him was not an eye-opener, it was an opponent. Todd never, ever shied away from a fight that was worth fighting (and, okay, a few that were not necessarily so...) and he tackled the new challenge with the same positive exuberance and confidence that he tackled everything. He was going to kick cancer's ass and get back to his wife and kids, no ifs, ands or buts about it.

He succeeded. It was a long and physically taxing journey, but Todd was cancer-free after years of treatments, all the while never once losing the sense-of-humor and aw-shucks badassedness that made him who he was to begin with. But, to prevent the cancer from coming back, which this type was sure to do with a deadly survival rate once it does, he needed a stem-cell transplant.

He survived that as well, and so began a long host of smaller battles with Graft vs. Host Disease. I don't feel the need to detail those struggles here, and there are too many to adequately give attention to, but as Todd's body gradually turned on him, his spirit, compassion and humor never did. He was stubborn and resolute right to the end.

Todd's a guy who stole my car once to go buy me a Christmas present, called me his brother and told me he loved me at the end of every phone call to make sure I knew how much he valued our friendship (and vice-versa) and the guy who called me nearly every day for weeks when my mother, grandfather and friend all died within weeks of one another during the holiday season of 2008. He broke his left hand on my apartment floor and required two surgeries to fix it, performed a full-on singing and dance rendition of "The Humpty Dance" by Digital Underground from the front seat of my car as we were driving to Redlands for work and he dragged me to a Mexican karaoke bar in Cabo San Lucas because he was insistent that the dozens of locals present needed to hear him perform Elvis's "Jailhouse Rock" live before we left even though none of them spoke any English. (They loved it, and loved him.)

Todd loved telling you about the things he was good at (acting, martial arts, pool, math, sales, psychology, anything else that came to mind) but what he was proudest of was becoming a husband and father later in his life. His legacy is his wife Lisa and their three sons. Every second he fought his illness was an extra second he earned with them, which he cherished even when he was exhausted, frustrated and hurting.

Todd is and will always be family to me, a term I do not use lightly. It is one of the highest honors of my life to have been held in such high esteem by one of the truest, most honest and most passionate friends and human beings anyone could ever hope to meet.

Safe travels in your next journey, Todd Kimsey. As you walk through the valley in the shadow of Death, you shall fear no evil, because you are the baddest motherfucker in the valley.

Tragedy

There's been a lot of discourse (a lot of it extremely vitriolic) in recent weeks about gun control and how to handle mass shootings in the United States, and this has been exacerbated by a number of tragic gun related deaths recently involving law enforcement. Here was my take in an online discussion with regards to gun control vs the Second Amendment. I don't think those two concepts are mutually exclusive from each other. (This doesn't address the issues of race and law enforcement in this country, which is an extremely important and specific topic that would deserve its own section/thoughts separate from this.)

The problem with the discourse on this issue is that it almost immediately degenerates into "us vs. them" regardless of your stance on gun control vs. the 2nd Amendment and any reasonable discussion completely goes out the window in favor of trying to win the argument/crush "the enemy."

To say that guns have nothing to do with these types of incidents is a fallacy. Of course they have something to do with it. They are the instrument used to commit the act. That's like saying alcohol has nothing to do with people who drink and drive. Gun control laws/enforcement are not going to prevent every shooting or even every mass shooting, but it's wrong to say they won't prevent any either. The truth is often somewhere in the middle. The country does have gun laws, but those laws are so wildly inconsistent state-to-state or even county-to-county in some cases that they can rule each other out. It doesn't matter how tough the gun laws are in Chicago if I can hop a border nearby and pick something up legally there and bring it back with me.

Here's the thing- the 2nd Amendment is an important reality, but it already has limitations. The right to bear arms...what arms? It doesn't say which arms. I think we can all agree that a private citizen should not have access to a nuclear weapon. Or a rocket launcher. Or a grenade. A tank. Those are arms, as the term "arm" in this context simply means "weapon." We've already got restrictions on certain weapons. And those weapons are not as frequently used in terrorist attacks, because they are so much harder to acquire. It doesn't stop everyone. Grenades still get used, for example. But it's much less common in attacks by a civilian. The idea that gun laws only affect law abiding citizens and have no effect on criminals or terrorists is simply inaccurate. Certain types of knives are illegal to carry depending on where you live, and a knife is an arm as well. There simply isn't as strong of a knife lobby out there.

So, we all actually agree on "arms" control to some degree. But, it's only effective when those laws are the same across the country and enforced. Now where do we draw that line? That's the real debate, and I don't have a specific opinion on that. But nobody in the history of ever in the President's office that I'm aware of has ever tried to make weapons ownership as a whole illegal. This "they're coming for all our guns" argument/fear is, at this point in our history at least, not based in any actual fact or circumstance.

Background checks are not carried out, or at least aren't mandatory, at gun shows for private sellers. Why? Why is a gun show different from buying from a dealer in a store? Waiting periods often aren't done at gun shows either. Why? The only reason seems to be political pressure by the NRA. I agree with the 2nd Amendment to a degree (again, no nukes or grenades to Billy at the end of the block) but the NRA is not about the 2nd Amendment. It's about money. Pure and simple. The NRA as an entity (meaning their management) could give a damn about a well-organized militia. They're a bought and paid for lobby group who purposely spread fear and purchase clout in Washington to keep people buying weapons. They love these types of tragedies, because gun sales always spike right after them. They feed off of them. They're not patriots (to be clear again, I'm not talking NRA members- I'm talking the NRA brass/management. I'm not attacking gun enthusiasts, that defeats the whole purpose of the conversation) they're salesmen. The NRA simply sell a product, and fear is their advertising message. And they're very, very good at it. And Rule 1 is shutting down discourse when it comes to any gun discussion. Why aren't gun shows faced with the same regulations as gun stores? A lot of NRA members I know don't understand why either. The answer is because sales would decrease.

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. Here we are. Again. Having the same meaningless debates that never change anything. Again. Until the next one happens. Again. Rinse and repeat.

"Destroy terrorism" is also not a policy, yet people keep saying "destroy terrorism instead of taking our guns.". It's a general term that can get a cheer at a rally and means absolutely nothing. Do we need to constantly re-examine our strategies for combating terrorism domestically and overseas? Of course we do. But that conversation requires specific details, minutia, context and knowledge, which is not the type of conversation that sells weapons or gets ad clicks on a website, so it's not part of the public discourse outside of "Crush them" or "America, F' Yeah!"

Gun control is also not the same as gun outlawing. And a background check and a license are not the same thing. A background check shows you ideally have no criminal history, mental illness or violent tendencies that would/should preclude you from owning a firearm. A license shows that you have a certain level of knowledge, expertise, training and responsibility to use that firearm in a way that is safe and won't endanger the lives of others. I had to pass a background check in order to get a license when carrying a weapon was an option where I used to work. I don't know if an outright ban on assault weapons would or would not drastically affect the number of mass shootings in the country, but closing the gun show loopholes, streamlining the background check process and initiating more consistent standards across the board would at least be a start in making this type of tragedy less likely/harder to commit.

We can't "prevent" this. Not totally. Not with 100% certainty. That's the truly heartbreaking part. But disavowing an option because it won't solve 100% of the problem is foolhardy. Seatbelts won't save 100% of the people in auto accidents. We still have them, because they can help. Let's start with 5%. 20%. 30%. Because those numbers aren't numbers. They're people. People that were here a few days ago and no longer are. Guns are not the sole reason for that. But to say they aren't the reason at all is insulting to the memories of those who were cut down by them.

WonderCon 2016

I've wanted to go to a ComicCon type event ever since I was aware that they existed. I had never been able to for many reasons that ultimately boil down to not being able to afford it combined with being way behind the curve as far as when the events were and when tickets went on sale. That all changed last week, as I went to WonderCon in Los Angeles on the three-day pass. To say I enjoyed it would be drastically underestimating the experience. I wasn't sure if I'd really have fun there beforehand, but I wanted to have that experience. Turns out that I had a ton of fun in a variety of different ways, not the least of which is that the event is basically a ton of creative people who are actively making stuff all congregating for a weekend to share their creative work and talk about creativity and pop culture. That's awesome and very inspiring to me.

And by "making stuff," I mean pretty much every type of creativity imaginable. From the cosplayers who put a lot of time and energy into assembling their outfits to novelists, comic book artists, screen writers, showrunners, wrestlers, actors, indie producers and others I'm not even remembering at the moment. The weekend was more than a chance to check out cool exhibits and pick up some fun souvenirs, though it certainly was that as well. It was a chance to stop, take a breath and enjoy all this creativity as a reminder of why I do what I do and live the life I live. I needed that brief time of getting out of my own head and just enjoying something. That's really important sometimes.

It was also a learning experience, as I made good use of the available panels to sit in with creatives from various industries to hear and talk about everything from crowdfunding to marketing strategy to finding creative inspiration. Waiting in line was never a big deal, because everyone was open to chatting and "Batman vs Superman" was a hot topic of conversation since it had just opened the previous Thursday night. It felt like a judgement-free zone where anyone could come and celebrate whatever the thing is that they loved without anyone throwing shade their way, and that's awesome. That spirit of acceptance is something the world definitely could use more of.

All the workers were friendly too, though none of them really knew anything about anything. Asking questions about any topic outside of where a particular room was located was bound to get you a blank stare and a shrug, which got a little frustrating at times. There were organizational problems, as they put RFID chips in the passes for the first time (I believe), and we had to scan in and out of locations. My card stopped working on the first day, as did many, and I was told I couldn't go anywhere else until it was fixed. That wasted about an hour. There were definitely snafus, but as an overall experience, I can't complain.

I left the convention a little early on Friday to go to Kawehi's concert in Hollywood, who is another artist I really admire and someone I really like as a person. It was a great show and it was fun catching up with her afterward, adding another special spark to a weekend that would be full of them. Then my latest "General Hospital" episode aired on Tuesday, which was cool to see. It's been a crazy week in a really good way. The Con experience is definitely something I'd love to do again next year when WonderCon returns to Anaheim. It's a longer drive, but I could still commute without having to deal with hotel costs.

Check one off the To-Do list. ;-) I still need to go skydiving, but that's a journey for another day.

Rousey vs. Holm

I've been asked by a few people about my thoughts on the Rousey/Holm fight. Many people have mentioned that Holm had much better footwork, but it's more specific than that. When an orthodox fighter matches up with a Southpaw (the right-handed Rousey against the left-handed Holm) the fighter with the lead leg on the outside of the other is in a better position to throw the power hand (Holm's left vs Rousey's right) down the middle and through the opponent's guard. That's a basic facet of boxing, and something Holm is very well aware of. Holm was using a lot of lateral movement, and when her right leg was outside of Rousey's left leg, she'd shoot the left hand lead down the center and through Rousey's guard, cracking her numerous times. With Rousey's lead leg on the inside much of the time, a lot of the effectiveness of her right hand is taken away, even if she was able to throw it much. She wasn't, because Holm wasn't about to stand still to let her do it. She'd throw the left hand, and then jab her way out of distance so Rousey couldn't counter.

Holm's never been a big puncher, but she planted her feet and sat down more on her punches than she usually does, and Rousey was amplifying Holm's punching power by stepping forward into the shots that Holm was throwing. Rousey's shown a good chin in the past, but that's never advisable. This was amplified by the fact that Ronda wasn't moving her head off the center line, meaning her head was stationary as she came forward, giving Holm a much easier target to hit. She tends to keep her chin up when throwing shots as well, which is a dangerous habit to get into. A tucked chin helps protect against a knockout shot. Holm also uses her punches to set up the head kick, so Ronda needed to keep her hands high to protect against that. The kick that knocked her out in the second round was from behind (I think she was badly dazed already), so she never saw it coming, and those are the shots that do the most damage because your nervous system has no time to prepare for the impact.

It's been said a lot, but is absolutely true: Ronda chasing Holm around the cage was a dangerous strategy, especially with the aforementioned footwork and lateral movement advantages that Holm had. After the first round, my thought was Ronda needed a lot more head movement. She needed to plant her feet as soon as Holm started moving away and wait for her. That's not how Ronda usually fights, but it would have made Holm have to change tactics. Stop, and make Holm come forward to her. When Holm comes forward, work leg kicks on the lead leg to nullify Holm's reach advantage (Rousey can reach Holm with a kick from a further distance away than she can a punch) and to take way Holm's speed and lateral movement over time. This gives Holm something else to worry about defending while also slowing her down, so Rousey could initiate the grappling exchanges that are to her greatest advantage. This would also conserve Ronda's energy, since she looked exhausted after round 1, and ideally wear down Holm because grappling for extended periods can suck the life out of fighters who haven't done it for as long as Rousey has.

End of the day, both are great champions who are great for the sport and for women advancing in it. If a rematch happens, it'll be a huge event that could break all sorts of records. Rousey's earned an extended break after the grind she's been on, and Holm has earned her place in the spotlight. Rousey has nothing to be ashamed of, but needs to make some major changes prior to a return, while Holm has finally realized the greatness that many were predicting for her when she first transitioned into MMA. Congrats to both of them, and I hope Ronda heals up quickly and can enjoy her life until such time when she decides to come back. (UFC 200?)

Oh, and this really isn't the biggest upset in UFC history, despite what ESPN says (not sure about betting odds, but as far as conventional wisdom before a fight...) Georges St. Pierre's knockout loss to Matt Serra for the Welterweight title likely still has that distinction.

My two, three or four cents. :-)

Sports, Trauma and the Big Lie

The New York Times recently published a thought-provoking piece asking if professional football will soon face a downturn in popularity due to its violence much like boxing did in the early 80s. I think that sets up a false premise, but it's a good read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/09/us/boxing-is-a-brutal-fading-sport-could-football-be-next.html

I have a lot of thoughts on a lot of issues raised here regarding boxing, football, ratings, risks and (lastly and most importantly) head trauma. (I don't know a lot in this life, but I know a lot about what little I know. :-) ) Stick with me here:

This is a fantastic piece that tackles a lot of important issues (watch the videos too), but I think it mixes its facts/messages a bit. It ties a downturn in boxing to the Mancini/Kim fight in 1982 when Kim unfortunately died, and states that boxing's violence turned viewers off. However, it ignores the massive media blitz, ratings increases and pay-per-view records set just a few years later in the late 80s/early 90s during the Mike Tyson era that garnered such attention specifically because of the violence that a Tyson fight promised. Tyson himself was downright deified because he was horribly violent both in and out of the ring, and the public/media loved it. (The glorification of awful people is a subject for another time.) Boxing got a lot of bad publicity (rightfully so) for its inherent danger and medical risks around the time of the Mancini/Kim bout, but what really killed the sport off from the mainstream was corruption, no centralized organization, shady promoters like Don King and so many weight classes and titles that the general pubic couldn't keep up with it. It wasn't because of the sport being too violent for public consumption, though sponsors did start distancing themselves more.

In the early days, boxing was attractive for TV networks because it was simple to understand and cheap to produce. One location (a ring), two guys, some gloves, a ref and you're good to go. As TV expanded, the viewing options for the public also expanded. Boxing didn't adapt well as the competition grew.

Thanks to the disorganization and corruption that wore out the patience of the general fan, boxing became a niche sport, with only select stars drawing mainstream attention, which is why the pay structure is so sharply skewed to a select few. (In this generation, your Mayweathers and Pacquiaos, for instance.)

When Mayweather and Pacquiao finally fought, what was the general consensus from the public? That the fight was boring. In other words, the fight wasn't violent enough to satisfy a majority of the people who paid money for it. Extreme violence has not been boxing's problem when it comes to lack of viewership and attention. If every fight delivered what you see in a "Rocky" movie, people would tune in by the millions.

I'm not a football fan, and I actually don't follow boxing all that much. But the NFL's problems regarding concussions right now I don't think are because of the violence/hits themselves that make the public queasy, as the article states. Clearly that's not the case. Ratings are higher than ever. The NFL's issue is the fact that they clearly knew about these risks many, many years ago and intentionally hid that information from the players and tried to discredit any research that brought concussion dangers to light. There's no way to justify that in my mind that isn't evil.

I don't think either boxing or football should be banned, as long as the people participating in it are fully aware of the medical risks. I'm a fan of the sport of mixed martial arts, and that carries concussion risks as well, though nowhere near as much as boxing statistically. (MMA statistically is rougher orthopedically on knees, shoulders, etc etc but boxing is much more dangerous for head trauma. In boxing, the sole goal is to knock out an opponent, and they have a ten count to get up after getting knocked down. In MMA, submissions/grappling are common, and the fight is supposed to end the second a fighter can't defend himself, with no ten second recovery period to continue fighting. This reduces the amount of head impact significantly when compared to boxing.)

CTE is a terrifying illness that still isn't fully understood. There's no doubt now that excessive violent blows to the head, regardless of the source (boxing, MMA, football, soccer, car accidents, whatever it may be) can cause serious issues such as depression, speech impediment, memory lapses and even forms of dementia. That's scary. Concussions are scary when they happen, especially at an early age. It feels like you've lost part of yourself that you aren't able to get back again. All it takes is one bad hit in the wrong spot at the wrong time to permanently change someone. One. If adults who are rightfully educated about those risks choose to partake in these types of activities, I have no problem with that since I'm a big believer in free will. But this is not really a violence issue as the article implies- it's a lying, manipulating and ethical abuse issue so rich people could get richer for a longer period of time. And that's the part that really is not okay.

Rant over.

Ronda Rousey and Tank Abbot

A friend asked me my opinion via social media recently about the recent story of former UFC fighter Tank Abbott challenging current UFC Women's Bantamweight Champion Ronda Rousey to a fight in the most misogynistic way possible. I think the less people pay attention to a person like Abbott, the better off the world is, in general. However, the issue also speaks to the larger debate about whether a male vs. female bout should ever be sanctioned, as many people have advocated for Rousey to start fighting men. I wrote a pretty lengthy reponse, at least by Facebook standards. Here's what I had to say about it:

First, a little bit of background on Tank Abbott: he made his name in the early days of the UFC, starting at UFC 6 around 1995. He was known for two things: having ferocious punching power, and being an absolute POS as a human being. That combination made him very popular among fans of that era, because they'd pay to see him either knock someone stiff, or get winded inside of two minutes and then get the hell beaten out of him. He was always a bully and got suspended for unprofessional conduct (ie fighting outside of an event) more than once. His last fight of any relevance was 2008, where he got knocked out by a guy he was hand-picked to lose to. (It wasn't a fixed fight, Tank just had nothing at that point and was in it for the paycheck.) He's now 50 years old, likely broke, and hasn't been taken seriously in well over a decade. He's essentially using what little name recognition he has left (outside of early UFC fans) to troll the Internet to try to get some attention. Rousey's an elite athlete and dominant champion who is genuinely accomplished, while Tank is a glorified barroom brawler who is trying to use her name to promote himself. He's not worth any time or attention from her.

On the larger issue of male vs female fights, I've always found the argument for them odd. I'm not a tennis fan, but I've certainly heard of the Williams sisters. I've never heard anyone try to say they need to now take on men in tennis to prove how good they are. (Maybe some have said that, but I've never heard it.) The fact that people make that argument for a combat sport is absurd. I think the larger issue is it shows some of the misogyny that permeates society in general and sports in particular in that people keep trying to move the goal posts before giving Rousey credit for her success. "Well, she won an Olympic medal, but she can't really fight." "Well, she's undefeated as a fighter, but hasn't beaten anyone good." "Well, she's beaten the best in her weight division in under two minutes total, but could she beat a dude?"

It's absurd. I don't think a male vs female fight is ever anything that should be considered, regardless of who is involved. (For the record, Ronda would probably beat the holy hell out of Tank- she's an elite athlete while he was ridiculously out of shape twenty years ago and couldn't defend an armbar in his prime, but what's the point?)

Luckily, Ronda also agrees with that viewpoint, stating that while she believes she could beat anybody, it sends the wrong message to start promoting male/female violence, and I whole-heartedly agree. Nobody tells Mayweather he needs to fight a heavyweight fighter to really prove himself, so people clamoring for Rousey to fight a guy to somehow gain credibility says more about their limited and ignorant worldview than it does of any shortcomings of Rousey as a fighter, athlete or person.

That's my two cents.

Coming Soon to Your TV...

I'll be on the television several times over the next month or so. First, on Friday, June 12, I have the lead role in a re-airing of "Devil in the Details" at 9am EST/Pacific. The episode title is "If I had a Hammer." After that, I have a small role in a new episode of "Tabloid" on Saturday, June 13th at 7pm in an episode entitled "Love You to Death." (Haven't seen it, so I'm not sure how much I'm in the episode. It's a different episode/role from what I did in Season 1.) Finally, my episode of "Blood Relatives" entitled "Bonney Case" will be debuting towards the end of June/beginning of July as of now, though I don't have the specific date yet. I play 'Detective Williams' on that one, and all three air on Investigation Discovery. (ID.)

Biggest Fight Ever?

This weekend will end up in the annals of sports and boxing history when perennial pound-for-pound pugilists Floyd Mayweather Jr. (47-0, 26 KOs) and Manny Pacquiao (57-5-2, 38 KOs) finally step foot in the same ring at the same time. I don't follow modern boxing all that closely, as the politics, the ridiculous number of titles/weight classes and the inherent corruption in a lot of the decision-making has largely turned me off of watching all but the biggest fights. That said, I know what I'm looking at and have tremendous respect for the technique, discipline and heart that boxing requires. (I'm still much more of an MMA fan, but boxing is far more dangerous to a fighter's health in the long-run due to the larger number of concussive blows to the head per fight.)

While not following the sport, I fully understand the magnitude of a Pacquiao/Mayweather fight.  While it pales to what the fight could have been four or five years ago, this will still easily be the highest grossing bout in the history of everything. (Especially with the asking price of $100 on PPV.) It is unlikely to be topped anytime soon, unless something wacky happens that perpetuates a rematch that garners even more mainstream attention. While I don't for a second deny this is the biggest fight ever in terms of box-office, it is far from the biggest fight in terms of importance, cultural relevance or long-term implications. Anyone saying otherwise needs to go back a few decades in history to March 8th, 1971. 

"The Fight of the Century", or "The Fight" as it later got shortened to, was not labeled as such out of hyperbole. The main event on that historic evening in Madison Square Garden featured two undefeated heavyweights, both with legitimate claims to the Heavyweight Championship, colliding to determine who the undisputed champ really was. If that had been all of the context, Mayweather/Pacquiao could possibly lay claim to equal stakes. But this night in 1971 was still during the era of the Vietnam War. This was the night that Muhammad Ali faced off against Joe Frazier for the first time.

The two would have three fights against each other, with the first and third bouts hailed as classics. The third fight in particular is considered even today to be perhaps the most brutal and thrilling heavyweight fight of all time. But nothing could match the stakes going into the first fight politically, racially or socioeconomically. Ali had been stripped of his title three years earlier for refusing to be drafted into the Vietnam War. During that time, he became one of the most hated and divisive personalities in America, though opinion started to turn as the war dragged on and Ali became a cultural hero to many. Frazier was instrumental in getting Ali his boxing license back, using his influence as the new champion to petition President Nixon to let Ali back in the ring. He also loaned Ali money and helped keep him afloat during the three years of exile.

Once Ali was reinstated, all was forgotten. Ali openly mocked Frazier, focusing on racial attacks by calling Frazier a white man's champion. (Frazier had financial backing from a wealthy group of predominantly white businessmen in Philadelphia.) While Frazier had grown up destitute, working the fields in Beaufort, South Carolina  before relocating to Philadelphia as a teenager and learning to box, Ali had grown up in an upper middle class family in Kentucky and had never really had to work a day in his life outside of boxing. While Frazier was the greater exemplification of struggle in the racially-divided South, Ali changed the narrative leading up to "The Fight" by proclaiming himself as the true representative of Black America and Frazier as the epitome of an uneducated "Uncle Tom." Ali even attended KKK rallies with other members of the Black Muslims to preach segregation. (The two factions had similar goals, so they actually worked together and had strategy meetings, in the very definition of irony.)

It was ugly, ugly stuff. I'm just really giving the broad strokes, but the press and the public bit on all of the prefight propaganda. Ali/Frazier 1 was not just about the Heavyweight Championship of the World. It was about the Vietnam War. The Draft. Religious Freedom. (Ali's primary reason/defense against serving in Vietnam was that the war was against his beliefs as a Muslim.) The strong racial divide in America. (Most African-Americans seemed to be rooting hard for Ali going into the fight, while their Caucasian counterparts were backing Frazier as the real champion.) In the middle of all of it were two undefeated champions, two Olympic gold medalists, and two very different personalities that would come to define each other for the rest of their individual lives. (Frazier passed in 2011.)

Pacquiao vs. Mayweather may be five years too late, but it'll still be a historic fight. Hopefully, for the athletes and the fans involved, it will be an exciting and thrilling fight. But it is no "Fight of the Century." It could be the fight of THIS century, but hopefully there will never again be a time of such unrest, hatred and turmoil that so many political and racial agendas are at stake in a sporting event. To quote Wikipedia, and the documentary it is taking the information from:

"The fight became an extension of the strife that existed within the country, as Ali had become a symbol of the left-wing anti-establishment movement during his government-imposed exile from the ring,[8] while Frazier, as a matter of convenience, was adopted by the conservative, pro-war movement. According to the 2009 documentary Thriller in Manila, the match, which had been dubbed "The Fight", "gripped the nation, but also split it down the middle. If you were rooting for Ali you were black, liberal or young, against Vietnam and for the Civil Rights movement. If you backed Joe Frazier you were a representative of white, conservative America."[9] "Just listen to the roar of this crowd!" thundered Burt Lancaster, the play-by-play man. "The tension, and the excitement here, is monumental!"[10] The Fight was one of the most anticipated events of the 20th century, and transcended boxing.[5]"

Ali and Frazier made history together. Frazier won the first fight by decision, flooring Ali in the last round with a left hook. Ali won the second bout with a lot of clinching in a slow bout. The end of the absolutely brutal third fight had Frazier's right eye swollen shut. Only he and his trainer knew that Frazier was legally blind in his left eye following a training accident years earlier, so Joe was fighting mostly without sight over the last few rounds. As the 15th round was supposed to begin, trainer Eddie Futch refused to let Joe come out to finish the fight even as Frazier demanded that the fight continue. In the other corner, Ali was demanding that HIS corner stop the fight, as he was simply too exhausted to continue. The referee saw Futch waiving the fight off, and Ali was the victor. Frazier had broken Ali's will, but Ali had won the contest.

No matter what happens on Saturday, Mayweather and Pacquiao will never define each other in the public consciousness the way Ali and Frazier did. It's simply a different world. So whenever anyone talks about Saturday's bout as the "biggest fight ever," lets tip our collective hats to the two guys who paved the way for them through one of the darker times in American history.

Nope, Still Not Dead. But Thanks for Asking...

I first found this website about a year or two ago:

http://www.isxdead.com/person/170274/Dave%20Michael%20Beaudrie

I am very amused by this.

To clear the air: I was not born in 1991. (But thanks for the compliment, I suppose...)

I have not, in fact, had any kind of lasting impact on popular culture. (But thanks for the compliment, I suppose...)

I am not famous. (But thanks for the...ah, to hell with it...)

And to the apparently 200 people who believed otherwise (though I find it hard to believe more than 5 actual living people walking on this Earth actually ever clicked on this voting option) I am not actually dead.

Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.

Walking into a Bar With a Lightsaber

So, I'm playing "Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga" for the first time on the 360, because I'm an adult who leads an awesome life. However, I was expecting some sort of tutorial about how to actually play the game upon starting it up. (Manuals? Those are SO 1980s...)

No go. I find myself in the Mos Eisley Cantina with no clue on what to do or how to do it. I start randomly hitting buttons, and a lightsaber appears in my hand. (I am Lego Liam Neeson, and I apparently have a particular set of skills...)

So far, so good...

With no idea of what else to do, I start hitting more buttons and simply slaughter everyone in the Cantina around me. As a result, some Lego-ites start shooting at me. That's okay. They're dead too.

I feel like this kind of makes me an awful person. Liam has joined the Dark Side.

Good thing the Cantina contains the most wretched hive of scum and villainy...

Time to read the manual...

The Low Budget Scene Shop

The Low Budget Scene Shop was an idea I had a while back when I first got my own video camera. The idea was to have some fun by writing scenes designed to be shot simply, and enlist friends/talented people that I've always wanted to work with. A lot of indie projects die out because of lack of funding or resources, so these are designed to be completed using whatever resources we have. If we have access to a hi-def cam, we use it. If we don't, we use my trusty handicam. It's all about working with cool people and telling fun stories. That's it.

There's only one currently posted on the YouTube channel ("Negotiate"), which was a monologue scene done as a test. I wish there were more posted, but that doesn't mean the project died off. There are multiple LBSS projects in various stages of production that should be coming to an Internet near you.

"Pedestrian Crossing" was written and directed by John King, who I first did a play with a few years ago. We had also previously collaborated on the "Cute Kitten Company" web series a while back, writing six episodes for it. "Pedestrian Crossing" features the two of us at a crosswalk, and hijinks ensues. It is currently being edited. John's a really talented actor and writer. He also rocks a flair-filled vest like no other... :-)

John also played a role in "Stakeout", another scene that's currently in the sound design stage. The scene also features Kevin Thomsen, who I first met on a set a while ago. He also has a group of peeps he does skits and scenes with, so we help each other out whenever we can. Christy Siebert plays a main role, and we first met on a shoot for the show "Vegas" where we were part of the entourage for the guest star. It was a fun three days, and we kept in contact after that. When the first Low Budget Scene Shop production "Negotiate" hit YouTube and I described the concept behind the whole thing, Christy immediately hit me up and wanted to collaborate on something, which was awesome. We came up with something that I'm really proud of, and the rough cut's really funny. We couldn't have gotten it show without the help from Tony Konopski and Cody Murray, who supplied equipment and manpower to help us get it shot. They are both slated to appear in an untitled scene that is in the writing stage, and is likely the next scene to be shot Kevin should be appearing in that as well.

The score and sound design on "Stakeout" is being done by Dave Beukers, who I first worked with on "The Miracle Man."  Dave's a brilliant composer who also did the music and sound for "Negotiate," so I can't wait to see what he comes up with here.

Another scene that's been edited together and is awaiting some post-production work is "Baller", which co-stars Jeremy Roberts. Jeremy's been a friend of mine for years, and I always wanted to work with him on something, so this gave us the platform to finally do so. I'm really happy with it thus far, and it was another that couldn't have come together without the help of Kevin and Tony.

There's another scene that's fully written, but won't be shot until after the untitled scene with Kevin, Cody and Tony gets shot. I want to get some of these others through the pipeline and posted before moving forward on it so we don't have too much of a traffic jam.

So that's what the "Low Budget Scene Shop" is. A small sandbox that I can play in with people I respect whose company I enjoy to do some fun work. It's all coming to a (small) screen near you...

The Low Budget Scene Shop

Let's Get the Party Started

There's no real rhyme of reason with the blog page. Basically, I'll use it to talk about whatever's on my mind at any given point, and it may or may not be related to the entertainment industry. No real rule on when posts will appear, but I'll definitely put an update on the Home page when something goes live, and I'll use Twitter, FB and all that jazz as well to let people know so there's no surprises. I'll update regularly too, so this doesn't get too stagnant. I appreciate anyone taking the time to look at it.

If anyone has any questions or topics they want to see me go into, hit me up on the Contact page, or leave a comment in the blog and I'll do my best to accommodate. I do want this to be fun and interactive for anyone who wants to play along. As it stands right now, it's 2:30am, and the domain name is still propagating, or doing whatever it takes domain names 72 hours to do to properly link to a new site, so my immediate agenda is getting some sleep. Exciting, huh? Check out the gallery and the video section when you get a chance. After all, you've come this far, right?

The Video Vault has a pretty eclectic mix of things I've worked on, and I'll update it regularly as well. If you want to see me act in films, TV shows, music videos or co-host a show critiquing pro-wrestling events (that IS why all of you are here, isn't it? Hello? Bueller? Bueller?), that's the place to do it.

G'night cruel world. ;-)

This is a Test

This is a test of the Emergency Broadcast System. Basically, I just want to make sure this is working properly. Once I know for sure, actual, legitimate content is sure to follow. For now, this is only a test.