The combination of having my radio job (which is going gangbusters, thank you very much), my comedy shows and my constant sitting at this computer has contributed to the fact that I am about 50 pounds heavier than I would like to be.

You know, I began two things at the age of 6 -- performing on stage (I was known for my singing back then) and doing martial arts.  Well, I'm still performing on stage (and thank God for the holiday season when I can do a bunch of it), but I haven't done martial arts since the new millennium kicked off.

Things have changed now.  I enrolled in Aikido on Monday.  Now, I have black belts in five styles of martial arts (my highest being 7th Dan in Tae Kwon Do), but Aikido is not one of them.

When I walked into that Dojo Monday, I felt like singing Bon Jovi's "Who Says You Can't Go Home?"  I felt like I was home.  When I stepped onto that mat for the first time, it was like stepping on stage.  I just wanted to soak in my surroundings, savor the moment, enjoy the energy.  It was GREAT!

Then the work began and the muscles that have atrophied for the past six years began to scream.  They stretched, they flexed, they shook with overexertion (today they ache), but it felt GREAT!

Today, I'm moving like a man 10 years my senior, but I feel GREAT!  I feel alive again!  I missed it so much.

Here's the funny part.  All the while I was training my son (and even my wife, who was my student before I quit teaching in 2000), I had plenty of "When I was a student..." stories.  They could never really be more than stories because I was no longer a student.  I had reached the highest rank I could test for.  Now, I am a student again and it feels GREAT!

Now I can SHOW them what I was like as a student.  It's a lot different when you take off that black belt and put on a white one.  What a feeling of freedom.  I'm rolling with my new gang and loving every minute of it.  See you on the mat.

The bottomline:

You can't be a good leader unless you're first a good follower.

This morning my wife and kids, 3 and 4 years old, stopped by an ATM to withdraw $700.  This turned out to be a magical number it seems.  My wife had gone to a drive-through ATM, punched in the correct numbers and was waiting as the cash machine whirred.  In the meantime her attention was drawn to the back of the car where my daughter and our dog were having an "incident."  When my wife turned back around there was a black man in a black sweatshirt standing outside her window.  He was wearing a fanny pack, pulled around to the front.

When my wife saw the man she was of course startled.  His words to her were:  "Withdraw $600 or I'll shoot them."  He was obviously indicating my kids and pointed to the butt of a gun protruding from his waistband.  My wife said, "There, take it," pointing to the $700 in the ATM and drove off in a hurry, never looking back.  She did the right thing.  I'm proud of her for being cool-headed and getting out of there safely.

So, here's the deal.  First, if anyone knows anything about this guy call the Fairfield police department.

Secondly, I could care less about the money.  I can always make more money, but I could never replace my wonderful wife and kids.  This just gave me one more thing to be thankful for on Thanksgiving.

Last, but I assure you NOT least.  To the cowardly bastard that threatened my family.  You had better hope I never run across you because if I do ... well, let's just say you had better shoot me from a distance because I WILL take that gun away from you and manually insert each and every bullet by hand.  I am all about saving the taxpyers the money that would have to be spent on a jury trial.  I prefer good old-fashioned American Indian justice.  Oh, it may not be short (though you'll wish it was), but it will be sweet.

The bottomline:

A human being is the only animal you can skin ... more than once.

I think one of the funniest things you can possibly watch on television is anything that has to do with ghost busters, paranormal investigations or exploring the "unexplained."  You just can't beat this kind of comedy.

Here's the setting I watched tonight:  a group of self-professed experts in a field that you cannot define let alone qualify someone as an expert in set out to explore the supernatural happenings at Alcatraz.  Of course the voice over is always done by some British chick with an annoying accent who takes everything way too seriously.

You'd think that if you tout yourself as a paranormal investigator, you wouldn't jump at every little snap, crackle or pop.  These people must be fun to watch eat cereal.  It seems to me that the only qualification you have to have to be a paranormal "investigator" is the ability to detect cold spots.  A healthy set of lungs for screaming is also most likely a prerequisite.

I have to say that this show is not nearly as funny as watching "Sci Fi Investigates" on the Sci-fi channel.  Part of the crew of "investigators" on this show includes reality-show jerk-extraodinare, Rob Mariano ("Survivor" and "The Amazing Race").  His only claim to fame is proving himself a total idiot on those two shows.  Other than that, he has no discernable talent or appeal at all.  He is, however, advertised as one of the specialists on the show.  They investigate paranormal happenings (even if they've already been explained away by credible researchers) and ALWAYS, I mean ALWAYS believe they are true.

I have got to get into this action.  C'mon, if an American Indian shaman from Roswell, New Mexico, isn't qualification enough to make me an expert UFOlogist, what is?

The bottomline:

Watch for "SpiritWalking into the Paranormal" coming to cable soon.

As many of you know (and you would if you've followed my blogs for any length of time or have known me personally for any length of time), I love game shows.

I have actually applied to get on the show "Survivor" on more than one occasion.  I audtioned for "Nashville Star."  I even applied for a reality show that hasn't even aired its first episode yet, so I'll keep that to myself.

The only show that has been interested in me contacted me first.  They offerred me $25,000 to come on the show.  I was ready to talk a deal, but then found out that your children had to be more than 6 years old.  My youngest turns 3 tomorrow.  So, that didn't work out.

Tonight I have a new goal.  It is the new game show (so new I watched the third episode just tonight), "1 vs. 100."  Okay, Howie Mandell's "Deal or No Deal" is also appealing, but it's mostly a luck thing.  I'm looking for the intelligent approach to making my money.

In "1 vs. 100," a contestant (the 1) is pitted against a mob (the 100) and must answer questions correctly.  Each question is worth a certain amount of points and how ever many of the mob get it wrong, that question's value is multiplied by the number of wrong answers and two things happen:  the product of that calculation is added, in dollars, to your winnings, and the number of people who got it wrong are eliminated from the mob.  You then have the chance to take the money or face the remaining mob members for another question.  If you eliminate the entire mob, you win $1 million.

This show is also hosted by a comedian, Bob Saget, who is looking old, I must say, but aren't we all?  Ever notice how many comedians get this type of work?

Maybe the reason this game appeals to me is because it's a lot like doing comedy.  When you're on stage, it's you against the mob.

I remember working with Steve McGrew one time and the audience was especially mob-like.  Before the show, Steve came up to me and said crowds like this make you feel like a boxer.  He said when he steps on stage in front of an audience like this the only thing that goes through his mind is, "All right, you wanna fight?  Let's do it!" 

Yep, it's just like that.

The bottomline:

You don't have to be the smartest person in the world; you just have to be the smartest person in the room.

Not long ago, though it seems like a lifetime now, I was the master instructor of a chain of martial arts schools.  As the instructor in charge of curriculum, I wrote a lot of the philosophy to be taught.  I think that living the fearless life requires that we look over some of those teachings, and so I present the first two rules in my "Guide to Conflict Resolution."

Rule #1
Victory is ONLY Accomplished by Harmony

This can be victory in any area of life, not just physical victory when attacked.  To live the fearless life means seeking harmony in all matters, verbal as well as physical.  Harmony within overcomes disharmony without.

Rule #2
Surface Problems are NEVER the result of Surface Causes

Surface Problems are the manifestation of Surface Causes, which are the outward result of inward Root Problems, which result from inward Root Causes.  In other words, don't attempt to correct the Surface Problem, find and correct the Root Cause.

Here are a few examples (only a partial list) for each category just to give you an idea of what I'm talking about:

Surface Problems:  Illness, wrong priorities, financial problems, lying stealing, cheating and arguing.  These problems are visible to other people.  Sometimes it is clear what the deeper problems are and sometimes the visible manifestation is very deceiving.

Surface Causes:  Insecurity, worry, anger, envy, jealousy and tension.  These casues are experienced within the emotions and may not be outwardly identifiable or are confusing to identify.

Root Problems:  Greed for money and/or possessions.  This problem is actually at the source of multitudes of surface problems and surface causes.  When this is resolved many surface problems and surface causes are also resolved.

Root Causes:  Pride, self-importance and condescension.  These causes all result from the fact that we often think more highly of ourselves than we ought.

As a profesisonal comedian, I should like to add a tag to this session.  Over the past months I've watched a war of words on several comedy boards online.  Comedians fighting over territory and who has the credentials to do what.  In every single case, bar none, you can trace the conflict back to the Root Cause -- we think more is due to us than actually is -- pride, self-importance and condescension.  They're all there.

Why do we let the petty things in life control so much of the important areas of our lives?  Conflict resolution doesn't start by trying to identify your "opponent's" Root Cause, it begins by identifying your own.  Fix yourself and nothing else will matter -- see rule #1.

The bottomline:

Don't sweat the petty stuff and don't pet the sweaty stuff.

I'm sure you've heard:  "It's not what you said; it's how you said it."

This simple statement brings to light the fact that, though most arguments are caused by misunderstandings, it's the motivation behind our words that people are judging.

Internet transmissions (e-mails, IMs, postings) are the worst.  There is absolutely no way to determine the "way" someone says something online, therefore, we project onto those words the vocal tonality and inflection we ourselves imagine.  This produces more misunderstandings and leads to more heated arguments than you will ever experience in real life.

Let me string this together with a question:  Has anyone ever apologized for something they did, but you didn't trust in their apparent sincerity?  Sure.  That's happened to all of us.  Why is that?

I'll give you one simple answer:  It's not what they said, but how they said it that offended you.  In other words, the why they said it is more important than the what.

Put the shoe on the other foot.  Have you ever apologized to someone and it didn't do any good whatsoever?  Sure.  That's happened to all of us, too.  We're all pretty much the same, you know.

I would like to offer a solution to this conundrum.  The next time you feel the need to apologize, DO NOT apologize for what you did.  After all, apologizing for what you did, will not prevent you from doing that again.  This is why most people who don't accept your apology don't accept your apology.  Instead, apologize for your attitude toward them.

Let's say I said something mean-spirited to my friend, Dave.  Later I begin to feel remorse, so I approach him and say, "I'm sorry.  I shouldn't have said that.  I won't do that again."

Does he feel better?  No.  What's going to stop you from saying something like that again when you're upset?

How about this:  "Dave, I'm sorry for snapping at you and calling you an idiot, but more than that I'm sorry for even thinking that.  Lately, I haven't been treating you fairly because I've been sort of jealous of your talents.  I really felt like you were a threat to me and that caused me to have a bad attitude toward you.  I'm sorry for that more than anything.  From now on I'm going to do my best to see you as someone to admire and not be intimidated by.  I hope we can still be friends."

Isn't that much better?  You've given ol' Dave some things to work with, some things to think over.  It also means that you must delve into why you said what you said and give your true apology some thought.  Dave may even decide to confess that he's had a bad attitude toward you and has been trying to one-up you this whole time.

You want to live a fearless life?  You can't be afraid of relationships on any level.

The bottomline:

Place loyalty above everthing.

They (There's that "they" again) often say that wisdom comes "out of the mouth of babes," but I also think that living the fearless life can be seen "through the eyes of babes."  No, not those kinds of babes.  I mean children.

To be child-like is true pleasure

At my age, it's not always easy to be child-like.  Let me stipulate right up front that there is a difference between being child-like and being childish.  The latter is easy, and quite frequently exhibited, but to be child-like is hard work.

If you want to see child-like in its purest form, study children.  I'm fortunate to have a 2-year-old (almost 3) and a 4-year-old who supply me with endless examples to follow.  However, I have to admit that it was my wife's child-like qualities that attracted me to her in the first place.

Examples of my wife's child-like virtues are plentiful, but let me share a couple to get the ball rolling.

The first time I took her to my home state of New Mexico was wonderful.  She is California born and raised and has only been out of the state to visit relatives in Germany.  Therefore, she had no clue what "America" is all about.  Believe me, if you've lived in Calfiornia all of your life, you have no idea either.  California is a foreign country compared to the rest of the USA.  I've been fortunate to experience a lot -- having lived in 10 different states from north to south and east to west.

So, we're in New Mexico, driving around in a convertible.  We literally drove over most of the state in a week.  At one point we hit some huge lava fields.  My wife insisted I pull over on the side of the road and let her run through the lava fields.  So, she ran.  I drove along the road as she ran like a school girl, leaping rocks and laughing.  She had the look of pure joy on her face and got back in the car completely fulfilled.

One of her dreams has always been to see "Tara," the house from "Gone With the Wind."  So, when I had the opportunity to take her to Georgia, that was first on our list.  The problem was, it was winter and there was snow on the ground.  Did that deter her?  Not in the least.  I kept the car running while she ran around and around that house.  It was closed for the off-season, but she enjoyed every minute of it.  I followed her, in the car with the heater on, all the way around as she bounded like a newborn deer through the snow and ice to see her dream house.

I've pulled over on the side of the road so she could chase an armadillo in Louisiana, watched her unbridled wonder while strolling through the grounds of the Alamo in San Antonio, and most of all watched her bravely attempt to scrape the meat from the inside of a hide my father had just removed from a deer (that was something my father talked endlessly about until the day he died).  We still have that pelt.  It is a trophy to her ability to become a "country girl."

I could write for days about her adventures in Arizona, when I took her to a dude ranch for our honeymoon.  That's right, our honeymoon.  She had only been on a horse once or twice in her life, but we rode and herded cattle all week.  The ranch hands were ready to hire her.  She really got good at it, and loved every minute of it.

I envy her ability to flow with her child-like emotions.  If she were not enough, our 4-year-old daughter is a miniature version of her mother.  So, I am surrounded by mentors in this endeavor.

If I could master the simplest of these reactions to my environment, I would be the richer for it.  And, so I try.

I caught my daughter, just yesterday, digging through her stuff after having come in from outside.  I asked her what she was doing as she pulled a long scarf from her belongings.  She turned and stated, matter-of-factly, "Looking for a scarf for my (stuffed) rabbit.  He's weird."

To be child-like is indeed to live the fearless life.

The bottomline:

"I know sometimes I am in my own little world, but that's okay, they know me there."  -- Joel Hodgson

I've always considered myself a realist (I say always, but actually it's only been since I matured and developed as a human being).

Having voted on both sides of the aisle in elections and being one who examines the merits of candidates outside of their political affiliations, I've always tried to dive below the surface and ferret out fact from fiction.

When people ask me what a realist is, I almost always have to fall back on this analogy:

A pessimist sees the glass as half empty; an optimist sees the glass as half full; a realist asks: How big is the glass?  What's in the glass?  Is the volume in the glass useful at this point?

In other words a realist never accepts the premise at face value, he or she questions the premise and then makes a decision based upon the input.  In order to make correct decisions, one must ask appropriate questions and gather accurate information on which to base said decision.

It is said that we make three decisions per second:  1) what we're going to concentrate on for that second; 2) what we think about what we're concentrating on; and 3) what to do next or about what we just concentrated on.

You'd think that with all of that practice making decisions we'd be good at it, but we're not.  Why?

Let's bust a myth, shall we?

Practice does NOT make perfect;
Perfect practice makes perfect.

If you practice anything incorrectly, you do not get better at it.  We must be taught to practice correctly.

Let's say I'm at a poker table, where making the correct decision means making or losing money.  The person in front of me bets out $1,000.  I need to ask myself three questions:  1) Why did he or she bet that much? 2) What does he or she expect to get me to do by betting that much? and 3) How can I ruin his or her plan?  See how each of those questions corresponds to the three decisions I make each second.

In other words, in every situation in life adjust your thinking, and therefore your questions, accordingly.  Practice it.  Perfect it.  It will serve you well.

The bottomline:

If you learn by the mistakes of others, you can often avoid making them yourself.

Aspiring to be the new Socrates is a goal of mine (sans the hemlock cocktail, of course).  Socrates dared to stand up and say that we shouldn't accept everything we hear just because it comes from a "higher authority."  His unique style of skepticism was dubbed Socratic dialogue.

Employing Socratic dialogue means to probe beneath the surface of a stated "fact."  Socrates found that if you ask enough questions, you'll get to the root of the matter.  I'll explain this further when I get to the portion of my writings on surface problems vs. root causes, but I don't want to get too far ahead of myself at this point.

Let's just say that things like the scare over global warming is a good example of when you should use Socratic dialogue.

The world, in general, is prone to knee jerk reactions based on the "findings" (and I use the term loosely) of a handful of agenda-motivated "scientists."

Of course anyone who asks enough questions and probes the depths of this subject will find out quickly that the mass hysteria over global warming is full of holes and completely driven by political forces.  One simple fact is that this theory cannot explain how the Earth has been warming and cooling for the millions of years scientists believe the Earth had existed before Man appeared on the scene.  But, don't confuse the diehard believers with the facts.

The funniest thing to me is that believers in this theory are now starting to blame cows for punching holes in the ozone layer with their methane emmissions.  They've even gone so far as to propose cows be fitted with "mufflers" to filter the gasses expelled by these environmentally un-friendly bovines.  No wonder they're mad -- the cows, I mean.

Nevermind that the only major hole in the ozone layer is over the Arctic, where nary a cow resides.

I'm going to tell you the simple way to begin a Socratic dialogue -- follow the money trail.

Smoking is hazardous to your health, and you know the government is concerned with that, but instead of outlawing a product they see as dangerous, they tax it more heavily.  Follow the money.

Right now they're trying to ban Internet gamling.  Or are they?  They're passing a bill that will keep U.S. banks from making transactions to online gambling sites, but why do it that way?  Follow the money.  I can just as easily use PayPal, which is an offshore business, to do the same thing.  This bill will simply make it so that the U.S. government can locate and tax businesses like this for doing business in the U.S.  Follow the money.

The government does not care about your health or your so-called gambling addiction (if they did, they would outlaw lotteries); they care about the money.  This trail will always lead you down the Socratic dialogue path.

The bottomline:

There are three ways of doing things:  The right way, the wrong way, and the government's way.

"But remember this:  emotions are not evidence, feelings are not facts, and subjective beliefs are not substantive beliefs." -- Steven Schafersman in An Introduction to Science.

Truer words have never been spoken by a scientist before.  It was this statement that prompted me to compose a simple test for those of us who aspire to critical thinking instead of just following the herd.  See, we tend to believe scientists.  Why?  They're smarter than we are, aren't they?  Don't they know more than we do?  Haven't they fully proven something before they state it as fact, and can't I then just accept it as fact?  Oddly enough what they know more of than we do is that they know less than they tell us.

Only recently the Smithsonian updated their exhibit for the animal I was told in grade school was a triceritops.  It's called something else now, but that's not important.  Here's the rub.  For 50 years the skeleton of creature was on display in the Smithsonian, and for 50 years the skeleton was composed of more than 50 different animal bones.  That's right -- more than 50.  The exact number is not known because the bones weren't important.  Only the shape of the creature was important.  Okay, so they have it right now?  No.  What they did was make a plaster representation of the "correct" bones and put the animal back up anew.  How did they know what the real bones look like if they have NEVER recovered a complete skeleton?  As the man in charge put it, "We took an educated guess."

That's the best science can do most of the time and YET, we take it as fact.  Let's review:  "...subjective beliefs are NOT substantive beliefs..."  The FACT is, we don't know what this animal looked like, we're guessing and then teaching our children our subjective beliefs as if they were facts.

With that background, here's the test to see if you can even handle critical thinking.  I'll begin with this inflamatory statement:  Evolution and "Intelligent Design" are both theories and equal in weight; both require faith to believe; both are religions.

Recently two men won Nobel prizes for "proving" the Big Bang.  I won't go into detail, but they proved nothing actually, they just agreed with the popular theory and put new Xs and Os in the appropriate places.  The fact is, evolution can't be proven scientifically.  In order to prove something scientifically one of three things must happen:  1) It must be an observable event (it's not); 2) It must happen more than once (it hasn't); which leaves 3) It must be reproducable in a controled environment (strike three).

You can't prove that George Washington lived "scientifically."  That fact can only be proven historically.

Here's the bottomline of the debate over evolution vs. Intelligent Design.  Scientists (some scientists, not all) tell us that there was once a super dense ball of matter that exploded and caused everything you see today.  Okay, we'll accept that for now.  Here's the question:  Where did it come from?  They don't know, I don't know, we don't know.  The Intelligent Design people tell us that once there was only God and that He created everything that we see today.  Okay, we'll accept that premise for now.  Here's the question:  Where did He come from?  They don't know, I don't know, we don't know.  The fact that neither question can be answered gives both theories equal weight in the belief category.  You either believe in eternal matter or an eternal God.  Both require faith.

Okay, this post has gone on long enough, but there is so much to say.  I will return to the subject another time as we continue our critical thinking exercises.  But, you have to admit:  It's hard not to let preconceived beliefs completely shut out any discussion by the "other side," isn't it?

The bottomline:

The more we learn, the more we learn that we don't know much.