,

How good Bruce Lee really was?

For anyone, who has been infatuated with martial arts (and martial art movies of course) for a considerable length of time in their life, that's the question that's been in the air in the past 50 years and it might linger on for another couple of decades still. Was Bruce really the greatest martial artist who ever lived? Was he unbeatable? Or let's leave the quasi-philosophical pretense and get down to Earth: could he beat Muhammad Ali? Or Mike Tyson? 

I like the latter formulation of the question. It appeals to a mind who likes to wonder - Ali and Tyson being perhaps the two most iconic pugilists in the popular imagination with a real track record who in their prime had an aura of invincibility - and it's something tangible at the same time. A question that could have been answered. Whereas "was he the greatest martial artist?" - meh. What does that even mean? 

Another form of the question would be, pedestrian but valid: would Bruce be a UFC champion today?

I'll give a short answer and a longer one.

Short answer: size

The short answer is that Bruce Lee weighed 145 lbs and Ali did 236. Tyson 220. Any more questions? But let's elaborate.

Not a single boxer or wrestler ever became a world champion in a weight category 80 lbs over his own. Not even close. 20 pounds extra is considered to be an advantage almost impossible to compensate for between professional fighters, no matter who we are talking about.

Perhaps, Bruce was a once-in-a-millenium type of human specimen who could have overcome an obstacle not one of the many thousands of fighters could in the era of television. But until someone points to a boxing/MMA match where a lightweight opponent won against the best of the heavyweight division, I remain proportionally skeptical.


Long answer: not only size but almost everything else, too

Giving the fight to Ali or Tyson simply on the merit of their size would be selling them short. They weren't just lumbering behemoths with sledgehammer hands. Both men were lightning fast (which was an especially scary sight in the case of the tank-like Tyson), incredibly talented, and skilled enough to tower over the rest of the world-class fighters of their respective eras. 

And at the risk of committing blasphemy in the eyes of the converted, even without the size difference, I can't imagine that Bruce Lee, who had only 4 years of formal training in an obscure Hong-Kong martial art club (where there probably was no free sparring), and perhaps a lot of streetfight experience, could have matched the technical expertise of either of these men. Tyson at 15 sparred regularly with heavy-weight champions, and Ali was Ali. They were sculpted and pushed to their limits by professional trainers. A natural genius Bruce might have been, but I'd give technical expertise to the boxers.

Furthermore, Lee never demonstrated he had the incredible stamina of a professional boxer or the capacity of them to absorb immense punishment. Occasional spectators might underappreciate the ability to be getting hit over and over again with a force of a human sledgehammer and just carrying on round after round, but it is just as essential for fighters as technical finesse. What for laymen spectators looks like a lackluster round, as boxing matches go, requires stamina way beyond the normal fitness levels of ordinary humans (just try to hit the bag for 3 minutes, and you'll know).

Yeah, but Bruce was a martial artist and Ali and Tyson were just boxers, some might say. Without going too deep into the topic, let's just state the fact that Western boxing was one of the founding blocks of Bruce's personal style. Still, it can be argued that Bruce had kicks, too. And other martial art techniques unfamiliar to boxers, like finger jabs or grappling. True, but I just don't think those would have been enough to compensate for the glaring differences in size, physique, and experience.

I think the reasoning above is unassailable. But it's also unromantic and Lee clearly deserves more. So here comes an even longer version that tries to argue for his case. The outcome will be the same, but I try to give credit to Bruce wherever possible.

Legends and facts

Bruce Lee undisputably was a physically gifted man on the high end of the spectrum. He looked like a skinny bodybuilder. Everyone who knew him is in agreement that he was incredibly strong for his weight. There are photos of him doing push-ups on one finger, and numerous stories about demonstrations where he sent his partners in the air with kicks and punches alike. If only half of that is true, he hit and kicked like a mule. His speed was even more legendary. Even Joe Lewis, one of the greatest American kickboxers of all time, who had a fall-out with Bruce and held the idea of Bruce being able to defeat him laughable, said in an interview, "I never stood in front of another human who was as quick as him".

On the other hand, he still weighed only 145 lbs. If you believe that he really could hit harder than the 220-pound Mike Tyson, probably I won't be able to convince you otherwise (neither would experts on biomechanics). Could Bruce's speed compensate for his disadvantage in strength? Unlikely, and my criterion for changing my mind is similar to the one stated earlier in earlier posts: a real-life example of just half that achievement.

It's harder to pass judgment on his actual fighting skills. Everyone seems to agree that he could 
copy any moves from other martial artists (let it be strikes, high kicks, or grappling techniques) and master them in a very short time. A former girlfriend of his, with whom Bruce used to frequent the dance floor where he invented cha-cha-cha steps on the fly, called him a "kinetic genius". But aesthetics don't equal efficiency, and making a move look good on camera is very different from being able to apply it against real opponents. Jackie Chan, Steven Seagal, or Jean-Claude Van Damme looked both lethal and beautiful on the screen. But that's only choreography. None of them had a career in professional fighting, and there is a reason for that. 

Regarding Bruce's fighting experience, apart from a single boxing bout in high school (which he won) he never competed. His skills were never pressure-tested against professional sportsmen. I don't believe that there ever was a boxing champion who didn't get better by the hard-won experience in the ring, and won the world title on exactly the same level as he had been before his first official fight. Professional MMA fighters say that doesn't matter how long you have been training, your first fight will suck. The first ten will suck. It's something you get better at, match by match. Not to elaborate any further, there is a world of difference between sparring in training and fighting against someone under immense pressure who wants to knock you out. 

On the other hand, Lee regularly trained with the multiple Karate champions of his era, among them Chuck Norris, Joe Lewis, and Mike Stone. These guys were the crème de la crème of their era, and they wouldn't have wasted their time on training with Lee unless they got something out of it. Lee definitely must have been a very good teacher or at least a very good training partner. But that doesn't necessarily mean a lot with regard to him as a fighter. Roger Feder's coach must be one of the best tennis coaches. And he certainly was never nearly as good a tennis player as Federer.

The statements on Bruce's martial art prowess made by various people in interviews or in the media are so contradictory, so full of second or third-hand accounts, that they are all but useless. They either sound like sound clips from hagiographies or at best they only add to the confusion. Many people claimed with confidence that Lee could beat any of his "students" (that covered Norris and Lewis, too) easily. But according to Norris, they never actually sparred (which is also what Lewis said). In an interview, when asked (for the thousandth time, I guess) about who was the better between them, Norris replied smiling, almost blushing. "Look, I was a professional fighter, the middleweight champion of the world. Bruce was an actor". Then he hastily added, "but he was very good!".
 
Norris gave a completely different answer to a very similar question some decades earlier, in an interview. Replying to "Is Bruce Lee your teacher?", Norris said “We are not good enough to be his students, and he is too good to be our teacher.” But this seems like a lighthearted, self-deprecating jest to evade the question, rather than an honest evaluation. The interview was also part of promoting The Way of the Dragon, thus it was certainly not the place for Norris to demean his colleague.

Another anecdote from Norris relates to the same movie. When Bruce called him in 1970 and offered him the role of the main antagonist (who loses against Bruce's character in one of the most epic martial art duels in movie history), Norris asked jokingly: "So you want to beat the world champion?". To which, in Norris's telling, Bruce replied, "No-no... I want to KILL the world champion!". This joke makes sense only if both Norris and Bruce evaluated each other the same way.

Joe Lewis, who was allegedly the first choice of Bruce to play his opponent in the movie, said he had refused the role because he found it unrealistic that a man of Bruce's size could beat him. This reason is so lame that it's almost certainly untrue, and the two men fell out because of other personal issues. But nevertheless, his version of the story makes it clear that Lewis had no doubt about the outcome of a possible fight between the two of them.

In short, personal testaments from contemporaries invariably intertwine with Hollywood legends. Memories make everything shinier, many people loved and admired Bruce (that's why they get interviewed) and many have a personal interest to make him look godlike, so part of the glow shines upon them, too.

Bruce Lee was a genius and physically a freak of nature. Probably, although you can never know, under the right trainer, he could have been a world champion. Could he beat the current UFC champion of his own weight category if he was teleported from 1972 to the octagon in 2022? No. He wouldn't have the experience, the stamina, the grappling skills. Could he be the world champion after training for 2-3 years under the best coaches? Well, why not?

In the end, perhaps it's fitting to close with another anecdote in which Bruce answers the original question directly. As the legend says, when John Saxon (one of the protagonists in Enter The Dragon) asked if he could beat Ali, Bruce replied, "Look at my hand. That's a little Chinese hand. He'd kill me."


, , ,

After the Midterms

Apparently, even Trump has a half-life. We are looking ahead to a slow, ugly decay.

The rollercoaster ride after Trump's improbable victory in 2016 mostly distracted the attention from an important sequence of events. Elections. He has made every single one of them about himself and he has lost every single one as well. The 2018 midterms elections, the 2020 presidential elections (making Trump the first president in the last 30 years to be kicked out after one term, plus the first president after 1932 to lose the presidency, the House, and the Senate), 2021 Georgia Senate run-off (again costing the Republicans the Senate), and finally (so far) the 2022 midterms. In the latter, almost all of his crackpot endorsees were wiped off, making the midterms a practical Democratic victory.

I - and most other people - were wrong on Trump's prospects at least twice already. I didn't think it possible he would win in 2016, and I thought we saw the last of him after January 6, 2021. Yet he always managed to come back on top, even without his Twitter pulpit. Will he do it again?

I think not. In 2016, he eked out a narrow victory on the back of the American's craving for entertainment and rode that wave until only recently. Even after leaving the White House he could keep up the show with the incompetent coup attempt and beating the drums on the stolen election. The Republicans were in gridlock. Trump doesn't seem to be a winner anymore, but he is still the darling of enough of their voter base. 

But the midterms came, and his candidates lost the race and the Republicans lost the belief that Trump has a more special and closer relation to their voters than themselves.

There is blood in the water. Mike Pence, the most sycophant of Trump trustees (although to his credit, he refused to break the law for the dear leader), openly said that he hopes in 2024 there will be better candidates, and he didn't close out the option to be one of them. Mike Pompeo, Trump's Secretary of State, considers running himself and made disparaging remarks about former leaders whining about the past. And when even Ted Cruz seems to be hedging his bets, Trump must see that things are not going his way.

So when Trump announced his candidacy again, he did it in a very different world than the one of 2016. He is no longer the shiny new thing, he is not even much of an entertainer. He can keep repeating the stolen election mantra, but he can soon find it to be a lonely tune and a boring one. When his fellow election-denier nutjobs lost their elections, apart from Kari Lake, they just shut up and left. J.D. Vance, who won, forgot to name Trump among the 37 people he thanked after the event. Very suddenly, it just doesn't seem chic anymore.

Yet, the Republicans are still in the same gridlock. If Trump gets the nomination, they are probably sailing for another defeat in 2024. If they deny it from him, he could wreck the party in vengeance. In an era, where the voter base is so calcified that elections are decided by a percentage point or even a fraction of it, Trump can destroy the GOP's chances for at least another term by creating a new party, or just by continuing to promote the crazies.

On the top, and perhaps not independently, of that are Trump's mounting legal problems. US Attorney General Merrick Garland just named a special counsel to weigh charges against Trump over the classified documents found in Mar-a-Lago. Garland is not a partisan hack. This step against a former president and present candidate is unprecedented. Also is the hope from Trump's own party for Garland to succeed and rid them of this problem.

Just to counterbalance the above observations, let it be said that Trump has survived legal problems and political challenges, and mind-bogglingly even a failed coup. We might get surprised again. The Republicans are both stupid and coward enough to stick to him and Biden could be foolish enough to try to run again, at 82.


, , , ,

Ukraine War - current state of affairs

I wanted to write a compact piece to provide a bird's eye view of the current state and future trajectory of the war and quickly realized that brevity and completeness are incompatible. A list of parts to mention only is long enough: the current state, the players, the short-, mid-, and long-term prospects, the military, political and economical aspects, ... So I restrict the scope to the very skeleton of all these above, with some lumps of meat here and there.

Current state

In recent weeks the Ukrainians have re-gained a huge amount of territory. Putin predictably responded to the new humiliations with some nuclear saber-rattling, which his only patron Xi Jinping demurred. Plus Putin was publicly made to wait in Samarkand at the SCO summit by his supposed allies (SCO is the poor man's NATO of world autocrats). In the West, much furor in the news, and dismissal from the military experts.

The Russians are mostly in retreat, and the Ukrainians are mostly on the advance.

The players

Let's step back and look at the major players in the War.

Ukraine. The Ukrainians have completely stunned the world (even more the Russians, I guess) with their courage, ingenuity, military skills, and national unity. If there was no real Ukrainian nation before the war, as Putin and Western useful idiots claimed (und unbeliveably still claiming), there is now. It's really hard to express what a miracle they did. Their American-trained military is superb and very far from what it was in 2014. Their skill in intelligence operations and media-savviness is at least as remarkable. The resolve to win the war seems unbreakable, but it's also a virtue out of necessity. The war is an existential question for them. Surrender would mean Russian rule, oppression of the society as a whole, and the universal threat of brutal murder and torture to anyone who took arms against the Russians.

As Ukraine became the darling of the West, Russia has become the international pariah of the world. It lost its greatest business partner Europe for good. I severed almost all ties to the high-end part of the global economy. It lost hundreds of thousands of its skilled people who have fled and been constantly fleeing the country right now. It destroyed the myths of Putin and the Russian military might. Nothing like this self-goal has been committed by any country in generations.

China is probably not very happy with the state of affairs. Instead of exposing Western weakness and further strengthening frictions, Russia forged a miraculous unity among their common enemy. And just after Xi Jinping declared Putin his eternal friend or something similar cringy expression of bromance from the old communist vocabulary. Awkward. China nominally supports Russia, but in reality, it doesn't provide much help. It buys its oil and gas at heavy discount (this is the very finite length an eternal friendship goes), and under the threat of Western sanctions it dropped most of its exports to Russia.
On the positive side (for China), it gained a new vassal. Russia is a resource-rich country with a huge potential to make trouble to the West, and it's completely at the mercy of China's goodwill and forever will be. The war might also make China rethink its plans with Taiwan. If the Russians couldn't successfully invade a neighboring country with land borders, how would trying to do that go across a 110 miles wide naval strait? 

As for America, the Biden administration's handling of the war has been superb. It combines massive political, financial, military, and intelligence support and restraint. As long as Ukraine keeps its military operations inside its borders, and the Americans are very strongly advising them to do so, it remains a defensive war and the Russian narrative remains indefensible. 
The big question is what happens after the midterm elections and especially after 2024? If the sane side of Republicans prevails, the support for Ukraine will continue. 
To be blunt and cynical, America has never been given such a geopolitical gift. Putin's fuck-up is beyond the wettest dreams of the hawkiest of American foreign policy hawks. The US received a one-in-a-century opportunity to completely wreck a historical enemy. Its reputation, its economy, its military, without a single American soldier lost, while never losing the moral highground and the support of their allies. All it needs to do is to fund Ukraine, and Ukrainians do the work for it. As H. R. McMaster, Trump's former National Security Adviser blurted out with an almost comically mad laugh in a podcast recently when asked about how America should help Putin decelerate: "Help him decelerate?? Our job is to help him accelerate toward the brick wall!"

Europe. Due to divine (or American) intervention, Europe responded to the crisis with unforeseen and quite amazing unity. Its energy sector is going to be decoupled from Russia for good. In 5 years, people will reliably have forgotten that gas and oil had ever come from Russia. It also stepped on the road to rearmament. All this is mostly thanks to America, without whom the European response to Putin would have been the usual hand-wringing and forced amnesia. Not that the US will ever be thanked for it.

In the time-proven tradition of Western-centric worldview, I lump the rest of the world together as the last actor, mostly because I don't know much about it. The big picture seems to be that Russia doesn't have friends, even among those who loathe the West. Some of these countries have an interest in Russia not losing too badly (like India, who imports half of its weapons from Russia), and some just don't have a dog in the fight. Westerners often find it astonishing how come third-world countries are not as outraged by this war as it's expected from them, but we forget that for much of the world conflicts even bloodier than this are a constant part of daily life.


Predictions

Reading the tea leaves tells me about a protracted conflict for years of varying intensity. The Ukrainian morale and support of the war are through the roof. They just don't have any incentive for giving up. Putin can't afford to give up. The Russians won't topple the regime. It's gonna be a war of attrition for all parties.

In the very long term, the situation will be something like this. Europe won't do business with Russia again. Russia will be a Chinese client. Ukraine will be part of, or an official partner to, the EU and NATO.

With relevances varying based on the length of the war, I think the following factors are decisive:

The things going for Russia

The first is manpower. It's a huge country with a lot of people for cannon fodder. They are demoralized, untrained, and led by mostly incompetent leaders. But there are many of them, and 100,000s can be thrown onto the battlefield every year.

The second hope of Putin is that Europe will suffer a cold winter and the public will force the politicians to take a U-turn, drop the sanctions and stop supporting Ukraine. It's not gonna happen. The gas reserves are 90% full. There is a lot of noise in Europe now saying that yes we are fine this winter, but the next one will be much worse. I think these people simply underestimate the adaptiveness of the world economy. Three months ago Europe was supposed to freeze this winter. We have a full year to prepare for the next. Germany and France will never again trust Russia, and even the voters in general are on the same page. 

The third is Donald Trump's return to power. If Republicans don't restrict the support to Ukraine already, a Trump administration would do it. Unfortunately, this can be a game changer.

The fourth is the implosion of the Ukrainian economy. According to some forecasts, Ukraine's GDP will shrink by 35%, while the Russian economy, which has proven much more resilient than experts had thought, will contract by maybe 5%. How much European and American money can fill in the gaps, remains to be seen.

The things going for Ukraine

The first is motivation. The Ukrainians are facing an existential threat. The Russians fight because they are forced to.

The second is ingenuity. Ukraine has taken the upper hand on the physical battlefield and massively dominates in the information war. There surely be ups and downs, but I hope their superiority will last.

The third is the bottomless chests of European and American money and weapons. Russia is a poor country that gets poorer by every month as long as it continues the war. It's depleting not only its financial resources but its weapon stocks as well, without access to technology and imported materials to replenish them. The US will never run out of money and weapons to send.

The fourth is the incompetent opponent. The Russian army reflects Russian society. Corrupt, incompetent, strong only against civilians.

Summary

The most important factor in the war is the American willingness to engage. If the US is fully behind Ukraine, it will still be a long war, but a war of continuous Russian defeats. If it pulls out, all bets are off. So eyes on the elections.

Will Putin use nuclear weapons?

Around 2 weeks ago Putin made a statement about using every tool available to "protect Russia", which many, probably correctly, interpreted as nuclear blackmail. He also added that it's not a bluff.

Based on what I read and heard on various podcasts (as one gets his/her information today), I think Vladimir lied (no shit) and it is a bluff. Using nuclear weapons would be ineffective militarily and a political suicide.

First, the military aspect. Tactical nuclear bombs would be effective against a big concentrated mass of troops or equipment. The Ukrainian army is not like that. It's dispersed along hundreds of kilometers of front lines. Taking out a large amount of them would inevitably kill many Russian soldiers as well, not to mention that who knows where the wind sweeps the radioactive dust after.

According to the military types whose opinions I heard, conventional high-precision weapons are much better to achieve whatever aim Russians have in mind with nuclear strikes. 

How would the Ukrainians react to a nuclear attack on their troops? I don't see that they would back off, but rather the opposite. And that would leave Putin in an extremely humiliating position. He used the only tool that enables Russia to pose as a great power on the world stage (having proven that not only they have a wretched economy, but a pathetic military as well), and achieved nothing.

A nuclear strike would manifest as such in the political realm as well, but against the one who launched it. Russia would break an eight-decade-old taboo. Even its stooges (Orban, American right-wingers, and some other wannabe fascists and idiots) and reluctant allies (India, China) would be forced to abandon it.

Of course, because this is one man's decision, no one can be sure. Putin might not be what we call a rational actor now, and he can see things differently. But he himself drew a line. His condition to resort to extreme measures was that Russia itself be threatened. Then he promptly declared four provinces in Ukraine to be annexed by Russia, then the Ukrainians kept conquering them back, and then? And then nothing happened. In one masterstroke, the grand strategist closed his only escape route out of this war (at any point cutting the losses, declaring victory, claiming that the Nazis have been defeated, and going home) and proved that his threats are empty and he has nothing.

And what if efficacy is not the point and Putin wants to use the nukes to terrify the Ukrainians and the West into submission by destroying not a military target, but a city? If he annihilates Kyiv, killing Zhelensky and hundreds of thousands of civilians? I think that would be the end of him. Either the chain of command would deny carrying out the order, and it would be Putin this time who would fall out of a Kremlin window after a short illness, or it would be total and complete open season for him. No more restraint from NATO and no talking about off-ramps for him.

On a small and worthless man

When New Vac Times was launched, I had only vague ideas on what the opinion pieces are to be about. But I had the firm intention of never writing about Orban. That's a cottage industry nowadays, I despise the man and I'm loath to see that he is getting the attention he visibly craves.

But the conviction must have been shallow because a single podcast episode with two political scientists was enough to change my mind. Not because what they said about Orban was novel or interesting. Just the opposite. Their take on him is now common wisdom among liberal western intellectuals. It is also wrong. Plus, the New Vac Times has been created to be a safety valve to vent out stark opinions, so the columnist's friends and family won't get burdened with them.

So let's get it over with.

Viktor Orban is misunderstood, opined the podcast guests, misunderstanding their subject themselves. When people say this, what they mean is that there is more to Orban than meets the eye. My opinion is the exact opposite. OV is exactly what he looks like. People just don't look closely enough.

But I grant it that Orban is misunderstood. With some oversimplification, by two separate groups of people for two separate reasons. One group consists of ordinary liberal people. To them, Orban is a shamelessly corrupt, immoral, cynical wannabe dictator who supports Putin's fascist war against Ukraine because of cold, economical reasons (cheap Russian gas, the benefits of playing for the two sides, etc) and perhaps for personal benefit.

The other group is made up of liberal intellectuals and political scientists who see Orban as a kind of enfant terrible, a dark wunderkind of international politics. A gifted, amoral authoritarian, who was at least a decade ahead of his time and recognized that the era of liberal democracies might be a historical anomaly. That the future might belong to strongmen, and authoritarian rule might suit Hungary's interest better than clinging to the declining institutions and ideas of the West.

Both groups are wrong. The former because of the lack of imagination, the latter because of too much of that. Ordinary people are less off the mark, though.

What people on the street get wrong

Here is why I think the idea that Orban is simply playing a cynical game is wrong. Orban is not a shrewd, cold-hearted accountant who has carefully measured the pros and cons and come to the conclusion that it's in Hungary's best interest to be a Russian lackey (again). And he is not in it only for the money for himself, either. But because he is a genuine believer in the idea that democracy's era of supremacy is over, and he welcomes it. He never met a dictator he didn't like. Insiders described years ago how impressed he was by the way Putin treated his subordinates (that is, humiliating them). He said openly that he feels much more at home in post-soviet states than in Brussels. States run by ex-communist functionaries when not by ex-KGB men. Where torture and murder are still part of the political culture. He is also a megalomaniac narcissist obsessed with power. One can find interviews on the web from ten years ago where Orban is talking in cringeworthy English to Western journalists and every second word he utters is "I". Every third is "strength". The motto of the Hungarian Presidency of the EU in 2012 was "Strong Europe". And this was the way he spoke not to his base but to a Western audience he still tried to woo then. 

Orban supports Putin not because it's in his long-term interest. But because he wants a world where the strongmen rule openly. Men he craves to belong to.

and what academics get wrong

Many intellectuals and political scientists see Orban as an exotic, intriguing specimen in their fields. He is a bad man, but a statesman-caliber leader with dark and grandiose ideas. He recognized the flaws of liberal democracy and offers an alternative in the form of Christian nationalism. But there is a much simpler explanation for his actions and his turn from a liberal politician to an authoritarian strongman. Orban is an incredibly corrupt politician who made his friends and family billionaires and enough of his supporters millionaires. As a reigning prime minister, he was caught on tape advising his wife's company on the smart strategies for winning government subsidies. Preempting the democratic ways of removing him from power is simply a way for him to stay out of prison. This is not a hyperbole. To Orban and his clique, a lost election and a politically independent Chief Prosecutor could mean years behind bars.

No one likes to face being a simple piece of thieving shit, so I'm sure Orban convinced himself that his authoritarian turn is necessary for the country, and showering taxpayer money on friends and allies is just the way things are done everywhere in the world.

So why do intellectuals ignore Occam's razor and project the image of an ideological adversary to a base criminal? I think because of two simple reasons. One is overdoing the basic requirement of scientific analysis. Avoid confirmation bias by trying to steelman your opponent's argument. But too much fairness turns into a self-congratulatory exercise. Too many people are patting themselves on the back for their generosity of giving the benefit of doubt to people who really and obviously don't deserve it.

The second reason has even more to do with vanity. If you are a political scientist or public intellectual whose vocation is to ponder abstract ideas like liberty, ethics, morals, value systems, etc, your profession defines the framework in which you think about real-world problems. You can't use your knowledge and tools to understand, let alone predict, decisions made based on a single person's greed, resentment, and insecurity. Honestly, you are useless at best and a distraction most of the time. So let's pretend there is more to Orban. Let's imagine there is some malicious but grand idea animating the man that is worth grappling with. Otherwise, no one will ask for your opinion, and the Viktor Orbans of the world are not only dangerous and depressing but boring.

what I get wrong

Here is my very brief take on Orban, beyond what was said above. I'm sure don't hit the bullseye either, but I'm close enough. Orban is an insecure man who has always had a chip on his shoulders. First, as a child of a lowbrow country-bumpkin family when he went to study in big-city Budapest. The second time as the leader of a small, not very significant country on the international stage. He is indeed a megalomaniac with other personality disorders in the medical sense. He feels that he is a statesman of historical caliber and Western leaders don't appreciate him. This resentment, the need to justify his venality and to escape its consequences, and historical contingencies are what made him what he is today. A not very interesting story.


,

Bruce Lee

My earliest memory of Bruce Lee places me in the kindergarten yard in a conversation with one of my teachers. I was explaining her how Lee died. Early childhood memories are unreliable, they are more like re-prints of memories than of real events, but this one can't be too far off reality. My father had The Big Boss on a VHS tape at home and no qualms about what I can watch (the 1984 Terminator was the cause of years of early nightmares). He also possessed a wonderfully illustrated book about Lee in English, a treasure in a child's eyes, with a removable poster of The Way of The Dragon, and even a biography. The latter I read only a couple of years later, but many then times. 

Born a decade after his death, I shared my childhood hero with millions of kids of many generations around the world. And as to many of them, I probably owe my lifelong fascination for martial arts to Lee, the most famous martial artist of all time, and one of the most iconic figures of the twentieth century pop culture. If there is anyone deserving to be in my Hall of Fame, it is him.

Who was Bruce Lee?

Bruce Lee alias Li Jun Fan was born on 27 November, 1940 in the United States where his father was on a long tour with the Cantonese Opera Company, accompanied by his wife, Bruce's mother. Thanks to her own mixed heritage, the boy who came to the world in San Francisco,  California was 5/8 Chinese, 1/4 English, and 1/8 Dutch Jew. The family went back to Hong Kong three months later, and the son, although technically an American citizen, didn't set foot in the US until 18 years later.

In Hong Kong, thanks to his father's business acumen, Bruce grew up in a well-off family. His father, an occasional actor, also helped him into the movie business. Bruce started a career as a child actor at the age of six. By his teens, if not a household name, he was a recognizable face in Hong Kong. He excelled in roles of a street urchin with a good heart or of a rebellious teenager but was generally stiff and unconvincing in other types. His thespian fortes were not accidental. As a kid, he was a hyperactive boy who only stayed put when reading comic books. He performed abysmally in school and struggled in every subject but English so much so that he was held back twice. As a teenager, he was a troublemaker with serious problems with authority. But Bruce was also funny, witty, and charismatic, a prankster and a natural gang leader. 

He got into street fights a lot. At 14 he was defeated by a boy named William Cheung who practiced Wing Chun. Bruce, to regain his dominance, decided to learn martial arts, too. He soon became passionate about it, eager to try out every new technique he learned on the street. He was also equally passionate about another physical art, dancing. After winning a dance championship, later in life Bruce has always referred to himself, stretching the truth a bit, as the cha-cha-cha champion of Hong Kong.

In high school, he participated in his first and last official combat sports event, a boxing match against a student from another high school. He won the bout but wasn't satisfied with his own performance.

Not long after that, he got expelled from the school for threatening a teacher with a knife. By then he has brought enough shame to his parents that they decided to put him on a boat to America with the warning: make something out of yourself or don't come back.

Bruce arrived in Seattle in 1959, aged 18. His father secured him a tiny lodging and a dishwasher job in the restaurant of a Chinese acquaintance. He finished high school and, to the surprise of everyone, in 1961 he even enrolled at the University of Washington as a drama major. Eager to stop washing dishes and waiting tables, he started giving cha-cha-cha lessons. In the breaks between the classes, he entertained his students with Wing Chun demonstrations. Eventually, he opened his informal kung-fu studio with a handful of students at the age of 19.

There were only a few Eastern martial arts enthusiasts in America at that time, but Bruce quickly caught the eyes of some of them. He was charismatic, fun-loving, boisterious and an incredibly gifted athlete. He gained both friends and admirers quickly, and the two groups almost perfectly overlapped. In 1963, with an American friend James Lee (not a relative) he published a book about Wing Chun kung-fu, what he later, after breaking with traditional martial arts, regretted.

In his early twenties, Bruce had two aspirations. Either getting into Hollywood or opening a chain of schools overall the US and dedicating his life to martial arts. At first, he had moderate success in the second endeavor. He opened multiple studios, but their attendance was meager and the revenue barely enough to pay the bills. 

He also quickly discovered another challenge. In America, he started to get disillusioned with traditional martial arts, even with the more practical Wing Chun style he learned. They were stiff, impractical, and put more emphasis on practicing unrealistic techniques than on real sparring excercises. The Wing Chun techniques didn't really work against the bigger and more athletic Americans. He realized that he has to move beyond what he learned in Hong Kong.

His fame among martial art practitioners grew and eventually caught the attention of Ed Parker, the father of American Kempo. Parker organized the 1964 Long Beach Karate Tournament and he invited Bruce to give a demonstration of kung-fu, which at that time was an just obscure Chinese martial art few even heard about. This was Bruce's first chance to perform in front of a large audience.

Multiple demonstrations followed, on which he often spoke about traditional martial arts in disparaging terms. In 1964, the kung-fu community of Chinatown, Oakland where Bruce opened a studio had enough. Not only was the cocky Lee badmouthing their styles, he was teaching the art to non-Chinese. A local martial artist, Wong Jack-man, decided to issue a formal challenge to Bruce, which lead to highly controversial duel. Bruce defeated Wong in a matter of minutes, but as after his boxing bout, he was extremely dissappointed with his own performance. After the short fight he was exhausted, his fists were bruised, and realized that Wing Chun's close-quarter techniques were not effective against someone who avoids direct engagement. This experience reinforced his growing dissatisfaction with kung-fu.

Eventually, becoming disgusted with its obsession of forms, rigidity and ineffectuality, he turned his back on Chinese Kung Fu completely. His personal style, what he in 1967 christened to Jeet Kune Do, was mainly based on Western boxing, fencing, and some Wing Chun techniques and principles. Even the name "the way of the intercepting fist", esoterically Oriental as it sounds, is adopted from the fencing tactic "stop-hit" that aims to intercept the opponent in mid-attack instead of a parry and counter-attack combination.

He watched boxing matches endlessly. He especially admired  Mohammad Ali, whose matches he would watch for hours, shadowing the champ's moves over and over again. His training ethos put free sparring at the center of the training session and dispensed with traditional Eastern training elements. Bruce was an early proponent of a totalitarian art encompassing all forms of stand-up fighting and grappling - Mixed Martial Arts, as it's called today.

He also become obsessed with nutrition and body-building. In his early twenties, he could still be described as slightly pudgy a young man with still some baby fat on. He explored many diets and imposed some exotic ones on himself over the years. Apart from running every morning, and the hours honing his martial art skills every day, three times a week he lifted weights. The boy with a baby fat transformed his body to that paragon of physical perfection we can see in his movies.

In 1964, he married one of his students Linda Emery and not long after they had their first baby, Brandon. Linda's family was not enamoured by the prospect of having a pennyless Chinese wanna-be-actor as a son-in-law (the racialist resentment was not unrequited when Linda visited Bruce's family in Hong Kong later), but after the marriage Bruce quickly won them over with his characteristic charm.

In 1966 came a breakthrough in his acting career when he was cast into the role of Kato, the masked Asian martial artist sidekick of the vigilante Green Hornet. The show lasted only one season but it propelled Lee into the right circles, of both Hollywood and the martial art world. Still uncertain about the future, he moved back and forth between opening schools and vying for new movie roles.

With acting, teaching, and having a family, he had no time for University. Although he silently dropped his studies in 1964, his interest for psychology and philosophy only deepened. He was a voracious reader. One of his early aspirations was to own a second-hand bookshop. By the end of his life his personal library contained over 2,500 books.

Utilizing his newfound fame as a minor Hollywood celebrity, Lee continued touring the US giving demonstrations on Karate tournaments, which were starting to become the big thing in the mid-sixties. As the guest star Kato, he demonstrated his famous one-inch punch, 2-finger push-ups, side-kicks that sent his partners flying in the air, his preternatural speed, and performed free sparring. He befriended several champions of the era. Between 1967 and 1969 Karate champions Joe Lewis, Mike Stone, and Chuck Norris, or Jhoon Rhee, father of American Teakwon-Do became not only his friends, but training partners/students as well.

Getting friends and admirers was easy for him. He was a natural showman. Witty, charming and always fun. This wasn't lost on his female acquitances either. Beyond the traits his male friends admired, Bruce was gorgeous. Despite being a loving husband and father, he often had relationships, and didn't even put too much effort in keeping them secret. This was something that his wife Linda, his always supportive and devoted wife did not deserve, but apparently didn't know about them either.

Despite all the successes and friendships of Hollywood men and elite sportmen, Bruce's teaching fees and rare movie roles barely covered his expenses and now he had a family to feed, too. In 1967, a sturdent and friend of him, Jay Sibring, the hairstylist of stars, gave him an idea. As a personal self-defense trainer, he should angle for big Hollywood names. To catch the eye of the creme, he should charge extraorbintant fees. Lee, not fully convinced, nevertheless went along, and to his surprise, soon he found among his students James Coburn, one of the biggest stars of the time, and Steve McQueen, the King of Cool, the biggest star of Hollywood. His slowly forming but eventually deep friendship with McQueen was a mixture of mutual admiration, envy and rivalry. McQeen wanted Lee's physical gifts and Lee wanted the stardom.

In 1968, Bruce and Linda purchased a house in Bel Air, Los Angeles. On the surface, Bruce achieveved the dream of every American immigrant. He married an American, made into Hollywood, befriended the stars, owned a beautiful house. But everything was built on debt. The family often lived from one paycheck to the next. Bruce was as financially irresponsible as flamboyant. Shortly after buying the house he could not afford, he spent the full 7,000 dollars he unexpectedly got from his mother who sold one of his father's buildings not to pay off some of his debts, but to buy a red 911 Porsche. His prospects were not rosy. At the time, there were not that many roles to go around for Asian characters in Hollywood. He refused to play the traditional role of the subservient Chinaman, and he spoke English with heavy accent.

Even though his career as an actor did not progress as fast as he wanted, his reputation as a martial artist wunderkind and teacher, the legends of his feats, and his circle of Hollwyood friends grew. He rubbed shoulders with Frank Sinatra and taught Roman Polanski. If not yet a successful actor, he was the most sought after martial arts instructor in Hollywood.

Too turbocharge his career, Bruce had a idea for a movie. An X-rated, allegorical martial arts epos, combining martial arts and philosophy. He named it The Silent Flute. He tried to convince first McQueen, then Coburn to partner up with him on the movie, but after some promising start on Coburn's side, he was eventually rejected by both men. That really hurt him personally and Bruce woved that one day he will show them. He will be a bigger star than McQueen.

He also had another idea of a TV-show featuring a Chinese martial artist roaming the American West, the Warrior. Unfortunately, he tshow was dropped in favour of another of a similar theme, the Kung Fu. Lee auditioned for the lead role of that, too, but he was found too intense for the character of a reluctant, contemplative dispenser of justice. The role was given to David Carradine.

In 1970, Lee suffered a debilitating back injury during a morning work out. He was forced to bed for 3 months and the doctors told him he would never kick high again. 3 months of bed-confinement would be a torture to anyone, but it was especially cruel for someone whose life revolved around his physical abilities. To make the most of it, Bruce turned his energies into writing. The sketches, notes and essays in which he tried to capture both his philosophy to martial arts and technical repertiore was collected and published after his death by his widow Linda in a book titled The Tao of Jeet Kune Do. Not unlike popular books on fencing of earlier times, the Tao covers techniques, tactics, psychology, physiology, training advices and discussions of concepts like rythm and timing. In the end, Bruce recovered completely.

By the early 70s, he temporarily gave up on Hollywood, and took up an offering of making a movie in Hong Kong, The Big Boss. Lee with his family sold their Bel Air house and moved to Hong Kong. Lee, who by then had got used to American standars was appalled by amatuerism of Hong Kong movie makers. He clashed heavily with the director and the producer. His behaviour on the set was typical Bruce Lee and the opposite of normal stereotypes. He was loyal to and gracious with the stuntsmen and the crew and rude and disrespectful for those above in the hierarchy.

To his surprise, the low budget and amateurish Big Boss which was based on 3 pages on script, terrible acting, and lousy directing turned out to be thunderous success in Hong Kong. His second movie, the Fists of Fury in 1972 was even more of a blast. The audience have never seen anything like Bruce before. Hong Kong cinema was flush with Kung-fu movies of course, but the fight scenes in them were extremly long and artificial. What Bruce Lee did seemed frighteningly real. Amazing, but at the same time something that can both work in real life and can be learned. Secondly, in both movies, a Chinese guy sticks it up to the British and the and hateful Japanese. The Hongkongers who were mostly refugees from the mainland living under their British overlords, were in a desperate need of national pride. Bruce gave it to them. Audiences raved and literally were throwing chairs in the air in the theaters. Bruce has become a superstar literally overnight.

Fame pressed hard on him. Paparazzis, constant challenges for duels, intrusion in his familiy's privacy, attacks of Hong Kong media mocking his rusty Chinese and questioning his nationality made him stressed and paranoid. He hired bodyguards from his former stuntmen friends and - the human weapon himself - even started carrying a gun. 

Bruce decided to keep total control over his next movie, The Way of The Dragon. He wrote, directed, and starred his spagetthi Eastern. He offered the role of the bad guy to the most famous American Karate fighter of the time, the then middle-weight world champion, Chuck Norris. Even though its climax is arguably one of the greatest martial art fight scenes of all time and it was a big commercial success, Lee didn't think the movie was good enough to be released in the West as a vehicle to get back into Hollywood.

In 1972, he started to shoot the Game of Death, another movie where he wanted to demonstrate his philosophy to martial arts, even more explicitly than in The Way of The Dragon. Negotiations started to have George Lazenby, the latest James Bond, as a co-star of the movie. Perhaps 20 minutes material was produced, and the movie was released only 1978, 5 years after Bruce's death.

1973 came the Enter the Dragon, Lee's first superproduction meant to conquer Hollywood for him. As one of the international cast of main characters, Bruce played an unstoppable killing machine driven by cold revenge. The movie made Lee a houshold name all over the world but he didn't live to see that. On July 20, 1973, in his mistress's flat, Bruce died of cerebral edema. The indirect cause of death is still debated. The most probable theories are that of heat stroke and medicine allergy. After his death, Enter the Dragon made the so far obscure Asian actor the Hollywood superstar he had always wanted to be. The audience loved it and even the critics had to grudgingly admit that despite its extreme violence (the threshold was lower in 1973), the movie is something they haven't seen before. Fights in Western movies still followed the John Wayne-type coreography. Lee broke the way of a new genre that was carried on later by Chuck Norris, Van Damme, Steven Seagal, and countless other actors cum martial artists ever since. But he was only followed, never replaced. Bruce Lee's name has irrevocably fused with the image of the ultimate martial artist, the unbeatable fighter.

His body was put to rest in Seattle, the city where he and Linda fell in love. Among the six men carrying his coffin on his last journey were James Coburn and Steve McQueen. 

Lee has become a superstar, far beyond anyone, even he could have imagined. He did become bigger than McQueen. Apart from the remotest corners of the world, practically there is no one over 30 who hasn't heard about Bruce Lee, a man who died fifty years ago at 32. They might not recall the titles of his movies or when he lived or they mistakenly think he was a Japanese Karate champ. But they know Bruce Lee, the icon. 

For us who watched his movies when we were kids, and take his presense in the public consciousness a given, it's almost impossible to appreciate the enormity of his achievement. Similarly nigh impossible to find any name or face that is more recognisable than his, with the possible exception of Elvis. But perhaps not even the King can push him off the throne of pop culture. Bruce Lee, after all, was invincible.

, ,

On Cryptocurrencies

I'm late to the party. I've been continuously postponing writing about my take on Bitcoin for years, and now, with the whole crypto-market crashing through the floor, it will look like I'm just projecting hindsight wisdom back in the past.

But on second thought, religions never really die out. And Bitcoin has had crashes before and always bounced back stronger. It might not be the end yet.

So, why do I think that when the end comes, it won't be pretty?

I owe my antipathy towards Bitcoin at least as much to gutfeel as to rational argument. The former can be summarized quickly. Every second crypto-advocate I stumbled into on Youtube or in real life came across either as a second-hand car dealer, or a fresh convert to a cult - where the leader is an ex-second-hand car dealer. With all the unbearably irritating mixture of smugness and ignorance.

That was the gutfeel part. On the rational side, I never understood what exactly cryptocurrencies are good for. What problems do they solve? They are inferior substitutions to fiat money in almost every respect. According to Economics 101, money has three functions. Medium of exchange, store of value, and unit of account.

A bitcoin is a unit of account, that's alright, but as a medium of exchange, cryptos have very limited use. With Bitcoin, I could buy almost nothing I need on a daily basis. Food, books, petrol, clothes, paying the bills - I need local currency for all of these. As a store of value cryptos would need to be stable. They are anything but. If I had converted my savings to Bitcoin half a year ago, I would have lost half of them. If to Terra, they would have been just wiped out.

I've heard two main arguments from crypto fans. One, cryptos are anti-cyclical, two, their built-in scarcity prevents inflation. 

Anti-cyclical means that in times of financial turmoil, cryptos would be safe havens - like traditionally gold has always been. That theory has been just crushed, along with the markets. Everything is in free fall now, but nothing falls faster than cryptos. I have no idea why, but even if I knew it wouldn't make me feel better, had I invested my wealth in them.

The scarcity argument is not convincing either. Whenever I heard someone extolling Bitcoin's virtues, they were always depicted against an apocalyptic view of today's financial world. "Governments will start printing money any day now and we are accelerating toward a new Weimar!" Yeah, sure. 

One, governments don't print money, central banks do. 

Two, independent central banks and fiat money are actually two of the great inventions of humankind. The amount of money in circulation has to be aligned with the size of the economy. The ability of central bankers to control the money supply can be misused, but that possibility doesn't automatically turn a country into Zimbabwe. Rather, it provides tools to mitigate economic turmoils, which central bankers have used quite effectively during both the Great Recession and the pandemic. And didn't use during the Great Depression - hence there was a Great Depression.

So, contrary to libertarian fanatics, who see crypto as a way to freedom from government tyranny, central bankers are not bloodsucking monsters whose only purpose in life is to rid you of all your savings, but professionals whose job is to keep the economy running. They make mistakes, but the last 70 years were, by and large, the most stable and prosperous period in human history. 

Three, the general wisdom is that deflation is even worse than inflation. I'm really out of my wheelhouse here, but if the money supply was constrained and in the growing economy constant amount of money chased a growing number of things, that would lead to deflation. I guess.

But leaving all theory aside, babbling about the inflation-resistance of an asset that loses 10% of its value in a day of its value whenever Elon Mask wakes up on the wrong side of the bed? If a South-American country's currency had this kind of volatility, it would be a laughing stock even in the region. Who are these guys kidding?

Even if cryptos didn't have these shortcomings, I'd have a long list of doubts. What if I invest my savings in Bitcoin, then it falls out of vogue, and another crypto takes its place (which might allow for more than 3-7 transactions per second - just for comparison, for Visa, the number is 1,700)? What if I forget my master password? Normal banks will never seize my money even if I lose all my papers. Speaking of safety, is my money insured by the state? Who I go to complain if I'm the victim of fraud? If I accidentally sent money to the wrong place? What about the unknown unknowns that would manifest only once we moved to a crypto-based financial world? 

Long story short, I think cryptos are Ponzi schemes. You make a profit if more people buy into it after you than the ones before you. The rest is techno blah-blah, hype, FOMO, and libertarian fever dreams.