Blog Archives

Topic Archives

Holger Danske

Holger Danske

This form does not yet contain any fields.

    CrossFit 2014-10-15

    Double Grace

    • 60 clean&jerks [85#]

    Time 12:57


    CrossFit 2014-10-13

    Shoulder press and burn

    Shoulder press 3 RM


    • 200 single unders
    • 50 strict presses [65#]
    • 60 more single unders everytime you break the press set

    Time 19:28


    CrossFit 2014-10-10

    PR for Pat

    AMRAP 20 minutes

    • 6 power cleans [115#]
    • 12 burpees
    • 14 toes to bar
    • 200m run

    Rounds 3 + 28 reps


    CrossFit 2014-10-08



    • Front squats [95#]
    • Kettlebell swings [1.5 pood]
    • 400m run

    Time 17:07


    CrossFit 2014-10-06

    Overhead squat, snatch balance, squat snatch

    Overhead squat

    Snatch balance




    CrossFit 2014-10-03

    Scissor Kick

    5 rounds

    • 7 deadlifts [185#]
    • 30 air squats
    • Handstand pushups [rack assisted]

    Time 11:42



    CrossFit 2014-10-01

    Bench and Burn

    Bench press


    3 rounds

    • Row 250m
    • 25 kettlebell swings [1 pood]
    • Row 250m
    • Rest 1 minute

    Armed Response Book Review

    I got this book by mistake, but I ended up keeping it. Not a bad read on firearms and self-defense.

    Armed Response:A Comprehensive Guide to Using Firearms for Self-Defense

    By David Kenik
    Merril Press 2005
    180 Pages; US$19.95
    ISBN 9780936783451

    I ended up with the book by an Amazon accident. I had ordered the Ayoob files, a collection of columns written by Massad Ayoob, a frequent expert witness in self-defense cases. Ayoob contributed an introduction to this volume, which is possibly the reason I ended up with this book. I received this book several years ago, and I decided to just keep it. I did not actually read it until 2009, and I found the book very good. I should have read it earlier.

    Armed Response is a sober, practical book that has lots of good things to think about for anyone who owns firearms. Lots of details about the workings of the law, how to properly use a firearm, and helpful suggestions. I wish I had read this book when I was actually a beginner, because the author explains a lot of common terms used by firearm owners that were mystifying to me once. I spent a number of years tracking down answers to questions that are contained in this book. That reinforces the anwers I found, and makes me willing to recommend this book, because it matches my own experience and knowledge.

    You can find information about different kinds of firearms, their pros and cons. Different holsters, different ammunition, different stances. There are even suggestions for training. One would do well to heed the many warnings contained in this book. This book is intended to help keep you out of trouble of any kind. The best way to win a gunfight is not to be in one.

    Lots of good references, the websites and addresses of quality accesories manufacturers, and lots and lots of experience can be found in this book. Highly recommended. Just remember, IANAL.  YANMC.  TINLA.
    I am not a lawyer, you are not my client, this is not legal advice, if you want legal advice then hire yourself a lawyer. (Thanks Tom)

    My other book reviews


    Beat the Reaper Book Review

    Another book review that disappeared. I really love the tagline for this review: "Like Scrubs on crack."

    Beat the Reaper
    by Josh Bazell
    Little, Brown, and Company, 2009
    ISBN 0316032220; $9.99

    Every time I look at this book, I think of the song by Blue Öyster Cult, "The Reaper". This really has nothing to do with the book, but I think it nonetheless. I'm not normally a fan of mafia books, for the reason that mafiosi are so evil that reading about them depresses me. I did like this book, but I was always struggling against the horror that any semi-realistic portrayal of gangster life elicts.

    My favorite part of the book is the random medical facts scattered throughout the book, either in the body or in cute little footnotes. Lest anyone think that the medical mayhem of Manhattan Catholic is entirely fictional, I was recounting to my Mother the episode near the beginning of the book where Dr. Peter Brown comes in for rounds and discovers one of this patients is dead, despite the notation on the chart that claims the patient's temperature is 98.6º with blood pressure 120/80 mmHg. My Mom blurted out, "ooh, that happened to me!" My Mother has a great deal of experience as a nurse, and this exact incident happened to her, with the change that it was the aide who did it to the nurse instead of the nurse to the doctor.

    I have worked in hospitals myself, and currently am a designer of medical devices, so everything about Manhattan Catholic rang true, even though that much misery is not usually concentrated in one place. I can indeed confirm the typical surgeon's potty mouth. I've never heard such astounding things as you can hear in an operating room. I also appreciate Dr. Brown's gallows humor. When you work with death, you need something to help you stay sane. You can't go and cry in your beer every time something goes wrong. The most common method is black humor to provide emotional distance. Less common is sanctification, as practiced by chaplains and religious. I never hear gallows humor out of Sr. Elizabeth. Of course, maybe she just isn't sharing.

    The denoument of the book reminded of the Hitman series by Eidos. Anyone who has played through Hitman: Blood Money will find some similarities. Not huge ones, just reminiscent. The ending was imaginative. Perhaps I should say, strains credulity, but I'm not sure I could do it better. The medical facts do at least make it possible, if not plausible. If you enjoy gangster books, go for this one. If you want to know what hospitals are really like, read this too. No hospital is this bad, but they definitely share a family resemblance. This book is like Scrubs on crack.

    My other book reviews


    The Long View 2002-06-02: The Menace in South Asia

    NagasakiEven now that the Cold War is long past, most Westerners feel horror and shame at the thought of nuclear war. This is understandable, but the possibility of mutual assured destruction, and the intensive cultural revulsion that possibility engenders in us, are the products of a particular time, place, and set of assumptions.

    It took a great deal of time and effort to demonize all things nuclear. Immediately after the Second World War, there intense optimism about harnessing atomic power for the good of mankind. For example, there was Operation Plowshare, which sought a way to turn the crude destructive power of the atom bomb to more mundane purposes, much the same way TNT and other explosives became a tool of the construction and mining industries. The attitudes of 1950s America toward the power of the atom seem blithe to us now, but this is the direct result of a campaign to convince us of the utter horror and unwinnability of a nuclear war.

    There was a losing side of that campaign, for which I feel some sympathy. While they lost the war of public opinion, they definitely won the actual Cold War. After the 9/11 attacks, Paul Krugman suggested creating an office of evil to help the government imagine horrible things so we would not be surprised so badly next time. This role was filled for a long time by men like Edward Teller and Herman Kahn, who were perfectly happy to think the unthinkable in order to better prepare for it. A later entry in the field was the Strategy of Technology by Possony, Pournelle, and Kane. They argued that a decisive advantage in war could be gained by the targeted pursuit of specific technologies, particularly in the Cold War, which was already a technological contest.

    Arguably, this was in fact the strategy that impoverished the Soviet Union to a degree where the dissent of client states like East Germany and Poland could fatally destabilize it. However, at present, the men who brought this about are likely to be remembered for nuclear brinkmanship and warmongering rather than successfully preventing the Cold War from turning into a hot one, and achieving victory as well.

    What is perhaps even less well appreciated is how different the world is now from the peak of the Cold War. The US and Russia still have a lot of nuclear weapons, but the real worry these days is that some unpleasant little excuse for a country like North Korea or Pakistan will start something nuclear. It would be bad if they did, but to see MAD as the result is a failure of the imagination, or perhaps a success of propaganda. Look at the picture that heads this post, and imagine for yourself, "this is one of only two cities ever destroyed by nuclear weapons." And then try to believe your lying eyes.

    The Menace in South Asia


    There are three important points about the current confrontation between India and Pakistan. The first two are commonplaces. The third has not been addressed by policy makers, at least in public.

    First, it is not likely that the fighting between the two countries will go beyond border skirmishes. This is not a situation like 1914 in Europe, when strategic plans had to be carried out like clockwork if they were to be carried out at all. Furthermore, the situations of the parties are not symmetrical. While Pakistan is perhaps most to blame because of its acquiescence in the use of its territory by militants, India would be the actual aggressor in a war. That country's friends and well wishers have let the Indian government know that a war would delay India's accession to the ranks of the great powers.

    Second, even if a serious invasion of Pakistan does occur, it is unlikely that the conflict will go nuclear. On the nuclear level, Pakistan would have to be the aggressor. It is hard to see what Pakistan could gain from that step. The use of tactical nuclear weapons to halt an Indian invasion could cause the Indians to escalate their goals from border security to the destruction of the Pakistani state. In any case, India will always be in a position to declare victory and withdraw. There is no necessary ladder of escalation.

    Third, if there is a war and it does go nuclear, India is going to win decisively. Its traditional enemy will be dismembered and the fragments disarmed. The civilian casualties India would suffer, even in the worst-case scenarios, would be proportionately less than those suffered by Great Britain in the Blitz. The moral that the world would draw from a South Asian nuclear war is that nuclear wars are fightable and winnable.

    The Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union occasioned the creation, not just of new weapons systems, but of new disciplines in logic and political science. Those disciplines applied only in a historically unique situation of overwhelming firepower and comparably high levels of technical competence. Nuclear weapons began, however, as an incremental augmentation to the tactics of area bombing. A substantial amount of time passed before the Cold War competitors had the nuclear devices and the delivery systems that could threaten the existence of each other's societies. India and Pakistan are far from crossing that threshold.

    Several countries around the world aspire to just the situation in South Asia, where the use of nuclear weapons is a rational option. An Indian victory would have obvious policy implications for Iran, Taiwan, the Koreas and even Japan.

    Just yesterday, President George Bush made a speech at West Point in which he declared that deterrence is not enough. He is right, but few people have remarked on the scope of the police project he is proposing. Let us take a deep breath as we prepare to jump in.

    Why post old articles?

    Who was John J. Reilly?

    All of John's posts here

    An archive of John's site