pageok
pageok
pageok
Self-Defense in Asian Religions:

That's the topic of my latest article, to be published this fall in the Journal on Firearms & Public Policy. The article looks at Confucianism (in detail), Taoism (in detail), Hinduism (briefly, with some discussion of Gandhi), Jainism (very briefly), Sikhism (also very brief), and Buddhism (at great length). The article also examines the spiritual aspects of the martial arts. For all the religions, the article looks at the scriptures and the historical practice of the religion.

Thoughtful comments and suggestions are welcome, either in the Comments section below, or in private e-mail via the e-mail link on my home page. Please keep the comments focused on the issues of religious ethics (and not the usual pro/con arguments on gun control, etc.). Please comment if, and only if, you have something useful to add to the discussion after reading the article (or at least the portion of the article covering the religion about which you wish to comment).

Rahul Sinha (mail):
on page 28 you say that warfare is in general carried out by the Brahmin caste; this is incorrect. The Kshtriya caste comprise soldiers and warriors (as you note earlier in the section on Hinduism); the Brahmin caste comprise the priests. While they eventually took temporal power away from the Kshtriyas, they did not take over the armed forces.

Earlier in discussing Gandhi, I think you misunderstood his comments in re Jewish resistance to the Nazis. I think what he was trying to say is that the non-violent non-compliance should have occurred when the Ghettoisation order came down, or when the clearing of the Ghettos was ordered. Given that the goal of non-compliance was to render the brutality of the regime visible to all, the point was the going into camps far from "general society" would render what concience there was in the general citizenry moot.

The Final Solution was only put into place midway through the war. One must assume Hitler felt he could not get the population to go along with it until then, or rather, could not prevent the population from hearing about it. Only when society had been in a posture of complliance long enough did he feel he could make that order without members of the implementing bureaucracy leaking the information.

I'm not saying that non-violent non-compliance to ghettoisation or the clearing of the ghettos would have succeeded, but it would certainly have been a more reasonable policy than that your ascribe to Gandhi, and more in keeping with the tactical aims on non-compliance.

Its worth noting that in those cities where the ghetto was centrally located. streetcars crossing views of teh ghetto had their windows blotted out by the Nazis. Making the jewish population invisible was necessary for teh rest of the Final Solution to take place.

The entire point of non-complaince is to refuse to be invisible. If the price of being in the centre of the public square is to suffer violence, non-compliance argues that is a reasonable tactical cost to ensure that one and one's plight (and the brutality of one's oppressors) remains front and centre in the public square. Non violence once in the public square is again tactical; if you haven't the power to free yourself, you rely on the conscience of others.

With any excuse (such as retaliatory violence) people will create false equivalence and relieve themselves of the need to get involved. Only with an entirely one-sided narrative that cannot be ignored because it is being acted out in public, in the open where it cannot be hidden, can brutality provoke enough revulsion in an otherwise slothful, parochial and self interested population that they become willing to act on your behalf.
1.23.2006 4:26pm
jallgor (mail):
The occasional discussions of hunting seemed to be off topic. The lead in sentence says the article is about eastern philosophy/religion and its take on self defense. I don't see how hunting fits in and I found it distracting.
1.23.2006 4:51pm
ChrisAllan (mail):
Rahul Sinha,

The final solution didn't just start happen in the middle of the WWII it was a progression of events and policies. A good book that describes how the Nazi's progressed to the final solution is, "The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide" by Robert Jay Lifton
1.23.2006 4:59pm
Vish:
It is Mohandas K. Gandhi, not Mohandes.
1.23.2006 5:02pm
Taimyoboi:
On page 23 there is a typo in the fourth paragraph:

"As fighters, they must obey ehtical warfare principles: the warrior is must not to be cruel, and must fight unselfishly..."
1.23.2006 5:14pm
AB (mail):
Its also Gandhi, not Ghandi.
1.23.2006 5:15pm
Rahul Sinha (mail):
Chris Allen -

Of course you are right.

1) Economic restrictions and harassment
2) Concentration intra-city into ghettos
3) Expulsion from the ghettos to work camps
4) conversion of some work camps into death camps; transfer of non-workers to death camps
5) transfer of as many as possible to the death camps

I think the non-compliance strategy was aimed at stages 1 and 2; unless you have superior force there is little a group can after stage 3 to derail the brutality of the regime.

I don't think Gandhi's concept was that Jewish prisoners should have peacefully boarded trains to Dachau; rather I think he was suggesting that by refusing to enter the ghettos in a public demonstration (and no doubt then being attacked by the local security forces) what core humanity lived in the Poles/Germans/Austrians observing this process would be awakened.

Once none of those majority populations met Jews on the street or in the bakery, etc, it was comparatively easier for Nazi propaganda to take its toll on the compassion of the majority societies. Under the circumstances the armed resistance strategy would have been to melt into the population (to whatever extent that were possible) and begin a guerilla war.

Gandhi's position may well have been that this resistance would be less likely to succeed (being fought against a superior force in a community whose already anti-semitic views of the Jewish community would only harden once the Nazis could blame violence on this invisible "Other".

N.B. I am hardly blaming the victims of the Holocaust for not doing more, nor saying they bear any responsibility. I'm not even sure I agree w/ Gandhi's views here, simply trying to say that the characterisation given in the linked PDF file seem to impugn those views unjustly.

Ultimatly Gandhi was "armchair quarterbacking". It is very easy to propose the most difficult courses of actions to others. Gandhi's accomplishments were impressive but ultimately he was sending the British on a guilt trip by campaigning on "home turf" surrounded by compatriots in agreement with one's goals, if not always one's tactics, and addressing an audience that, while latently racist, was not being exposed to active propaganda. This is a world apart from trying the same against a non-democratic regime dependant on its xenophobic narrative to justify its political controls, operating in societies already conditioned not only to disdain the relevant minority, but also fearing and thus hating (to some degree).
1.23.2006 5:27pm
Thief (mail) (www):
As a fairly new aikidoka (just passed my first test), a brief comment on the martial arts section:

As far as offering no "resistance" to the attacks, I believe you are correct; it seems that in many techniques, even across discipline, the focus is on using the force of your opponent's attack against him, as well as taking advantage of the inevitable opening that an attack creates. (One of the earliest lessons I recieved was that every attack creates an opening that can be exploited, whether through redirecting the force of the attacking limb, attacking an area left open by your opponent, or even moving out of the way of the attack so your opponent hits only air.) In addition to being very spiritual, good martial artists also seem to have an innate understanding of biophysics; they know just how human bodies move, and how to get them to move how you want.

I see a lot of active law enforcement officers training at my dojo (you can always tell which ones they are; when they pin you it HURTS!!!); Aikido's emphasis on using the minimum amount of force necessary and the use of defensive moves, throws, and (especially) pins makes it a good choice for gaining physical control of suspects and de-escalating violent situations. Several of the senior sensei in the ASU organization, which you mentioned in the article, consult for law enforcement services. (Two of the most well-regarded experts here are George Ledyard and Ellis Amdur. If you want further input on the article and/or aikido and the use of martial arts in both personal self-defense and police tactics, I'm sure they would be happy to offer their perspective.)
1.23.2006 5:31pm
Taimyoboi:
I think the section,titled Did Ghandi's Success Lead to More Violence, is underdeveloped, or alternatively, the title is not indicative of the content to follow.

The prior sections seemed to be laying two foundations: one, that Hindu belief structure does not preclude warfare; and two, Ghandi (a prominent moralist and Hindu) was more willing to entertain the prospect of armed defense than commonly believed.

Section C, as I read it, attempts to say a lot of things at the same time. One, that India has made some good progress post Ghandi (which to me indicates Ghandi's push for independence was a good thing). Two, Pakistan on the other hand has not done so well, and Three, that Ghandi's non-violence position as applied to other cases (namely the Holocaust), would not have worked.

The discussion of India and Pakistan seem on point. The evidence suggests that Ghandi's success, as embodied by India's independence, did not lead to more violence, while Pakistan's did. My only issue here is that the author's point of view is not more explicit, nor are the examples more fully fleshed out.

The third topic, the Holocaust, does not seem to have any relation to the question. Ghandi's success was independent of horrors of Nazism. While his refusal to support emigration to Palestine indicated a blindness to the facts on the ground, that doesn't mean his success resulted in more Jews dying.
1.23.2006 5:50pm
Wintermute (www):
I was impressed by your scholarship, which should be of value even to those who resist your conclusions.

I do recall an anecdote in some book on my shelf in which a master (whether Ch'an or Zen I do not remember) allowed his monastery to be overrun rather than organizing resistance, so as not to become like the enemy, I think (Jesus-like, in a way, no?). If I can find that anecdote, I will send it on to you for potential balance of that section.

Surely the emphasis of Bodhidharma (Daruma), who spread Buddhism from India to China, was on meditative enlightenment rather than martial applications, although Zen focus and ego-death were adaptable to enhance both the skill and fearlessness (without using belief in life after death) of Nipponese warriors; and the feudalistic climate of Japan at the time of Ch'an's introduction there may explain why Zen infused the martial arts more in Japan than in India or China.

You might like to glance at a related observation on concerted violence in my brief blog piece, "Human Aggression and the Belief in Heaven."
1.23.2006 6:43pm
AlanB (mail):
Dear David,

I agree that “many Westerners have misunderstood the East because of reliance on simplistic stereotypes” but I’m afraid that this article is not going to help with that problem and will in fact, if published, make it worse. I will confine myself to the sections on Confucianism, as that is what I know best.

-p.2 You seem to be arguing against lots of strawmen here. Who claims that Chinese religions “create an inclination in favor of passive submission towards unjust government?” This does not seem to be to be anything that any serious scholar of the last century at least could possibly claim.
-p.3 Brooks and Brooks in The Original Analects disagree with your claim that Analects was compiled by his disciples. There is a large literature on these texts that you don’t seem to be aware of.
-p.3 Where does this “emphasis on moderation” stuff come from?
-p.4 You seem to have no knowledge of the fairly large literature on the role of violence in classical China. Lewis’ Sanctioned Violence in Early China is the best source. Yes, they hunted a lot, but not as recreation.
-p.4 Mao’s government is usually called “Maoist” rather than “tengist” since his surname was Mao. He was a tyrant, but would never cite Confucius. The Singapore regime does sometimes mention Confucian values, and it is in an authoritarian state to some respects, but lumping it in with Mao is like comparing Bush to Hitler.
p.7 Mencius (Why not ‘Master Meng?’) was not really arguing against the Legalists, but against the followers of Mozi.
p.8, 9. You seem to have read Nylan and DeBarry, but you have not really made much use of them.
-At the end you seem to be mixing up all sorts of Confucian writers and claiming that if any of them said anything about the military it supports your thesis. Is your thesis that China usually had an army and people sometimes thought about it? They did, but that does not really say much about a personal right to bear arms. People in China, both Confucian and non-confucian, talked a lot about war and punishment, but this article is not even slightly adequate as an introduction to or analysis of this debate.
-p12 You seem to be mixing a handful of good sources, a lot of questionable ones, and some really poor ones. I don’t know who Deng Ming-Dao is, but Laozi may not have existed and in any case he is not recorded as a swordsman in any source I know of.

There are larger problems with this of course. First, nobody in the field would accept your broad construct of “Asian religions” including Hinduism, Jainism and Confucianism as part of a single whole. Second, the implicit purpose of the paper seems to be enlisting Confucius and Gandhi et.al. as supporters of a American pro-gun sort of NRA ideal. This seems about as valid as asking if Laozi would be rooting for the Seahawks or the Steelers in the upcoming Superbowl. The right to bear arms for self-defense is simply not a concern for these people. These are very different people in a very different time. You can’t deploy them in a contemporary debate without doing a –lot- more intellectual work than has been done here. Finally, there also seems to be an implicit assumption that one can understand modern Asian attitudes towards guns by looking at Confucius and archery, an assumption that is about as valid as assuming that you can deduce American attitudes towards eating shrimp from reading the Torah.

For all these problems of conceptualization, research, and argument, I think that this is at present a very weak paper, and if you are considering publishing it you should reconsider. At present if you were to send this to any journal in Asian Studies it would not even be sent out for peer review.
1.23.2006 6:44pm
Charlie (Colorado) (mail):
Just quibbles on first reading, but (as a Buddhist myself) let me say that it's pretty amazingly evenhanded and well-stated in the Buddhism section. There's a LOT of misinformation out there.

With that said, here's the first quibbles.

(1) In all the sections of Chinese basis, I wish you'd pick a romanization and stick with it. The syllable you write as "Tzu" in some places is written as "zi" in others, and Kung fu zi ("Confucious") and Meng zi ("Mencius") are there by the Latinized names only. It would be wonderful almost beyond belief if you could actually put the Chinese names in, but at least make it possible to look the people up without extensive knowledge of Chinese.

(2) The historical part on Buddhism has a number of more or less subtle flaws.

- in the Four Great Truths, "desire" is a dreadful translation of tanha. Use "attachment". (I personally prefer "frustration" as a translation of "duhkha" in place of "suffering" but that's less common.)

- The three major subdivisions of Buddhism are:Therevada (or Hinayana, the "little raft", but you get a gold star for avoiding that one, as many therevadists consider it derogatory); Mahayana (the "big raft"); and Vajrayana (the "diamond raft"). Zen is properly part of Mahayana; while Japanese Zen has very Japanese aspects (koan practice, for example), that's true of most all Japanese Buddhist traditions, and all three subdivisions of Buddhism occur in Japan (with, for example, Shin, Zen and Tendai, and Shingon respectively.) (You could make the case for vajrayana being mahayana as well, but the traditions are so different that I like the three-part division better.)

- There's no such thing as a "Buddhist i ching". The i ching is a pre-Buddhist, pre-Taoist tradition, and there are interpretations, or glosses, or commentaries, written by any number of people, including traditionally Confucius.

- Bodhidharma was a bodhisattva, not a Buddha: more or less by definition, one is not fully enlightened until the last attachment to the world of samsara is washed away at physical death. The Dalai Lama is traditionally considered an incarnation of the Bodhisattva Avalokiteswara, but not a Buddha, since a Buddha, free of all attachment, is also free of reincarnation.

- "kung fu" means "public skill", and applies to pretty much any fighting art -- or most anything else. You can have "great kung fu" as a painter. "Chuan fa" means "fist principle" and is a specific kind of fighting style. The term you're looking for is "wu shu", or "warrior art."

But as I say, these are academic quibbles. You're correct in your general thesis, that Buddhism doesn't forbid self-defense.
1.23.2006 7:05pm
Chukuang:
It's unfortunate that you use Thomas Cleary's ideas and translations. He's a wacko who believes he is a reincarnated Chan monk from the Qing dynasty. His translations are so bad (and aimed directly at the new age or use-Eastern-mysteries-to-get-ahead-in-business market) that basically all scholars consider them worse than useless.





[DK: I think your claim about "all scholars" is a very serious over-generalization. Your post led to me look up Thomas Cleary on Questia. His translations are cited in numerous books, including from academic presses such as as Oxford, SUNY, and U. of Hawaii. He's also cited in journals such as "Philosophy East and West" and "Buddhist-Christian Studies" by professors from Wesleyan, Bonn University, and elsewhere.

If had known all this yesterday, I simply would have deleted this comment, because it is an unfair & inaccurate slam against Dr. Cleary. However, since the comment has already been available to readers, I thought it was important to write this reply, because I do not want VC readers to receive inaccurate information about Dr. Cleary.


Also, I've never met him, and have no idea about whether your statement about his beliefs regarding reincarnation are true. But I've met other people who believe they have been reincarnated, and I wouldn't characterize them as "wacko" or as intellectually unfit solely because of their belief, even though I am personally skeptical about the notion of reincarnation. Given the manifest falseness of the assertion about what "all scholars" supposedly think of Cleary, I think that readers should take the reincarnation criticisms with a grain of salt.



That said, I thank you for the non-Cleary comments, and will use them as starting points for further research on the next draft.]





"Confucian scholars in 220 led a peasant rebellion which brought down the tyrannical Han dynasty."



Well, the series of rebellions were led by religions leaders that were, if anything, Daoists. The dynasty was then torn apart by various warlords who tended to sack the capital, raping and killing its inhabitants, rather than, say, pushing for Confucian moral reforms. And in about 20 years of studying China, including a PhD. in early Chinese history and literature, I have never heard the Han (which modern Chinese still use to identify both their race and language) as "tyrannical." Through all imperial history and for many in the modern period, it has been considered a golden age in almost all respects.



I don't take issue with your basic points that early Confucians thought war could be just and hunting was fun. But these hardly seem like controversial points.
1.23.2006 7:37pm
Chukuang:
Charles,

Koan practice started in the Tang dynasty in China (gong an in Chinese, meaning, roughly, "public case." It came to Japan through followers of the Linji (J. Rinzai) school of Chan/Zen.

Thank you for pointing out that there is no "Buddhist Yijing."

AlanB, thank you for taking the time to point out many problems I don't have time to deal with.
1.23.2006 7:43pm
Greedy Clerk (mail):
I second Tamyboi's comments. As someone who wrote my senior thesis on the Post WWI India until its Independence, I am not quite sure what you are getting at with the section re Gandhi and nonviolence.

I don't quite get where you are going with your quotes re Gandhi's support for violence in certain situations -- are you praising that? Apart from trying to somewhat make War Protesters look ignorant, you do not appear to have another point. Also, I am curious about the context in which he said these things -- you should expand on it and explain. If indeed Gandhi continued to support the use of violence in certain situations -- and AFTER he embraced his larger philosophy of pacifism -- I think an explanation would be quite interesting.

As to the point about Pakistan, I just don't get it. It appears that you are trying to say that Gandhi's approach was unsuccesful in the case of Pakistan, because his movement led to an independent Pakistan, and an independent Pakistan has not been a "good" state. Taking the point about Pakistan for granted, the causation between it and Gandhi is awkward. Sure, Gandhi I guess is a "but for" cause of the fact that Pakistan supported the Taliban, because if he had not existed, there would not have been a Pakistan (or may not have been). But Gandhi himself has NOTHING to do with the policies of the Pakistani government, and his philosophy of nonviolence has nothing to do with it. I must believe you have another point that I am missing, and I would urge you to clarify whatever it is as I don't think most people are going to get it.

Further, re the Holocaust and Gandhi, I would simply reiterate what has been said -- That Gandhi was wrong in how the Jews should react to Nazi oppression is of little relevance to anything; I don't think anyone would seriously argue that Gandhi's positions on nonviolence were universal truths to be applied in every situation. Further, who knows what would have happened if the Jews had, in 1933, instituted a large-scale non-violent protest to the Nazis' early actions? No one knows, and as a Jew, I am quite certain moreover that the statement that Jews somehow found their true "joy" when we started resisting Nazism and fighting the 1948 Israeli War of Independence. The latter took about 1 percent of the lives of Jews in pre-state Israel, and was certainly not a "joyous" thing. I furthermore do not enjoy those who use the Holocaust to advance mundane political issues of the day --- whether that be objections to Gun-control or objections to certain policies of George W. Bush.

Finally, your conclusion -- "Despite Gandhi’s failings, Gandhi showed, in theory and in deed, how pacifists could be active resisters. His inspiring example helped make pacifists seem less like tame victims, and more like activists for justice" -- does not appaer to follow from what was written before; you do not really acknowledge that Gandhi "showed . . .in deed how pacificsts could be active resisters."
1.23.2006 8:15pm
Charlie (Colorado) (mail):
Koan practice started in the Tang dynasty in China (gong an in Chinese, meaning, roughly, "public case." It came to Japan through followers of the Linji (J. Rinzai) school of Chan/Zen.


Yep, but it's pretty much died out except in Japan and Korea; the Zen traditions on the mainland are much like what we call "Soto" traditions. But in any case, it's solidly in Mahayana tradition.

Re "koan" or "k'ung an": there's that character 公 again. "K'ung an", "k'ung fu", "k'ung fu tze" ... sneaky little fella.
1.23.2006 10:37pm
Chukuang:
Charlie,

You are correct about the Zen (or Chan, in this case) tradition dying out in China. Well, all the traditions eventually died out, or were killed off.

As for 公, that is the character for 公案, but the "Kong" (in the pin yin romanization system, k'ung in Wade Giles) is actually 孔. The two are unrelated.

本來不知道在這種網站能寫漢字。善哉!
1.23.2006 11:10pm
B. R. George (mail):
Minor point - at the beginning of section I, you suggest implicitly that Confucius is the most enduringly influential figure in the Eastern Hemisphere. since `the Easter Hemisphere' is frequently taken to mean `the Hemisphere bounded on the west by the prime meridian' or almost equivalently `the old world', this is a rather contentious statement, since it puts Confucius in direct competition with the likes of Mohammed, Christ, Newton, and Aristotle. although there's certainly a case to be made that Confucius can hold his own in this company, I don't know if you want to make the case for his possible supremacy quite so strongly.
1.23.2006 11:37pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Neo-neocon had a long and quite profound discussion of Gandhi and non-violence.
Turns out G wasn't the secular saint he's been made out to be and in some ways was a miserable little turd.

Harry Turtledove had a believable alt-hist on Gandhi vs. the Germans. The Germans won.
Part of the plot has Gandhi and Nehru, having finessed a massacre by the Germans, waiting by a radio for news of the German government's rejection of the act, of its determination to try Model and the others involved. And not hearing it--which they wouldn't, of course.
It points out that Gandhi's views were likely not to avoid violence, but to outsource it. If the shame of massacring people didn't get the perps to stop, the shame of seeing it done would motivate others to get the perps to stop. And how do you stop mass murderers who aren't disturbed by committing mass murders? I guess you kill them, until you've killed enough that the rest surrender.

Gandhi survived, as did his movement, because Orwell's rough men (British soldiers) weren't so rough as to murder it to insignificance, but were rough enough to stop the men who would.

I don't expect Gandhi ever figured that out, or if he did, it didn't seem to bother him.
1.24.2006 12:00am
Yann Golanski (mail) (www):
I've posted a link to this page to the aikiweb. If you want to read the thread there, follow the URL: http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9672

Some factual errors:

1. Judo is not a ancestor of Aikido. Aikido is the ancestor of daito ryu aiki-jujitsu, the Takeda clan's style of jujitsu.

2. Aikido as describe there is the "end of life" of Ueshiba sensei. Earlier on his life, the spiritual aspect was tonned down and many of Ueshiba's students did not follow his more esoteric path. Both Tomiki (Shodokan style) and Shioda (Yoshinkan style) are used by the Japaniese police and neither styles emphasis the spiritual aspects of Aikido.

3. Non-resistence does not necessary mean "love", it implies blending. All Aikido techniques can be done with intent to break limbs. The individual Aikidoka has a choice how to aplly those.

Hope those help.
1.24.2006 4:53am
MarkM (mail):
A few comments on the section regarding Gandhi. First, I would strongly suggest you take a look at _Freedom at Midnight_ which goes into great detail about Gandhi's political role in the Independence Movement. It seems you are arguing two things in this section: 1) Gandhi was inconsistent and strategic in his application of non-violence and 2) Gandhi's non-violent philosophy led him to absurd and indefensible positions. I agree with 2) (he also thought Britain should not retaliate against the Nazis for the blitz of London) but 1) is, in my opinion, not supported by the facts. Gandhi may have been stubborn, idealistic and impractical but I don't believe he was inconsistent.
The key to understanding Gandhi is that, in terms of moral philosophy, he was the ultimate non-consequentialist. Ends could never justify violent means. I think his starting point was that violence is always unacceptable and spent much of his life figuring out how to make this work in a modern society. He may have been wrong but I think claims of hypocracy misfire. If you look at Gandhi's life after his turn to pacifism, I think it is tough to find something he said or did that is inconsistent with this. I think it is pretty clear that Gandhi considered violence wrong whether it was used in self-defense or in retaliation. He had practical arguments for why it might be a good strategic decision to practice non-violence, but underneath these practical considerations was always a deeply held belief that violence itself is evil.
The part on the creation of Pakistan also is not very clear. Pakistan was created because the Muslim League demanded it and were pretty clear that they would wage all out warfare to get their own country. It is not at all clear how the creation of Pakistan can be blamed on Gandhi's non-violent movement. Hindu and Muslim extremists both committed atrocities and the British did not have the troops on the ground to deal with the carnage (law and order was maintained largely by Indians employed by the British, who had their own loyalties to consider). I think this section needs to be more developed. Additionally, it is worth pointing out that most of the carnage due to partition was in Punjab. Gandhi was intimately involved with Hindu and Muslim communities in Bengal and this region largely avoided violence on the same scale as in Punjab.
1.25.2006 9:07pm
Stuart Davis (mail) (www):
SRA International (SRX) and the Super Bowl

As the Superbowl approaches, SRA International employees and shareholders may be wondering what is going to happen next.

For some time, Barry Landew has bragged about how easy it is for him to make money gambling on sports events. At one point he even said he was thinking of moving to Las Vegas to do it full time.

An examination of public filings shows when Landew sells his SRA shares. Some claim there is an uncomfortable proximity of these sales to major sporting events. Is it possible Landew is addicted to gambling, and dumps SRX to feed his gambling habit?

If true, this could be a major scandal. Landew’s love of gambling and substantial sales are not mere rumors. Other rumors such as the nature of his relationship with up and coming SRA manager Jeff Rydant are harder to explain. Rydant seems to be or at least have been Landew’s companion on many of his gambling jaunts.

There have also been allegations of nefarious deeds associated with Landew’s position on the board of Mantas and SRA’s relationship with CIA think tank In-Q-Tel. It is likely, however, that the stories about Bellador and shady dealings in Kuala Lumpur can be dismissed as conspiracy theories.


SRA International (SRX) and the Super Bowl

As the Superbowl approaches, SRA International employees and shareholders may be wondering what is going to happen next.

For some time, Barry Landew has bragged about how easy it is for him to make money gambling on sports events. At one point he even said he was thinking of moving to Las Vegas to do it full time.

An examination of public filings shows when Landew sells his SRA shares. Some claim there is an uncomfortable proximity of these sales to major sporting events. Is it possible Landew is addicted to gambling, and dumps SRX to feed his gambling habit?

If true, this could be a major scandal. Landew’s love of gambling and substantial sales are not mere rumors. Other rumors such as the nature of his relationship with up and coming SRA manager Jeff Rydant are harder to explain. Rydant seems to be or at least have been Landew’s companion on many of his gambling jaunts.

There have also been allegations of nefarious deeds associated with Landew’s position on the board of Mantas and SRA’s relationship with CIA think tank In-Q-Tel. It is likely, however, that the stories about Bellador and shady dealings in Kuala Lumpur can be dismissed as conspiracy theories.



SRA International (SRX) and the Super Bowl

As the Superbowl approaches, SRA International employees and shareholders may be wondering what is going to happen next.

For some time, Barry Landew has bragged about how easy it is for him to make money gambling on sports events. At one point he even said he was thinking of moving to Las Vegas to do it full time.

An examination of public filings shows when Landew sells his SRA shares. Some claim there is an uncomfortable proximity of these sales to major sporting events. Is it possible Landew is addicted to gambling, and dumps SRX to feed his gambling habit?

If true, this could be a major scandal. Landew’s love of gambling and substantial sales are not mere rumors. Other rumors such as the nature of his relationship with up and coming SRA manager Jeff Rydant are harder to explain. Rydant seems to be or at least have been Landew’s companion on many of his gambling jaunts.

There have also been allegations of nefarious deeds associated with Landew’s position on the board of Mantas and SRA’s relationship with CIA think tank In-Q-Tel. It is likely, however, that the stories about Bellador and shady dealings in Kuala Lumpur can be dismissed as conspiracy theories.
1.28.2006 8:33am