Still, emotionally, I think stuff like that should be controlled, and I just don’t think comparing something by Alan Moore with lolicon is fair. Like Gaiman, I’ve never actually seen lolicon, but I have heard of its reputation, and I have come across some very misogynistic non-lolicon works (in fact, I eventually realized most works by male manga authors always seem to have this weird sleazy angle to it [random panty shots that have nothing to do with the plot!?!]). Tenjo Tenge is one. It’s an action-packed, martial arts manga on the surface (with the usual male mangaka perv angle, or so I thought), but every x chapters, there’s a rape, and eventually, in the words of SomethingAwful.com, it’s not just mild rape, it’s insane rape. Very reminiscent of warcrimes committed during ww2. The first “normal” rape I could rationalize. “Hmm, ok, maybe he’s setting up some kind of emotional trauma to explore its ramifications. Now there is a vendetta between both sides.” But no, the victim never really thinks about it, ever, whether alone or with others. Like it was no big deal. The other characters treat it like that, too. “Oh, just rape. It’s coo. We’ll go punch him in the face.” Then the rapes start getting S&M-y, and then eventually execution by mutilation starts happening. Yeah, I stopped reading. It kind of blew my mind that it was picked up for conversion into an anime series, as well as for import to the US (with a lot of it redacted). But I searched the author’s name, followed the rabbit down the hole, and saw some things I wish I had never seen. So yeah, comparing Alan Moore with that? I don’t think that’s fair at all. For the record, I haven’t read the cited Moore work, Lost Girls, but I have read Watchmen, and I’ve seen V for Vendetta, does that count? I figure those works alone are so far above a mindless martial arts manga with rampant rape.

Anyway, I must go soon. Cue something about drawing the line on freedom of speech, and how mobile it is through time and space (what country you happen to be in), and something about how the blogger in Taiwan got arrested for a negative restaurant review, and another example from Europe, how insane the rape scene is in the King James bible, blah blah blah. You guys fill in the blanks. You’re smart. Write this shit for me.

Update: I suppose if I compare this to very liberal drug laws, which seem to be quite effective, perhaps it should be open season for anything when it comes to fiction, too. For those unfamiliar, various countries have tried letting people do whatever the hell they want when it comes to drugs, which has actually lowered crime due to the muted effect on the black market. Still, to succeed those countries also needed to create a support network to get people off drugs. I’m not sure what the equivalent would be for insane fiction.

Here’s an interesting article on the BBC website.

“Obama’s administration made a tremendous mistake by not immediately branding the economic collapse that we had just had as the Republicans’ Depression, caused by the Bush administration’s ideology of unregulated greed. The result is that now people blame him.”

The problem is, the left doesn’t play like that (whether you think the collapse was the Republicans’ fault or not), even if the average voter would eat that right up. The left prides itself as intelligent and intellectual (not to say I haven’t met some intelligent and intellectual conservatives), and above all that. They want to reach across the aisle and hold the conservatives’ hands. Sounds like an ivory tower. As Mao said, politics is war. And despite having a majority in the senate that could not be filibustered, the Democrats couldn’t pass the big stuff. Sure, there’ll be excuses on why it didn’t happen (some very good, actually), but the end result is failure. If the situation was reversed I doubt the conservatives would give a damn about working with Democrats. They somehow seem to be able to move in lockstep towards their greater good.

On a somewhat related note, I think many liberals assumed Fox News, known for generalizations like the quote above, would kind of just go away, or remain a niche product, and yet it’s actually become quite popular, despite how much the liberals bitch about it on the internet. Arrogance or naivete?

So Avatar, the anti-corporate-excess, anti-unregulated-mercenary, anti-imperialist, anti-war, anti-materialism, anti-racism, pro-environment, sci-fi action adventure romance just passed $1.1 billion not too long ago (and stands as the fastest movie to hit a billion). Not too shabby, especially for sci-fi, which traditionally does not have wide appeal. I guess James Cameron knows how to make a movie.

Personally, I think Avatar is the best action/adventure movie I’ve ever seen. There, I said it. I think I’m a picky bastard, too. It easily tops Dark Knight for me, another movie that ranked highly with me. I loved Dark Knight, but DK is totally consumed by raw negativity (And I can be a jackass). There’s no rest, no break, no salvation. Just cynical bleakness. It’s a great window into the darkness, but as a result it just lacks balance, and that gets wearisome. I’m not surprised that men seem to favor DK more than women (in my personal sphere).

Avatar on the other hand has superb, technically accurate action (yet it’s an anti-war film; just like in Terminator 2, Cameron is so good at annihilating things while simultaneously being against it), but it also has a pretty well developed romance, for a movie that’s supposed to be action/adventure anyway. As Kim Masters of the Daily Beast wrote, “Cameron’s genius is this: He makes movies for women disguised as movies for men.” I’m sure the girls will say that it can’t match The Notebook or something like that (haven’t seen it, don’t want to), but that would probably throw off the balance for the men. But with the girl…er, female power, and the love story in Avatar, I’m not surprised that Avatar is doing quite well with women, probably not to the extent of Titanic, but still, I’ve heard plenty of women who want to and have watched Avatar multiple times.

Basically, the only way I can fathom someone not liking Avatar is if they hate fun and adventure—and love (or if one is diehard conservative, more on that below). If one finds such things abhorrent, then yes, Avatar is a bore. Hell, even A.O. Scott of the NYT liked it, and that mother is one of the snobbiest, high brow pro-reviewers I’ve ever seen. For the rest of us, I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Avatar, at the moment, is the closest any of us ghetto 21st century folks will get to experience what it’s like to travel to another planet. You’re buying a ticket for an experience, a trip almost (especially when seen in 3D). Along the way, there’s a universally appealing story. So, relax, and enjoy the ride!

But is it just the effects, and the wonderful immersive 3D? I’m not sure anymore. I read an argument somewhere that movies don’t make over a billion dollars on effects alone, that Avatar is connecting with people at an emotional level somehow. I think I must agree. It definitely made me question whether I need to make so many unnecessary gadget purchases, and rekindled my doubt about the role of the cubicle in my life. Apparently, in China, some interpreted it as representative of the battle between real estate developers, and impoverished homeowners.

The most major initial criticism I hear is the simplicity of the story. Yes, it is simple, but it’s also epic, truly epic. “Epic” gets tossed around a lot these days, particularly with action/war movies, but Avatar is a true epic in the old school sense. Love, culture, and war. All in 2 hrs 40 minutes. It wasn’t totally predictable either, as some claim, especially towards the end. And it’s also complete. No further sequels are needed or alluded to. I’m actually hoping there won’t be any, because I wouldn’t want the franchise to be destroyed like so many others due to crappy sequels. While I love the characters in Avatar, their story is over. Unless Cameron can pull another miracle.

Besides, it’s how a story is told that is important. That’s all epic storytellers have really been doing for the last few millennia anyway, adding their own permutations to common storylines, or telling the same story, but better, like different productions of the same musical.

But I would also argue Avatar’s story is not significantly simpler than most movies out there anyway. I think it was just an easy aspect to criticize, especially by people I like to call the “nouveau intelligentsia,” who make the argument without really considering if it’s fair or not (especially Will Heaven’s poor argument that Avatar was racist, but more on that later). Because most movies aren’t that complicated, especially in the genre Avatar is in, and such movies definitely didn’t get as much heat. Success attracts disdain I guess.

Yes, in other movies, the dialogue can be more sophisticated, but unlike most other movies, Avatar pushes hard on multiple, relevant contemporary themes simultaneously (as previously listed). In this sense, I honestly think Avatar is actually quite sophisticated. Avatar tends to expound its themes through visuals, instead of telling through dialogue, letting the viewer stew on it later, like a painting (indeed one guy interpreted some 9/11 imagery that I hadn’t thought of, and that I don’t think Cameron intended, though he found it interesting). Of the recent “good” films I’ve seen lately, District 9, Dark Knight, Inglorious Basterds, Up in the Air, I think Avatar generated more introspection and personal thought. Basterds came close (but in a negative way. More in its own review). Up in the Air was an interesting character sketch, but hey, I’ve got my own issues to deal with, and if I want to waste my time to see you conquer or deal with yours, I’d only want to see it once.

Here, I stumbled across a well-written argument by an Amazon customer; I can’t really put it any better, so I’m just going to quote her:

You could boil the plot down to Dances With Wolves does Star Wars in Middle Earth, but that wouldn’t do real justice to this fantastic film. It follows an archetypal storyline (archetype, not stereotype), which may make it feel familiar (or trite, if you are looking for a plot twist a minute). Think Joseph Campbell: the Hero Journey (the basis of tales like Star Wars and LOTR). I think a familiar, archetypal, mythic storyline will draw much more of the audience into this fantastic world than a quirky tale with plot twists. Here in York County PA, tastes run to beer and blue jeans, and it’s hard enough getting them into the theater to see “some weird story about ten foot tall half naked blue guys”. Kudos to James Cameron for creating a tale with relevant issues (decimation of indigenous peoples, our overconsumptive culture, our relationship with tech and the natural world), awesome visuals, and universal appeal.

I’ve got to agree; I don’t think a jumpy or soapy plot would have been appropriate, nor would the sharper, snarkier dialogue of someone like…Joss Whedon. Cameron went for classic epic that appeals to children and adult alike, while hitting on relevant real-world topics, not “hey, that was quirky and interesting, but I have no intention of watching the movie again.”

And Avatar only seemed to get better with another viewing – if you were like me who was kind of cynical about the whole thing at first. From my first viewing, I came away liking the movie, but I was not amazed with it. However, the more I thought about it, the more it grew on me. Then I saw Avatar again and I was definitely hooked. The amazing visual effects definitely do the grunt work, but the attention to detail do as well, like the Na’vi language created by a USC professor, the alien flora and fauna, also created by a professor, and the raw emotion of the actors captured by Cameron’s upgraded mo-cap technology. You can see every expression that the original actor made, but on an alien body. No uncanny valley here. It really helped me empathize with these “space smurfs”, and it definitely put Zoe Saldana on the map for me.

Sadly, Avatar made me realize that there could be tons of talented leading ladies out there that will never get the time of day because of their skin color, unless they get roles like Neytiri. Other than films sketching minority life, how often do you see a colored woman in the lead actress role?

I suppose I should now mention the subset of conservatives that hate the movie for such themes. But they hate most things out of Hollywood, so I don’t want to waste my time. Besides, I think their complaints are legitimate, in the sense that it definitely crosses their ideology. Although I think the movie is less about anti-America, and more anti-Blackwater/Halliburton. And well, if you can still defend either of those, our ideologies are way too different.

Basically it’s erotic gore. I don’t know why such a genre exists, but it does. And it’s very disturbing. Ah what a coincidence, origins starting around 1920-1930 Japan, just before the war…My pop psych analysis says it’s a hyper extreme case of needing to dominate another person, but man, WTF?

You put people who like that kind of stuff in an imperial war machine that has them convinced that other ethnicities are less than human…it’s not hard to put 2 and 2…I highly, highly, highly, highly^35 recommend you do NOT google either term, unless you are extremely desensitized, or have some kind of purely academic curiosity (of which you will pay a price). What has been seen, cannot be unseen.

And sigh, of course, my usual disclaimer for the knee-jerk, “OMFG YOU’RE STEREOTYPING” folks. No, I do not think all Japanese (likely men) like this stuff. It’s probably a small subset, blah blah blah, although whether it’s an insignificant subset is debatable. There’s definitely a market for it over there, which itself is disturbing.

But I am kind of hopeful the DPJ victory will lead to good things, because I’m a bit suspicious of overly conservative governments (LDP), generally speaking. However, the new Prime Minister, Yukio Hatoyama, sounds like he might be  overly enthusiastic in his drive to reverse LDP policy. His op-ed in the New York Times (also quite old now) reminded me of a toned down Hugo Chavez. Hopefully he doesn’t do something too nuts, blow all of his party’s “political capital”, and restore the LDP to power in a blink of an eye.

Op-ed here.

Basically it sounds like he wants to distance his ties with the US, and tone down free markets and globalism. That just doesn’t sound like a good idea, economically speaking.  Sure, one could say the LDP didn’t do a hot job, but I think that was more due to a “You’re doing it wrong” type thing rather than due to capitalism, globalism, or free markets themselves.

I started chatting with my friend regarding Chinese culture on the mainland. I’ve never been, but from what I’ve read and heard, it sounds like the culture as I know it, as I lived it through my parents and family friends, is rapidly disappearing in China. Humility, reservedness, politeness, looking out for each other, that seems to be disappearing, being replaced by something new, something I don’t really recognize. I’ve heard you shouldn’t be too surprised if complete strangers straight up ask you how much money you make. Then again, I had a Japanese-American girl ask me how much I make right in public in front of a group of friends (we were all eating dinner at a sushi restaurant). That was a little surprising, and awkward. I can only guess at her agenda.

But yeah, it’s kinda sad; I feel like if you want to see large samples of old Chinese culture, you have to look in either neighboring Asian countries, Taiwan, or among Chinese emigrants living abroad. Maybe that divergence in culture is the source of contempt that I see sometimes. Once in awhile, I’ll encounter a Chinese person that will strongly emphasize a disconnect between Chinese abroad and mainlanders. “No no, we’re not like the mainlanders!” It’s kind of surprising. But perhaps it is a watered down version of how the US felt towards England in the 18th century?

Ron Hsu
11:08
i think it’s part of the capitalism frenzy that’s taken over
i dunno what it’s like in the “motherland” since i’ve never been, so maybe you can shed some light
but i kinda feel like chinese culture as i know it
is kinda being wiped out there
and that the chinese elsewhere are more chinese then it is over there

Lim
11:09
people in China are assholes
how about that, haha

Ron Hsu
11:09
lol

Lim
11:09
like seriously
you go into any store, you’ll tend to get jack shit for service
it’s really odd
people cut in lines
it’s like wtf

Ron Hsu
11:10
oh yeah i heard about the queueing thing
mob rush

Lim
11:10
me and my brother were at a mcdonald’s standing in line

Ron Hsu
11:10
and people i hear are super forward

Lim
11:10
and this couple jsut goes right in front of us

Ron Hsu
11:10
rofl

Lim
11:10
and we look at each other like, “wtf?”
the forwardness is how I feel with people from Hong Kong
it’s just so odd, the whole chinese culture
nobody looks out for anybody else

Ron Hsu
11:11
you mean generally speaking or how it is over there now?

Lim
11:11
over there now
I guess it’s hard to say

Ron Hsu
11:11
yeah that’s how i feel

Lim
11:11
not like I know any chinese that were there before

Ron Hsu
11:11
it feels like the culture that i practice at home
is not there at all in the motherland anymore
but yeah just comparing with how you and your parents interact
well i dunno how asian your parents are
they seem more assimilated than my parents

Lim
11:12
yeah, but not completely americanized
they still eat chinese food for every meal
or at least asian food
and read the chinese papers and bag on taiwan

Ron Hsu
11:13
lol your parents are anti taiwan?
that’s funny

Lim
11:14
yeah, it surprises me since they went to college in Taiwan

Ron Hsu
11:14
that’s so funny

Lim
11:14
and weren’t born in the mainland, so I figured their allegiance would be with Taiwan
but nope, they side with the mainland

Ron Hsu
11:14
wtf
hahahah
so they want unity?

Lim
11:14
well they like it the way it is now

Ron Hsu
11:14
forced unity or whatever

Lim
11:14
and think taiwan is crazy for wanting to break up
although I think most people think that’s true in general
hahah

Ron Hsu
11:15
that’s really interesting, i had heard of these type of chinese people but only from word of mouth
and now i hear your parents are like that

Lim
11:15
these type?
I thought it was just mainland vs taiwan

Ron Hsu
11:15
lol yeah but in my sphere usually it’s supportive of taiwan
my family, friends of family, etc

Lim
11:15
really? hmm

Ron Hsu
11:15
it was rare for me to encounter a pro mainland

Lim
11:15
but they’re all from taiwan, right?

Ron Hsu
11:15
my grandma is extremely against me marrying a mainlander
yeah

Lim
11:16
hahaha
well see
I think my parents are the only “mainlanders” I know
everyone else is either from taiwan
or hong kong, and if they’re from HK they don’t give a shit and just want money

Anyway, I blame their Communist party mixed with extreme poverty. You’ve got an ultra poor, massive proletariat, that then comes into total power. A chance has opened up, everyone wants money, everyone else be damned! It’s the financial equivalent of yelling “Fire!” in a very, very packed theater with a very small exit. Then there was the really retarded Cultural Revolution…that was just wow….just wow. End musing.

For the record, if it’s not clear already, I like Koreans, I like Korean food, I like Korean culture. In fact, I hope to learn Korean someday, and maybe visit South Korea.  Hell, even just saying “I like <ethnicity>” sounds prejudiced to me.

Having said that…USDM K-Rage amongst young Koreans, does it exist?  I’m going to stop with the PC-ness right about now, but yes, I realize even if it does exist, it doesn’t mean everyone has it, blah blah blah, standard issue disclaimer, always is never always. Never is never never.

About a week ago, I met some people at an informal tennis get-together. We went to Red Mango afterward (Korean-created btw, irony for later), and we started talking about ethnic foods, which lead to the ethnicities themselves. One of them, a young’n fresh out of HS, a young whipper-snapper who shall remain nameless, then made a joking comment that he didn’t like Koreans. He quickly apologized, emphasized he was just kidding, etc. etc. Don’t be hard on the lad, he’s truly a nice guy. I feel bad for even mentioning him, despite the anonymity, but he got me thinking.

I guess I didn’t know how to respond. My self, as I am now today, immediately red flagged the comment, where I may not have had before (but more on that later). My mind started racing. At first, I was gearing up for some verbal throw-down. Possible responses were coming up as all my historical knowledge came to bare. Then I got a hold of myself. “He’s a young one, you know how kids are.” Besides, if I did start spewing out stuff, I imagined information overload on his part. Picture Vader telling Luke he’s Luke’s father. “Nooooooooooo! It’s not trueeeee!”

Then my brain went into over-analysis mode, which it oft likes to do of its own accord. “Hmm, he’s Japanese. It’s possible he’s familiar with the current international politics between the Koreas and Japan, as well as past history. Perhaps his parents told him some stuff, possibly biased. Need more info.” Then I thought. “Dude (did my mind really address myself as ‘dude’? I don’t know), he just graduated HS. He probably isn’t familiar with politics at all, much less international politics. A lot of my friends my age have no f’n idea.”

Which then lead me to realize that….*I* used to think like him when I was in high school. Oh shit. Danger, Will Robinson! Yes, I admit it, back in grade school, I had a generally negative opinion of Koreans, particularly the males. And it was a sentiment that a probably statistically significant amount of my other Asian friends shared as well. No, I wasn’t hanging around a bunch of Asian KKK folk; it was a diverse group of Asians, who didn’t all know each other, and yet somehow had a common sentiment. I don’t know how many will remember or admit to it today. Actually, I just randomly asked one out of the blue:

I wasnt exposed to much koreans when i was young
in highschool yea, and they were kinda assholes

Me:the chicks weren’t too bad

no its pretty much all of them
if u werent korean they wouldnt be nice to you
unless u knew them or something
in highschool this older senior korean dude was prick
until he got to know me
then we were cool
cuz i joined his [Counterstrike] clan

The video game binds them!

So “Cool Tennis Dude” really got me wondering, “Where did these sentiments come from? Do they still persist today in grade schools (and possibly beyond)? Was ‘Cool Tennis Dude’ just going through similar experiences in his school days?” 1 week later (yesterday in fact), I was at Pink’s Hot Dog stand, and a group of Caucasians and one Asian girl were talking about how they didn’t like Asians (at least, that’s what I thought I had heard;  I didn’t want to tell them off for something heard out of context. And if I heard right, I think it was the Asian girl who was saying it all, which complicated matters). My friend (half-Japanese) actually heard more: “Asians have anger issues. Especially Koreans. Nobody likes Koreans.” How sad. Then I remembered one of my Chinese coworkers who had just graduated college at the time. She had expressed something similar one day at work. “They’re scary.”

So what exactly is/was the general gripe? Generally speaking, the stereotype was that Koreans were assholes, particularly the males. The females, to me, at least, were fine. Seriously, I’m going through all the Korean male kids I knew in grade school, and every single one of them was an asshole.  Wanna-be thugs. Sure, every ethnicity had the wanna-be thug subset, but even the fucking nerdy Korean dudes were assholes!  Hell if someone told me the reason it was like that back then was because there was some secret Korean Militia forming, I might half believe it. The only nice male Korean friend I had was in 3rd-5th grade. Then I transferred districts. 2-3 years later, he transferred in as well. Holy shit balls, he was totally different -> Asshole! He wasn’t just the same guy, who became snarky, he truly seemed like a completely new person to me. My friend who had also transferred earlier remarked the same thing. Wtf happened? We’ll never know. It’s one of those unsolved mysteries.

It wasn’t until I went to college where I met normal, sane Korean dudes (and super smart Korean women, woo woo! Haejin the mathematician, I wonder what happened to her). Maybe the males matured. But now that I think about it, the sane dudes were almost always immigrants. KDM (Korean Domestic Market) Koreans. That’s a car joke. KDM essentially would mean, built or available only in Korea. So, from my personal experience, the USDM (United States Domestic Market) Korean males tended to be assholes, whereas the KDM Koreans tended not be. Fascinating. See somewhat related musings regarding Jessica Ho.

So is there something there? It could be just sheer coincidence that people across multiple cities and multiple decades somehow ended up with the same sentiments. If not, what is the source of the hostility? Not enough love from Papa? Eh… Maybe Papa was not home much? Hmm…I’ve seen worst case examples of males like that, and it doesn’t quite fit the bill either. Did pappy bring the smack-down? Hmm maybe. Or did father-dearest give the broodlings (Starcraft joke, wah wah) a history lesson a little too early? This is my best guess, and it truly is just a pure guess. “Japan invaded Korea many times. They were hard and cruel.” “China was not fair with Korea in the past. They are pushy and bossy” (a sentiment many countries feel towards America these days, eh?). It’s that or, “Koreans are superior. NEVER FORGET THAT, BOY!” None of that really explains the disconnect between USDM and KDM. I have no idea, but maybe my previous link will shed light on that. This is all just musings anyway.

So while in college I met a Korean girl (USDM type), and the topic somehow came to the history of Japan and Korea, she bitterly replied, “Yes, I know what they did!” To be honest, I think she has every right to be upset about that. You wouldn’t decry a Jewish person for being upset towards Nazis. But now I wonder how early she was introduced to that knowledge. Looking back, I realize now my parents were very aware of atrocities committed during World War 2, but they largely shielded it from me, and kept silent on it. I’d hear the occasional obscure remark from my dad, “Those Japanese people are obsessed with sex!” But for the most part, they were silent. “Oh you like a Japanese girl? That’s nice.”

I eventually did learn about Japanese atrocities on my own, at around 15 years of age, maybe younger. It was inevitable I suppose. I had developed an eager interest in Japanese history. The new information definitely sparked rage in me, perhaps similar to what these Korean dudes were going through. It wasn’t so much the atrocities themselves that enraged me, although there are some really twisted examples that would make their Nazi allies shy away, but it was the general level of denial by contemporary Japanese. Totally blew my mind.  Do a compare and contrast vs Germany and Japan post-war, totally different. It took a long time for me to calm down about it.  Now I enjoy running circles around Japanese nationalist logic.

So that’s my ghetto theory. If you’ve got one, share. I’m wondering how a USDM Korean would respond to this. I should ask some of my friends.

And please, for the sake of the kittens, don’t have USDM K-Rage.

If you’ve been offended by this post, I apologize.

I like her voice (and the eyes, I’m a sucker for crescent-shaped eyes). Apparently she kinda shot herself in the foot by publicly dissing BoA a few years back though, BoA being a music superstar in Asia or something. Btw, what is it with Asian chicks and using the word “fag”? I’m tallying it in my head, and I don’t really see it used by females of other ethnicities very much. Yeah, yeah, I know, localized stereotype. I saw a girl call her younger sister a fag, once. The younger started crying. That was kind of eye-opening. “Huh, didn’t know you could use it on girls. I always thought it only worked on males.” Maybe the young whipper snappers have a different idea of “fag” from my old school, non-Johnny-Tremain one.

But yeah, Asian fans seem super cliquey, defending their idols like crazy, and didn’t take her disrespect too well. She’s definitely got talent, but she and Tiffany of SNSD seem to be setting a precedent of American arrogance when American-born Asians move over to the ancestral motherland to start a career. “I’M FROM AMERICA, BITCHES. I SPRACHEN ZE ENGLISH. BOW DOWN.” Their Confucianism imprint probably got lost being raised stateside.

Not that I think that kind of arrogance is limited to that subset of Americans. I used to think “American arrogance” was hype when I was younger, but I see it all the time these days. The way people perceive foreigners and their accents, the way people perceive foreign movies and cultures vs America’s, etc. I even see it among the so-called liberals who are supposed to be above that, though it tends to be more subtle with them. I imagine it’s the same kind of attitude every great empire/republic has had towards “lesser” states and their peoples. The Romans, the Chinese dynasties, etc.

A few years ago I met this guy who prided himself as being a movie buff. He hated Jet Li’s Hero, and was totally ragging on it. He liked Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon more. I liked both. When I watch a foreign movie, I try to see them from its cultural point of view. The former was more of a movie directed towards Asian tastes, while the later, more towards Western tastes. I told him that in Asia, box office performance was actually reversed, and that Hero did far better over there vs CTHD. He got this look on his face like, “CANNOT COMPUTE! HEAD ‘SPLODING.” He just kind of gave me a stunned, muted response. “Huh.” What can I say, generally speaking, Asians like order and unity and will simply admit it up front. Americans like their individuality, but it was built on lots of conquest. Throw in a “liberal guilt”-style smokescreen about how the cost was too great and shameful while simultaneously enjoying the fruits of said conquest nooo problem, and we have American reviewers finding the “message of Hero troubling.” So…when are the Washington Redskins playing next?

And just for the record, I totally thought the French stereotype of arrogance was hype, too, but when I went over, I definitely got a different vibe than I did from all the other countries I visited, to put it diplomatically. 違う感じ. Go figure.

I’ve graduated from the cereals of yore, however. No more Fruity Pebbles, Cocoa Puffs, or Cinnamon Toast Crunch for me.  I think when Bill Watterson wrote about Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs in Calvin & Hobbes, he must have been thinking of one of those. The crazy sweet ones taste kinda gross to me now, anyway. Except possibly Apple Jacks. That could be the nostalgia talking, though; I haven’t had that in awhile either. So in my quest to find the ultimate healthier, yet tastier cereal, I’ve been buying various kinds. My main parameters were: omega-3, fiber, vitamins, and taste. Oh and as a disclaimer, I am not a nutritionist.

Omega-3 helps fight cholesterol if you’ve got a cholesterol problem, as I did immediately post-college. Man, I gained way too much back then. I took a cholesterol test and I guess it was practically off the charts. CODE BLUE CODE BLUE. The doc said he’d give me 3-4 weeks to lower it, or he’d be putting me on life-time meds. I’m kind of an anti-med guy, so I didn’t want that. I loaded up on omega-3 rich foods, like salmon, and in 3-4 weeks, got my cholesterol within spec.

Fiber, to put it bluntly, helps you pump your shit out. It’s heralded by some as the magical health ingredient. Having sufficient fiber in your diet helps keep colon cancer at bay, so I’ve heard. I’ve started to place more importance in fiber because my friend started eating rabbit-food-like fiber pellets, so I’ve wanted to find an alternative for the sake of posterity. That, and I’m pretty sure my cholesterol is still down. I eat so much more healthier these days, and I definitely feel that way, too….I think.

In all cases, I recommend switching to Western-style soy milk. It’s not like Asian soy milk at all so it tastes great in cereal. I also recommend plain instead of vanilla, unless you like a strangely sweet milk substitute. But as an alternative, soy milk should suit all but the most picky eater.  I have some pictures but they’re a bit blurry.  For Vitamin D milk vs Silk-brand plain soy, the milk had 25% daily value for saturated fat (that’s bad) vs soy’s 3%. Milk: 25% DV cholesterol. Soy: 0%. Milk: 0% DV fiber. Soy: 4%.  The soy destroyed milk on the vitamin front, as well.  I’ll post up better pics when I have them. Anyway, onto the cereals.

So the first one is Nature’s Path Organic Pumpkin Flax Plus Granola. It is available at Vons.

It claims 0.7g of omega-3 per serving, which is a whopping 54% of the daily recommend value. Unfortunately, it lacks in vitamins. But it does have a whopping 5g of fiber, 20% of the daily recommend value. Here is the “spec sheet”:

Next up is Nature’s Path Organic Flax Plus Raisin Bran.

Man, I remember when I used to hate Raisin Bran as a kid. But I enjoy it now these days.  This cereal also packs in the omega-3s, raking in 0.7g for 54% of your daily value.  It’s juiced up the fiber a bit though to 8g for 32% of your daily value. It still lacks in vitamins however. Here is the spec sheet:

The raisin bran variant is pretty tasty, but in my area, it can only be had from Trader Joe’s.

Nature’s Path seems to use cane juice instead of sugar in all their cereals. It’s not too noticeable in their Flax Plus line, but in their other cereals, I could really taste the cane juice, and it tasted kind of funny to me.  Also, since both of these are packing in the omega-3, there is a slight fish-oil taste if you search for it.

Next up are the Special K’s. They’ve recently introduced several new flavors. I like the original variant, the red berry one, except for the fact that it comes in a ridiculously pink box, making it kind of embarrassing to purchase. But I like Special K. None of them have an appreciable amount of omega-3, though. They all have a decent amount of vitamins, however.

First up is Special K Blueberry.

I wasn’t a big fan of this one. I like blueberries, but this one just tasted kind of off. For a berry K, I’d rather get the red berry one. But the blueberry one comes in a much less gay blue box. Its spec sheet:

Next is the Chocolatey Delight version. I had high hopes for this one. Nutritious but tasty! But it tasted pretty weird. I guess I can’t accuse them of false advertising. It really was like someone just grabbed a bar of chocolate, cut off chunks, and put them in your cereal. But with low quality chocolate. It’s obviously also the least healthy of the K’s I tried.  10% DV saturated fat.

Oh god. I’m already getting bored of writing about cereal. WTF was I thinking? But I’m trying to write less about politics. OK. I will soldier on. I’m half way through anyway. Here is the spec sheet:

Special K cinnamon pecan type. This was the tastiest of them all, special k or not. Nice crunch, good flavor.

Alright, I’ve got to stop. Cereal. Lol. What was I thinking writing about cereal. Four more boxes to go, I’ll write about them later.

F’ it, I need to get my fix. So Robert said he got in a debate with his friends about the US supporting China. The original question was, “What would we have to give China in order for us to move against North Korea without incurring a Korean-war-style wave of Chinese reinforcements?” It’s an interesting question. He answered Tibet or Taiwan. I would agree we would have to give something big. However, I don’t feel like that would ever realistically happen.

Does anyone remember when NK was saber rattling in the early 2000′s about acquiring weapons of mass destruction? We ignored them and went for Iraq anyway, a country that didn’t have any. That pissed me off. I never really thought about it back then, but I guess it was because NK had China defending them.

So what do I think would happen if NK actually got nuclear weapons running? Hmm, also something I’ve never really thought about. I don’t believe China is interested in a war with the US, especially since its economy is increasingly tied with ours. Japan may very well use it as an excuse to build up their military. They already are, to an extent. Heck, they want a permanent seat on the Security Council, badly, something I’m against. If anyone should get a permanent seat, it should be Brazil.

But I’m thinking, with enough conservative elements in the Japanese government, they’ll go for a full on revocation of the anti-military clause in their constitution. I’m sure the conservatives are just waiting for an excuse to get rid of that. Fear + expansion of government powers = tried & true government play. I think the LDP has already expressed a willingness to use pre-emptive strikes against NK if necessary, a precedent set by us!

If Japan strikes first, America is shielded. Japan acts as buffer zone. China can’t strike the US. We haven’t done anything yet. However, defending NK and striking Japan would be their version of our predicament of striking North Korea. So I don’t think China would enter at all. They’d just sit back and probably engage in some kind of proxy logistical war. That’s just my quickie analysis anyway.

The short answer is, “Yes.”

Ah, abortion, the nuclear option of topics. Debating gay rights is a cakewalk in comparison. It’s times like these that I’m thankful I’m male. It’s such a sticky topic that I’ll be shamefully honest: I don’t have a well formed opinion either way. Is the fetus a person, is it not a person, when is it a person, when is my hamburger gonna be done? So yeah, I take the easy route, and choose not to think about it. Let the women decide!

Anyway, my friend Brian wrote an anti-FOCA post on his Facebook. Brian is one of the few rational conservatives whom I deeply respect -i.e. he doesn’t make my eyebrows twitch and we can debate rationally and civilly without insults. So FOCA, the Freedom of Choice Act, what is it? There’s actually not too much information about it, except your typical super biased yay and nay sites. But it’s essentially legislation to formally “codify the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade“, rights that have been trimmed during the Bush II era. Obama has vowed to sign it if it ever reaches his desk. So of course, you got the crazy conservative groups coming out of the woodwork claiming that FOCA will allow all hell to break loose: Christian hospitals will be forced to commit abortions, late-term abortions will be a dime a dozen, blah blah blah. In fact, here’s one alarmist claim verbatim:

“Pro-Abortion Lawmakers Propose “FOCA” to Invalidate All Limits on Abortion”

Is it true? I wanted to find out, but like I said, there isn’t that much information. The wiki doens’t help much, either. I did find the following, however, laws that have been in effect since the late 70’s:

(b) Prohibition of public officials and public authorities from imposition of certain requirements contrary to religious beliefs or moral convictions
The receipt of any grant, contract, loan, or loan guarantee under the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.], the Community Mental Health Centers Act [42 U.S.C. 2689 et seq.], or the Developmental Disabilities Services and Facilities Construction Act [42 U.S.C. 6000 et seq.] by any individual or entity does not authorize any court or any public official or other public authority to require—

(1) such individual to perform or assist in the performance of any sterilization procedure or abortion if his performance or assistance in the performance of such procedure or abortion would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions; or

(2) such entity to—

(A) make its facilities available for the performance of any sterilization procedure or abortion if the performance of such procedure or abortion in such facilities is prohibited by the entity on the basis of religious beliefs or moral convictions, or

(B) provide any personnel for the performance or assistance in the performance of any sterilization procedure or abortion if the performance or assistance in the performance of such procedures or abortion by such personnel would be contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of such personnel.

In other words, hospitals that receive public funds cannot be compelled by the government to perform abortions. So no, it would appear that faith-based hospitals that receive Federal funding would not be forced to commit abortions. Scratch one against the conservatives, it would seem.

However, at first glance, there does appear to be a hole. Section C states:

(c) Discrimination prohibition
(1) No entity which receives a grant, contract, loan, or loan guarantee under the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.], the Community Mental Health Centers Act [42 U.S.C. 2689 et seq.], or the Developmental Disabilities Services and Facilities Construction Act [42 U.S.C. 6000 et seq.] after June 18, 1973, may—

(A) discriminate in the employment, promotion, or termination of employment of any physician or other health care personnel, or

(B) discriminate in the extension of staff or other privileges to any physician or other health care personnel, because he performed or assisted in the performance of a lawful sterilization procedure or abortion, because he refused to perform or assist in the performance of such a procedure or abortion on the grounds that his performance or assistance in the performance of the procedure or abortion would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions, or because of his religious beliefs or moral convictions respecting sterilization procedures or abortions.

In other words, while a religious hospital receiving Federal funding can’t be compelled to perform an abortion, they can’t purposely not hire personnel that would be willing to perform an abortion, because that would be discrimination. “Yes, this is a Christian hospital, and yes, our doctor is a LeVayan Satanist. He will perform your abortion.” Back in favor of the Religious Right?

Kinda, maybe. One more “however.” Back to Section (b)(2)(A) in the very beginning:

does not authorize any court or any public official or other public authority to require—

(2) such entity to—

(A) make its facilities available for the performance of any sterilization procedure or abortion if the performance of such procedure or abortion in such facilities is prohibited by the entity on the basis of religious beliefs or moral convictions, or

While they can’t discriminate against who they can hire, they don’t have to actually provide the facilities to perform an abortion. So the “offending” doctor would have to go to a different hospital. Religious conscience is mostly spared, other than the discomfort of having an “abortionist” as a coworker. Although I suspect the social dynamics at the workplace would cause someone like that to find employment elsewhere anyway. Not to mention that discrimination at the hiring phase is incredibly easy to get away with in the first place.

Back to FOCA. I’ve read the bill, S. 1173, and it doesn’t appear to affect the aforementioned laws; so no, passing FOCA should not force religious hospitals to perform abortions. However, the bill is definitely quite vague.

Here’s the meat of the bill:

SEC. 4. INTERFERENCE WITH REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH PROHIBITED.

(a) Statement of Policy- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

(b) Prohibition of Interference- A government may not–

(1) deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose–

(A) to bear a child;

(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or

(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or

(2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.

(c) Civil Action- An individual aggrieved by a violation of this section may obtain appropriate relief (including relief against a government) in a civil action.

Pretty simple, right? The government can’t interfere with pro-choice, and if an individual is interfered with by a violation of FOCA, that individual can sue. It looks like it can co-exist with existing laws so far.

However, “viability” as defined by FOCA seems a bit broad:

(3) VIABILITY- The term `viability’ means that stage of pregnancy when, in the best medical judgment of the attending physician based on the particular medical facts of the case before the physician, there is a reasonable likelihood of the sustained survival of the fetus outside of the woman.

That’s not the worst demarcation point, but it seems to give the physician enormous leeway. While the the spirit of the bill seems to be against late-term or partial-birth abortion unless the woman’s life is in danger, the physician has almost no oversight. The limits as written aren’t really limits if the sole arbiter of said limits is the physician him- or herself. Is that OK? I’m not really sure. I would lean towards “no.” How many unethical doctors are out there? I doubt there’s much, if any, data on it. And with no oversight, that’s not going to change. Yet something like this would probably be incredibly difficult to oversee (but not impossible).

Reading further led me to Section 6:

SEC. 6. RETROACTIVE EFFECT.

This Act applies to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.

That section would appear to negate nigh everything. So was the claim that religious facilities could be forced to perform abortions not so alarmist after all? It appears possible. “Every” is a pretty encompassing word.

Then, after researching Roe vs Wade, FOCA actually seems to go beyond merely codifying it. Roe vs Wade ruled:

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

That is similar to FOCA but different in important aspects. Basically, during the first trimester, abortion is restricted to the judgment of the attending physician, and not the government. But after the first trimester, the State can effect laws regulating abortion in various ways. FOCA on the other hand, would appear to eliminate that priviledge completely, as well as push back the first cut off from the end of the first trimester to “viability.”

While Roe vs Wade didn’t exactly iron out the definition of “viability” either (it did attempt to, typifying week 22 which is some point during trimester 2), it at least allowed States the flexibility of creating relevant laws as a stopgap solution. That can either work for or against pro-choice/pro-life. That’s one characteristic of the state system (depending on who you ask, that’s a good or a bad thing). With FOCA, it’s entirely in the hands of the physician.

So after reading all this, FOCA just seems a bit too undefined, a bit too unlimited. You know, for such a complicated issue, it’s amazing only less than half a page of text was dedicated to actual law-making. Here, I can actually summarize it in 3 lines:

1. No government interference.
2. Otherwise you can sue.
3. All previous laws are superseded by this one.

Ullllltra combo! Hey, I can be a legislator, too! I would be very surprised if the Democrats allowed the bill, as it stands, to reach Obama’s desk. As it stands, the potential to eliminate religious exceptions and the seeming complete reliance upon perfect ethical physician behavior seems a bit…unrefined. But hey, people have been screaming for simplified laws, and here we are, we got a small, catch-all bill.

My head is starting to spin. I’m not a lawyer, so if i’ve made any errors, please correct me.