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.