The Sims in China

David Shoji

Beta Asians

Here's an interesting article on the supposed epidemic of infertility. The article is too long to post here, but below is an excerpt:

Worldwide, the fertility of both men and women is declining but things seem to be worse for the men! In 1960 a good sperm count was considered to be 120 million sperm per milliliter of seminal fluid. Anything lower than that and a man was considered to be only marginally fertile. These days, things have become so bad that a man is considered fertile if he has only 20 million sperm per milliliter of ejaculate! What happened?

Xenoestrogens happened. Since World War II, mankind has filled the world and himself with estrogen like substances. Pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, petrochemical fumes, the esters that plastics give off when heated, and the worst offender of all in the estrogen world – soy. I won't rehash my litany against soy, you'll have to read about it's many ill effects on my website (Soy the Poison Seed), at www.westonaprice.org, and www.soyonlineservice.co.nz.



In both men and women high estrogen creates infertility. That's why estrogen is used in birth control pills. The synthetic progesterone used in other birth control pills have been molecularly modified to act like estrogens, which is why instead of increasing fertility the way real (natural) progesterone does the prescription drug, progesterone, decreases fertility and if used during pregnancy can create birth defects and mutation.

In men, estrogen decreases testosterone levels and sperm count! Read on the websites cited, about what happened to the rabbit industry in New Zealand where the bunnies were fed soy feed. They stopped reproducing and the industry crashed. How can anything stop a rabbit, from reproducing?! Isoflavones (estrogen) can.

Before you bright light vegetarians out there tell me that Asians eat mainly soy and have great birthrates, the eating soy part is not true among those with high birth rates! The average Chinese eats 5 to 15 ml (one to three TEASPOONS) of soy products daily mainly in soy sauce. It is widely known throughout Asia that when a woman does not want to have sexual relations with her husband any more, she feeds him more and more tofu!

Monks in monasteries needing to be celibate are urged to eat more tofu and soy products. In Asia, it is common knowledge that soy reduces sexual urge and ability. The propaganda and contrived studies showing that soy is such a fantastic food arises from the huge agribusiness firms that grow most of the world’s soybeans, Monsanto and Archer Daniel Midland.

Compare China with its relatively low soy consumption and high birth rate with Japan and its considerably higher soy consumption and their low birth rate. Japanese fertility has dropped so precipitously that the number of in vitro fertilizations has skyrocketed topping 100,000! Of the 100,189 in vitro births in Japan, 55,688 were normal in vitro fertilizations, 13,316 involved use of frozen pre-fertilized eggs and 31,185 fertilizations were done with the micro fertilization technique where sperm from a relatively infertile man with inactive sperm is injected into the egg using a microscopic needle.

While we're on the topic Japanese men, here's another article in a long line of articles on Japan's supposed phenomenon of Grass Eating Boys:

Shigeru Sakai of Media Shakers suggests that grass-eating men don't pursue women, because they are bad at expressing themselves. He attributes their poor communication skills to the fact that many grew up without siblings in households where both parents worked.

"Because they had TVs, stereos and game consoles in their bedrooms, it became more common for them to shut themselves in their rooms when they got home and communicate less with their families, which left them with poor communication skills," he wrote in an e-mail.

Japan has rarely needed its men to have sex as much as it does now. Low birth rates, combined with a lack of immigration, have caused the country's population to shrink every year since 2005.

It's important to take these articles with a grain of salt. Believe me, sometimes I come home from a hard day at work, and I just want to curl up on the couch with my cat, eat a pint of Ben and Jerry's, watch Oprah with the wife and talk about our feelings.

OK, I take that back. I don't watch Oprah.

Nevertheless, I find it disturbing there are generations of males who have no aspirations, sexual or otherwise. When you cocoon yourself from the outside world, then you don't develop any life experience. And when you don't develop any life experiences, then you don't learn anything and you don't develop confidence and emotional resiliency.

Which is why I think some guys feel the need to attend PUA bootcamps. These guys lack the life experience to deal confidently and comfortably with women. So they pay big money to go through artificially induced experiences aimed at teaching them a very specific skill set (attracting women and sleeping with them).

A lot of people knock the idea of using canned material to pick up women, but it's analogous to performing katas in martial arts. Doing a kata doesn't mean you know how to fight. It's just a way to teach you how to do strikes in good form and to do it repeatedly. After enough repetition in the katas and with enough sparring, you will eventually learn to improvise and truly fight.

PUA routines give the guy a false sense of confidence, because he doesn't have a foundation of true life experiences. There is a reason why some women are attracted to older men. Older men tend to be more confident, because

1) they have more life experiences and

2) they're more comfortable with who they are and what they want.

But if a PUA bootcamp is what helps you fake it until you make it, then I say more power to you. From what I can see, most guys eventually find mates. And yes that includes grass-eating Asian guys with low sperm counts. I’ve known guys who lived at home and were unemployed, and yet they were still dating lots of women. Dorky nerds hook up and get married. Short guys get dates and get married. Ugly guys get married.

People find relationships DESPITE their shortcomings. You just got to play up your strengths. I once watched a documentary on some birds. They showed a scene where two male birds were battling each other to see who would win the affections of a female. One male was protecting his woman, the other was challenging. While they were battling it out, another male sneaks up behind the female watching the fight and starts doing her. So as you can see, there's no one way to succeed in life and love.

Let's take a look at Asian American men on TV. With regards to the Asian American male image on TV, we're doing pretty good for the moment. We've got at least one Asian American male character on each of the 3 major networks. On NBC's Heroes, we have Masi Oka playing Hiro Nakamura. On CBS we have Daniel Henney playing a doctor on Three Rivers. And on ABC we have John Cho playing FBI special agent Demetri Noh on Flashforward.

Three very different actors, each successful in their own way. Daniel Henney has the classic good looks. He could trip and sprain his ankle out in the street, and a mob of women would form around him in 2o seconds to make sure he was OK.

Masi Oka's character Hiro is the stereotypical Asian nerd, but what Masi Oka did to make Hiro such a popular character was that he subverted the stereotype. He took the stereotype and made it three dimensional by making Hiro kind, good-natured and someone you would root for to win. Hiro has an earnest quality that makes him extremely likeable. It should be noted Hiro has a romantic interest on the show, whereas Daniel Henney's character on Three Rivers does not (yet).

Of the 3 Asian American characters on primetime, John Cho's character Demetri is the most intriguing. Demetri is far more three dimensional and interesting than Joseph Fiennes' pained and brooding character. John Cho doesn't have the classic good looks of Daniel Henney: he's skinny and his ears are too big. But he's proven to be our biggest Asian American actor in recent years.

Bottom line: Everybody finds their own path to success.

Interview with Rain on Ninja Assassin Movie

Paper Sons

Ryan Higa

Watch live streaming video from gigaomtv at livestream.com

Here's an interview with Ryan Higa. I find it interesting that he's shy in his personal life but is quite expressive when filming himself. In my interview with actor Randall Park, he also mentioned that he was quite shy. Which is weird given that he's come up with some really crazy and funny sh!t in his YouTube videos. I think a lot of performers, whether it be actors or singers, are like this.

Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil - Kobukson

Patricia J Williams is currently a Professor at Columbia Law School. She writes a column for The Nation magazine titled "Diary of a Mad Law Professor." The Mad-Law-Professor is also the name of a super hero that she created.

In 1997, she published Seeing a Colorblind Future: The Paradox of Race.

From The Atlantic Online:



[bold emphasis mine]

Can you explain your book's title? Do you see yourself as entering self-consciously into current debates over the achievability, even desirability, of a "color-blind" society? The book doesn't mention affirmative action explicitly.

Yes, all of this intersects with specific legal remedies such as affirmative action, and the counter to those, which has been appeals to color-blindness -- not just color-blindness as a social ideal but as a kind of literal mandate that seems to be requiring, as in California's Proposition 209, that you eliminate all reference to race even when you're trying to remediate the effects of racism. That's the paradox, it seems to me -- that you can't talk about what it is that you're trying to remediate. Therefore you can't talk about it sensibly. In the book I use the image of the three monkeys, Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil. To me, that image represents the wrong kind of color-blindness, because that's just plain blindness, rather than unselfconsciousness about race or about the mark of color.



The book opens with an anecdote about your son's being misdiagnosed as (literally) color-blind. The well-meaning teachers in his nursery school had taught the children that "it makes no difference" what color you are, and it seems your son took this quite literally, so that he resisted identifying color at all. The story illustrates the way children are taught that race doesn't matter. But you're pointing out the many ways in which the color of one's skin does, unfortunately, matter. How do you explain to a child the idea that race matters?

Well, you know, I think there is no rational way to explain it. That's the great injury of race -- it is not rational. It does matter, and yet it shouldn't. And yet it does.

When I had my son's vision tested, the doctor told me that he was indeed not color-blind. It was his teachers who had said he was having trouble distinguishing colors in various color games and tests, and that he was so smart in other regards that I should really see if he were color-blind. It turned out that he was saying it doesn't matter what color the grass is, it doesn't matter what color the sky is.

It is one thing to teach children from the inception that race does not matter, that skin color does not matter. And yet my son's teachers had made this point of its not making a difference only after it had made a difference. They ignored the racial dynamics of the classroom up to a certain point, but when some children excluded my son from their play because of his race the teachers said color doesn't make a difference. His believing that literally was his attempt to resolve something that was nonsensical, basically -- something that was two things at once.

I have not found a sensible way to talk about race to my son. I do not want to poison him with the kinds of demarcations that would most effectively explain what racism is. Racism means that certain people don't like you. I guess my concern is that most children, black children in particular, understand the negative consequences of race before they have words to understand the great complexity of what's embodied in its history. It's a little bit like wondering how you explain war to a child.




You're known for the use of anecdote in your writing. In fact, you manage to write about pressing legal and philosophical issues from a position that's very much "on the ground." What draws you, as a writer and as a legal scholar, to anecdote? Are there any dangers inherent in the use of anecdote?

Surely. I sometimes get characterized as somebody who does nothing but anecdote. And that's absolutely not true. Part of what I've tried to do in my writing is insert anecdote at the moments when people have reasoned their way by virtue of broad generalizations. I insert an anecdote to bring it down to the individual level -- to make it nuanced, to make it real. That's where I think it's most effective.

On the other hand, I've been in situations where everybody's saying, "I am a representative of this," "I am a representative of this." It's as though they can't get past their own little anecdotal stories of self-validation and self-credentialization. That's the point at which I will reverse it and reach for the broad statistic. I find, for example, that people use the worst-case scenario when talking about welfare reform. It's always, you know, a black teenage mother who's thirteen, has six children, and whose boyfriend is a crack dealer. Broad public policies are made with her as the representative figure. That's anecdote. Willie Horton is anecdote. And that's the point at which I think it's useful to say that in 1996 only two percent of single mothers on welfare were under the age of eighteen -- and only eight percent when you count those who were eighteen and nineteen. It helps to put things in proportion. So I try to use anecdote consistently to illustrate larger points. I use it strategically.