Yes. It's a challenge. I figured this would be a good challenge for me. What you're supposed to do is just 'free-write' for 5 minutes flat. Just set the timer and go. I'm just wondering why it's the 2010-17 challenge...? Does that mean it's open for 7 years? That can't be right as we were set a Dec. 14th deadline. Or is it December 14th 2017? Chri.. I mean, "Kween?"

(In case you were wondering, no. I haven't started the challenge yet.)

(Now I have.)

So we're meant to not come into this with a subject in mind, the problem being if I deviate from the thing that's on my mind right now I will be still violating the terms of the challenge as I'd be rethinking my initial response so what the hell. Kabuki. Now Kabuki's over I get a lot of my free time back. You'd think I'd be happy about that. Actually I'm rather disappointed. Not to get free time but to not be doing Kabuki. I really enjoyed it this year, not just cos I had a pretty cool role but cos it really does make me feel a part of something and let's me connect more with my kids outside of the standard role I play in school. It's weird but connecting with them is really important to me. At first I thought it was just an ego thing; wanting to be a better ALT than anyone else. But ultimately I think I just desire connections. With anyone. I wanna feel part of something, I want to belong somewhere. The irony here is I know I'll never belong anywhere in Japan, not really. But reasoning does not abate instinct and this is very much instinct for me.

And done.

Funny. I thought I'd write a lot more than that. I thought it'd be far less focused too. But there it is.

Xanga makes me sick sometimes. I'd rather not be part of it in many, many ways. Not that me being "a part" of it matters. I, like countless others, operate a small, anonymous blog utterly unnoticed by, well, everyone. I got into it to keep up with friends but almost all of those friends have largely abandoned the blogging thing too.

Xanga just panders to the same bloggers over and over. It doesn't matter what they write. They pop up on the front page every single log-in. Example: there's this foul bitch blogger going by Lobornlytesthoughtspalace or some-such. Every entry she makes is some ignorant, bigoted, conservative diatribe, proudly dodging the pesky issues of reality, evidence, compassion and empathy to bring us a stereotypically right-wing dose of intolerant bile. And yet she has made the front page 4 times in a row in the past month! Why, exactly? It certainly isn't her writing ability. Maybe it's cos she's designed herself as one of these populist "straight-talkers" designed to appeal to everyone with an uninformed opinion? Who knows, either way it's clear Xanga is little but a clique catering to its own inner circle of nepotism. And there are others like her. Night Cometh, Megan, Precious Onyx, to name a few. People with no personal experience or real information casting judgements and aspersions upon all and sundry, self-righteous, sanctimonious and unyielding to the last.

Perhaps what I loath most about these morons is that I could so easily have become them. I was never as intolerant as they are, but I had my prejudices, like anyone. But having very literally been forced to walk in the shoes of those I would potentially judge, in more ways than one, I learnt the humility of empathy, tolerance and understanding. I learnt that no one ever has the right to judge another without first living as that person, heart and soul, without knowing to the very core the life they live, the path they walk. But there are those who will never learn this lesson, it seems. They will continue through life, safe behind the shield of unaccountability, damning any that falls outside the scope of their own narrow vision of the world. And they take pride in this willful intolerance, willful ignorance. They perceive themselves as somehow noble, in their intellectual and emotional obstinacy. They have no desire to open their hearts or minds lest it disturb, even in some small way, their own pitifully blinkered, dogmatic, draconian world-view.

These are the people who make this world miserable. These are vile human beings who do not simply fall into prejudice, they chose it, believe in it, revel in it. I am intolerant of one thing; intolerance. And these people live and breath intolerance like oxygen.

In short: I despise them

EDIT: This post was largely stress relief and was largely based on seeing the afore-mentioned blogger on the front page for the fourth time in a row, her content is the same right-wing extremist nonsense each time. I made this post to relieve my own tension. I mentioned the people I mentioned as examples of bloggers I have encountered and have clashed with at one time or another, or else quietly read their posts now and again but held my tongue. I am not in the business of hating on people... but hate begets hate and vicious diatribe blogging begets vicious diatribe blogging. I would like nothing better than to be proven wrong about someone I find myself disliking but sadly there seem to be some in this world who prefer to satisfy their own ego, opinions and beliefs rather than open their heart to, and try to understand, their fellow man/woman.

It also strikes me as unfortunate that I've received more hits from other xangans outside my own regulars since I made this post than ever before and all it took was a few name-drops. Part of this update was an experiment, to see if attacking other xangans by name brought more exposure. It seems it does. Ironically this is another thing I see a lot on the front page...

EDIT 2: I'm also beginning to wonder about Loborn-whatever. I'm not sure if he/she is indeed the ranting right-wing headcase that he/she passes him/herself off as or if they (got tired of the he/she-ing. Gender non-specific pronouns for the win!) are simply an independent styling themselves as a right-wing headcase to underline the insanity of the genuine right-wing headcases. I sense whoever they are would prefer to remain ambiguous, however, therefore asking would probably be redundant.

EDIT 3: The last edit, I swear. LoBorn is a fucking moron, no doubt. He is also a he, apparently. But who really cares? I mean, it's obvious all this idiot blogs for is to achieve xanga-lebrity stardom via controversial posts that rile people and get them talking about he/she/it. Like I am now. So that's enough. Another uninformed imbecile likes to make controversy-courting posts in some pathetic attempt at internet notoriety. They're hardly the first. Fuck off.

On one of my magical journeys across the internet I came upon this nice little piece of political experimentation. What follows is one pod-cast dude/blogger's breakdown of the first 10 Amendments to the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights. Each Amendment is then addressed from a stereotypically Conservative and stereotypically Liberal viewpoint. The exercise was intended to address the increasingly propagandist hyperbole of "Anti-Americanism" that gets slung around so much these days and which side really behaves more inline with the hallowed Constitution you 'Mer'cans so revere. I'm gonna include my (entirely biased Liberal) perspective on each as we go.

1.) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Liberal View – Well, except for hate speech.

Conservative View – As long as that religion is a christian one, and no one is burning flags, or desecrating a host, or taking prayer out of school, or….

Advantage: Tie.

My thoughts: I see why the author made this a tie; because both groups don't seem to be entirely in favour of uncensored free speech. However the single Liberal objection next to the myriad Conservative objections rather shifts the argument in the Liberal favour, I feel. The average Liberal does seem to espouse this particular Right, unless it constitutes incitement to hatred/harassment. Which, to me, is a fair objection. The average Conservative, on the other hand, seems only to cry "my rights," key-word; "MY." They then spend the rest of their time trying to strip everyone who doesn't suit them of their rights.

2.) A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Liberal View: Guns are dangerous and should be outlawed, see there it’s tied into a “well regulated militia”.

Conservative: See there “shall not be infringed”, it is the right of “the people” to keep weapons.

Advantage: Conservative

My thoughts: I can't really fault the Cons on this one. Personally I find the continued advocation of this particular right to be an anachronism. This is not colonial times, or the Old West. Guns are weapons and I believe none outside of the military (note that "well-regulated militia" part) or police should carry a real gun. At the very least only those trained to handle them with safety and responsibility should be permitted to carry. An arbitrary law allowing any none-trained individual to purchase a fire arm seems ludicrous. I know, I know... it's all about "opposing tyranny" and "rising up against a corrupt government" etc, etc. The modern United States possesses the most powerful armed forces on the planet. You wanna whip out your shotgun and "rise up" against them...? Good luck, sir...... Nevertheless, if we are talking constitutional rights, undiluted and unbiased, the wording is pretty clear. "The right of the people to bear arms.. shall not be infringed." I may think it;s a bad right to have but it is what it is. 1 to the Cons.

3.) No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Liberal: I don’t want to house a warmonger!

Conservative: Get off my lawn! My property, my rights!

Advantage: Tie

My thoughts: Fair enough!

4.) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Liberal: Everyone has a right to privacy, what they do in their own homes with mutual consent is nobody’s business but those involved.

Conservative: If you’re not doing anything wrong then you’ve got nothing to hide.

Advantage: Liberal

My thoughts: Tricky one, this. "Unreasonable searches and seizures." "Probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation.." All a little vague and open to interpretation. The Liberal answer is exactly my answer and the Conservative answer is another example of double-standards and hypocrisy I see so much from the right. Although, I have to query... if a Con would object to harbouring soldiers in times of war (see 3rd Amendment) surely they would also object to excessive property searches, phone-tapping, personal privacy, etc? Old School, by-the-letter Cons probably would be. I guess it's just the modern Con, all in favour of the rights that protect them, but somehow failing to realise that those rights extend to everyone and in equal measure, that takes this authoritarian stance. Still think the average Lib would be with this Right but I think the Cons would be kinda split.

5.) No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Liberal: Due process is important, sometimes the guilty may go free, but it’s the price of living in a fair and just society.

Conservative: I don’t want a rapist or a murderer to go free just because some police officer forgot to fill out a form, or signed on the wrong dotted line.

Advantage:Liberal

My thoughts: The law is a tricky thing. I don't think any of us want rapists and murderers going free. But neither do we want the innocent going to jail (or executed, since this is the US here!) I never did follow up on my dad's assertions that I'd make a good lawyer so Law is something I don't know enough about to comment on in depth. All I can say is fair, unbiased due process is the only way a free society can try someone and anything more authoritarian would be a breach of rights. This one, specifically.

6.) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Liberal: No problems here…

Conservative: well, unless they’re a terrorist! Stupid trial lawyers!

Advantage: Liberal.

My thoughts: (See also 5th Amendment.) To fairly try someone we need to keep the methods consistent and unprejudiced. As far as this Amendment goes there's little room to argue.

7.) In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Conservative: Fine by me…

Liberal: Me as well

Advantage: Tie.

My thoughts: Me too!

8.) Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Conservative: Well, unless they’re a terrorist…

Liberal: It’s important that America takes the high moral ground as an example to the rest of the world, what right do we have condemning torture if we inflict it ourselves?

Advantage: Liberal

My thoughts: Jack Bauer made the whole "renegade rule-bender side stepping the law for the Greater Good" look cool. And it is. On TV. In Real Life we have to be a bit more objective. We know who the good guys and bad guys are on TV. We often know more about what's going on than any individual character on the show. Real life isn't like this. Honestly, part of me would hope someone would be willing to overstep the lines of acceptable procedure if a city of millions was under threat of a chemical virus or some-such. But is the reality ever that simple? Whatever Fox News may try and tell you, it's not, and over-simplifying complex issues solves nothing. When all is said and done if this text is details the inalienable moral and ethical rights of a people not to adhere to them, but to preach the Constitution and Bill of Rights out of one side of your mouth, then condone torture out of the other is gross hypocrisy.

9.) The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Conservative: Unless they’re a Homosexual…

Liberal: Spot on!

Advantage: Liberal

My thoughts: Indeed. Like the rights of consenting adults to marry, express their sexuality, their religion (or none-religion,) eat meat, not eat meat, etc, etc. free from persecution and prejudice. And, significantly, free from government interference. Hang on....! Isn't it Conservatives who are always harping on about limiting the powers of government yet many of them readily espouse governmental intervention regarding whom one marries, what one believes, what is taught in schools and various other matters, public and private, should be mandated based on the very irrational prejudices and excessive interference the Constitution is meant to check against? Yet Liberals are the "Un-American ones" just cos they want things like universally accessible health care....!!!? Political control over something that affects no-one but the consenting individual parties or is the product of an objective and fair consensus from the experts in said field = Good Conservative Values. E nsuring, by means of the governmental body, all people receive (potentially life-saving) health care = Evil Socialist Conspiracy!!! I think I need to check my blood pressure.....

10.) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Conservative: That’s right, let the states decide!

Liberal: If we’d have let the states decide how would Civil Rights, or Reproductive rights or the rights of Women stand today?

Advantage: Conservative.

My thoughts: So this is where the "Devolved Government" thing comes in. If that is what the Constitution says I guess the Cons have it. But the Lib rebuttal is extremely relevant. I mean, these things are called "Amendments," right? There has to be room for reexamination and change. The very Liberal Theory upon which the US Constitution is based warns against "the tyranny of the majority" and protecting persecuted minorities against it. As the original author poses those very ideals have been addressed via progressive thinkers. Left to the States you'd still have male-only suffrage and apartheid. Also, if you're so concerned with State Autonomy why not just dissolve the USA entirely and become self-governing micro-nations? Oh, because that would suck and you no longer be so rich, powerful and privileged. Yeah.

Totals:

Advantage Liberal: 4

Advantage Conservative: 2

Tie:4

The author rules in favour of the Libs. He's no doubt Liberal himself so no surprise! But reading each Amendment and examining them in the context of stereotypical Conservative views it is hard to see the Cons coming out on top. The US Constitution was founded on Liberal principles. The equality of man, his inalienable rights (forgive the masculine pronouns) and promoting freedom and liberty within the context of an evolved nation-state. It seems to me that government is a necessary element of any cohesive society that seeks to maintain a standard of life, order and well-being amongst the people. We are all answerable to laws in a civilised society and so 'True Freedom,' as it were, would be Anarchy. The difference between nightmarish Orwellian Socialism and mainstream European Socialism is that the former seeks to control the social institutions AND the intellectual, private lives of the people. The latter does not, it merely utilises the "whole is greater than the sum of its parts" principle to provide for the people services difficult to maintain for smaller entities and ensure all citizens receive certain inalienable rights and standard of life (sound familiar?)

Liberals, by and large, seem mainly to concern themselves with personal freedoms that do not infringe upon those of others, consistent with the principles of Liberty. Conservatives seem to espouse (sometimes excessive) authority and order and yet, conversely, decry overt control and government involvement. They call freedom and rights when their own are threatened (and even when they're not) but would rob those they have personal prejudices against of their rights. There is a claim to support an almost inerrant reading of the Constitution and yet they fly in the face of it far more than Liberals do. If one wishes to call on the Constitution as the inalienable rights of the people one must hold views consistent with it. If one disagrees with the Constitution one must admit it is flawed and can hardly start slinging jingoisms around at those who then disagree with it in a way you don't. To live by the sword is to die by the sword. If, on the other hand, you want to debate the value of the Constitution, where you agree and disagree, like intelligent adults, that would be good. If you wish to actually think through your principles, their contradictions and hypocrisies, that would be even better.

X

Question. "What does it mean to be 'Open-Minded?'"

A year or two ago I was discussing some issue with Some Guy on Some Guy's xanga and he said this; "we should be careful not to make a virtue of open-mindedness." My response was a civil rebuttal regarding the nature of being open-minded. Still, what I really wanted to say is "why shouldn't we? Open-mindedness IS a virtue." Not simply a virtue but a necessary component for intellectual evolution. But it does seem, to this David, people on both sides of the political spectrum are misunderstanding, and misappropriating, the term "open-minded."

Criticism of "open-mindedness" normally comes from the right. Naturally. Conservatives, generally speaking, espouse traditional values and ideas, those they feel are tried and tested, and they resist progression. It follows suit that they would be less open to, or more reluctant to be open to, new ideas and thus feel open-mindedness represents a threat; an undermining of the traditional ideas they cling to. They also seem to feel that 'open-mindedness' lacks substance; an indecisive avoidance of tackling issues and taking a stance. I have a few things to say about this. The first is, quite simply "no, it's not." Here's a simple and concise definition from the Oxford English Dictionary:

	open mind     • noun a mind willing to consider new ideas.   — DERIVATIVES open-minded adjective.

Oooooooh! A picture of the dictionary too! Anyway, this says it all. "A mind willing to consider new ideas." The opposite would concordantly be "a mind NOT willing to consider new ideas." How is that, by any stretch of the imagination, a good thing? Note that the word is 'consider.' Consider does not imply that said new idea must be instantly adopted without trial or examination. It will be 'considered.' To do the opposite and refuse to consider it is anti-intellectual and unethical. Imagine if our world were suddenly governed by closed-minded absolutes. Laws would become swift, brutal and unjust. Research in all areas from medicine to technology would grind to a halt. Education and learning would be nothing but a constant regurgitation of the same reactionary ideas that first sprang up in the barely sentient minds of our distant ancestors, since no one since would have ever tested them. Actually you don't need to imagine too hard as such absolutist societies were, and are, real.

Of course I'm dealing somewhat in absolutes here myself, as far as a person being closed-minded is concerned. But that is the nature of the beast. Second point; closed mindedness is an absolute. It is unalterable. A closed door cannot be walked through. It is closed. That is all there is to it. If it remains closed then you will never know, for better or worse, what is on the other side or whether or not you wish to pass through. An open door, however, can be walked through... or not walked through, depending on your choice. There is no absolute. One can peer through and choose to leave it be. One can leap through and greet the unknown. One can carefully examine what lies beyond and draw some tentative conclusions. But a closed door? Nope. You're stuck in that one room forever. The mistake the (traditionally) conservative right seem to make frequently is to assume that open-mindedness is as much an absolute as their own closed-minded shut-dooriness; once that door is open you must walk through. It does not mean that at all, as stated in Point The First. It just means the door should be open so we can assess those ideas knowledgeably, rather than with blind, intolerant ignorance. It does not mean we plow through into the unknown arbitrarily soaking up everything on the other side. What we really have here in refusing open-mindedness is willful ignorance based on an unreasoning fear of the changes the potential new information may herald. Well, unfortunately facts remain facts, however you feel about them, and remain unchanged whether you chose to open the door on them or not.

If we dispose of 'closed-mindedness' we are still left with its less absolute, but always paranoid and suspicious younger sibling, 'narrow-mindedness.' I would venture to say that most people we call 'closed-minded' are more often than not 'narrow-minded.' Not so absolute as to not consider new ideas but they keep their door permanently ajar, safety chain on, peering with undisguised cynicism through the narrow opening at whatever lies outside, their minds already negatively prejudiced. Third point; attitudes. What people fear is letting something into their room and the possible discord it may cause. Everyone has a certain immature desire to keep the door closed, or slightly ajar, deep down. Evolutionarily it makes sense for us to make defensive snap judgements, to be untrusting and cynical, regarding the unfamiliar. We were once prey to a wide range of predators and there's very little room for deliberation, for unbiased curiosity, for inquisitive gusto. when faced with a saber-toothed tiger. You better damn well run, no time to intellectualise it! "Curiosity killed the cat," as they say. (Or, in this case, was killed by the cat.) But, as ever, the instinctual cues from our primitive past continue to misfire in our somewhat-evolved present. People are sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, ageist, selfish and exclusive due to the misfirings of once-useful instinctual reactions which, at our current stage of evolution, are largely obsolete. Discrimination of all kinds is likely rooted in this once-necessary closed-minded/narrow-minded tendency to defensive homogeneity and paranoia. Our evolved psychology may always be littered with the remnants of prior stages of evolution. The trick, as evolved humans, is to be able to examine these reactions when they arise rationally and educate ourselves past them. And to do so we need to hold to the virtue of open-mindedness and resist the reactionary bigotry of our primitive ancestors. Learn not to treat everything new we encounter like a saber-tooth tiger.

Fourth point; when people claim that open-mindedness is not, or shouldn't be, a virtue I believe they are forgetting that much of their own current ideas and assertions are the product of a previous age's 'open-minded' virtue. I intend to discuss the generalities of this failure to acknowledge history in a future post, and in more detail. Anyhoos, it is all-too easy for people, living in their comfortable present, to be wholly ignorant that they are reaping the benefits of some past visionary's open-mindedness. That person rarely perceives the world beyond their own lifetime and, as a result, pictures (consciously, or unconsciously) the circumstances of their own existence as somehow perpetual. They lack relative perspective. They no doubt learn in school the details of who discovered what and who fought for who's rights to do whatever but this information is only seen abstractly. As history lived and past it exists now only in the scholarly writings of professors and (for most) seems entirely disenfranchised from the issues of the present. Those who do not see open-mindedness as a virtue, in light of all it has done for humanity, I suppose fall into two types; those ignorant of history, whom I would doubt the competency of to argue the meaning or validity of anything, and those aware of history. Well, those guys, I question their logic in wishing to slam the door shut on this virtue having freely accepted its fruits already. Poachers turned Gamekeepers. Remember that today's present is tomorrow's past. Would they be so conceited and arrogant to think that all that needs to change, be learned, be discovered, be understood, has been and we can now shut the door on any further attempts at enlightenment?

Point five; reiterating on the first point their definition of open-minded is highly inaccurate. But their attempt to find virtue in their own absolutism is also fallacious. "You have to choose a side sooner or later," Some Guy said this too. He was suggesting that open-minded types never make up their mind and remain wishy-washy permissive liberal fence-sitters unlike the bold and virtuous conservative decisives who pigeon-hole and slam a judgement on every little thing. I guess it's true that standing up for what you believe can be noble. But it's not noble by default. It is the idea in question that may be noble or ignoble, not the zeal with which one stands by it. Passion that can change its mind given the right information is fine and good. Fanaticism, which will never change its mind, is dangerous, and certainly no virtue. Hitler stood up for what he believed in. He took an absolutist, mind-made-up stance. He had millions slaughtered in the name of his firmly-chosen 'side.' Even if you disagree with his stance (I sincerely hope you do) you wanna shower kudos on him for the 'strength of his convictions....?' Didn't think so. Open-mindedness is not about never making up your mind. It is simply about being capable of changing your mind, and assertions, should new information present itself. Of reminding yourself that no matter how firmly held your beliefs may be without the ability to change your mind, to reconsider, to alter, or even discard them, if sufficient reason comes to light, you destroy the integrity of believing in the very thing you believe. Even if you were right in your conclusion, but only in the same sense that a blind squirrel finds a nut. You can believe with passionate fervour but if there is no room for reevaluation you're nothing more than a mindless zealot. Some people seem to believe that absolute, unwavering, immutable conviction is something to be admired. Usually right-wingers who like their world painted black and white, in easy-to-understand, clearly labelled boxes. But life never has been, and never will be, contained in such insufficient terms and attempts to force such absolutism on humanity have resulted in the most grievous atrocities the world has seen as one group sought to impose their unyielding perspectives on another by force.

Sixth point; your mum.

(Day 6: Your Favourite Music Video.)

(There will be no comment on this one. For one thing I don't really have one. There are many music videos I enjoy but I'm so much more about the songs than the videos. More so, when the subject discussed in this update becomes evident I think you'll agree it hardly would be appropriate to feature one anyway...)

Nathan and I spent the weekend in Hiroshima. Two very polarised days. The first was good fun. We both got going early and were in Hiroshima by 10:30 am. We spent most of the day at Miyajima, just taking in the sights and walking round the island. That evening we had pizza at a tucked-away little Italian food-place that I can only describe as "High Class Steam Punk!" We'd not booked a hotel so opted for the bare-bones approach; manga cafe. For those not familiar with Japan a manga cafe is like a huge library full of manga, also containing small booths with internet access, that operate 24 hours. Whilst bed-less and bathroom-less they do allow for large reclining chairs and, at less than 2000 yen for 8 hours (just enough to see us through from midnight to 8 the next morning) we took it. Not the most comfortable of nights... but not the most uncomfortable either.

The next day it was on to the heavy stuff; the A-Bomb Dome, Peace Park and Museum. Though it was Nathan's first visit it was my second to the Memorial Museum and it left an impression the first time. This time was far more profound for me, however, for one simple reason. Looking at the map a building not 200 metres from the centre of the explosion was identified as an elementary school. A school that would have been full of kids just like the kids I see everyday. There were of course more elementaries and junior highs, not unlike my own, throughout Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Kids, just like my own, were incinerated instantaneously. Some had their skin seared away by the heat of the blast and died agonising and painful deaths as they wandered the streets in search of help they'd never find. Some survived for years, even decades, only to die from the damage the radiation cause their bodies. It is a common lamentation of mine that we only truly understand the suffering of others when it becomes personal for us. But in light of how severely it affects us when it does we all have a duty to empathise, to stop distancing ourselves from any suffering that does not touch us personally. To, at the very least, show kindness and compassion to those whose hardships we don't understand or appreciate.

But that is not my point. What I took from that day was two-fold. Firstly, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a war crime. A war crime as heinous in nature as the evils the Japanese Imperial Army and the Nazis inflicted. The Nanking Massacre, Unit 731, Concentration Camps, the Holocaust; they were all war crimes of an utterly detestable nature and those responsible were tried as war criminals. But history is written by the victors and no such accountability lies in wait for the Allied leaders who decided to unleash the power of a small star on the men, women and children of two cities in August 1945. Harry S. Truman was a war criminal. Winston Churchill was an accessory to war crimes. Viler still, Nathan informs me that a survey taken amongst the American public shortly after the war ended turned out a shocking 25% in favour of further atomic bombings of Japan. The world today stands outraged at the attempted genocide of the Jews. Yet sizable parties amongst our own Allied Forces, the forces combatting this evil, were calling for the complete eradication of Japan.

My second point. In trying to identify what terrifying evils exist in the heart of man to allow such inhumanity to his own kind I've identified one pivotal factor; empathy. Or, to be precise, lack thereof. War makes a necessity out of dehumanising one's enemy. Propaganda designed to remove any trace of empathy for our fellow man is employed throughout wartime, turning our adversary into vile, inhuman monsters, enemies to civilised society and our very way of life. It is not hard, through the lens of the Victor's History, to view ourselves as the heroes. And, ideologically, I find it hard not to too. We were opposing the totalitarian fascism and genocidal insanity of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. The imperialist Manifest Destiny and religiously nationalistic zeal of Japan. But when you look beyond the ideologies to the actual actions the waters become muddy. Political posturing and militaristic dominion played puppeteer to America's decision to utilise its newfound nuclear capabilities. The war could have been ended without the bombs. But the Soviets were closing in. Their involvement in Japan would mean further footholds for Communist Russia following the war's end. Money and time had been invested to create these weapons. Germany had capitulated. And outside of a wartime setting the use of a nuclear weapon on living human subjects would be considered an act of inhuman evil. Money and political maneuverings led to the decision to annihilate over a hundred thousand lives. And this was from "the good guys." The only way one can commit such atrocities, outside of being a sociopath, is to willfully dehumanise your foe. To cut yourself off from them, to see them as "other." To deny yourself the burden of empathy. But they are human. They are very human. They are flesh and blood. They are parents, children, brothers, sisters, friends, lovers. They laugh, they cry, they love, they fear, they hurt.

I went to school today and saw several hundred Japanese children, aged between 6 and 12. At lunch time the 2nd graders wanted to play with me, asking for piggy-back rides and shoulder-carries, trying to hang off my arms, giving me hugs, laughing, chatting, playing. Now I imagine them dead, charred bodies lifelessly strewn across a barren earth. Everything that was their lives annihilated. I imagine an incredibly sweet little 7 year old girl, named Toa, immolated beyond recognition, screaming and crying for help in a manner so terrible it freezes the blood. Now I imagine the justifications of the politicians, the celebrations of the public at the destruction of their enemy, and I feel physically sick. I force myself to think of these things, to imagine such a terrible pain so close to myself, for one reason; because it is the truth. It is the absolute truth of what has happened and people all-too easily seek to avoid it and that is how these atrocities come to pass. Remember 9/11? Remember the scenes of celebration in the streets of those Arab nations we saw on TV? Remember how it made you feel? Now kindly take a moment to realise that our own countries knowingly brought down devastation of a magnitude many times greater than 10 9/11s and, whilst the still-living remains of a mother amidst the black rain and charred landscape of a nuclear wasteland the likes of which we've only seen in movies stood over a river choked with the immolated corpses of men, women and children screaming her son's name, our people cheered.

What makes a monster? I would argue it is not one's actions but how one allows oneself to commit them. Hitler's persecution of the Jews was only possible because he closed himself to their humanity, and indoctrinated others to do the same. But whilst our nations fought this evil we were actively committing the same evil ourselves. But it is not always so blatant as the wartime propaganda that fueled the fires of genocide. It still happens now, day-to-day. Every bigoted remark, every line drawn in the sand, every nationalistic proclamation of one's country or people over anothers, every denial of another person's rights, every perception of 'them VS us.' I am not usually one for the "slippery slope" argument but consider this; these lines of thinking are the seeds from which the world's most terrible evils have sprouted. When one closes one's heart to others, when one dehumanises another to the extent that they no longer are capable of feeling for them, when one sees others as only monsters, that is when we become monsters ourselves.

Peace.

Hey Chris!

So recently I woke up at 4 am with a sharp pain in my gut. Not my stomach exactly but just above it, behind the top 2 abdominals. Had me writhing in pain for an hour, thinking I'd have to call in sick and get looked at. Then it went away, just in time to leave me fit for work and deprived of an hour's sleep. Awesome.

Day 4: Your Favourite Quote

If you look at my Facebook "favourite quotes" section you'll find a whole legion of these. But I'm gonna have to go with these 2:

Angelus: "Passion is the source of our finest moments. The joy of love.... The clarity of hatred..... The ecstasy of grief.... It hurts sometimes more than we can bare. If we could live without passion maybe we'd know some kind of peace. But... we'd be hollow. Empty rooms, shuttered and dank..... Without passion, we'd truly be dead."
(Buffy The Vampire Slayer)

In terms of quotes from fiction this would probably be the main one. It was in one of my favourite Buffy episodes ever; Passion. The episode was narrated by Angel, now soulless and reverted to his purely vampiric persona, Angelus. It was a massive turning point in Season 2 and really powerful and moving.

JK Rowling: (Harvard Commencement Speech) "many prefer not to exercise their imaginations at all. they choose to remain comfortably within the bounds of their own experience, never troubling to wonder how it would feel to have been born other than they are... they can close their minds and hearts to any suffering that does not touch them personally...
whats more those who choose not to empathise enable real monsters, for without ever committing an act of outright evil ourselves we collude with it through our own apathy."

I just have endless admiration for Joanne Rowling. Not just cos I love her books but from what I know of her as a person. If I have a 'hero' it's probably her. I share her morals and ethics to a T, it seems, and I can find nothing to disagree with in this remarkable woman. This quote just hits the nail on everything I think is wrong with the human race, at the core; the willful inability to empathise with another, to concern yourself with anything other than your own personal experiences and, worse than that, the arrogance to then call judgement on others from that position of personal ignorance.

(or: The Bastardisation of Emo. A Refrain.)

David Moss: Emo Apologist. It's been three years since I addressed this whole deal. Last time it was more of a rant. This time I'm gonna try and be a bit more analytical about it.

Being in Japan it's hard for me to tell for sure but, it seems, the "emo" fad has (thankfully) faded from the mainstream and slunk off to the Commercialised Subculture Fad's Retirement Home to be forgotten until some retro-revival in 20 years time. But, for me, "emo" always meant something more and the inability of the mass-public to see beyond the media's misappropriations has long been a source of frustration and contention for me. Recently it's been playing on my mind again and writing is generally my outlet. So this is more for me than anyone else. I'd love to make my case on emo to the entire world but that's unlikely to happen. Nor would much of the world care (nor should they, really.) But I care. So I hope whoever reads this will (if they've not heard my emo-apologetics before) at least find it interesting, maybe offer food for thought on the topic.

My updates always end up way too long so I'm not gonna go into detail about the history of emo. Basic overview; first came punk. Later on, hardcore. Then, in the 80s, came an underground music scene birthed stylistically from punk and hardcore, but with an emphasis on expressing emotions normally not dealt with by those other two genres. Intensely introspective lyrics, sometimes sung gently, sometimes screamed, sometimes both, set to a more melodic punk sound. "Emotive Hardcore." Eventually shortened to "emocore" or just "emo." The philosophy was rooted in intimate, personal connections between performer and listener, through the intensity and an unashamed expression of heart-on-sleeve emotionality. Later the emo banner was taken up by alternative bands who drifted away from the hardcore roots, taking emo in a more indie-rock direction, but maintaining the sense of bleeding-heart vulnerability. Emo began to encapsulate a number of sounds, from skate-punk to alt.rock to post-grunge to post-hardcore. The common thread that weaved them together, however, was always a sense of extreme emotionality. Be it diary-like outpourings set to acoustic melodies to angtsy, broken-hearted power-pop to bitter-sweet, introspective alt. rock to dark, visceral post-hardcore "screamo" the theme of intense and honest emotionality remained, in various forms. Hence "emo" became embraced (sometimes positively, sometimes pejoratively) as a term to define these bands and the fans they connected with. It also became a by-word for anyone who portrayed these characteristics, whether they were into the "scene" or not. Either way one who connected (or potentially connected) with this scene on a genuine level would be one who also was deeply introspective, thoughtful, highly emotional (perhaps overly so) and in need of music as an outlet for their more-intense-than-usual feelings.

The problem comes in the devaluing of the original philosophy and definition. It's a difficult thing to debate as, since emo's inception, people have rallied against the term. Outside of the scene and the fanbase those who disliked emo-types, feeling them to be melodramatic and over-sensitive, freely used "emo" as an insult which lead to some embracing the term happily (much as some black people embrace the N-word, and some gay people embrace the Q-word, et al) and some shied away from the term entirely, denouncing it. Some found it inappropriate to use the term to define a genre, since bands that played "emo music" were often very different, stylistically. Some found the attempt at labelling small-minded and insulting. Some say it's just a word to help commercialise bands with a certain commonality in their songwriting. Some just didn't like the negative connotations of the term. Whatever the objection the term has always been somewhat controversial. In recent years, however, the term has taken on a significance and mass-appeal (or dis-appeal) that has led to what I call The Bastardisation of Emo.

Here's how any subculture or scene works. You get a bunch of like-minded, artistic types coming together and producing something. In this case, music. Over time more and more people who connect with this subculture or scene get involved, they find that sense of belonging and resonance we all look for (whether we'll admit it or not.) But then you get the "posers." The people who come in based on image. They gravitate towards this subculture/scene not because they truly connect with it but because it's become fashionable and popular (or, for the pretentiously contrary-types, because it's unfashionable and unpopular.) Whatever their reasons, for these people, it's not about a serious and deep connection. It's about look. Image. It's about feeling like a part of something without really going through the self-exploration necessary to know whether this is the place for you or not. There's not been a single scene immune to this trend. But, to me, it is exceptionally divergent to be so shallow when it comes to "emo" and here's why. Think about what "emo," the term, means (or, rather, should mean/meant.) The connotations. "Emo" means (or, at the very least, implies) "emotionality." Not just common, every-day feelings that every flesh and blood human feels but emotionality of an exceptional level. An extreme level. It just seems to be how some of us are wired; an almost bipolar-like tendency to experience the full gamut of human emotion so acutely it may seem kinda weird to those around us. I'm being rather melodramatic here, making it sound like some kinda condition. In simple terms; people feel. Some people feel more acutely/easily/intensely/broadly than others. The people at the more extreme ends of this spectrum, that's what I'm talking about. Anyway, if you are so inclined the likelihood is you'll gravitate towards the "emo" groups and styles because they are usually kindred spirits, and (well, see the above paragraphs.) But... how can one truly be "emo" if one is so shallow as to join a scene for for fashionable reasons? It's not just a misappropriation, it's downright contradictory. Whatever else an "emo" person may be (over-sensitive, whiny, melodramatic, withdrawn, weird) the one thing they can't be is shallow. It is contrary to the very traits that (depending on your personal opinion, for better, or worse) make up "an emo."

These days the term is applied liberally, and with no real thought or insight. At some point (as with all scenes) the emo tag began to be applied to more and more diluted definitions until it became what it is today. An ignorant media, always keen to apply a dumbed-down soundbite to whatever it can, bestowed the term "emo" on anything that stylistically resembled the emo-styled music of the time. Only they weren't looking very deeply into it and, as a result, any band that sounded anything like the multitude of genres that espoused emo philosophies in their music got tagged "emo." Regardless of content so long as a band sounded a little alt.rock/skate punk/post-hardcore/acoustic rock they'd get tagged as "emo." Which became virtually every band for a certain time. More importantly (and more divergently) for MTV and its brethren was the look. Much like the idea of "emo" as a genre the sense of style adopted by the fan-base has been extremely diverse. When the commercialisation struck the pseudo-goth punk look was in. Crazy hair, tight drainpipes, piercings, make-up, etc. Henceforth to be "emo" was to now adhere to a fashion. And so True Emo died. When one makes a subculture specifically devoted to the internal, the introspective, the emotional, about the external, about look and fashion, there's something very wrong. So then came the posers. The waves and waves of teenagers following the trends, adopting the looks. But ask them about the internal? Blank stares. Some of them would try and play the part. They'd suddenly try to write (crappy) poetry in an attempt to look deep. They'd apply plasters to self-inflicted (and none-existent) wounds to look tortured. They made it an image first and a depth-of-character thing.... second? Third? Fourth? Last? Try, "never even placed." Yes, for these "emos" real emotion, real feeling, real depth, is totally unimportant so long as you have the look. I cannot express how mind-boggling this is to me.

What is worse, for me, is that despite the glaringly obvious contradiction in terms "emo" has become adopted as the term for these kids. Most people never knew emo before the Bastardisation. They don't know the history. They just take what the media tells them and the media says "eye-liner, crazy hair, tight jeans = emo." So people hate these phonies and look on them with disdain. I don't blame them for an instant. I do too. But think about it; for anyone to be a poser, a fake, a phony, they have to be imitating something genuine, minus the genuine. Ergo, for the much-maligned poser-emo to exist there must be True Emos, of whom these kids are just cardboard cut-out wannabes. Just like any other subculture. But in their ignorance most people don't even realise there is more to emo, was more, than the shallow teenage trend that leapt to the youth-scene forefront in recent years. And most people don't care to know. They like their judgements to be quick and visually-based. They're so comfortable with their own uninformed, shallow definition of "emo" they aren't concerned with hearing someone like me explain the logical and conceptual fallacies of it. Some are more savvy; the term "scene-kid" is more appropriately used to refer to one who is all about the scene. But some actively want to be seen as emo, specifically emo, without actually possessing the character, just cos they think it's cool/will get them dates/is just another way to rebel, whatever. I've always called them "scene-mos." I guess the problem here lies in never knowing for real who is genuine and who isn't. Only the person in question knows that for sure. My point is simple, though; regardless of whether you dress "scene" or not. Regardless of whether you care for the term "emo" or not. Regardless of all the external stuff... "it's what's inside that counts." Genuine emo stuff will naturally attract genuine emos. It will also attract shallow posers. Those genuine emos may be scene, they may not, but it is their personality that defines them, something one can never judge from the outside. The posers will always try to be scene because that is all they really care about. The genuine ones will not always be so easily spotted, will be rounded human beings with other interests. The posers will be 1-dimensional cookie-cutter beings. The genuines will be about the music first, and the internal. The posers will be about the image first, and the external. The genuine ones will grow, change, but they will always be who they are, they will always be "emo" inside. The posers will move onto a new fad in a few years.

Me, I came late to the emo thing. Early enough to get in before the mass-commercialisation but I've always been one to spend a long time soul-searching before settling on whether something was for me or not. I learnt about emo in my first year of uni, in 2003. My fencing buddy Drew was into the music and pointed me in a few directions. It was an epiphany for me, as ridiculous as that sounds. Here were bands playing music a loved, from positions I could really relate to. Here was a potential scene I finally felt was right for me. Introspective, sensitive, intensely emotional, a little weird...? Welcome home! It was the music first and foremost for me but later I found myself finally feeling I'd found myself in all of this and comfortable with my identification. Now few people I know can separate me from my 'look.' There are elements of the scene I embrace. There are elements I reject. There are emo-tagged bands I love. There are some I don't care for. There are none-emo musicians I like. I'm 30 years old as of this March and I still feel right about this "emo" thing. I guess this is important to me because it took me a long time to find where I belonged amongst subcultures, if at all. I don't care of someone dresses a certain way. I don't care if they like or hate the term, "emo." What's important being "emo" (or, if you hate the term, this hitherto unnamed emotional nature) is who you are inside. Exactly the same goes for the bands and music in question. Substance, not style. Emo can have both, or it can have just substance, but it can't be just style. The misappropriated use of "emo" isn't gonna go away. But I really wish people would give more thought to the words they use and not just accept uninformed media terminology. If people find sensitive, heart-on-sleeve, emotional types annoying, fair play. If people've been reading this thinking "Dave, what is this pussy-shit you're on about" and wanna hate on emo I really don't mind. I'd just like them to hate on the right thing, for the right reasons.

The Last Of The (E)Mohicans.

Day 3: Your Favourite TV Show

OK, so Day 3 came several days after Day 2. To be honest I got bored. Anyway, after getting the emo thing off my chest for the some-big-number-eth time, and hardly exercising the art of brevity in doing so, I'll keep this short. I'm mainly into cult stuff, be it comedy, sci-fi or fantasy. Well thought-out, imaginative stuff that touches your mind, heart or maybe both. Comedy: alternative British comedy, usually the abstract, somewhat surrealist, and often satirical stuff. The Day Today, Garth Marenghi's Darkplace and The Mighty Boosh take prime position. I like to watch a fair few cartoons/anime but my current faves are Naruto and Avatar:The Last Airbender. Both are aimed at a young demograph but both transcend that demograph in terms of character development and themes. But perhaps my major TV love-affair was with Joss Whedon's alternative reality known informally as the Buffyverse. Buffy The Vampire Slayer and it's brother show, Angel. Easily the two shows I watched most devotedly between 1998 and 2005. The bloody awful 1992 movie nearly stopped me from ever getting into Buffy but, thankfully, my brother caught and episode and just started watching one day. I saw him watching and started watching myself and we were both fans by the end of our first episode. A fantasy-infused reality, given emotional depth via the grounding of the supernatural in real-life issues, usually well-written, highly relatable and (once you get truly into it) highly personal. The fantasy and liberal use of applicable metaphor (highschool as hell, etc) made Buffy and Angel cool and intelligent but the heart, for me, lay in the integrity of the show as a character-driven story. Buffy and Angel could be amusingly goofy, ironically ridiculous, defiantly original, viscerally real and the emoest of emo. But without the integrity, the ability to really believe in that world and those characters, it wouldn't have meant half as much to me. Yep, those shows were my faves!

Is today. So this thing may have me updating everyday which is weird for me considering even my 'regular' updates were usually 2 weeks apart at the very least. I'll just say this before I hot up the next question; what the fuck, Xanga? You've changed the format of the blogging page so that now I can't add my watching/listening to/playing, etc. thing, there's no word count and I can't seem to add audio files to my post (hence the links in the previous, rather than nice, instantly accessible inserts straight from my audio xanga. Why? Call me a bluff old traditionalist but I've always been lead to believe that upgrading makes things better?

Day 2 : Your Favourite Movie

I'm gonna have to address a few movies here. First I should point out that the Star Wars movies as a whole qualify. All 6. Yes, all 6. Those whining little bitches who refuse to acknowledge the prequels; just get over yourselves. If you hadn't been 7 when you saw Star Wars: A New Hope and 30 when you saw Star Wars: The Phantom Menace I seriously doubt you'd find such room for complaining. Episode 4 is a superior film to Episode 1, in my opinion, but if you'd been 30 when Star Wars first hit the big screen, carrying yourself with that same self-important attitude, you'd likely have hated it too. Anyway, Star Wars.

I've always had a remarkable fondness for these movies too. Far and Away. I can't quite tell you why. Generally I like Ron Howard as a film-maker. I have an ancestral soft-spot for the whole Irishy-Celticy thing. And the whole Leaving In Search Of Adventure has always struck a chord with me too. Willow. Another one of George Lucas'. There's something wonderful about Willow. Part of it is captured with the New Zealand-based cinematography. I've always liked swords-and-sorcery fantasy (done well) and it carries a similar innate charm as the Star Wars movies. Big Trouble In Little China. My cult classic of choice. Everything about this movie is frickin' awesome and hilarious! The thing is this movie is so unique in its style, so very esoteric in its appeal, most people will not appreciate it the same way I do (with the notable exceptions of Nathan and Balex!) Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. My foreign language movie of choice is also my martial arts movie of choice. Maybe cos, much as I love a straight up martial arts flick, my sensitive NF side needs the emotional overtones, the tortured heroine and the smatterings of Taoist philosophy given a very human voice. This movie also pays homage to the wu xia traditions of Chinese legend and story-telling, something I wished we could see more of. I also love to imagine myself gliding over rooftops, leaping off the surface of water and engaging in dazzling aerial sword combat amongst gently swaying bamboo.

But finally I must give you the Lord of the Rings trilogy. And not just for that special magic the country of New Zealand seems to give movies. it's just a complete, working epic. No corners were cut, no dumbing down to make it digestible for the primitive attention span of the average serf. What's more I think it does a better job than the original texts of bringing an amazing world and story to life. I tip my hat to Tolkien just as I do to Lucas in creating something truly timeless that has captured the imagination of the planet. But both Lucas and Tolkien, I feel, don't tell a story so well. Lucas is not wordy enough. Tolkien is too wordy. The movies give us the heart and soul of the Lord of the Rings in a way I feel Tolkien himself never really gets down to. Just my opinion. These movies are magisterial. And I think Andy Sirkis deserves an Oscar for his performance as Gollum.

Well, a lot has happened since I last updated, in the October of last year. I don't plan to talk about any of it. If I had any desire to do that I'd have been doing it already. Naah, this whole blogging thing kinda lost its appeal long ago. But I have it and, since I have it, I may as well use it. To get me back into the swing of things I got this off the only person I know who actually uses Xanga anymore (myself included,) Chris: The 30 Day Challenge. The premise is to write something about a different subject every day for 30 days. So here goes nothing (that statement may, quite possibly, be literal.)

Day 1 - Your Favourite Song

Easy one for me, this. It's no secret what my favourite song is and I've posted the video before now. Too bad that after spending the last half hour searching my archives for the post it was attached to I've only gone and found the video was removed for copyright bullshit or some such and is no longer present. I could probably find a new one but the video entry is another subject for another day so the audio link will do. I present my favouritest song in the world, consistently for the past 4 years:

Cute Without The 'E' (Cut From The Team) by Taking Back Sunday

http://moss-icon.xanga.com/audio/b6022488000/

Oh, and here's the acoustic version:

http://moss-icon.xanga.com/audio/ec37d2182838/

Why? Why do any of us like what we like? Why do some of us get excited over peanut butter and jelly (jam) sandwiches and others gag at the idea? I guess it's my favourite song cos it does everything I want music to do to me. It simultaneously makes me feel elated, excited, sad, hurt, hopeful, joyful, nostalgic... It's visceral, yet melodic. It takes me to the very edge of heart-break and dangles me over the edge so I can feel the winds raging around me, threatening to tear me from the cliff-top and break my body against the rocks below but never quite doing so. It makes my pulse race and my eyes tear up. It's an emo-junkie's most immaculate fix. It encapsulates, for me, the most profound moments of my life; the extremes of emotion that seem to define living for me. This song was my musical epiphany, basically. So I guess that's why.

In other news, I'm watching the Clone Wars animated series. I'd hadn't bothered with it since Sarv and I saw the pilot movie and it was a bit weak but... the series isn't half bad. It's still not quite what Star Wars should be. It's still a bit too Saturday-morning-kiddified in places and I'm not a fan of the 3-D animation style. But it has surprised me by being not bad. Not great, but not bad.

As promised to Balex, here are a couple of photos from Ena's Minoji Festival. Most of us ALTs took part. As ninjas. Ninjas. I know there is no need for the 's,' that 'ninja' is singular and plural, but it amuses me for some reason. Probably a throwback to hockey old movies and TV shows from the 80s-early 90s Ninja Boom. Ninjas. Anyway, we were ninjas. Like so;

We were also provided with Konohagakure forehead protectors on account of the folks at the Board of Education being aware of mine and Nichola's love of Naruto. So that was a nice bonus. I even ended up with 2. I sense cos-playing in my future.... Somewhat feasible possibilities are;

Sasuke
Kakashi (would require hair-dye!)
Sai
Kankuro
Kiba
Itachi

If you read this update please vote for which you think would work best. I shall tally the votes, duly ignore them and just be who I want anyway, or at least which hairstyle I could pull off at the time. But vote, just for the hell of it. Go on.

More pics. Don't ask me what the green and yellow thing is. I just don't know.

A typhoon is bearing down on Japan. May get the day off tomorrow as a result, which wouldn't be bad. What would be bad would be having to cancel my trip to Kobe to catch up with Nathan for the first time since he got to Japan 2 weeks ago. It's also our good friend Steve Brotherhood's birthday on Friday and we must celebrate with games of Street Fighter and probably a fair degree of beer! Steve is turning 30. And so it begins.....

"Just so you know, you'll never know... and some secrets weren't meant to be told. But I found the cure to growing older"