Attack on Titan

I don’t usually write reviews, but in this dreadful new era, here’s the second in a row. Furthermore, though I’ve also touched upon my interest in and involvement with anime (Japanese animation) in the past, I haven’t written much about it. Recommended to me by friends and acquaintances, this example seemed worthy of mention for both enthusiasts and those unfamiliar with the medium.

Attack on Titan (Japanese: Shingeki no Kyojin) is a science-fiction/fantasy television series adapted from the ongoing manga (graphic novel) of the same name by Hajime Isayama. Thousands of years in the future, presumably, human civilization has been all but destroyed by the onslaught of a mysterious race of humanoid giants, the Titans, who seem to exist solely to kill human beings. The survivors eke out a kind of pre-industrial existence behind a series of concentric walls. These walls have kept the Titans at bay for a century … until that day when they don’t.

The protagonists then find themselves in a renewed fight for survival and soon realize that they must also begin to unravel the mystery of the Titans and their origins if humanity is to prevail.

Like any other medium, anime ranges from the cheap and formulaic to the artful and innovative. Attack on Titan has proved to be an example of the latter. It manages to achieve unusually beautiful and consistent animation for an episodic television production with detail that is not too simplified to distract from the viewer’s enjoyment. The plot and characters are equally engaging. The ensemble cast carries the viewer through emotions that run from terror to courage and from grief to hope. The story is intriguing and engrossing, combining mystery, dramatic (and sometimes brutal) action, philosophy, and palpable dread. The viewer is always left eager for the next episode … or the next season.

Of course, the series isn’t entirely without flaws. Setting aside the central technological conceit that has the protagonists fighting the Titans in an entertaining but farfetched form of aerial, sword-based combat, the show suffers from some of the usual storytelling crutches. For example, the Titans almost always appear at the speed of plot, rarely interrupting important conversations between the protagonists. Many of the characterization clichés that often plague anime are avoided, but the seemingly obligatory scenes of angst and self-doubt are occasionally indulged for interminable moments. The computer-aided animation is very well done without clumsy CGI inserts, though still pans and other low-budget motion-avoidance techniques are employed with annoying frequency.

In conclusion, Attack on Titan is well worth watching and stands as a perfect example of what anime can be. It is currently available for subtitled viewing via both Crunchyroll and Funimation. A home-video release is expected next year … hopefully along with a second season.

The e-Book Revolution

The e-book revolution has arrived! Actually, it arrived a few years ago, but now that I’ve purchased my first e-book, I can finally make this belated announcement with some confidence. Previously, I had been waiting to see how well the first waive of dedicated e-book readers (namely the Amazon Kindle and the Barnes & Noble Nook) would fare in the marketplace. They did reasonably well, though the recent popularity of tablet computers probably deserves most of the credit for mainstreaming the e-book market.

Originally, therefore, I had thought to muse about the utility of tablet computers. However, while e-readers may well be the killer application for tablets, one rail trip was enough to prove to me that the portable convenience of the compact multifunctional device (namely the so-called smartphone) still trumps the comparative luxuries of the bulkier tablet.

For my first e-book, I selected 2312, Kim Stanley Robinson’s transgendered romp across the solar system of the 24th century A.D. I had enjoyed his Mars trilogy, which serves at least implicitly as the historical background for 2312, so I wanted to see Robinson’s vision for a fully fledged interplanetary civilization and all its political and economic implications.

However, instead of a realistic interplanetary economy, I found a fantastical iteration of centralized planning. Robinson himself seemed somewhat unsure how such an economy might operate in practice, and his protagonists apparently pay their way on interplanetary voyages by washing dishes. (Then again, perhaps Robinson had merely described the perfection of each-according-to-his-abilities communism.) He suggested that a socialist utopia could be achieved with advanced computers running the economy, if only capitalism would stop resisting.

Space travel would be easier, too, if only gravity would stop resisting our attempts to fly.

Avoiding the Question

The U.S. Supreme Court made an unconscionable mistake today. In declining to review the matter of Woollard v. Gallagher, which questioned the constitutionality of requiring “good and substantial” cause for the issuance of a permit to carry a handgun, the high court has signaled with dread certainty that it will do nothing to protect the civil right to bear arms for the nearly 100 million Americans who reside in prohibitionist states. Moreover, this shirking of responsibility will doom the nation at large to suffer the consequences of decades of frustration that must soon be released.

Though several right-to-carry challenges still remain active in the federal courts, we have no reason to expect different outcomes for these cases. Those subjects of California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, and the other gun-control bastions are now left with only two choices: flight or defiance.

Stop the Ban on Semi-Automatic Rifles in California

I usually don’t write about prospective legislation in detail, but this example is so egregious that I feel obligated to do so. California Senate Bill 374, which was sent to the Governor last night, would prohibit the trade in all centerfire semi-automatic rifles without fixed magazines beginning next year. Rifles lawfully acquired before this time would be retained by their current owners but would have to be registered as “assault weapons” and would thus also be subject to more stringent transportation and usage restrictions.

The definitions involved are so broad that virtually all self-loading rifles would fall under the new law. This includes not only rifles that merely resemble modern military firearms, such as civilian ArmaLite-Stoner (AR) and semi-automatic Kalashnikov-action (AK) rifles that are currently legal with magazine locks installed, but also many target and hunting rifles from most major manufacturers, not excluding the very popular Springfield M1A rifles (and all other civilian versions of the U.S. M14), the Ruger Mini series, the Kel-Tec SU-16 series, surplus and commercial variants of the U.S. M1 carbine, nor arguably Garand rifles and Simonov carbines (Russian SKS, Yugoslavian m1959, etc.). Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lawful gun owners would be affected, though many might not realize that fact until they were arrested for possession of unregistered “assault weapons.”

SB 374 appears obviously unconstitutional under the common-use test referenced in D.C. v. Heller, so I don’t expect that it would survive a constitutional challenge in court. Semi-automatic rifles are not more dangerous or unusual than other firearms and, in fact, are very rarely used in violent crime, so there is also no utilitarian justification for the would-be law. Nevertheless, we citizens must still do our part to voice opposition to misguided, unconstitutional legislation.

Therefore, if you value the right to arms and/or the civil rights of your children or possible children, I urge you to contact Governor Brown and encourage him to veto this bill.

Political Hypocrisy and Civil Rights

Last week, my brother and I squabbled via e-mail. I had held up the mirror of political hypocrisy in the form of an opinion piece from the National Review that I shared on Facebook. My brother caught his own reflection, which surprised me, and complained. I called him on it, he took offense, and we were off to the races.

Ironically, I had originally withheld my own comments precisely to avoid offending anyone. You see, if I simply tell someone that he’s wrong, then I’m being insulting, but if I instead try to let him see his own mistakes, then I apparently look condescending … or so I’ve been told. What rhetorical device can I use to make my point without risk of offending or worse yet being ignored?

However, since this will be ignored anyway, I may as well expound on the issue, since I already did most of the work for my brother’s benefit. My words will be out here in the wilderness at least.

Now, the point of the National Review piece was about hypocrisy in the treatment of civil rights, namely conflicting support or defense for discouraging the right to arms through gun-control laws and discouraging the right to vote through voter-authentication laws. If restrictions are justified on one of these to avoid certain perceived harms, then they must also be justified on the other to avoid its perceived harms. Put simply, it is hypocritical to insist on unfettered exercise of one right that may cause harm but demand restrictions on another right that may also cause harm.

My brother, of course, simply denied the equivalency, which is what disappointed me and angered him. After all, guns are bad, right? They’re just used to murder people. But votes are good. They’re used to help poor people get welfare benefits and affordable health care. Never mind that votes have been responsible for far more murders than have privately held firearms.…

I contend that the issues are very much equivalent in that important and/or fundamental civil rights are implicated in both examples. In fact, the methodologies of restriction are eerily similar, so I would argue that the voter-authentication efforts have been informed by the history of gun-control legislation. The next step might be to require background checks prior to each election, since felons are also prohibited from voting.

I could make a case for why the electoral franchise is too widely available, but that isn’t my point here and implicates too many other tangential issues. For the sake of this argument, I accept that voter disenfranchisement is a bad thing, assuming that easy access to ballots correlates to increased rates of voter fraud no more than easy availability of firearms correlates to increased rates of murder. In other words, let’s assume that there is no real problem for voter-authentication laws to solve.

I recognize these voter-authentication laws for what they really are (just like I recognize gun-control laws for what they really are). Though I could make a good-faith argument that these laws are wise and benevolent and not disenfranchising at all—like a right to arms limited just to your own home, you aren’t really disenfranchised as long as you can still vote between 1:30pm and 2:00pm in the state capital on election day—I suspect that they are less about preventing electoral fraud than they are about discouraging casual voters. Casual voters are the only group who will respond to get-out-the-vote drives, so these laws will undercut the effectiveness of such drives and thus threaten the political power of the party that most relies upon them.

I’ve seen with my own eyes just how easy electoral fraud can be, but I will oppose these voter-authentication laws and support the inevitable legal challenges. Assuming the laws are eventually stricken, the resulting jurisprudence can be used against very similar gun-control laws. In the same manner, again assuming victory for the pro-rights argument, the jurisprudence that results from the ongoing right-to-arms litigation will eventually be used to protect and expand other civil rights. What weakens one weakens all, and what strengthens one strengthens all.

And this is why I wish that I could win “liberals” over on the right to arms and “conservatives” over on private morality issues, but if I can’t convince my own brother of the importance and interdependence of all civil rights, then whom can I convince?

A Friend for Woollard

I’m no lawyer, but I doubt that I could construct a stronger legalistic argument in support of the right to carry a handgun under the Second Amendment than that presented in the Cato Institute’s amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court advocating its review in the matter of Woollard v. Gallagher. The high court must take up this case and settle the underlying constitutional question. To do otherwise would be to shirk its duty and expose the entire body of our civil rights to potential abuse under the same methods used to deny the right to bear arms.

Bricklayer Tacos

I adapted this recipe from Pati’s Mexican Table. My version is spicier and uses more vegetables. It’s an attempt at one-skillet cooking, wherein the meat and salsa cook together—though I always end up transferring the ingredients from skillet to wok along the way. Different quantities and varieties can be easily substituted (ground beef in place of chopped steak, for example).

Ingredients:

1/4–1/2 lb. thick-cut bacon, sliced
1 lb. beef, chopped or sliced
salt, pepper, and oregano to taste
4+ cloves garlic, coarsely chopped
1 large onion, sliced
6+ jalapeños (or other chilies), chopped
1 lb. fire-roasted tomatoes, diced.

Fry the bacon until it is nicely browned and most of the fat rendered. Tip off or drain the excess, depending on how lean the beef is. Add the beef and garlic. Season with salt, pepper, and oregano. Cook until the beef is slightly seared.

Add the sliced onions and mix them in gently. Once the onions begin to soften, add the chilies. Cook for several minutes, then stir in the tomatoes. Continue cooking the mixture until the vegetables have reached the desired texture and any excess liquid has been reduced.

Serve with warm corn tortillas, top with crumbled cotija cheese, and garnish with chopped cilantro or lettuce. Enjoy!