Thanks for this review, Andrew Leonard. I get the sense that you have a special affinity with Needham but are amused by his goals as well. Nobody can explain why China fell behind the, nobody can explain what a culture "did wrong". Whatever happened in history was too complex for us to even attempt to understand. And then there are those like David Sugarman who make sweeping statements about Asian music, art and architecture and declare that Asian culture has a "nail that sticks up is hammered down" phenomenon. Almost always, these are people who have minimal, if any, understanding of Asian culture. Brace yourself for the slew of racist and anti-Chinese comments that are going to surface.

If you read my post you will see that I did notice you said Asian, not Chinese. So what are you saying? That all other Asian countries copied everything from China? And how does copying preclude creativity?

Okay I understand what you are trying to say now. Thanks for the explanation. But really, just because other civilizations don't copy things from the rest of Asia doesn't mean that the rest of Asia stamped out the creativity gene. I honestly think the phenomenon you describe is just one of the effects from colonialism and globalization, which essentially generated a situation where Western things are viewed as better and more creative. And currently most people adopt Western ideas, institutions and technology to advance economically, not because their own cultures are not creative, but because of economic dependence on the West.

Good point. Woodblock printing was invented much earlier in China but you can imagine how much more difficult it is to print in a language that uses thousands of pictograms than it is to print in Latin, which uses an alphabet.

The market is not forcing sexuality on children - it is the culture - and it's dysfunctional view of sexuality that this to blame for our current problems.

I think you made some excellent points, but I disagree with some of them. Certainly capitalism cannot be entirely blamed for this sexualization- because it wouldn't work if there wasn't already demand for it. But capitalism complicates things by raising demand through advertising and raising supply by outsourcing to countries with low production costs.

As for the dysfunctional view of sexuality that you mention, sex was never only about procreation. Historically, wives were in charge of domestic affairs and procreation; their sexuality was also commodified as they were only worth anything if they were fertile. But concubines and mistresses were about sex as recreation. So if you didn't have the luck to be from a well-established family, your chances of economic advancement came from flaunting your sexuality.

In both cases, being sexually desirable was linked to economic status. However, mistresses were operating at a sort of underground market (well, in the West, anyway). Meanwhile, there was also sexual desire within certain people for young girls, but this was socially unacceptable. (As one reader noted, they sort of compromised by marrying off girls once puberty hit). So the sex for recreation and sexual desire for young girls was always there. Capitalism saw those, added some clever marketing ploy and banked on them.

As at least one other reader noted, LW, you knew all along that you would need to complete this rotation to graduate. And yet you chose to pursue veterinary studies and not think about it until six weeks before your graduation.

There is a difference between personal peace of mind and good conscience. For example, consider the scenario of you being a vegan. You mention an emotional episode that led you to give up meat. All that is commendable. But I think that you became a vegan mostly for your own need to have a personal peace of mind. You seemed to be satisfied with shrinking back from the harsh realities of the food industry. Understandably, you would rather block that out, become a small animal vet and just go on with your life. Consider this: if you were truly, and I do mean truly deeply affected by your experience, you would be outraged and would want to take action against those practices.

It takes time for our shock and contempt to evolve into an actual motivation to take action. Most of us read the news and hear stories of people dying in wars. The inhumane operation of slaughterhouses isn't exactly news either. But most of us will read about these things and go on with our lives normally. Yes, this is deplorable, but it's also a survival mechanism. If we were truly affected by those things than we would all become severely depressed and lose hope in life. Thus, it takes prolonged exposure to horrible conditions before our involuntary reactions of disgust transform into feelings deep-seated enough to warrant action.

If you truly feel strongly about this, you will need to undergo this transition. It will take courage, perseverance and sacrifice.

All the Best.

Clearly Glenn was addressing the faulty arguments that Wittes uses. In fact, he even writes, "None of this is to deny that there are reasonable grounds for objecting to the California court's decision." His own sexual orientation has nothing to do with the post whatsoever.

Conflict of interest? Umm, this is about civil liberties. Besides, Glenn has never argued that the court ruling was morally correct. He has never even said that he thinks the court's interpretation of the constitution was correct. The issue at hand is the fact that Wittes argues the ruling is some sort of judicial activism overriding public opinion, which it clearly is not.

Opinion? Then evidently you and I are referring to the same thing, but have you actually read Glenn's post? If you did you would notice that he pointed out a factual error in Wittes' argument. He did not discuss his own opinions on the court ruling itself.

Your imagination always impresses me, and your (most recent) post just made my day. Thank you.