being informed

I was eating a prune danish and watching a series called "Things You Have to See to Believe" on YouTube.
First, I watched a man wearing clothes made of cans or plastic bottles. A minute and a half later, the clip was finished, and I found myself bored and was still enjoying the danish. So I clicked another series clip, which showed me a bunch of people trying to fly. Basically, they wore silly costumes and jumped off a gangboard. Instead of staying in air for more than half of a second, all of them fell into the water. I found it boring and clicked on another series clip. At least my mouth and stomach were happy with the danish.

This one was showing a Philippine cuisine: balut.
I had to stop eating.
My brows were frowning. That minute-and-a-half was longer than the previous two minute-and-a-halfs. When it ended, the coming-up recommendations were not more "Things You Have to See to Believe" clips, but were more videos on balut.

Comments from Philippines were like "I ate it too. So what?"
Comments from non-Philippines were like "Oh, this is gross. How can anyone eat it?"
Comments from obviously westerners were like "Asians eat anything, even their own kind."

To echo with one of my previous blog entry, I am an everything-eater. But. There are some buts needed to be added. I am an everything-but-raw-bloody-chicken eater.
I don't think I will like a raw balut. But a cooked one I may try. I simply don't like bloody raw chicken. So bloody raw chicken embryo? No, I don't think I'll like it.

Morality?
If you don't feel guilty eating a chicken or a chick, why do you feel guilty eating a developing chick or embryo?
You are not more humane or divine than a Philippine just because you eat adult chicken.
Who are you to decide what kind of chicken or the age of a chicken is more eatable than others? It should all depend on how it is cooked (or uncooked).

For the record, I love Kim. What I am saying in the following does not disrespect her. I simply do not get the logic of some American diet habits.
Kim dislikes to see the entire fish when having fish. She said that Americans usually do not eat ducks because ducks are considered pets in America.
She was surprised that I eat entire fish (including the head and tail, and it's gross enough for her that I like fish eyes.)
She was surprised that one of my food cravings (that I am going to fulfill in 10 days in Taiwan) is duck blood. I don't drink blood. Duck blood, like any other kinds of blood, solidifies and becomes jelly-like. It is soooo good in a spicy hot pot! (Seeing this picture makes me so hungry)


I remember listening to a conversation led by Zabeth. Being a half-French helps her to be gladly exposed to various kinds of food, especially meat and seafood. She loves food. I love having meals with her because she is not afraid of trying.
In that conversation, she defended the theory of dog-eating. I don't remember the exact words she put, but it's the same idea that eating pork does not make you more humane or divine than eating dog meat. If pigs are bred for meat, there is no reason why dogs cannot be bred for meat. If rabbits are hunted for BBQ, there is no reason why cats cannot be eaten.
If eating cats, dogs or chicken embryo is not in your custom, it does not make you more developed, or even, civilized.

Why I stopped eating the danish as watching the balut clip was the unpleasant pictures. I don't like seeing pictures of flowing blood and bumping hearts. An article in one February issue of New York Times Magazine was discussing the accessibility of the internet on this kind of disgusting pictures. It was titled Cabinets of Wonder. At the end of the article, the author Virginia Hefferman said:

And let’s not be naïve: the motives of journalists, human rights workers, documentarians and doctors who draw attention to nauseating images are not always pure. In his terrific book about nonfiction writing called “Follow the Story,” James B. Stewart argues that “writers cannot count on anyone to read their work out of a sense of obligation, moral duty or abstract dedication to ‘being informed.’ ” Instead, he says, the best stories in journalism engage an amoral quality in the reader: curiosity. Stories that are strange work best; we want to see what’s weird, what’s unexpected, what we’re not supposed to see.

Raw balut looks very disgusting. It is like movies showing wounds, some making audience cover our eyes. And you can find a lot of its clips on YouTube and probably other video sharing website. This is when Web 2.0 goes wild. You are not warned before seeing it. I was not prepared to see blood when eating the scrumptious danish.
Good to know what's a balut, but I don't post the YouTube clips about it here. You are not obliged to see it.

Another thought, irrelevant to food: What is the right of being informed?
Now is the age of gossiping. Gossiping with pictures and motion pictures.
I never particularly liked 陳冠希 Edison Chen except for his performance in my favorite movie 無間道II (Infernal Affairs II; Infernal Affairs is the original version of The Departed). But I feel sorry for him in the recent news that his computer files were pirated when he had his computer fixed. The pirated files included thousands of female celebrities' "inappropriate" images. The public were so angry at him, saying he bears no virtue. He had to apologize to the society (who?) by quitting his career.
In my opinion, the IT who stole his files and spread them is the person who bears no virtue. Despite of the content of the images, it is Edison Chen's right to take pictures when he was partying or getting high with his friends. He did nothing wrong. The persons in the pictures did nothing wrong either.
Do we have the right to be informed that celebrities like anybody else who can get really crazy when drunk or high?