Aliens for President

Since America's beginning, being a natural-born citizen has always been a requirement for our Presidents. The natural-born-citizen clause states that only US citizens born in one of our States can run for President. This was originally meant to protect America against foreign influence, and this argument is still justifiable today. Who would want a the person running our country to be someone who wasn't even born in it? How could they possibly understand what it's like to live as an American? They can if they were adopted from a foreign country and should be allowed to run for President.

This law is meant to exclude foreigners who have an inferior experience as an American citizen. I've lived in America my entire life. English is my native language and I struggle to understand Chinese despite spending the first eleven months of my life in China. Don't get me wrong, though; my Chinese heritage is something I value very much. But I cannot imagine myself as a Chinese citizen. Including the times I went back to visit China, I've spent barely a year in China, and was only a baby when I was a citizen. My parents are American and I have been raised as an American. I say the pledge every morning during advisory. There is no way that I can imagine myself as anything but an American citizen. So why can't I run for President? Because my American experience has been tainted due to the first eleven months of my life?

I decided to see what the arguments are for keeping the natural-born-citizen clause. The argument seemed to be fear of our President becoming some unrelatable European or Mexican. However, I was relieved to find that I am not the only person addressing the adopted kids conundrum. According to the New York Times in 2004, "the number of foreign-born children adopted by Americans rose to more than 21,000 last year. Adoption groups estimate that over that past 15 years, about 190,000 children have been adopted into American homes" and should be given the same rights as biological American children. It's not a request to obliterate the natural-born-citizen clause. Even if it was, who would vote for a 'foreigner' who is clearly uneducated about America? Making an exception to the natural-born-citizen clause for adopted kids must be made. As one of the "190,000" foreign adoptions, I believe that it is unfair to discriminate adopted Americans against biological Americans. They may have a different heritage than biological Americans, but they grew up in America just like everyone else.

Miss Representation is Very Proud Right Now!

The 2012 Elections sure have been interesting! We have the first Asian-American female Senator, the first openly gay Senator, the first all-female delegation, and 20 female Senators, a new record! These are important gains because they are advancing women's rights in America.
What makes these gains so interesting is their relationship to Miss Representation, a documentary that was shown at the Northfield campus Tuesday night with Mr. Bolos. In this film, America's embarrassing lack of female representation in the government was revealed. According to the film, "67 countries have had female presidents or prime ministers" and America has yet to join this progressive group. In 2010, only 17% of Congress was female, and there was no increase in this percent for the first time in 30 years! Based of 2012's results, we now have 20 women in the Senate and at least 81 women in Congress. This makes the Senate 20% female and Congress is 18.6% female. Women are getting a bigger role in America's government thanks to the results of the election and will have a bigger voice as a result.
And the victories weren't just an increase in the amount of females in the government. Male candidates who expressed harsh views regarding abortion rights and rape that are clearly bigoted were defeated, further preventing a misogynist pro-life agenda from hurting America. Todd Akin caused quite a controversy when he stated that "if women experience a 'legitimate rape,' their bodies can avert unwanted pregnancies" in Missouri and Richard Mourdock of Indiana "said pregnancies from rape are something 'God intended.' ” The defeat of these men will help discourage what is possibly the most insensitive pro-life argument in America. 
Overall, 2012 has been a big year for politics and an excellent year for female progress. What do you think of the election? Please comment. Please, I know you're out there and I'm lonely.

Some Thoughts on Abortion: The Arguments

I was chatting with some friends on Skype earlier in the week. Given that Election Day is on Tuesday, our conversation became very political and became centered on abortion. This conversation made me very uncomfortable and also made me realize a few things. Whether or not abortion will be made illegal is not an argument; the Roy V. Wade case has made abortion's current legal status all but permanent (this, however, is another post). Even the morality of abortions is not my main focus. Rather, I want to point out some things that disturbed me during the Skype conversation and provide some of my own ideas. In no way do I mean to infringe upon your morals. 

My friends believe that it's hilarious that anyone should consider a fetus a life. The status of a fetus is heavily debated as to whether it's human life or whether it's just a mass of special cells in a woman. I understand this, but several fetus jokes came about. Also, the sheer intolerance for the idea that a fetus is some form of life (not necessarily a baby) was rude. Cells are alive, and the fetus contains fertilized cells that are certainly different from a normal cell. It may not be a full baby, but it should still be respected as something a little above an average, expendable cell. 

My friends also made assumptions about pro-lifers, saying that those who are pro life are misogynists with little respect for women and are in it for religious reasons. While this is the majority and a revolting idea, it's not the sole reason and shouldn't be treated like it. Just as there are different reasons to have an abortion beside taking care of the baby, there are different reasons to be pro life. Of course, this is not to deny the copious amounts of biased or illogical pro-life arguments or deny that this is the majority of opinions, but assuming that every pro-lifer is like this is also blind. My own friends were mercilessly assuming things about pro-life in order to condemn it as insensitive and ignorant. But they were far from open. 

I tried to state an opinion against their arguments regarding fetuses and pro-lifers. I was met with jokes about fetuses and decided to debate with a friend privately, as the group was clearly not mature enough to handle the subject. My friend brought up some good points and revealed that her beliefs were not nearly as intense as I thought. I shared my own opinions and we both felt very happy that we were able to talk about politics. Our group is large and shares mostly the same political views, so expressing personal opinions is difficult. I think that all arguments regarding abortion should be well-rounded with consideration of all viewpoints and accepted as a legitimate idea, however disagreeable. I also believe that all arguments should be listened to, as abortion is a very personal and serious issue. 

WELCOME MR. BOLOS AND MR. O'CONNOR

TO MY RATHER SUB- PAR BLOG.

HERE IS THE POST I WOULD LIKE YOU TO REVIEW.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

KIM COLE

Public Service Announcement

Disclaimer: Still in a bad mood. Sorry. Edit: Over 30 page views and not a single comment. Speak up.

Apparently I fell asleep today within the last ten minutes of class. And apparently the reaction to such behavior was strong, so I feel the need to say some things about it.
To the World War I group presenting:
I'm terribly sorry for falling asleep during your presentation. If it insulted you, I apologize. Your presentation was very interesting, and I would've loved to enjoy it at maximum alertness. I really enjoyed the format of the powerpoint and your handouts. I think that you really built on what we learned through the previous presentations. I liked how you gave us plenty of quotes for our essays.
To 'half the class':
I was informed that 'half the class' laughed at me for falling asleep. Gee thanks. Like you've never been tired. In addition to being tired, the lighting of the room was not sympathetic to drowsiness and I could not rely on my usual strategies to stay perky. Normally, I would stand up and stretch, but this would've been very disrespectful to the War War I group. Or I would eat some form of candy. However, I ate all the gum and candy I had in my backpack. Interrupting the class to ask for sugar would be quite rude, no? I did not intend to fall asleep. In fact, I was so tired that I didn't even remember falling asleep. Surely some of you have been in this position, given our busy schedules.
To the idea that I fell asleep as a sign of mockery to the World War I group:
That is a retched idea. It is even more shocking that this claim was supported by personal opinions that were rather degrading to the World War I group. As previously said, I truly enjoyed the presentation and physical exhaustion is the sole cause.
To those who think my life is expendable for humor and personal agendas:
Review your actions and mind your own business.

Are you kidding me?

Disclaimer: I'm in a pretty bad mood. It's been a long week. Sorry?

Remember Friday? When we dissected the Quasi War presentation and related it to Tagg Romney in the ABSOLUTELY MOST POLITICALLY NEUTRAL WAY POSSIBLE? Yeah.

In class, we discussed Tagg Romney's quote regarding a loaded radio question of how he felt to have his father get called a liar by President Obama. The question itself is untrue, as this is not what President Obama said and was obviously made to provoke. In response, Tagg Romney said he'd like to have gotten up from his seat during the debate, gone down to the stage and 'taken a swing' at our President. Sure, he said other things like "But you know you can't do that because ... there's a lot of Secret Service between you and him," and it's great that we talked about that, too, but he also said other things afterwards. The discussion finally lead to the question of whether or not to arrest Tagg Romney for his statement. Really? That is nonsensical because the context had no intention of violence, Tagg Romney was using a figure of speech, and he also said some pretty important stuff afterwards that was somehow overlooked. How could we have overlooked it? The entire quote was blown up on the projector for all to see, and yet we didn't even consider the entire quote? Really? 
Here's the entire quote:
"But you know you can't do that because ... there's a lot of Secret Service between you and him, but also because this is the nature of the process," Romney told Bill LuMaye of WPTF-AM. "They're going to do everything they can do to try to make my dad into someone he's not. We signed up for it. We've gotta kinda sit there and take our punches and then send them right back the other way."
I'm not saying that Tagg Romney is an angel, but the ability to continue looking right after reading a part of the evidence would be nice. You can't just take part of a quote if the other part is extremely important. Tagg Romney clearly says that yeah, there's Secret Service, but he would never seriously consider violence against the President because he knew his father would be attacked due to the nature of campaigning. In class, the discussion implied that the only reason why Tagg Romney didn't attack President Obama was because of the Secret Service around him. But Tagg Romney stated that he had no intention of doing anything, Secret Security or not. Tagg Romney, like any rational grown up should, knows what his father signed up for and that as Mitt Romney's son, he needs to be prepared. If anything, the fact that he used such a ridiculous figure of speech shows how tolerant he is of the situation. He wouldn't joke around if he was truly hurt by a question that wasn't even true to begin with.
I'm upset because our class didn't seem to realize that. We had the whole quote for us to examine, and yet no one wanted to go against the conversation and say, "Hey guys you know there's more to the quote that could make a lot of our points null," which I find rather disappointing. As Level 18 students, we should be able to read all the evidence and not just stick to what suits our arguments. We should also be willing to argue a point the contradicts the rest of the class. 

Why Psy? PART 2

I bet you thought I gave up on this! NOPE!

In my previous installment of Why Psy, I introduced several Asian acts who attempted to break into the American market with little fanfare, despite being A-list celebrities in their respective countries. Here's the list again. It has been updated to include acts who have not expressed a clear desire to promote heavily in America but have still done some promotion.

• Jin Akanishi
• Utada Hikaru
• Wonder Girls
• BoA
• SNSD
• Perfume
• Bi Rain
• Jay Chou
• Lee Byung Hun

Any novice Asian Pop fan should be able to recognize most of this list. Jay Chou has been the most popular male Cpop artist since 1999. But his sole claim to American fame is his role as Kato in 'Green Hornet'. Utada Hikaru is one of Japan's best female soloists, active 1995-2011. She released official American debut material, but all of it flopped. Her greatest achievement is singing the opening to Kingdom Hearts II, although this fame is limited to America's otaku community. Kwon Boa, stage name BoA (Best of Asia), has been the queen of Kpop since she was 13, sometimes nicknamed the 'Asian Britney Spears' for her prodigal talent. She has also became a mainstream success in Japan. Jay Chou and Utada Hikaru have always composed critically acclaimed music. Utada Hikaru and BoA have released music in the US and promoted it. But why did they fail? Because they tried too hard to mold themselves into a trendy 'American friendly' image as opposed to being themselves. While Asian artists follow trends, American artists are more revered for their individuality. Both Utada Hikaru and BoA sacrificed their musical identities in an attempt to appeal to America, making them insincere and forgettable. 

Utada Hikaru grew up in New York City, making her bilingual and allowing her to experience the American music scene long before she debuted in her native Japan. Some of her Japanese work includes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfpX8lkaSdk and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q5-4yMi-xg&feature=relmfu . But when she decided to debut in America, this horror happened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RpqTJySA5Sc it's nothing like Utada's style, Utada's lyrics, Utada's visual appeal, or really anything. Somehow, Utada was convinced that the only way America would love her was if she edited herself to seem more 'American'. Do you even remember the melody to that song? No? That's because while it is arguably 'American' sounding, it's terrifically generic. As a result, it's fake and shallow coming from such a respected singer-songwriter.

BoA has been a staple of both Kpop and Jpop for years. Her discography speaks for itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BoA_discography . With excellent singing and dancing skills, taking the Best of Asia to America seems like a no-brainer. America has the biggest music industry, and would surely be profitable, right? And who wouldn't want to see their national darling conquering a bigger nation like America. Think about all the national pride. It's like taking candy from a baby. NOPE. Not if you release something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDAIPaXn4Gk . Can you understand what she's singing? Why is she wearing so much leather? Why does her cane emit light? Why is it so vocally processed, when BoA is known for her vocals? Why does she turn into water? It's a terrible song and a terrible video. BoA is given absolutely nothing to work with here. I don't even recognize the token minority man she's featured, in some attempt to start with a little relevancy. 

Despite being beautiful and talented, these women failed in America because the material they debuted with was uncharacteristic and bland. It was uncharacteristic of them and sounded like trashy American flops, which they ultimately became. So why did a random clown like Psy get signed to Justin Bieber's label and featured on shows like SNL and the Ellen DeGeneres Show? TUNE IN NEXT TIME because I have to go to sleep now.

Airport Security: Civil Liberties Annoyed or Destroyed?

Seeing as all of my previous posts have been utter crap, here's something a little more worthwhile. 

Airport security has always been a sensitive subject. Before the 9/11 attacks, there were scanners and gun checks in response to several hijacks in the 70s, but these precautions were less controversial. They were unintrusive and expedient. However, the security methods used by the TSA now, which range from liquid regulation to full-body scanners  in lieu of the 9/11 attacks have been considerably more controversial. It is arguable that they even infringe upon our Constitutional rights. However, these methods are being exercised in time of war and are for American safety. And if being forced to remove our shoes could save us from losing our lives to terrorists, then our civil liberties become a necessary sacrifice. In times of war, the government has the right to protect America's safety in exchange for our civil liberties through its airport security methods. We are at war with terrorism, and many of these terrorist attacks use our airplanes as a medium. We can prevent these attacks through increased scrutiny at airports. Our Constitutional rights are not abolished during this scrutiny, but simply annoyed. This annoyance is an affordable price to pay when dealing with American security so long as the TSA's actions are reasonable. 

Our civil liberties can be annoyed by airport security several ways. The most important example is how it compromises our Fourth Amendment. Our Fourth Amendment protects "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" and could be disrupted by full body scanners or pat downs (source: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html). However, our airports have warrants to examine passengers and their luggage. And the majority of the TSA's security methods are logical and unintrusive. Taking off your shoes and putting them in a separate bin to be scanned is reasonable. There have been several attempts at shoe bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/24/nyregion/at-adis-medunjanins-terror-trial-a-would-be-shoe-bomber-testifies.html) and taking off your shoes is not a difficult action. The exposure of feet and ankles is not considered scandalous in America and airport floors are kept relatively clean. This is easy for everyone to do and does not take a lot of time. This forceful removal of clothing may urk some people, but it is far from any serious violation of the Fourth Amendment. The real controversy lies in TSA procedures that may seriously disturb our Fourth Amendment. These include full body scanners and pat downs. 

Full body scanners are more effective than metal detectors. but more intrusive. They're small gates that you have to walk through. If you set off the detector, a red light flashes. You are pulled aside and a detector wand is hovered over you. If this wand is set off, you and the security official must identify what's causing the problem and deal with it. If it's money or jewelry (which it often is for innocent people), it's not a problem. Or the detector is not set off and you are free to go. This is quick and painless. But the TSA has made upgrades to this concept in the form of full body scanners. This is where our civil liberties may be at stake. Full body scanners may be intrusive, revealing the surface of people's skin. This is akin to a strip search. However, the people examined have no reason to be strip searched. The full body scanner attempts to be a more precise metal detector, but it further endangers our Fourth Amendment because it is more invasive. However, full body scanners have yet to become a standard procedure and can be edited so that civilians are more comfortable. One way this can be done is by decreasing the definition of images produced by the scanner.

The TSA's aim is to ensure American safety by defending our airports against threats of terrorism. And our privacy and Constitutional rights may be lightly compromised if it ensures our security. But if the TSA goes too far and uses more intrusive methods, our civil liberties could be trampled. Is our security more valuable than our freedom in time of war? Yes. Sacrificing civil liberties for public safety is an ugly exchange but it is necessary in order to keep America safe. If the government's security techniques trespass on American rights too far, then compromises can be made. 

JITNEY REVIEW!

Why didn't I think of this earlier lol.

After watching Jitney on Wednesday and having a few days to think about it, I now present my review!
Hopefully, reviews will become a regular part of this blog. I'll go back and review Grizzly Man and possibly Into the Wild later.

First Impressions: At first, I thought that Jitney would be about A) A child named Jitney and his short, tragic life in Pittsburgh's black community B) A restaurant that struggles to stay alive in face of the projects or C) Jitney is a play within the play, and the cast is the cast of Jitney's Jitney. In short, something rather cliché and more white-guilt inducing. I'm really glad that Jitney wasn't this. Even though the play was set in a jitney station (and deals with the lives of its employees like B and A, but really what else could you do?), it was very well done. 4/5

The Setting: The set itself is lively, from the grass in the pavement to the way you can still see the road outside as it goes off stage. Making the station the only set was a very good choice. It makes the play seem more intimate, as the character's main interactions are in the station, despite all the action that influences them outside the store. The station becomes not only jitney headquarters, but a sacred place for the characters. Here, they run away from their troubles at home or force them into the open, changing the atmosphere of the place completely. Youngblood sleeps on the couch one night due to trouble with Rena, and his anxiety is reflected into the room with excellent lighting. I especially liked the role the phone had in the play. The phone may be a stronger character than the set itself. Its ringing is like the play's metronome. The phone would ring at all the right moments. It rung in times of trouble to bind the characters to the station. It rung in casual moments to give a sense of normality. If the scene was dramatic enough the phone would continue to ring and never be picked up. It's not always clear who's on the phone, but this draws more attention the the station and is very clever. 5/5

The Story: What a story! Just about everyone is connected to each other in some way (if not, Turnbo will surely connect it with his merciless gossip) through the past or present. This story is told mostly through it's subplots. Rena and Youngblood, Clarence and Becker, Becker and the station, Turnbo and everyone's business, and even the hotel boy and plaid suit man's love lives are great subplots that all get their own screen time without being crowded on top of one another (how this was pulled off is another thing!) Even Youngblood and Fieldings, who are completely different people, bond through their war experiences. The pace starts out slow at the beginning and reaches light speed by the second act. This is a bit jarring for me. In the last scenes of the first act there were confrontations and revelations galore, but they were all spaced nicely. The second act is a tsunami that doesn't let up for quite some time. It was a lot to take in all at once and I felt like the only real relief was when Fieldings and Youngblood had their war talk. However, it wasn't so bad that I lost track of the plot, so I won't deduct anything. 5/5

The Script: I liked the script a lot! I found the arguments to be particularly well-choreographed. If I had to pick the most well-written scene in the whole play, it would have to be Becker and Clarence's fight. Both sides have solid stances and exchange points fluidly, transitioning from Becker's submission to the landlord for Clarence's welfare to Clarence's need to be independent from his father as justification for his crimes smoothly. Clarence is angry and stubborn. He only sees the physical events in life. He is easily influenced, having taken the failure of a childhood dream and turning it into a belief. He wants to live well and doesn't like the idea of anymore stopping that. But his anger is unrefined and most of his checks are evaded. Becker is old and tired. He focusses more on the emotions behind the events. Although his arguments are more experienced, he is not without fault. Becker admits that he was too ashamed of the community's response at himself for Clarence's crime to visit Clarence. The scene is very long and has no music or special lighting. It carries itself with all the force of a father-son relationship gone sour. You can really feel the emotions and thoughts behind the characters of Jitney, and that's mostly thanks to the script. 4/5

The Cast: WOW! What a cast! As if the script and the setting weren't good enough, the cast makes Jitney really amazing. The script is full of emotional scenes and is very demanding. The cast was able to capture them all. They were so good, Youngblood's actor cried at the end. My favorite actor was Turnbo's actor. His walk and movements were so fitting of Turnbo and I really loved how he phrased his lines. I really don't have any complaints for this section. The play calls for passion and they have it. 5/5

OVERALL: 4.75/5. Jitney is impressive. I'd give it a full 5, but I'm reluctant to be so giddy in just my first review. Definitely worth watching, thanks for giving us the opportunity to watch it, Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Bolos!

Why Psy? An Introduction.

'Gangnam Style', a massively popular music video by Korean rapper Psy, has been gaining massive American recognition. With over 194 million views and appearances on shows such as SNL, the Ellen Generes Show, and the Today Show, Psy is THE Asian Sensation of 2012.

To an average American, Psy is simply an awesome guy from Korea. But from an Asian pop culture enthusiast's perspective, Psy is history in the making. No Asian has yet to achieve major mainstream success in America, with the closest being Far East Movement with 2010's 'Like a G6'. However, several attempts have been made to break into the American market by Asian acts already. A partial list includes: 

• Jin Akanishi
• Utada Hikaru
• Wonder Girls
• BoA

Although this list is alien to most, the names listed here are all top tier acts back in their respective countries, setting new records and commanding huge fan clubs. Yet despite their domestic success, this list remains irrelevant to American pop culture (more on this later!). Psy himself stated that he made 'Gangnam Style' with no hope of international acclaim. Despite his ten year career, he never achieved great success until now. So the question is this: Why can some of Asia's best can't succeed at attempting to break into the American market but Psy, who never even tried to, can? 

In a most unlikely twist, Psy has beaten his superiors in wooing America BECAUSE he never tried! Psy's 'Gangnam Style' is unique and naturally fun. Instead of following trends, Psy continues with his own style. Psy is a trailblazer with 'Gangnam Style' because it is not a gimmick. It's genuine and memorable. He didn't change who he was to try and debut in America. Instead, America came to him and appreciated his individuality. Memorable and unique are two traits that are needed for American success because they reflect our American values. America was the first free nation and has always tried to exceed in its own way. America stands out because it's original and passionate. America's success is built on it deviating from international norms and seeking its own way to profit. And Psy has done just this. Psy is popular in America not because of who he is in Asia, but because of who he is as a person. Why can't other Asians do this? TO BE CONTINUED.

Sentimentality Over a Steak

My parents have always struck (figurative! no need to call CPS lol) me as models of the American dream. Both of them came from rather poor backgrounds but studied and worked their way to where we are now. Their jobs have always influenced our lives. What I remember now is our vacation homes. Tonight, we went to a steak restaurant in a small Wisconsin town. On our way there, we reflected on how we used to go to this restaurant before with friends. We went because it was near Twin Lakes, where we had a vacation house. So we decided to look back at all the fun we had at Twin Lakes. This made me think about how our vacation places have changed with my parent's jobs. It's dripping with sentimentality to the point of tackiness, but still seems very American to me.
When my parents adopted me, they lived in Libertyville. They had a nanny or my maternal grandparents watch over me when they were busy with work, but always did their best to spend time with me. We had a vacation house in Twin Lakes with a pool and a cheap boat we'd take on the town's namesake lake. Although I have many happy memories of Twin Lakes, I realized that it's no luxury destination when we came back tonight. Cheap, broken boats compete for roadside property with Wal-Marts and Menards stores so large they could house two circuses. The people we dined with were, to put it gracelessly, white trash. The entire scene is middle class and seems to scream "AMURICA!" with every American fast food establishment per square yard. But it's not shameful. I felt nothing but pride in this little town as we drove to our restaurant. This is where some great memories took place. This was like a nursery for me. I thought about all my neighbors and all the fun times we had dragging our cheap boat across over-commercialized waters. I thought about our vacation house perched on top of a hill at the end of a long driveway. I thought about how most of the restaurants in the area were awful tourist traps, which is what made the one we ate at tonight so good.
I believe that this rambling is extremely American. My biased affection for this town is about as American as it gets. I'm proud of this town, that it's just like I always remember it. And although my family has moved on to better vacation areas, this town is sacred to us. It's the vacation house my parents bought and renovated themselves. It's the pool I got prunes in every summer day. It's the neighbors we've always loved and still do even though we don't talk anymore. We remember where we came from and are proud. We respect this humble town because this was our very first haven. Although America is a diverse nation, I've yet to meet someone who doesn't know their origins. Chinese, French-Irish-English-Scottish, German-English-French-Austrian, etc. We are a diverse nation but we always remember where we come from, because that's what makes us who we are.

An AMERICAN post?

Well, I suppose I have to write about something particular American once a week on this blog. However, I don't know if I can come up with enough topics to last an entire year. I can talk about Asian pop culture, knitting, camp, family, and maybe piano in a way that talks about America. Other than that, I don't know what I can do. I really don't know what to write. How do I make my posts emulate America?
I'll start with some insecurities I have over my nationalities. Being adopted from China and raised by Americans, I'm often torn between two countries and two races. I didn't want to accept it earlier (more about that later), but I think Chinese and American people are very different. China is a far older nation with a more conservative mentality. America is bright and optimistic. The Chinese people are more conservative and trend-following. Americans are more outgoing and aim to stand out. It's insensitive of me to pick apart my own nations this way, but I don't know how else to explain what I think. Maybe I don't know how to be an American. Or maybe I don't know how to be Asian. Chances are that my American upbringing makes me very different from my Chinese friends. But being Chinese has always made me unique. And I have many friends who are studying abroad from China who completely betray the stereotypes I just said. There are Americans who do the same. I want to believe that nationality doesn't change human nature, that no matter where you are born, there will be different kinds of people with unique personalities. But I can't deny that China and America are very different countries. I can't deny that my ideas about human nature are unsupported and idealistic. So I hope that this blog will show me how to be American.

First Post!

Welcome to my blog.