A picture is NOT worth a thousand words. It's worth six hundred.

Fun fact: I lived in America despite not being a citizen for over year. Although I was adopted in 1996, I didn't become a US citizen until 1998. But don't worry. I wasn't an illegal alien in 1997. I was just as American as a birthright citizen. If anything, I was --and still am-- even more American. This picture is an important artifact to American history because it represents a unique version of the American narrative. 

In the picture, I'm holding an American flag that I was given to by the judge who signed the paperwork that made me American. To me, this flag represents the beginning of my American Dream. The American Dream is a narrative arc is very much like the Cinderella arc created by Kurt Vonnegut. My Cinderella arc had already begun when I waited to be adopted by my American parents in my Chinese orphanage. My Fairy Godmother was my adoption. My US Citizenship is my ball gown. And the flag I'm holding are my glass slippers. To me, this picture is like when the Fairy Godmother gave Cinderella her ball gown. My parents and the US government gave me a chance to live in America and enjoy its opportunities. Look at that Chinese baby waving an American flag. One would expect an American baby. But I'm no longer a Chinese orphan. I'm an American citizen and I have far more civil liberties than I would've had as a Chinese citizen.

The American Dream is a Cinderella arc that continues onto the next generations. My parents came from lower income families and worked their way up, just like Walt and Billie McCandless in Jon Krakauer's Into the Wild. Both of my parents came from lower income families and raised themselves up like Walt and Billie McCandless, who "had both known poverty when they were young and after struggling to rise above it saw nothing wrong with enjoying the fruits of their labor" and wanted their children to inherit their success. When my parents adopted me, they wanted me to be able to enjoy a more comfortable lifestyle than they did. Most importantly, however, they still want me to surpass their achievements. They want our family to continue its successful streak. Walt and Billie wanted the same and thought that giving McCandless a financially successful lifestyle and higher education would make him want the same goals as they did. My parents think this way, too. By adopting me, they gave me a chance at continuing their American Dream.

When I think about it, that Chinese kid in the picture could have been holding a Chinese flag in a Chinese house. She's in America now, get over it! It's a bigger deal than you would think. I consider the fact that I'm in America to be kind of ironic. America's democracy is supposed to protect our civil liberties more than China's dictatorship. China bans parents from having more than one child to keep its population stable. But this denies Chinese people a right to a larger family. Chances are that I was the illegal second child. It's arguable that the only reason I became an orphan and was subsequently put up for adoption was the restriction of civil rights in China through the One Child Policy. But my civil liberties are still in danger in America. I can be ejected from America under the Sedition Act, which has the right to deport individuals who "write, utter, or publish" words against the government that it deems "malicious, scandalous, and false." I myself consider it very funny that I came to America because of a violation of civil rights, while Americans could be ejected from America because of a different violation!

Regardless of civil liberties in China or America, I'm thankful to be here. I love my family and I want to make them proud. I'm proud to be American and I will continue living my parent's American Dream. This picture is the beginning of it.

Just in Case the Gadget Doesn't Work

Here's my favorite post again!

Putin's 'Protection' of Russian Orphans

On December 28th, Russian President Putin banned the adoption of Russian orphans by Americans. This new ban has been named the Dmitry Yakovlev Law. With over 700,000 orphans living in Russia, one would think that foreign adoption would be an excellent idea for both America and Russia. In fact, over 70,000 Russian orphans have been adopted by Americans.Russia's orphans are horribly neglected and mishandled by caretakers in their orphanages, and without parents their futures are bleak. So why not allow American parents to adopt these children and give them a better life? Russia's excuse is that American parents abuse, manipulate, and even kill their adopted children. While there have been freak cases of mistreatment to Russian orphans, these cases are not the norm. The real reason Russia's government made this ban was to combat American foreign policy. It has no legitimate concern for Russia's orphans and is wrong.

Dmitry Yakovlev was a Russian adoptee who had been accidentally killed by his father when he was left in a car for nine hours. Miles Harrison, Dmitry's father, had forgotten to drop his child off at day care, leaving him in a parking lot while he was at work. Harrison was acquitted of involuntary manslaughter for his hideous mistake, but the Russian court of opinion was much harsher. Public outrage started in 2005 "by the deaths of two Russian-born children after severe abuse at the hands of adoptive parents," both of which were convicted, as well as another case in which "a Pennsylvania man was convicted of sexually abusing a girl he had adopted from Russia" exploded following Dmitry's death in 2009, with some Russians wanting to cease American adoption already.

But why not ban adoption in 2009? The Dmitry Yakovlev Law is more like Russia's retaliation to America's Magnitsky Act, a bill that bars Russians allegedly involved in the detainment and murder of a lawyer. Putin's reaction to the bill was so severe that he severely bashed America's own justice system, pointing out the flaws of Guantanamo Bay (regardless of Russia's own flawed prisons) and describing the change in US-Russia relations as "at stake." Magnitsky was a lawyer who believed he uncovered "a web of corruption involving tax officials" who was imprisoned and abused for almost a year, dying in 2009. Both Magnitsky and Yakovlev died in 2009, with bills named after them being passed in 2012. Both bills restrict foreign access to the country. However, the Magnitsky Act was passed first. The Dmitry Yakovlev Law was created after Putin's sour response to the Magnitsky Act and seems impulsive. It is a rash law that will only hurt Russia, as its orphans will stay, albeit mistreated and unhappy. Russian adoptions by American parents was a mutual relationship between the two nations and it's a shame that Russia will take it away to display disgust about a different issue.

What do you think? Please comment!

Do CGI Guns Lead to Real Guns?

Violent video games have always been accused of 'desensitizing' players to violence and causing an increase in aggression for those who play them according to several studies. It is because of these studies that mass murders such as the Sandy Hook shooting are blamed on violent video games. This accusation is too severe, as video games can increase aggression but don't necessarily cause violent crime. One example of such a study was done in France in March. This study showed that individuals who play violent video games for three days and are then subjected to computer game and asked to finish a story are more violent and hostile as opposed to individuals who play non-violent video games. The computer game allowed players to punish fake opponents with a variety of loud noises, controlling their volume and duration. The violent video game players were deemed more aggressive than the non-violent video game players because "after reading the beginning of the stories, they were more likely to think that the characters would react with aggression or violence... also gave their opponents louder and louder headphone blasts after each day of game play," indicating an increase in hostile behavior or expectations due to exposure to violent video games.
This study is reasonable, the games were either extremely violent or dangerous but not graphic and there was a clear difference between the violent gamers and the peaceful games, as well as a notable increase in the violent gamers' hostility. So video games causing an increase in aggression is a logical theory.
However, this does not mean that video games cause mass murder. Call of Duty 4, the same video game included in the aforementioned study has sold an impressive 10 million units and counting, but there aren't 10 million mass murderers due to Call of Duty 4. Dr. Laura Davies, a child and adolescent psychiatrist believes that violent video games are a danger to the moral codes of children, but she still agrees that there are children who are "unable to so easily differentiate between fantasy and the real world. They might not fully understand that the people they harm have real lives and real families" and have their intensity magnified by violence in video games. While most children mature and are able to differentiate fantasy and reality when they are old enough to carry out such crimes, some individuals may never mature. And for these people, violent video games are dangerous and may contribute to an act of violence. But could violent video games be the sole cause for a mass murder? I don't think so.
What do YOU think, nonexistent reader? Do you agree with this post or do you think I'm lazy and should've made more blog posts over the quarter and genuinely tried to make them better?

Racist vs. Outdated vs. Confused

December was a pretty fun month. I made friends and got to see my family for the holidays. But my friends and family said some things that I must address. In class, we've discussed racism before and tried to express ourselves in a way that is as inoffensive as possible. But after talking with friends and family last month, I have come to the conclusion that you cannot avoid saying something offensive forever. However, this doesn't make you racist or a terrible person depending on how you say it.
From my experience, an offensive statement can be put into three broad categories: confused, outdated, or racist.
Confused statements are made purely out of a lack of information and don't tend to severely offend anyone. Last month, I was talking with some classmates and brought up the fact that I was adopted. One of my classmates was shocked and asked, "You're adopted? Why didn't you tell me?" I simply don't feel like reminding everyone that I was adopted. End of story. The boy's statement isn't discriminatory against adopted people. He was just surprised that I was adopted. One would have to be extremely sensitive to get upset at this.
Old people are an excellent source for outdated statements. When I play piano for my grandmother, she often requests an 'Oriental song' because she likes traditional Chinese music. Here's where things get dangerous. New York banned the use of the word 'oriental' in 2009 in state documents. Oriental is a term used to describe countries of Asia, especially the far East and was a term my grandmother has always used. It doesn't have a negative connotation like other racial terms, and my grandmother never intended to use 'oriental' to racially demean anyone. She grew up very close to Chinatown and often went there for lunch after work with her friends. And because 'oriental' has never been used as a way to look down upon a different culture, this term is more outdated than racist, although it can take a negative meaning.
My grandmother can be racist, though. Despite being Polish herself, she's referred to fellow Polish people as 'DPs'. I can only assume this is an abbreviation of the term 'dumb Polack', a very offensive, degrading term for Polish people. This is clearly a racist statement. As a Polish American who lived in a Polish-American community for most of her life, my grandmother is aware that 'polack' is a racial slur against her own race. My mother (third generation Polish American) has pointed this out to her several times. My grandmother is aware that this is an offensive term and continues to use it with the intent to offend someone. And that's downright racist.

But does that mean that you're only racist if you mean to be? Miley Cyrus offended many sensibilities with a 'funny face' picture that resembled a common Asian pose but repeatedly denied trying to offend anyone. Her defense was that she "was simply making a goofy face. When did that become newsworthy? It seems someone is trying to make something out of nothing to me," but really, Miley? Squinty eyes and a peace sign and you try to brush it off as a 'goofy face'? My jimmies have been rustled. 

What does everyone (no one) think about this? What counts as racist? And if you can define racism, what should be done?