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.