It's been over a year since I wrote in this blog. Lots of stuff has happened since then. But one thing that hasn't happened is that I haven't checked my comments. So, if you've left a comment in the past couple of years, I may not have seen it until today. So, there are more comments today than there have been.
Having said all that, I admit that I've been judgmental. I seem to have pi$$ed off a lot of adopters and I didn't mean to do that per se. Ideally, I will go through all these posts and delete some--the impetus for this is that I have finally admitted to myself that I have an alcohol problem. It's not that I don't have other problems as well, but the alcohol, well, it's caused me a lot of problems. I'm getting help for this issue, btw, and I am learning that I have been in denial about a lot of things. And I've done stuff that I now realize I shouldn't. Oh, so much is going on--some good, some not so good.
I am also learning that I blamed a lot of people, including my own adopters (who were really wonderful--for those who have trouble wrapping their heads around the fact that I don't like adoption and have told me what a crappy childhood I must have had (I didn't, btw)). I am working on these issues with a therapist and she, fortunately, understands just how much damage that adoption can do. I am thankful that there are therapists out there who get this, who don't try to treat life with an adoptive family as normal, who don't try to poo-poo a child's separation from his or her mother.
And no, I don't think that children should languish in orphanages, but I don't think that taking those children out of orphanages and putting them in a family makes that child a member of that family. Oh, legally, yes, but the child will always, always, always be connected to his or her natural family. Unfortunately, far too many adopters fail to understand this.
There are a lot of adopters who are very upset with me, going so far as to lash me with ad hominem attacks, i.e., attacking me instead of my argument. I've been told over and over by angry adopters how very terrible/crazy/mentally unstable/sick I am. Evidently these folks are perfect and I am going to be the first person to admit that I am not. Having said that, I certainly have had a holier-than-thou attitude from time to time and for that, I greatly apologize.
I am very thankful that my children and I are alive and that I can watch them grow up, something that my own natural mother did not do with me. I hope and pray that more natural families will be reunited and that fewer will be separated in the first place. When I hear about a potential adoptress (this kind of thing is usually woman-initiated) who is all out of sorts because the mother of the child that she was hoping to adopt has changed her mind and is keeping her child, I can't help but wonder why the adoptress never rejoices at this. Why is the adoptress usually (maybe I've missed a case where this has been different) distraught that a child will grow up with his or her natural family? To me, and maybe I'm misinterpreting here, that adoptress cares more about her perceived needs than the needs of the child. I can already see the flood of comments from adoptresses who are sure that they are so much more deserving of the whore/jailbird/drug addicted mother. Hey, who am I to judge?!?
I will continue to celebrate natural families and I will continue to honor an adoptee's natural family. I will try hard not to participate in the lies of the adoption industry. If that is mentally ill, etc., well, then that's just the way it is.
Hi, Welcome to the Land of the Free and the Politically Incorrect
Sunday, May 25, 2014
It's been over a year since I wrote in this blog. Lots of stuff has happened since then. But one thing that hasn't happened is that I haven't checked my comments. So, if you've left a comment in the past couple of years, I may not have seen it until today. So, there are more comments today than there have been.
Monday, May 6, 2013
I should be going to bed about now, around 5:00 a.m., but I was trying to read the newspaper and came across this review of "The Mothers" by adoptress Jennifer Gilmore. I'd be disappointed in the adoption industry if she, with the L.A. Times blessing, didn't use the word "birth mother," as all of us true mothers are called these days. I say that without really knowing what those who use egg donation, giving birth without passing along genetic information, are called. Not that their sort-of children are going to be less effed up than most adoptees. Natural mothers give birth and pass along genetic information to their children. But the adoption industry, now combined with the egg donation industry, is trying hard to make motherhood into something that relates more to a legal document than to nature.
It shouldn't really surprise me, then, that yet another adoptress has written a book about an adopter's struggle to obtain a child. Or maybe I should say adopters, being that the main character's husband seems to be in on the heist. Yes, in this fictional novel, there is great emphasis on how important it is for the potential adoptress to get that child. At all costs. As someone raised in North Carolina (although born in Virginia, being that my own natural mother was sentenced to a maternity home there), I had to admire the reviewer's note that "Jesse," the main character, talks her husband into a "drive to North Carolina to register with a Southern agency," being that they were rejected, evidently, by a Yankee agency because the potential adoptress had cancer at one point.
I need to tell you here that I didn't read this book. Lord, no. I long ago gave up reading most stuff from the adopter's point of view. It's simply so very out of touch with the realities of adoption that reading this kind of thing really makes me want to barf. It's not as though I'm going to write an actual review of the book. That's not what I'm here for. Another review I found when I looked up Adoptress Gilmore on the Internet says that after her book was finished, Gilmore did indeed eventually find a mother to take a baby away from, a baby boy.
This is not to say that Gilmore does not have insight into the whole baby process. Teaching at Princeton, which Gilmore does, should require that your writing have some insight, and evidently, Gilmore does with her writing. And so, I'm really complaining, as I so often do, about the mainstream media (MSM)'s love affair with adopters and adoption, a love affair most likely brought about by the $1.5 billion U.S. adoption industry. I really don't see people from other countries coming over here searching for children to take back home, the way that Western women do in Asian and African countries.
I'll also include a disclaimer here and say that the sadness of Gilmore's inability to conceive, perhaps due to cancer treatments, is indeed a sad thing. It's more than sad--it's tragic not to be able to have a child if you really want one. Usually, it is the female adopter who drives the adoption vehicle, bringing her husband along for the ride. I have a friend in North Carolina, for instance, whose barren wife kept insisting "I want a baby." How sad and tragic is this. However, nothing is ever solved by taking someone else's child. The husband in North Carolina, as most husbands do, felt awful about the whole thing and tried to make his wife happy by wrestling a baby away from his mom. I'm guessing Gilmore's husband, as with her main character's husband, just goes along with the ride, as most men do. As in most adoption cases, nothing is resolved. Infertility is not reversed. But a baby and mother's life will be altered for generations because a baby was coveted. It would have sure been nice if Gilmore, and her main character, were able to resolve things without taking someone else's child.
Oh, and as a side note, the review states that Gilmore had a "emotional and morally terrifying experience of choosing not to adopt a baby born with Down syndrome." Ah, poor baby. And by that, I mean poor Gilmore. While natural moms have to take whatever we get, adoptresses can pick and choose. Bless her greedy, covetous heart. I'm guessing that the boy she eventually obtained is a bit closer to Gilmore's idea of perfection than a baby with Down's syndrome.
The victors tend to be the ones who write history and so many adoptresses are out there writing and blogging and getting published that it's easy to see why their reviews are the ones we read in the newspaper. It becomes really easy to see how most people think that adoption is wonderful. In the case of my N.C. acquaintance, at one point, the natural mom wanted her child back. My acquaintance told me how heartbreaking this was for him and Wifey, without giving a single thought, evidently, to how the mother must have felt to lose her child. Only a society brainwashed in adoption myths could produce such a biased creature as my acquaintance.
Once in a while, mainstream media will produce a mother who has lost a child to adoption. In addition to reading the review of Gilmore's book this weekend, I also happened to hear a story, twice, on National Propaganda Radio's "This American Life" in which a mother tells about giving away her son. She blatently talked about how she had just gotten $15,000 in a settlement and used that money to buy a car while giving her son to strangers. If this isn't a sign of a sick society, I don't know what is. However, NPR wouldn't have run the story, no doubt, of a mother who was hoodwinked by adopters or of a mother who was almost talked into adoption but decided to keep her baby instead. No, the MSM doesn't run many of those stories.
As I told the boys when we were listening to part of the story a second time (it was way too triggering to listen to in its entirety), this mother thought a new car was more important than keeping her son. And, of course, MSM not only runs this type of story but rather, celebrates it. No doubt, if the mother of Gilmore's adoptee can help Gilmore to sell some books, she'll probably write the mother's story one day. I'll bet that either Gilmore's adoptee's mother will either be completely out of the picture or singing the praises of giving away her child.
The title of the L.A. Times' review is "A novel about the risks of open adoption," but of course, this means the risks for the adopters. Sure, Gilmore seems to attempt to get into the minds of the potential mothers who might give their child to her, but never does she see--I will bet money on this--how her greed for a child breaks up a natural family and leaves a mother and child separated, probably for life.
All that said, I did read the following quote that an adoptee wrote on her Facebook page this weekend. Just as I had never heard of Gilmore before this weekend, I had also never heard of the guy who wrote this quote, Daniel Ibn Zayd, but I totally dig his perception and desire to tell it like it really is.
. . . [T]hose who are adopted, or those who are convinced to give up their children and who later feel angst about it (to put it quite mildly), and who also only wish to “fill the hole” that they see as missing in their lives, are then castigated in the harshest terms as ungrateful, and spiteful, and bitter. Why does no one say to infertile couples: “Get over it?” Why does no one say to those without children “THIS is God’s plan for you, not adoption”? Who, may I ask at long last, are truly the bitter individuals?” –Daniel Ibn Zayd
Why, indeed. Gilmore could learn a lot from Zayd's quote, but my guess is that she's far too brainwashed into believing that she's a mother to hear that there are those of us who know that she is not. As I'm guessing her character does, Gilmore has finally managed to wrestle a child from his mother. I'm not rejoicing one bit about that.
Posted by Thinking Mama at 9:05 AM
Sunday, April 14, 2013
The adoption industry has been so very successful in separating families that now, young women are growing up thinking that adoption is better than giving birth--it's certainly more green, as the catch word goes these days. You're not creating another person to consume the earth's resources; you're merely taking a child and recycling it. Of course, this is quite contrary to what God says in the Old Testament about creating (go forth and multiply), but when have governments and the power elite ever been concerned about following anything that God says.
And so, in this week's Parade, America's Fabian Socialist mouthpiece, supposed genius Marilyn vos Savant received this odd question:
I donated eggs to a fertility clinic and have to pay taxes on my compensation. The funds were intended to offset the effort and the discomfort involved. Do you think this is right?
Ah, poor stupid bitch (SB). This dumbass has given away her family ties for some money and hates that she has to pay taxes on it. What a bummer, eh? I think that we can say here that this kind of thing is all about the money. But what about her future children?!? They will be out there, somewhere, wondering why they don't fit into what they perceive as their natural family. Or, if they know that their mother is not their actual mom, they will wonder about their mom, their grandparents, etc. But subsequent generations of SB will be forever separated from one side of their natural family. But that's okay, isn't it? I mean, guys are always going around impregnating people with sperm and so now, thanks to the bra-burning women's libbers of the 70s, women can do this with their eggs.
I somehow think that God is wondering what the hell happened with His plan and why potential mothers are so very eager to give their future generations to strangers. For money.
There is, however, more than one stupid bitch in this story. SB #2 is the supposed smartest person on earth or whatever. Vos Savant shows that she has no respect for families and no indication of what egg donation is doing to future children. As always, this is all merely about the infertiles:
Parents everywhere give their heartfelt thanks to egg donors, and I think government should make this gesture to do this same.
Not this parent, SB2. No, this parent, who was separated from my natural family as an infant, wants no part of egg donation. It is unnatural and harmful to those children it helps to create. But they will be as grateful to their dad and stepmother (which is what those who receive the egg donation really are--they are not mothers) as adoptees are, and probably just as confused and disconnected from their identity.
But it's okay. After all, the infertiles are getting what they want. They're the ones with the money. Really, that's all that matters, isn't it?!?
Posted by Thinking Mama at 3:02 PM
Saturday, March 30, 2013
I first read about the Confederate flag controversy when I was skimming Earthlink news. It made the national headlines, being that Confederate flags are oh, so politically incorrect these days. I even read a mainstream article the other day that talked about how very, very about slavery the War Between the States was, that it had nothing at all to do with states' rights.
The P.C. Police have descended on what I consider to be my home state (some of you might remember that I was born in Richmond, Virginia, being that my natural mother was pretty much imprisoned there during most of her pregnancy with me). But North Carolina is where I was raised and I'm so very disappointed to see that at the old N.C. State Capitol, has decided to bow to the politically correct and deny its heritage. Oh, so much for the New South. A South in which we must forget and deny our heritage as North Carolinians because somebody from the NAACP says it offends them. Oy Vey! As the Jews would say.
Oh, but it's okay. N.C. is taking it down, proving that the men who fought so hard to retain the freedom of the South (and not just to own slaves), have morphed over just a couple of generations into a bunch of Southern pu$$ie$. You know I'd only use that term if I have to. I hate to see it happen. So many people in North Carolina have been washed in the Civil-War-Slavery-Only mentality that it's easy to see how a complaint from the NAACP (with the ACLU lurking in the background, no doubt) has reduced a state that once claimed to be "first in freedom" into a mutant of itself. All to please a politically correct crowd.
Oy Vey, indeed.
Posted by Thinking Mama at 1:58 AM
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
No, I don't want gay people to adopt. But I don't want straight people to adopt, either. But this belief, of course, being that it goes so very contrary to mainstream media's propaganda, certainly makes me into a homophobe.
"Homophobe" is the word that so many Gay Agenda Persons (GAPs) use to describe anybody who, even in a teensy weensy way, is not totally for the GAP legislation du jour. Right now, you'd think that we were tarring and feathering those who have relationships with people of the same sex. That's what you'd think. Really, you would.
FB was about to drive me crazy today, with all the red and pink profile pics with an equal sign in pink. If you have one of these on your profile pic, you agree that the government should legislate marriage between two men or two women, changing the definition of marriage that has last for millenia. I also notice that GAPs never seem to be too concerned about polygamists, who could also use some equal rights. Of course, polygamists usually bother to have their own children. They don't go down to the local adoption agency or hire a womb or some sperm. So, I guess they're not as disenfranchised as those who choose to cohabitate in a way that naturally cannot bring a child into the world.
So, I'm traditional. And against much of the agenda that the GAPs are trying to foist upon us. And no, I don't think it's good that my children listen to NPR and hear a guy call his boyfriend a "husband." And no, I don't think it's good that children are on NPR saying that they were born the wrong sex and they need hormones and an operation to correct that supposed problem. But these are the things that are happening with the GAPs in charge of the world.
Look, I used to date women and I can tell you now that lesbians are pretty much all alike in their support of the GAPs. And they will pretty much all call me a homophobe even though I've only met a couple of gay people in my life that I truly feared. I've really met more straight people that I feared than gay people. But that kind of logic doesn't matter to GAPs. In fact, nothing matters more than changing the world, and legislation, to fit their lifestyle.
Sure glad I didn't keep dating women.
Posted by Thinking Mama at 6:21 AM
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
I defriended this girl on FB when she proudly announced that today is "Gotcha Day" for her little Chinese adoptee. Yuck! As a reunited adoptee, I find it hard to celebrate a day on which my identity was permanently changed and on which I was legally separated from the family that God and nature gave me. Maybe I'm supposed to be ecstatic about such a day, but I am not. The woman who posted this has a son that seems to be truly hers. And then, there's the little Chinese adoptee, a girl, of course, whom the mom of the son proudly calls her "daughter" and tells how she got the little Chinese girl two years ago today. My guess is that the son's mama is happy as a clam to have saved another little China girl from growing up in an orphanage. Fair enough, perhaps, but the little China girl has been sold to the West. She will probably never find her real family and will grow up with English as her main language. She'll pretend that she's only American, that she looks like the family that took her in, even though they are clearly blond and she is clearly dark-haired. She'll be encouraged to be thankful and grateful and all those other words to her adopters. After all, they saved her, didn't they?!?
And on this day, this "Gotcha Day," she will be forced even more to show that she fully loves this family that is not hers, that smells different, that looks different, that has no blood relationship to her. All the pretending that she will do in her life will help her to smile on Gotcha Day, but inside, she will be grieving and hurting. Americans who take in these China girls and pretend they are their daughters are helping to perpetuate a system in China in which moms are forced to have abortions as late as one week beyond their due date. Oh, I guess the Gotcha adoptress would also like to save all those babies, too. But she won't. No. In fact, as much in debt to China as the U.S. is, my guess is that the one-child system will be coming to the U.S. within a few decades, with the resulting late-term abortions for mothers. By that time, this little China girl will be all grown and in therapy, trying to figure out herself without knowing any relatives, without knowing the language of the country her relatives are from, but with the idea that she is supposed be forever grateful to the people who have pretended she is their daughter. She will look at natural families and desire to fit into a family as the children she sees, even her pretend brother, fit into their families. There's no telling how all this will affect her, but it will affect her.
Americans keep buying children from China and other countries, supporting a system that separates families forever. As long as Westerners do this kind of thing, the system will flourish and more "Gotcha Days" will be celebrated. I don't think this is how God wants it to be. Funny how he gave us natural families to take care of each other and such and now, we have totally screwed up that system. "Gotcha Day" and other such stupid pro-adoption stuff is but a reminder of how far away from God we have really gotten as a society.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
I hear it on NPR and on local radio stations from coast to coast. Only 70% of children are receiving all their vaccinations on schedule. Vaccination rates are down. The proverbial sky is falling. Meanwhile, so many of the white middle- and upper-class women that I talk with are refusing to fill their children's bodies with the iffiness of vaccines. From abortion by-products to mercury, vaccines are rumored to be filled with all kinds of things. Autism rates continue to rise. Vaccine-related injuries and deaths happen, some to people I've known since I was a child. The Internet provides opportunities for those of us--mostly the well-educated, who breastfed until our children sprouted six-year molars or whatever--to do our own research, to make our own decisions about all kinds of things to do with ourselves and our children. We've found doctors who believe that we know our children better than anyone, even medical personnel. We reject the thinking that doctors know more than we do about the child that grew inside us. We are hesitant to trust pharmaceutical companies that tell us each day via advertising how little we know our bodies, how stupid we are, how something must be wrong with us.
Only pills or treatments or suppositories or powders can help us, of course. There is no constant barrage of advertising for breastfeeding or for allowing your child to catch the chicken pox naturally instead of relying on a vaccine that will spare us from a week of red spots so that we do not have to take time off from our employers to care for a sick child. A generation of women who have been taught to believe that we can have everything without sacrificing anything is gullible to this kind of advertising. A shot can cure ye olde nasty pox?!? Well, how can we not love that?
But so very many of us, those who buy organic veggies and fruits and grassfed meat and have limits on fast food and television and video games and try really hard to show our children how generations have lived and thrived, so many of us are thinking that the conveniences of modern life aren't always the best for our children. Our pregnancies are filled with worry and research and conversations with other moms. We are often judged because we say no to stuff that other mothers like. "If choosy mothers choose JIF," my 11-year-old recently asked, "Why don't you ever buy JIF?" Because I would rather buy almond butter? Because I like organic peanut butter? Because I don't believe every marketing slogan that's thrown at me, even if it's one I heard when I was a child?
In the women arena, there are fewer threats to modernity than moms like me, moms that think, moms that refuse to believe everything we hear and prefer to do our own research. So many modern-day advertisers would prefer that we just leave. If our children grow up to think for themselves, maybe these marketers will be out of a job, just as so many government school teachers are out of a job and so many school districts are losing money due to our children's butts being at home all day instead of sitting in a taxpayer-funded chair. We're not much good for government, either. After all, we're teaching our children to be skeptical of authority, of government, of everything, just as the United States' Founding Fathers were. We want to see government shrink, especially as we pay taxes to build schools that our children don't attend. We're a generous bunch in that way, paying for others to be educated and then taking the educational burden for our own children upon ourselves. We married well enough that we can be with our children all day and/or we work at all hours of the night so that we may help facilitate our children's learning. Oh, this kind of individualism is so very bad for government.
And so, governments all over the land are trying, piece by piece, to unravel our individuality, to take away the very freedoms that soldiers fought for two hundred or so years ago. The funny thing is that these governments are not only succeeding, they are thriving. How else can one explain an L.A. City Council vote of 14 to 0 to close medical marijuana dispensaries, even though the people of California have made it clear that we are okay with them? How else can one explain the war on another natural substance, raw cow's milk, that makes it illegal in North Carolina and many other states to drink what nature intended, a substance that people have been drinking for centuries? Is there another explanation for AB2109, the bill that seeks to limit the freedom of choice for parents by making us subject to a board-certified authority figure for our God-given right about what goes into our child's body? Despite opposition, it has received such overwhelming support from California legislators that it is now on Governor Jerry Brown's desk.
I remember Governor Moonbeam. I remember the whole Linda Ronstadt thing, all the 70s mystique of a very rockin' government official. He may have been a rebel, then--and I was way too young then to make political judgements--but he is nothing if not a typical government bureaucrat now. Unlike Governator Arnold, Moonbeam Brown doesn't even pretend he's for freedom. This nanny-state stance of his really has me worried with a bill that requires a doctor's visit in order to receive my permission slip so that I may decide what goes into my child's body. I realize that Brown is far from being alone in the ever-burgeoning public sector and that he and California's elected representatives are not the only ones shooting for eradication of parental rights, one small freedom at a time. Still, I had hoped for better. Part of me believes that Brown will step in at the end, that he will indeed fight for the rights of parents, that he will veto AB2109 so that parents can easily retain the right to refuse vaccinations, without authority figure approval. This is the 70s part of me, the part that believed I'd be more free one day, the part that believed we'd be flying around like the Jetsons as the 21st century rolled around. Just as the TSA has taken the joy out of commercial flying, so have politicians taken away more freedoms than I ever imagined as a child. Who knew that the gorgeous milk I used to get from the very clean dairy of Mr. and Mrs. Burcham would one day be deemed illegal in North Carolina, that I would have to drive over an hour to South Carolina to buy the now-illegal raw milk with the cream on top? It's no mere coincidence that since North Carolina took away that fundamental right in the early 1980s that dairy farms have decreased dramatically.
What is perhaps even more amazing is that not a drop of blood was shed in the streets when this revolution occurred. When the legislators in Raleigh deemed that raw milk would be illegal, the public schools had already brainwashed us into not knowing and/or not caring. Some of us have woken up, but many still sleep and seem to have no desire to get out of government dreamland. In a similar way, people are shedding no blood about AB2109. Despite the looming and forced Obamacare, in which the government will have much more control over our bodies than they do now, it is probably fitting that government go ahead and start taking away our rights as parents. Far too many people believe that parents should have licenses and such and taking away parental rights is certainly a step in that direction. Still, part of me longs for freedom--how can I teach my children to be careful about what goes into their body if the government is making it harder and harder for me to do so? As Obamacare is forced upon us, Big Pharma will reap the benefits of the public/private partnership between government and legal drug manufacturers. Consumers will be so high on anti-depressants and advertising brainwashing that most people won't care or notice the huge wet dream with which Big Pharma is soaking us.
Posted by Thinking Mama at 11:31 AM
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
I leave L.A. for a few weeks and look what happens. The L.A. City Council certainly knows best what we need to ingest. I guess a ban on large soft drinks is next. After all, we in L.A. certainly must keep up with New York City.
Boo Hoo, do I hear a baby crying? No, I hear its MOTHER crying. She is whining about smoke outside a pot dispensary:
Among those who spoke was a woman who complained about having to push her baby's stroller through clouds of marijuana smoke near dispensaries in her East Hollywood neighborhood.
Trust me when I say that I know moms in L.A. I know how they whine and whine; why this woman seems to think she's forced to push her baby stroller through smoke is beyond me. Of course, she could go across the street or she could just realize that pot smoke isn't the worst thing in the world. Btw, her "East Hollywood" neighborhood is an anomaly. In the Valley, I've seen several pot stores and they are all really nice. Any pot smoke I've seen has certainly been kept inside the store, whether I've been in Eagle Rock or the SFV. Sure, I went to one once that was beside a strip club and that was not a great experience. But did I petition the L.A. City Council?!? No, I just said I would not go there again. You see, I have this funny way of thinking: When there's something I don't like, I just don't do it. If there's something I don't want my children to experience, I simply don't take them to whatever place it is. I don't try to ban everyone else from doing whatever it is and I don't try to shut someplace down. Of course, this is why I'm such an outcast in L.A., where mothers think they are raising everyone else's children, in addition to their own. While the Colorado shooter, and many other shooters, are high on legal prescription drugs, I don't see anyone going on a shooting rampage after only smoking marijuana. Oh, but that smoke--it's just so very dangerous. It doesn't kill anyone, though. You can argue that smoke itself is not good, and L.A. and its surrounding suburbs are certainly trying to outlaw smoking in public, but marijuana smoke per se is no more dangerous than cigarette smoke. Nonetheless, busybody mamas in L.A. have to have something to do all day.
This news really makes me almost sick to my stomach. Having bought marijuana illegally in North Carolina for a number of years, before I moved to California, I can tell you that going to a pot store and taking a few minutes to make my selection is much better than screwing somebody because they have pot connections in the illegal market. But no, the Leviathan members of the L.A. City Council don't want us to buy marijuana safely, in a neighborhood pot store. They want us to do it illegally, on the sly; they want mamas and daddys and all the other adults who use this natural drug to put ourselves in dangerous situations to buy some pot. Oh, and btw, although I am very much for individual decisions and think that we should all be able to decide which drugs we want to ingest, please allow me to note that many of us do have medical reasons for using pot. And that many of us use it to avoid the pharmaceutical concoctions that the burgeoning Big Pharma cooks up for us; we want to avoid those concoctions that, as the previously cited article shows, may make us want to shoot people we love and such. Oh, I'd really like to skip those things. I certainly avoid pharmaceutical drugs whenever possible, although I think that these drugs have every right to exist, and that sometimes, the benefits outweigh the risks. But marijuana is a demonized plant that God gave us. Given by God; demonized by government. Why are 14 city council people telling me that I can't legally use it?
Posted by Thinking Mama at 4:51 AM
Thursday, April 12, 2012
I used to be really concerned with adoption, and I still am, but there are more pressing things in this Union. Sure, it was a sign when the L.A. Times stopped printing my less-than-flattering adoption essays. It was a sign not only of creeping totalitarianism, but also of the demise of mainstream media. No longer will the gatekeepers keep me from my free speech. I'll just start a blog! So many people have indeed done this kind of thing that many adoptees and moms who've lost a child or more to adoption have kindly promoted my blog, which is totally cool. I guess it would be more accurate for me to say that I used to think that adoption was the only problem. But now, I see that there are so many other problems in this world, in a world that is losing freedoms by the hour.
I am beginning to see the fruits of lost freedoms, especially here in Los Angeles. We have a neighbor who is totally and completely out to harass us. Having just come from North Carolina, where dogs can run free and we have almost two acres of land on which to make that happen, we were trying to adjust to life in a city filled with leash laws, all for the greater good, of course. True, it'd be difficult if dogs weren't on a leash around here, but it wouldn't be impossible. Nonetheless, our NeighborHood Bitch (NHB), who is really just a sad old lady, has got it in for us. She wrote us a rather lengthy letter about how we should treat our dog and of course, she blamed me for all the lies that she told about us. It is my fault, for instance, that things are totally out of control, as she put it. I'm not afraid of NHB, but she is living in the wrong neighborhood. On the other hand, our 'hood is not the greatest place in the world to raise children, for sure. There aren't many other kids around and there is NHB, who, despite having worked with children, seems to despise children, at least ours. She tries not in the least bit to help, but rather, threatens us with city ordinances and such. Today, our dog got out again--the first time she's done so in a long time--and I was trying to get her back in and a car screeched to a halt just in time to miss her. Oy! And so, a person who had been nice to us because of our dog just a few short weeks ago was yelling at me and saying that our dog is "always off the leash," which is not true, but is merely his perception. As with NHB, there was no assistance offered from him, no real caring for either the dog or us, but merely a fierce reprimand based on his incorrect perception. In the city, you have to be perfect and always have your dog on a leash. Mistakes can be deadly and today's almost was. But did the A$$hole Guy (AG) really think that I was trying to make this happen? Why wasn't he helpful? Why did he yell and get angry? It wasn't even his business.
Ah, but in the brave new world that the puppetmasters are creating, laws have replaced common sense and people, such as NHB, are no longer interested in helping. Nay, they are much more interested in yelling and blaming and reporting, exactly what our politicians want. Sure, we do keep our dog on a leash and in fact, we had just returned from a long, leash-filled walk at Franklin Canyon, where everybody got some good exercise. But the neighbors have been trained not to help but to report. Now, my children and I will stay inside (we'd been outside, trying to dig a hole to plant something) and we will try to make ourselves invisible. Children are not looked upon very highly in this 'hood and neither are their parents. Nobody wants to help anyone else, but everybody wants to call the authorities. Perhaps this attitude is making its way to more rural places as well. And so one day, probably no one will be able to escape police state thinking. But for now, part of me is looking forward to being in North Carolina this summer, where, for the most part, people leave you the hell alone.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
It's been over three months since I wrote in this blog. There's so much going on. On New Year's Eve, a time when most media professionals were on holiday, King O. signed the NDAA, which basically obliterates the Constitution--yes, even more than it has been obliterated--and allows any subsequent king to give orders to detain anyone. If you think there's a Constitution to protect you, you are so completely wrong. And so, I guess nobody really cares much anymore. Most people seem to be totally clueless as to how our republic is being destroyed. And really, what can we do?!?
Ron Paul has been doing well, despite the media's portrayal of him as either a rude idiot, at worst; or a non-contender. It used to be some kind of conspiracy theory to think that the government puppets' owners control the media as well, but now, it's hard to see how anything else could be possible. Otherwise, the dumbed-down masses would not be so confused by the liberal/conservative b.s., and by peripheral issues such as "gay marriage," that they do not realize how quickly and easily the puppeteers have taken control of this country, and of them. (I already hear those who will call me homophobic because I referred to gay marriage as a peripheral issue.)
It shouldn't surprise me that some of my anti-adoption friends--yes, those who are all against the government's interference in obtaining the government licenses called birth certificates, and who are all for the government's support of single moms, but not at all for the government's support of adopters--it really shouldn't at all surprise me that some of them are all for King O's plan to put everyone's body under government control via Obamacare. I actually heard some of the arguments this week on NPR regarding the Supreme Court's decision on whether or not the individual mandate for health insurance is Constitutional. Hint: It sure as hell ain't! Nonetheless, there are people actually arguing--because I heard them--that we need to have the mandate because then, all the sick people will be covered. In other words, we are forced to help others, whether we want to or not. There is no freedom when we are forced to do something. But most of us seem to dumb to realize this simple fact.