When I think about the fools and idiots that the government schools are producing, I can't help but to think about my own parents at 17. My dad seemed to think it was the best thing to give away his firstborn; my mom believed social wreckers, even though she knew in her heart that she did not want to give away her daughter. Both believed the idiotic lie that giving a baby to strangers is the right thing to do. If there's one thing that government schools do an excellent job of, it's teaching people to go against their instincts.
Despite the maternal instincts of my mother, social wreckers took me away and I never saw my mom again until I was 34 years old. In the meantime, my mom and dad and the brother and sister who didn't consciously know about me, suffered very silently. If I complained or even talked about wanting to find my real parents, I was usually told something to the effect of: Well, it's great that you were adopted by such wonderful people! And yes, I'm quite glad that they weren't serial killers or some such. They were, indeed, pretty nice folks. The problem is that they weren't my family. I've developed some really great relationships with the people that I went to school with and grew up with; however, nothing, nothing at all can make up for the loss of the family that God gave me. I don't even try to write this kind of thing for mainstream media anymore; nor do I write letters to producers telling them how terrible it is to glorify adoption. Nor do I hope anymore that some television show will show a mother who lost her child years ago and still grieves for that lost child. But you can bet that these moms are well represented on the Internet. And they are often quite pissed. And not afraid to say it. Showing adoption as anything less than lovely, of course, would hurt the profits of the fabulous adoption industry, a $1.6 billion business and counting.
Therefore, it's okay when the hip MTV shows a couple's strife and crying as they give their firstborn to adopters (from North Carolina, no less) who promise to write and send cards. Of course, the parents are not allowed to know the physical address of their child in North Carolina. And they're already being demeaned to "birthparents," or breeders. Nor are they allowed to be sad for too long, because, never fear--there is grief counseling available! It hardly seems that any tragedy these days can go unattended by a grief counselor, but my question is: Where were these counselors when they could have prevented the tragedy of mother and child separation?!? And part of me really wants to horsewhip some sense into these idiotic new parents and I'd certainly like to horsewhip the idiots in North Carolina who gladly took a baby away from her mother. If the adopters were so very concerned about the welfare of the child, why didn't they provide financial and emotional support to the parents? No, in this case, the adults all acted like children, with everyone believing all the adoption lies; my parents did the same thing, evidence that in the 60s as with now, the government schools are working just as planned: separating families, one child at a time. It's interesting that the man who adopted me came from a family in which most of the women were married and having children by age 16, which used to be more or less the norm. Read John Taylor Gatto and you'll find that one of the jobs of the public education system in the United States is to keep children as children as long as possible, and to turn them into childish adults. In other words, one of the jobs of the government schools is to make our society into a bunch of spoiled adults who act like children. What better way to control a population?
Of course, the real loser in this situation is the little girl, Carly, who'll grow up surrounded by the lies of adoption and with four adults who seem fully to support those lies. She'll be confused and perplexed and be shown pictures of her real family but no answer she'll ever get will satisfy her as to the reason that she isn't with them. The mother, with her leaking breasts that are supposed to be feeding her baby, will go on pretending as long as she can. No matter how many children she and the father have, no child will ever replace the child they lost by adoption and their family will have a huge hole in it, as if someone died and yet, no one has physically died. That the MTV circus makes money off of this tragedy through advertising, and that people will watch it, is further proof that our society may as well bring back the lions den.
Of course, things will get better for the parents, as they negotiate a new season with MTV: Life Without Baby, perhaps? And one wonders where the parents of Catelynn Lowell and Tyler Baltierra are. Why are they so supportive of losing their grandchild? With adoption being glamorized thusly, one wonders how many other pregnant teens are waiting in the proverbial wings, hoping that they will also get a reality show moment if they decided to give away their baby. And how many will google the very unChristian Bethany Christian Services, a very unChristlike organization whose social wreckers separate many families each day, often by lying to and otherwise misleading the mothers, from what I have read and heard from mothers who've been lied to and misled by this agency. This MTV moment is great advertising for everybody involved, but it grossly neglects the only innocent victim here, the baby who is, as I write this, wondering where her mothers breasts are; the baby who will never understand why she was given away; the baby whose psyche has been permanently damaged by parents who achieved their fifteen minutes of fame and adopters who believed themselves to be such good parent material that they took a newborn from her mother. Let's remember that there are also sponsors willing to pay MTV to be a part of this tragedy and there are people willing to watch it without demanding that it stop. All of which lead to the conclusion that the government schools are working exactly as planned. B.F. Skinner and all his behaviorist friends, who believe that children are blank slates and that a child needs not his or her mother but merely an adult of some sort, must be doing some kind of special victory dances in their graves. Or in their ivory tower offices.
Aspie with Attitude
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
When I think about the fools and idiots that the government schools are producing, I can't help but to think about my own parents at 17. My dad seemed to think it was the best thing to give away his firstborn; my mom believed social wreckers, even though she knew in her heart that she did not want to give away her daughter. Both believed the idiotic lie that giving a baby to strangers is the right thing to do. If there's one thing that government schools do an excellent job of, it's teaching people to go against their instincts.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Recently, a female comic that I'd heard of, although never met, died. She had lung cancer and I don't think that she smoked. She was only in her late fifties and from all accounts, she was quite a funny comic. Someone on a comedy list passed around a video of her and in the interview, she talked all about how unfair comedy is to women. "We've already got a woman comic," she said that so many producers tell her regarding shows. Her whole thing during the interview video seemed to be about providing a voice for female comics who would otherwise have no voice. I've been doing comedy in and around Los Angeles for over six years now and I've yet to have anyone say any such thing to me. I'm not saying that it doesn't or hasn't ever happened, but I've experienced only shows in which funny women were just as respected as funny men. Of all the things that I wish to solve in this world, female victimization in the comedy and job world isn't one of them. Frankly, I don't see enough of it to find it much of a problem, and I say that as someone who took her then-infant around to many comedy shows only five years or so ago. Sure, I was thrown out of the Laugh Factory for breastfeeding, but that was certainly not because I was a woman per se. When I was pregnant, I was wholly welcomed into the Laugh Factory.
I mention this kind of thing because I find the taking of one woman's child by another woman, deemed to be superior, as one of the greatest insults to women ever. I'd much rather fight that battle than the supposed prejudice regarding a job or comedy show. For those who wish to discriminate against women or whomever, there are always other jobs or comedy shows or whatever. However, taking away a child from a mother is usually an event that has permanent implications, both for the child and mother; and there's no replacing a child. Taking a child from his or her mother is one of the cruelest forms of degradation to women and my unadopted and un-adoption-brainwashed friend, E., easily recognized this easily after reading my blogs, as do others unaffected by adoption. However, Parade, America's Fabian Socialist magazine, tries hard to brainwash the common folk. With propaganda sheets in almost every major- and medium-market newspaper, Parade tries hard to focus on the globalist agenda, which has, for many years, included the breakup of natural families and the recycling of children to families deemed more worthy by the social wreckers who place themselves as gods over the lives of children whose parents are willing to listen. Therefore, it does not at all surprise me that today's installment of socialist propaganda includes an article by adoptress, mother, and "Contributing Editor" to America's Fabian Socialist rag, Jacquelyn Mitchard, entitled "The Richest Woman in Town."
The article goes on to show what lengths this serial adoptress will go to in order to prove how worthy she is of other people's children. Mitchard, who through "birth and adoption," claims ownership and parentage of seven children, although she is not clear on which children are actually hers and which she's taken from another mom. Interestingly, Mitchard has so much control over her financial situation that her assistant must tell her that she and her husband--who, like most adopter husbands, simply goes along with his wife's indulgences--are broke. I can't help but wonder if some of her adoptees have parents who are doing financially better than she at the moment. Nonetheless, Mitchard and her DH are bound and determined to take two more children from their country and their mom, whom Mitchard has already demeaned to a mere "birth mother." The mother's sin, in this case, was not necessarily having children out of wedlock, as was the case when my own mother was robbed of her firstborn, but rather, the new adoptees' mother contracted AIDS. Oh well, too f'in' bad, at least according to Mitchard. Or to put it more appropriately: I, American adoptress, deserve to be called mommy much more than some African woman who has untreated HIV. Even if she weren't broke, I doubt that Mitchard ever considered sponsoring the mother and children so that the family could stay together, perhaps bringing the mom for some medical treatment in the United State. Nah.
Unfortunately, this kind of I'm-entitled-to-your-child attitude pretty much sums up American adopters who see themselves, even flat broke, as far superior to real mothers, especially those dying in other countries. Yep, Mitchard, who claims to not "really know how we're going to make it," has opened her home to two more children who'll have a much better life with a trampoline and used dolls than they would with their mother and extended family. Yep, it's all about the gifts, even if they're slightly used. Interestingly, the same out-of-money excuse has propelled many a mom to give up her child both in the United States and abroad. Oh, but I guess when you're the Contributing Editor of Parade magazine, and you have no idea that you're about to be broke (of course, she blames it on those nasty investor-types who take your money and make bad investments), you're still a good candidate to take two children from their dying mom (hey, I guess maybe she'll die more quickly now! I certainly would if someone took my children). Of course, Mitchard insists that her two new adoptees conform to the positive adoption language that America's Fabian Socialist Magazine uses. Natural family ties are gone and all the Mitchard household children are the two adoptees' "brothers and sisters." And of course, Mitchard will insist on replacing the mom, even before she dies, by asking the girls to call her and her husband "mom and dad." Ah, adoption: the lies of it are lovely, aren't they?!? Meanwhile, I and many other good writers (see my list of links) are not heard in mainstream media because of our outlandish views on adoption. It's worth remembering that the LaLeche League canceled my appearance at their national convention and a book publisher canceled my book contract because I support natural families' staying together. In a globalist village, don't ya' see, everybody is everybody else's child and nobody has any real natural family ties. Funny how I used to teach B.F. Skinner's Walden Two, which supports the concept in the previous sentence, to my first-year English students at North Carolina State University. My students were appalled by the idea of recycling children and severing natural family ties. Ah, but that was ten years and many pro-adoption articles ago. I'm sure they've mellowed into a more politically-correct and globalist way of thinking by now.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Let's be clear on nomenclature here: the "public schools" are no more for the common good of the community than adoption is good for natural families. And since they have been bought by the ridiculous "No Child Left Behind" act, a federal cap and trade scheme that basically places ALL public schools, including those fancy schmancy charter schools that are all the rage, in the hands of the Emperor du Jour, in this case, Savior Obama, the public schools have indeed become government schools, more specifically, federal government schools. Of course, that makes me some kind of racist, homophobic, fundamentalist that the government will soon place on its terrorist list. Yes, right close to "is white and Christian" as a terrorist identifier, is "uses the term government schools" on the "New Trends in Terrorism" list, which will become an essay, which will become a book, which will inform the Feds who's not walking the politically correct chalkline for the common good of all subjects in Savior Obama's empire.
Speaking of empires, I hope to read Lord of the Flies to the boys in some relatively soon trip to the East Coast, but in the meantime, this classic book is being played out in schools across Amerika, even in Deerfield Beach, Florida. Now, Mr. Thinking Mama/Comic Mom is from Florida and you can certainly say that he is lucky to have escaped Miami relatively torture-free. However, I think that wonderful occurrence was due more to the timing of his departure, i.e., the 80s, than to the supposedly wonderful government school that he attended. Mr. Thinking Mama told me once, and I have written about it, that his first grade teacher made the class laugh at a little girl who'd peed in her pants. As the mom of a first grader, I can tell you that toilet training is certainly iffy at that age, even if things have seemed very normal and grown up for a while. More than one kindergartener/first grader in my children's dance classes has peed in pants, a relatively normal event for the child who's just learning to control the bladder and do other more fun things than go to the bathroom. It's not anything to be laughed at. And yet, Mr. Thinking Mama's teacher encouraged laughter at this particular little girl. She even required it, something Mr. Thinking Mama, and probably most of his then-classmates, has had to live with for many years. Yet, what becomes of children when they are forced to laugh at a child who makes the very childlike move of peeing in his or her pants? What becomes of that entire class? Of classes all over the country in which that has happened? Fortunately, Mr. Thinking Mama has had relatively strong moral guidance and the event did not cause him to become a criminal of any sort. Then again, his mom stayed home with him and he and his brother were expected to act, well, as young gentlemen. Things are bad enough for public school children who have good moral guidance at home. What happened to the children in Mr. Thinking Mama's class who weren't as fortunate in the moral guidance department? What happened to the children whose parents were divorcing during their child's first grade year? Did this incident become enmeshed and entangled with lots of negative energy and difficult emotions? What about the children whose families did not, for whatever reason, provide such guidance? Who knows?
Nonetheless, some of Mr. Thinking Mama's then-classmates have spawned children of the current school-age generation, i.e., the generation that grew up unable to bring a gun to school, but living in the shadows of Columbine and other destructive scenes in which morally decrepit youth shot and killed classmates with relative ease. Extremely disturbing is the latest Lord of the Flies trend, no doubt brought on by a generation of bored teenagers who have little guidance in the morals department, brought up by parents who may be too busy fighting over custody to figure out what's going on with their child. Thus, there should be little surprise when these bored youths who are barred by state law from working without a permit have too much time on their proverbial hands and a mess of tangled emotions sans morals developed mostly in the prison-like structure of the government schools do something as idiotic and morally disgusting as set fire to one of their classmates. Here's the story.
It's a bad one: Six weeks ago, 15-year-old Michael Brewer was "doused with rubbing alcohol" and "set ablaze." He's receiving the regular Oprah-watcher treatment by the media, with his heroic efforts praised, as they should indeed be. But should a middle schooler have to pay this kind of punishment for merely trying to survive the government's mandate of staying behind the chain-linked fence all day? There is scant mention of his killer in the article:
Three teens who attended Deerfield Beach Middle School with Michael Brewer have been charged with attempted murder in the attack outside an apartment complex. Police say the boys doused Michael with rubbing alcohol and set him on fire. Two other teens were arrested and released after prosecutors decided not to charge them.
Keep in mind here that all this occurred under the rubric of those fabulous middle schools that the government has been opening for a few decades now, under the guise of providing students of a certain age with a wonderful atmosphere in which they'll be able to grow and learn and make lifelong friends. Doesn't it sound just peachy?!? I'm sure that the middle school these boys came from is full of puzzled parents who just can't quite understand why their wonderful school was the backdrop for this horrendous event that Michael will have to live with for the rest of his life. And as with the recent rape that occurred in a government school setting, which had many onlookers and no one to actually help anyone, even by simply calling 9-1-1 on their iPod cell phones or whatever, this event seemed also to have onlookers. Could it be that the parents of these onlookers have allowed their children's teachers, under the guise of educating them, to somehow teach, as Mr. Thinking Mama's teacher did, that it is okay to kill people, or at least to set them on fire? Are government school students learning that experimenting with people's lives and their physical bodies is simply peachy? Surely, all this immorality can't be learned merely from television. I'd say the morally decrepit people who changed Michael's life and the life of his family forever will probably not suffer nearly as much as Michael will every time he looks in the mirror, for the rest of his life. Michael's parents seem to be reacting much better than I probably would in the situation and they certainly have a difficult road to travel, thanks to the school that they were told would help their son, would educate him, would give him a better life, all for free, of course. Ah, more government lies, indeed! For Michael, and the countless other victims that government schools create, to be bullied and burned and whatever by the bullies-sans-morals that the government schools churn out, the lies are no longer theoretical; for him and for the many other victims of government schools, the lies are showing themselves and many of us are beginning to see that yes, even in good public schools, bad things happen. In fact, any time that you turn your child over to the government all day, you can expect that your child, if he or she has any sensitivity at all, will receive a bit of training that will aim to desensitize him or her. Unfortunately, this training came at quite a cost to Michael and his family. Please keep them in your thoughts and prayers.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Sure, I've been busy lately, or maybe it's just that there's so much to write about. Emperor O. has said that we can have pot stores in California, for instance, and sure enough, the L.A. City Czars are trying to regulate the hell out of neighborhood pot stores and make sure that they make no money. I want to write more about this regulation weirdness regarding a natural herb that God gave us, but it's late and I need to go to bed and frankly, I'm afraid the subject of this entry will be eaten if I don't write about it soon. Yes, it's cereal!
Before I go on, please allow me to explain how cereal is handled here at the Gingerbread House. We buy three boxes of cereal per month. Granted, cereal is one of the greatest time savers ever, but nobody's ever convinced me that it's nutrituous. Not that I particularly cared about nutrition when I was scarfing down the yummy King Vitamin as a child. Nor did I care much when, in my first semester at North Carolina State, I had a cafeteria card and ate enough Captain Crunch to last many lifetimes. Gosh, was it ever good! And yet, when it comes to nutrition for my babies, I'm all about trying not to eat as much out of a box. Therefore, we've had yummy crock pot meals for breakfast and sometimes, we make skillet fried potatoes. Cereal is indeed a special treat and each boy gets to choose one cereal box per month.
When it came time recently for the November cereal--and I'm happy to say that with three birthdays in the Gingerbread House during this month (including mine!), that cereal was not even thought much about until mid-month--the boys were at Whole Foods. Therefore, we obtained cereal masked in politically correct boxes, which brings me to this entry, which you may have thought I'd forgotten:
The Envirokidz cereal box is clearly intended to make children think of the globalists' politically correct view of the world, i.e., that many animals are much more valuable than humans. Especially when those animals are cute giant pandas or some such. Now please don't misunderstand me: On my first trip to the National Zoo in Washington, D.C., on a Close-Up trip when I was in high school, I absolutely fell in love with the pandas there, although I don't know if they are technically "giant" pandas or not. Who can argue with the cuteness of a panda bear? Not I!
Reading the back of the cereal box (and what child of the 70s doesn't absolutely love to do that--why, I remember when there were actual records of songs by the Archies on cereal boxes!), I found this text, written, evidently, by a giant panda himself:
If you take a look at the map under my picture, you can see life has sure changed for us giant pandas. We used to have lots of area to live and eat in, but our neighborhood is getting pretty small. Luckily, the Chinese government and groups like Wildlife Trust and their partners are helping us by setting up places called Nature Preserves, where we can live safely; and Bamboo Corridors, so we can move around when we need to find more bamboo to eat. Some days I spend 14 hours eating--I need about 40lbs (sic) of bamboo every day! That's a lot of salad!
No doubt, this particular panda has better grammar than many of my former students at NCSU. He (I'm guessing the panda's gender from the picture and the text, but I might be wrong!) is certainly a good writer; maybe he should help me edit some NIH proposals. Nonetheless, Giant Panda Boy (GPB) said something that really bothered me: "Luckily, the Chinese government . . . " Now, I'm not saying that GPB or any of his giant panda friends have ever really bothered to go outside the U.S. and taste the relative freedom, say, of the National Zoo (and I'm not talking about Congress or the White House, in this particular instance, although I would also describe those institutions as zoos) in D.C., but really, praising the Chinese government?!? This is the same government that kills human babies and kidnaps them, all in the name of population control, of course, so that the survivors can be sold to adopters in the West. To praise the Chinese government for anything seems bizarre. But then again, GPB doesn't really know much about things outside China.
However, I can't help but think that Whole Foods does. Perhaps some witty writer at Whole Foods can explain to GPB that the Chinese government is horrid and has been, well, less than nice to children for years. From what I've read about the Chinese government, they're known more for killing people than for saving panda bears. Perhaps a Chinese government employee helped GPB to write his speech. I know that kidnapping and killing (or forcing the parents to kill) children is not nearly as sexy and attractive as GPB, but for my money, it's certainly important to tell that part of the story about China, especially when the cereal is marketed to children. It's a good thing that Peanut Butter Panda Puffs are so tasty. Otherwise, it'd be easy to get all caught up in thinking that the Chinese government is fabulous for saving GPB and his giant and extremely cute bamboo-eating friends.
In case the Federal Trade Commission is monitoring this blog, as they are wont to do these days, please note that I am disclosing in my somewhat review of this product, that I did not receive Envirokidz Organic Peanut Butter Panda Puffs for free. Gosh, I sure hope I have the receipt!
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Here at the Gingerbread House, we're doing what everyone should do to protect ourselves from any communicable disease: washing our hands, eating vegetables and protein, avoiding a lot of sugar, et al. However, we are avoiding the swine flu vaccine as if it were the plague. Evidently, not everyone feels this way, which is what the pharmaceutical industry is depending on to make those huge profits. After Emperor O. made the ridiculous statement the other day that his own children are not receiving the toxicity called the swine flu vaccine because they are in not in a high-risk group, this interesting article told us that some people who are not in high-risk groups are indeed as desperate to become inoculated with whatever it is that GlaxoSmithKline, et al. wants us to have in our bodies.
For the record, long before I had children, I was married to a man who worked for Burroughs-Wellcome--yes, they're the AIDS drug people that the many gay and gay-friendly types picketed because they thought that Burroughs-Wellcome (BW) should be giving the drug for free or some such; the company responsible for giving those with AIDS a chance (if you believe in the traditional AIDS story, that is--a blog post for another time) was wished by those it could supposedly help, to crashing down. Well, the crasher-downer-wishers sort of got their wishes when the Wellcome company, established in a trust that was supposed to last forever, was gobbled up by the greedy then-Glaxo, who then gobbled up other companies. First husband, a research graphics artist, and I used to eat at the wonderful and researcher-filled BW cafeteria for lunch; the building, probably still right there off the Durham Freeway in Research Triangle Park, was shaped like a molecule. It was also in the eighties film with Christopher Walken and Natalie Wood (she died just before the film's completion), Brainstorm. Nonetheless, BW's supposedly perpetual candle, along with its fabulous research scientists, went out quickly when its wick was trimmed by Glaxo. In the interest of full disclosure, I also worked a temporary job at Glaxo during my first semester of graduate school. It's hard to find a place filled more with true believers than Glaxo (now GlaxoSmithKline). I worked in its sales department and the poor woman that I worked for was an overworked yet gorgeous drone who didn't have time for a relationship because of her devotion to marketing Glaxo products; she and other Glaxo marketing people that I've met act as though their pharmaceutical marketing deeds are going to get them into heaven. I had never seen people like these at BW (although they may have existed), which was a much more research-oriented place to work, with a couple of really nice Nobel prize scientists on staff. Glaxo, with all its jogging trails that employees were far too busy and energy-drained to use, was a bizarre place that I really wanted to get away from. Fortunately, I did.
Nonetheless, GlaxoSmithKline, which gulped up BW as if it were a slurpee on a hot summer day, is now one of the few places profiting handsomely during this economic slump, not because of actual good, but because of the mass hysteria that the mainstream media have created. The gorgeous and freedom-loving Karen DeCoster, an excellent writer who has recently been so very kind to add me to her blog roll, has figured this whole swine flu thing out as well. Karen spends her time reading and thinking instead of watching Oprah and Dr. Phil attempt to solve the world's problems, one Jerry Springer victim at a time. People like Karen, who see through the mass hysteria, remind me that not everyone who has been government-school indoctrinated must remain so forever.
And so, here at the Gingerbread House, we'll use a lot of common sense and try to keep our immune systems strong; but we won't be taking the drug-company flu elixir, no matter what Emperor O. and his minions tell us.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Really, it does. And that fact is one reason that I really dislike (read: hate) it when the government tries to eliminate its competition by using the laws that the elite have put into place to squelch any and every bit of competition anywhere, even if it's in a rural county in North Carolina. It also dislikes people who make a lot of money without reporting it to the IRS. Oh, how it does hate that kind of thing. I, on the other hand, believe in freedom, freedom to do what you damn well please if it doesn't hurt anyone else. Ah, says the government, but everything that you do can hurt someone else. Thus, when I flush with more than a 1.6 liter toilet--which can take up to three or four flushes to equal one 1.6 liter toilet---I have used your drinking water for a whole day or some such silly equivalent that the government uses to create some kind of water crisis, which is really about the government's taking more control of our lives. That's how government logic goes. Now, we crazy free market types believe that consumers and people in general, if given the chance truly to be free, would make some pretty darn good decisions. And would compensate the folks they'd actually hurt. Therefore, if, say, a father were to create a media hoax in which his son was reported floating in a Jiffy Pop looking container in the air and military helicopters were used to find said child, the father's hoax would not land him in jail. Rather, it would land him with a bill for all rescue personnel. And he would have to pay. Oh, but this kind of thinking is so very Old Testament to those who pray to land as many people as possible in the hoosegaw.
Thus, we sheeple should stop watching American Idol for a week and truly celebrate the arrest of people such as Roger Lee Nance of Wilkesboro; I have no idea of the true character of this man. For all I know, he may be a mean old hermit. But I do fully support his choice and business of making liquor. In North Carolina, where the government has such a monopoly on liquor that it is only sold in state-certified liquor emporiums, also known as ABC stores, it is easy to see why NC ALE czar John Ledford would brag about his find of a moonshine still on private property. In fact, Czar Ledford tows the statist line on alcohol, while bragging on his contribution to the state's ample coffers:
"This is one of the biggest seizures of white liquor I've seen come out of the mountains in my career," ALE Director John Ledford said in a press release. "I commend the agents who were able to make this arrest. While tax-paid liquor is regulated and inspected, illegal distilleries are typically made in unhealthy conditions that could possibly cause exposure to lead and other problems."
Really, Czar John, if all you have to worry about is lead when you think of liquor, my guess is that you skipped school during the many years that the ridiculous D.A.R.E. program to resist drugs and alcohol was foisted on North Carolina high school students. This bizarre program is probably still distributing pro-state propaganda, perhaps even under the same name. Some of us have had rougher experiences with liquor and honestly, lead poisoning from a private liquor still is not something I'd worry my statist little head about, if I were you, John. In fact, I'm guessing that you say the same thing about milk--trying to protect us supposed idiots from making decision based on our own good sense--being that raw cow's milk, a.k.a. country milk, which most of your ancestors grew up drinking, is probably given the same bizarre treatment; it is just as illegal to sell in North Carolina as non-state-approved liquor is. Here's a free market lesson for Czar John: Whether you're a dairy farmer or a moonshiner, you're not going to survive for long if you don't have clean, lead-free facilities. When I was growing up, we bought country milk from Mr. and Mrs. Burcham, a sweet Christian couple who ran an immaculate farm and house a mile or so from the house where I grew up. Your statist compadres, Czar John, would do the same thing to Mr. and Mrs. Burcham--were their sweet and pure hearts still beating--arresting them for selling the milk that God gave us to drink. The milk industry lobby in N.C. has made sure that your buddies have provided as little competition as possible for their shady corporate butts.
And then there's this little item, from a Raleigh lawyer who made the huge mistake of keeping cash in his home, or rather, of depositing in a bank. Or something. Surely, there's something real here that the feds are charging him with. When he tried to place his legally obtained and taxes-already-paid-on cash in a supposedly safer place, he was arrested for trying to evade a ridiculous law that says to look upon any large deposits as suspicious. Or something. It's really hard to tell what the feds are so pissed about here, unless it's that Gaskins has not spent his professional life kissing the ground that the Raleigh tax-feeders walk on. So, trying to evade a stupid law that lets the government put its hands into your pockets when it has no business is a crime, especially if the feds want it to be. Note that it is not a trivial crime. In fact, it is a crime that can punish a lawyer who's worked hard all his life by sending him to jail for all his retirement. This kind of thing is exactly why I'm not moving back to North Carolina right now. I'm not saying government extortion doesn't happen in California, but somehow, it's really hard to see it in a place where I used to live as a more or less free human.
Evidently, I'm not the only person who sees through this federal judicial travesty.
Friday, October 16, 2009
I've really seen it all now. Adopters praising themselves and each other for gorgeously-written blogs that sing the praise of adoption. I'm not sure who's behind this contest and I'm not sure that I want to find out. But it does scare me that so many well-educated and well-written adopters are throwing around their weight on the Internet. Although they have every right to do so, and I totally support their freedom to do so, it really bothers me that there's no "Best Pissed-Off Adoptee Blog" contest or some such. Surely, I'd be a finalist in that contest.
Probably the biggest qualm I have with this contest, and with the bloggers who populate it, is that these bloggers have the gall, of course, to call themselves "parents" of the children they've adopted. Having said that, at least one of these bloggers recognizes her adoptee's real mom as the child's "first mother." There's something good to be said for that. Still, it really bothers me that so many white middle-class women (and make no mistake--most of the people who take other people's children and pretend those children are theirs are white and middle or upper-middle class) are feeling okay with pretending to be parents of other people's children. I guess these white women somehow feel they are contributing to society by taking the children of others, especially if those children look so different from them that people know the adults are adopters. Adoption has such a wonderful propaganda campaign going on these days that adopters are looked upon as wonderful and loving self-sacrificers, even as they call themselves the moms and dads of children that someone else bore.
Please let me say here that my own adopters were good folks and I still miss them, even though they have been dead for a few years. I am extremely thankful to have grown up in the community that I did, where people are basically honest and loving and everybody cares, but not in an Obama-Clinton-it-takes-a-village-of-government kind of way. So, in that sense, things have really worked out well for me. Things could have been a lot worse and I have heard many horror stories from adoptees. Most adopters who read my writing are just sure that I must have been beaten every day by my adopters in order to hate adoption as much as I do. There are people who've made rape into a positive experience as well, but this doesn't mean that those people desire for others to be raped. Separting a child from its mother and giving it to strangers is a horrid thing, for mother and child. Desiring for another mother to lose her child to adoption is bizarre indeed, but many white middle-class adopters-to-be are betting on it.
The blogs in the "Best Adoption Blog" contest perpetuate the myth that overall, no matter how difficult adoption can be, it's okay to take a stranger's child and call it your own. And no, no matter how wonderful my childhood was, this kind of myth is not okay to perpetuate.
Many thanks to fellow adoptee Marley Greiner for passing along this link!
My sons and I take a LOT of classes at a local city recreation center about 30 minutes from our house. This quarter's session, for example, we spent close to $1,000 for art and dance classes (thank goodness for my proposal money!), with some absolutely wonderful instructors. The boys' clay class instructor, for instance, is a brilliant artist who displays his own work; he, like the other teachers we've encountered, is also a nice guy. After spending well over $900 for classes, I placed two checks under the door of the administrative offices for two more classes. Students are supposed to be registered, for insurance purposes, for classes before attending them. I wasn't sure, because of soccer schedules, etc., if I could take the extra two classes before I actually signed up for them. Because we're often there after the office is closed, I placed the checks under the door after hours. Yesterday, I received the uncashed checks, returned to me by U.S. mail, with this note in all caps:
ENROLLMENT FOR THIS CLASS ENDED 10/01/09. OUR NEXT SESSION WILL BE IN JANUARY 2010. RECREATION GUIDES SHOULD BE AVAILABLE IN MID NOVEMBER.
Now, I'd heard that one mother had taken her child to a dance class with openings, left the child while she went to register, and the tax-feeders in the office would not allow her to register because it was past the deadline. Therefore, she had to go back to the class, taking her then-crying daughter out of the class for the quarter. But only when I saw the two ridiculous sentences in all caps, directed specifically at me, did I realize that local government and its tax-feeding minions can be just as, or perhaps even more, ridiculous than their federal counterparts. This particular city seems to want to miss out on revenue. It didn't matter to the tax-feeders that a little girl, who could have been easily added, was crying because the office had a rule that registration ended on October 1st, with no exceptions, even for classes in which the instructor approved the add and there were slots open. Nor did it matter to the tax-feeders that they were losing out on money. People come from all over to take these classes and one woman who works during the day and drives from quite far to attend her adult dance class was not allowed to mail in her registration, as she usually does. This quarter, the rules changed and anyone outside the city limits must now register online. Yes, these tax-feeders not only wish to stop revenue from coming in, but they also desire to cut down on the work of processing a few people's applications, forcing people outside of their city limits to register online, an arduous process that I couldn't get to work correctly.
So, this particular city's gatekeepers at the recreation center are just following orders and not common sense. It's rare when I make a comparison that makes the North Carolina state government look good, but I'll have to say that even at NCSU, where I both attended many classes and taught, there was a way of adding or dropping a class later than normally allowed. Sure, you had to obtain signatures from people, which was a pain, but it could be done. Nonetheless, the folks at this city's recreation center, which offers classes with no grades, seem too lazy to take in extra revenue when they could easily do so. Their excuse? From what I've heard, it's that their "books are closed," whatever that means. Unfortunately, with the Internet as what they seem to tout for registration, that excuse is ludicrous. In case you're thinking that what I've told you so far is ridiculous, here's the clincher. I actually received this note as well:
PLEASE DO NOT LEAVE ANYTHING UNDER THE OFFICE DOOR--IT CAN CAUSE POSSIBLE INJURY TO STAFF--OUR BUSINESS HRS ARE LISTED ON THE FRONT DOOR. THANK YOU
I guess somebody could have received a paper cut while picking up the paper that I slid under the door. And in these days of celebration of the victim mentality, I suppose that counts as an injury. However, in my many years in the shady corporate world, I have placed many notes under doors. I've yet to hear of anyone that I've injured.
Friday, October 9, 2009
I nearly fell out of my pink room chair this morning when I read that Emperor O., who has continued King Jorge's killing escapades in foreign countries, with absolutely no sign of stopping, is receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, supposedly because of his initiatives "to build momentum behind his initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism." I guess those killed by his warmongering policies, which closely resemble the policies of his white predecessor, are not really factored in to the Nobel Peace Prize equation. Funny how, when I mentioned I was reading this story to my eight-year-old, he immediately said, "How can Obama win a peace prize when he's trying to start a war in Iran?" Well, I'm quite proud that my young son can figure out something that a lot of 60-year-olds seem to have trouble seeing. The Obamatrons, blinded by their worship, will take this elite-sponsored prize winning as an example of just how wonderful Savior O. actually is. And of course, no one will claim that King Jorge should also receive said prize, being that he was just as much of a warmonger as Emperor O. Dare I even ask why Ron Paul, who advocates the United States' getting the hell out of every country that we occupy, did not even receive a mention in this sweepstakes? Perhaps it is indeed like the Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes and the winner was chosen by random. Whatever the case, I'm really glad that my eight-year-old already has it figured out.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Sometimes, I think that I allow the Los Angeles Times to come into our home only because sometimes I need a bit of inspiration for writing. Whether it's failing to print my letters on adoption, relegating Ron Paul to the occasional negative article while he is running for president, or doing some other kind of statist grandstanding, the Times never does quite fail to make me angrier than an old wet hen, in some form or fashion. The question for me is: How long does it take to find something that is inane in the Times? This past Sunday's was a bit different; it took more than the usual 5 or 6 seconds. Saturday night was Cub Scout night at Dodger Stadium and we had quite a blast watching the Dodgers win the National League West championship, 5-0 over the Colorado Rockies. I'm not much of a sports fan per se, although with the every human in this house except moi of the male persuasion, I have to learn to enjoy games. I was more than happy to stand in line for hot dogs, no matter how long that task took. And of course, the full moon over the stadium made things much more lively also. A real plus, however, is that this morning's receipt of the Times into the Gingerbread House kitchen was all about the game; therefore, it took a while before I actually got to the pissing-me-off part. And in fact, being that I didn't look at much of the supposed news, which misses the real news, such as the fact that Obama seems to yawn at Israel's supposed hidden weapons while taking such a close look at countries that seem to harbor the real terrorists--as everyone knows , there are no terrorists in Israel--that he's as hot to take us to a war with Iran as Emperor Bush was. The names have changed, and the ethnicities, but not much else at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Nonetheless, it's important, even on such a slow news day, to hype up the unconstitutional United Nations. Crazy people like Ron Paul, and me, of course, believe that the U.N. has done a lot more to hurt the world than it has to help. Sure, in the public school patch where I grew up, the harvest I received regarding the U.N. was their humanitarianism, their contests and other propaganda regarding their Halloween ritual for all children of the 70s--Trick or Treat for UNICEF. Nobody ever told me that this organization had plans to force peace on an otherwise unpeaceful world, no matter how many people are killed in this peacemaking process. Certainly, no one told me that they planned to take away my guns or indoctrinate children to live in the supposedly diverse and wonderful utopia that they were creating, whether we want it or not. Nobody ever told me that this organization would attempt to set its own policy for the good of those who supply its money. Nope! I only heard that trick-or-treating for UNICEF was good for, you guessed it, the children. When you're a child, it's great to do something that you feel helps the children, even if it does more harm than good.
Therefore, only in the last few years have my previously clouded eyes been brightly opened to the sneakiness of the United Nations, including their push to make International Baccalaureate Studies programs across America the hot thing for those seeking supposed academic excellence for their progeny; this program is doing as much to revive the failing government schools as the rather ridiculous "magnet programs" of the 70s and 80s. It would be horrid, however, if Americans began to see through the stinky waste of the United Nations. Therefore, it's up to Parade: America's Fabian Socialist Magazine to give us a nice little public relations piece, in the form of an insightful article, of course.
"New [U.N.] ambassador Susan Rice" pronounces her faith in the wonderful glorious organization that tries hard to make all nations the third-world countries that despots so love to rule. Now, Susan's age is so close to my own that I am willing to bet my best 401K stocks that this "super-smart and personable internationalist" grew up listening to the same U.N. propaganda that I heard in North Carolina's government schools.
The article starts with a glorious declaration of how U.S. sanctions stopped a ship that may have been carrying military stuff, perhaps even (gasp!) "weapons of mass destruction, perhaps even nukes." See, isn't the United Nations wonderful? "The reason it couldn't land was a recently passed United Nations resolution that called upon any member nations receiving the ship to board it, inspect it, and seize any contraband found." In other words: Let's spread our unconstitutional searches around the world! I feel about as safe trusting the United Nations to save me and my family from perhaps errant ships as I do trusting the FDA to save me from supposedly dangerous medications.
Nonetheless, this propaganda piece will serve exactly what the elite want to promote the global government that they have sought for so very long: The United Nations is a helpful organization, an umbrella organization for the United States, and the only way that we can even have a sliver of hope for world peace. Ron Paul, of course, has other ideas. And I must admit that the free market concept seems so simple that it evidently flies right by the common sense of most people: "If we were really interested in democracy, peace, prosperity and safety, we would pursue more free trade with other countries. Free and abundant trade is much more conducive to peace because it is generally bad business to kill your customers." Ah, but who in this world isn't so brainwashed by NPR, government schools, and mainstream media that they can even begin to understand Dr. Paul's simplicity.
Meanwhile, I look at the Parade picture of the two mulattos, Rice and Obama, sitting together in some U.N.-sanctioned way, and I realize that they are no less willing to be one-world government puppets than their supposedly pure-bred white predecessors. It's a real shame that while people are celebrating Obama's being the first African-American president, no one's talking about how much this man of a different color is so very much like his European-American White House antecedents. People may look at Rice and think she's some kind of trendsetter, but unfortunately, she's merely one in a lengthy line of elite-sponsored one-world government drones that has been schlepping for the system. Lots of people see something new with the Obama administration; thanks to a bit of help from America's Favorite Socialist magazine, I see more of the same old freedom-taking-away crap, disguised as an in-depth article on the United Nations.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Look, at its very best, and Savior O. admits as much, the whole G20 thing is about regulating the economy; it's all about a whole global regulatory thing for the world, one that Savior O. will be more than happy to implement per orders, or rather, suggestions, of his string pullers. I wish I could be more positive. I really do. Of all the presidents, probably I would have liked to sit down the most with Jimmy Carter, until he accused anyone who crosses Savior O.'s path of being a racist. Whether or not he was a good president (and he wasn't so hot, unfortunately), he was certainly a cool Southerner and he had a daughter around my age. It was fabulous hearing someone who was running for president and who talked kinda like me, too. I also liked that he claimed to be a Christian. I didn't realize, at the time, that he was just as much of a puppet as the rest of them. Or either he wasn't and they realized it. Unfortunately, I think it's the former.
Anyway, I've seen some really horrid video of protesters at the University of Pittsburgh being extremely harassed by the police. And the police look horridly scary, as if they are looking for trouble, all dressed in black with riot helmets on, as if they're marching across Runnymede or something. Ah, but trying holding a sword up to these scary taxfeeders and see what they'll to do you. They do horrid things to polite people who seem to be completely unarmed. Probably, many of Pittsburgh's finest have been trained in Iraq; many Pittsburgh finest-to-be, or rather, finest-in-waiting young gentlemen will probably be trained in an Iranian war. Or who knows where else, being that Savior O. is turning out to be no less a warmonger than his royal predecessor. My question is: What are the University of Pittsburgh students doing that they have time to protest?!? In the eighties, I was far too busy figuring out things such as, "Why do I like to spend so much time with my roommate?" and "Why do I like spending time with my roommate more than I do my boyfriend?" and such, life-wrenching questions, mind you, to give one bit of crap about political stuff. Actually, that's not true: I worked for the president of the Young Democrats at NCSU and I didn't much care for him. Well, there you go.
Anyway, my life has come quite a ways since those sexually-confused days of embryonic adulthood and now, I just can't help but wonder if things have gotten so bad in this world that students actually look outside themselves and care enough about the coming New World Order, which increased governmental regulations fully support, to protest. If so, we are really in some deep mud. In the eighties, there did not seem to be much to protest about.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Well, it's taken a few decades, but it seems as though the Los Angeles Times has finally come around to seeing that maybe, just maybe, babies are being stolen from China. As we all know, of course, mothers in China have been ecstatic about losing their babies. Or at least, you'd certainly think that if you were listening to the adopters on this side of the ocean. It's interesting that I was deleting some old e-mails just last night and sure enough, one of them was from adopter who called me "selfish" and "ignorant" and a bunch of other not so very nice terms, ending, of course, with the time-honored suggestion that I get "lots and lots" of therapy. Well, I've had lots and lots of therapy. And it's certainly helped me to see that I was screwed by being taken from my mom and the rest of my family. My mom was screwed and my adopters were lied to. But that was in the 60s; since that time, demand for infants has soared, especially with the increased demand from single people and gay couples. I'm not making judgments here, but I am saying that the more people who are allowed to adopt, the higher the demand. That's simple economics. And if there's one thing that adoption is about, it's economics.
Nonetheless, American moms started wising up around the time Roe v. Wade came on the scene and many started keeping their babies. Of course, adoption agencies, not wanting to miss a buck, started offering incentives, such as college scholarships, to moms who would give them their child. I have three degrees for which I am very thankful, but I can't imagine giving up any of those degrees for one of my precious sons. To increase supply, in the mid to late seventies, adoption agencies started marketing foreign-born children, children who would look not at all like the adopters. In the 60s, when I was born, it was in fashion for the children to look like the adopters and in fact, many people said that I looked like the woman who adopted me because we had the same coloring. People seemed to say it more when I was little and as I grew older, it was harder to lie and harder to believe that I was the product of the people who adopted me, much as we all may have wanted it to be true.
Adoption agencies were pretty savvy to this whole thing of decreased supply of babies and during the seventies, foreign-born babies were marketed. The agencies, hungry for profits, even figured out a way to increase demand for babies that would look nothing like the people raising them. Ah, but what if we make adopters into saints that are rescuing orphans from Asian countries? Adoption agencies pondered this marketing scheme for about a week, no doubt, and then began bringing airplane loads of children over to be marketed as orphans to Americans. With a fabulous public relations campaign, adoption agencies began increasing demand for children, marketing these supposed orphans to Americans who already had their own natural children. It became chic to have a little Asian child, tagging along beside older children who were really the children of the adopters. Therefore, real moms and dads began adopting children from moms and dads half a world away. The adopters were lied to and told that these children were orphans or unwanted and the parents of the children, in Korea, Vietnam, and other countries, were assured that the children had no family that would help them. The lies had changed in the decade or so since my birth, but the result was the same: Adoption agencies were making a killing financially, no matter how many families they ripped apart. If you doubt what I say, take a look at the documentary Daughter from Danang and you will actually see American social workers begging Vietnamese parents for their children. Of course, this social worker footage, to my knowledge, was never broadcast on the NBC Nightly News or any other media outlet, but it is clear that American social workers were there to take some children and market those children to Americans.
As a result of such marketing campaigns, it became chic to have a little Asian child cropping up in your family and many small communities had the one family that had gotten one of these cute little folks. The child was raised as if, as that horrid adoption phrase goes, the child had actually been born into the family, even though family pictures did not lie and it was obvious that the child was not a real member of the family. Adopters claimed that this fact was absolutely fabulous, believing that their altruistic desire to save a child from an orphanage far trumped the child's being separated from his or her parents.
Along came the Chinese government, not wanting, of course, to miss out on the profitable venture and easily able to supply babies, based on its ridiculous one-child policy. In the 90s, it became especially chic to have a "little China doll" (as I've mentioned before, I saw this phrase, written by an adopter on a message board). Everybody was doing it, from single women to couples who could not have their own child. This adoption agency-boosting trend has continued into the 21st century and it is hard to go into a trendy Gymboree or My Gym class these days without seeing a little China doll with its obviously non-mother. Nonetheless, adoptresses boast of their adoptees as if they're nothing short of a miracle. All the time, it's really hard for me to see these children, as I think of the trauma that the child and its natural family have gone through.
Now, back to the Times: Can you believe, in a $1.6 billion per year industry like adoption, in which China willingly supplies adoptees to Western adopters, that there may be people who will steal babies to sell to the Western market? I know--it sounds almost too horrible to be true, doesn't it? But sure enough, in the globalist adoption-promoting Los Angeles Times, which stopped printing my anti-adoption letters a few years ago, there is actually a story with the headline, "Chinese babies stolen by officials for adoption fees." The story actually includes a graphic that shows that China adoptions have been down the past few years. No worries, though, I'm sure that the adoption industry will think of another way to increase demand and supply.
Being the Los Angeles Times, of course, the horrible positive adoption language was used, as opposed to the honest adoption language that I much prefer. The Times may indeed require their reporters to call even parents whose children have been stolen "birth parents," but I and many of us who've been separated by adoption find this phrase to be insulting to us and our families, preferring instead use of the more honest "natural parents." Continuing the status quo, adopters of Chinese children were called "adoptive parents" and one adopter made sure that if her adoptee, whom she mistakenly called her "daughter," wanted to find her real parents, or as the adoptress put it, her "birth family," that she would be sure to allow her to do so. How very nice of her, eh? The Times continued the adoption charade, calling families whose children had been stolen from them the "birth families." It's great to know that when the state takes away children, the parents are reduced to mere birth things, breeders who've reproduced but who do not have the final legal rights to their own children. In bringing to the forefront the literal stealing of children from their families, the Times has not changed its adamantly pro-adoption stance.
Here are some excerpts from the article, written by Barbara Demick. I have found no evidence that Demick is an adopter herself, but she certainly seems to be aligned closely with the adoption industry, using language that is derogatory to natural families. There is perhaps a small victory in knowing that people may begin to doubt that the little China girls they see with their adopters may indeed be stolen, but the article ended by assuring everyone that the children would have a better life in the U.S., with a quote from a mom whose child was stolen:
"We'd never make her come back, because a girl raised in the West wouldn't want to live in a poor village like this . . . But we'd like to know where she is. We'd like to see a picture. And we'd like her to know that we miss her and that we didn't throw her away."
It's doubtful, of course, that these children will ever be reunited with their natural families and if they are, they will probably be unable to communicate with those families, having grown up speaking an entirely different language.
Here's a laughable quote from the U.S. Embassy: "The United States takes seriously any allegation that children were offered for inter-country adoption without their parents' knowledge or consent."
Evidently, the corrupt government officials who search villages, looking for signs of a newborn, are sometimes demoted or have warnings placed in their files. Oooh, the terror! It reminds me of police officers who shoot innocent victims in the U.S. and are placed on "paid administrative leave."
It's also interesting that adopters always chide me for not believing that their adoption fees are necessary: " . . . the money received from [adopters at one orphanage], $180,000 in all, went toward food, clothing, bedding and medical care for the babies and to improve conditions in the Social Welfare Institute. But most of the babies had been housed with families who were paid only $30 a month for their services, according to one [fosterer]. And there were no obvious signs of renovations at the institute, a grim three-story building where a couple of senior citizens could be seen through barred windows lounging on cots. Reporters were not permitted to enter" the orphanage in Tianxi.
Interesting also is the fact that the "[o]nce a child is taken to an orphanage, parents can lose all rights." One grandma was "babysitting her 4-month-old granddaughter one night in March 2003 when a dozen officials stormed her house. She said they took her and the baby to a family planning office, where a man grabbed her arm and pressed her thumbprint onto a document she couldn't read."
But rest assured, the Westerner(s) that received the stolen baby is convinced they are doing the right thing by adopting a baby who was unwanted. Even though that child was kidnapped, the Westerner(s) will insist that the child call them the parents and they will convince the child that they are the child's family. Unfortunately, nothing will really change as a result of this article, although the U.S. will probably make it seem as though it's regulating things a bit better in China. Savior O. will probably make some kind of proclamation or law that says we don't accept stolen babies from China and everybody will feel all good and gushy about adoption. There's way too much money involved for any true change to occur: Little China girls are worth way too much in the West for these horrible practices to cease.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Many people last year around this time--as Ron Paul's roaring-to-go yet futile delegation began slithering towards a better racehorse, or rather, one more assured of winning--began singing the praises of Obama. Disillusioned with Paul and more repulsed by McCain and his People-Magazine-worthy (but then again, who isn't People-Magazine worthy) running mate than by a guy who's just a wee bit socialist, who's proud of that wee bit, and who seems quite anxious to expand it to a more encompassing bit. Savior, people began to call then Emperor-to-Be Obama. He was certainly hailed as valiantly as Jesus on Palm Sunday, right up there with Martin Luther King and Monty Python. Now, however, as we creep toward totalitarianism at an ever-increasing pace, people seem to be questioning the motives of a man whose "change" seems to include fining people for not having health care. Ted Kennedy, may he rest in peace, is probably fondly smiling upon the Congress Critter who introduced a bill to do just that, fine a family $3800 if the family is uninsured. Can people who are fined have a bailout from the government? I can't help but wonder. And somehow, such a seemingly crazy move would be par for the proverbial course of Savior O. After all, health care plans involving the government are all about controlling the populace. If you're in doubt, read what these various and sundry health care bill candidates have to say about electronic records. Then, think about whether or not you want your private and personal medical information even slightly monitored or harvested by the government. Think about Farrah Fawcett and how some UCLA employee sold her private medical information. Think about how much more easily accessible your medical information will be if the government digs its grimy paws more into our health care system.
Stem cells will cure people's diseases, pot stores will give away free pot, and Savior O. will even pay your rent. As unbelievable as these things sound, I heard variations of them as Savior O. was being escorted to the Puppet-in-Chief's office. Well, I must admit that I didn't hear about free pot--now that part's simply a writer's exaggeration. But I not only heard a pot-ingesting morally upstanding actor and all-around good neighbor imply that Savior O. would all but close down the Drug Enforcement Agency, but our very own neighborhood pot store here (about as common out here as Baptist churches are in the South) had its own picture of Obama with some quote about how he would free people from the tyranny of the DEA. Okay, I'm exaggerating there, but it was a quote from Obama that seemed extremely pot friendly. In addition, pot stores have been cropping up all over Los Angeles, and making no bones about their green cross little selves (they usually have a green cross as a symbol). The neighborhood pot store had been a bit lazy with checking i.d.s and such and I was sure that of all the things I'd been right about with Savior O., perhaps I'd been wrong about the pot thing. Perhaps he would indeed lay off California and allow its over-taxed, stressed-out citizens a bit of relief via the legalization that the citizens voted for, in 1996, Prop. 420, as it's called.
Gosh, but I guess the DEA guys are afraid that somehow someway somebody in Iowa is going to find out that we can have pot brownies legally in California and get all upset that the DEA isn't out here taking away a right that we voted for! (Okay, I wasn't actually here then, but I thank all those who did vote for it. Boy, do I ever thank you.) And so, now, as of quite recently, our neighborhood pot store, I have confirmed, has gone back to its quite stringent policies. Evidently, five stores in Granada Hills were recently closed. Of course, the DEA (and I've written about this in a previous entry that I'm too tired to look up now) probably took lots of property from the owner(s), as they, unfortunately, have begun a tradition of doing in California, even though what the owners are doing is perfectly legal in California. Well, I guess Savior Obama isn't quite saving the pot stores, as he promised, is he? I wonder if that's the only promise he'll break.
Pot Info. in the SFV:
How hot is pot in California? "Medical Marijuana Evaluations," which provide the license to ingest and grow pot, are now down to $65. Some are still $100, as they were a couple of years ago, but prices are definitely down and competition is fierce. One promotional card features a gorgeous topless girl lying down, with her thumb in her bikini bottom. She is totally smokin' hot and yes, I wished to inquire more about her company's services after seeing such a fabulously sexy card. Turns out, that particular "medical center"'s price is $44 for renewals (those who already have a license) and $64 for "new patients." As I have said many times before, it is ridiculous to see why a natural and God-given plant such as pot is illegal in the first place. Human-created pharmaceutical Xanax, on the other hand, is probably being given out for free in the government schools.
As a comic, of course, I feel that it's a good idea to get a license. I know one comic who can pass a drug test and he's an LAPD officer. And so, I don't want to end up in some car of comedy with pot in it and no license. Well, and there are, on occasion, those delicious pot brownies.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
This health care thing is about to drive me nuts. Frankly, I've always believed in health insurance, pretty much always had it, love it, want to keep it. But that's my personal belief. Health care is no more a right, however, than apples are. Sure, it's great to have food, great to have good doctors, great to have a house, but none of these things are a right. And yet, I know there's a big campaign going on telling us, all over Facebook and everywhere, that it's a terrible thing if someone dies because that person can't see a doctor. Well, yeah. It's terrible when anybody dies. For any reason. Does that simple fact make me want the government to mandate health care? Of course not. And what about the many well-meaning simpletons out there who've been public schooled to believe that health care is some innate right that we all should have? Honestly, what to do here! Can these people actually believe it's a good idea, as is now proposed, to fine people who can't afford health care?!? I mean, is this what they mean by right? That is, I have the right to pay $3800, even if the reason I don't have it is because I can't afford it? Even Puppet-in-Chief Obama said once that he didn't think it was fair to fine people who don't have health insurance. Of course, I'm sure he'll change his mind, as soon as his string-pullers convey to him the importance of getting everyone in the electronic health care system from which there will soon be no escape. But really, there are people who believe so strongly that we must have government-mandated health care that they will certainly call me some right-wing fundamentalist fanatic for saying that there are better ways to take care of people in a free country than mandating health care. Lots of the brainwashed populace believe that the reason we are in the health care mess we're in is because of the greed of the pharmaceutical companies. These folks don't realize that we can all turn off our televisions and choose alternatives to health care, right now anyway. And they don't understand that it is often the government regulations in and of themselves that makes health care so expensive these days, not to mention the government welfare that has, in one form or another, gone to pharmaceutical companies and doctors. No, they just think that only the government can save our health, our lives, our very souls. Unfortunately, they are strongly deceived.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
My non-adopted friends and acquaintances seem to think that what I, as a reunited adoptee, have to say about adoption, is interesting. To most of them, hearing that adoption isn't the wonderful panacea that mainstream media, with the generous help of the $1.6 billion adoption industry, have portrayed it to be is a bit of a shock, considering that all they've heard seems to be the adoption-friendly propaganda that mainstream media spews. One especially open-minded friend, E., told me once, "But isn't adoption demeaning to motherhood itself?" I was pleasantly surprised that someone actually concluded this fact simply be reading my blog and doing some thinking. Of course, E. has children and grew up in a large family; natural family seems important to her, and I don't think that she, like most people, had ever really thought much about adoption, beyond what mainstream media tell us to think. I can relate. Until my own reunion, I pretty much believed the wonderful adoption myths, too, or tried to believe them. Most non-adoption-affected people seem to take natural family for granted, which is wonderful.
Nonetheless, there is a rather predictable story in today's Los Angeles Times, that pantheon of mainstream black and white thought that allows those who believe the supposedly right things to have as much say as possible. And quickly denies those of us who may vary from currently approved thought. I don't remember the last time I saw a disgruntled mom who'd lost a child to adoption portrayed in the Times, but I know there are quite a few of them in SoCal and across the country. Ah, but that wouldn't somehow be politically correct, would it? To allow these moms to talk might well hurt the adoption industry that may be one of the few industries still advertising in newspapers. In fact, p.r. is so good at these adoption agencies that often, the Times and other newspapers will write an article for free, encouraging everyone to think about the adopters and not so much about the natural families who've been broken up by adoption.
These are important things to keep in mind as we think about today's wonderful adoption story, "Adopted teen finds answers, mystery in China." Turns out, a now-teen renamed "Christian Norris" by the woman who adopted him, has, with her blessing and gentle encouragement, of course, returned to China and reunited with his natural family. Turns out that he, whom Julia Norris adopted only a few years ago, was not taken to an orphanage by his parents, but rather, happened to be lost:
He was born Jin Jiacheng in 1991 in Yinchuan, a city in the Ningxia region several hundred miles west of Beijing, to a couple who both worked in a hospital and already had a son. Because his parents could have been penalized for having a second child, he was sent as a newborn to his father's home village to be raised by his grandmother and a 23-year-old uncle, who pretended the infant was his own son. When he turned 6 and was ready to start school, they sent him back to the city.
He had lived only briefly with [his parents] when he somehow got lost, his family says. His father, Jin Gaoke, said they were on an excursion by bus and that he got off for a few minutes to buy food at a market, returning to discover that the bus had driven off . . . The family was wrenched apart by the boy's absence. His mother went into a deep depression. His father and uncle stopped speaking to each other, the younger one blaming the father for losing the child.
As I read this, I am trying to imagine what would happen if that tragic scenario happened to one of my friends or me and somebody's child were separated from their dad and mom and ended up in a foreign country calling some strange woman "mommy." This is, of course, an injustice that a mom and dad should not have to put up with, and the whole situation is tragic, indeed. In China, adoption facilitators must love this kind of thing, although I'm sure that they like it better when the child is younger, so that they may market more infants to the burgeoning Western adopter market. In fact, one might wonder what would happen in China if Westerners did not create such a high demand for children; perhaps the Chinese government would be forced to change their ridiculous policies. Already, some Chinese people are now able to have more than one child, a progression that has happened only in the last few years.
In some ways, this story reminds me of "Daughter from Danang," a documentary that I saw when I was pregnant with my now-six-year-old. In that film, a young woman returns to her home and mother; blatently shown are the U.S. social workers of the 70s, who were begging moms to give away children. If more people would see this documentary, stranger adoption would be a thing of the past. In this film, the daughter who found her mother had lived with her mom until she was five or six, then she was taken by social workers to the U.S. and marketed as an orphan. At this point, I want to ask all moms of small children, either currently or in the past: What would you do if your child was taken to a foreign country and told to be a son or daughter to someone? Would you feel as though there was some kind of injustice? Would you want to press charges against the people who took the child? Would you at least want to sue them? Just as we allow U.S. troops all over the world but would be quite angry if, say, the Iraqis placed their troops in the U.S., we encourage mothers in other countries to give up their babies so that they can be raised in the United States and pretend to be the children of U.S. citizens. U.S. citizens applaud this kind of thing, not thinking much about the families who lose the children. One wonders how many U.S. folks, well-meaning neighbors and acquaintances of Julia Norris, welcomed Jin, a.k.a. "Christian Norris" when he was forced to come to the U.S. and live with a complete stranger, separated from the only family he'd ever known: his natural family. The whole loss of the young Jin by his father was a tragic event indeed, made much more tragic by the fact that he was shipped to another country, away from all family.
One also may wonder what would happen to most of us if we claimed to "fall in love" with a nine-year-old child. I mean, even I, who am quite tolerant of many things, would think that falling in love with a nine-year-old is just weird somehow. While I am not at all accusing Julia Norris or any other adopters of anything inappropriate, there is something about the tone of that phrase and some strange adult saying it to an eight- or nine-year-old that is akin to something that doesn't quite feel right. How would it sit with the government schools, for instance, if some teacher said this to a student? Julia Norris is not the first adopter to publicly claim to have fallen in love with her adoptee, in her case, after "touring the orphanage on a business trip." I have read more than one adopter's claim to have "fallen in love" with some child at the orphanage. And from what I have heard and read, many adopters do indeed take advantage of this stranger relationship and act out on their feelings of falling "in love" with their adoptee, which is sad; again, I am not implying that anything inappropriate has happened with any adopter, but some adoptees have mentioned that sometimes, those kinds of things have happened. I mention this information to point out how different things are in the delusion of adoption. It's okay for a single U.S. career woman to fall in love with a child and take him out of his country and into her home? Doesn't anyone see anything remotely wrong with this? We're talking about a stranger boy who was eight or nine when she met him, not about an infant! It's absurd at best, but the Times, of course, celebrates it and treats it as though it's the most natural and wonderful thing in the world.
In fact, I wonder if the story would have even run if the natural parents of the boy, who have been without their son for over eight years, had demanded him back, with money for damages demanded from the agency that oversaw Jin's adoption. The story paints Julia as a "single mother," a real irony considering that my mom and many other moms have lost a child mainly because they were single moms. The writer is also careful to paint Jin's natural family with the demeaning "birth parent" term, which is one name that many parents who've lost a child to adoption appropriately find to be a proverbial kick in the groin. How would you like it if, after losing your four- or six- or eight-year-old, you found the child years later and you were called a mere birth parent, a breeder, the DNA donor?
Even though the circumstances of Jin's adoption are tragic, his parents are still demeaned to breeders and his adoptress who, in this case did not change his diapers (I say this only because so many adopters claim that they should be called parents simply because they have changed their adoptees' diapers.) is deemed the mother in this situation, the true real mother who has paid for most of his schooling and who will pay for his college and who has watched him grow up, while his family was torn apart by their loss.
Don't look for any Times articles from the articulate moms that I've met on Facebook and MySpace who have lost a child and continue to grieve, always think of themselves as their child's mother, and believe that stranger adoption is a "cruel" and "evil" practice. There are moms like that out there, but they ain't getting published in the Times--that's for sure. And there may or may not be anything wrong with someone to take care of a boy who seems alone, as Julia Norris may be quite good at, but she is not, nor ever will be the boy's true mother.
And so I shall end my soliloquy by saying that I could hardly care less that newspapers such as the Times are going the way of the dinosaur. I say that having just witnessed the layoff, after 43 years, of my father-in-law at another major newspaper. I wish him well, of course, but he's one of those real journalist types who believes in mainstream media as if it's God. His intentions are good, but he hasn't experienced rejection of his editorial letters, as I have from the Times because my letters spoke against the sacred adoption industry. Soon after the Times stopped printing my letters, around 2003 or so, I began to look at lots of other things they weren't covering, for instance, Ron Paul. I began to see that mainstream media are not necessarily liberal or conservative, but statist, and built to stay that way, of course. The state and the wishes of the elite, such as familial separation through adoption, is supreme in mainstream media; the Internet has rightly shown that people are sick of this kind of thing, being that so-called alternative blogs are enlightening people to all kinds of ideas; and this kind of idea-spreading via the Internet is so threatening to the elite that they have hired Emperor O. to, among other things, give the Office of the President the power to shut down the Internet. Until that time, however, those of us whose natural families have been ripped apart by adoption will continue to write about what adoption is really like.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Celebrity adoption continues: "Sex and the City's Willie Garson Adopts" an 8-year-old. I have an 8-year-old and while, fortunately, there are other people who would be closer on my list to raise my children, were something to happen to their father and me, i.e., people I know, Willie Garson, and I'm saying this as someone who's never met him, is probably an okay person to raise a child. And many kudos to him and to Celebrity Baby Blog for mentioning the 8-year-old's natural mother, whom Garson plans to keep in the proverbial picture. But here's the problem I have with this whole scenario: You can't adopt a son! Either he's your son or he isn't. In this case, Willie ain't the dad. That fact doesn't mean that Willie can't take the boy in and raise him and love him and be a father figure to him. But Willie can never be the boy's father and he can never replace the father that the boy has, wherever that dad may be. That said, the father does not seem to be the in picture and no one mentions why. It's obvious that mainstream media likes to label adopters as parents, no matter what, as if you can sign legal papers, profess love, and suddenly be a dad. It's also interesting to read the comments and find that people are so very gung ho about adoption, just in general. Therefore, we can see that the adoption propaganda is working. Very well. I wonder about the 8-year-old's real dad and if he wants to be out of the scene or if he was pushed away. Dads are important, too, and yet mainstream media often like to leave the dads out.
I have to say that while the economy is sucking, if I may so eloquently describe it, pot stores seem to be thriving. They're popping up all over the San Fernando Valley (SFV), and as I've mentioned previously, there's a discount pot store, the Target of pot (must be pronounced Tar-zhay!), if you will, in our middle-class, normal looking SFV neighborhood. The pot store in our neighborhood, like the pot store I used to visit from time to time in Eagle Rock, seems to have the whole Obama worship thing going. The Eagle Rock pot store was sure that the moment Emperor Obama came into office, there would be no more DEA tax-feeders standing at the train station, staring at what the state of California has said is a legal dispensary of marijuana. Our neighborhood discount pot store, which I have also visited (research!), has a picture of Emperor O. hanging high on the wall, near the ceiling. Accompanying said picture is some Emperor O. quote about leaving pot stores alone. Personally, I fail to genuflect before it. Nonetheless, pot stores have become much more relaxed in the past few months, though I can't help but wonder if the relaxation isn't a bit premature. After all, last Thursday's Los Angeles Times had a story on page A5 that shows what a liar Emperor O. seems to be. Unless I'm missing something here, "Pot stores raided in West L.A., Culver City" has little to do with the Emperor O. quote about leaving California's 420 marijuana dispensaries alone. Ah, but no. I guess it's kinda sorta like Emperor O.'s quote on war, that war with Afghanistan is a "war of necessity," alluding, I suppose, to globalist Richard Haass' War of Necessity, War of Choice: A Memoir of Two Iraq Wars. You know, I never did much like Emperor O., but his telling me, as I heard ad nauseum on NPR today, that the Afghan war is "of necessity" and expecting me to believe it has really gotten my dander all fluffed. I'm guessing that's as big of a lie as the quote about telling the feds to leave California the hell alone, as is prominently displayed in the pot store, although obviously, my words aren't the exact quote.
The pot store story, in fact, lists a whole cadre of characters, in fact, some of them paid by our gigantic California taxes, who helped the DEA to perform these raids, showing that Emperor O. can not only waste tax money for the nation, but also for individual states:
Federal authorities and local police agencies raided two Westside marijuana dispensaries Wednesday as well as the residences of the owners. . . . The DEA, FBI, Internal Revenue Service, Los Angeles County Sherriff's Department, Los Angeles Police Department, Torrance Police Department and Culver City Police Department took part in the raids.
So, you can see that these agencies grabbed a lot of loot, especially having a license to steal from the owners' private residences. I'm ashamed of every last one of these agencies, all of which I am forced to support. It sickens me to know that the LAPD, whose job should be to protect and serve, as their cars say, would be involved in such an unconstitutional raid. But the last paragraph of the story tells the real tale:
Law enforcement agencies have been cracking down on pot dispensaries for some time, but officials did not immediately say what prompted these raids.
Well, I can't tell you what prompted them, of course, but I can tell you who didn't stop them: Emperor O. I kinda doubt he's going to be ending any wars soon either.
When we moved here, our first apartment manager, Scott, told us that there's always a big controversy about water in Southern Calfornia and SoCal is always fighting with Northern California about water, et cetera. Well, as it turns out, SoCal has used that fight, and the recent supposed draught (How can you tell? It never rains here anyway!) to have another reason for the government and neighbors to snoop and snitch on you. I am quoting here from a story in last Sunday's Los Angeles Times: Among the new Department of Water and Power (DWP) "limits on water use," are these dandy guidelines:
-Automatic sprinklers are limited to Mondays and Thursdays before 9 a.m. or after 4 p.m.
-Sprinklers must not run more than 15 minutes per watering station.
-Hand watering is allowed any day before 9 a.m. or after 4 p.m., but only with an automatic shut-off nozzle.
-Cars may be hose-washed only if a shut-off nozzle is used.
-Water may not be used to wash hard surfaces, such as sidewalks, driveways or parking areas, except for health and safety purposes.
-Runoff into streets and gutters is prohibited.
Now, Mr. Thinking Mama and I try to watch water consumption and we certainly read what's happening in our water bill. We'd read these guidelines--which went along with a changed tier structure, one that strongly encourages use of the guidelines--and I thought that they were mere suggestions, guidelines meant to be followed but not necessarily enforced. Or as my 8-year-old put it when we were discussing them prior to June 1st, when the guidelines went into effect: What are they going to do, give you a ticket? Not only was he indeed perceptively correct but the DWP has also tacked on a $100 fine. Here's the cautionary tale language that the Times reporter uses:
"Try as they might, offenders can't hide the evidence. The previous commodity is already flowing down gutters and driveways, glistening off blades of grass and rosebushes . . . "
In other words, resistance is futile. It's not nearly enough, evidently, that the LADWP is raising our rates. Nope! We must use this opportunity to provide more snitches, for something that used to be a common sight: runoff. Now, I'm not saying that we should waste water and, in fact, nary a drop of mop water here at the Gingerbread House goes to waste, as I take the mop water outside and give it to some needy plants. I'm not saying we shouldn't conserve water; I am saying that the government shouldn't have another excuse to step on my private property and give me a $100 fine for something that I am paying for.
Pot stores and private property are two things that the government should stay far away from. However, as the police state continues to infiltrate our lives, this kind of government and neighborhood snooping will continue:
Since the restrictions took effect, fewer than 30 water users have actually been hit with fines, which begin at $100 for a first offense. Most of the citations issued so far have been only warnings.
With water conservation officers patrolling only during regular business hours, some self-appointed vigilantes have stepped in. They watch for mysterious puddles, broken sprinkler heads and after-hours hand-watering across neighborhoods and business. Then they send complaints--more than 4,200 so far--via phone, e-mail and most recently on Twitter.
Doesn't it do my heart good to know that our fine L.A. neighbors may just be a Twitter away from having us fined for $100, or at least from having us snooped upon.
It's interesting that when I was growing up, I heard all this stuff at church about how lucky we were that we didn't live in the Soviet Union. We'd watch films and hear stories about those poor, poor folks under Communist rule. This kind of propaganda was a mere reflection of what was going on in our society at the time: A push to make us so very thankful for living in the free and wonderful United States when people in the Soviet Union, Cuba, and other Communist-ruled places were having such a hard life. No doubt, I'm extremely thankful that I don't live, today, in someplace like Communist China, which would have forced me to give away at least one of my children, or kill one, or abort one. And yes, I am thankful to be living in what I'm assuming is the freest country in the world.
But what happens when that very free country that you grew up thankful to live in turns itself into a state that's much like that of the former Soviet Union, with state-paid volunteer informants on every street corner and no respect for private property or the free market system?