Aspie with Attitude

Sure, I'm just another Southern Recovering Alcoholic NPR- and Sweet-Tea Addicted Comic Mom with Asperger's in the SFV, but I can tell you now that I don't necessarily fit the stereotype.

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Why The Adoption Myths Continue

When we first moved to Los Angeles, in 1999, I had just found my natural mother and father. The decision to leave North Carolina, after finally finding my family, was not an easy one. However, I now see that staying in North Carolina after finding my parents would have been difficult. It is extremely weird in a lot of ways to find your parents after years of not knowing who or where they are. As a Steely Dan song says, "All at once, I know who I am . . . " Knowing who I am not not having to look in the mirror is a huge blessing that most people take for granted. Most people look in the mirror and think, "I look like my mom or my dad" or whatever. Looking in the mirror for over 34 years and finding that you don't know whom you look like is a strange kind of experience that's hard to explain when you're not adopted. Sometimes, you just pretend that the people who adopted you are your parents. It's often so much easier to pretend when you're adopted. It's much easier to lie to yourself because your life is often built on a lie. There are some people, including this lovely woman, who have adopted a child and are honest with that child, or in M's case, children. M doesn't pretend that she's a mother to the children that she adopted; she is honest with those children and I am sure that the children are benefiting as a result of her honesty. Adoption has been sold as such a wonderful thing, however, and as a "creator of families," that people believe it. In addition, mainstream media perpetuates the myth. When we first moved here, the Los Angeles Times printed my letters regarding adoption. After three years or so, they started ignoring them and stopped printing them. Why? My writing was no worse. I responded to articles and followed the guidelines, as I had previously.

It is no secret that mainstream media spews the propaganda that the power elite want us to believe. This problem has gotten increasingly worse over the past few years, as I witnessed with my adoption letters. I saw the same thing happen with Ron Paul. He was also ignored by mainstream media, despite the lovely and Constitutional messages that he was spreading. Those of us who have been writing letters telling the truth about adoption have similarly been dissed, as the media dictates thought through simply ignoring us.

Ah, but in today's Los Angeles Times, there is a lengthy "Column One" essay by a "Korean adoptee." No doubt, this adoptee is telling a fascinating story, about a woman who did an experiment in which she asked her classes to pretend that people with brown eyes are superior to those with blue eyes, to show the difficulties of "racism." Throughout the article, the adoptee says the right things about adoption, just the way that the Times wishes. She claims to be the "daughter" of "white parents," which is impossible if you're Asian (although one parent could be Asian in a natural family relationship, of course). The adoptee, who calls herself Corina Knoll and is evidently employed by the Times, talks about how she spent years "yearning to be white." Evidently, this yearning came from racism, of course, and not from the fact that she grew up in a family that wasn't her own. In fact, the adoptee goes to great lengths to talk about her "grandfather" and "mother." "My parents were liberal Democrats," this adoptee says, as if she's not at all adopted, as if God and nature simply plopped her Asian body into a Caucasian woman's womb. That's not the way things work and when people pretend that people brought together by adoption are equivalent to natural families, as the adoption industry so very much wishes us to do (and with help from propaganda machines, such as the Times), the truth suffers.

This story reminds me of something I heard on a local WUNC (NPR affiliate) show one night while I was in graduate school. After I'd finished working at the YMCA, I listened to a Korean adoptee talk about being raised in a Jewish family. She said she was surprised every time she looked in the mirror, that all around her she saw Jewish people and she was surprised to see her face, that she was not Jewish but Asian. Corina Knoll states in her Times story that "Race was not something we discussed in my family," even though her adopters also adopted a Korean boy. Although Knoll's points about racism may be valid, her seeming denial that adoption has had any effect on her and that growing up in a family that was not her own, with people who are not only in a different family but of a different ethnicity, seems to say much more about adoption than the Times seems to cover. I've given up the futile effort of sending a letter to the Times, but I do hope that what I write on my blog will make people think about the lies of adoption and urge people to seek and speak the truth.

One more thing: A few years ago, before the collectivist-thinking La Leche League decided my views weren't right and they didn't want me to associate with them, although I have exclusively breastfed my children, they were all gaga over this essay that I wrote about breastfeeding. They ended up publishing it in a book, which I now have too many copies of. When I read the published essay, however, it had been edited and gone was the part about how finding my mom and indeed, being without her physically in my life for a number of years, influenced my decision to breastfeed. A few pages later, a mother who'd lost a child to adoption and then kept one and breastfed her second child told about how she was okay with losing the first child. Yes, part of the reason that the La Leche League dissed me and my first book contract was dropped (although I was paid!) is because I am for natural families staying together. Evidently, the La Leche League has a problem with that.

Therefore, the adoption myths, that adoption is wonderful and great and that people can be made parents by signing legal documents and taking in a child that God and nature gave to someone else, continue. Gone are the moms who lost children to adoption and are pissed about it. Gone are the adoptees who have found our families and are pissed about the time we lost with them. Even though some of us have had great childhoods, nothing can make up for the loss of our parents. But you won't hear these thoughts in mainstream media. Nope. Our thoughts, our words are as silent in mainstream media as Ron Paul, even though we (and he) have a lot to say.

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Trouble at Rent-A-Womb

I don't mean to sound insensitive here and I know that many people have strong feelings about surrogacy, and further, that my views do not quite align with mainstream thinking, but I really don't like the idea of a woman's renting her womb so that another woman can have a child. I really don't. I can make all kinds of excuses, but the bottom line, as out of vogue as that seems, is that it's wrong. I think that taking a baby from a mother, as is done in adoption, is wrong, although the parties involved have been led to believe they are all doing a good thing.

I have visited a fertility doctor, one who made a "guarantee." The whole process seemed a bit cheesy somehow and I am thankful that I did not have to follow his advice to have my three beautiful sons. I know some who have gone through IVF and while I'm pretty much against this procedure for myself, I know lots of people who've done it successfully. It's not my cup of tea, but as long as the dad is using his sperm and the mom is using her eggs and not pretending that someone else's sperm or egg is the dad's or mom's, respectively, I'm fine with it. It's a difficult procedure and it requires a tremendous amount of dedication for success.

To me, there's just something wrong, however, with a person who gestates another human being for someone. Nonetheless, there is a story in today's Los Angeles Times about some people who've lost thousands of dollars because of some kind of fraud in a surrogacy group, SurroGenesis USA. The article, "Fears over surrogacy funds," seems not to be available without having to pay for it online.

I don't think surrogacy or adoption or abortion or any of that stuff should be regulated by the government. That said, surrogacy costs can be close to $100,000 these days and it just seems to me that when you want a child so badly that you're willing to spend that much, well, it just seems sad somehow. I hope that all those who are thinking about surrogacy will instead become pregnant on their own. I know that there's a brisk business in the surrogacy market, however, and I know that so many people are desperate and willing to pay. Evidently, an unscrupulous person took advantage of those who want to hire a surrogate and somehow lots of surrogate-payers had their money taken with no surrogate given, and lots of surrogates are not getting paid. It's very tempting to say that when you rent a womb, or try to, perhaps trouble should easily ensue.
I wish no ill to anyone and I hope that the fraud part of this case is resolved. Still, there is something very sad to me about a woman who would rent out her womb and there is something very sad about a woman who would ask her to.

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Are Obama-ites Still Worshipping?

Of course! In fact, even though the emperor with no clothes, Emperor Obama, has said that he would like to require community service, i.e., indentured servitude, for everyone, most Obama-ites are too busy panting to understand that their children and grandchildren may be as much of an indentured servant as those folks the so-called progressives have sought to abolish. The reality seems to be that servitude is soon coming to everyone, except, of course, the power elite who pull the strings for government puppets, such as Emperor O. Nonetheless, I am, according to that pacemaker of morality, Gary Hart, one of those weird-ass types who don't worship Emperor O. Thus, I am a terrorist and you may be as well. Well, not really, but according to the nouveau definition of terrorist, brought to you by your tax dollars (and some fiat money) to the Department of Homeland Security.

I received this lovely semi-missive in e-mail today:

House Passes Mandatory National Service Bill

The House passed a bill yesterday which includes disturbing language indicating young people will be forced to undertake mandatory national service programs as fears about President Barack Obama’s promised “civilian national security force” intensify.

The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, known as the GIVE Act, was passed yesterday by a 321-105 margin and now goes to the Senate.

Under section 6104 of the bill, entitled “Duties,” in subsection B6, the legislation states that a commission will be set up to investigate, “Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.”

Section 120 of the bill also discusses the “Youth Engagement Zone Program” and states that “service learning” will be “a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency.”

“The legislation, slated to cost $6 billion over five years, would create 175,000 “new service opportunities” under AmeriCorps, bringing the number of participants in the national volunteer program to 250,000. It would also create additional “corps” to expand the reach of volunteerism into new sectors, including a Clean Energy Corps, Education Corps, Healthy Futures Corps and Veterans Service Corps, and it expands the National Civilian Community Corps to focus on additional areas like disaster relief and energy conservation,” reports Fox News.

The Senate is also considering a similar piece of legislation known as the “Serve America Act,” which also includes language about “Youth Engagement Zones”.

Fears about Obama’s plans to create involuntary servitude were first stoked in July 2008, when Obama told a rally in Colorado Springs, “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.”

Despite denials that Obama plans to institute a mandatory program of national service, his original change.gov website stated that Americans would be “required” to complete “50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year”. The text was only later changed to state that Americans would be “encouraged” to undertake such programs.

In addition, Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, publicly stated his intention to help create “universal civil defense training” in 2006.

“The bill’s opponents — and there are only a few in Congress — say it could cram ideology down the throats of young “volunteers,” many of whom could be forced into service since the bill creates a “Congressional Commission on Civic Service,” reports Fox.

“We contribute our time and money under no government coercion on a scale the rest of the world doesn’t emulate and probably can’t imagine,” said Luke Sheahan, contributing editor for the Family Security Foundation. “The idea that government should order its people to perform acts of charity is contrary to the idea of charity and it removes the responsibility for charity from the people to the government, destroying private initiative.”

Lee Cary of the conservative American Thinker warns that Obama’s agenda is to, “tap into the already active volunteerism of millions of Americans and recruit them to become cogs in a gigantic government machine grinding out his social re-engineering agenda.”

CFR luminary Gary Hart hit back at critics, claiming in a Huffington Post piece that, “Resistance to expanded public service programs can be expected from the ideologically sclerotic, those who occupy the negative ground between government as the problem and government as our enemy.”

And so, we pesky Constitutional-oriented folks are now way, way, way out of line with a starving Leviathan. And remember, when the proverbial s--- hits the fan, I didn't vote Congress back in. And I voted for Ron Paul, whom the media conveniently left out of the presidential race. As our dwindling republic continues its path to pure socialism, with nary a cry from most people, I vote for freedom. Do you?

Monday, March 16, 2009

A Very Obama Country

As many people are losing their jobs in the private sector, or rather, what's left of the private sector, the government is surely finding ways to absorb these folks into the public fold. In earlier times, by a better educated populace, we'd call this kind of thing socialism or more appropriately, communism. But it's all done by what Vox Day calls The Magic Negro and as a result, people are more than happy to accept it and simply call it Obamaism. Whatever the emperor speaks is okay and people are, of course, suffering enough that they don't particularly care that Obama is prolonging these economic bad times by commanding the government to print more money. It's pretty clear from this piece of propaganda in Forbes that fascism is not only accepted and embraced by people, but that no one dare speak its name. When the government makes public-private partnerships, you've got fascism. As this entry from Wikipedia shows, fascists favor collaboration and oppose excessive state intervention. In other words, let's all be nice and play together. Because the government says so.

The fascists made a moderate stance on the economy, effectively declaring that they favoured class collaboration while opposing excessive state intervention into the economy, and calling for pressure on industrialists and workers to be cooperative and constructive, saying:

As for economic democracy, we favor national syndicalism and reject State intervention whenever it aims at throttling the creation of wealth.[36]

We shall fight against technological and moral backwardness. There are industrialists who shun both technological and moral innovations. If they don't find the strength to transform themselves they will be swept aside. We must impress upon the workers, however, that it is one thing to destroy, and quite another to build. Destruction can be the work of an hour, but construction may require years or centuries.[37]


No one much cares any more that we are much less free than we were even ten years ago. As long as Emperor Obama is at the helm, people believe they can relax and rake in the government benefits. Mr. Thinking Mama and I are currently on COBRA insurance, which means that we are paying $1400 per month to be insured. Do I like this? Not particularly. And who knows what the future holds? It will be nice if Mr. Thinking Mama finds a job where he has insurance benefits, but if not, then we'll figure out something else. Unfortunately, the government has interfered way too much in the insurance business and premiums are extremely high these days. The solution, according to the Obama-ites is that the government must rescue us even more. Even intelligent folks believe this crap these days. With media continuing pro-Socialist propaganda and smearing or ignoring people who actually believe in the Constitution, such as Ron Paul, what else can we really expect?

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

A Stimulating Stimulus

There's not a lot of time to write these days. Or rather, I'm not taking a lot of time to write. There are bigger proverbial fish to fry. Anyway, I did take a glance at the News and Disturber today and I found out that North Carolina, which has turned into some kind of totalitarian madhouse since we left, is now about to have its capital city, in which I lived for many years, receive a bit of stimulation for an already hungry police force. Now, I'll say that I've never had anything but good happen to me when Raleigh's finest have brushed by me, although I have gotten a few speeding tickets (mainly from lesbian police officers--they never let anyone get away with anything). Nonetheless, all local police departments these days seem to be into receiving federal money, either not realizing that money comes with strings attached or not caring that it does. Either way, the result is that the feds can dictate even more closely what local police departments do. And that is not good at all. Take a look at the story's sidebar and you'll see that quite a few North Carolina cities are sucking from the Obama teat (sorry for the visual on that one). It's a shame and there's no telling what kind of guidelines the feds will come up with for all this money they're doling out. The real mystery here, however, is how the News and Disturber has not bothered to mention a bit about how this stimulus package fits in with anything in the Constitution. I wonder if Obama's covered this whole Constitutional thing at all in relation to all the money he's been encouraging Congress to print so that the masses will feel more secure in their indentured servitude. Well, I try not to listen to his doublespeak; so, maybe I missed his speech on it.

Friday, March 6, 2009

Michelle Obama Serves at a Soup Kitchen and I Don't Care!

Sung to the tune of "Jimmy Cracked Corn." Really, the Obamas are excellent at p.r. I wish I could remember right now, and I'm in a hurry so I'm not looking it up, where it says in the Bible that good deeds should be done in secret. A celebrity--and make no mistake, the Obamas are indeed that--can't say hi to a homeless person without somebody writing a press release about it. The Obamas can hardly sneeze without somebody calling their excrement holy and writing an article about it. Ron Paul, meanwhile, defends the Constitution at every chance he can get and no one seems to notice. Gosh, I wonder why I think that mainstream media is bought and paid for. But it's working--the sheep are following.