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.

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Is God Really in Control of This?!?

First, let me say that I do consider myself a Christian, although not a very good one. I believe it's dangerous, however, to attribute things to God's will when I am probably not wise enough to know what is in God's will and what isn't. Having said that, I contemplate my own life quite often and sometimes, in hindsight, I try to figure out what was God's will. But I do that in my own life, not in the lives of others, especially not babies. Nonetheless, there is a group of religious folk that, despite their protests, profit quite nicely from adoption. They are a bit more modest, of course, at least when it comes to adoption:

Obviously we are not in control of this process---God is! When you try to rush things and get a baby in your time instead of His timing then things never work out. God is COMPLETELY SOVEREIGN and He has been and will work in your lives for your good and His glory. If you try to put the puzzle together yourself you will miss the work that He is doing in your heart and life.

and then there's this lovely passage:

But in the end when you place yourself in the center of God's will for growing your family, then it is time to sit back and enjoy the ride. If it takes one month or one year for that child to find his/her way into your family realize and accept that God's timing is perfect! Don't try to worry about tomorrow or be envious of those around you who have what you want. Place your trust in God who already has your future planned out. He knows the desires of your heart to be a parent to a child through adoption.

Funny how the adopters are not supposed to "be envious," but if they really weren't envious, they'd be helping a mom to keep her baby, don't ya think?!?

And I really super duper love the way these supposed Christians act as though they're not making money on adoption transactions. How much does God will, I wonder, for the adopters to pay the agency for their "gift," i.e. infant? See what happens when you try to figure out what's God's will as you play some kind of strange chess game with infants and their natural families? See how it seem as though God has a big chessboard and is moving around children like pawns. Attempting to save some supposed queen perhaps?!?

Someone passed along this Web site on Facebook and I really appreciate it. Adoption propaganda such as this used to really bother me, but it doesn't so much anymore. I do marvel, however, at how far some Christians have come in swallowing the adoption lies that a greedy industry has been perpetuating for years. It's a real shame, isn't it?!? Even though this "Christian" agency's social workers are matchmakers for adopters and children taken from the natural mothers that God gave them, it is God, of course, who's in control. So, God is not only taking away a child from his or her mother, the only mother who can custom make milk for the baby that has grown inside her, but God is also, if these folks are to be believed, responsible for finding the right strangers to take this child from the mother. I don't remember reading about such a God-oriented ritual in the New Testament. Even the Old Testament's story of Moses illustrates that in the end, the child goes with his or her natural family. At least that's how I'd interpret that story. But the adoption industry, a $1.6 billion dollar biz in the U.S., has laid claim to Moses as well, passing him off as the world's first Biblically-sanctioned adoptee or some such.

Anyway, I'm having an especially difficult time with Christians who think that it's okay to break apart natural God-created families to fulfill some kind of strange Orwellian scheme. I'm sure that the Christians, if they read this blog, would think that I'm crazy for suggesting such things. But those of us who have thought deeply and circumspectly about adoption would think I am more or less sane.

Monday, September 20, 2010

Adoption and the Real World

It's so very easy for those of us who have been separated from our natural families by adoption to theorize and publicize and whatever-else-icize our feelings about adoption. It's easy for us to pontificate about how horrid adoption is and how terrible it is to separate children from their families. Sooner or later, however, most of us run into adoption in the real world and there, most of us disconnect from the brave souls that we are on the Internet.

Yesterday, that disconnect happened to me. I was talking with someone here in N.C. who also happened to be a Facebook friend and she was holding a baby. We were talking about some stuff from high school and, even though I didn't remember her precisely, I guessed her to be about my age. "Is that your daughter?" I asked, thinking it was so very cool that someone had a daughter when a part of me has not yet given up on having my own daughter. "Yes," she said. "She looks like you," I said, because the child did have the same hair color as the woman holding her. "She's adopted," the woman continued, making a comment about how the child actually looks more like her husband. There I was, in the middle of a church baptizing, dealing with what I was going to say to a woman who felt it was okay to take away a child from her mother. I did the only polite thing I could think to do at the time, "Oh," I said. Then, I left as soon as I could.

It's sometimes more than a little strange being in North Carolina, facing people who know me only as "Beauford's girl" or "Ann's daughter," when the reality is that I am no kin to Ann or Beauford. As much as I dislike California, I really enjoy the freedom I have there to live with the truth. I can talk about my real dad or mom or any other members of my natural family and I can be who I really am, not as the little girl whose natural identity was changed by the horrid Children's Home Society of North Carolina. I have a really strong desire to be in the place where I grew up, to live here and to raise my children here. There is so much comfort in this place. And yet, there are so many people who view me as something I am not: the daughter of Beauford and Ann.

In many ways, with the adoptress I met yesterday, I acted the only way I could in a polite setting. It would have done little good to tell her how I feel about adoption or to explain to her that I was not going along with her little fantasy and that I would not call the child she was holding her daughter. I'm not going to lie. But it felt awfully wonderful to know the truth inside me and to hold that truth, even if I don't openly proclaim it on every street corner. I felt a little more at peace with things yesterday than I did just a few years ago, when I would feel and take on a child's hurt from being separated from the mother.

The truth is that as long as adoption agencies make money, adoption propaganda will prevail and adopters will think of taking another woman's child as something to be desired, as crazy as that sounds to so very many of us. On this blog, I can voice the truth and if and when adopters find it, so be it. In the real world, I will not lie to perpetuate the adoption fantasy. Nope. I just won't do it.

I know that many people look at me here as Beauford and Ann's "daughter," although I have never been and never will be. And I know that some of them have an antagonistic attitude toward my real parents, thinking that I'm being somehow disloyal to Ann and Beauford by acknowledging my natural family. So be it. I know the truth and I am becoming more comfortable with it every day.

Monday, July 26, 2010

Nomenclature: Oh, So Very Important!

A kind and gentle reader left this comment on a previous post:

I was curious about your input on the following situation.

I know a family who adopted a little girl about a year ago now.

The child's natural parents are both white-collar professionals. They have two other children, both early school age. Stable jobs, stable home, stable life. And yet they decided not to parent their third child.


The child has Down syndrome, and they did not want to parent a special-needs child.


I certainly do have some thoughts about this situation. Evidently, this kind of thing, in which parents disregard a child who is less than perfect, is becoming quite the trend among upper-middle-class white professionals. A friend that I grew up with is raising a child who has severe autism because his parents did not want to deal with him. I realize also that I am coming from a perspective in which I have three very healthy children, for which I am extremely thankful. So, I haven't had to face the decision of whether or not to keep a less than perfect child or give him or her to someone else to raise. Still, I can't help but wonder why parents would give away this or any other special-needs child. It seems quite crazy to me. An important part of this post, however, seems to be the nomenclature itself, i.e., "they did not want to parent a special-needs child." (emphasis mine) Here's a news flash for those parents: You've already parented this child! And thus, I am thrust, once again, into the ugly world of adoption nomenclature.

Adoption nomenclature, decried by many as unimportant, shapes the way our brains think about adoption. Many people think that calling natural parents "birthparents" or using parent as a verb, i.e., She has chosen not to parent her child, is not a big deal. Hey, I was an English teacher for five years; I know the power of words. Why did the United States government change, for instance, the Department of War to the Department of Defense? It was, of course, so that we could have perpetual war and feel good about it. We're defending the country, of course, not making war. Yeah, right.

Nonetheless, the social wreckers who seek to separate natural families find it absolutely essential to talk to young-moms-to-be and tell them that they can decide whether or not to "parent" their child. No, you're wrong, social wreckers. If a mom-to-be is pregnant, then she and the father have already parented, whether or not they are ready to raise the child. Indeed, adoption would be tons more honest were it stated that yes, you are already a parent when you contribute to the child's DNA. No, you cannot decide to "parent" or not because that decision has already been made. You can, however, decide to let someone else raise your child. And if you decide to allow someone else to raise your child, the child is still yours, no matter what the legal documents may say. After delving into this adoption industry mess, I've discovered that legal documents are often a bunch of pure crap. After all, my fabricated birth certificate says that I was born to two people who never had a child. If you can believe the government after realizing what it does to birth certificates in this country, you are much more tolerant of lies than I.

Is there something strange about parents who don't want to raise their special-needs child? I think so. Then again, I've yet to walk in those particular shoes. Does giving your child away make those who take the child into parents? No, sadly, it does not, even though the adopters may well do many things that are parent-like.

If we were all only honest about adoption, realizing that each child has two and only two natural parents and that the natural parent-child relationship should be respected--ah, then the world would be a much more honest and less adoption-friendly place. And that kind of world would be just fine with me.

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Visit from a Census Worker

He came to the Gingerbread House door today and just stood there, waiting for me to open it. Yes, we have a tight schedule today and no, I didn't have time for a census worker questionnaire, but my schedule should not have mattered because we filled out the form and sent it in. Nonetheless, "Joe," as he asked me to call him, even though his nametag said "Joseph," told me that they had no received it. It was a scary thing to have him at the door; I didn't know him from Adam's housecat. But because he was wearing his official census worker jacket (which looks like the official road worker jacket, i.e., the yellow and orange safety thing), I was supposed to trust this guy. I told him that five people live in our house, he asked me if I wanted to say their names and ages and I told him "No." "Constitutionally, that's all you need to know," I told him, after telling him there were five people here.

According to Joe's story, he needed to confirm he'd been here or we'd be getting even more visits, even more interruptions to my yoga or our book reports or our blessing before the meal or whatever else they are willing to interrupt. Mr. Thinking Mama said to give him his name, which I did (no, his real name isn't Mr. Thinking Mama and no, that's not what I told Census Joe) and a phone number (not our home phone) so that Joe will not get into trouble. I kinda liked Joe, actually; I felt as though he was probably some displaced social wrecker or computer programmer. And it really was hard to tell which with Joe. He complimented me on our flag as he was leaving, after he'd written down "5" and my husband's information, and he told me that not many people fly flags these days. I felt somewhat bonded with Joe by that time and told him that we'd had it up since July 4th and that we indeed need to take it down.

"Just shine a light on it at night," he said, as he walked down the Gingerbread House walk and onto the sidewalk.

"Thank you!" I said, and I really meant it. Joe's just doing his job, which is more than I can say for many people. I felt a little sorry for him, out in this heat doing the Constitutional and unConstitutional bidding of the government, but I did not give him information that was unConstitutional and I hope that I made him think: I'm a homeschooling freedom-oriented mom that doesn't like to be bothered by Census workers who ask unConstitutional questions. Maybe I'm the only one of those that Joe encountered all day.

Saturday, May 29, 2010

Gary Coleman, Adoptee. Surprised?

As with so many other Gen-Xers, I grew up watching "Different Strokes." I felt close to Kimberly, and figured that both she, and the actress who played her, Dana Plato, whose birthdate is very close to mine, had lives that I would only ever envy. Then came the 90s, and Plato became a real person with real problems. She died around Mother's Day, supposedly of suicide, leaving a son who, 11 years later, would kill himself around Mother's Day. As is the case with far too many stories like this one, adoption may well have been the seed for the destruction that followed. Turns out, Dana Michelle Plato's real mom was a 16-year-old with an 18-month-old at Dana's time of birth. Dana lucked out in adoptionspeak by getting herself hooked up with a couple who had no children of their own. Dana's adopters may well have been nice folks, but even nice folks cannot wipe away the pain of adoption.

The actress who won the hearts of so many with her portrayal of Kimberly lost custody of her own son to his father, but she seemed to influence her son enough that he desired to die as she did. Dana Plato also flirted with lesbianism, another trait I've noticed among adoptees. There is something about losing family members that really seems to screw people over sexually. I may write more about the sexuality stuff later. In this case, however, the pain of adoption spanned generations.

As I was reading about Gary Coleman's untimely death today, I read that he was also an adoptee, taken in by two people who were genetic strangers to him. Some of us adoptees handle the rejection by our natural families better than others, at least on the outside, but we all have a pain that will never go away: the rejection by our mothers. I'm not sure why I am here and Dana Plato is not, but it may have something to do with the fact that I wasn't on a sitcom as a child. Not for lack of wanting to be on one, mind you, did I miss out on child sitcomhood. There's an enormous amount of pressure on child stars and I'm now quite thankful that the opportunity wasn't presented to me when I was ten or so. Molly Ringwald's done okay for herself, but Dana Plato and Gary Coleman had the extra albatross of adoption on their backs, of being separated from their natural parents and given to genetic strangers. The adoption brainwashed will tell you this kind of thing doesn't matter. We adoptees, deep in our broken hearts, know better.

It's not a fabulous thing for most children to be thrust into the spotlight at such a young age, as both Plato and Coleman were, but it's even worse if that spotlight is preceded by separation from a child's natural parents. What really gets me about both Plato and Coleman is that the adopters were both called "parents" by the media. Fortunately, Plato's real mom is mentioned in Wikipedia, but nothing about Coleman's mom or dad seems to be in any obituary that I've read. I can't help but wonder if his mom is out there somewhere, watching all that is going on. Perhaps she feels ashamed and afraid to speak up.

Like many male adoptees, Coleman seemed to take out his angst on women. He hit a woman in 1999 and he and his wife seemed to have many violent arguments, according to what I've read. He also sued his adopters at one point, claiming they had defrauded him. It's so very sad that this kind of thing happens and that child sitcom stars so very often end up with crappy adulthoods. However, when you add the pain and lies of adoption to a childhood sitcom career, the results are so very often disastrous.

An interesting note is that Coleman had some kind of autoimmune disease that affected his kidneys; my own mother has an autoimmune disease and I remember a female adoptee that I grew up with who died of leukemia at 7. Many moms who've lost a child to adoption died of cancer. What I'd like to find out is if the pain and trauma of losing a parent or child to adoption so affects our bodies that we are more susceptible to certain diseases. I've never heard of this kind of thing being studied, but I'd sure like to know what truly unbiased researchers would find out about the effects of adoption trauma on those of us who are separated.

Sunday, May 16, 2010

Why Most Adoptees Really Dislike Me

Hate might be a more appropriate word. I used to seem to attract adoptees to me. Then, my dream came true. I found my mom. Adoptees, even one I'd been friends with for more than a decade, dropped me. Suddenly, I was pissing them off or they were pissing me off or something. Now, when I learn that somebody's an adoptee, I know to be careful. I have learned that most adoptees really dislike me. And so, it shouldn't surprise me that when I posted a comment to this blog regarding Sandra Bullock's new adoptee, I received this comment:

Tricia, your comments are completely uncalled for. She did not take a child from his mother. She chose to open her loving heart and home to a child who was either not wanted or unable to be cared for by his mother. You don’t know the situation. Most likely, her money would not have helped that child’s biological mother. Some women do not have the emotional maturity to be able to take care of a child and choose to give that child up for adoption for that child’s well-being. I myself am adopted, and have NEVER wanted to meet my [parents]. To me, my parents (sic) are the ones to were there for me, cared for me, loved me, etc. Not some woman who gave me up. Sandra Bullock is giving this beautiful baby a chance at life! Would you rather this baby be raised by the foster care system? Clearly, you do not understand much of anything about adoption, even though you claim you were adopted.

Enough of my rant. Your comment truly angered me.

Yeah, I often really wish that claim weren't true for me. But it is. The pain of adoption is something I've had to live with since before birth. And physical separation from my mother is something I experienced at two months old. Still, I don't find myself steeped in adoption brainwashing, as, apparently, TB is. I'm not sure why what I said angered her so much. TB's opinion is certainly that of mainstream media and her words could easily be printed in the ever-declining New York Times. Mine? Those of moms who've lost a child or more to adoption? Those of adoptees who've gotten past the brainwashing? Oh, not so much. In fact, I've witnessed an incredible suppression of our point of view. If it weren't for the Internet, views against adoption would be hard to find.

Perhaps my view threatens most adoptees because it is indeed very difficult to change what you've been told as long as you can consciously remember, i.e., when I go back home to the place where I grew up, I'm transported back to being "Beauford's girl," which I may have been, but I certainly was never his natural daughter. And yes, he and his wife loved me very much and I still miss them and they did very many parental-type things for me. But does it make them my natural parents? And did it take away the desire for me to find my natural family? And as much of a ruckus that my reunion with my natural parents caused in my life, do I regret being able to tell my own flesh and blood who their flesh and blood maternal grandparents and other family members are?

Adoption itself, the falsifying of birth certificates, and the taking away of one's parents and natural family to be replaced by genetic strangers are to blame for the often-permanent separation of families by adoption agencies. Every time a celebrity adopts, I think of all the public relations money that the adoption industry, a $1.6 billion business, has saved. The very white Sandra Bullock has taken the money that we've paid to see her and used it to buy herself a baby from some black mama who's probably been coached to be thankful that her baby can be raised by Sandra Bullock's nanny (don't fool yourself into thinking that Bullock is really doing this as most single moms do, without help). The mama who lost her baby to Bullock will never ever get over the loss of her baby; the child will never feel quite right at Bullock's house (although the child will sing the prai$e$ of Bullock as a "mom," no doubt); and the child's natural family will feel the loss for generations. Still, it makes a fabulous People cover story. As you can see from the comments, People's coverage of Bullock as "America's sweetheart" these last few months is certainly making a hero's journey out of her four-year attempt to take away a mother's child (remember that there is currently one adoptable baby for each 40 adopter hopefuls, i.e., the demand for adoptable babies far exceeds the supply). Note also that the natural mom was as completely absent from this story as the adoptress was present. And that, my friends, is what mainstream magazine adoption stories are all about. I dislike those biased stories greatly, almost as much as most adoptees dislike me.

Monday, May 10, 2010

Questions Re: "Taliban in Burbank"

I didn't think my article was yet published and I came to write a comic friend about a show that I may do tonight and I discovered these e-mails, both of which raise important points. I don't write to answer all the questions, but to raise other questions and to help myself understand better. I was so angry about the government's slap on the wallet that I plain old didn't think about something I should have. I was pretty darn rebellious, as I often am. When the government extracts money from many people, we are busy focusing on the punishment and not on the gravity of the situation: Is it safe to talk on the cell phone? If the officer in my escapade had treated me to these couple of paragraphs and let me go, sans padding the coffers of Burbank, I would have been much more likely to listen and to do the safe thing:

With all due respect and a hatred for citations which have more to do with raising revenue than anything else, may I suggest you hang up and drive? You can chit chat with your friends when you're watching the T-ball games. With three kids in the car and the LA traffic you already have a tough job, multi-tasker or not.

When I was a working cop (who gave out tickets only to people who compromised others' safety and financial standing-like red light runners, lane weavers and people with no insurance) I scraped up a lot of people parts and car parts that were put there by people texting and talking while driving.

Sage advice indeed from a retired police officer. I plan to take it. After all, I make sure that my children wear seat belts even though I think that law is just as ridiculous. I received this e-mail that questioned quite a bit:

[W\here were you when they passes the stupid seat belt laws? [W}here were you when they increased the d.u.i. laws to the point of hardship? [W]here were you when they passed the stupid non-smoking laws?? and on and on--and----"they finally came for you"---you have to protect other peoples rights,even though you may not agree with them, to protect your own.

Let's take these questions one at a time:

[W\here were you when they passes the stupid seat belt laws? I was taking a public speaking class as an undergraduate at North Carolina State University. It was one of the first libertarian moments of my life; I remember thinking that seat belts are a fabulous idea. My mind hasn't changed on that one. And I remember thinking how horrid it was that a law had to be passed. After all, nobody had to tell me to wear a seat belt and I didn't grow up wearing one. I had become educated on how wonderful seat belts can be. And I'd even had a good experience with them. But like motorcycle helmet laws and other things that are supposedly for our own good, I couldn't see the point of making a law of it. I wrote a speech about why seat belt laws should not be passed and shared it with my class. It seemed like common sense to me that seat belts and other things inside a private vehicle are the business of that vehicle's owners, but now, only a couple of decades later, everybody accepts the law without question. It's quite sad indeed how much freedom we have lost and nobody seems to care.

[W}here were you when they increased the d.u.i. laws to the point of hardship?

Oh, I wasn't happy about that change either. I was not Internet savvy, being that the Internet had not yet been passed out of government hands and into the hands of so very many. I must admit that at this time I was under the brainwashing of the media, believing that there was really some kind of huge difference between Democrats and Republicans. I was probably not alone in this, but politics became more like a football game to me. Then again, other than writing letters to the editor, which I did from time to time, what was I to do?

[W]here were you when they passed the stupid non-smoking laws??
Yikes! I'm still incensed (sorry!) about this one. I heard on National Propaganda Radio the other day that Arkansas has banned smoking in private cars. I really hope that I was hallucinating. As with seat belts, I'm not much for smoking. In fact, I rather hate it, having grown up in a house filled with secondhand smoke. People, especially women for some strange reason, welcome these laws as if they were warm apple strudel. I can't explain why.

I'm open to ideas on how to protect the rights of myself and others.

Friday, May 7, 2010

You Don't Have To Go To Arizona To Be Treated Like A Terrorist

Be careful in Burbank, California: the city needs revenue.

Driving from the baseball field, where I'd dropped off Nine, to the place where Five and I were supposed to go to Nursery Rhyme Dance, I saw the police officer's motorcycle in my rear view mirror. I didn't think about it at the time, of course, but now I remember how Claire Wolfe, one of my favorite freedom writers, talked about not having a car and how wonderful it was to have freedom from the blue light in the rear view mirror. Ah, but our government taxfeeders do love to make us late for things and to miss things all together, just for the privilege of driving on their roads, of course. Here I was, a law-abiding mom just trying to get my children to where they needed to go, and totally and completely following the rules of the road. Except, of course, for the cell phone use rule. I've written about this ridiculous law when it was first passed in California, but now, things have really gotten out of hand. On a day when the stock market took a strange plunge, I began to see what our country is coming to: a totalitarian mess in which little old ladies, moms, and other innocent folks can be stopped, detained, asked for identification, and treated like a criminal. I did, of course, sign the document that said I was guilty of the crime, with no jury trial; not doing so may have gotten me arrested and harassed even longer by the people whose salary my tax dollars pay.

What really got me about this particular stop, my first in California (although I have gotten a camera ticket), is that the officer was so very polite in his zero tolerance mess. I was very polite back to him, of course. The officer seemed void of intuition, as if his common sense had been politely brainwashed out of him and he even had to give a ticket to someone who probably is a lot like his own wife. If you're not familiar with zero tolerance, it's this crazy thing that's all the rage in government schools these days. In fact, I read the other day that a kindergartner or first grader (I forget exactly which) was expelled for hugging another student. I help to manage and coach a t-ball team and yes, the children can get a bit huggy sometimes; and sometimes, they can hit each other too much. However, I always let them know, very gently, that hugging and hitting and all those touchy feely things aren't allowed on the t-ball field. We're there to play t-ball and that's it. I don't expel them, but I do warn them that if they continue behavior that has nothing to do with t-ball, they'll have to sit out the rest of practice. This kind of thing has worked (so far!) every time and the t-ball players generally stop whatever annoying distracting behavior they're doing and get down to business, at least for a couple of minutes. In the zero tolerance atmosphere of the government schools, however, there is indeed no room for common sense. Thus, the student who brings a knife to school, or who hugs another student, or who hits another student is now being shown the open door back to his or her parents house for a few days, where students belong in the first place.

I mention the zero tolerance atmosphere of the government schools because it is one that we are all slowly going to have to get used to. The last time I was pulled, for speeding as we were going through Arizona to North Carolina, the officer saw that I was an innocent mom, driving while my husband and sons slept. I told him that we were trying to get to our motel that night (it was after midnight). He very nicely gave me a warning ticket and I went on my way, extremely careful about not speeding. That was a couple of years ago, however. If you're expecting this kind of common sense behavior to continue from those whose loins are girded with tax money, you need to wake yourself out of your stupor.

I was woken up yesterday, as I was very nicely treated as a criminal in front of two of my children. The very polite officer, who was, of course, just doing his job, was more than likely fulfilling a quota. He had been sitting and waiting for someone like me, someone who believes the cell phone law is ridiculous and hasn't bothered paying to get a hands-free device or didn't want to put the phone on speaker, neither of which makes talking on the cell phone much safer. Make no mistake: if I'd told him that I was trying to get a sick child to St. Joseph's Hospital and I'd called the dad to tell him, this officer would not have budged. After all, he had a quota to fill. No doubt, Burbank revenue is now declining in this economy and the tax-feeding officer was up front about telling me that they are now ticketing heavily for cell phone use. In fact, when I finally made it to ballet and tap classes (unfortunately, we missed Nursery Rhyme Dance), I found that another mom had received a cell phone ticket just three weeks ago, with the same line from the officer about how Burbank is now ticketing heavily for cell phone usage. Translation: Burbank needs money and will extol it from those who drive within its confines, all the while making innocent people, in the supposed comfort of their own private property, into lightweight criminals.

I'd heard, as have others I talked with, that the cell phone use fee was $25 or so. But he told me that my ticket would be $130; the other mom I talked with told me that her ticket was $141. As our car registration is due this month, the officer reminded me that I must park my car after May 10th and not drive it until I receive the proper registration information. Yeah. Right. Mr. Thinking Mama, btw, said that we have until the end of the month. There is no doubt that the taxfeeding* officer saw what a target I really was and took it upon himself to remind me that I could become even more of a victim by the state of California. Having said all this, the taxfeeder did not pull me out of the car and frisk me or anything like that and in these days of Amerika as a police state, I should certainly be thankful for that. Still, it was a humiliating experience and the thing I've learned is that I now have to buy the more cumbersome "hands-free" device, which I was trying to avoid, and that I need to use the speaker and put my cell phone in my lap or in my console. A very well-meaning Facebook friend suggested that perhaps Burbank is trying to eliminate cell phone accidents, and I'm sure that any taxfeeder will tell you that's the case, but I don't believe that for a minute. In fact, I can tell you that if he'd been trying to do that, he would have done exactly what the officer in Arizona did: Give me a warning ticket. A good p.r. campaign could lower those accident rates, but the government would have to spend money to do it; by giving tickets, the government prospers.

On a related note, I happened to be going the wrong way on the very confusing Chandler Blvd. in Burbank the other day. A very sweet woman pulled up beside me and made me aware of what I was doing. I quickly got into the correct lane and continued, promising myself to be more careful in this neck of the proverbial woods. And yet, what would a police officer have done? Give me a ticket, no questions asked or answered. I'm thankful that zero tolerance has not yet creeped into the general population and the woman was helpful to me. When my father-in-law tells me, as he did just the other day, that the government is just trying to protect us, I almost have to laugh out loud. If the government were trying to protect us, they wouldn't be fining us at every opportunity. It's hard to believe that there was so little going on in Burbank at 5:30 p.m. that the officer had nothing better to do than give a mom a ticket. As more and more laws are created by those we elect to serve us, this situation is only going to get worse.

And so, if I'd been eating a hamburger or putting on make-up, I would have been okay. But talking on the cell phone with my husband cost me $130 and took away Five's and my Nursery Rhyme Dance class for the day.

I know that a lot has been said lately about Arizona and its new draconian law that allows anybody at anytime to be asked for papers please, but you don't have to go to Arizona to be treated like a terrorist. If your particular jurisdiction hasn't yet come around to the revenue-boosting zero tolerance attitude yet, it certainly will. Remember this: The government is not there to protect you; it's there because you pay it to be. I'm becoming more and more disgusted with the way it's treating its customers.

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Just Say No to the National Biometric ID Card!

Within a week of Mr. Thinking Mama's and my having to pay a humongous federal income tax bill because of his successful self-employment this past year, I shouldn't be surprised that the elites who run the government have come up with a new way to treat us like chattel. After all they extract money from us; why shouldn't they also try to control how we make that money? In many ways, they already do; I remember when employers were forced to start the ridiculous required showing of social security card and other i.d. in order, simply, to be employed. According to this article by John W. Whitehead, however, things can get worse. Much worse. The REAL ID concept has frightened me for years; however, Internet awareness caused citizens to raise quite the uproar against the bill authorizing it and many states protested, as I hope will also happen with Emperor O's magical-health-care-for-all. Congressional timewasters have found a new way, however, to monitor our every move. And this particular bill has bipartisan support, showing that, indeed, congress critters are united in their desire to take us to new socialistic heights. Of course, the mere mention of this country's lengthy but sure descent into socialism makes me a "moron" to the supposedly enlightened and progressive "left," otherwise intelligent people who can't quite seem to make an intelligent argument against the idea that Emperor O's magical-health-care-for-all plan. When one fails to make a cohesive argument, it is always a good idea, evidently, to resort to the same thing that my 5-, 7-, and 9-year-old too often attempt: Call the opposition a bad name. Nonetheless, all will suffer if this bill is passed:

A centerpiece of the immigration bill as proposed by Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is a requirement that all U.S. workers, citizen and resident alike, be required to obtain and carry biometric Social Security cards (national ID cards under a different name) in order to work within the United States. Attempting to appease critics of a national ID card, Schumer and Graham insist that "no government database would house everyone’s information" and that the "cards would not contain any private information, medical information, or tracking devices." However, those claims are blatantly false. Indeed, this proposed biometric card is nothing more than an end-run around opposition to a national ID card.

When I was growing up, not so long ago, I heard preachers talk about a "mark of the beast," although I don't often hear about it in today's government-sponsored churches. Yes, it seems like something of sci-fi novels and the wet dream of Big Brother come true, but however fictional it may seem, the reality is that it's the elite's way of controlling the chattel:

The time to resist is now. If we don’t, eventually, we will all have to possess one of these cards in order to be a functioning citizen in American society. Failing to have a biometric card will render you a non-person for all intents and purposes. Your whole life will depend on this card – your ability to work, travel, buy, sell, access health care, and so on.

What we used to call science fiction is now reality. And whether a national ID card is the mark of the Beast or the long arm of Big Brother, the outcome remains the same.

Or, you could be like my otherwise intelligent father-in-law. We were having a telephone conversation the other day and the subject came up of the TSA's pornographic X-rays of those who choose to fly these days. Mr. Thinking Mama's father assured me that this invasive step was necessary to stop the evil terrorists that anxiously await the opportunity to create a new 9-11. He also told me that the government is just trying to protect us. Ah, and I had so much respect for him. Evidently, his many years of working in mainstream media has brought him fully in line with what the elite would like for him to believe. However, I'm teaching his grandchildren the truth.

Sunday, April 11, 2010

Adoptress Seeks Refund

Recently, someone I have known since elementary school found me on Facebook. When she added me, I looked on her Facebook page, found her phone number, and gave her a call. It was great talking with her, and I don't think I'd talked with her since graduation. One of the first things that she mentioned on the phone, however, was that she remembered my telling her that I am adopted. I'd forgotten I told her, but that's not so unusual; I've probably suppressed a lot of memories regarding adoption. She told me that she'd never heard of anyone who was adopted and that she went home and asked her mother all kinds of questions. True, those of us who are adoptees are kind of hatched rather than born, or so it seems to us, especially prior to finding our natural families. Hearing about the day of my birth from my mother, after being thought of as being hatched for so very long, was a true miracle. I'm so very thankful that I found my parents, even though my mother and I no longer speak to each other. Finding my natural parents has been a huge blessing, despite the hardships of trying to get to know family members that I didn't grow up with. There's no doubt that I have harbored a bit of anger about being taken from my mother, deprived of breastfeeding, and given to strangers. Fortunately, I'm learning to deal with that anger, release it, and move on with my life.

Look at the comments on this blog, however, and you'll find some in which adopters accuse me of all kinds of things, including needing therapy. It's really difficult for many, although not all, adopters to come to terms with the fact that a) they may act in a parental role, but they are not their adoptee's real parents; and b) adoption is not going to solve the child's huge problem of being separated from his or her parents. Therefore, many adopters believe that they are actually helping a child by taking the child away from his or her extended family and country and bringing said child to the overstimulated Western world, where the child can have everything that his or her family has always dreamed of, except, of course, for the family that God and nature gave the child. Sometimes, adoption fantasies grow so large that adopters believe they can actually have the child of their dreams. As those of us who are fortunate enough to be natural parents know, sometimes our children are nightmares. When this kind of thing happens to me, I may want to be mad at my child, but when all is said and done, that child is often merely a little mirror of his dad or of me or of someone in our families. Oh, how it really hurts to see so much of myself in my children sometimes! Adopters, being genetic strangers to their adoptees, must often feel as though they are trying to do the impossible: Make someone who doesn't belong in their family belong in their family. Sometimes, this arrangement works just fine and everybody's more or less happy, at least on the surface. I grew up pretty much that way. Deep inside, however, many of us adoptees, no matter how successful and wonderful we may look on the outside, suffer an almost intolerable pain on the inside. To me, it's fascinating when a young adoptee, cutting through all his or her pain, can vent that pain. Like so many others, I hid a lot of my pain and internalized it, sabotaging mainly myself. Boys, however, are often a bit more sensitive, interestingly enough, about this pain and will sometimes act out, as this little guy did. In no way am I condoning his behavior, but let's face it: His adoptress took him away from his family and his native land and expected him to be grateful, no doubt, for the opportunity to be raised in the greatest empire-building country in the world.

He wasn't much for it:

The grandmother of an adopted boy who was sent back to Russia alone on an airplane says the child was violent and angry with his mother in the U.S.

Nancy Hansen told The Associated Press on Friday from her home in Shelbyville, Tenn., that she put the child on a plane to Russia with a note from her daughter. She says the family paid a man $200 to pick the boy up at the airport and take him to the Russian Education and Science Ministry.

Hansen says the boy, known as Justin to his adoptive family, was sent back to the ministry because the family thought officials there could take care of him. She says it wasn't child abandonment because a stewardess was watching the boy on the flight and a reputable person picked him up in Russia.

Again, I'm not at all condoning his behavior, but at least he can use for his excuse the fact that he's a little boy. The adoptress did something I can't imagine doing to any child: She stuck a scared little boy on a plane alone and sent him back to Russia. It appears as though he wasn't the child she'd hoped he would be. I guess the whole forever family thing that adoption agencies so love to tout didn't quite work here.

Note that the article itself calls the adoptress his "mother" and the adoptress' mother his "grandmother." It sure doesn't take much these days for the media to form a pretend family.

Monday, March 22, 2010

Welcome to Amerika!

As we raced Pinewood Derby cars with my Bear and Wolf scouts and their little brother, a self-proclaimed "nothing scout" yesterday, I felt helpless. As an American, I am supposed to have some say in what my representatives do. At least that's what the Constitution seems to call for. For the past 100 years or so, the Constitution has been ignored more and more until finally, yesterday, we became conscious vassals of the state, of a federal government that is primarily owned by China, a country that has bought most of our debt. What was I supposed to do to stop this mess? None of the calls I've made to Congress seem to work. My well-meaning self-proclaimed "liberal" friends cannot stop name calling long enough to stop and look at what this health care bill is going to mean for them; and those on the dole are simply ecstatic that the government will be giving them something seemingly for free. People have been fooled by the government schools for so long, believing them also to be free, that most are economically ignorant, an excellent position for the government to take over care of their bodies. So-called liberals who campaign vehemently for abortion as a woman's right have no idea what kind of control they're giving to the government with their whole bodies. My well-meaning self-proclaimed "conservative" friends dislike this bill but I've heard some of these so-called conservatives more than willing to compromise and have a bill with which the government still controls their health, just with lower costs or more of an illusion of freedom. Many of these conservatives are also fine with paying taxes to kill people in other parts of the world, but are quite aghast at the supposed death panels that will eventually come via rationing as a result of this bill. There's hardly anybody anymore who truly believes in individual freedom. The person who wishes to eschew mainstream treatments and take care of his or her own health is f'ed by this bill, as are people who choose not to have health insurance. Emperor Obama is now marching down the street with no clothes on and people are cheering him on, as they did his predecessor, King Jorge. No doubt the people are, for the most part, not the same for Emperor O. as they were for King J., but the crowds are still cheering nonetheless. Those who cheer for this health care bill are as ignorant as those who support our empire's reign in other countries. It's a sad day for everyone in the United States, but just as the elite have been planning in the New World Order, instead of impeaching the president, people are cheering him on.

I've written a bit more about this on my Comic Mom blog, in "Spring Equinox and the Pinewood Derby."

The besmirched-and-ignored-by-media Ron Paul has also written an excellent essay, "Healthcare Reform Passes."

And here's a good article on what we have to look forward to, "What Soviet Medicine Teaches Us."

We're living in a new world, folks. The media are correct when they call this health care bill "historic." Indeed, it is. As with the so-called Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, and other socialist bills and unConstitutional Executive Orders, this bill will erode freedom in the United States. Let us embrace the socialism that so many have sought for so long. For me and my house, however, we will fight for freedom.

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Marie Osmond's Adoptee Dies

Look, I used to like Donny and Marie, and especially their little brother, Jimmy. Actually, I have nothing against Donny and Jimmy, the former, in fact, is in one of my favorite Weird Al videos: White and Nerdy. No, it's not the Osmond boys I have a problem with: It's Marie. A few years ago, after I'd awakened from the brainwashed adoption slumber that I'd been in most of my life, I read that Marie was proud of the way that she so was in denial about the pain of mother and child separation that was pretending her adoptees were her own child, making the three that were truly her own equivalent to those who are adopted. Those of us who are adopted know how ludicrous this plan is, laughable at best and tragic at worst. I grew up with a lot of well-meaning people who accepted and propagated adoption lies. Therefore, I tried hard to pretend that I was related to people who are more or less genetic strangers to me. The pretending part is what really sucks; in addition, it's quite harmful. I wish that adopters would stop pretending that adoptees are their children. I wish that moms who've lost a child to adoption would tell the world how terrible it is to lose that child. I wish that adoption agencies thinly veiled as pregnancy crisis centers would cease to exist. Well, that's the way things used to be. However, in the last 100 years or so, adoption brainwashing has so pervaded public thinking that the average person is looking at Marie Osmond and saying, "Isn't it sad that she lost her son," when in fact, some other mother, his real mom, lost a son a long time ago and now, that son is dead. And no, Marie, with all her money and therapy and religion, could not save her adoptee from the fact that he and his mom were separated and the havoc that wreaks in every child who's ever been thus separated. I'm not pretending that he was her son. And I am extremely thankful for the sentence in this article that alludes to the problems he was having, simply from being separated from his mother: Osmond did say one of the issues troubling him was the fact that he was adopted. Gee, Marie, you think so?!?

Until I had my first son, I did not realize how much boys depend on their moms, for everything from nursing to nodding off into dreamland at night. I'd heard that boys have more of a problem with being separated from their moms than girls do, but I did not really believe it until my sons were born. Seeing that mother/son bond made me realize that Mr. Thinking Mama and his mom have a similar bond, and that since Mr. Thinking Mama's mother died unexpectedly almost four years ago, there is a real sense of loss for him and his brother. Because Mr. Thinking Mama is an adult, however, he is much better equipped to handle the loss of his mother than an infant boy. Marie Osmond's adoptee lost his mother as a child--he may have never even seen her. Yes, this kind of thing can have a huge effect. And yes, mental hospitals, prisons, and graveyards have many men in them who've died from loss of mother via adoption or death.

I'm so sorry for the loss of Marie Osmond's adoptee; it is an extremely sad ending to an extremely sad life. It's too bad that Marie, with all her money and fame, couldn't have found a way to support both the children that she adopted and their mothers.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Just Another Reason Not to Move Back to North Carolina

Well, there's the raw milk thing. And the complete lack of legal pot stores. Sure, L.A.'s city commissars are trying hard to shut down pot stores--business could hardly be better for pot stores--but the truth is that California is looking better all the time, especially when the North Carolina government has deemed me incompetent to choose whether or not I should drink raw milk, and whether or not I should smoke or otherwise ingest some weed.

But really, this story amazes me. I'm not much for cigarette smoke, but when the North Carolina legislature starts delving into the business of private business owners, I get a real icky feeling. Sure, they've already outlawed smoking here, but in N.C., in the supposedly independent South, businesses have been doing fine regulating things by themselves. For example, Charlie Goodnight's comedy club, which I've performed at a few times, has its own smoking ban and has for years. Why should the North Carolina legislature feel the need to make all businesses operate this way? Why aren't they trusting business owners? Ah, but it's for the common good, eh? As were the Nazis, of course.