Nobody I've heard has complained about pot stores in L.A. I've heard some comics sing their praises, of course, but I've never heard anyone complain about them. And I live in the midst of San Fernando Valley suburbia. So, who's behind the L.A. City Council's plan "to ban medical marijuana patients' cooperatives and collectives outright"?
Evidently, it's not enough that they limit the hours and control the prices and close down marijuana collectives, as they've managed to accomplish in the past year or so. For instance, the cool pot store at the edge of my neighborhood was closed down a few months ago, after the LAPD took all their marijuana edibles (a good alternative for those who don't ingest the herb by the more dangerous method of smoking it), inquiring about how much to eat to feel the effects. No, I'm sure that the LAPD won't be taking any of that stuff back to their families. They're just inquiring, I'll bet, out of curiosity, just because they care about medical marijuana and want to know more. Yeah, I'm sure that's it. I guess that's why the LAPD also took the store's security system. The owner, a really cool guy in his 70s, had invested his 401K retirement plan money into the dispensary. It was a great store and very convenient. It employed 8 to 10 people. After the owner lost $25,000 in the first shutdown, and more in the second, the store closed down. So much for jobs and putting people to work and such.
The elite who run the government seem really to want to control us. Is somebody funding this L.A. city council effort who stands to gain from selling illegal marijuana? I do know that the L.A. city council is messing in people's business and trying to destroy jobs, in the midst of a recession. One such councilperson seems especially against freedom. I'm guessing that Jose Huizar's ancestors, as with most Americans' ancestors, came to this country for more freedom. Ah, the irony that Huizar wants not only to take away that freedom, but also to take away, by his own admission, a "multimillion-dollar industry." Are taxpayer-funded Obamajobs going to take care of all those unemployed people?!? Why is Huizar so very content to destroy L.A. business? Here's a quote from the wise one himself.
"It will mean shutting down over 300 dispensaries but I don't see we have any other choice," Huizar said in a telephone interview after the City Council hearing, reports AIDSOVERSIXTY. "If we do nothing, we will see dispensaries pop up all over the city."
Aspie with Attitude
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Nobody I've heard has complained about pot stores in L.A. I've heard some comics sing their praises, of course, but I've never heard anyone complain about them. And I live in the midst of San Fernando Valley suburbia. So, who's behind the L.A. City Council's plan "to ban medical marijuana patients' cooperatives and collectives outright"?
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
I have been absorbed in the story about Mary Ann Holder, from Pleasant Garden, right outside Greensboro. She was a mother, yes, and someone who looks a lot like me, i.e., she was white, she had children, she was chasing a guy who'd gone back to his wife. I can certainly understand her anger toward the guy who went back to his wife. And on a more personal level, one could argue that if BtL and MSG were forced to look down the barrel of a shotgun, it might do them both some good. I am not, however, the person to make that happen. In fact, as much as it hurt me to have what I thought was a friend from high school treat me like total dog poop, the extent of my anger was to leave them alone. That's not to say that I didn't pass by his house while I was in N.C. or that I didn't go there twice to dump off his stuff, but I never thought about doing physical harm either to BtL or to MSG. What good would that do? And even though it seemed like the end of the world at times to have what I thought was such a good friend betray me in such awful ways, I never ever thought about harming myself or my children. Never ever. In fact, I would have to say that as much as I want to live and love living, if I felt like it was all a wash and I needed to kill myself, which I pray I will never feel, I can't imagine doing any harm at all to my children. I brought them into this world, thank God, and if I don't feel like living anymore, I certainly want them to remain alive.
And so, like the Guilford County sherriff's office, I am totally flummoxed by this whole thing. I guess that most normal people can see how she'd want to shoot the guy she was seeing, Randy Lamb. He was hurt the least, by the way, of all her victims. And surely I can somewhat understand that she would want to kill herself. Not that I would do that or want to or condone either shooting in any way, but both of those shootings make a lot more sense than her shooting her two sons; her niece and nephew, who'd been living with her since her sister died a few months ago; and her son's girlfriend, a truly innocent bystander in all this mess. Really, there was no need to kill those children and killing someone she gave birth to seems like one of the most awful sins there is. Or as we used to say when I was growing up, "People's getting mean." And they are. One of Holder's sons went to the same high school that one of my adoptive cousins went to. Pleasant Garden, every time I've been near there, certainly lives up to its name. And that is one reason that this whole story is so very bizarre and tragic. It happened in a place and to people that normally these kinds of things don't happen to. What was wrong with Mary Ann Holder? How could she possibly pick up her son from his sleepover, after having killed his brother, his cousins, and his brother's girlfriend? Why, oh why, didn't she just leave him at the house where he had his sleepover before she killed herself? I read a timeline of the shootings and apparently, her 14-year-old son, a little while before his mother killed him, wrote a thank you text to the people who had the sleepover. What a polite young man. What a shame that his mother killed him.
People are going to want to prevent this kind of thing in the future, of course, and they'll do so by creating more of a police state. Probably, more than anything, the government schools are somewhat responsible for this mess. I think of what John Taylor Gatto said about government schools producing a bunch of addicts and people who have incomplete lives and it makes sense to think that there will be more of these kinds of tragedies in the future. I understand that she was in pain and that she may have thought her pain would never end, and I understand that government schools are often a source of pain for so many of us. I remember one of my favorite government school teachers talking about suicide one day and telling us that no matter how bad we may feel, things will always get better if we give it some time. He'd probably be fired for saying that today.
As a parent, you really have to work hard these days to get rid of the conditioning that the "public" schools give your children, eight or more hours each day. I have no idea what Holder's background is like or what her childhood was like, but I can almost guarantee you that she went to a government school. I'm not saying that everyone who goes to a public school will snap like this (let us surely hope not), but in an atmosphere where pharmaceutical drugs are lauded, guns are banned, and there is zero tolerance for any misbehavior, some kids won't make the cut or some, like Holder, will make the cut and one day, will do something tragic such as this. Government school students are so very often treated like lab rats and so, it's likely that some lab rats won't fare as well. My guess is, and I hope I'm wrong, that just like school shootings have escalated, the kind of crime that Holder did will also escalate. Boy, do I hope I'm wrong.
Sure, she learned somewhere to be so selfish and in despair that she felt she needed to kill some innocent children before she killed herself. It would be wrong to blame only the government schools, but if Gatto's theories are correct, the government schools must receive some of the blame. Perhaps she was indeed mentally ill and she, along with her boyfriend's wife, had some anger issues to deal with, but shooting children?!? Her children?!? Sorry, but there's really no excuse for this kind of thing. I think that Holder's tragic actions show problems with our society, problems that have their origins in a school system that is all about mediocrity and conformity and no longer much includes God in anything. Students spend over 12 years in these institutions and most kids are more heavily influenced by schools than by their parents; according to Gatto, this is by design. When people look at such tragedies, the media often blame things on lack of gun control, but it is the people who have the guns, and their lack of morals is the problem.
Some have been saying on message boards that Holder was mentally ill. As my kids would say, Well, duh! Of course, she was not thinking clearly. The first thing I thought of when I heard about this crime was that the shooter was probably on some kind of pharmaceutical drugs, an anti-depressant or something such as that. I'm curious to know if she was on pharmaceutical drugs, but I know that often, when mothers do crazy things such as this, as in the Andrea Yates case, the mom is on pharmaceutical drugs that affect her brain. I'm not saying that all people who take anti-depressants are in danger, but I ain't planning to take those things myself. I do know that when I took them, a few years ago, they made me half crazy. Luckily, I did no harm. Perhaps I am trying too hard to find meaning in this tragedy or some kind of reason for it. It is indeed so very awful. And yes, it is highly unusual for an area such as Greensboro. Although there's right much crime there, there's never been anything like this. There might be again, though.
People will yell about preventing this kind of thing in the future, but you really can't. At least, not by increasing the police state. Already, the TSA is working on predicting who will be a terrorist by facial expressions. How long will it be before people's houses and minds will be invaded to find out if the government thinks they're going to commit a crime? As tragic as this whole situation is, I'd rather not have more government intrusion into my life as a result of it.
You can often prevent this kind of thing by teaching children right from wrong and by keeping families together, physically and emotionally. But that is not our world today. I recently wrote in my Comic Mom journal about an acquaintance who had sex with a stranger at the swimming pool of a hotel. I also heard about someone who was having sex outside a bar with a stranger. As much as I am for freedom, and as much as many would condemn lots of my actions, I can't help but wonder why somebody who's in their 40s, as both women were, would do such a strange and crazy thing. With a stranger. How did sex get to be such a throwaway public performance instead of the intimate sharing between two people that God seemed to intend?!? Look, my life ain't perfect. And I sure don't have this whole thing figured out, especially the sex thing. But I don't go around f'in' strangers in public. Having said that, at least nobody was harmed with the sex stuff, except for the people doing the act. Still, it shows a disrespect for sex that I believe is connected to the same lack of morals that Holder had to have. In Holder's case, sex and her inability to deal with its consequences led to murder and suicide. Could such moral-free thinking be developed in our God-free government schools, by teachers who have been brainwashed in psychology and such, and by curricula developed by a rather God-free federal government?
Families are all spread out and people often die alone because their families have left them. The government schools are all about breaking up families, as Gatto says, and our society shows that they are doing that part of their job precisely as designed. Holder was certainly all alone in a lot of ways and certainly, it was fabulous that she took in her sister's children. It's just too bad that she killed them.
Please keep this family, especially the dad who lost two sons, in your prayers.
Monday, October 10, 2011
What kinda sorta bothers me about stuff these days is that the police are so very, well, omnipresent. People think that's a good thing, but people should be concerned. Well, people aren't much concerned these days, though. Not at all are most people concerned. I am, which makes me a nut. Until tonight. Some of you may have read about MMan, although I think under the name PRMan, or some such, on my pink blog. Let's call him MMan tonight and the "M" is for minister. He is one of those, btw. And yes, I was a friend of his in high school. And so, last week, MMan had something "exciting" happen to him, at least according to his message to me on FB. I guessed that he'd made his wife pregnant, that they'd gotten a new puppy, or that a new refrigerator had been delivered to their home. The last one, MMan and I both agreed, would be awesome for him; I, having recently experienced life without and then, miraculously, witha refrigerator, know the absolute thrill and excitement of food in a new refrigerator. Although what MMan experienced was indeed exciting, it was not good in the way of a new refrigerator, or puppy, or baby. No, MMan got arrested. Yes. In the Back of the Car Arrested. He's not the kind of guy who should be arrested. Ever. He's honest. I can tell you that. And a Christian. And the dispute that somehow led police officers in a tiny North Carolina town to arrest him at 12:45 in the f'in' morning, for goodness sake, was over $167 that he supposedly owed a customer of his (he has an on-line business). He had told this woman how to receive a refund, but somehow, she thought that talking to the police was better than waiting and doing what MMan had asked. MMan was roused from sleep and the situation freaked him out and I told him that this kind of arrest thing can happen to anyone.
MMan now believes me and said that the criminal justice system is so very awry that he would have trouble convicting someone now, if he were on a jury. This is just one person's opinion, of course, but let's assume that everything is true of his account. Anecdotal evidence about this kind of thing has been going on around the Internet for a while. But to actually hear firsthand the evidence of a man who has, as far as I can tell, told a woman how to get her refund, but she didn't want to wait and go through the proper channels and so, she called the police. And the police listened. And they arrested. Somehow that's hard to hear about. It really scares me that everyday people can so easily get arrested. I remember hearing some woman on NPR one time talk about how she'd been incarcerated for two years for some really strange charge due to her position as a journalist. The whole thing sounded quite strange to me and I could not believe that she spent two years or so in prison, away from her family. One thing that she said, however, is that what happened to her can happen to anyone. That's a scary thing indeed. And when you have folks like MMan being arrested in the wee hours of the morning, awakened from bed, because of a customer dispute that he has tried to resolve, it's easy for me to see that we've got a police state, my friend. MMan tells me that the court has retained a lawyer but he is thinking about starting some kind of legal defense fund. Perhaps we should all look into some kind of insurance policy or some such for that kind of thing. I'm very fortunate in that, so far, I have had extremely good relations with the police. I'm thinking here of the police officer in Texas who let me go with a warning ticket only after he saw that I was trying to get to a hotel, which was only a few miles from where I was stopped. And many thanks to the officer in Greensboro, North Carolina who did a similar thing once, when the boys were tiny things and slept through the entire episode. I'm thankful for good police officers in both instances. But what if the police knock on your door at 1 a.m.? Unfortunately, it could happen to any of us.
Posted by Thinking Mama at 2:22 AM
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
In L.A., it's hard to spit without hitting a comic, an adopter, or some woman who's used a sperm donor. And so, I haven't written much about the whole thing lately. Btw, I know many an adoptee or sperm-donor-created comic who is trying to turn tragedy into comedy by standing in front of people and working out issues for laughs. It's really a pretty good way of dealing with losing a parent or parents, considering the options. But the truth is that between adoption and sperm donation, many of us are losing our genetic heritage, and suffering because of it. Nonetheless, the elite want this kind of genetic confusion, or else it wouldn't be celebrated in all kinds of magazines and newspapers all over the world. Try printing an anti-adoption article in your local newspaper; let me know if they'll print it.
Nonetheless, every once in a while, we see some kind of article that touches on the bad stuff about adoption or sperm donation or such. This particular article, for instance, tells about the problems of sperm donation. But it does not say that women should be smart enough to avoid anonymous sperm donation altogether, which would put these places out of business. No, that would be against the genetic confusion that so thrill the elite. It is only in such a state of familial confusion, without natural family to help, that people will be thrilled to turn to the state for help. And that's where the elite really thrive: Getting people to turn to the government instead of their families for help.
Therefore, the government wants not to end sperm donation, but to regulate it, to control it a bit more. Ah, yes, more government control on something that's going to affect generations of children, many of whom will never find out one whole side of their family.
Critics say that fertility clinics and sperm banks are earning huge profits by allowing too many children to be conceived with sperm from popular donors, and that families should be given more information on the health of donors and the children conceived with their sperm. They are also calling for legal limits on the number of children conceived using the same donor’s sperm and a re-examination of the anonymity that cloaks many donors.
One wants to say that if donors are dumb enough to give away or sell their sperm and if a woman is willing to have her child lose one whole side of the family, well, then let them go ahead. But then again, it's not either of these adults who will suffer, but the children that they spawn. And their children's children. And their children's children's children. And so on.
I know that I haven't written as much on my Thinking Mama blog as I have the others, but frankly, I read so much about the government's taking away of our freedoms and our money and I am personally experiencing the latter, that I feel as though, sometimes, it's no use to even write about things anymore. Adoption will continue as long as people envy the babies of others. Forced taxation will continue as long as people are brainwashed to believe that they have no other choice. I love Ron Paul, but he's one man. How much can he do?!? The most I can do, really, is to teach my children the truth and help them to learn to think for themselves, which includes looking at all sides of an argument, as I used to encourage my students at North Carolina State University to do.
And yet, every once in a while, I can't help but open my freedom-loving mouth when someone mentions how wonderful the FDA and EPA are, especially when I am having to drive over one hour to buy the raw cow's milk that God and nature intended us to drink--this milk is illegal to buy where I currently am. And the government goons are treating it as though it were meth and raiding stores, even in California, where it is supposed to be legal to buy.
So, I made a comment on this guy's FB post. His name is MW and he wouldn't have done well in my NCSU freshman English class. He was obviously a little taken by what I wrote, questioning the FDA and EPA. I'd love to write exactly what I wrote, but he not only defriended me, he made it so that I can never find him; therefore, I don't see my original post. Such is the post-Oprah world in which true deep thinking and debating has been replaced by name-calling and all the other cheap shots of argument that would drive Aristotle crazy these days. Here is MW's first response to me, which I was able to copy from my e-mail:
"Duped and taxed to fund these agencies"? Tricia, ALL government functions are provided by tax dollars. And yes, they are "all about" safe food and medicine, and clean air and water. EVERY regulation is aimed AT MAKING US SAFER! The rest is Tea Party bullshit! There's a reason you paint with a broad brush, yet give no specifics! Are there too many regulations? Probably. Are some more harmful than good? Almost certainly. So it is with all things created by mankind! We are not perfect, nor are the things we create. If perfection is your standard, then we will always fall short. But clean air and water, and safe food and medicine are the REASONS we live longer, and are healthier than any generation before us. There's not even a sane counter to that argument. The LA skyline is visible BECAUSE THE FREAKING AIR IS CLEANER! Nobody who's ever cracked a science book, and no one who visited there in the '70s and again today could deny that. No sane person could deny that USDA inspection results in safer food...meat that isn't spoiled, vegetables that aren't contaminated. We can shop in confidence that our food IS nourishing, because, by law, the labels clearly list what is inside...every ingredient, and it's nutrutional value. That is what government is for! Establishing standards for things like food and drug safety, clean air and water...building roads and bridges...sending police or the fire department when we call 911...providing a safety net for the poor, sick, and elderly...men and women in uniform fighting those who would harm us, to keep us safe and secure. These are the functions of government. What has government done for us? Oh, not much. Broken the sound barrier, split the atom, sent men to the moon and spacecraft to the edges of the universe, photographed echoes of the Big Bang, created the internet, cured diseases like polio, made possible technical advances like personal computing and microwave ovens from space-related research, built infrastructure that makes it possible for farmers in California and Iowa to grow crops sold in supermarkets in Maine and North Carolina, mapped the human genome, constructed a power grid across the entire country, not just the most populated parts, protected humanity from Facism, Communism, and Terrosism, made it possible to affordably send a package or document from any point in the US, to any other in the world, and other advances too numerous to count. And of course government has made some enormous blunders along the way. There is good and bad, strength and weakness, in every human endeavor."
And then, he wrote this little gem, which also came in my e-mail. He has evidently written me off as spam, so threatened is he, I suppose, by an opinion that is different from his. Note that he, unable to fathom that I may be thinking more or less for myself and not associated with any particular -ism, i.e., conservatism, liberalism. His brain really wants to place me in a category, however, and he placed me with the Tea Party folks, although I've never been to one of their meetings and don't fully know what they're all about. I imagine that they are just as corrupt as the others, however. Anyway, here 'tis:
"And to conclude...buh-bye, nutjob! How'd you squeak past? Be seein' ya'..>NEVER!"
What argumentative prowess, indeed. It's no wonder that raw milk raids are okay with people these days, even though 100 years ago, they would have been unheard of, as most everyone drank raw milk, or country milk, and if you bought it from a clean dairy, it was never contaminated. People are so very busy with the liberal/conservative dichotomy these days that they don't see the very freedoms that are being taken from them each day, with their taxpayer money paying for those very things.
Many thanks to Karen DeCoster, btw, who is not at all afraid to write about the FDA or the EPA, for keeping me abreast of what's happening with raw milk. I also wrote a bit about this on my Comic Mom blog.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
And so, I have returned home. Well, I guess you could call this home. I was born in Richmond, Virginia, but my mother had no ties there. She was sent there, hours away from her home in Wilmington, North Carolina, so that she could give birth to me and then give me to strangers. I was supposed to be born in Wilmington and it felt really weird once, when I was at my mom's house, looking at a picture of the hospital where my half-sister, born almost three years after me, was born. I was supposed to have been born there, but I realized, looking at that picture, that even knowing where my mom and the rest of my natural family were would not heal the pain of being separated from her. Just as I could never be physically born again in this life, I could also never recapture all the years lost from being separated from my parents. Adoption results in an emotional pain that the non-adopted never have to deal with.
This pain makes throws some people into denial, as it did me for many years. A number of adoptees, and even some moms who've lost a child to adoption, have chastised me for expressing my feelings, and for stating the obvious: breaking up families through adoption gives an emotional pain that can never heal. What really gets to me is that so many adoptees have written about that pain and yet, they can't seem to help but end by saying that adoption can be beautiful. Yes, like rape can be beautiful, I suppose. What can be more lovely than taking away an infant poised to nurse his or her mother's breasts, an infant just born, an infant used to the smell of his or her mother, and give the child to genetic strangers. Lovely, isn't it?
Yes, many Bible thumpers claim that they are saving a child from being thrown into the dumpster or whatever, but that claim is simply not true. Bible thumpers often love to tell the story of Moses and use that to justify taking another woman's child. But as my loyal reader Jim stated previously in a blog comment, the next time I see a baby floating down the river, I'll consider it okay to take it.
Many attempts are made these days to make adoption seem as though it were saving a baby from floating down the river. The China system is currently the absolute best to promote this mythology. In the 70s, after Roe vs. Wade, the agencies that supply infants saw their supply beginning to drop. They began marketing the U.S. in Korea, Vietnam, and other countries that had vulnerable populations. They told the moms that their children would have a much better life in the fabulous U.S. of A. and the moms, often desperate, believed them and sent their children with social wreckers. I wonder how many of those social workers, sent specifically to find children for Western adopters, gave money to the mother and family and tried to keep the children with their families.
Adoption agencies must have been having orgasms when the whole China thing came down. I'm not exactly sure when China started its ridiculous one-child policy, searching for diapers and other evidence of more than one child, even in remote rural areas. Whenever it was, the adoption agencies really scored. Children came into orphanages, creating a need for somebody to take these supposed orphans and give them a home. Westerners began adopting them and it became a status symbol of sorts to have a little China girl in a home. Don't believe me? Ask Angelina Jolie, who, even though she has no China doll, has a whole rainbow of children under her roof.
I can't tell you how many Gymboree and MyGym classes I've sat through in L.A. with some white adoptress pretending to be the mom of one of these little China girls. As to why they're often girls, it's because the Chinese culture so reveres males, and males are to help with parents in old age, that the girls are most expendable. I guess most Westerners think that moms in China have no feelings or that they easily take their children to the orphanage. Whatever the case, most Western adopters these days are as happy to have a China doll as they are to grab a healthy white infant from a teenage mom. The latter is in low supply, however, partly due to the fact that many moms who have lost a child to adoption are telling it like it is and talking about the loss of adoption, a loss from which mother and child can never fully recover.
And now, here I sit in the library of the small town in northwestern North Carolina where I grew up. It is not Wilmington, where most of the rest of my family resides, and where the Smiths, from whence I came, are known for our blue eyes. One of the reasons I am back here right now is because I want my children to experience the genuineness and honesty of most people here. As I sit in the library, however, I watch an adoptress who has taken a China doll as her own. I watch the child call the adoptress, who looks nothing like her, "mama." And I think about how much this child has suffered in her few short years on earth. More than likely, the little girl will not grow up knowing her native Chinese language and more than likely, she will not ever find her mother and father. To take their place, she will most likely create an elaborate scheme of lies, started when her adopters began calling her their "daughter" and asked them to call her "mama" and "daddy." Do you really think that China will change anything when Western adopters are spending so much money to take away the children that the government will not allow? Do you really think that God wants us messing with nature this way?
More importantly, however, I wonder what this kind of thing is doing to this child. And to the other children taken away from the native land and families by Westerners envious of children. I know that not all adopters feel this way (there are posts much earlier in this blog about an adoptress who is trying to teach her China girls the truth), but most do. Each time I looked in the mirror, I wondered who I looked like. Imagine how much more complex this process is when the child is not even the same nationality as the adopters. My guess is that the little China girl in the library today will have to fill herself with lies for the rest of her life to overcome the pain of what has happened to her and to cover for the lies that she has already been living with. She will probably never ever find the truth, as most families take these children to the orphanages anonymously. She probably will never know her family. To say that this kind of life, filled with life, will never affect her is to be in great denial. Then again, adoption is all about denial, isn't it?!?
Even here, in this relatively quiet town, there exists the ugliness of adoption, the lies created when family members are separated by do-gooder social wreckers, the pretending that I grew up with, the empty hole that is never filled when one loses his or her family. Adoption has touched every corner of our nation, from the suburbs of Los Angeles to the small mountain towns of North Carolina. Its ubiquitousness is nothing to brag about.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
So, tonight, I did a comedy show right down the road from the Gingerbread House, at the Liquid Zoo. It's a pretty cool place. I've done a ton of shows there. And Ron Swallow is a very gracious and wonderful host. For the past few weeks, I've tended to do a comedy show there every Wednesday night. Everybody has been very nice there and I've had no hecklers. Btw, I was explaining, just the other day, to my 8-year-old that hecklers must be dealt with. It's been a long time since I had one.
I am not going to go into as much detail I could with this entry. Suffice to say that tonight's episode was the emotional equivalent of the time I was at the Hot Wired Cafe, which, fortunately, no longer exists. I went in there, after Ten and Eight was born and before Six was born, to do some comedy. So, I had two wonderful sons and this guy on stage talked about someone molesting my children. Yeah. Really. It sucked in a way that I cannot describe adequately with words right now. Fortunately, tonight's insult was not about my children, but about me. In that way, at least it was easier. The kind of pain I'm feeling as I write this is the kind of pain I felt in 8th grade, when this guy (let's call him non-dancing-guy (NDG)) absolutely loved putting his arm around me on the bus ride home from elementary school, but refused to admit that I existed at the 8th grade dance. OMG, that was one of the most painful nights of my life. I still feel the pain of NDG's rejection, when I think hard enough about it. Turns out, I need a man who can dance, but of course, I had no idea then. The pain from NDG's ignoring me was almost too much to bear at the time, though.
Back to the Humorless Black Guy (HBG), and, therefore, to present day: So, I was in the middle of "White Girl Rap," with a Jewish/European-American Guy (I'm guessing here) who was laughing at me, and a couple of other people in the bar. There were two white-ish guys in the bar and one guy who seemed to be part black. Look, when I sing "White Girl Rap," I'm automatically admitting that I don't have the rhythm of a stereotypical black guy. In fact, I was making fun of myself, a white girl. I said nothing about a black guy, as I recall, until I said something like, "the black guy walked out; what does that tell you?!?" and yes, I making fun of myself, HBG. I was making fun of the fact that I have no rhythm, but no, HBG somehow thought that making fun of white people (from which I descend) equated with making fun of black people. Evidently, a$$holes do that kind of thing. Needless to say, he had no humor. I have no idea what he was doing at a comedy club.
And so, in the middle of "White Girl Rap," which makes fun of white people, especially moi, for any a$$holes who may be reading this, HBG leaves the audience, goes out the door, and says something that I won't repeat here, but I will say is much like the above-mentioned molestation thing on stage. Well, at least HBG's insult didn't include my children. Oh, the generosity of HBG, in that respect. Look, I'm the one who told my students (when I taught) that if one says African-American, then one should say European-American. After all, how equal is it if I'm called white and an African-American is not called black? I'm all about equality for everybody, even though none of us are created exactly like another and we are all individuals; when I make fun of white people, I can certainly do it, because I am white.
So, yes, I am at home crying about this incident. But I will get over it. And I will realize that the HBG is an asshole who is not a typical black male. Btw, black males normally love my $%it and realize that when I talk about white girls, I'm talking about myself. As much as I'd like to think that he isn't typical, however, he might well be typical of what is to come.
What has caused HBG to be humorless?!? Well, it could well have been merely too much alcohol. Or it could have been something in the air, this thing about white guilt. I know that white people are supposed to feel extremely guilty about everything these days, even though most, if not all, of us have never actually held slaves or seen a "whites only" water fountain. Things have become ultra-serious with race and apparently, with some people, it's not good to even talk about differences. I read the other day about a comic in Canada who was fined thousands of dollars because some lesbian got offended about whatever the comic was saying; according to the comic, she was heckling him, but still, he received a fine. So much for that free speech. In a world that needs much more humor, it's becoming dangerous to talk about real differences between people. I was always taught in comedy that I can make fun of myself or anything that has to do with me, but not of other people. Insinuating that I as a white woman have much less rhythm than most blacks has become something that is insulting to some, evidently, even though I've always considered it a compliment to blacks and an insult to myself. One of the many reasons that I do comedy is because it's one of the last places where truth can be spoken. But with people like HBG in attendance, I'm wondering how long that will last.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
The other day I added somebody on Facebook whom I'd grown up with. I didn't know her and her sister very well, but I remember them fondly. I also remember their mom as being a very nice person. Let's call the person I added Adoptress X (AX). Looking through her pictures, I was sad to find that, although she and her husband look not at all Asian, she had a small child with her who looked pretty darn Asian. There was also an older boy who matched AX and her husband more in looks, but still, I wasn't sure about him. He might also have been adopted. I'm not making a huge leap here to say that at least one of the children she was holding in her picture is an adoptee, not really her child. So, I think I got the name right, Adoptress X sounds exactly right. It's rather easy to avoid adoptresses in L.A. It's rather easy to avoid most everything in L.A. In fact, avoiding stuff is how we survive in L.A. Since I left the relatively upper middle-class enclave at Gymboree, I've run into fewer adoptees. Granted, please allow me to explain myself here: No, I'm not for abandoning babies in the streets; but also, I am not for pretending to be a baby's mama if I didn't give birth to a particular baby. This kind of thinking--i.e., that the natural parents count and are not merely demeaned to "birthparent"--which has been going on for millenia, has now been replaced by adoptionspeak, in which baby mamas all over the world are encouraged and coerced into giving away their children to people who want to pretend to be parents. Look, am I lucky to be a mom? You bet! I am extremely grateful and thankful. But if I weren't a mom, I wouldn't be pretending I was someone else's mom.
Having said all that, there are women that I grew up with whom I would call mom, or grandma, or aunt, or whatever, because I am that close to them. I grew up in a small community--thank God!--and everybody sorta helped to raise everybody else's children. I don't have a problem with an adoptee who wants to call his or her adoptee "mom" or whatever. But I do have a problem with adoptees who beg us to call them real parents of their adoptees. Because they are not. They never will be. We may love them and need them and be eternally grateful to them, but to pretend that they are our real parents is a lie. Unfortunately, it is a lie that most adoptees deal with every day, whether or not we realize it. A very few enlightened adoptees and adopters are on to the whole lying thing and one adopter who has written to me and has seen the truth is creating a very honest and loving atmosphere for her adoptee. If only more adopters would do so.
And so, we now come to "Single Dad Laughing," a blog that you can google and find yourself, if you like. I really enjoy the writing style of this adopter, but his plea for us to call him a real parent to his adoptee is just as sickening as those who may misspell words and be totally boring writers, and yet, beg us to call them real parents. The truth is, no matter how great your writing style, I really totally and completely disrespect you if you beg me and others to call you something that you are not. Unfortunately, the woman who posted the blog link of FB, an adoptee, seems to have a whole different meaning of parent than I and most of the world throughout history have ever had. Part of the changes that have been happening in this country over the past century or so have included changing families. Adoption and adoptionspeak, the renaming and redefining of words to support and encourage the ever-growing adoption industry, have changed the way that we think about families. There is so little respect for natural families these days; birth and genetics seem not to matter to the media types who support such adoption propaganda. In this brave new world, families can be created in any way possible, not in the way that God and nature intended. So, we have the story in the previously-mentioned blog, of Noah, whose rather young male adopter seems to have relationship problems (I can relate!) and yet, has been given a child whom he evidently "loves" so much that even when Noah spills M&Ms in the car, the adopter is simply filled with joy. Of course, the adopter gives lip service to the boy's baby mama, i.e., his "birthmother," which Male Adopter looks upon as the proper name for someone whose baby he has taken from the baby's mother's breast. Y'all know how I am about natural breastfeeding. Evidently, Male Adopter and his then-wife (that's all changed in Noah's short life, btw) were so anxious to snatch the child that they were in the delivery room when Noah's mom gave birth. How extremely awkward.
And of course, Noah's mom is a candidate for sainthood, according to Male Adopter, because of the "gift" she gave him and his then-wife. Noah's suffering a lot of pain with his Male Adopter's failed relationships, but then again, that's so very much better than if he were with his real mom, right?!? You know, the saint. Yeah, it's a good thing that Noah's Male Adopter is giving him such a stable life, right? And how many of us can feel the pain of Noah's real mom, whose heart must break every time she thinks of the baby she gave to someone else.
I ain't linking to the Male Adopter's blog, if that's what you're thinking. And yes, I defriended the person who passed along the link, not so much because she gave the Male Adopter publicity, but because she defended him and called him a parent, when he clearly is not. That kind of thing is triggering to me and adoptee or not, the person who passed along the link clearly does not get the truth of adoption. And right now, I'm not so sure I need those people in my life.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Oh, how I do ever dislike the whole rent-a-womb crowd. It shouldn't surprise me that Nicole Kidman has joined that particular bunch. Nicole, when she was married to Tom Cruise, took two children from their moms. Word has it that one of the children has a dad who fought to keep his child, but Tom Cruise had more money and won. I'd really like confirmation on this story. Either way, it has always seemed like to me that celebrities who adopt would more likely help the child by giving the child's parent(s) a huge grant, something that would allow the mom, for instance, to stay with the child until the child is five or six. But no, this kind of do-goodering would not allow the celebrity to have a child to be raised by a nanny and plastered all over People Magazine and such. (See Sandra Bullock, whose supposedly good samaritan deed has rarely gone unpublicized by magazines these past few months.). And so, Nicole, who saw no need to bother with helping two natural families stay together, could not have possibly had qualms about growing her eggs and Keith Urban's sperm in somebody else's womb. Paying someone else to gestate. Lovely.
I think that Nicole actually had a child of her own a few years ago, but I'm not exactly sure. Either way, it sure is easy to work as an actress when somebody else is carrying your baby. Having said that, Nicole may have desperately wanted to do the honors in the baby-carrying department and it is indeed sad, as always, when a woman wants her own child and is not able to carry it. Still, it seems oh-so-ever wrong to hire someone else to do the carrying.