Suspension of Disbelief

There are two main schools of thought on the idea of transracial adoption, one reliving that it is good and the other believing that it is bad. Some believe that adoption is adoption and that any steady and good home is profitable for the child over no home at all. These people, like Elizabeth Bartholet , believe that the well being of children is more important than outside factors like their culture or heritage, that life is more important if healthy and well than the specifics of what it means to be “well”. Others, like Dorothy Roberts, believe that transracial adoption can be a “tool of oppression” for racial minorities by which the child is stripped of their natural heritage and supplemented with that heritage of the, likely, majority, thus assimilating the minority further into the majority identity. She believes that this forced assimilation robs children of their identity and culture and should be abandoned at all costs. She seems to say that in the grand scheme of things, i...

Come my friend, Play, You'll see, a greater light, shining from within, than the greatest light externally

I got to thinking today, and I now have reason to believe that not only in the end to liberals win out, but that they also acquire a time machine and pass on fun little clues to the rest of us... What you say? No proof? Judge for yourself... 1. The Republican color is ("commie") red. 2. A Republican was in office at the beginning of Vietnam. 3. Spiro Agnew. 4. Every inteligent person once asked if Reagan had lost his mind during the Iran Contra Scandal. It was later revealed that he actually may have. 5. Strom Thurmond was a Democrat. 6. "I am not gay. I have never been gay..." 7. The Nixon's tapes. 8. "It's 3:00AM..." 9. Joe LIEberman 10. Mark Foley and so on... and so forth...

This nation has a problem. Yes, poverty is a problem too, but that is not what I mean. Our problem as a nation is that we continuously treat the symptoms and not the disease. The disease, as it so commonly is, is discrimination. Women are paid less than men on average, even today. Women receive full custody of their children far more often than men do as well as the economic burden that stems forth from having extra mouths to feed and a lower paying job to boot. This is the problem. Welfare reform and pro-marriage initiatives were bastardized solutions set forth not only to try to fix these symptoms, but also to ignore the real problem. Welfare reform provides sustainability for families for five years and only five years. After that, they are on their own. If we really, as a nation, wanted to reform welfare, it would have been done differently. Instead of focusing on a “pull yourselves up by your bootstraps” Hoovierian method (some good that did with the Depression), we must focus on ...

(The following is serious and personal; just warning you.) Most people who'd read my stuff here couldn't possibly understand that on the whole I'm not an outspoken person. It's not that I don't express an opinion when I need to, but that I rarely see it necessary to rock the boat. If someone wants to believe something harmless, like the world is flat, then so be it. It's their prerogative. I only expect reciprocity. If I'm an atheist, which I am, I don't want people trying to tell me how I'm wrong anymore than anyone else would like me telling them that they're wrong. There are of course forums, specific places and times, where such debate is invaluable, but the line for the change machine at the Laundromat is probably not it. I don't like to rock the boat. Unfortunately, sometimes even in my most well intentioned heart of hearts, and yes it is buried deep down there next to the guts and across from the black stuff, I let things go that proba...

If ever you meander around the web like I do, it has to have struck you by now. Who has time for all this crap? Seriously, think about it. The Internet today is polluted with tons of pure crap. Crap that someone has to take the time to think up and take the time and effort to publish. Then, someone, some woeful someone, has to come by and look at it. If no one looked at it, it wouldn't exist. If no one cared that someone's dog does naughty things to the mailman, or perhaps visa versa , then no one would bother putting this crap online. In the end, that is our legacy isn't it. Not the Internet, but what's on it just as the legacy of a chef isn't the meal they prepare but how good it tastes. Believe me, the Internet is a sour pill today, which leaves me with just one question: Who has time?

On this occasion I would like to focus on the happenings of the Democratic Party at this point in the election cycle. Here, we have a conflict of interests. Yes of course, the Obama v. Clinton conflict is strong and well, though bad for the party and yet good as well, but I speak of another conflict, between old guard and next generation democracy. You may think automatically that I'm still talking about the candidates, and indirectly I am, but I'm really talking about the process by which we nominate candidates for the general election. Our nomination process runs off the old model of democracy "with limits". Candidates must get some number of delegates (2024) and they win the nomination. What we must understand is that in the present format, party elections are not democratic at all. In fact, the only democratic part about the nomination process, the public vote, doesn't even have to be followed. In addition, so-called "super delegates" (in name alone ...