Letter to the Editor – Writen June 2010

Children aren’t commodities

One recent Saturday as I was about to enter Overton Park for a long walk with Fritz, a young German shepherd I adopted in April, I decided to check out an unusual sign for a multifamily fundraiser for families that wished to adopt children. The people I met were friendly, white and well-off financially. I learned that a few families were pooling together some items that had been gathering dust in an attempt to raise funds to adopt children from foreign countries. I left uncomfortable about the concept of selling castaway items for that purpose.

I wondered: Was there a shortage of children in the Memphis area who would benefit from the care and guardianship of a loving and financially secure family? I found out that there was no such shortage. I contemplated how funds that might be raised to secure an international adoption might help the children of our own region who have great need, but who may not be ideal candidates for adoption due to their age or other factors.

I then investigated and found that an international adoption typically could cost up to $50,000 in travel costs and fees — legal fees, documentation fees, baby broker fees and probably other fees that are needed to grease the wheels of progress. Adoption, particularly international adoption, is big business, with youngsters as the commodity and a need to graft another person into a family tree the motivational force.

I found my skepticism growing toward the altruistic jargon used at the fundraiser. I concluded that the fundraising event wasn’t about the child’s welfare, but about possessing a child by any means. I asked myself: Why not just donate the money to the foreign orphanages to help the kids? But then the adoptive parents would not gain the child; these people who purchase a wanted commodity by selling off knicknacks are well-versed in the lingo of many websites dedicated to international adoption. Sadly, the commodities were human beings.

Decency mandates that children who have lost their family be given respect and empathy, not a yard sale. Do you suppose that one day the youngsters will ask to hear the heartwarming story of how their loving parents sold off some end tables to purchase them? I suspect they may be told how lucky they are that they have such spiritually generous parents.

Human beings, particularly defenseless and voiceless children, deserve better from society. This practice would be an outrage in a moral society, and is de facto human trafficking.

Quote of the Day…..

Said numerous times to my lovely bride the last few weeks during the political season….

“Just when I thought I was out …. They pull me back” — Michael Corleone Godfather III

The Real Reasons Why The GOP Lost in 2012 Part I

I posted this in some forms on other sites.  I guess that was a motivator to re-open the door here.

The real reason why the GOP lost this election – and has been trending downwards since 1992 Part I

Failure to realize the demographic changes in the US and engage in meaningful policy discussion with the groups that now represent 25% to 30% of the general electorate. If the GOP (as a whole) continues to lament (and rightly so) the “bad idea” of throwing money to those in dire SES and continues to have “no ideas” that gain traction to these subgroups they will continue to lose about 85% of this group – who do vote – and will never be a consistent majority party in the most densely populated sections of the nation.

I said it back when the Immigration Reform Bill was rejected – short term bad idea – long term suicide. GOP had a chance to enact legislation to an ethnic group and taken the mantle of Lincoln – whom most Republicans and particularly hard right Conservatives would run out of the GOP on a rail – as writers of legislation nearly as significant as the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil Rights Act – but we couldn’t “compromise” which is the basis of any Republic.

That short-sighted decision has cost and will continue to cost the GOP the largest growing demographic group in our nation and will continually put us on the defense.

Do I like the illegal immigration situation – of course not

Do I like that social welfare issues are costly – of course not

Could a reasonable compromise been made – it should have been.

When was the last time serious POLICY initiatives have been discussed with leaders from these two groups by Conservatives where we listen as much as we speak?

Are there other reasons why the GOP and Conservatives are again on the outside looking in – as we have been for 16 of the last 25 years (if you consider the Bush years Conservative) yes – but as a movement Conservatives are deluded if they think they can ignore 1/3 of the electorate and ever be more than a regional party.

Where are the problem solvers in the Conservative movement?

Some Changes

I’ve moved twice since I last wrote on this blog.  This was due to losing my employment as a public school administrator and my wife losing her job as a manager at IBM.  I’ve been working as a college professor in Tennessee and now am in WV. 

We lost it all between 2009 and 2010 – the house – our credit – everything.  However, in it all a most kind Providence was at work.  Our marriage of many years is better than ever – I think I have realized truly what a treasure I have in my best friend, my life partner, my wonderful wife.  We’ve streamlined our life – as seen when all of your worldly goods can be moved in a 14′ U-Haul truck.  This was humbling – but was a good thing.  I think I’m a more understanding person.  I’ve also had a strong rebirth of faith – although I would classify myself more as a highly Orthodox Christian.  In any case, I believe that is the greatest change in me.  Most of my motivations are now wrapped in the context of my own understandings of the Christian ethos.  I am content.

I am more moderate in politics than I was in some ways – certainly more Libertarian and hopefully more thoughtful. 

More to follow.

What is it about Presidential Elections that Make me Write?

Well the election is over and again my preferred choice lost.  I’ll be posting some thoughts about the process and how for some reason I got pulled back into all of this. 

Many life changes have occurred and I’ll share them with you. 

With regards to some of the changes there are some that are real with my employment (thank you economy) and my views – still reasonable – but the avatar may have moved a bit.

Anyhow if you happen to stumble here I wish you well and invite your reasonable comments – even if they are not shared by myself – if they are done in a manner that is respectful.  Disagreement in an agreeable tone needs to be more common in our society.

 

The Voice is now a “Man of Letters”

For those who may be interested I successfully defended my doctoral dissertation yesterday. I am now Dr. Voice of Reason

I Never Knew I was an Extremist

It’s amazing, but I have the feeling that I am being painted as an extremist.  I never knew that I was such a person, but it seems that the pop culture view has determined that is my estate.  I realized this when I was watching a television show that I used to enjoy, Law and Order, and found the message they were sending out about those who may have somewhat “conservative” ideology troubling. 

I used to enjoy Law and Order.  I liked it a great deal when it focused upon a murder or other serious crime happening in New York City.  The police work was enjoyable and the trial was quick, not like the times I’ve spent on jury duty which has been long and mundane to say the least.  The plot was simple to follow, bad guy kills another – often not so good themselves – get bad guy in jail. 

Then the show began to change and they had to have a message.  The new theme more than often is someone representing a stereotype of  mainstream conservative or religious values is portrayed as some psychopath or pawn in the manipulations of a vast conspiracy such as being uncomfortable with issues in sexual definitions, abortion rights controversies, illegal alien controversies, or any other social issue.  However, one consistent trend occurs, if you are on the side of the conservative you are the killer or a person who wants to destroy the work of the wonderful Manhattan DA’s and New York’s Finest.  Even the hiring of Fred Thompson for a short career as the bumbling DA of the city didn’t stop this trend.  His folksy deprecations and defenses of the perpetrators of the evil right are flimsy at best and tend towards being myopic at many times. 

I guess since I am not fully comfortable with abortion on demand, have some misgivings about unbridled stem cell research, am not positive that marriage between non-traditional partners is needed nor a good thing, am concerened about the societal and policy problems brought about by the continuing deluge of illegal immigrants flooding into this country, I am now an extremist.  Probably doubly so, because I actually at one time was foolish enough to wear the uniform of a soldier.  It is amazing how the perception of those who were moderate to somewhat conservative have been pigeon holed into being some new form or right wing extremist.

What is actually odd is how this labeling has effected me.  While I am a bit angered, I do not feel a need to become mobilized or to be more of an activist, or even to post more.  I don’t care anymore.  when I hear ill tidings which may befall this nation ….I don’t care.  I hope it doesn’t effect me personally, nor those I know, but I feel disassociated from the process, and from my fellow citizens.   Maybe I perceive they are really not on the same team I am on.  Perhaps this is how many of the left of center felt when they felt they were being pigeon holed as extremist. 

I just don’t know when that I became one.

The March of States Towards Gay Marriage

A thoughtful and sane analyis, written by Froma Harrop, of current trends of states legalizing (or normalizing) marriage between gay partners appeared in the Providence Journal.

In this article she posted many of the changes which have occured recently. 

She reported:  “The Iowa Supreme Court struck down a ban on same-sex marriage, providing a toehold in the heartland. And the Vermont Legislature legalized gay marriage, marking the first time that elected lawmakers, rather than state judges, initiated such change.”

This latter development is important and it is well that Harrop notes this.  While one may agree or disagree regarding gay marriage, the legislature making the move, rather than judges making a decision is an important step in this process.  Legislators are elected and can be held accountable.  The move towards democratization of the process is a positive step as the representatives of the people are in fact, doing their job.

She later wrote:
“There’s much to be said for letting states settle the question of gay marriage, one step and one jurisdiction at a time. This pragmatic approach does not always sit well with gay rights activists. They consider marriage a basic human right that should not be honored in one place and abridged in another.”

This is also true.  There is a deep divide whether marriage is a right, and one that the need for licensure seems to give weight that it is not an inherent right.  While one has a right say to free speech, they would have to obtain a license to exercise that free speech in certain conditions.  The same is true for heterosexual couples as for homosexual couples.  The states have statutory authority to restrict or grant licenses, and the people have a right via the legislature to express their voice.  Granting the rights of legal status are not analogous of limiting exercise of property rights, visitation rights, and expansion of benefits of employment, public housing and services etc. to homosexual couples.  Many gay activists understandably wish for the process to be expedited, but this is not in their long term interests.  Roe v Wade is still not accepted by large parts of the nation, and as Harrop reports, is still looked on unfavorably from a Constitutional vantage point by many “Pro-Choice” legal experts.   In the end states will make this decision, and for all parties this is the best remedy.  States are closer to the people and in that view are more democratic than federal interventions. 

Harrop also reports on the changing of cultural norms:

In a poll done shortly after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court threw out the ban on same-sex marriages, over half those residents surveyed said they wanted a state constitutional amendment limiting marriage to between one man and one woman. But a poll taken three years later found that 56 percent of the Massachusetts respondents would oppose such an amendment.

What happened in Massachusetts? Gay marriage had become legal, and the sky hadn’t fallen in.  People got used to the idea.

The strongest ally for homosexual partners who wish to become legally married is the changing of cultural perspectives on the norms of human relationships and sexuality.  Harrop does not report about another factor that leads to shifts in cultural norms and mores, the role of the media.  Right or wrong the media has framed homosexual relationships in positive light or at the very least in neutral lights.  This along with homosexuals become more visible and vocal in society has lead to the formation of new cultural perspectives regarding this aspect of human sexuality.  Younger people are more attuned to viewing homosexuality as an alternate form of human sexuality and not an aberrant or discrepant form of sexual expression.  The media has played a large part in this normalization process, and an occlusion of the old paradigm has coalesced with the formation of a newer paradigm. 

There is also the perception among many that this issue is a human rights issue.  Once that perception becomes the reality, in a democracy the outcome is inevitably going to side with the group that is seeking a rise in their status to acceptance.  This is not inherently a bad thing; while for some it may be emotionally painful.  It is merely the reshaping of the norms of a society and has happened throughout history.  Of course many will reply that homosexuality is the bane of a powerful culture and a sure sign its demise is imminent.  That is a ludicrous proposition based on emotion and not fact.  Homosexuality was practiced by segments of society that were rather formidable in history.  Cultures decline for other reasons, usually economic and military, apart from the practices of people regarding their sexual choices.

Harrop correctly concludes that the “straight path” to change is often not as beneficial as the slow steady road that this issue seems to be taking in American society.

Self Actualization and Adoptive Parenting

As some of the loyal readers of this humble blog know I am always interested in research proposals of varying degree.  Recently I have begun a cursory review of the literature regarding formation of self concept in children.  This became a very broad topic, and so I limited my research to formation of academic self concept and adopted children.   Some of the initial reading has been interesting and illuminating.  It also lead me to a conversation with an expert in adoptee issues – who is always more than willing to sledgehammer any ideas I may have about the topic.  Actually, their input is usually very helpful.

Trying to get a broad view on the topic, I was just perusing through news articles one day and just hit adoption as a key word.  Of course the topic of Madonna and her attempts to adopt a child from Africa came up.  As I read I reflected, more on formation of self-concept issues.  This lead me to have rather strong opinions forming, which is often the driving force behind some research.  The researcher then has to do a lot of work with colleagues on the audit trail (if ethnographic approaches are used or on content validity if a survey device is used) to make sure that bias hasn’t crept in.

However, my reflections were what were the basis of Madonna’s wish to adopt a child from a third world nation and the potential outcomes.  Her motivation she claims is altruistic and are in the interests of the child.  Whenever I hear a person citing purely altruistic motivations, and my cynicism may be ramped up proportionally by the wealth or influence of the alleged altruist, my BS radar is actively pinging.  I honestly don’t really believe that the actions of most people are done from altruistic motives but are done to promote self-actualization.  There are so many benefits to this woman or any other person who ventures upon a course of adoption and many have formed guises to rationalize this understandable emotional benefit derived on the one who chooses to adopt. 

Some of these fallacious altruisms may be:

1) God told us to adopt this child.  While I am second to none in the role that faith may play in a person’s life, I am skeptical about this in many cases.  Recently I came across a study that cited that nearly 40% of all adopted children are turned back in to the adoption agency.  It is mathematically impossible that none of this children weren’t initially adopted at the behest of the Almighty.  Either God was changing his mind in these instances or the person was acting in their own self interests – which may have some positive outcome for other mind you, and things didn’t quite work out.  You will not believe how many people “knew” that God had drawn them to their spouse only to end up in divorce proceedings.  Nations do this also.  Whenever God speaks and tells someone to do some certain minute detail of their life, I am convinced that 90% of the time it is really a quite human rationalization to justify or lend credence to an action they would like to do without the involvement of God.  While some may strongly believe this to be true, I am unaware that Madonna in particular has claimed to have a “Burning bush” experience.

2) Adoption is done in the interest of the child.  This one may be more nefarious than citing the blessings of a deity because it shows an underlying arrogance on the part of the one who is adopting.  Most people adopt out of a need they have more so than the need of the child.  If this were truth there are some discrepancies that must be addressed.  Why are the overwhelming number of children adopted under the age of four?  Statistics show that as the child’s age increases their chance at being adopted decreases in geometric proportion to their age.  These children have great need, yet the Almighty and the interests of these children are not being considered by a vast portion of people who are eligible for adopting.  Another discrepancy is the large number of guarantees that many adoption agencies put forward in their promotion of adopting children.  Guarantees of the health of the child, that the child is not offspring of someone who was drug addicted among others can be secured with a price.  These are contractual issues which if violated would constitute breach and make the agency liable to damages or to provide a more suitable child.  Much of this talk seems to be reminiscent of contracts entered into when purchasing a dog for show or for breeding, which may be a more accurate analogy to the practices of many who adopt a child. 

In this particular instance a child from an economically disadvantaged nation may be adopted by a person of incredible wealth.  There will doubtlessly be some economic advantage afforded this child that they would not be given access to should they remain in their current condition.  However, there is a large amount of arrogance in the presupposition that adoption is in the interest of the child.  What this child – and many who are adopted from developing nations – loses in regard to their culture, their language, their inherent religion,  and in total their sense of identity within that culture, may outweigh what they gain by access to wealth.  Statistically, this cultural arrogance is strengthened by the tendency of developed nations seeking out these children from undeveloped nations at a rate that is growing astronomically. 

Another litmus test of this alleged altruism being in reality cultural arrogance can be illustrated in this scenario.  Picture children in desparate need of basic necessities such as food, medical care, clean sanitary housing and education.  These children exist in many places in the United States.  Many of these children are also White – as in Appalachia and other areas of the nation.  A large number of these children are adopted by parents who are of Islamic or say Hindu background.  They are wealthy and could meet the physical needs of these children far better than their indigenous parents or perhaps than the social agencies in their region.  The prospective adopted parents – who have dark skin, speak a different language and worship in a different fashion state that God told them they should adopt this poor suffering American child.  The child will be forced to learn the language of the parents, will be raised in the religion of these parents and it is understood they will be asked to take on the world view of the predominant culture of these parents.  This is in the interest of the child.  One must wonder if this would be the view of any in the Industrialized West if this were a common practice.  

Adoption like most human activities is done out motives of self actualization.  If Madonna or any prospective adoptive parent wanted to act in a more altruistic fashion they would make a private donation to a bona fide relief organization for that or any other child which would raise the standards of living for those children.  Lord knows they need that.  What has happened in current practices and policies of parents from Industrialized nations adopting children from undeveloped nations is in many ways more akin to the stripping of natural resources – in forms of humanity – that happened during times of European Imperial aspirations from the 15th through the 20th centuries – moreso than acting in altruistic methods for the interests of children.  An interesting study might be to compare the emotional factors that prospective adoptive parents face and find out the degree that they are causative towards the action of adopting a child.  This would be particularly interesting is analyzed by comparing the adoptee’s emotional factors and see how they were causative in forming self concepts in the adoptee.

3) Adoption is a win-win -Due to the length of this post comments will be brief.  Adoption at its base is formed by loss and usually accompanied by some type of pain.  It is not a win win.  Don’t get me wrong.  Adoption can be of benefit to all parties, but my feeling is that looking honestly into the mirror of self would be an important factor in this occurring.  However, in most situations may be making the best of a situation – and the policy practices currently in place by developing nations desperate for influx of currency from Industrialized nations – and the need of those who are comparatively wealthy to have a child by nearly any means necessary – create conditions which are from from the “win-win” picture painted or at all “best” policies.   The current painting being framed by society is one of impoverished and helpless (nations and children) being removed from indigenous lands by the powerful and wealthy (mostly those from the Industrialized West) for ostensibly altruistic motivations.  

Hardly the stuff of headline news.  Even when Madonna is on the front page; it is merely history repeating itself.

Disappearing Posts

I was advised to against posting some of my work (conference papers and such) on this site as it was considered professional suicide. 

I will have to find some other format to get the information out without giving away too much!

 

Sorry for the disappearing posts – I know I have an avid reader following!!!