The Boys (and Girls) from Brazil
I admit I have a sick mind. But this film was the first thing I thought of when I read this a few minutes ago. While I very much doubt either one of the Stepford's would run a stop sign let alone skirt adoption laws, one has to wonder why they would go to so much trouble to adopt such lily white kids when there are a multitude of children of color all over the US who need good parents.
do you know of any anti-abortion supporter who has adopted a kid?
Posted by: eli | 09 August 2005 at 10:39
Two things come to mind when I think about that film:
Gregory Peck and vicious dogs.
Posted by: Agi T. Prop | 09 August 2005 at 12:14
Of course, were they to have adopted "children of color," the race pimps would start screaming about how Black children belong with Black parents, but hey -- it's fun to paint conservatives good enough to adopt children into the racist box, no matter which brush we need to use.
You are repulsive.
Posted by: Jeff G | 09 August 2005 at 12:24
Are you suggesting that there should be some sort of affirmative action policy regarding adoption? Perhaps you would say these children don't deserve their good fortune; that there are already enough white children who have been adopted to fill that quota. In your statements you're getting close to that attitude, which says more about you than it does about John Roberts.
I second Jeff, you have a horrible mind.
Posted by: Ben | 09 August 2005 at 13:21
i think jeff g has a crush on you.
the more interesting question for discussion, however, is when he brings up the question of people adopting outside of their race. i believe a kid is a kid is a kid and that people who adopt should overlook color and just adopt whatever healthy kid they can.
Posted by: eli | 09 August 2005 at 13:21
No, of course I don't think there should be affirmative action for adoption. People adopt the "one" they choose for all kinds of reasons. It just seems weird to me to go to so much trouble when there are lots of kids in the US who don't get adopted because of their skin color.
Posted by: Roxanne | 09 August 2005 at 13:24
do you know of any anti-abortion supporter who has adopted a kid?
Me.
And every other adoptive parents I know.
In fact, I can't think of a single adoptive parent I have ever met who is in favor of baby-killing. Fetal homicide. Call it what you will.
I hope this blog, and everyone like you, continues to do exactly as you have been doing, continues to say exactly what you believe, and reveals your attitudes, beliefs and opinions with as much candor and efficiency as humanly possible.
Doing so can only hasten the self-destruction of the left-liberal agenda.
Congratulations, cretins. You represent your party well.
Posted by: Phinn | 09 August 2005 at 13:45
Of course, were they to have adopted "children of color," the race pimps would start screaming about how Black children belong with Black parents
Gosh, until now I was unaware you could accuse someone of hypocrisy for expressing an opinion because you can dream up an opposing opinion someone else might have. Thanks for clearing that up.
Posted by: doghouse riley | 09 August 2005 at 13:46
Is it more weird to you because they're so "lily" white? Would brunettes have been less suspicious? I suppose my kids would remind you of a Nazi Youth meeting, since the accident of genetics gave them blond hair (which I suppose will likely darken with age, but that won't change the fact that they're blonde on the inside).
Posted by: Hubris | 09 August 2005 at 13:46
Hey, John and Cindy McCain adopt a child of color. And guess what? The Bush campaign smeared him for it during the primary in South Carolina. Remember the "phone survey" where they asked, "Would you feel differently about John McCain if you knew he had a biracial child?" Implying though sex with a black woman, of course, or as it was called when it was illegal, "miscegenation."
Smearing a guy for adopting a minority child ... promoting miscegenation laws ... pandering to racism ... all par for the course for Bush and the "compassionate conservatives."
And just to reply to the assholes above, I have friends who have adopted children of different racial/ethnic backgrounds and its worked out beautifully - because of love. Ah, forget it ... you wouldn't understand. You pretend you're about faith and caring ... you're about being anti-woman and anti-minority.
Posted by: RJ Eskow | 09 August 2005 at 14:22
Nothing like watching the members of the Aryan Nation pretend that John Edwards is the victim of racist mob violence.
Posted by: PassionFruit | 09 August 2005 at 14:25
*Roberts, I mean.
Posted by: PassionFruit | 09 August 2005 at 14:26
There are many people commenting here on things that don't exist in the original post nor do they exist in the comments they're commenting on.
Posted by: Sam | 09 August 2005 at 14:32
Smearing a guy for adopting a minority child ... promoting miscegenation laws ... pandering to racism ... all par for the course
Ah, two wrongs make a right, an argument seldom seen on the internet! You don't know me, but I'll assure you that I did not participate in the SC push polling.
And just to reply to the assholes above, I have friends who have adopted children of different racial/ethnic backgrounds and its worked out beautifully - because of love. Ah, forget it ... you wouldn't understand.
I reviewed the thread, and I don't see anyone expressing a position against adopting minorities. I see Phinn expressing a view on abortion with which I disagree, but it's outside the scope of the post and I don't feel like engaging in an abortion debate today.
My beautiful niece is actually part Korean (her grandfather was an American GI in Korea). I sure act like I love her, but do I disguise my bigotry in order to accomodate my cognitive dissonance?
Or, just maybe, you don't understand.
Posted by: Hubris | 09 August 2005 at 14:34
Hubris,
Isn't it time to get back to your Create A Dialogue With Colin Farrell's Penis Contest (hubris.com)?
Just asking.
Posted by: sylamore | 09 August 2005 at 14:43
sylamore,
You're welcome to enter it (wrong URL though, it's hubris.typepad.com).
Feel like actually addressing anything I've said here? Just asking.
Posted by: Hubris | 09 August 2005 at 14:47
Nah, but thanks for asking. I actually enjoy your site, H. Sorry about the wrong URL. Just thought a little levity might be helpful, since as far as I can tell, NOBODY on this thread has a clue anymore about the "issue" they actually began arguing about. At least I can't figure it out.
Posted by: sylamore | 09 August 2005 at 14:52
Sorry for my bad temper, I've been in a foul mood. Levity would be nice, it's been in short supply lately.
What were we talking about? Oil prices?
Posted by: Hubris | 09 August 2005 at 14:55
Let me take this opportunity to re-direct ...
Given that there are many children in the US who go unadopted because of their skin color, wouldn't it be nice if those who support a "culture of life" adopted them instead of jumping through 800 hoops to adopt kids who are much more easily adopted?
Posted by: Roxanne | 09 August 2005 at 15:01
The high price of Irish babies, I believe. It's scandalous, especially when lower-priced babies are readily available on eBay. What are you gonna do, though. I mean, babies, geez... Can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em.
Posted by: sylamore | 09 August 2005 at 15:01
I myself fetched $30,000 on the black market. And that was in 1954 dollars.
Roxanne,
- I assume there's a surplus of kids in Irish orphanages that need adoptive parents; I would guess the strength of traditional Catholicism there makes it even more acute. The kids' individual needs there are as great as the need of unadopted children in this country. Why should national boundaries matter? I don't pretend to be an expert on adoption, but is there definitely a huge surplus of children here? If so, why do people go to China to adopt? I assume it's not racism 'cause those babies are Chinese and stuff.
- I can't claim to know that there are 800 hoops they jumped through, nor can I compare them to the hoops they would encounter here. You might know more about the details (seriously).
- In (sort of) summary, could there possibly have been a motivating factor besides race? That's maybe none of our business? And doesn't have anything to do with the guy's qualifications (or lack thereof) as a SCOTUS justice?
Posted by: Hubris | 09 August 2005 at 15:12
I looked around in an effort to answer some of my own questions. It seems that some people adopt internationally to avoid dealing with the problem of birth parents changing their mind and/or to avoid an "open" adoption.
Then again, it's a Wikipedia post, so it could have been written by some dude between bong hits.
Posted by: Hubris | 09 August 2005 at 15:47
As I remember, former senator Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH) was a big supporter of interracial adoptions. In his last term he tried to get legislation passed that would make it easier for whites to adopt black babies.
Then, the racial hucksters, and the Congressional Black Caucus (one in the same??) put a stop to that.
Why? Because according to them, black babies should NEVER be placed with white families, as it supposedly would degrade a black child's heritage to his/her own.
So Jeff G's comment still stands, and no one here has even tried to address it. I'll try myself: Who's being the racist? White families who would love to adopt a black baby? Or black racial hucksters who don't want to lose their power base?
TV (Harry)
Posted by: Inspector Callahan | 09 August 2005 at 15:55
I'm so sure that there's plenty of white people who want to adopt black kids but are stopped by the naughty black people on your shit list, Inspector. I am also sure that I fart leperchauns.
Posted by: PassionFruit | 09 August 2005 at 16:08
PassionFruit,
I don't about the CBC, but there has been a continuing debate/issue with respect to "race matching" on the part of social workers/agencies over the years..
Try Googling adoption/race matching so you can find a source you trust.
Posted by: Hubris | 09 August 2005 at 16:20