Blue Moon Aurora

I was originally not going to comment on this story about the mother who sent her adopted child back to Russia, but there is a lot of confusion and misinformation out there about Russian adoption.  I usually don’t talk about adoption, because I live it everyday, but here you go.  

First, let’s be honest.  The mother failed.  There is no doubt about it and the little boy has become more broken but unless you are prepared to adopt the kid you shouldn’t be criticizing the mother.  Until you have dealt with an institutionalized child you have no idea what she went through.   

This 7 year old boy probably had FAS and RAD.  If you don’t know what those are consider yourself very, very lucky.  This poor boy was messed up by his alcoholic parents and then dumped in an orphanage.  He was definitely physically abused and possibly sexually abused.  This boy’s worst enemy is himself.  Institutionalized kids are master manipulators.  They turn parents against one another.  They drive away the people whose love they need.  They are destructive and hurtful, because they can’t handle being loved.  If you think all you need is faith, love, and a little therapy to deal with one of these kids you are going to be in a world of hurt.  The kid will drain your faith and love in short order and conventional parenting will utterly fail with these kids.  

Let me give you an example.  Your kid does something wrong.  With a normal family you send the kid to his room for a “time out” and he feels bad because he’s separated from the family.  If you do this with an institutionalized child you have reaffirmed to him you don’t love him which is a vindication for his bad behavior.  What do you do? You do a “time in” with the kid where he has to stay within arms length of you for the duration of his punishment.  This is hard, fatiguing, and heartbreaking because the kid doesn’t make it easy.  I’ve done this – it sucks.  This is one example of dozens of situations were the conventional parenting technique can worsen the situation and the proper course is hellishly difficult.  Welcome to dealing with an institutionalized child.  

The mother in our story is correct about one thing.  The Russian authorities do lie about the kids in their care.  They want them adopted.  The adoption agencies do sugarcoat adoption as does everyone.  They want kids to be adopted.  Adoptive parents also don’t enter the process with eyes wide open, because they want a kid and they naively believe that with their love they will triumph.  The system is messed up, but it’s even worse for the over 700,000 kids in Russian state care whose prospects are grim…very grim.  

I have gone through this.  We adopted two kids from Russia.  They were siblings aged 3 and 5 at the time of the adoption.  We were far more prepared than most adoptive parents.  We were younger than most, which helps.  We had a super strong marriage, which is a necessity.  We had read dozens of books and even attended a conference for adoptive parents.  We were the only couple at the conference that came BEFORE we adopted.  We hadn’t gone through infertility treatments as we had always wanted to adopt so we were ready to go.  We picked an awesome agency.  We had doctors to review the information and videos sent by the orphanage to make sure we didn’t have a major problem we couldn’t handle.  We knew we didn’t want serious mental deficiencies, FAS, and we hoped to hell we didn’t get RAD, but that one is a wildcard.  We also decided to adopt older children who were siblings; most adoptive parents want to adopt infants.  We knew all too well from our research that just getting an infant didn’t guarantee less problems - and we didn’t want to deal with diapers.

We were prepared.  We had a good agency and we dealt with a good orphanage.  We even are in contact with our kids’ biological family and they are good people.  Our kids have very minor problems compared to what some adopted kids have.  In other words we were lucky.  Still I will say this – the first three months were hellish and the first two years very difficult.   You can’t prepare for it.  Michelle had a tough time with the kids and had the equivalent of post-partum depression, yes; you can have this with adoptions.   I was in my last semester of law school.  My mom, who is made of iron, came to help and that got us through, but she who raised four difficult boys in difficult times would be the first admit we were facing a real challenge. 

I was the stay-at-home dad and I went on auto-pilot to graduate from law school.  I had to deal with therapeutic holding, feces smeared on walls and hidden in rooms, physical attacks, biting, tantrums you couldn’t imagine where the screaming could be heard across the block, and kids who if not watched would destroy things important to us because that would hurt us, like my laptop they poured milk in, they would lie to one parent to turn that parent against the other, and they would have burned down the house if they could have gotten away with it.  Imagine sleeping across the hall from the kids’ rooms and being ever vigilant for when they try to sneak out of their rooms to cause mayhem.  So what do you do? You either crack and fall apart or you adapt and survive.  You never succeed – you just survive and win minor battles.  You put bells and alarms on the house, you lock every cabinet with padlocks, and you just try to protect them from themselves while giving them boundaries and unconditional love.  All the while you use the parenting techniques developed by the experts and hope that the experts have some idea what they are talking about.   All the while the kids goad you and taunt you and do their best to make you hate them – that’s what they want because it’s what they know.  They want to be abandoned, they don’t want to be loved, and they will push your buttons.  You have to remember institutionalized kids are survivors and they are cunning manipulators.   

These kids are their own worst enemies.  It is so tragic and painful, but being in the middle of it is even more tragic and painful.  

So are you getting a better idea of the situation this mother might have faced with this boy she adopted?  I’ll be honest, our kids are mild compared to the kids some families we know have had to deal with.  We were afraid we had RAD for a long time but we didn’t, or more accurately it was very mild and we dealt with it, and we are so very thankful for this.  RAD is bad, very, very bad.  Can you imagine being afraid of your child – truly afraid, because they really want to hurt you and they are willing to go to any lengths to do so? If you say no – then you don’t understand what is possible in this world when you are dealing with such broken kids.  

So let’s quit casting stones at the mother, because she had the best intentions but she wasn’t prepared for what she faced.   Is that her fault? Yes, but the system encourages ignorance.   

Now here’s the deal.  There have been tens of thousands of adoptions of Russian kids and 99.9% of them have turned out well, though we define ‘well’ differently than most other parents.   If we can get our kids through high school without them getting arrested or pregnant and can make them productive members of society then we have kicked ass.  When we can do better than that we are parenting gods.  Adoptive parents are resourceful and stubborn – it is the only way you can do it.  I feel for the mother in this story, because she failed.  Honestly, she was a young single mom – she wasn’t prepared for what she took upon herself.  That is her fault, but she has to deal with that.   

You know who else I feel sorry for – all the kids in Russia who need homes and the families that want to adopt them but who might not be able to due to the political situation created by this mother’s actions.  Adoption is hard – not adopting is worse.  Most of those kids who aren’t adopted will either die or fall into horrible situations after they age out of State care – situations like drug abuse, prostitution, homelessness, alcoholism, and early death.  That’s why we adopted from Russia the situation is very bleak there.  That’s why we adopted older kids and siblings who are far less likely to be adopted.   

I can also say that I feel sorry for this mother, because five years out – we have two spectacular kids.  They are bright, positive, and lots of fun to be around.  They are some of the best behaved kids we know and they are flourishing.  We still have problems.  We always will.   But we got through those really hellish early years.  It wasn’t love, but hardcore parenting and determination.   However, it takes a toll and only now do we really feel we have turned the corner and are dealing with mostly normal parenting issues.  Parenting has, and remains, the hardest and most thankless job I have ever had.  I’m good at it, but it’s like managing two unruly employees who belong to the world’s most powerful union.  That is the world of the adoptive parent.

One of the most oppressed minorities in our nation won a stunning victory yesterday with the Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) decision in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, which can be found here.  Though if I were you I would just skip to page 88 and Justice Stevens’ dissent as the losers are always more informative and interesting when it comes to reading decisions.  However, for those who don't want to read boring legalese I can sum it all up – corporations have full First Amendment rights and attempts to limit their freedom of speech are unconstitutional! 

This has been a long hard fight for the oppressed corporations who were only first recognized as persons in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886) and they have been fighting for more rights ever since.  Human beings are considered natural persons, which are like persons except they can’t be incorporated and have to actually work for their money.  This may surprise you but corporations still can’t get married or even vote, but Citizens United signals that change is in the winds and the current activist majority of the Supreme Court will extend corporations’ rights as soon as the right case gets to them.  This is only fair; as corporations are just like human beings, well, except for the fact they have lots more money, which as Justice Scalia and company would agree – makes them better!

In fact, considering that our activist majority basically equates money with speech there is a strong argument that corporations may already be entitled to the right to vote, which certainly isn’t a more important right than speech, you know the First Amendment.   Voting just takes a few minutes at best and most natural persons don’t even bother to do it, but creating and distributing a fallacious political attack add takes hours, maybe days, and certainly is of greater value than the right to vote.  It certainly costs a lot more and it’s all about the money.  So I imagine it’s only a matter of time before SCOTUS gives corporations the right to vote, but how much of a vote should they get?  Well, since SCOTUS thinks money is the same as speech then let’s use that as our standard.  The US median income for a family is about $50,000, and each family has at least one vote, so a company like Wal-Mart should get about 8 million votes and McDonald’s just 450,000 votes.  That’s only fair. 

IBM has been an oppressed person for decades but SCOTUS has given him the same right to say whatever dumb shit he wants just like any natural person.  So keep an eye out for IBM to be posting racist bullshit in blog comments, starting flame wars on forums, and using that hard won freedom of speech just like the rest of us. 

Life has been hard for corporations.  I had a friend who dated a corporation in high school and there was a lot of pressure on them to breakup.  You see corporations can merge with one another, but they can’t marry natural persons.  It’s unfair.  However, they broke up over kids; he wanted them but she didn’t want to settle down when there were still profits to be made.  He’s currently dating a union, but I don’t think he loves her as much as he did the union.  Let’s face it – corporations are just sexier.  Still considering that freedom of speech is perhaps the most sacred of rights in this nation, easily more enshrined than let’s say marriage, it’s easy to see that SCOTUS will obviously extend this right as well to corporations, who really are the same as natural persons, except they have a lot more money.  So I’m confident my friend and his union girlfriend will get married and have little PACs in no time. 

I am so proud of Justices Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas to say what we all know in our hearts: corporations are just as important as living breathing people, because corporations make piles of money.  Corporations give so much to this country; in Walter Reed there are dozens of corporations missing limbs from combat in Iraq and now they have equal First Amendment rights as the other soldiers.  It really warms the heart.  On September 11th the number of corporations that died I think helped bring the country together to agree that corporations should be treated as fully equal citizens.  The sacrifices of corporations, especially since a lot of them have lost a lot of money the last few years, I really think moved SCOTUS to raise corporations up with those other historically oppressed minorities like women and African-Americans.  If Obama can become President, then so can Microsoft - that’s the American dream and I’m glad SCOTUS is making it happen.

The Democratic Party needs to take some lessons from James Cameron’s Avatar if they want to make sure that what happened in Massachusetts stays in Massachusetts.  Avatar has pulled in $1.6 billion with more on the way, won the Golden Globe’s Best Picture award, and is considered a cinematography phenomenon.  Sequels are in the works and James Cameron is once again “King of the World”.  It's 3-D CGI change we can believe in. 

The Democratic Party on the other hand, has lost a special election in Massachusetts over the late Ted Kennedy’s seat and with that its filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, healthcare reform is in the balance (possibly dead), and public opinion towards the Democratic Party is plummeting.  The irony is that at the 2008 election it was Senator Barak Obama and the Democratic Party that were “King of the World” and what a difference two years makes.   

Now the Republicans are claiming that Americans are fed up with the Democrat’s liberal agenda centered on a watered-down healthcare reform bill that is neither liberal nor probably that significant of a reform.  It represented change we can accomplish – which isn’t a catchy slogan.  It’s not liberalism that is bringing down the Democratic Party, but something more insidious – a lack of a message.  The only good news for the democrats is that the Republican Party doesn’t have a message either besides the typical oppositional rhetoric.  However, “the party of no” will always beat the “the party of whatever” and that is why the democrats are going down. 

Avatar had a liberal bent.  No let me rephrase that – Avatar was an angry call for revolution.  The military is evil, capitalism is heartless, scientists are well-meaning but politically ineffectual, and it would all be better if we loved mother earth and ran through the jungles naked.  I’m fairly progressive, some might call me liberal, but Avatar was way out there – it made the Green Party look mainstream.  However, it’s popular and everyone is watching the movie, the only haters are those of us who are picky about our science fiction movies and that transcends politics.  If climate change legislation happens this year it won’t be because of the Democratic Party.  No, it will be because of Avatar and its glow-in-the-dark-computer-like trees.   

Avatar does touch on healthcare - if it wasn't for our horrible healthcare system then Jake Sully wouldn't have had to go to Pandora to earn new legs and the blue-skinned aliens would never have been saved by the white guy.

The Democratic Party has no message and this is why they are struggling.  The message has to come from President Obama and he just hasn’t delivered it to either the American people or the Democratic Party.  It doesn’t matter what the message is as long as it is sparkly and simple enough to resonate.  For Avatar the message was nature good and Republican values bad.  That’s not a bad message.  Healthcare, welfare, and all that stuff deals with people.  When you deal with people you have value judgments.  A homeless person is something unclean and contemptible, but the stray cat or dog evokes pity.  Nature is free of value judgments, we are more generous to other species than we are to our own.  That however is a political reality, but it can be overcome and you can tackle real issues like healthcare IF you have a message, a strong narrative, something to communicate a vision to people.  If you don’t have that then the opposition controls the narrative and all you are doing is trying to hold on to power, which you will definitely lose. 

The only thing that matters in politics is that you stand for something.  Okay it helps if you are good looking and eloquent, but if you don’t stand for something then people can’t pin their hopes to you.  The Democratic Party needs to stop talking about all the problems created by President Bush and tell us what their vision for the United States really is.  Honestly, anything will do as long as there is true commitment to the vision.  If Americans can accept blue-skinned aliens with USB ports in their ass then they will accept anything as long as it represents the Democratic Party standing up for something besides winning more elections. 

So yesterday the Jehovah Witnesses swung through the neighborhood again, and as usual, I politely listened to their pitch and took the magazines they offered.  However, for the first time the two women I was dealing with were rather, well, snarky.  Usually the Jehovah Witnesses are pretty nice and amiable, but these last two annoyed me.  

I mentioned I was Buddhist and that we shared many of the same concerns about declining morality and the like and wished them well.  Usually this gets me off the hook and they move on, but this couple decided to rip into Buddhism and really tried to pitch the whole ‘you need God’ thing as the End Times were coming up quick.  Apparently this group must be using the Mayan Calendar or have been taking the recent rash of apocalyptic movies too much to heart.  

Or it might have been the older white woman who said she had lived in our neighborhood for 40 years and that lately it had gotten a lot worse –in suburban speak this is translated as “minorities are moving into the neighborhood”.  We had the same thing in Gainesville when the old timers freaked out as a middle class black family moved into the neighborhood.  O the terror!  Interestingly, when minorities move into an all white neighborhood it actually raises property values, this is a complicated process and is fed indirectly by racism but it is well documented.  Still we get some snarky racist comment from most of our white neighbors almost every time we talk to them.  Interestingly, at school events I mostly deal with the minorities as they are the younger generation with kids in the neighborhood.  Nice people.  Just like everyone else they are just trying to make a living and give their kids opportunities.  

Anyway back to the Jehovah Witnesses.  They begin by going into the fact that the Buddha was just a man and not a god.  As if I didn’t know that, but I guess the analogy was that as Buddha was just human and as Jesus was the half-God adopted son of Joseph then clearly Jesus had to be superior.  It felt like I was trapped in one of those ‘Whose Better Captain Kirk or Captain Picard?’ discussions (obviously, Picard) – of course religion was the first fandom.  I’ll give you that Jesus was pretty cool.  He could walk on water, conjure up food, heal people, bring people back from the dead, even brought himself back from the dead, gave some great sermons, and kicked some moneylender ass.  But come on.  The Buddha would lay the smack down on the Virgin-Spawn…or probably not as they were both pacifists.  Most likely they would just sigh and complain to each other about their idiot followers, starting with Ananda and Peter and then moving right down to their most wacky sects today.  There would be some laughs, some tears, but definitely no smack down.  Personally, I’m a fan of both of them, I’m just not too keen on some of their followers, but I’m pretty confident they would agree with me on that point.  

Anyway, back to the Jehovah Witnesses, they then go into this malarkey about how we need the Creator, i.e. God to take us up to Heaven when the End Times come.  What the hell? Literally, I guess.  So they did ask me a question – who created everything if not God?  Apparently, this is one of the retorts they must be taught to deal with us wacky Buddhists; we’re like atheists but with cooler stories.  So I responded with ‘why do you need to have a beginning?’  They kind of ignored my point and I didn’t really want to push it, but it is the question – why do we need a beginning or really an end?  

Humans are very linear creatures we have this need for beginnings and ends, but as Yoda would say “All his life has he looked away... to the future, to the horizon. Never his mind on where he was”. The Jehovah Witnesses seem to believe the End is coming and they are trying to get everyone to the lifeboats.  In a way, it’s a noble concept.  It’s far better than the right wing nutjobs in this country who are stockpiling weapons and getting ready for the revolution, because a black guy was elected President.  I’ll come out and say it – 75% of the opposition to President Obama is fueled by racism.  It’s all the same thing.  They all believe End Times are coming; maybe the end of the world, maybe the end of America, but the end is coming.  Both groups are the same – instead of focusing on the here and now they just want things to end so they can have a new beginning.  I’ll be blunt – they are all morons!

Beginnings and ends are states of mind.  If you have a problem with society then try to change it, make today your new beginning, but if you are waiting for God to come take you up to Heaven to escape all the problems in the world then in the words of Malcolm Reynolds, “that's a long wait for a train don't come.”  

I’ve never been a believer in God, probably since middle school, maybe earlier; it just didn’t make any sense why some omnipotent being would give a rat’s ass about a group of humans just because they worshipped him.  Maybe there is a God, I don’t know, it’s possible, but it’s not possible that his standard for promotion is simply belief.  Humans will believe anything.  No, I think the truth is that if there is a God he only helps those who help themselves, because that’s the person with vision.  

Take this joke told by a Russian space scientist to an American space scientist:

What is the difference between a realist and a dreamer?

The realist thinks that someday a UFO will come down and hover over the UN building, and that the aliens will come out of the UFO and offer to share their technology and solve all our world's problems.

The dreamer thinks maybe we can get our act together and do it ourselves.

A new movie is coming out titled Orphan and is part of the 'evil kid' genre of horror movies and apparently involves an adopted orphan doing horrible things. Sure it's not the most original idea, but apparently it has angered various adoption groups and even members of Congress to protest the movie. Apparently, there was a line in a trailer which really irked some parents: "It must be hard to love an adopted child as much as your own".  The studio did yank the line from the trailer due to the protest, but there is a call for a boycott by some groups for this movie's portrayal of adoption.  As an adoptive parent I have to just say - are you all out of your frelling minds? 

Let me break this down for people to understand - you idiots just increased the opening weekend gross for this movie by giving it free publicity. Controversy generates interest, which generates tickets when it comes to movies. Yes, there are groups out their 'boycotting' the movie, but come on, it's not like a bunch of middle-aged adoptive parents were going to see this movie in the first place. Seriously, it's a movie titled Orphan and all the posters/trailers show this cute, but obviously evil little girl. I suspect that those who are sensitive about adoption issues weren't going to see this movie in the first place.  

Yes, judging by the poster I suspect that this will be an accurate and insightful movie about adoption and the difficulties experienced by adoptive familys...

--

I would also point out that there is another movie about an orphan who does really bad things that is also out right now: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. Yes, I know Harry Potter is a 'good' orphan, but the movie (I haven't seen it yet, but I have read the book) has a strong focus on the life of Voldemort who is the 'bad' orphan of the Harry Potter series. To J.K. Rowling it's all about blood. Harry had good bio-parents and Tom Riddle had bad bio-parents. Both had a horrible childhood, but Harry turned out better. It's all about blood and genetics. Interesting, isn't it - you can tell that J.K. Rowling isn't an adoptive parent herself. Of course, adoptive parents don't boycott Harry Potter, because at least Harry is a 'good' orphan, though this has nothing to do with parenting but some inherent pure goodness that flourishes at Hogwarts, while for Tom Riddle it's his inherent pure evil that flourishes at Hogwarts. I like the Harry Potter books and movies, but if you are riled up about Orphan then you should just go ballistic about Harry Potter.  

Though let's give Hollywood its due -it actually loves orphans. Besides Harry Potter there was also the orphans Frodo Baggins, who saved Middle Earth, Bruce Wayne, Peter Parker, and Clark Kent (who is also an illegal alien...literally).  Also what about Luke and Leia?  Sure, their father wasn't really dead, but from a certain point of view they were clearly orphans.  Disney loves orphans - they kill off parents with ruthless abandon, though that's because nothing quashes an adventure like a parent. "I don't care what the Fairy Godmother says you aren't going to the cursed castle where the dragon lives and that's final!"  You want some more orphans? How about Worf from Star Trek, not only was he orphaned, but he was adopted and raised by Russians. How cool is that? You know the main characters of the Mummy series (Rick, Evelyn, and Jonathan) - they're all orphans! It is a Hollywood staple to kill off a hero's parents to both engender sympathy from the audience and to give a concrete example on how the hero is self-reliant. So really Hollywood loves its orphans; despite an occasional 'evil kid' movies now and then.  

Now I'm not going to go see Orphan, mainly as horror movies aren't my thing, but I do understand what they are all about: fear. It's not fear of death despite appearances, but other fears than makes horror movies so potent; fears of violation, isolation, corruption, disease, and why not a fear of children. For example, are zombie movies about the fear of death? No, they are about fear of disease. That is what makes them so potent, yes, people are dying all about, but the disease affects people turning them not only into monsters but even death is no escape from the disease. That is horror at its best, tapping into a primal fear, but from a different angle to catch you unawares. 'Evil kid' movies often use orphans, but they are about all kids and the basic fact that parents, biological and adoptive, just don't really know what their kid is truly like on the inside. You never really know and that is the primal fear tapped by this sort of movie, though often the evil orphan isn't quite what she seems, maybe she's a demon, an old woman in a kids body, an android/alien, witch, or just psychotic genius.  Judging by the reaction of some adoptive parents - this movie actually is striking that chord quite well just through its marketing.  

Despite what the critics are saying this is not a movie that is exploiting orphans, this type of movie is empowering to orphans (they love attention - good or bad), what really is being exploited are the parents, which is why people are really get rankled. However, let's face it - all horror movies encompass a high degree of stupidity. The government creates a disease which escapes the lab and turns the world into zombies, the teenage girls decide to go skinny dipping in the lake while a murderer is on the loose, everyone walks backwards into a dark room, and so forth. The difference between horror and action/adventure is that in horror the protagonists are stupid and in action/adventure the protagonists are smart. I imagine it's the same with Orphan. I bet the parents don't get a full psyche evaluation done when they adopt or an IEP until after the kid has started killing people or something.  By then it's usually too late.  They probably don't even try therapeutic holding or other methods for dealing with an attachment disorder, which I am guessing is probably the main problem in addition to whatever twisted plot hook they came up with for the movie. Basically, they are just walking backwards into a dark room and kind of deserve what happens to them.  Event the antichrist can be raised to be a good little boy or girl with the proper techniques and good parenting, despite what a movie trailer might say. 

The Sotomayor confirmation hearings have demonstrated a major problem with this country: we are obsessed about race. A judge says that her ethnicity and background help her be a better judge and Republicans go crazy about it. I hate hypocrisy. Republicans are arguing that judges should be little automatons, which is highly ironic because Republicans also argue that you need God and conservative (i.e. white male) values to be an effective judge. It’s hypocrisy, disingenuous, and moronic. All the Republicans will accomplish with their attacks on Sotomayor is to further alienate the Hispanic vote. Seriously, what the hell did they hope to accomplish with this idiotic line of attack? I’ve reached the conclusion that the Republican Party has just decided to give up being competitive or in touch with mainstream America. I also have a real shocker here – ignorant right-wing rednecks are not mainstream America. Yes, a lot of Americans like NASCAR, country music, and American Idol, but most Americans are a pretty sensible lot. Admittedly, the “moron demographic” is fairly vocal and they certainly have a few members of Congress, but they aren’t mainstream America. Also ask yourself what exactly the redneck population has given to the United States? Struggling, huh? The strength of America are not the uneducated idiots who belong to the KKK, but the smart guys and girls who actually add to our society as opposed to just try to divide it and knock it back a few decades. 

It’s all hypocrisy though. How many times have Republicans shouted about how their faith in God makes them better and wiser? So Sotomayor can’t say her upbringing and experiences make her wiser, but Republicans can babble on about how their faith makes them better. I mean Governor Sanford and Senator Ensign have clearly demonstrated how well the whole God plus white male helps them make moral decisions. Hypocritical morons. Don’t get me wrong, there are some sensible Republicans out there – you know who you are, but your political party sucks. 

Not I will also say the Democrats need to get some perspective as well. How many times have you heard in the last year that only in America could X happen? With X being the election of a black president or the confirmation of a Hispanic woman on the Supreme Court, the Democrats are doing this whole pat-ourselves-on-the-back thing which is as hypocritical as what the Republicans are doing. News flash: the entire supreme court of Mexico is Hispanic, a real shocker there, huh? Also Africa has had a few black presidents, blows the mind doesn’t it? Also you know what Pakistan, India, Israel, Germany, and Britain have all had women as heads of state, most of them decades ago. We aren’t all that special. We aren’t the only multi-ethnic democracy in the world and we really aren’t out in front on civil rights issues. So no, this stuff doesn’t just happen in America – it happens all over the world. 

What would be amazing, would be if we could talk about Sotomayor's judicial record exclusively and have a honest discussion about what being a Supreme Court justice means. However, that would indicate a willingness for the discussion and only in America does that never happen.

An interesting article on Slate about North Korea that probably is right on the money.  I believe that this is that challenge that Biden predicted that Obama would face in his first six months in office and for all the reasons in Anne Applebaum’s article.  Basically, Obama is stuck in a Kobayashi Maru scenario – a no-win situation.  Sanctions are pointless.  Military action could be disastrous.  Rhetoric is useless.  This situation could change the entire game in East Asia – it could spark an arms race, which is the last thing the region needs.  

There are really only two options.  

First, a puppet state is only as reliable as the strings that hold it, and the United States could try bribing North Korea – China holds the strings on North Korea, but the country is falling apart.  The United States could step in and offer Kim Jong-il some new strings to play with.  China is definitely propping up North Korea, but only enough to keep its head above water.  There is an opportunity here for South Korea or the United States to exploit, which they have been trying to do on a small scale for years, but in no-win situations you have to break the rules and that might mean coddling a loony dictator like Kim Jong-il.  The problem with this is that the United States is very poor at managing its puppet states (take a look at Pakistan) as we don’t know how to work the strings that well.  Plus it sets a bad moral precedent to support a dictator like Kim Jong-il so while this might be the best maneuver to change the game it isn’t going to happen.

Second, if you don’t like the puppet show don’t complain to the puppets go to the puppeteer.  I suspect this is what is happening right now behind the scenes, the United States is raising hell with China about the situation and trying to find out a package that can allow everyone to save face, because that is what this is all about.  China, United States, and North Korea all are looking for a solution where everyone looks good.  That’s tricky, but it all depends upon, as Appelbaum’s article states – what China wants. In this option, China holds all the cards and the United States is going to walk away the loser in the negotiations.  If North Korea backs down then on some other issue(s) we caved to China.  China is working hard at becoming a world power and right now the United States is floundering and our lack of power is painfully apparent to the world.  

A tough situation and Obama really has no clear out, but at least his rhetoric gives him a few more options than Bush in how to tackle the situation.  Still it is a mess, mainly because it has been allowed to be a mess after decades of failed policies. 

The United States currently has four czars I believe to handle the drug problem, the Iraq/Afghanistan war, terrorism, and cyber-security.  To be blunt, I hate the use of 'czars' that has been used in the United States since the Reagan administration.  So let?s go down the list why the use of 'czar' is just a bad idea.

First, it's unconstitutional.

Article 1, Section 9: No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

Okay that was a silly argument, because there really is not a title of nobility involved.  However, the United States is a democracy and we rejected fancy titles and the trappings of nobility centuries ago and for good reason.  Worse of all, of all the titles to use, czar is pretty much a loser.  

Second, it's bad policy.  All the czar is at the end of the day is a strengthened policy advisor to the President.  The position means nada.  The title implies that these guys can imprison people, execute incompetent officials (or at least exile them to Alaska), and do what it takes to get the job done.  In reality, they are fairly impotent bureaucrats with fancy titles.  We have secretaries and directors of departments and agencies, these guys have real oomph and more importantly are confirmed and subject to regular oversight by the Senate.  Czars are just guys given big fancy hats.   

Third, it's a political gimmick.  Czars are a way for the President to look like he is doing something on a big issue he really can't solve.  Since Reagan we have had a drug czar and the 'war' on drugs has been a losing venture for over 25 years.  Much like Russia at the beginning of the 20th Century, our czars have been a failure.  So can a President end the drug problem in this country? Nope. But a President can appoint a czar to tackle the issue? You bet!  It's a gimmick, no more, no less.  

Fourth, the name is moronic.  Czars were toppled in Russia due to their incompetence, inbreeding, and tyrannical ways.  They were toppled by the communists, which, despite common opinion, really require a totally messed up government and society to get to power.  No one likes communists, not even other communists.  Even going back further, a good number of the czars were really bad guys and the good ones were in the minority.  If ever there was a loser line of monarchs it was the czars, I mean even Holland and Japan still have their monarchies, while Russia lost it to a bunch of disgruntled college students.  

We could use Pharaoh instead of Czar!  Regardless, take a long look at Ivan the Terrible...is this really the role model we want to tackle the most serious issues plaguing this country.

Fifth, we could use a better and more evocative name.  I am suggesting a new option: Bad Ass.  It is more contemporary, sidesteps the title problem, and is so clearly a gimmick that there is honesty to it.  Plus it rolls off the tongue better.  I mean Cyber Security Czar or Cyber Security Bad Ass - which one are hackers going to fear?  If you don't like Bad Ass - then how about Darth and Dark Lord?  Once again more contemporary and a lot more potent than 'czar' - I mean Darth Lute, Dark Lord of War is better than Lt. General Lute, Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan, informally shortened to War Czar.  So let's get rid of this idiotic use of 'czar'.  Please. Pretty please.

Parenting is the one universal religion for humanity.  We all fundamentally believe we can shape our kids into successful adults.  We have no idea what the future holds, what is really going on in the minds of our children, and if what we are doing is what we should be doing.  Yes, we all have books, experts, and studies that we can take as support that we are good parents, yet I hate to admit this but there are plenty of books, experts, and studies that say the exact opposite.  Thus there are schisms a plenty in the religion of parenting, but we are all trying to find purpose in our children.  At the end of the day, it is all about faith.  

Michelle has me reading Michel de Montaigne and he had an interesting take on the issue of children, which was I think is insightful. His point is that we go about our relationship with children without any reason and this warps our perspective on the matter.  Everyone adores infants, which are no more than pets, parents dote on their favorites though the reasons for them being favorites are often poorly conceived, and in many cases parents don?t see their children as adults until long after such has been the case.  I think he has hit a fundamental truth, because it is challenging to mix reason and faith, though when you can combine the two it becomes a much stronger, and useful, alloy.  Thus the goal has to be to believe in yourself, and your children, but also to see clearly with reason.  That is hard.  I definitely err more on the side of reason and that, I do believe, has been a detriment to me as a parent.  

Interestingly, Montaigne also tossed out the idea that we have two types of children: our children by family and our brain-children, or our creative pursuits.  It all comes down to faith, what do we believe in?  With our brain-children it is our belief in ourselves as creators and in the product we are creating, whether it is a novel or invention that can form a bond with that object as significant with our children.  Of course, to Montaigne one is far more likely to have one remembered into posterity, but I would also posit that one of them is also more in our control than the other, which is more why brain-children appeal to Montaigne and others.  In many ways, all of these children are our immortality projects, our efforts not so much to escape death but to escape being forgotten.  That?s pretty heady stuff, but that?s why this is all a religion and that it?s hard to keep reason in there, the fears and emotions can be overwhelming even if you aren't consciously aware of them.  All of this stuff swirls around us and our children complicating the issues and decisions we have to make as parents.  Reason is necessary, but at the end it is all about faith.

The wheels are beginning to turn.  I have long said it would only be a matter of time before same sex marriage would be legal across the United States, and signs are that this is moving closer to reality.  Legally there is pretty strong precedence for same sex marriage, which is why so many courts have found in favor of it across the nation.  The legal arguments against same sex marriage are basically the same as were tossed out against interracial marriage, but Loving v. Virginia swept away those arguments just like I suspect some Supreme Court case will do in the future.  While the Supreme Court is fairly conservative right now, the fundamental principles are very solid ones ? full faith and credit and equal protection.  

Fundamentally, it is an inherent component of our government that one state must honor the decisions of another state, so if a couple is married in one state then that marriage must be recognized by another state.  States are parts of a whole and there needs to be give and take between them.  This is where same sex marriage is going, within five to ten years I suspect that a quarter or more of the nation will permit same sex marriage.  The real issue is when the Supreme Court will rule that all states must honor the same sex marriages performed by other states.  This doesn?t mean that states must perform same sex marriages just that they must recognize them, which also means they will have to honor divorces, custody agreements, and the like arising from same sex marriage.  

There is an equal protection argument that denying same sex couples the right to marriage is a violation of their equal protection rights, in other words you can?t deny one group a right given to another group.  However, the Supreme Court is pretty conservative right now and is unlikely to recognize such discrimination of homosexuals, but this has been an issue in many of the state court decisions.  It is all a fascinating legal argument, but it?s one which is fairly open and close ? the problem is ideology and activism trumping legal principles.  

Thus the real issue is whether society is prepared to accept homosexuality.  This is one reason I have been against gay activist groups using the courts as their principle weapon of reform.  It can be an effective tactic, but a mix of approaches is best.  The Civil Rights Act was as important in promoting racial equality as any court case.  I think the success of Proposition 8 was as much a reaction against courts telling people what is right as it was any bigoted response to homosexuals.  Americans like to believe they are independent in many ways so leading them to a place is more effective then telling them to go to a place.  Affirmative action and political correctness are two examples where Americans had a kneejerk reaction to these movements, because many felt they were being told how to behave.  I think gay activists have realized this, or at the least events like Proposition 8 have shown them that they need to take a multi-prong approach.  They are lobbying legislatures, doing more outreach, and still pursuing options in the courts, but this new broader strategy is going to be very effective I think.

Who would deny Tara & Willow the right to same sex marriage?

You might be able to deny them the right as they are witches, but surely not because they are lesbians, right?

The main argument against homosexuality is that it is immoral and somehow improper; this is admittedly more of a theological argument by reactionary adherents of many religions ? not just Christianity, yes, even some Buddhists find homosexuality as sexual misconduct so let?s not go blaming Christianity alone for this.  It is the reactionaries who are most bothered by homosexuality.  The reason is pretty clear ? they are afraid of change and how change affects them and their lives.  Clearly if homosexuals are allowed to marry it doesn?t affect heterosexual couples in anyway so the issue is not this, but a fear that society is changing and in improper ways.  Yes, there is an undercurrent of bigotry in the opposition to same sex marriage to deny this is ridiculous, but to say that this is all of the issue is also ridiculous.  

In many ways, society can be seen as climbing a mountain.  Some of us can see the summit and the promise at the top of the mountain, it is a great green land of plenty, but many just see a difficult climb from a decent enough valley down below.  In fact, the climb is seen by some as dangerous as it might cause an avalanche which could destroy the valley below.  Now, the top of the mountain is really a better place to live, but if you can?t see it then the climb is scary and is seen as dangerous for the risk it runs to the old valley below where we have been living.  This is the reactionary response. The problem is that society is climbing the mountain regardless, the question is how long will the climb take.  

I am hopeful that on this small stretch of the mountain, from the valley where homosexuals are persecuted to the valley where homosexuals will be equal members of society, will be a short climb. 

There have been a few books that have really influenced me, but I think that Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) has to be near the top.  The term 'paradigm shift' was coined by Kuhn to describe the process in which one scientific theory is displaced for another.  The classic example, which Kuhn discussed in great detail in his book The Copernican Revolution: planetary astronomy in the development of Western thought (1957) is how the Ptolemaic system for the movement of the solar system, in which all rotated around the Earth, was displaced by the Copernican system, in which all rotated around the Sun.  It is a fallacy to assume that it was empirical evidence that allowed the Copernican theory to triumph, because it was accepted long before it had been proved.  Instead it was the elegance of the theory and the fact that it appealed to the senses and minds of the scientific community.  However, at the time there was no empirical advantage to either the Ptolemaic or Copernican theories.  It was the bird-rabbit dichotomy.  

What do you see a bird or a rabbit? Do you see the Ptolemaic or Copernican system as being the correct one? Both are equally correct, but you can only accept, or see, one at a time.  Certainly, you had the Tychonic System which was an attempt to cut the baby in half with a model in which the Solar System went around the Sun, which went around the Earth that was stationary.  No one really liked this theory, because it was sloppy and lack the elegance of the other two systems.  You can't always compromise, in fact, a lot of times it is a choice between two options and that's all - yes or no.  

Sure we all know now that Copernicus was right, more or less as he was off on a number of things, but at the time whether you believed in his system or the Ptolemaic system was really an aesthetic decision, which one looks or feels right to you.  Kuhn focused his theory on the hard sciences, but many other scholars took his theory and expanded it to other disciplines from the social sciences to marketing. In many ways, I think that Kuhn hit upon a fundamental truth about human nature.  Most of us see either a duck or a rabbit, and very few of us can see both.  But it raises the question ? how can we see both?  Which raises the next question - how can we decide which is the correct choice?

In other words how can we create paradigm shifts?  How can we do this in society, in individuals, and perhaps most importantly in ourselves? 

I feel it all begins on being able to see things with open eyes.  If you are arguing with someone and you just think they are an idiot then you won't be able to communicate with them in a meaningful way.  Because you only are seeing the duck and they are probably hung up on the rabbit.  Try understanding their position, try to see things through their eyes, and then you might be able to see the rabbit, and if you can see the rabbit then you can explain to them how to see the duck - that is how you create paradigm shifts. It's not an easy process, but it does happen and our society?s development is proof of that.

I believe that the Obama Administration is flailing about in its handling of torture during the Bush Administration.  If torture is wrong, and this is the position of the Obama Administration, then those who tortured should be prosecuted.  It is rather simple.  It doesn?t matter if administration lawyers told government agents that what they were doing wasn?t torture, because everyone knew it was torture.  On this point I have no doubt.  Following orders is the Nuremberg Defense and this has been established as not being an effective defense to war crimes, which is exactly what we are talking about here.  

To stop war crimes you have to prosecute both those who ordered it and those who executed those orders, this is necessary to dissuade such conduct in the future.  Prosecuting lawyers who facilitated those giving the orders and eased the conscience of those who tortured is a sloppy compromise that accomplishes little except to once again blame lawyers for a problem.  The Obama Administration has stated that America doesn?t engage in torture, but the approach being used is reflective of a simple change in policy like off-shore drilling, stem cell research, private school vouchers, or so forth.  Torture is either a war crime or it is a policy decision, and the Obama Administration is trying to have it both ways, which doesn?t work.  This approach ensures that torture could well return in future administrations as a simply policy reversal.  

There are some things that are wrong.  Torture is wrong, but even worse is that it is also ineffective; torture, as has been proven by documents released by the government to have been less that successful on certain key subjects.  It isn?t allowed as criminal evidence as well, because it has been proven to produce inaccurate information and is quite unreliable, but even if it was effective it is still morally wrong.  

The Bush Administration lived in the world of Hollywood where only good guys can resist torture and the bad guys always spill their secrets, but in reality it doesn?t work that way.  Worse when the good guys engage in torture they become the bad guys.  The moment we accept that the ends justify the means then we will loose our self on the way.  It is also important to note that when a government devalues human life that includes its own citizens.  Every civilization which has embraced torture has turned it upon its own citizens.   The moment moral lines are blurred by a government its people will suffer.  

Yes, it is a politically charged issue for Americans to be prosecuted for torture, but if the Obama Administration is serious about torture being a moral wrong this is a necessity.  Perhaps what transpired was not torture, but that is for a court to decide if torture is illegal, which it is.