Sunday, August 07, 2005

If the Leftist Fascists Keep This Up . . .

. . . . I might just support Roberts' nomination. Turns out the New York Times -- ever ready to demand that we keep the government out of our bedrooms -- has been caught trying to pry open the adoption records of Judge Roberts' children. Sounding like Sandy Berger with a wedgie, the Times' editor claims everything was on the up-and-up: "Our reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions... They did so with great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue."

Yeah, sure. Just like they would have published, with great care, the home-study report prepared for each adoption. I've been through this process, folks, and it involves a social worker coming to your house on several occasions and questioning you on some of the more intimate details of your life.

Like your religious beliefs.

Or why you don't have any children.

Or whether you had a drinking problem.

All of that would be good for a few yuks at the Times' editorial meetings, which would focus (after the laughter died down) in trying to spin Roberts either as a Torquemadan Psycopath or a hypocrite and moral degenerate.

And let's not forget the money.

Of course our society doesn't sell children. It just happens, completely by chance, that adoptive parents are going to pay between $30,000.00 and $150,000.00 to all sorts of agencies, homes, social workers (they get the least, and in fact a fair wage) before baby sleeps his first night in the nursery. (And yes, they pay to lawyers to. Unless they hire me. I don't charge for uncontested adoptions). If you get any adoption done for less than $20,000.00, then you've been on the receiving end of a minor miracle.

Now the Times wouldn't be so crude as to suggest that the Roberts "shopped" for children, spending more or less money depending on ethnicity, age, etc. No, the Times wouldn't be so crude. That's Molly Ivins' job.

The Times would have mused about latent racism in the adoption world, and wondered aloud about the "economics" of adoptions -- all in such a way as to portray the Roberts as adoptive counterparts to Cruella DeVille. It would have wanted to know where the money came from. Did Roberts get a loan, a loan from someone who can be third-hand connected to a fourth-hand acquaintance of a member of a "right-wing hate group" like the Federalist Society or the Republican Party? Wouldn't that make Roberts not only slave to the Pope, but to right-wing special interests as well?

I don't know anything about the Roberts' adoptions, except that people who adopt children are as brave and caring as any parent. We go through things most people don't have to think about for an instant. Why them and not us? Is this God's judgment? Why sure I'll bare my soul to a social worker so that she and some other people can decide if I and my wife are "fit" to raise a child in a society that ash-cans 1.5 million of them like used Chicklets every year. Thirty grand up front, no payment plans? No problem. That's why we bought the house, after all.

The editors and reporters at the Times who thought up this stunt are greasy, weevily little sleaze-balls. Sensitivity and care? Sure, like mosquitos and ticks. It would be interesting to know if conspiring to violate a court seal is a prosecutable offense. Maybe the human ticks who thought up this stunt could, with care and sensitivity, call up some more lawyers and ask about that.

No comments: