Politics Archive

0

Adoptive Children of Lesbian and Gay Couples Developing Well

Newswise — Should the sexual orientation of prospective adoptive parents be considered when placing children in adoptive homes?
According to the results of a new University of Virginia study, the answer may be “no.”
In a sample of 106 adoptive children living in different parts of the United States, youngsters were developing well regardless of whether they were living with lesbian, gay or heterosexual parenting couples. The study found that whether or not adoptive children were developing in positive ways was unrelated to the sexual orientation of their adoptive parents.
The finding appears in the August issue of the journal Applied Developmental Science.
“We found that children adopted by lesbian and gay couples are thriving,” said U.Va. psychology professor Charlotte J. Patterson, who led the study. “Our results provide no justification for denying lesbian or gay prospective adoptive parents the opportunity to adopt children. With thousands of children in need of permanent homes in the United States alone, our findings suggest that outreach to lesbian and gay prospective adoptive parents might benefit children who are in need.”
The research assessed adjustment and development among preschool-aged children adopted at birth by lesbian, gay or heterosexual couples. Using standardized assessment procedures, researchers found that parents and teachers agreed, on average, that the children were developing in typical ways. Measures of children’s adjustment, as well as parenting practices and stress, were found to be unassociated with the parents’ sexual orientation. And, regardless of their parents’ sexual orientation, how well children were adjusted was significantly associated with how warmly their parents were oriented to them.
Adoption of minor children by same-sex couples has been a controversial topic. Same-sex couples are prohibited by law from adopting children in Florida, Mississippi and Utah. Voters in Arkansas passed a ban on adoptions by same- and opposite-sex unmarried couples in 2008, only to have it overturned by the courts. That case is currently on appeal.
In the last few years, legislatures in a number of other states have also debated proposals to prohibit adoptions by same-sex couples. On the other hand, joint adoptions by same-sex couples are permitted in many states, including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Vermont.
The study was authored by Patterson, who also is a faculty member and research scientist at the Fenway Institute’s Center for Population Research in LGBT Health in Boston; Rachel H. Farr, a U.Va. doctoral candidate; and Stephen L. Forssell, a faculty member in psychology at George Washington University. It was funded by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law.

Popularity: 11% [?]

0

George Carlin, They Own You

George Carlin is known for telling things like they are. His language is harsh, but his message resounds long
after his demise.  In this editorial segment from his tv special Carlin explains the real politics of mankind.
Who owns the companies, the media, the government and you?  Watch this video and see what Carlin says.

Popularity: 13% [?]

0

Redefining Success

I’ve had to change my name for the Fox News network. When Dubya was still in office I called it the White House Press Corps. Now I call it the Bitter Old White Guys Network. They claim to be “the most fair and balanced” news network on TV, but if they were any more red they’d be broadcasting from the Forbidden City. They supported Dubya when even Laura and the dog were looking toward the door, but when their golden boy screwed things up so badly that America elected {gasp!!} a black man—and with a Muslim name, no less . . . well, they still haven’t gotten over it.

On Election night last November I was flipping primarily between CNN and Fox to see if one would call the election any earlier than the other. As it became more and more evident that Obama not only could, but very likely would win the election, the mood was decidedly different from one network to the other.

At CNN, Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer were clearly excited at the historical significance of the moment at hand. Barack Obama, a charismatic young African Americn man, had just been elected President of the United States of America!

Over at Fox, on the other hand, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly could scarcely bring themselves to look at the camera. In fact, when the election was finally called for Obama, Fox opted for a wide shot of the newsroom with a voice-over announcement. I guess no one wanted to be the first to utter the unthinkable onscreen. The tone was somber: “Barack Obama has won the election.”

They might as well have been announcing Ronald Reagan’s death. “Former President Ronald Reagan has died.”

Two months later Obama rode into Washinton on a wave of popularity. His message of hope and idealism were contagious. Even some of his detractors were willing to give him a chance. But the honeymoon was short-lived.

Seven months into his presidency he’s losing ground in the polls. How could it be otherwise? With wars raging on two fronts and the economy in the toilet, Obama inherited an America in crisis. And there would be no quick fixes.

But we Americans, with our addiction to instant gratification and our 30-second attention spans, are an impossible lot to please. We want every problem fixed yesterday and are quick to forget anything that has gone right.

Add to that a legislative body populated by members of two parties that are so partisan they’d let their own mothers drown before they’d allow an opponent to be the one to rescue her, and you have some idea how difficult it is for any president to succeed. And lest you think I am pointing fingers at the Republicans, let me remind you that there was no shortage of Democrats who were licking their lips at every setback in Iraq in anticipation of President Bush being revealed a failure.

Unfortunately, in this day and age, with 24-hour news channels dissecting and debating the President’s every move—I mean, for crying out loud, they spent days debating the significance of Obama taking off his jacket and working in his shirtsleeves in the Oval Office—how can anyone make any real progress in government? There’s no room for “trying” something to see if it will work. You have to have a finished plan with guaranteed results or you’ve failed.

Let’s face it…there isn’t enough real news to fill 24 hours, seven days a week. So the networks fill the time with opinions. Any blowhard who can debate the merits of Snickers vs. Milky Way (and plenty who can’t) can have his or her 15 minutes of fame extemporizing ad nauseum about whatever piece of trivia they decide is worthy of discussion. And most of the time it’s intended not to inform, but to influence the viewers.

That’s not a difficult undertaking, since when it comes to real news, most Americans are like ostriches with their heads buried in the sand. We form an opinion based on little more than a thimbleful of (usually mis-) information, then seek out like-minded self-proclaimed experts to substantiate it, dismissing anyone who disagrees as a propagandist crackpot. Never mind the facts! I know what I know!

Which brings me back to the Fox News Network. The “most fair and balanced” network on TV hates Obama, (and anyone with liberal, or even centrist leanings) so much that they will say or do anything to see that he fails, even if it brings the country to the brink of ruin.

As viewers and as informed citizens, we need to open our minds to ideas that challenge our usual way of thinking. We need to redefine success as something more than the failure of those with whom we disagree.

© Brian Feist, 2009

Popularity: 1% [?]