|
7/9 |
2002/5/23 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:24919 Activity:high |
5/22 http://jewishworldreview.com/kathleen/parker1.asp \_ Wow, that's bad column writing. Lots of terrible assumptions and plenty of overboard and irrational opinions. \_ Yeah, like "President Bush merely connected the dots" President Bush can hardly spell his name. He has Condoleeza Rice do his crossword every morning. \_ Uhm, you're an idiot. Try reading the article again. I'll give you a hint: it's a fictional piece about how it might have gone differently. That help? \_ Um.. it's called a joke? heard of it? \_ Name one thing that is a "terrible assumption." The scenario described sounds like a very plausible sequence of events if action were to have been taken last summer. -alexf \_ Uhm, ok, that's a nice attack I guess. Perhaps you'd like to quote or refer to something instead of pissing on your shoes? \_ for the record, the author is listed as a 'pundit' - and also: as a Jew, I've never heard of this website and find it lame. of the 'jewishworldreview' and that it doesn't speak for all jews. \_ Where? \_ as a Jew? Why should that matter? Your editorial opinion gains some sort of special status because you're a Jew? Get over it. \_ you get over it! I'm simply saying that I've never f--king heard of the 'jewishworldreview' and that it doesn't speak for all jews. \_ you never heard of it so it must be lame. and you're a jew. and it doesn't speak for you. uhm, sorry, but, uh, DUH! NO SHIT! I'm also a Jew but I hope we're not too closely related. I suspect you're from the missing 13th tribe that went out for beers when the rest of us were trying to figure out wtf was going on. you folks got lost on the way back and ended up in berkeley, eh? \_ Great article... especially the part on the traitorous Rep. McKinney. \_ look. provide evidence to a court in a timely manner, and it's not racial profiling. This article is bullshit, but not for the reasons a lot of people are thinking. It's knee-jerking against other knee-jerkers. Everybody involved in this discussion needs to grow up. \_ It's not knee-jerk. It's actually really accurate. Even after 9/11 when the feds started rounding up arabs, guess who started whining about racial profiling, racism, and etc? Yup, that's right, just like the article said.... All the usual suspects. \_ Because racial profiling is illegal and wrong. The mass roundup, secret trials, and being held in custody without charges thing is ONLY accepted because of the terrorist attack AND because the detainees are a minority. The writer makes the illogical assumption that Bush would have done the same things before September 11 the same as he did after the attack only if he had more knowledge about it. Of course, he wouldn't have gotten away with it! \_ Racial profiling, if not for an arbitrary reason, is not wrong and shouldn't be illegal. A country has to protect itself, and sometimes that means at the slight expense of a certain racial group's comfort. In a case like this, when a danger terrorist group is known to be made up people of certain ethnic descent, it could be a wise idea to do what this article describes. \_ How 'bout we try developing a decent intelligence agency so we actually find INDIVIDUALS instead of GROUPS... But that's obviously far too expensive and time consuming. So instead we'll go to war in a country that has nothing left to bomb so we'll have some pretty pictures for the front page, not to mention a paved path for a nice shiny oil pipeline. |
jewishworldreview.com/kathleen/parker1.asp Greg Crosby 10 Larry Elder 11 Don Feder 12 Suzanne Fields 13 Paul Greenberg 14 Bob Greene 15 Betsy Hart 16 Nat Hentoff 17 David Horowitz 18 Marianne Jennings 19 Michael Kelly 20 Mort Kondracke 21 Ch. Laura 24 John Leo 25 David Limbaugh 26 Michelle Malkin 27 Chris Matthews 28 Michael Medved 29 MUGGER 30 Kathleen Parker 31 Wes Pruden 32 Sam Schulman 33 Amity Shlaes 34 Tony Snow 35 Thomas Sowell 36 Cal Thomas 37 Jonathan S. Everyone, that is, except the one person who seems to have been forgotten in the run-up to the show and in the near hereafter. Someday The Baby - Trumanesquely scrutinized by millions of spectator-strangers as his mother vetted prospective adoptive parents and handed him over - will grow up to notice that he was objectified when he was most vulnerable, used by those charged to protect him for some supposed greater good. The text of that greater good goes like this: People need to know about open adoption as an alternative to abortion. But the subtext is something else, which is why some viewers felt they should avert their eyes from this ostensibly lovely, yet somehow repugnant, thing. A clue to that repugnancy was offered inadvertently in a statement from the directors of the adoption agency. We give birth on the Internet, strip for strangers before video cams, seduce and betray fellow trawlers for attention on reality shows, hire, fire and sing out our guts, subject ourselves to humiliation and degradation - all for the greater good of openness in the service of "reality" in exchange for celebrity. The ABC program - "Be My Baby" - was a special edition of "20/20" with Barbara Walters documenting the "open adoption" of a baby boy born to 16-year-old Jessica. Originally, and erroneously, promoted as a sort of game-slash-reality-show, the program provided an up close and personal view of the process whereby the birth mother selects the adoptive family for her infant. Twenty years ago, I covered a similar story about a teen birth mother who opted for open adoption over abortion or closed adoption. She and the parents went through pregnancy and birth together, posed for pictures and built family scrapbooks. I've lost touch and don't know how the story progressed, but I do know this. No television cameras, no live capture of emotion and tears, no public viewing and critiquing. Arguably, the most wrenching scene in the "20/20" story is when Jessica cradles her newborn in the hospital and the adoption contract is placed on her bedside table. It's Jessica's moment of truth: Does she honor her commitment to give up her baby, or does she back out as allowed? Of course Jessica cries, spilling tears onto her baby's cheeks. She's emotionally and physically spent, drowning in a hormonal tsunami, about to give up her own flesh-and-blood - all under the reptilian eye of a television camera. Do we really need to witness such painful intimacy in order to grasp the story of open adoption? Like motorists on a highway, we decelerate and stare, craning our necks to view the human wreckage on the roadside or displayed on the television screen. Life is a tearjerker and we're all one big dysfunctional family convulsed in community compassion. There's no question that open adoption is a valuable option for women facing an unwanted pregnancy. And Barbara Walters, an adoptive parent herself, was as safe a bet as any for showing how it's done. But television is never safe in our reality-obsessed culture and reality is never real when an audience is present. The camera by its nature distorts as it seduces with the promise of fame and the drama of celebrity. Television producers bank on that, and pros like Barbara Walters are lions among lambs. With her dulcet demeanor and dolorous eyes, Walters could talk a mannequin into disrobing, while kids like Jessica - no matter how savvy at 16 or how rich in the options of openness - don't have a chance. More important, her baby boy didn't have a chance, or a choice. Someday, when he bumps into the hard wall of reality, watching footage of his innocence being devoured by strangers, he may find compassion unavailable for those who forgot that love means sacrificing oneself, not the other. JWR contributor Kathleen Parker can be reached by clicking 46 here. |