(no subject)

Some excerpts from two articles in today's edition of the New York Times, with my commentary following each.

On his court ruling prohibiting gay and lesbian couples in Florida to adopt:

In his January 2004 ruling, Judge Birch said the state's primary concern is not those prospective parents who would like to adopt but, rather, the children who are destined for adoption.

"Openly homosexual households represent a very recent phenomenon, and sufficient time has not yet passed to permit any scientific study of how children raised in those households fare as adults," he wrote.

"Given this state of affairs, it is not irrational for the Florida Legislature to credit one side of the debate over the other. Nor is it irrational for the Legislature to proceed with deliberate caution before placing adoptive children in an alternative, but unproven, family structure that has not yet been conclusively demonstrated to be equivalent to the marital family structure that has established a proven track record spanning centuries."

Leaving aside the incredibly obvious point that 'proven track record' of heterosexual marriage is one which has included spousal abuse, rape, infidelity, divorce as often as not, let's briefly consider the fact that plenty of children reared in heterosexual households the world over throughout history, have grown up to be maladjusted, dangerous, and so forth. Leaving aside that fact, I find Judge Birch's reasoning to be more than a little disingenious. After all, he's posed such a delightful little Catch-22 to gay and lesbian couples who wish to adopt. They are not (and will not be, for the forseeable future) given the chance to adopt because there is no concrete data as to how children in non-heterosexual households will develop. Implicit in Birch's wording is that when a large enough body of data is assembled, the facts will be reevaluated. But given the fact that homosexual couples are a) incapable of having biological children and b) forbidden to adopt children, how on earth can they hope to establish a 'proven' childrearing record?

To my way of thinking, living in a loving home with parents of any gender or sexual persuasion sure seems to beat floating around in the foster home system until one reaches eighteen.

And onward to the situation in Iraq (It's the other white meat Vietnam!), where seven more Iraqi policement, as well as a high-ranking security official and his son were murdered this morning:

American officials have described the attacks on Iraqi officials as a coordinated plan to destabilize the Iraqi security forces that the Americans are counting on to provide security for the elections and eventually take over internal security throughout the country from United States-led forces. The officials also say the attacks are an effort to frighten everyday Iraqis into staying home from the polls by showing that even senior Iraqi police and political officials are not safe.

To which I think, Uh, guys? We've moved beyond 'plan' and 'effort' here. Senior Iraqi police and political officials are not safe. They're being killed. Iraqi security forces are not stabilised or effective. US forces are not keeping anybody safe. American officials can spin this ten ways to Tuesday, but if I was an Iraqi, you can bet I'd be staying home on election day too.

That will be all.

Just try keeping clean during a Japanese winter.

Just try it. ( I DARE you. )

I finally found one that would be open after 1pm a two-kilometer walk from my apartment. I went back later that evening and Monday, and amused myself both times by putting my Gaijin Disease ( to good use. )

That will be all.