I can't get NO....satisfaction....

[kyburg]

Let's see.

You don't need to take Jim's word for it anymore. Even down to the names...which he was a good boy about and didn't tell anyone about either.

Hooray! (And so much for Tiajuana Taxi Fertility Hookups.) Note the words 'there is no law against...' - this is a evaluation by peers, and I hope we find out what they decide. But keep in mind - there is no law, and this won't create one. (Consider what the enforcement of one might look like, BTW. Just think about it for a moment, it'll come to you.)

Let me get this straight. When the McCaughey septuplets were born in 1997, President Clinton called to congratulate the parents, who were given a free 12-passenger van, Pampers for life, furniture, food, and a custom built house. Last spring, when Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar got pregnant with their 18th child, they announced it on the Today Show and their reality TV show launched that fall. When Nadya Suleman, 33, gave birth to octuplets on January 26th, she got revulsion, ridicule and death threats. A talk radio host who called her a freak said his listeners were prepared to boycott any company that helped out mother or babies. Jimmy Kimmel declared that "Golden retrievers do not have that many kids."

Uh, yawp. Single, POC and oh mi ghad IRAQI. SPICY.

(You know, I'd almost expect some people to have a little empathy for people who have somewhat toxic parents....but noooooo. Guess not.) And before you hit that comment button - keep in mind. The lady had choices. Since we see more of the grandfather doing childcare publically than the grandmother, you figure it out. Watch the grandkids leave that house Real Soon. As soon as enough money shows up - and it will show up. (Just keep making those death threats on all those sponsored websites, kids!)

Quick quiz.

Who administers 'food stamp' programs?

- Department of the Treasury
- Department of Homeland Security
- The Internal Revenue Service
- Department of Agriculture (*dingdingding*)

Also, the going term is Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program - not food stamps. Note the key word - there is no intention for this ever to be the sole support for anyone. (I love the fact they've moved it off paper and to electronic ATM card. No, you can't pool the change from buying a candy bar with a coupon until you can buy liquor anymore. Too bad. *snickers*)

Oh yeah, $490 a month is a REAL GOOD incentive to have a kid. (...where do people get this crap...) And of course you top out, regardless of the number of people in the household.

Defend her? Not so much. What I find amazing is the vitriol where in just about every other case I know of, there was nothing but cooes and praise for being 'so absolutely PERFECTLY FEMALE' for being, well - successful at being female. That's it, isn't it? The pastel pinks and blues, the heft of the rewards thrown, the fairy tale twittering. The strokes - oh yes - THE STROKES.

(I'm catching echoes of it adopting right now, and I know it when I see it. It's perceived sainthood and I'm hip. I got much the same when I was the wife of a terminal patient. It's not helpful, except as a signal that they're not going to bitchslap you.)

I'm glad information is getting out. It's making our lives easier not having to keep our mouths shut. (How many times does WE CAN'TALK make sense?)

What I'm watching for? Terminations at the hospital of people who were peeking into health records when they had no reason to. Yeah, it's all electronic, all tagged with who was doing the peeking and we've had plenty of evidence there's a zero tolerance policy for fraud - though I think Kaiser might handle these a bit differently after a whole family died when both parents were fired for it. Remember - same hospital system.

Whatta parade. Can we talk about Sully instead?

Comments

[bronxelf-ag001.livejournal.com]

Ok, if that's the case, then let's see how long she gets to *keep* the kids. The problem is not the children. They're already here. They're essentially innocent bystanders in all of this.

The problem is *her*. Oh so very, very clearly, her. With that in mind, let's see how it all plays out.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

Oh, there's another good reason for a PR firm.

With what I know of 'prospective adoptive parents' - there has been more than one or two couples trying to tell her how wonderful they are and how she won't miss just one of them.

Count on it.

[bronxelf-ag001.livejournal.com]

Clearly thats untrue given the great lengths she's gone to have them.

However, it's entirely missing the point. What she *WANTS* is not really the current question on the table. We've gotten this far on the what she wants train. However now the kids are here, and their needs take priority.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

But now that they're here and wonderful? HAY. Problem solved! (You won't miss one. Really. And we have SO MUCH MORE MONEY.)

Hon, the stuff that flies around PAP forums is just scary. You remember the whole 'high school pregnancy club' thing? PAPs posting in the newspaper comment areas advertising how wonderful parents they would be. Think of the babies! PLEEEEZE.

I do believe that's the limit the media has taken. They're not reporting on those yet.

[bronxelf-ag001.livejournal.com]

I see your point entirely, I just dont think what she WANTS is the issue here. I dont *CARE* what she *wants*. I care about how fourteen children, under those circumstances, with the master plan of "take student loans out" are supposed to be cared for.

I'm sorry, but that's a hell of a flag on the "this person is really not capable of making good choices" play there.

It is both unreasonable and unfair to suggest her parents owe anyone ANYTHING in this situation. They've been through quite enough already based on the actions of their daughter.

I'm not a doctor but there does, IMO, certainly seem to be some kind of pathology at play here. Let's wait and see if the people qualified to make that call agree.

I don't care shit all about the media attention. Im not reading it and I can't imagine why it matters- much like all media attention- it stops when one stops feeding it.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

As long as she remains an adult in her majority and doesn't hurt her kids, doesn't break the law or marry another woman - she can do whatever she wants.

Just like the rest of us. And if we have issues with that, then the issues are with us - not her.

Yup - definitely wait and see. Just like everything in life.

[bronxelf-ag001.livejournal.com]

The question is in what this means:

doesn't hurt her kids. There is a reasonable argument to be made that simply HAVING these eight hurts the six she already had, based on her life circumstances.

But again, we don't get to make that call. Im not suggesting we should. I AM saying it's a reasonable argument.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

POV. Ghads.

Seriously. What kind of good does assumptions like this create?

THINK. It's not about her. What is this doing to you?

[bronxelf-ag001.livejournal.com]

Actually it's not doing anything to me. I don't care- Im not following the story in the news. I'm not posting about it in my lj. I'm not reading about it on parenting/adoption forums. To me this is ultimately meaningless.

A better question is what this is doing to you- since you're doing all of these things. What I think about this is a) irrelevant and b) absolutely not in agreement with you. But my *emotional investment* in this entire topic? Nil.

And that's btw not an indictment- Im just agreeing with someone else who says that the only place in *my* life that this story is appearing *at all*, save for Bet's post today, is here- in your LJ. This "event", such as it is, is simply not part of my life.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

But look how reactive you are - shoot, look around at how reactive *everyone* has gotten over something that will never impact them directly, is nothing to them (except entertainment value) and compared to the REAL economic issues of the day?

Come on.

I'm just rocking back on my heels. There is truth in the old yogis who remind me that life is one big joke and you shouldn't take it seriously - because it's all an illusion anyway. Holy cow. (Pun intended.)

There are some REAL crooks and liars spending my tax dollars - in the hundred of thousands, millions...and nobody has written a word about any of them, directly.

But let one woman get uppity and decide to have too many kids. Wow. People have lost their freaking minds. What's the difference? Women with children are viable targets. The rest has more to do with the person doing the griping than the person being griped about. Really really.

You have the mental gears to get this part - some people, not so much.

[bronxelf-ag001.livejournal.com]

It's a matter of scale. One individual, having children (which is certainly a common enough occurrence) is something that people feel they can grasp and discuss. Complex politics and economic policy? Not so much. There's only so much $thing (money, people, etc) that folks can internally comprehend and grasp. It's why starvation in other nations can be ignored while individual cases of neglect will cause riots. People just don't handle large scale very well.

I suspect I'm less reactive than you think. I find this all an interesting discussion but honestly- believe me when I tell you this topic has never, not once, come up in my house. I find it interesting, and you interesting, but this isn't a news story I'm even remotely following.

For me, btw, the "real economic issues" of the day are irrelevant as well at this point. Not because I can't grasp them, but because I could make no headway even when the economy was significantly better. I already have nothing. Whatever happens at this point is just more nothing. I'm at the point of "so what" over it all.