I've been to Guatemala 3 times, adopted a child from Guatemala, speak fluent Spanish and read Prensa Libre and other Guatemalan papers daily, and subscribe and read many listservs related to Guatemalan and international adoption daily. And you read one "Home" section article in a podunk newspaper.

I read that article, http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/847760.html and am wondering exactly where it says, as you paraphrased in such a cavalier and bigoted way, that "rich white people are going to have to bribe more bureaucrats moving forward to snatch up all those brown babies."

Because the article I saw said that Guatemalan babies who were supposed to be with their adoptive parents by now, are still stuck in the process, due to bureaucratic problems.

And the article said that some 3,000 Guatemalan children who are in the adoption process may never complete that process. What will happen to them? Institutionalization for their entire childhood is likely.

And the article said that yes, there are some problems and some reforms are needed to eliminate some of the corruption. No one has disputed that. But is there any social service system in any country, the US included, that doesn't have problems and need reforms? How about our broken foster care system in the US? The lack of health care for millions of children? Shall we nationalize all of these programs and let the government take over because they don't always work the way they should as currently managed? That is the argument of the Guatemalan government, which has a pretty deplorable track record of caring for its poorest citizens.

And how about what the article doesn't say?

It doesn't say that shifting the adoption process from lawyers/foster families to government officials/government-run institutions doesn't help the children. The Guatemalan government is corrupt and scandal-ridden, and far less concerned -- some would say unconcerned entirely -- with the welfare of these children, as compared to the lawyers and foster families who have been providing their care.

And the article doesn't say that children will now spend two years or more in poorly-funded, poorly-staffed institutions where they will get sub-par food and medical services, and God knows what sort of emotional care.

I'm not a rich white person, and my son is not "brown baby." But it's overt racism and ugly insinuations like yours -- coming from Guatemalans, Unicef, and Americans -- that will ultimately relegate these precious children of Guatemala to a future languishing in institutions.

Wow...you really have had bad luck. Because you know a whole lot of shallow people if the only people you know who adopt internationally are doing so because it's exotic, because they don't want to be pregnant, because they believe little Chinese "dolls" will be compliant and smart, they love to fill out paperwork versus labor/childbirth, they like foreign travel, or they are such wingnuts that they think they're saving the souls of heathens.

You definitely need new friends...

Yet still, some people you know, a few celebrities, and the utterly self-absorbed writer Tama Janowitz still do not a trend make.

And as some of the children of Guatemala, or India, or Haiti are far darker and more "ethnic" looking than many children available for domestic adoption, I fail to see the "racism" argument as holding true for many parents adopting internationally.

You also reveal some very ugly biases, in suggesting that "people over 50, singles, unmarried couples, gay couples, morbidly obese people" are "marginally suitable" for adoption.

If it weren't for many of these "marginally suitable" categories, there are many children domestically and internationally, who would never have a loving family.

And clearly, given this sort of bias, I was wrong. Perhaps you're getting your info not from People but from Fox News?