Reading this story, and remembering one on TV last week about two men in Florida, who were not able to adopt, but were able to get legal custody of first one child, and then her sister... I had a thought.

Perhaps there are kids who actually benefit from having two parents of the same sex. Granted, I'm thinking of a small sample here, but it sounds like Jesse, after being buffeted around so much might have needed the extra nurturing of two mothers.

The little girl in Florida had also been in many foster homes, but she was really out of control, a serious discipline problem. Sure, she needed loving parents, but she also needed some structure and discipline. Who doesn't know that children will usually "listen better" to a male voice than to a female one?

Could it be that adoption or legal custody arrangements like these, which are out-of-the-box, work precisely because there is something serendipitous at work for these children who are selected by same-sex parents?

Just a thought...

Mr. Moveaway stole my thunder, and I don't even care. It bears repeating.

Now that Bush's base may safely be considered a solid minority, perhaps we can now rename it. Base implies something solid and real, that you can actually stand on and feel supported. And, since perceiving Reality doesn't seem to be an actual requirement for membership... I suggest we start calling it "The Clouds."

Thinking that, I was inspired to google Aristophanes' "The Clouds," thinking that play might also be as apropos as Lysistrata to these times. Perhaps not quite in context, but still...

The play of the Clouds is very well known, but for the most part little understood and appreciated. It is intended to show that in the propensity to philosophical subtleties, the martial exercises of the Athenians were neglected, that speculation only serves to shake the foundations of religion and morality, that by sophistical sleight, in particular, all justice was turned into quibbles, and the weaker cause often enabled to come off victorious. The Clouds, themselves, who form the chorus, no doubt dressed fantastically enough, are an allegory on these metaphysical thoughts, which do not rest on the ground of experience, but hover about without definite form and substance, in the region of possibilities.

source: http://www.theatrehistory.com/ancient/bates025.html

Consider, too, his base's preoccupation with Revelations and the End Times...

the match, and especially, that before the upset, no one was discussing how over-the-hill Bobby Riggs was, only how it was going to be such a rout... implying without trying to say I-told-you-so in advance, that finally someone was going to shut those women's lippers up. ["Women's lip" was an expression my father later used, but I wasn't watching the match with him.]

Of course, after the match, the revisionism began right away, and immediately everyone began discussing King's general fitness, superior conditioning, and the sizes of her muscles vs. Riggs's.

It was much like any other widely promoted sporting event that suffers an upset. The sportscasters (pretty much all men as I recall) were all trying to cover their butts.

I may not remember this part quite as well, but it seems to me that an awful lot of men were rather sulky for awhile.

And so! What happens now when a young woman wins a title in what was an all-male tournament? http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/sports/highschool/tennis/s_445535.html and http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06110/683617-49.stm

The powers-that-be change the rules to prevent it from happening again. http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2006/04/21/tennis/index.html

Apparently, they were concerned about potential reciprocity. "During the discussion, a few members praised Houghton but also said they didn't think girls should be playing boys' sports or vice versa." http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06111/683936-49.stm

C'est la vie...

...and I'm sure there were plenty of people, good, upstanding, moral citizens, who did not think he was all that funny either. Yet, he was also brilliant and devastating.

...with a bit more detail.

In particular, there was the story of the woman with children, who, after many interviews and no job offers, finally asked a few pointed questions, and learned that being asked questions about her marital and parental status were, in fact, legal, and made it permissible for employers (in more states than you'd believe!) to pay women with children, but without husbands, less than they pay anyone else, totally disregarding whether they had the same or better qualifications. It all came down to health care and that the enployer was unwilling to pay health care costs for the woman and her children, when he could hire a woman who was either married or childless (or one presumes, preferably both!)

In no way, are these women looking for special treatment... just some sort of parity.

Finally.... shouldn't this finally put an end to the age-old argument that men have to be paid more than women because they have families to support?!

Apparently, that idea is still out there, except that it's even worse than we thought, because married women get a break, since they're likely to have benefits through their husbands, and unmarried or divorced women who have children, get the worst possible deal. Give me a break!