I recently realized that under the adult adoption laws in my state anyone could adopt another adult for any reason. It seemed to me a good idea that people who oppose draconian immigration laws should be willing to adopt an adult from another country so that they could remain here. That is not fraud, that's just a way of accomplishing a goal.

Unfortunately I soon discovered that the folks with the resources to undertake such an action were unwilling to risk a fight over their wills after they died.

Ah well, I guess we'll just have to insist that our government pass a just and equitable immigration law.

Thumper says: It is possible (although not likely) that the divorce will be enough shock that his wife will rethink her behavior and become a loving mother to her son.

It reminds me of a story my sister, an alcoholic, now deceased, used to tell about her alcoholism. (She died with almost thirty years of sobriety).

When the Israeli hostages were taken at the Olympics, my sister was a non-com officer in the Marines. She was very upset by the hostage situation, and tried to find someone to go have a drink with her to 'drown their sorrows' about the whole thing. Well, no one would go. So instead she went to the bar by herself to commiserate with the bartender about how no one understood how serious the situation of the Israeli hostages at the Olympic village was.

There's always a reason to drink.

I just listened to a tape by a doctor who specializes in addiction as part of a program on domestic law. She emphasized again and again that the problem with an addicted parent is they are not present in anyway that a child can grasp or rely on.

For once I have to say that I think Mr. Tennis is wrong, wrong, wrong.

This child currently has no parents. One is addicted to alcohol the other is addicted to the alcoholic. Childhood is short, and there is no more time for fucking around in this case.

Dad needs to make a firm, unnegotiable decision to give he and his son an opportunity to find a functional relationship. He needs to proceed quickly, and without remorse or looking back. He needs to hire an expert custody evaluator to determine what, if any, contact mom can have with the son.

The damage being done now is irreversible, and the child can only hope to learn to live with those scars. Too much longer and there will be no hope.

Move on Dad. Be strong for your son. Ignore Cary.

Was that a freudian slip? I meant to say I knew I did NOT plagarize

I actually have a great deal of empathy for the poor young author. One theory of criticism believes that all fiction is converted to pictures in the brain (I'll never forget the example from thirty years ago, Faulkner saying "the bird gusted into the [tree]") So, I can imagine that some of the intense metaphors from earlier books she had read were engraved in her brain as pictures, and when she wanted to describe a similar situation the words just came out too close for comfort (really, most of our experiences are in common).

Also, I have written something, then later been reading a book and come across my exact phraseology. I know I did plagarize cuz I hadn't read the other book first. So . . .collective unconcious? Limited vocabulary in the English language? Who knows?

Well, this is off topic, but I hope the dog pile on this young author ends soon. I'm sure she's wrecked as it is.

There was not a person in the room who would refrain from crucifying George Bush if it served his/her purpose, but only behind his back.

I thought the whole bit was hysterically funny. The problem was that everyone wanted Colbert to step out of character and *nudge, nudge, wink, win* let on that it was all a joke. For him to have to poise to keep going in character speaks to his incredible talent.

The audience was discomfited, as well they should be. There was not a person in the room who would crucify George Bush if it served his/her purpose, but only behind his back. To watch him have to squirm under the jokes about his administration was too much for the pack.

Hypocrites all. Stephen Colbert, will you marry me?

We're not so different. I read today that the woman who alleges that she was raped by three men at Duke University, alleged she was raped by three men in l996. This is being cited as evidence that she was less credible than previously thought.

I was burglarized in l980 in California and it turned out to be my partner's nephew.

I was burglarized in l986, 87, and 88 in Colorado and it turned out to be my husband's step-brother.

Does the fact that I reported a burglary by a family member in l980 mean the fact that I reported a burglary (or several) by a family member in later years is less credible?

When did it become some sort of defense to go into criminal proceedings with a shit eating grin on your face (see Tom DeLay booking pictures, pictures of Karl Rove reporting to the grand jury).

Talk about a lack of gravitas. The hope is that they are preventing the use of the pictures during campaigns, but the picture of Rove yesterday says more than a thousand words, "I can do whatever I want and you can't touch me"

Reminds me of the pictures of the gingerbread man in my childhood book, "Run, run, as fast as you can, you can't catch me I'm the gingerbread man" with his raisin smile.

I just hope that Fitzpatrick is the right fox waiting at the right stream.