I'm way confused this evening as I try to catch up with my blog commitments after spending so much of my day running around like a headless chicken in attempts to track down the cause of a fever and stomach pain in my son.

I started out responding to a follow to the inspiration for Monday's post, an unapologetic dressing-down of those leaving comments lodging complaints against what the writer refers to as an article "heartless, disgusting, stupid and paid".

Not great at point-making wrapped in a sardonic fleece, he concludes his 'snappy comebacks' ... and again the strange spacing ... with:

My column wasn't just about orphans, adoptions or China.

I was writing about America's general lack of care and education for its poorest, neediest children.

I believe babies born in this country should get every break possible, even if they get a bad break when they are born.

I guess that notion is so crazy it has almost no public support.

Okay ...

But:

Dear Phil,

re: "Just to let you know, your article has been officially trashed by an international adoption blogger."

Since I'm the international blogger who is accused of "officially" trashing your article, I should let you know that I do get the point of your rather clumsy satire, but like many others resent any implication that responsibility for "America's general lack of care and education for its poorest, neediest children" rests with international adoptive parents.

The fact that far too many babies born in the US aren't getting the breaks they should comes from many directions, and shaking a finger in the faces people going many extra miles to provide safe and loving homes for children does nothing but muddy the waters further, and strongly suggest that you believe some kids are worth less than others.

If you would like to accomplish something other than inspiring even more divisiveness in the adoption community ... a circumstance that may result in even fewer families contemplating adoption of any sort ... may I suggest you turn your work, for example, toward the system that forces children to suffer under the hands of their biological parents for years, leaving them so damaged that only the most well trained adoptive parents could address their many issues?

By the way, your last line is a nice stab at pith, but I'm guessing you do know that if your "notion" had seen better writing you would have made your point and found support. Intentional s__t stirring is a technique, but not necessarily an effective one.

Best,
Sandra

PS: I get paid, too.

Some hours go by and more news hits my desktop demanding to be read, and this from the Washington Post pops up, creating the aforementioned confusion:

The United States Senate yesterday was confronted with a stark choice: health care for children, or pet projects for lawmakers' home states.

The final tally?
Pet Projects 68, Kids 26.

The article then goes on to list a few of the 'earmarks' ... govspeak for pet pork ... of which my personal favorite has to be the half-a-million dollars for an ice center in Utah.

(Sen. Arlen Specter alone added a total of of 166 earmarks to the bill, and if any of those involved 'coals to Newcastle' I don't know, but there would be no surprise happening in my head if it turned out to be the case.)

And it's international adoptive parents responsible for the dire condition of many American kids? How can that thought even cross a mind, much less make it into print?