Tuesday, March 31, 2009

I don't know I'm sure

Tut, tut. Tory yobs at play. But yes, fair enough to point out as does one Sally Roberts, of the United Kingdom in the comments added to this report: "It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that Labour might not have arranged the stunt deliberately to discredit the Tories." Although her use of a double negative doesn't help her argument.

You may have noticed that I have a D.M obsession. Much as it terrifies me, I can not stop myself from reading the completely barking mad commentators on a daily basis. Which leads me on to the subject of Madonna and her proposed adoption of another child from Malawi. When I read a comment that began thus: "Madonna, Wicked Witch of the West. What a callous woman." I assumed someone was using sarcasm - but no. It was difficult to select the most poisonous comment made about Madonna, although
the article itself doesn't pull many punches in its full scale attack upon her. I work in adoption, but nevertheless still don't know what I think of adopting a child from overseas. I do though find it a bit hard to work out how a very rich superstar who is able and willing to offer a child a life away from an orphanage in one of the poorest countries in the world is being vilified for it. I have been trying to find out just how many kids from overseas Angelina Jolie has adopted to date. It seems to be three, plus three of her own, but as every report seemed to suggest she was in the process of adopting yet another child I can't be sure if that is still correct. What I don't see though is any sign that she has been attacked like Madonna has been in the past, and is being today for her adoption application. You don't have to like her music to wonder what she ever did to attract such opprobrium? Although maybe Madonna should not have shagged Jesus. It just doesn't sound right does it?

I don't know what to make of adoption at all to tell the truth. I think in my ideal world children born into families that social services know to be somewhat less than 'adequate parents' should be taken at birth and placed for adoption. (I can just hear the Daily Mail though going on about Evil Social Work Child Snatchers.) I see lots of young adult adopted people, who spent their formative years with their natural parents suffering abuse and/or neglect, and they have often had adoptions that ultimately failed, and I think to myself they were never suitable for adoption in the first place, having been too badly damaged before they were eventually taken out of their home environment. The law says natural family has to be given every chance to show they can take 'adequate' care of the child though, so they get one last chance after another. This I am afraid suggests to me that the children we are placing today for adoption will be the damaged young adults of the not so distant future. Not always of course. I have met some remarkably resilient children and do see them thrive with adopted parents. So what the fuck do I know? I am only an adoption social worker.

So what do I know? I know that Man on Wireis an utterly captivating and enthralling film having watched it twice in the past week. I also know that John was spot on when he raved about how good this book is. I am completely absorbed by it. And still with Counago and Spaves, I know we are going to be meeting up with John and Martin on Friday at this. I further know that I am really glad I never smoked.

I had a facial yesterday. The woman who did it for me has been a beauty therapist for over thirty years. She said to me "You've never smoked." It wasn't a question, it was a statement. She said she can always tell a smoker by the lines on their face. Surely reason enough on its own for young girls to never touch the evil weed.

And lastly, I know that it is high time I got back to work.


Lisa Rullsenberg said...

I've probably attempted fewer than five cigarettes in my life (and never completed one) and at least two of those attempted were single inhalations of cigarettes obtained from the front row of Pulp concerts from the lips of Jarvis Cocker!

I think whatever youth (if not beauty) I have is therefore safe from the ravages of smoking!

Yorkshire Pudding said...

Some hardened smokers are very easy to spot - especially women smokers. But it sounds as if your beautician is an expert at detecting those who do and those who don't.
She gave you a "facial"? I may sound prudish but I find that quite disgusting.

J.J said...

Lisa - you sound very safe to me.

YP - you don't so much sound prudish as sound as though you have a very naughty mind young man!

jay said...

'Just because you read it in the Daily Telegraph doesn't mean it isn't true'!

ROFL!! I know just what you mean.

I picked up a copy of The Times in a hospital waiting room yesterday and was stunned. It is now just like the Daily Mail used to be when it was a broadsheet. It has actual news - quite a lot of it! - and sensible commentary, but it's now written in quite a readable and (dare I say it) tabloid/popular press way. I might have to actually break with tradition and start buying a newspaper occasionally.

I've never smoked either, and my Mum gave it up donkey's years ago. Neither of us have much in the way of lines, and she's 89 this year. Genetics? Or lack of the weed? I don't know, but I do know that a very dear family friend smoked like a chimney all her life, and died of emphysema having resembled a rather lovely pink prune for the last several decades of her life. I have honestly never seen so many wrinkles on one woman.