I wondered whether this link was pushing the boundary of good taste, so I checked with Jason and Grumpypilgrim and got their quick OK's. Now you know where to complain. If you've been wondering what really spurs the neocons on, click here. If you like it, I'll take the credit.
My wife and I adopted our two wonderful daughters from China on two separate occasions, in 1999 and 2001. We very much appreciated the way that the Chinese orphanages took good care of our daughters. When we traveled to China to meet our daughters, we were treated well by the many Chinese people we met who ran China’s adoption program. Everything was straight-forward and as we expected. I also cannot say enough good things about Children’s Hope International, the American adoption agency we used.
Throughout the adoption process one bit of irony repeatedly occurred to my wife and I: We had to be highly scrutinized before being allowed to adopt. The Chinese government (and our own agency) wanted to make certain that we were going to be good parents. My wife and I sometimes commented to each other that absolutely anyone is qualified to have a biological child, whereas people trying to adopt were treated with suspicion. To be approved for adoption, we had to produce our arrest records, medical records, recommendation letters and a home study.
We periodically get newsletters from Children’s Hope. This month’s letter includes the current requirements for adopting a child from China. Interesting stuff. In fact, the requirements are much stricter than they were a few years ago:
Families are not eligible to adopt if any of the following …
Information Reliability. This is a pet peeve of mine. Stephen Jay Gould was a stickler for finding out where ideas "that everybody knows" came from, and often finding the original source to be dubious. I am writing today because of a recent Mallard Fillmore cartoon proclaiming that "new reports give…
Cheney Lurks Behind Shrub At Bush Press Conference
I often jump at the chance to report on new well-written articles regarding happiness, especially when they are based upon science rather than mere anecdotes.
Last year, I started a subscription to Scientific American Mind It’s a well-written magazine that addresses lively and timely topics. Be February-March 2007 issue contains an article entitled “Why It’s so Hard to Be Happy.”
Why is it so hard? After all (as the article points out), the buying power of average Americans has tripled since 1950, though we are not three times happier. In fact, our children are more anxious. Is happiness about achieving goals, for instance? Apparently not. The growing field of “positive psychology” shows that happiness
Is not something that can be achieved by hard work or good luck. The happiest people seem to be those who are fully engaged in the present, rather than focused on future goals.
Evolutionary psychology suggests that humans have inherited “a remarkable capacity to habituate to, or become accustomed to, the status quo.” While this is great when we are facing adverse conditions, it causes ongoing pleasant experiences to fade in the consciousness. In fact, we seem to be especially well-tuned to notice dangers much more than pleasures. “The natural human condition is to take positive experiences for granted and to focus on the bothersome aspects of life.” The article suggests that humans who were never satisfied had an survival advantage over their easily-satisfied peers.
A twin study from 1996 indicates that 80% of the variation …