Attempt to poison a family - Diabolical ingratitude

The "entire" adoption community is fumed, offended, enraged, vexed, saddened, distressed, troubled, concerned. The reason for this, a Hollywood production by the name of Orphan.

According to The Examiner, even the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute, has used their political influence to invite over Warner Bros. CEO Barry Meyer, in a silly attempt to express their concern about the film. If the first amendment is explained as separation of state and church, it also implies separation between state and art/entertainment. So when senators and congressmen use their influence to see if they can stop running the film or otherwise try to find ways the studio adds a pro-adoption message to the film, that separation gets lost.

And why? Why deny adoptees who do like the plot, who do like the fantasy of the evil orphan played out on the silver screen, for whom this is a nice outlet for some of the frustations some of us have? Unlike the cozy, warm and fuzzy stories of adoption, the CCAI and representatives of the adoption industry would love to show, some adoption didn't work out fine, some work out terrible.

Ladies and gentlemen senators, congress men, adoption agency workers, can we please have the pleasure of identifying with Esther for 123 minutes, without you hijacking it for your own agenda? You already have the airwaves, and it's only on websites like these and several blogs, that those adult adoptees that had it crap, really have a voice. Can we please have Esther, without you being the plot spoiler?

For those who want to warm up for Orphan, here is a news article from 1860, a story about diabolical ingratitude.

Many years ago the Superintendent of the Croton Dam, — who had held office for twenty-two years — being childless, adopted a poor orphan boy, and has from that time forward, bestowed upon him the care and kindness of a parent. A few day since, the family, consisting of husband, wife, and a niece, while assembled at the breakfast table, discovered an unusual appearance in the sugar-bowl, and a very small tast enabled them to detect that some ingredient had been mixed with the sugar, and the bowl emptied of its contents. Subsequent examination of the bowl disclosed that vitriol had been mixed with the sugar, and suspicion fell at once upon the boy, (now 16 years of age,) who had been heard to utter threats against his friend and protector. He was at once arrested and conveyed to White Plains, where he very coolly confessed to having mixed vitriol with the sugar, but claimed that he did not think it would do any harm.

The magistrate before whom he had been brought, thinking that at his age and in view all the circumstances he was not so innocent of evil intent as he assumed, commited him for further examination. An analysis of the contents of the sugar-bowl disclosed the appearance of a quantity of sufficient quantity of vitriol to have killed twenty persons had they used it.

The New York Times - May 11, 1860


Pound Pup Legacy