Ghost of Bob Barker, please tell me, the pricing isn't right!

neophyte's picture

"The Price is Right".  Isn't that a game show that was running on daytime television since television was first conceived?  (And wasn't Bob the one and only guy to be the stud to strut his stuff, holding that dorky microphone, as he had his harem of models hand-job the merchandise for him?)  Good lord, the entire audience was nothing but old people and young military couples, dying to win a camper and luggage, all based on the price of a can of beans or a box of rice-a-roni.

I loved that show, for about a minute.

After that, my cheeks would hurt, just watching "Janis", the woman-model-figure who would not age.  She annoyed me.  No one smiles that much.  Not even for Bob.  Was she cryo-aged like Walt Disney, only better because she was able to walk on-stage?  Watching too much of her made me want to mimic her, just to see what it would be like to be fake for that long.  Lemme tell you, that's not easy having to touch and admire a can of squeeze cheese like it's a loaf of fresh bread, who hasn't eaten in three days, all while dazzling us with a full upper and lower teeth smile AND showing off all ten well polished nails, too.   That takes some serious practice time.  I would say more time went into that than Bob spent practicing on his people-skills, listening to contestant's questions and answers.  But hey, that's show business.  I'm sure Bob was a busy guy, and he did do a swell PSA announcement after every single episode after "The Price is Right".

It had something to do with protecting the unwanted pet population, by having pets spayed or neutered.  I think that made him real likable with lots of people, especially with the women.  I was too distracted by the whole harem-thing he had going.  I found that all a bit-too creepy.

Speaking about hand-jobs and creepy, I found the following pricing of babies, and I wonder how Janice would model this for Bob if it was on TV as a prize-option for a lucky contestant on a game show.

Picture it if you can, based on the following serious, sincere question and answer:

How much does it cost to adopt a child internationally or in the U.S.?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070930220434AAbI4Jk

I am from the U.S. and my husband and I have been trying awhile for baby #2 and have decided to possibly adopt. We would like a smaller child (younger than 2 yrs of age) since we do have one son now. I am just checking into it to see how much the costs would be.
Could someone please advise me as to what I could expect and which would be cheaper, US or international adoption? Thanks!

 

Sandi's Avatar by Sandi
Member since:
October 02, 2006
Total points:
3584 (Level 4)

 

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

Typically, you are going to spend $30K+ either way depending on how it's done. We've had friends who have adopted domestically through social services. We've also had friends that have done international adoptions. Social services domestic was definitely cheaper but it also seemed to have a higher risk of the child being given back to the birth parents or various family members. After their children were placed with them, it was an additional 6 months before the child was legally theirs. With an international adoption, the process is complete before coming back to the states.
My recommendation would be to truly consider why you are adopting...should you become pregnant, would you still want to adopt, etc. I say this because the agencies will ask.
Sit down with your husband and gather a list of questions to ask the different agencies. Start calling around and have each send you an information packet. The expenses, etc should be listed in each of them. The agencies will also be able to tell if they do domestic and/or international (and which countries they deal with) adoptions.
Best of luck and Bless your hearts for reaching out to a child in need.

Comments

"Truth or Consequences"

Odd how life can be seen as a Game Show, and most would think that's good clean fun. [Truth or Consequences, being yet another popular American game show ]. The erroneous twist to it all is the nature of the game, of course... and if any lives are at put at risk of real danger or being placed in real jeopardy, would they still be popular and deemed good quality family entertainment?

"It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye"

In most game-shows the contestants win games and prizes.  The "losers", of course, leave knowing they at least had fun playing a game.

Is that how a child placed in foster-care and adoption is supposed to see things -- life is a game? I suppose that would mean, "to be in it, you have to play to win it".  OK, I'll bite. 

Let's say our new parents are our new games and prizes.  That would mean  Winners takes all, and Losers... well... they get beat, and perhaps will have better luck next pull out of the pot.

Funny... with Adoption, both sets of Parent contestants are losing something.  One set is losing a child.  One is losing a huge amount of money.

The child is losing a family and God knows what else.

GREAT game!

Who is collecting the cash and prize-collecting audience again?

Marbles?

Maybe I am weird... STOP... Correction... I damn well know I am weird, but would making adoption free of charge not solve many of the problems. Who would still be interested in child trade when there is no money involved. Did I lose my marbles, or do I make a point?