What kind of parent are you?

So, what kind of parent are you? No, I don't mean a good parent or a bad parent. That is easy to figure out. The freaks who put their kids on television shows on TLC or Discovery Health or something like that - bad parents. If your last name is Gosselin and you were on tv - bad parent. If your kid fell into the river of chocolate - bad parent. (Oh, come on, Willy Wonka, get it? The original not this Johnny Depp nonsense. Sheesh!) If your kid grows up to win the Nobel Prize - good parent. If your kid finds a cure for cancer - good parent. If you think teaching your baby to read with some piece of crap infomercial product - bad parent.

Sorry, that was kind of a long tangent. Really, I don't mean good parent or bad parent. I mean, what kind of parent are you? Apparently, this is important. To whom, I do not know. Well, it seems important to people who have word counts to meet. Yes, I mean you Mr. Newspaper reporter. Okay, so enough. What am I talking about? The Chico Press-Enterprise or whatever they call that ridiculous newspaper up in the town that used to be known for having America's #1 party school and the Sacramento Bee both apparently think its important to identify parents as either adoptive or biological.

No, wait. That is not true. They think its important to identify when people are adoptive parents. Repeatedly. As if it matters to someone. I don't recall much about writing a newspaper article, and I have never actually written a newspaper article, but I believe that they are supposed to include facts that are relevant. So, the name of the mass murderer is probably relevant. The location of a bank robbery is probably relevant. The fact that Senator Calderon failed to report donations from the insurance industry when he was the chairman of the insurance committee is definitely relevant.

The fact that Billy and Susie Homemaker adopted little Sally, who they are accused of beating, is irrelevant. Suddenly, it seems that how you ended up with a child is some indication of how you parent. There is a story in the Sacramento Bee which was apparently reprinted from the Chico Screw-Up Enterprise that starts as follows: "Police say that a 7 year old girl died Saturday after being beaten by her adoptive parents....."

Last time I checked, I didn't see a story that started: "Bristol Palin, biological daughter of Sarah Palin, had a child out of wedlock with some dweeb." (Seriously, if you remember the guy's name, you need help. Okay, I need help since its Levi Johnson.) Or how about: "Crazy Michael Savage, who can't complete a thought because of his experiment with herbs (hey, he claims to be a world famous herbal expert), the biological son of an immigrant, still has no clue about autism and families dealing with autistic children." Am I right? I mean, I didn't read last summer: "Michael Jackson, the biological child of a freakish, scary father, died after having 152 plastic surgeries, having his nose replaced with a clip and turning his skin from black in to bright white like the kid who's car had smashed so hard." (Google it if you don't get the lyrical reference. Yes, it is funny. Actually, go listen to the song. Heck, buy the CD from which the song comes from.)

Yet, somehow, when a child is adopted it is part of the story. Its like if something bad happens, the adoption must be important. The fact that Lee Harvey Oswald came out of his mother's birth canal is never reported. But the fact that these douches in Paradise adopted the child and then beat her seems to be important. Its not.

News flash: I have adopted several children. I also have a biological child. Now back to our rant.

I am not the adoptive parent of my children. Just like I am not the biological parent of my biological child. I am a parent. A father. A dad. Daddy. I may have adopted my children, but I am not an adoptive parent. It is offensive. Why not describe me as the white parent? How about the bald parent? How about if I start describing biological parents like this: Ron and Martha are the people who came out of the birth canal of Sara and James. Or maybe I can do it this way: Ron and Martha came out the woo-hoo of Sara after James had been in there.

Maybe we can go farther. Children who are born after in vitro can be those test tube babies. Or maybe those petrie dish children. You could be William and Mary, the parents of petrie dish children. Or maybe we can get more graphic? Anyone want to bet whether I can get more graphic?

And while I am picking on the fine folks in Michael Phelps favorite California city, lets be clear this is not just for newspaper folks. It is also for anyone else. School districts? I am not an adoptive parent and even if my child is adopted, it doesn't matter when you don't provide services to my kid. Doctors? Sure, it is relevant for medical history, but after that it doesn't matter.

Want to bet? Just go ask the piece of poo attorney who made the mistake of making a comment about me while my son, who happens to be adopted, was in the hospital. Hell hath no fury like a pissed off white guy who has the mouth of a sailor and the venom of me. Of course, he followed this up by also commenting about the time when my wife had a baby. That would be my biological child. Again, hell hath no fury like a pissed off white guy who has the mouth of a sailor and the venom of me. Notice its the same? That is kind of the point.

My kids are my kids. My family is my family. I don't care if they are adopted, by birth, from a test tube, fell off the moon, dropped out of a spaceship or were found in a barn. They are my kids and how we became a family is irrelevant, you insensitive, uninformed, Neanderthal. Go get a freaking clue about life and than talk to me about families and how they are formed. Until then, take your piece of crap, poorly written, uninformative article and shove it where the sun don't shine, which by the way, could be the place your next child comes out of!