Angelina Jolie: Mommy Dearest for the 21st Century
You probably guessed the answer to Friday's Riddle:
Q:What do prada and third world orphans have in common?
A:They are both the must-have accessory for the rich and famous.
And while I am sure life will be better for the 3-year old Vietnamese boy in Branjolina's mansion in the Palisades over the Wal-mart sweatshop he was destined for otherwise, I just have this unsettling feeling that life with Angelina Jolie might have a little "no wire hanger" in it. I mean, she referred to her own flesh and blood as "the blob" that "seemed so privileged from the moment she was born." I'm sorry but this sounds crazy to me. Even though I've never had a baby, I am pretty certain that a newborn is just about one of the most helpless needy creatures there is, despite to whom he or she may have been privileged to be born. And the statement that Ms. Jolie made regarding her biological child, "I’m conscious that I have to make sure I don’t ignore her needs, just because I think the others are more vulnerable.” is literally insane. Really, what could be more vulnerable than a newborn?
Where do you think her next baby buy will come from? I am guessing South America? Or the Middle East? Living in Los Angeles, I am used to this celebrity obsession of having more than one of anything--It's as if there's a collector switch that turns on in their brain. It's similar to those women who devote an entire room of their house to precious moments dolls or the guy who gets into movie posters. However, when a celebrity's collector switch gets turned on it's with things like Manolo's, Mercedes, and mansions. One just isn't enough. And now it's children. I wonder what the next fad of the outrageously rich and famous will be. Maybe purchasing countries? Any takers for Darfur...or Iraq? Just a thought.
5 comments:
Didn't Clooney already buy Darfur? Iraq is still up for grabs tho'.
I think Angelina is a genuinely good person and has a n"Oskar Schindler Syndrome" - she wants to save just one more. Its understandable and I think there are lots of people out there adopting many children, their stories just don't get press coverage.
A genuinely good person, really? And what do you base that assumption on and, perhaps most importantly, why does that matter? Remember, there is a difference between being a do-gooder and being good--or moral to be precise. This is what Kant refers to as the catagorical imperative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative
No doubt, adoption is cool. Oh, and by the way, if you adopt a whole bunch of kids from Africa, you do get noticed and you end up on Oprah--she had an episode on this recently.
And I still think it's crazy that a mother would think anything could be more vulnerable than a newborn human baby. Our off-spring are born more undeveloped than just about any species. And that's just a fact of life.
She seems so angelic from all of her charity work and adoptions, but I also get the feeling there's something hiding under the hood there.
Yeah, Nancy, I really think several tell-alls are in the future.
Post a Comment