links for 2007-01-12

Comments

  1. Nina wrote:

    I wondered when the media would finally get back to the Cambodia adoption issue with Angelina. If I recall she also was living in another country while filming a movie so she adopted Maddox from there and not throug the U.S. Again the issue of shadiness and money influencing legislation come into play. It is not about these stars intent to “save children” but their constant dodging of the law and search for sainthood in return. And Malawi does not ban adoption, they have an 18 month, in-country residency requirement which Madonna avoided. Also Angelina’s recent comments about loving her adopted children more than her biological one because of their struggle-uncomfortable! Isn’t one of the cardinal rules of parenthood, never let your kids know which one of them is your favorite?

  2. Lyonside wrote:

    >Isn’t one of the cardinal rules of parenthood, never let your kids know which one of them is your favorite?

    Bottom line: good thing they have money. The therapy bills are gonna be killer when those kids are teenagers.

  3. kim wrote:

    I think unless Jolie manifests such favoritism in her raising of the children (and I hardly believe she will) that it falls to rhetoric, and one which a child raised in an atmosphere of appreciation for the struggles of the world, will naturally grow to accept as a form of rhetoric.

    Children who are raised in homes where their parents foster, or adopt troubled children, or hard-to-place children, have many resentments and upset at having ’shared’ their parents, but also have a built-in perspective and understanding of the nature of the extension of self, and the family that one creates for onesself.

    Her children may be no different, if she actively parents.

    That being said, most of the children of mega-celebs have a default relationship with a team of shrinks and therapy groups. So, I second the Lyon on this one (again).

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.