Strollerderby : Brangelina

Poll - Portia and Ellen Most Trusted Moms

Brett Singer — Fri, 08 May 2009 15:30:00 GMT

ParentDish did a Mother's Day poll. Over 10,000 people voted. (For an Internet poll, that's a lot, trust me. Or as Paris Hilton might say, "huge.")

The first question on the poll was the following: "Which celebrity would you most feel comfortable leaving your kids with?"

You know who won? Drum roll, please...

With 31%, Ellen DeGeneres and Portia De Rossi took the top spot. Rounding out the list were Jennifer Aniston (22%), Rachel Ray (20%), Angelina and Brad (18%) and coming in last was Oprah Winfrey with 9%.

The results are interesting. I probably would have put Rachel Ray first, and Ellen and Portia second. (Carrie Prejean, methinks, would put Ellen and Portia dead last.) Putting Jennifer ahead of Angie and Brad seems odd, but I guess that's the way the celebrity winds are blowing this week.

Obviously the fact that the top choice was a same-sex couple is worth mentioning. Or is it? Have a majority of us progressed past the point where we care what sort of family we would leave our kids with? (In theory of course -- as far as I know, none of the famous folks in this poll are offering babysitting services.)

Out of this group, who would you leave your kids with? Would the sexual orientation of the parents factor in to your decision?

Source: ParentDish

image: Daily News

American Incest Dad Gets 109 Years In Jail

Did This Woman Commit Suicide Because She Couldn't Breastfeed?

Angelina Jolie Could Always Use an Extra Baby

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:30:00 GMT

If the rumors about the Octo Mom's obsession with Angelina Jolie are true, Nadya Suleman must have been thrilled to see this SNL clip of Jolie taking a very unhealthy interest in Suleman's octuplets.

Sadly, with the way things are going in the Suleman household, perhaps the octuplets would be better off with Brangelina....

Photo: Deceiver.com

Realities of Discharging Octuplets

OctoMom Video Blog at RadarOnline

OctoMom Rejects Angels In Waiting Offer

OctoMom Says Denis Beaudoin is Not OctoDad

Gloria Allred Offers To Help OctoMom

OctoMom Says No Dating For Her

OctoMom Loathes Being Pregnant

UPDATE! Octo-Mom Alert! Police Visits and a Child Services Investigation

Octo-Mom Birth Video to Fetch a Cool Million?

Brangelina Won't Marry Until the Gays Can

Shannon LC Cate — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:02:00 GMT

In an interview with W magazine, Brad Pitt discussed his strong support of same-sex marriage. Having given the anti-Proposition 8 campaign $100,000 last summer, Pitt explained to W that

"People who are against gay marriage do not understand the very freedoms that they themselves are enjoying. What if someone said, ‘Sorry, no Christianity here? No Judaism. Certainly no Mormons.’ No one would stand for that, and I wouldn’t allow anyone to say that either. I’d fight them in the same way.”

Pitt claims he and partner Angelina Jolie refuse to marry until the right to do so is afforded everyone.

Who should know better than the unmarried parents of six kids the hassle of not being married? While money--which both of them have in truckloads, of course--can provide a lot of familial security, the basic rights of both parents are not protected without marriage. Even Pitt's biological children are his only if Jolie says so and allows him onto the birth certificate. If the couple were married, any children born to Jolie would be Pitt's legal children. Same-sex couples usually must adopt each other's biological or adopted children to become both legal parents. And sometimes that option isn't even available. Pitt and Jolie have a unique understanding of this, having been through second-parent adoptions for their children who were born in places that don't allow unmarried couples to adopt together (as most U.S. jurisdictions do not, if that couple is two members of the same sex).

Brangelina are hardly ordinary folk. Like I said, their money can fill a lot of the cracks legal difficulties cause for us mortals. But I appreciate them putting their power behind the cause of standing up for those without the privilege of wealth--or the privilege to marry.

Image: wmagazine.com

Angelina Buys Her Kid a Knife. What's Next, Maddox Jolie, Tomb Raider?

JeanneSager — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 02:27:00 GMT

I had to read it twice myself. Angelina, the super celebrity mommy who even gets away with feeding the kids Cheetos because, well, she's the uber mommy, not only breastfeeds on the cover of the upcoming W Magazine but chats about knife shopping with her 7-year-old.

Yes, 7-year-old Maddox has been such a good big brother, he earned himself his own dagger. WTF??

Angelina says she thinks it's "important he learns about the dangers and benefits of daggers." Sure. And I think my daughter should learn about the dangers and benefits of guns. It doesn't mean I'm going to buy her one!!

Angelina told W she got her first knife at 11. Maybe it was the one she used to use to cut herself with during sex? This was back when she was the OTHER Angelina, she of the vial of Billy Bob blood and making out with her brother. How soon we forget. I've been rooting for the growing ~~Brady~~ Jolie-Pitt bunch since Angelina and Brad started to put a little bit of down-home parenting into celebrity, but I confess I never drank the Kool-Aid. I was waiting for something like this to crop up.

Last time I checked, the 7-year-old eldest brother to a whole brood of kids is not the prime candidate for a knife. A. He's 7. B. He's 7 and C. He's . . . wait for it . . . 7.

I don't care how much time you've spent discussing "safe play" and how much you've dulled that thing down (which, I will say, she was very clear about doing), knives aren't toys. And as I don't see the Jolie-Pitts out hunting for dinner and skinning their kill, I have yet to see how this gift could be construed as anything but by a 7-year-old boy (or girl for that matter). What was the purpose of this? Is she planning on sending him off into the wild on their next trip to Africa? Are they worried about the way the Germans are taking to the new kids on the block?

I don't care how far she's climbed up the parenting ladder, Angelina just proved she's as screwed up as the rest of us. (By the way - to everyone who reports on the Jolie-Pitt clan, can we stop referring to those of her children who are not biological as her "adopted" son Maddox, etc? Once adopted, they're her kids - enough already.)

Image: Celeste

Don't Pay Child Support? Bid the Gun Rack Bye Bye

Three-Year-Old Romanian Girl Youngest Singer, and She's Cute As All Get Out

Stuff Parents Dream About: Life Without Play-Doh

Ten-Year-Old Does 90 MPH While Adults Party In the Back

Lindsay Lohan Wants to Adopt, At Least She Won't be Passing on the Genes

Minnie Driver Reveals Baby on MySpace

Jen Chaney — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 13:04:00 GMT

As reported yesterday in FameCrawler, Minnie Driver has revealed the first picture of her month-old son, Henry Story Driver. But she didn't do it by selling pictures to Vanity Fair or People magazine. Driver posted the picture on her MySpace page. That's right: "The Riches" star rolls Internet-style.

I have to say, I kind of respect this approach to the celebrity baby photo. She didn't make a fuss or start a bidding war. She just posted the photo and if people saw it, fine. If they didn't, no big deal.

To be fair, there isn't the same amount of pressure and attention on her as there is on Brangelina or TomKat. And I certainly respect famous folks who take that attention, as Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have done, and turn it into a force for good by giving the money they receive for their pictures to charity.

I know that the public clamors to see those baby pictures and that no movie or rock star wants to be perceived as letting down his or her fans. More importantly, I realize that releasing a photo of a new addition is the best way to control the media's appetite and avoid being hounded by paparazzi every time Mom or Dad takes the little one for a stroll.

Still, sometimes I wish stars could protect those babies by keeping their faces out of the spotlight just a little longer. Children don't sign up to have an Oscar-winning mom or rock-star dad. Their privacy should be protected, and it's a shame that in today's TMZ-ified climate, it's next to impossible for most celebrities to do that.

Given that climate, I think Minnie Driver has handled the situation with an appropriately low profile and some class. So congrats to her. And incidentally, wow, what a beautiful little boy.

Brad and Angelina Open Children's Clinic in Ethiopia

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:30:00 GMT

If only all fame and fortune were channeled into the common good....

Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have donated $2 million to start a center in Ethiopia for children with AIDS and tuberculosis. About 900,000 children in Ethiopia have been orphaned because of AIDS, and the country has the seventh highest rate of tuberculosis in the world. Though curable, tuberculosis continues to ravage the population in large part due to inadequate treatment.

The center will be named after Brad and Anelina’s adopted daughter, Zahara. “It is our hope that when Zahara is older, she will take responsibility for the clinic and continue its mission,” Pitt said.

This statement gave me pause. While raising one’s children to be activists and humanitarians is certainly laudable, Zahara is three years-old. This is sort of a hefty weight to place on her shoulders. If I heard a father of a three-year-old saying it was his hope that his daughter would grow up to be, say, a leading litigator at a big law firm, I would inwardly groan. On the other hand, I wish all rich parents encouraged their children to use their inheritance to be philanthropists.

What do you think? Is it okay to pigeonhole one's children into a certain line of work if that work is widely beneficial?

Photo: pursepage.com

Best of FameCrawler: Week of July 25th

Whit Honea — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:00:00 GMT

Pregnant Man Shares Baby Photos & Baby Name

Angie and Brad Couldn't Get It Done on Their Own?

Mindy McCready: Miscarriage?

What is Wrong With Katie Holmes?

2008 Emmy Nominations: Five Drama Mamas

Sex Tape: A-Rod and Madonna!

Maggie Gyllenhaal on Letterman- He Wishes

Jennifer Garner's Baby Bump: She's Pregnant Alright

Bob Geldof's Daughter Peaches' Drug Overdose

Brad Pitt Pulls A Britney

Jennifer Aniston, Oh So Gracious

Ashlee Simpson's C-Section

Best of FameCrawler: Week of July 18th

Whit Honea — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 20:00:00 GMT

Angelina Jolie Twins Photos: SOLD!!!

Jimmy Kimmel and Sarah Silverman Wreck One Home Too Many

Exclusive Sketch Of Angelina's Twins!

Pictures Of Nicole Kidman's Sunday Rose-Two Stories

Drea De Matteo Sobbed When She Found Out She Was Pregnant

Jennifer Aniston's Obsession With Baby

Jessica Alba Already Wants Another Baby

Jessica Alba's Honor Marie - Photo!!!

Name Change: The Jolie-Pitt Twins

Miley Cyrus Leaked Shower Pics: Blame Lindsay!

Which Celebs Refuse To Pimp Out Their Kids?

Amy S.F. Lutz — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:29:00 GMT

Since Brangelina's twins arrived, there's been a lot of passionate debate about the ethics of celebrities auctioning off baby pics to the highest bidder.

Me, I thought that, since Brad and Angelina have promised to donate the $11 million they've allegedly scored from People Magazine to charity, everyone wins. Until I read a very rational article on this practice, which pointed out that celebs like the Jolie-Pitts have so much money they could easily afford to donate $11 mil to charity WITHOUT sacrificing their children's privacy. As Bruce Weinstein, who writes on ethics for a syndicated column, points out, "If your own parents are literally selling you out, where can one feel safe?"

Not all celebrities are raking in the big bucks for their baby pictures, however. Which ones are taking the moral highground?

According to Gawker, a few big names were never approached to sell their babes' photos because they made it clear beforehand they weren't interested. In this group are actresses Nicole Kidman (who recently welcomed, with husband Keith Urban, daughter Sunday Rose), Halle Berry (who celebrated the arrival of Nahla Ariela with Gabriel Aubry) and Cate Blanchett (who, with husband Andrew Upton, brought home third son Ignatius Martin in April).

Then there are those celebs who turned down big time offers for pictures of their offspring, such as Jennifer Garner and Ben Affleck (parents of Violet Anne, now 2), Courtney Cox and David Arquette (parents of Coco Riley, now 4), Sarah Jessica Parker and Matthew Broderick (parents of James Wilkie, now 5) and Salma Hayek (who last year delivered Valentina Paloma, fathered by Hayek's fiance, Francois-Henri Pinault). Several of these tots have been snapped while out and about with their parents, or had their pictures distributed for free, but in any case, these folks obviously didn't want their children to become the focus of increasingly aggressive stalking by the paparazzi.

One could argue that no matter how Brad and Angelina resolved the photo distribution question, their no-doubt gorgeous twins would still become the focus of increasingly aggressive stalking by the paparazzi. And one would probably be right - after all, we're talking about Brangelina here! But at least if they had held their ground, their kids would have known, when they were old enough to appreciate it, that their parents never looked at them with dollar signs in their eyes.

20 Mil For Pics Of Twins

Babies And Benjamins: Should Celebs Sell Photos?

Amy Kuras — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:02:00 GMT

With the long-awaited birth of the Jolie-Pitt twins this week came the inevitable bidding war over their first photos. The couple reportedly got $11 million from People for the newborn's first photos.

They claim they'll donate it to charity. But I am still thoroughly disgusted. ELEVEN MILLION DOLLARS.

I live in a city where people are losing their homes, food banks are empty, and old people can’t afford to go to the doctor and some idiot thinks THAT'S the most appropriate use of $11 million?

There's a better and more in-depth discussion of the issue here. As one of the journalism profs in the article noted, this is a couple who is already, to say the least, in a position to donate huge sums to charity. The fact that they donated half – half! – of the $4 million they got for pictures of their daughter Shiloh to worthy causes is certainly better than those celebs like Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony who say "thankyouverymuch" and pocket the cash without a second thought as to the good that money could do. And by "good" I don’t mean several new pairs of Manolos.

The only reason celebrities are celebrities is because they already have a good deal of our money. I mean, someone saw Gigli. To give them yet more for something as silly as baby pictures just feels wrong, like the world's out of whack.

And it leads to scary celebrity worship. I understand celeb's attitude that they wantot control when and how the pictures come out, but as the article linked points out, other magazines certainly don’t respectfully step off once a star inks a deal. It just feeds the cultural sickness that means Britney Spears can't go get a Slurpee without 70 photographers hounding her. Would be still even be hearing about Nicole Richie or Tori Spelling if they weren't pimping out their babies? If we gave a fraction of the attention to serious matters, not to mention a fraction of the money, that we give to celebrities and their babies we would not be in half the trouble we're in economically, politically and socially.

And, you know, there's the whole pimping out their babies aspect. I think if you're going to show off your baby as a celeb, do it for free. Otherwise, it's just exploitive. Even if the money goes to a good cause. Use some of your own millions for that and let the baby have some shred of normalcy, please. How would you feel is you'd been treated as a commodity from before you were born?

Oh well, as Northwestern journalism professor emeritus Abe Peck said: "The bottom line is the public wants to see this stuff. In a better world, maybe someone would pay $20 million for photos of Nelson Mandela's grandchildren."

Brangelina's Twins Have Arrived!

Amy S.F. Lutz — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 11:28:00 GMT

Dr. Michel Sussman, Angelina Jolie's OB/GYN, has confirmed that Jolie delivered her twins by C-section Saturday night - and the twins are not both girls, as many media reports had previously stated.

Knox Leon (5.03 lbs.) and Vivienne Marcheline (5 lbs.) were born at about 8:00 pm at the Lenval Hospital in Nice, with their famous dad in attendance. The operation had been scheduled for a later date, but had been moved up for what Dr. Sussman described as "medical reasons." He didn't elaborate, but said Jolie and the babies were all doing well. They're expected to stay in the hospital for a several more days.

Vivienne Marcheline is apparently named in honor of Jolie's mom, Marcheline Bertrand, who died last year.

If you can't wait to see photos of the babes, you shouldn't have to wait long - reports say that Brad and Angelina have already sold the rights to the first pictures to a U.S. publication for millions of dollars, which they're donating to charity.

Congratulations!

20 Mil For Pics Of Twins

Best of FameCrawler: Week of July 11th

Whit Honea — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 20:00:00 GMT

Preg-a-licious! Is Fergie Expecting?

Photos Of Maddie Briann, They're Official

Sexy Superhero Parents: The Top 10

Is Michael Jackson Dying?

Nicole Kidman's Dad Reveals Secret of Sunday's Name!!

THESE Two Are The Hottest Celebrity Parents, For Seriously

Photos! Who Is Diana Bianchi?

Wanted: Nanny for the World's Most Famous Family

Angelina's Due Date - Got It!!!!

Angie And Brad's New Baby!

Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt's Baby Names!

Angelina's Paparazzi Proof Room

Best of FameCrawler: Week of May 30th

Whit Honea — Fri, 30 May 2008 20:00:00 GMT

Angelina & Brad Name Their Twins!?

BREAKING NEWS: Angelina Jolie Gives Birth To Twins

BROKEN NEWS: Angelina Jolie, Do We Have Babies or What?

Your Mother Does WHAT?

Christina's At The top Of The List

Clay Aiken Involved in Pregnancy!

Nicole Kidman - Tom Manipulates Our Children

Michelle Malkin Terrorizes Rachael Ray

Cindy Crawford Still Looks Awesome

Gavin Rossdale Says Strange Things About His Family

Unmarried Celebrity Moms and Dads

Madeline Holler — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:37:00 GMT

MSNBC has a nice little gawky slideshow featuring famous couples who bear children without being married. It's a sidebar, cheekily titled "First Comes Baby" (then comes love?) and accompanies the main story on Jessica Alba, who is promoting her new movie and is also with child. The headline acts as meddling mother by promising her "thoughts on marriage."

Having given birth to both my kids before being forced to marry my partner to get health benefits (details provided here), I still feel a certain affinity to these couples who, for whatever reason, haven't bothered getting married -- now or yet or ever. And I tend to slice and dice all the codes and tones and extra commentary packed into the reportage. I like to see what terms the writers come up with for the main players. Like Erin's recent post on names for two mommies, unmarried couples don't have any agreed-upon references for their partners/girlfriends/husbands/SOs/etc.

So going through the slideshow, I did a little lexical inventory of what the baby mama/baby daddy get called and find it interesting that there's a difference, even though I can't figure out who gets to be called what. It's either "boyfriend/girlfriend" (for example, Halle Berry's, Matthew McConaughey's, Jamie Lynn Spears', Alba's, Nicole Richie's) or "longtime boyfriend/girlfriend" (Mark Wahlberg's). Only the Tim Robbins/Susan Sarandon industrial complex is referred to in terms of "partner."Brad and Angelina get to be called "a couple." Sacha Baron Cohen and Isla Fisher are spared the girlfriend/boyfriend tag, too, either because they're both actors or because, as their slide indicates, he proposed to her years ago.

Any unmarried couples out there want to chime in with terminological ideas for the celebrity press?

IIncidentally, if you read through the Alba story, she says, regarding marriage, "she's thought about it," but nothing more. We're not getting the details. Seems that unlike li'l Jamie Lynn Spears, she doesn't necessarily "want to get married real bad." I hear you, Jessica, I hear you.

Best of Famecrawler: Billy Bob and Brangelina Sitting in a Tree...

Rachael Brownell (Redsy) — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 16:58:00 GMT

Posted by BadKitty

Billy Bob Thornton has a nice earthiness to him. He also has that cracked head "afraid to eat non-orange food" thing, but that's mainly easy to ignore. He's oddly charming and every once in a while he comes up with a particularly quotable moment, like now.

You may remember that he used to be the guy who boned Angelina Jolie and they wore each other's blood. Then they had irreconcilable differences, which most of the world interpreted as "She got all earth mother adoption lady and didn't want to do threesomes anymore." Then she moved on to break up Jennifer Aniston's storybook marriage and steal Brad Pitt.

All water under the bridge. Billy says that these days he feels for Angie and his friend (as in, yeah, she's your problem now, friend,) Brad. While Billy only has to talk to the press when he has a movie, poor Angie and Brad have to somehow function under the constant barrage of paparazzi attention. (Excuse me while I puke. As if it wasn't manna to their publicity seeking souls.)

Lucky for Billy Bob, he only has to chat with the press when he has a movie coming out. Like now! Which means suddenly a trip to Disney with his daughter Bella is interesting!

He's in the adaptation of Peace Like a River by Leif Enger, which I will go out of my way to mention because it's a devastatingly moving book. Billy Bob is in the low talker, stealthy lead. I have every reason to believe it will be amazing and uplifting. Go read the book now! Really, now! It's one of the best stories ever.

Billy Bob's reasons for bringing up Angie now? Less admirable. But still...effective. Bravo Mr. PR Brain Thornton.

Source: News 24.com

If Co-Sleeping is Good Enough for Brangelina It's Good Enough For Me

Karen Murphy — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:58:00 GMT

The co-sleeping controversy: proponents say the family bed reduces risk of SIDS, helps everyone sleep better, and is the more "natural" way to sleep, while those who oppose say it increases risk of SIDS and adds risk of being suffocated, and helps everyone sleep better. While I have my own views on the subject, it's obvious that what we should really do is consult the world's foremost parenting expert:

Brangelina.

Who presently sleeps on a custom 9-foot wide bed along with four kids. But when they spawn again, or adopt a regiment or something, and you know they will unless they begin consuming their young, they'll add on another 2 feet of real estate onto the bed.

I'll bet the Duggars co-sleep too.

Me? Every night I put my three-year old to bed in his own bed and every night he gets up, sleepwalks around the room a little, and climbs into my bed. Every night. So the 6 years' penance I already did in Being Kicked By Small Sharp Feet Land apparently wasn't enough. But I'm all for it, especially when they're little, even though I can't say I ever had a decent night's sleep in all those six years.

What about you? Do you take Brad and Angie's lead here or are you a non-co-sleeper?

Angelina Jolie Takes a Break to Be a SAHM

Sarah, Goon Squad Sarah — Wed, 23 May 2007 17:59:00 GMT

Angelina Jolie is taking a break from her job so that she can stay home with Brad and the kids and be a full time mom. When Jolie finishes shooting "Wanted" she is going to take some time off. She wants to let Pax get better adjusted to his new life.

It sounds completely reasonable. So why can't I stop rolling my eyes? Why to I love to hate Angelina Jolie? I stay at home with my kids. I respect other people who make the decision to stay at home to raise their children. I respect acting as an art form, so why do I just see Angelina going to the gym and screwing Brad Pitt while the nannies feed and bathe their children? I guess I am just a cynic.

Angelina Jolie is probably a lovely person. Why can't I take her seriously? Oh yes, I remember. It is that she used to wear a vial of Billy Bob Thornton's blood around her neck as jewelry. Yes.

Okay, I don't feel so bad about all that eye rolling now.

Brad and Angelina Don't Want their Kids to Watch Their Movies

Sarah, Goon Squad Sarah — Thu, 10 May 2007 18:03:00 GMT

Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie aren't letting their children watch their own movies. I can't say that I blame them. Jolie and Pitt say that the movies they are in are too violent and they don't want to promote violence in their home.

Angelina's roles that have made her the most money show her brandishing weapons, and Brad and Angelina don't let their kids play with toy guns either.

As much as I am not a fan of toy guns, doesn't that seem a little bit hypocritical? It is okay for Mommy to be slutty and teach other kids to use guns in a movie based on a video game where a scantily clad woman goes around shooting people and zombies, but not cool for her own kids.

I have my own theory. I say they won't let their kids see their movies because Mr. and Mrs. Smith is so bad that they don't want it in their house. Just me? Oh well, I tried.

Angelina Jolie Doesn't Work Nights (She Probably Doesn't do Windows Either)

Sarah, Goon Squad Sarah — Sat, 05 May 2007 21:01:00 GMT

Ugh. Angelina Jolie's fifteen minutes have got to be about up, right? Celebrity Moms is reporting that now Jolie will only work the day shift. I don't mean to be a jerk, but who the hell does she think she is? I've seen Mr. and Mrs. Smith, and big boobs don't make you a good actress.

Now she is telling her bosses that she can really only film during the day because she needs to be with Brad and the kids in the evenings. You know, she doesn't want to mess up the shedules of her bazillion kids. I'm sure her nannies are very apreciative.

Am I the only one who wouldn't feel sorry for her if she had a night scene?

Brad to Angie: Waaaaait Just a Minute Here, Missy!

Jessica Ashley (Sassafrass) — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:34:00 GMT

While Angelina Jolie is busy scouring binders and pages of potential adoptees on the internet (is that how she does it?), Brad Pitt just wants to kick back and enjoy the kiddos. A report out this week spills that Brad would like to hold off on having or adopting more kids so the couple can invest time and energy into children Maddox, Pax, Zahara and Shiloh.

It seems that Brangelina both want to have more children in the future but Brad has asked for a breather before welcoming any new additions to the family, citing as his reasons: "wanting to get his body back" and "possibly going somewhere other than Appleby's for dinner once in a while."

Of course, as soon as Angelina fires off a "my husband just doesn't get it" email to Mia Farrow, the whole "let's be happy with the kids we have" thing will surely be quickly canned.

Brad and Angelina: Why so Secretive?

Sarah, Goon Squad Sarah — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 18:44:00 GMT

It looks like Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are an item, and I just read that they might be adopting!

Here is what I don't get: Why won't the media give us more information on Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt adopting children. I mean, sheesh, you just want a little bit on information on what these two are doing and it seems like they just aren't getting any press.

Plus what ever happened to Jennifer Aniston. Did you even realize that she and Pitt used to be married? I didn't know until last week. Why so secretive? Do you think there was a cover up? These are beautiful and fascinating celebrities, one might even call them superstars. I think they owe it to their fans to keep us up to date with what is going on in their personal lives. Don't you?

Adopting Children From India to Get Easier, Sort Of

Karen Murphy — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:09:00 GMT

Officials in India are looking to lift some of the onerous bureaucracy presently necessary to complete a foreign adoption. Apparently Brangelina planned to adopt from India last year when both Angelina and Brad were filming there, but abandoned the idea and went to Vietnam instead after finding the procedure excessively burdensome when compared to what other countries had to offer. Indian adoption officials no doubt began to wring their hands when they found they had bungled an opportunity to promote adoption of Indian children through what could have been a media coup with a Brangelina adoption, and are looking to make some much-needed changes that should hopefully release some of the burden and make foreign adoptions of the thousands of children needing homes there more easily possible.

Present laws require that prospective adoptive parents be sponsored by an adoption agency from their home country, an agency registered to facilitate adoptions in India. Apparently this sponsorship and registration process takes lots and lots of time, often years, and may be scaring off other prospective parents besides Brangelina. I know that adoption is a complicated process for many reasons, but it would be nice to unite children who need homes with parents willing and able to love and care for them a little sooner and with less hassle.