Angelina Jolie Cradles Her Kiddies

Thanks Jessica Vozel. It is nice to hear someone who can write the truth and not follow the bandwagon that criticize blindly without any sense of reasoning.

660 clearview | 06/18/2007 at 4:12 am
Josephina | 06/18/2007 at 3:14 am
633- Reality-

You are going to have to do more than roll up your sleeves in order to understand a woman like Angelina, my sister. She is in American that views issues from a global perspective. So do I. Most Americans are taught to focus on American issues only and HOW IT RELATES TO THEM. A global perspective encompasses American views/policies/culture and how it impacts the rest of the world. There is nothing fake about having a global perspective-there is nothing glamorous about it.

The U.S. is one of the most powerful countries on earth, and most countries remain underdeveloped due to colonialism in much earlier times due in large part from England, Spain, Italy, Greece, and the Dutch. Children born in the U.S. will never have to face what children face born in these underdeveloped countries: constant hunger, fear, violence, sickness and malnourishment. The mind-numbing rate of infant mortality in these countries is your irrefutable proof.

A child that is poor in the U.S. is NOT THE SAME as a child that is poor in Africa or in Asia. You probably view people from Africa and the like as “foreigners,” on the other side of the world; therefore, not your problem. Angelina views them as neighbors, gets on a plane and enables herself to become useful for the sake of others, like Marianne and Daniel Pearl. This stuff only sounds good on paper. Most of the work done is quite gritty and dangerous. (PLEASE SEE THIS MOVIE- A MIGHTY HEART) Which is probably why most people send checks/money or raise money on safe grounds for a charitable cause.

Do you think the Creator thinks a biological child and an adopted child should be treated differently? We are all His children. He loves us equally. Minority parents like B&A, who have developed the capacity without discrimination to care, love, and raise a household of biological and adopted children will be blessed. The evidence has already been presented. I will now reference the Bible. Wasn’t Jesus adopted? Do you think Mary loved Jesus any less because he did not come out of her womb?

The word “blob” was used as a metaphor and not used to describe any physical attribute of her first born. Keep in mind that her first experiences to motherhood were with 2 infants (Mad, Zahara) where their personalities had already begun to develop before she came into their lives. With Shiloh, she was there from the beginning, whose personality has yet to be determined, as in a blob of paint yet to stroked on a clean canvas.

A married man is a man- not ‘property.’ There is no crime charged for “trespassing.” He is neither a pet- “if found please return to …” It is clear they were meant to be together for a much higher purpose other than just sex. Again, those types of unions tend to stick. If they had taken even more time to develop as you would have liked, then Zahara may not be alive today.

Lastly, Jennifer is a pretty woman that had a failed marraige. Is this really unique? I do not believe a woman’s worth is locked in her looks or her dress size. In order to lead, you must first serve. This is what sisterhood is about, not catering to the flaws of our sisters, but recognizing them while encouragung our sisters to rise in spite of them. There is no merit in justifying poor results or poor behavior. Yes, we women cry from time to time… but then we must get back up and move ahead and not look back. We must not present ourselves as victims or burdens to society. That is sisterhood, my friend.
______________________________________________
OMG, Where have you been all this time. Great post. Please, stick around and keep posting.
=========================

Ditto for me.

743 Jessica Vozel | 06/18/2007 at 10:04 am
http://www.northstarwriters.com/jv009.htm

Jessica Vozel Jessica’s Column Archive

June 18, 2007

Fox News Hardly a Victim as Angelina Jolie Puts Limits on Premiere Press Coverage

Usually I find it irritating when celebrities complain about being in the public eye and try to sensor the questions put forth by their interviewers. Like it or not, being a celebrity goes hand-in-hand with leading a visible life. To enjoy the benefits of being rich and admired, you must deal with the downfalls, as do the rest of us regular folks at our less glamorous jobs.

But the recent hoopla over Angelina Jolie’s movie premiere press requirements – which included a pre-interview contract prohibiting members of press from asking about her personal life and an initial ban on Fox News attending the premiere - is a bit overblown and misses the point.

No one has been more vocal about Jolie’s indiscretions than the jilted Fox News, who called Jolie hypocritical for making a movie that discusses the importance of freedom of press and then setting into motion bans and requirements for the press at the movie’s premiere. The movie, A Mighty Heart, is based on the memoir of Marianne Pearl, a French-born journalist whose husband, Daniel Pearl, was kidnapped and killed in Pakistan while on assignment for the Wall Street Journal.

The movie premiere itself was held in conjunction with a fundraiser for Reporters Without Borders, an organization promoting freedom of press. I’ll admit, it sounds bad. Given the context of the premiere, Jolie probably should have thought twice before making such a move (or allowing her lawyers to make such a move as she now contends was the case). But looking past Jolie’s prima donna behavior, comparing Fox News to Daniel Pearl is even more ludicrous and egotistical.

Daniel Pearl was in Pakistan to cover issues regarding the War on Terror, and died at the hands of terrorists in the name of reporting the facts. Members of the press in Jolie’s case want to know what her husband and four children ate for breakfast. An article on the subject appearing on FoxNews.com sarcastically quips, “Reporters Without Borders, indeed,” as if Reporters Without Borders’ sole concern is whether or not the press can ask personal questions of celebrities. It is insulting to Daniel Pearl that the press would invoke his name and the circumstances of his tragic death in conjunction with something so inconsequential, and arrogant of Fox News to align their situation with his, especially considering that they were able to attend after all.

According to the contract put forth by Jolie’s lawyers, questions directed at the actress should be about the movie, and really, they should be anyway. Perhaps Jolie and her “people” just wanted to make sure that the premiere was handled in the media with the same seriousness with which the film itself handles real issues regarding journalism and personal loss. Surely if every question directed at her at the premiere somehow involved her personal life, it would appear that Angelina was stealing the spotlight from the issues presented by the movie and by Reporters Without Borders. And if she were to have told every reporter on the red carpet who asked about her personal life that she wasn’t going to answer such questions, she would still look self-important.

It’s not as if Angelina is shy all the time when it comes to talking about her life outside of her movies and humanitarian work. She recently did an interview with Marie Claire where she spoke lovingly and openly about her family. In that venue, a women’s magazine, such a discussion was relevant. At a movie premiere, which is supposed to be about the movie, not so much. Besides, how many times do we have to hear her say that Brad Pitt is a great dad and that she wants to adopt more kids?

Maybe reporters need to reconsider what is important. Sure, one can report about Paris Hilton’s stint in jail or Lindsay Lohan’s stint in rehab and still report about foreign affairs. It is when reporting of the former outweighs the latter, and even worse, when reporting on celebrity gossip becomes, in the eyes of the media, as important to free speech as reporting on the War on Terror, that we must acknowledge that something is not quite right with the state of American journalism.
==============================

How I love this article.

747 African Girl | 06/18/2007 at 10:11 am
#712 / lylian
What?! That Bi…..I mean I’m glad she had a lovely time with my GC. Look how she can’t stop gushing….goes to show how incredibly sweet, kind and romantic he is, no? *Sigh*

_____________________

Oh AG, don’t, don’t I’m pleading with you, just stand by your man…..

#734 / Seriously
If your point was that not all celebrities are self-centered, selfish, egotistical rich brats, that some celebs in show business understand the concept…with great wealth (fame and fortune) comes great responsibility and are more than willing to take on the responsibility…..if this is your point, I’m glad I was able to help you prove it.

wanna chat?

mom

Here’s another George Clooney story from E’s Ted Casablanca’s Aweful Truth on Thursday

• Brad Pitt may have seen the error of his spouse-dumping ways, as those who have traveled right beside Pitt & Co. (that would, uh, include my fave boyfriend ever, George Clooney) are insisting to moi that Mr. Pee is now—at this incredibly late stage—perhaps regretting the harshness with which he chose to leave Jen and hook up with Angie. Oh, I’m sure Jennifer’s just gonna forgive and forget, Braddie-poo! And Paris isn’t getting hit on in jail as we goss!

I am sure he thinks about Jen everytime he sets his eyes on Shiloh, the result of his spouse-dumping way. Hahahaha! Had he not done it, he would still be childless now.

how lovely they are.. sooooo cute

Hi BAMPZS fans around the world. Hope all’s well with you.

What we do know is that all’s well with our lovely family………………….look how the ne’re do wells flock to this site to eat up all the good news and lovely pix about the most fascinating couple in the world! They really cant help themselves so we must be tolerant of them.

What amuses me most of all are those pathetic little whiners who constantly change their names…..(now they’re ’sam’, next post they’re ‘reality,’ then twokids, etc. etc. etc……quite laughable, actually.)

Now that their idol is so unequivocally discredited in the eyes of even the most casual observer, they are changing their tune. Suddenly, its not that they love X, its that Angie lied and continues to lie! BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

I read a post earlier where, after spewing its usual vile and venom against Angie, the poseter tried to convince us that its not that she loves X, but that Angie lied about what happened almost three years ago.

Now i ask you, why is that poster so invested in the life of a stranger, such that they are incensed about a three-year-old incident in the life of said stranger?!!?? And then they try to tell us that the sky is falling and we must do something about it. LOL

Yuck Teddy | 06/18/2007 at 11:40 am
After the hatchet job Jen did with Brad, plus the way Jen insulted his children, Brad will forever be INDIFFERENT to Jen.

Brad never looks back. Ask Gwyneth.

______________________________

I was looking through the current People magazine last night, and they had a nice article on Robin Givens about her life now and life with her children. They asked her about the time she and Brad dated for six months. She said it was nice and that he was so gentle and understanding. He was always telling her “it’s okay baby” and it sounded very sweet. She also said she hasn’t seen him or spoken to him since they broke up. So yes, when Brad leaves your life he is gone forever, I think.

IN THE OGADEN DESERT, Ethiopia — The rebels march 300 strong across the crunchy earth, young men with dreadlocks and AK-47s slung over their shoulders.

“May God bring you victory,” one woman whispered.

This is the Ogaden, a spindle-legged corner of Ethiopia that the urbane officials in Addis Ababa, the capital, would rather outsiders never see. It is the epicenter of a separatist war pitting impoverished nomads against one of the biggest armies in Africa.

What goes on here seems to be starkly different from the carefully constructed up-and-coming image that Ethiopia — a country that the United States increasingly relies on to fight militant Islam in the Horn of Africa —tries to project.

In village after village, people said they had been brutalized by government troops. They described a widespread and longstanding reign of terror, with Ethiopian soldiers gang-raping women, burning down huts and killing civilians at will.

It is the same military that the American government helps train and equip — and provides with prized intelligence. The two nations have been allies for years, but recently they have grown especially close, teaming up last winter to oust an Islamic movement that controlled much of Somalia and rid the region of a potential terrorist threat.

The Bush administration, particularly the military, considers Ethiopia its best bet in the volatile Horn — which, with Sudan, Somalia and Eritrea, is fast becoming intensely violent, virulently anti-American and an incubator for terrorism.

But an emerging concern for American officials is the way that the Ethiopian military operates inside its own borders, especially in war zones like the Ogaden.

Anab, a 40-year-old camel herder who was too frightened, like many others, to give her last name, said soldiers took her to a police station, put her in a cell and twisted her nipples with pliers. She said government security forces routinely rounded up young women under the pretext that they were rebel supporters so they could bring them to jail and rape them.

“Me, I am old,” she said, “but they raped me, too.”

Moualin, a rheumy-eyed elder, said Ethiopian troops stormed his village, Sasabene, in January looking for rebels and burned much of it down. “They hit us in the face with the hardest part of their guns,” he said.

The villagers said the abuses had intensified since April, when the rebels attacked a Chinese-run oil field, killing nine Chinese workers and more than 60 Ethiopian soldiers and employees. The Ethiopian government has vowed to crush the rebels but rejects all claims that it abuses civilians.

“Our soldiers are not allowed to do these kinds of things,” said Nur Abdi Mohammed, a government spokesman. “This is only propaganda and cannot be justified. If a government soldier did this type of thing they would be brought before the courts.”

Even so, the State Department, the European Parliament and many human rights groups, mostly outside Ethiopia, have cited thousands of cases of torture, arbitrary detention and extrajudicial killings — enough to raise questions in Congress about American support of the Ethiopian government.

“This is a country that is abusing its own people and has no respect for democracy,” said Representative Donald M. Payne, Democrat of New Jersey and chairman of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Africa and global health.

“We’ve not only looked the other way but we’ve pushed them to intrude in other sovereign nations,” he added, referring to the satellite images and other strategic help the American military gave Ethiopia in December, when thousands of Ethiopian troops poured into Somalia and overthrew the Islamist leadership.

According to Georgette Gagnon, deputy director for the Africa division of Human Rights Watch, Ethiopia is one of the most repressive countries in Africa.

“What the Ethiopian security forces are doing,” she said, “may amount to crimes against humanity.”

Human Rights Watch issued a report in 2005 that documented a rampage by government troops against members of the Anuak, a minority tribe in western Ethiopia, in which soldiers ransacked homes, beat villagers to death with iron bars and in one case, according to a witness, tied up a prisoner and ran over him with a military truck.

Part 2 cont…