[ocracoke]

Kristi,

I have to disagree with you here. She, unlike any other celebrity, is with her children constantly. If she travels, they travel. If she works, they are on set with her. I think she was strange but I think she has matured and become a mother. She seems very family oriented to me. And I think she has done something amazing that many other celebrities have not been able to achieve -- bring adoption into the forefronts of our minds. Mia Farrow did not send thousands flocking to adoption. Jamie Curtis did not send thousands to adoption. Tom and Nicole did not send thousands to adoption. And most recently Meg Ryan did not send thousands to adoption. I don't mean to make any judgment on any of the others when I say that -- I am sure they have been amazing parents. ButI think that Angelina has made a difference in the lives of many children by planting the seed in other people's brains. Of course, I may be biased about that since I am adopting from Ethiopia (I did make my decision to do so just one short week before she made her announcement of her adoption). But even more then the whole Brangelina aspect of the article, what made me angry about this article was the tone and the words. This a major city newspaper calling our children "rugrats" and "moppets." I may develop cutsie little nicknames for her but I don't appreciate them doing it -- it sounds condescending. I really felt like the tone of the article was that people adopt from a specific country to be trendy. I doubt that is the case for most people. So I wrote LA Times a letter and I suggested that they write articles about the realities of adoption. Write stories about the trials and successes of things that I read hear each day. Write articles about people who have been touched in some way by adoption -- adoptee, birth parent and adoptive parent. I just think that they could have taken a far more considerate, educational, and responsible approach to adoption then they did with that article. Just my opinion.

Samantha