@Dear Blond Diary: And does she have no respect for the child's mother? I've been in Bridget's shoes....except I don't have her money, but whatever, Giselle needs to step off.
@AuntPenny: Oh, bleh. I have a hard time getting angry at a woman who apparently says "I love my stepson and am 100% his parent". She's his stepmother, she's been in a parenting position with him since he was born, and invested stepmothers are generally pretty responsible and dedicated stepmothers, in my experience.
@limber: As a mother, I find her statement to be 100% offensive. Brady's son is not her child, and he never will be her child. I'm glad we're not vilifying stepparents anymore, but it's gone too far the other way. It's egregious. Good on her for being a responsible stepmother, but it is in poor taste and without any decency to claim another woman's child as your own unless you have legally adopted that child.
@AuntPenny: I guess I just see it as more of a pro-child statement, rather than a hit on the kid's mother. It's not as if Giselle considering him "100% her son" takes away from Bridget's mom-percentage.
I just want you to know Richard, that if you ever decide to collect up all your recaps and your roundups and the general contents of your brain and put them all into a book made of paper, I would buy it and read it and leave it on my bedside locker and use it as an anti-ohfuckitallwhat'sthepointI'm... goingtojumpoutthewindownow- device.
She wanted him to shake his box of chocolates? I don't blame him for not doing it--it IS kind of allegorical. After all, Life is like a box of chocolates (Although THAT is a metaphor, I guess). In related news, all of those bon-bons have given him one HELL of a fat butt.
Save the Children, a charitable organization whose mission is unclear...
I beg to differ. Save the Children is one of the leading philanthropic organizations of the world. Its mission is, and I quote, "[To create] lasting change for children in need in the United States and around the world." I sponsor a kiddo through them, and I couldn't be prouder.
@pureblarney: Um, I'm thinking Richard was being funny with the "unclear" thing. (Also, hint: a lot of things in these items were not actually in the sources!!
@pureblarney: anyway, Blarney, something about your post warms my heart on a chilly Monday morning. I love the little ones too and when I have access to a TV, I watch the other charity show, Feed The Children with those southern people. I always cry. (I hope they are not crooked, those two!)
I think there is a net gain when a crazy famous lady lifts a child or two out of abject poverty. It's got to come back around as a good thing even if said children grow to hate the famous lady and her no wire hangers obsession, let's just say, for example.
Great post, Richard, although I can't decide if your considerable venom is directed at the celebrities you're writing about or the fact that you have to write about them in the first place.
03/30/09
03/30/09
She needs you!
03/30/09
03/30/09
03/30/09
03/30/09
03/30/09
03/30/09
03/30/09
Yes.
03/30/09
Wouldn't that be so much more advance-worthy than a collection of twitters?
Your readers demand: Richard's Rollicking Rancor - the Gawker Years.
03/30/09
03/30/09
03/30/09
03/30/09
03/30/09
03/30/09
03/30/09
03/30/09
03/30/09
I beg to differ. Save the Children is one of the leading philanthropic organizations of the world. Its mission is, and I quote, "[To create] lasting change for children in need in the United States and around the world." I sponsor a kiddo through them, and I couldn't be prouder.
Also, re: Madonna-- it's kind of true, no?
03/30/09
03/30/09
03/30/09
03/30/09
I think there is a net gain when a crazy famous lady lifts a child or two out of abject poverty. It's got to come back around as a good thing even if said children grow to hate the famous lady and her no wire hangers obsession, let's just say, for example.
03/30/09
03/30/09
03/30/09
03/26/09
03/26/09
03/26/09