October 25, 2006

Designer Adoptions. . .

Today’s world is not without a good number of morons. Oops, oxymorons, I really meant oxymorons. (It musta been a Freudian slip.) One of the biggest of these is the Hollywood Family.

Over the last several years I have become more and more skeptical that “film people” have what it takes to make a home. Yes, I know they can buy a house 38.5 times larger than mine and furnish it with tables, sofas, and bedroom sets from stores I didn’t even know existed or have enough money for a quick peek at their catalogues. (For all I know, upper high end stores may not even be called upper high end stores or have catalogues. . .) But alas, a home is more than house and the furnishings. It is family. (Ok, yes, I do believe that singles and marrieds with no kids also make nice homes - but that is not the point of this post.)

It starts with a marriage. It needs a willingness to grow and adapt with each other. It takes commitment and hands-on parenting. I say hands-on not because I’m against nannies. It’s just that I’m for parents who parent – who raise their children while the children raise them. I guess that’s why I think it’s important to keep that role of mommy or daddy for yourself and not farm it out – kids help to raise their parents. (Ask me about this sometime, I’ll blog on it come the new year.)

Now on one hand I applaud the celebrities that have seen the plight of children in third world countries and have reached out and adopted them, or are trying to adopt them. That in itself is commendable. But is it right?

Why do I feel like these children are the newest designer fad. That instead of the really “cute” dog with master/pet matching outfits, gourmet dog food, and a really dumb moniker, Hollywood is sporting adopted children from poverty and disease stricken third world countries – the more third world, the better.

Can we do more than take their children?

No comments: