I just read an article in Vanity Fair (the one with Jennifer Aniston on the cover) in which Aniston is really cool, she seems like a nice and genuine person, but the writer (gr, I can't remember who wrote the article) INSISTS on saying things like "Instead of being reviled as the Other Woman... the twice-divorced Jolie, best known for her taste for bisexuality, incest, and wearing her husband's blood around her neck... suddenly seems to be channeling Audrey Hepburn." I think they even call her "surprising adoption of an orphan whose parents died of AIDS" a "public relations coup" or something like that. It is so insulting for this writer to imply that Jolie hasn't been consistently involved in activism and humanitarian causes for YEARS, like she somehow joined forces with the UN "suddenly" to save her public image. And as for her adoption of Zahara: I first heard her talking about her plans to adopt a baby girl on The View when all the main cast of Alexander appeared to promote it. She was talking about how Maddox wanted a sister from Africa... but even without this sort of proof that her adoption of Zahara was a long-term plan and not influenced by some sort of desire to look like "Earth Mother Jolie" (-- I SWEAR those three words are taken DIRECTLY FROM THIS ARTICLE!!--), to suggest that adoption of a baby is a PR move is Just. So. Wrong!
So, now we all write letters to the editor at Vanity Fair so that people who read this magazine will hear next month how misrepresented Angelina's humanitarian involvement was in this article, right? ;-)