Angelina Jolie and Maddox Visit New Orleans

How cute! Maddox looks so happy and Angie looks healthy and very pretty.

Maddox looks happy my A$$. This kid is already a spoiled brat. Look at the pic without your rosy glasses. Angelina is trying to keep control of him physically, while feigning a smile. Granted in other pics on just jared he's smiling, but, she has both hands on him, keeping him close to her. This could be for security reasons, but, this kid is probably bored to death at this adult function.

She actually looks skeletal and not good at all.

Though she has been looking too thin, here she is flawless...

THERE IS IS HOUSE NEW ORLEANS, THEY CALL IT "THE RISING SUN", remember?

she's gorgeous. the person who says she's too thin is a little harsh. she's perfectly healthy. and the kid looks like he's having a good time too.

BUT, to the reason i commented in the first place. AUTHOR, you are mistaken. if you look, the legal name of the entire crew of kids is "jolie-pitt." so it's maddox jolie-pitt not just maddox jolie.

come on now!

I was pretty happy not seeing the skeleton and her media ho boy for a while, but they had to do something to get thier pictures back in the spotlight! So here we go again.

Hey, she has chicken legs!

Sorry Brandon, she is NOT perfectly healthy.
She's way too thin and its not healthy for her. Years ago, she looked a lot healbetter, but then she had more weight on her bones. I wish she'd eat more and not look so gaunt. It can't be good for her body...

You know it's weird, when Angelina goes on her circuits for charity, Brad frequently isn't in the pictures, its all Angelina. When Brad does something for charity, presto, there Angelina mugging for the cameras.

Where's Shiloh?

So the attention whore's at it again. And dragging that not so cute kid with her ugly ass. And dear God, when your feet are as big as hers you should never attempt to wear those shoes.

So the attention whore's at it again. And dragging that not so cute kid with her ugly ass. And dear God, when your feet are as big as hers you should never attempt to wear those shoes.

So the attention whore's at it again. And dragging that not so cute kid with her ugly ass. And dear God, when your feet are as big as hers you should never attempt to wear those shoes.

i shall refrain from commenting about her general health and subsequent weight -- as no one really knows what weight is healthy for her except her and her doctor. BUT, i can comment that i think her feet are hideous in those shoes. nor do the shoes flatter her walking sticks.

there's a lot to be said for comfort -- partic since they are walking on gravel here, but dayum. a pair of kicks would look better than those sleds.

Angelina sure looks old and pasty white. As far as healthy, I guess so. For her. If I looked like she does in that photo, my family would send me to the doctor STAT. But compared to how she HAS looked in the past she looks better...

Ugh, I think you made your point.

Ugh, I think you made your point.

Ugh, I think you made your point.

Although, I think we need MORE "media-whores" calling attention to what our PRESIDENT AIN'T DOING, namely fixing what's broken in our own country.

But, I do agree that those are some Titanic shoes Ms. Jolie is wearing, too bad she wasn't on hand during the flooding to rescue survivors in those canoes she calls shoes! Whoop!

She hates this country and should be permitted to be photographed with the soldiers who protect her ungrateful ass.

Stimpygato: I agree, we need more people calling attention to what's broken in our country. Unfortunately, Angelina generally hasn't been one of those people. She likes to call attention to what's broken in every other country BUT ours.

You know, there are many kids in this country who need homes, but she chose to adopt foreign kids. Maybe it's because adoption agencies in this country have standards that are to high for her to meet. She is an admitted former drug addict who (used to?) have psychological problems, and who is not even married but shacked up with a boyfriend. I CERTAINLY wouldn't let her adopt a kid if I was in charge of an adoption agency.

But assuming she is capable of providing a healthy and stable home for an adopted child, why didn't she adopt one of the many American kids who need homes? I believe that you should fix what's wrong in your own backyard first, then try to fix what's wrong elsewhere. And let me tell you, there is PLENTY that needs fixing in this country and has needed fixing for a long time. Of course, adopting American kids wouldn't have been as glamorous or as attention-getting as adopting foreign kids was.

I agree Jennifer, however, if she adopted an American child, the attention would not have been maximized for her...she received WORLD attention as opposed to NATIONAL attention...
I'm sure some of her initiative is pure but I see a great deal of "look at mememe!" in Angelina. People who are pure in their intentions to help others don't ask for recognition...

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- ballet slipper looking flats are not attractive on anyone, let alone someone with long feet. Just looking at them makes my arches ache.

And I agree with many of the other posters here in that Angelina hasn't given a rip about this country (you know the country that gave her all the opportunity to make something of her life and made her millions upon millions of dollars, AND honored her with Goodwill Ambassador status -- that country. The country that offers the very freedom she fully takes for granted. The country she frequently mocks). If she's starting to care now it's only because she realizes that a)people are sick of her broken promises, b) people are not seeing movies where she is the main character, and/or c)she realizes that she has to appease the American public or she won't have a job.

Well we Americans are lucky that our government hasn't put a death warrant on us like the unfortunate people of the Sudan, Ghana, Darfur, Cambodia, and so on. These people weren't given any attention despite the fact they are suffering a genocide but as long as it doesn't affect America it doesn't deserve any attention. She recognizes the opportunities she has received from this country and that's why she feels this country can share that opportunity with others who are less fortunate. To whom much is given much is expected. I think it's time we stop seeing ourselves as American citizens but global citizens and look to what we can do for others because if we were in their shoes we would want even expect someone to help us.

American citizen, global citizen...whatever...they're not mutually exclusive. We support THIS country so that we're ABLE to support other countries. If this country falls apart, so goes the rest, because MANY other countries globally depend on our purchasing power in order to survive. It's about priorities. If we take care of what's in our own back yard first, we'll be much better equipped to help others.

Angietothemax: you apparently are not in touch with the many Americans who are suffering at this very moment. I am happy for you (and for Angelina) that you don't have to make a choice between getting the medical attention that you need to stay healthy or putting food on the table for your children.

Unfortunately, there are MANY Americans today who are faced with that choice. And many of the ones who aren't are working 60-70 hour weeks, at the mercy of ruthlessly expoitative employers, or else they WOULD be faced with that choice.

I will NEVER forget the story I read a couple months ago about the 10-year-old boy who DIED because his family could not afford to get dental care for him. One of his teeth became so infected that over time the infection spread to his brain. Go ahead, you can be the one to tell his mother why the people of Darfur and Sudan are the ones that need help. There is NO excuse for something like this to happen in a civilized country.

Yes we are global citizens. But before we can help others, we must first get our own house in order. And we have a lot of work to do before that is accomplished.

Well the specific countries that Angie represents are not getting any support because they have nothing to sell or trade with the US so therefore they are of no use and ignored. Quite honestly America is not that bad off to the point that we can't help others.

The countries that Angie represents have nothing to sell or trade with the US so they are considered worthless and ignored. America is not that bad off that we cannot give to others that really need it.

Angietothemax: You have got to be kidding me. America is "not that bad off" when a 10-year-old boy DIES because he can't get dental care? And that's just ONE example. What is your value system? I think a country is REAL bad off when a little child has to die for lack of basic health care.

Jennifer you should send that story to your Congressman and ask why there were no alternatives for that family to get help. That's why we do have the structure of government that we do and why there are programs for people in that situation. I don't know the full story but I'm sorry there's no reason that in the day and age we live in and the country that we live in a child would die over something that could've been easily fixed. It makes me think of the parents negligence in all of this. I think there's room for everyone to benefit from this country. It's just the right thing to do and it's not impossible to achieve this. Besides face it if we only dealt with what's going on in our country we would not get anything accomplished.

The best thing we can do for those countries, Angietothemax, is fight for Democracy! Once every person has the right to vote, they can oust those nasty people from power and start living again.

Angietothemax: I suspect the reason he died was that his family was in a position where they had to choose between paying the rent and getting him dental care. They probably didn't think dental care was that important - people don't usually die from cavities.

The point is that in this country, in my opinion, NOBODY should EVER have to choose between basic healthcare, paying the rent, putting food on the table, etc. And as long as people do have to make that choice, we have got a lot of room for improvement here at home, and that's where we should be focusing our efforts.

That's a good theory but we don't even have a democracy. And democracy is not always the answer especially when that's not what their culture is. It didn't work for Iraq. It's not just about throwing money at the situation but actually going in to the country and showing them alternatives not through force but through diplomacy. Actually teaching the up and coming generation how to do things more efficiently and effectively. Educating them and sending it down to following generations. That's how you really prevent wars, disease, etc.

You're right they shouldn't have to choose but our president is a asshole and vetoed a bill to give children universal healthcare. America's problems stem from our current administration and where their priorities lie or rather don't lie. But hey this is a democracy.

Oh Angietothemax, you seem to have a one-sided version of the story, like about 40% of Americans.

First of all, that universal health care veto of George W Bush's was based on the poorest of the poor in this country. Do you know what that bill would have done? It would have unfairly given funds to the MIDDLE CLASS for children's health care while taking AWAY FUNDS from the poorest of the poor. Is that what you wanted?

And while Democracy is never going to be perfect, the United States is about the best representation of one in the world. Don't kid yourself. Go live elsewhere and see.

As for Iraq -- we are making progress over there and it's starting to show. Perhaps you've noticed that the media has nothing much to say these days, due to our troop increases and the beginning of stability in the region. We're getting there, but it's going to take time. Anyone who thinks we should turn our backs on Iraq now is an idiot. Whether you agreed with going in or didn't agree, the fact is that we're there. To turn our backs now would be irresponsible. Progress require work and time.

From my understanding the bill would raise the tobacco tax and somebody didn't want to upset the tobacco companies and lose that lobbiest money. It also could've raised the taxes of people that make a million +. I'm not saying that I have a problem with democracy I just don't think it's an answer for every country because not every country can be America. As far as Iraq I think that it's a war that can only be solved by a meeting of minds and diplomacy. It's time to bring our troops back home to their families and loved ones. You really can't expect to blow up a peoples country and occupy it without them trying to defend themselves or fight back. America should only be there to advise and mediate not take over because Iraq is not ours take.

Angietothemax: I finally agree with you on something! I don't like Bush either! T-Bone: That's the first time I've heard anything about the vetoed healthcare bill taking healthcare away from children. I thought it would give healthcare to more children, but not take it away. That makes no sense, to take healthcare away from the poorest children. It's hard to believe the Democrats would have supported a bill like that....

"It was only the fourth veto of Bush's presidency, and one that some Republicans feared could be used against them in next year's elections. The Senate approved the bill with enough votes to override the veto, but the margin in the House fell short of the required number.

The State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, is a joint state-federal effort that subsidizes health coverage for 6.6 million people, mostly children, from families that earn TOO MUCH TO QUALIFY for Medicaid but not enough to afford their own private coverage.

The president had promised to veto it, saying the Democratic bill was too costly, took the program too far from its original intent of helping the poor, and would entice people now covered in the private sector to switch to government coverage. He wants only a $5 billion increase in funding. Bush argued that the congressional plan would be a move toward socialized medicine by expanding the program to higher-income families".

SCHIP shifts much needed funds from the poor.

That's the problem he only wants a 5 billion dollar increase it going to cost more than 5 billion to accomplish this. The bill was supposed to allow states to use federal money to cover health costs for those who couldn't afford it.

Senate Passes Children's Health Bill, 68-31
By Robert Pear
The New York Times

Friday 03 August 2007

Washington - The Senate defied President Bush on Thursday and passed a bipartisan bill that would provide health insurance for millions of children in low-income families.

The vote was 68-31. The majority was more than enough to overcome the veto repeatedly threatened by Bush. The White House said the bill "goes too far in federalizing health care."

But Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., and chief sponsor of the bill, said, "Millions of American children have hope for a healthier future tonight."

The bill would increase spending on the popular Children's Health Insurance Program by $35 billion over the next five years.

"Covering these children is worth every cent," said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah, who helped create the program 10 years ago.

The House passed a much larger bill Wednesday, presenting negotiators with a formidable challenge in trying to work out differences between the two measures.

Still, the strong commitment to the issue by Democratic leaders virtually guarantees that they can work out a compromise before Sept. 30, when the program is set to expire. But that compromise is likely to be unacceptable to Bush.

If Bush vetoes the bill, the future of the program would quickly become an issue in 2008 campaigns for Congress and the White House, in the context of a broader debate about universal health care coverage.

The House bill, which passed on a vote of 225-204, would increase spending by $50 billion over the next five years. The Senate rejected a proposal by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., to match that increase - and to cover the extra cost by raising taxes on people with incomes exceeding $1 million a year.

Both bills would raise tobacco taxes. The federal excise tax on cigarettes would rise to $1 a pack under the Senate bill and to 84 cents a pack under the House measure, from 39 cents a pack.

The House bill would sharply reduce federal subsidies paid to insurance companies offering private health plans to Medicare beneficiaries. Many Democrats say these plans, which serve nearly one-fifth of the 43 million Medicare beneficiaries, are overpaid. The Senate bill does not deal with Medicare.

Michael O. Leavitt, the secretary of health and human services, said Congress was jeopardizing health care for millions of needy children by passing bills that "the president will have no choice but to veto."

Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, a Republican who helped write the Senate bill, said he intended to try to persuade Bush to sign the legislation that emerges from Congress. But Grassley said that he would fight the proposed cuts in Medicare payments to private plans.

"It's a question of equity for rural America," Grassley said. "Before 2003, rural Medicare beneficiaries rarely had private Medicare plans to choose from. They did not have the same choices people have in urban America. These plans can be a good choice for people with a chronic illness, for lower-income people and for those who want extra benefits."

Insurers say the private plans would disappear from many parts of the country if Medicare payments were cut as proposed by House Democrats.

But AARP, the lobby for older Americans, has endorsed the House bill. It says the "excess payments" to private plans cause higher premiums for all beneficiaries, including those in traditional Medicare.

In the final Senate vote, 18 Republicans and two independents joined 48 Democrats in supporting the legislation. All the no votes were cast by Republicans.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., set forth the case this way: "As lawmakers, we have a moral obligation to provide health care coverage for the millions of uninsured children. Health care should be a right, not a privilege, and covering every child is an important step toward this goal."

But the Senate Republican whip, Trent Lott of Mississippi, said: "If you want to go to government-run, socialistic medicine, this is it, this is the way it's going to happen. Even my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle are buying this deal."

Baucus insisted that "this is not a huge massive expansion. This has nothing to do with national health insurance."

Under the bill, states can use federal money to pay health care providers or to help families buy private insurance.

Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said, "To suggest that this is somehow socialized medicine is one of the most far-fetched arguments I have seen on the Senate floor. This care is provided by private physicians, using private insurance companies."

Both bills would offer bonus payments to states as an incentive to find and enroll low-income children.

The Congressional Budget Office says the Senate bill would cover 3.2 million uninsured children, including 2.7 million who are currently eligible but not enrolled. The House bill, it said, would cover 4.2 million children, including 3.8 million already eligible for benefits. In addition, both bills would provide money to prevent 800,000 children now on the program from losing coverage.

The current allocations of federal money, totaling $5 billion a year, are not enough for states to maintain their current programs.

Senators of both parties said the bill would help Bush fulfill a promise he made at the Republican National Convention in New York City on Sept. 2, 2004.

"America's children must have a healthy start in life," Bush said then. "In a new term, we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of poor children who are eligible but not signed up for the government's health insurance programs. We will not allow a lack of attention, or information, to stand between these children and the health care they need."

Two sides of the story, Angietothemax...there's never just one side, as the liberal media might have you all believe.

I, for one, do not support a nationalized health care system in this country. Leave it up to the states to cover their people. The government in no way, shape or form should be involved in running our health care system. They can't even run social security or anything else. Nationalized health care would ruin us. Don't buy into it. Even Bill Clinton knew enough not to go there.

P.S. longer articles don't necessarily say more.

I agree however I feel these insurance companies need to be checked. I also think that funds should be available to people who need help paying the difference.

Can we get back to the fact that Angelina
is a ho please and that angietothemax is
in love with her? How's that for strange?

Where have you people been?

NO ONE with money adopts American children any more when they can just go abroad.
Seriously, what kind of utter scumbag surrenders their child to a STRANGER (not even a family member stepping in?) in America today?
There is no stigma about out-of-wedlock births anymore apparently, so it must mean that they are too sick, stupid or f-ked up to take care of their own kids.
And it sucks for the kids, but most people just don't want to take that on.
The first five years are the most important for cognitive development, let alone the time spent in the womb. AND they also have the genes of scumbags who couldn't care for their own kids?
By the time they make it through the system, it's often, sadly, too late to reach these kids or teach them any better.

I can't blame someone for not wanting to bother with that.
At least in other countries you can assume that there was war, genocide or catastrophic economic conditions forcing an otherwise decent parent's decision.

And Jennifer, that 10 year old boy in Massachusetts DID have dental insurance provided by the state.
He DIED, because his garbage pail of a barely-functional mom kept making lame excuses about why she kept missing his FREE dental appointments.

No one asked for Trampolina to adopt American
children. They just asked why she doesn't
give any of her bazillion dollars to the
country she came from. She won't because she
won't get enough attention for giving here.
Just sayin.

Jennifer said:

...why didn't she adopt one of the many American kids who need homes? I believe that you should fix what's wrong in your own backyard first, then try to fix what's wrong elsewhere. And let me tell you, there is PLENTY that needs fixing in this country and has needed fixing for a long time. Of course, adopting American kids wouldn't have been as glamorous or as attention-getting as adopting foreign kids was.

holls: so I guess "Saint" Angelina isn't so saintly - she doesn't want a handicapped American kid on her hands. She adopts healthy foreign kids and then everybody pats her on the back for being a great humanitarian. You just proved my point about her. And probably the only reason she adopted any kids in the first place was to avoid ruining her figure by going to the trouble of having them herself. She's a PHONEY. As far as the kid who died because of his tooth infection, if indeed his mother didn't take him to the doctor, I hope she was prosecuted. Why don't you refer me to the story that states that she refused to take him to his "free" dental appointments? Because that's not what I read, and I'd like to see the article.

Though it didn't work! Skank only had one kid and she STILL lost her figure. Of course, think how bad she'd look if she'd had 4 kids! Now holls.... you are going to produce that link aren't you? That link to the story that says the 10-year-old "Massachusetts" boy kept missing his "free dental appointments" because of his "scumbag" mother?

Oh holls.... I'm disappointed in you! You were SO right about Angelina. But you were SO wrong about Deamonte Driver! That's the little Maryland boy who died from lack of access to dental health care.

holls, you can't produce a link to a story about a 10-year-old Massachusetts boy whose scumbag mother wouldn't take him to the dentist BECAUSE THERE NEVER WAS ANY SUCH BOY. I don't know if you made it up or if you are just confused.

The boy I was thinking of was Deamonte Driver and he was 12 (I was 2 years off on his age). And I can produce a BUNCH of links to stories about him:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/02/AR2007050202539.html

http://www.emaxhealth.com/79/9987.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2925584

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/16/boys_death_of_untreated_dental_decay_puts_spotlight_on_gaps_in_medical_aid/

And his death had NOTHING to do with a "scumbag" mother who wouldn't take him to his appointments. HE DIDN'T HAVE DENTAL INSURANCE AND HIS FAMILY COULDN'T AFFORD THE MOST BASIC TREATMENT FOR HIM. And he died.
JOHN EDWARDS '08!!!!!!

you guys are so damn crazy.Angelina is a great, honest person.all you dumbass people are hating on her because she doesn't adopt americans?stupids,americans are more likely to have chances to better themselves then other people.i think its cool that she adopts kids from other countries, because she is not doing it for attention, but do to the fact something draws her to the kid.she is not a tramp either whoever said that is an idiot.she wants to help everyone, but she is only one person.if she was not famous, you all wouldn't even care so just shut up.
i do have to agree the shoes were not cute but whatever,bush is an ass,america has problems, and people here need help too.
come on though,other countries need A LOT more help!they don't have what we have so hell yes, famous people used their status as being famous to draw attention to places in serious need,but not all of them do it to draw attention to themselves.Angelina is one of those stars who just want to help to help.how about you all go adopt some anerican kids.its only my opinion people sorry if it hurts.