I’ll take Johnny Depp please!
Is that the way the clients of California Cryobank sperm bank order their baby makers?

Apparently the California Cryobank has come up with the idea of matching up their sperm donors with famous celebrity faces. Are they genius entrepreneurs helping their clients make a tough decision of who they should pick as their baby daddy? Or are they just trying to make more money than other sperm banks by claiming their donors are celebrity look alikes? Or both?

How does this sperm bank match their donor’s faces with celebrities? With high tech face-recognition? Nope!
Employees of Cryobank sit around a table and put the donor’s pictures up on a screen and argue which celebrity looks like that donor the most. When they come to a consensus, they add that information to the donor’s file, and then the donor’s name goes into a huge data bank. Clients can then search the data base for a donor by which celebrity they want their child to look like.

Although clients are not allowed to see the donor’s ACTUAL picture by law, clients can  search for a potential donor by picking out a celebrity name.

Too superficial?
How will the general public weigh in on this?

I wonder if someone will pass up a donor with a better IQ, for a donor that looks like Mario Lopez? I also wonder if people out there will pick a celebrity look alike in hopes on trying to cash in on their offspring down the line, especially if their child ends up as a dead ringer of a celebrity.

Hey Kate Gosselin, this has your name all over it! Only eight kids? What’s the big deal? The Duggars have you beat by a landslide! It can be your new show! “Kate Plus Eight Plus Elvis!”
And remember Kate, there is a plus side besides the new show…which ever donor you pick… he can’t take money out of your bank account! 

Now I have seen just about every way there is to make a buck in the ol’ USA, and a lot of it ain’t too pretty. And there are some wackos out there who may try to claim that their child is the child of an actual celebrity. I wouldn’t put it past them. Far fetched? Perhaps.

But take the case  of a women trying to collect millions from Keanu Reeves. She is claiming that he is the father of at least one of her four adult children.  *snicker*
Even though Reeves took a DNA test to prove that he wasn’t the father, and he also said he never met the women, she still isn’t backing off. 
What did Reeves have to say about this whole ordeal? 
Rest assured, he didn’t say, ”eeeeeexcellent!” *snicker*

Of course Cryobank does have a disclaimer to cover their butts in this overly litigious world:

“No celebrity is meant as an exact match for any donor, nor should you assume that your future children will look like any celebrity listed.”

NBC’s Today Show covered the sperm bank story, and on this video, you can see the employees sitting around a table with the donor’s picture on a screen and trying to figure out who the donors most resemble. Man, where do I sign up for this cream puff gig?

Scott Brown, communication manager of the California Cryobank said to NBC TODAY,

“It’s not that our donors look like celebrities, it’s that celebrities look like our donors,”

Oh! I see what he did there…. he is SO crafty!

You can also pick a young or older version of the celebrity too. Perhaps you would like a young Sean Connery as OO7, or the older more sophisticated Sean Connery. The choice is yours!

There are MANY stars as well as athletes listed in their data base. And let’s not forget musicians and the less than famous celebs. You can pick from Eddie Van Halen to Jackass reality star Stev-O!
I kid you not, he is on the list.
Wow, seriously…if anyone picks the Steve-O look alike, I am afraid I just don’t understand, unless he is a nuclear physicist.

 
So are there people out there opposed to this celebrity look alike baby daddy factory? YES.

Some snippets from NBC’s TODAY,

The program has its share of critics, especially in the bioethics world. University of Albany professor Bonnie Steinbock bashed California Cryobank’s celebrity-match program on CNN, saying, “There’s something strange about a culture that has stratified rigid types of beauty where everyone looks alike; now they’re trying to create children through who the actor of the moment is.”

Brown’s defense:

Not so, says Brown. While the process may seem superficial, it is actually extremely helpful in guiding prospective parents through a stressful and often confusing time, he asserts.

“Seem superficial”?
Some people would argue that it is superficial. But don’t people have the right to choose which donor they want for whatever reason, since they are the ones paying for it? And what if it does help the client make their choice?

Take the opinion of a perspective Mom who was trying to pick a donor:

“I’m flipping through the catalog with a friend of mine, feeling like I was about to recruit a basketball team, because it was just all stats.” And while she whittled down her list, the Cryobank couldn’t show her a picture of the donor — but it could tell her one of her finalists resembled Freddie Prinze Jr.
“For me, that clinched it right then and there,” she said. “I’ve always found him attractive!”

Freddie Prinze Jr.? Really? That clinched it for her? To each their own.

So matching a face to a donor may actually make some clients feel more at ease about who they pick, or actually help them to decide who to pick. I hope people have the good sense to pick donors with good qualities, rather than picking a donor because they like Orlando Bloom.
But then again, this is the land of the SUPER DUPER superficial, so nothing would surprise me.

I wonder if Cryobank’s business will be booming?

I can see it now…
Mothers with their kids are at the playground and one mother says to another,
“wow your little boy really looks like Leonardo DiCaprio! Any relation?” 

The proud Mom says, “Well no, it was donor #09756-QL5, we were really big fans of the movie Titanic, so that’s why we went with him”.

I guess if there is one guy who is a real dead ringer of a handsome celebrity, he will be in big demand and asked to come back quite often. There can be a panic at Cryobank if they run out!  What happens then?

It may go something like this:

“OMG! We are fresh out of the Ryan Reynolds look alike! Get 9087-K490L on the phone stat! Tell him we have some new vids and magazines! Yeah I know he has been in twice a day for the past month and he’s a bit tender… Chain him down again if you have to, until he puts out. We are in the baby making business people!”

MORE???

I guess in the long run it can become quite a lucrative and fun “job” if you are a celebrity look alike donor. What guy wouldn’t want this gig? At $50- $75 a pop, I am surprised that there is a job shortage for men in the US! Hell, they ain’t getting paid for doing it at home!

Tough luck for all you donors out there who look like Gary Busey (sorry Gary) or OJ Simpson. (not sorry OJ)

I imagine their “stuff” wouldn’t have too many takers and is probably passed up for the gloopus of a more hunkier looking celebrity look alike.

But things may not work out exactly the way you have planned. Even though you picked out your favorite celeb look alike, don’t forget there is a 50/50 chance that your child may be a girl and you may end up with a pretty scary looking child! And I am more than sure that Cryobank does not issue refunds for fuglies.

Very Scary Indeed!

I bet some clients just won’t really care if the donor they picked has only two brain cells….
Just as long as their celebrity knock off looks good in a tux!

The word is out.
Michelle Dugger of the reality show 18 Kids and Counting will be giving birth to her 19th child this March. The new baby will be joining Joshua, Jana, John-David, Jill, Jessa, Jinger, Joseph, Josiah, Joy-Anna, Jedidiah, Jeremiah, Jason, James, Justin, Jackson, Johannah, Jennifer,and Jordyn.

The Duggers have been married since 1984. That means with number 19 on the way, she will have given birth to 19 kids in 25 years.

Ok, I’m sorry when does it start to get gross? Michelle, the human pinata has already had three C sections. Her belly must be like a ziploc bag.

MSNBC reported that she was surprised when she found out she was pregnant. After all, she had just given birth to a baby girl only eight months prior. She sure is quite the Fertile Myrtle. I wonder what is in the water out there in Arkansas?
Hey Michelle! You must have been absent from school the day the girls had the talk about their changing bodies.

Of course there is a reason behind Michelle’s disregard for her body and her poor kids who have to take care of all the other kids. It’s called Quiverfull. Not too many people are familiar with this Christian movement. They believe that one should be fruitful and multiply and believe that every child is a gift from Providence.
And from Wiki:

“The Christian quiverfull movement derives its name from Psalm 127:3-5, where many children are metaphorically referred to as a quiver full of arrows.”

Yeah ok… having that many children is from way back when parents needed children to work on the farms. This is 2009 Duggers.

People have the right to believe in what they want as long as it doesn’t  harm anyone, and I know they also has the right to have as many children as they want as long as they can care for them, but sorry, having 19 children is utterly ridiculous in this day and age.

It also reminds me of something…

Are the Duggers yet another family that will be exploiting their kids for the fame and fortune of reality TV? Jon and Kate Plus 8 comes to mind.
Although Michelle Dugger is not at all like Kate Gosselin as far as being materialistic or having Kate’s cheery disposition *snicker* but she isn’t any brighter either.

Gee, I wonder if Kate is a tad worried that The Duggers will be taking over the lime light in child exploitation. Well you know Kate, you can always have a few more! Cha-ching!

I happen to catch a bit of one of the Duggger shows and I couldn’t watch it. They were preparing to go on some sort of bus trip, and between the packing, the bathroom stops and everything else in between, it just made me cringe and shake my head. Although the kids seem surprisingly very well behaved compared to some reality show kids, *ahem*
It seemed like a total hardship on the Dugger kids who have to use the “buddy system” and constantly care for the rest of the Dugger brood. When do these kids get to be kids instead of being instant parents? They are all home schooled on top of it. Talk about sibling rivalry and wanting to get the hell out of the house!

Although some will argue that home schooling is the only way to go, I think kids miss out on a lot of social interaction and activities that you don’t get with home schooling. Yes I know they are on a show, and probably see lots of other people, and they mosey into town and do play with some other kids, but what about having BFFs? I cherish my childhood friends, and some of  my fondest memories are of school. I still keep in touch with many people I went to school with. You would think that the Duggers would want their children to have these precious memories too. Obviously not.
Perhaps Jim Bob is forming his own little cult?
 
And what about Michelle?

Doesn’t she want a break? Yeah I know it takes two to tango, and it is ultimately her final say as to whether or not she wants to go through with any more pregnancies. But is she being prodded? (ok, I know what you were thinking there, snicker) 
Is Jim Bob or anyone else putting dollar signs in her eyes? Well I guess either way, if she come out with a tell-all book, she will be raking in the dough. 

She already maintains a blog on TLC’s website. I guess having a bevy of built in baby sitters does have its advantages? I did check out her blog. She says she is exhausted and she had this to say about her current pregnancy:

“I thought we might be done. I was a little sad about it, but I just accepted it was a stage of my life and perhaps God felt my family was complete.I told Jim Bob right away, and he was so excited, he couldn’t hold it in. We told the children right then, and they were excited, too.”

A LITTLE  sad? I would have ripped my freakin’ hair out. And Jim Bob (yes that’s his real name, honest) was excited was he? If it was Jim Bob that had to go through labor, I think the Dugger family member count would have been about four, and would have stayed at four, including himself and Michelle.

On a more serious note. What about the dangers associated with having this many pregnancies?
According to CafeMom, getting pregnant repeatedly can have some huge and nasty repercussions.
Not to mention that the possibility of having a child with mental or physical problems greatly increases.

They asked three nurses and this is part of what they said:

Medically speaking, with each pregnancy, you have an increased risk for postpartum bleeding because your uterus doesn’t want to contract down to normal size. It’s been stretched for so long and so often, it tries to be stubborn. Another risk is for the bladder to prolapse, meaning it drops downward and can come out of the vaginal canal. To fix it, they have a new procedure that’s fairly easy, but a lot of GYNs don’t like to do it until  you are done having babies.

Just lovely.
Well let’s just hope Michelle’s bladder doesn’t fall out of her “hoo ha” on the show. But I am sure the ratings would be killer, won’t they?
I can just hear the preview for the upcoming show… Tune in next week  when all “h”-”e” double hockey sticks breaks out when Michelle’s bladder falls in the batch of homemade soap! Oh the hilarity!

Michelle, you can be done now. Honest you can. I doubt your kids feel that they need another child to care for. Don’t start thinking that 20 is a nice round number, I think your quiver is quite full. God won’t be mad if you stop now. *snicker*

Really, when is Michelle and Sir Hump-a-lot, Jim Bob going to put a cork in it? Or when will Jim Bob have a couple of snips? Which seems MORE than fair to Michelle, wouldn’t you say?

The Duggers are not only on TLC, they have a book under their belts called The Duggers: 20 And Counting and I am sure there will be more to follow. Jim Bob is a former state legislator, and is involved in a number of businesses, including commercial real estate. So even though having a huge family like the Duggers would be financially devastating for most, they supposedly make ends meet. I am sure TLC is making it a lot easier for them financially, if not helping them to survive. Of course the Duggers plan on going forward with yet another season. But what happens when their audience goes away, and TLC no longer finds them bankable? Will their quiver be finally full then?

Speaking of TLC, you have to love TLC, huh?
They have some real quality shows. *snicker* From Toddlers & Tiaras to I Didn’t Know I was Pregnant. Hey Michelle maybe you can be on that show too!

TLC is known as the “Learning Channel.”
I am sorry, what are we learning here again? How to have a litter of children? Or how to put a pair of flippers (fake teeth) on your child and dress them up in a hooker outfit with big hair and caked on make up and watch them bump and grind to I’m A Little Teacup?
People pa-lease!

I guess TLC is always on the look out for more children and families to exploit.Yeah I know, it’s the parents that choose to do the shows. But how many of these yahoos are being tantalized by the reality show dream of getting their little ones on TV and banking in on them?

Of course TLC would have LOVED the Vassilyev family.
Nobody can compete with the first wife of Feodor Vassilyev of Shuyu Russia. She bore 69 children between 1725 and 1765. She had 16 pairs of twins, seven sets of triplets, and four sets of quadruplets.

Now your talking! Too bad TV wasn’t around back in the 1700’s, this family could have been reality show gold.
They could have called the show “The Hump-a lots!”
Oh wait… that’s the Duggers.

Hey Now! Knock it off!
Will someone please turn a hose on these two? Geez!

Holy Baby Inside A Baby Inside A Baby Batman!!

SNL went to the darkside during their weekend update by having “Madonna” face-off against fellow baby-hoarder “Angelina Jolie”. I guess it doesn’t really count since they were being merely portrayed, but the results of such a match-up are pretty spot on.

As k reported on Friday, Madonna’s bid to adopt another child, this time a girl named Mercy were declined, including a pretty harsh tongue-lashing from the Malawian judge overseeing the case. While I can certainly understand Madonna’s disappointment (let’s face it, the might M isn’t denied very often) she shouldn’t be all that shocked. Even poor countries like Malawi (the same nation where Madonna adopted her son David Banda a couple years ago) have rules, and those rules apply to EVERYONE, even superstars.

What’s amusing about the skit is the emphasis on Madonna and Jolie attempting to one-up each other in the exotic-baby-adopting department. With two egos the size of the Atlantic, it’s hard to say who is more likely to come out ahead in real life, but in this contest, I guess Angelina wins, hell she’s 3-0 in the baby-snatching from poor nations department, and Madonna, despite her plans to appeal the decision is, 1-1.

I’d be hard-pressed to choose a side, but I am slightly more inclined to lean towards Madonna, but only because Angelina is so freakin’s smug about stealing little non-white infants. Here’s what Jolie said in the past about Madonna’s first adoption troubles:

Angelina Jolie has attacked Madonna for adopting a child ‘illegally’.

She said the singer should never have visited an impoverished African country with the sole intention of choosing an infant.

Her comments follow accusations that Madonna used her fame and money to speed the adoption of one-year- old David Banda late last year.

‘Madonna knew the situation in Malawi, where he was born,’ said Miss Jolie, who has adopted two Third World youngsters of her own.

‘It’s a country where there is no real legal framework for adoption.

‘Personally, I prefer to stay on the right side of the law. I would never take a child away from a place where adoption is illegal.’

Miss Jolie, 31, also made clear she was shocked by Madonna’s decision to take David from the country where his father still lives.

Isn’t that rich? Especially the part about Madonna visiting a poor country solely for the purpose of adopting a child. ‘Cuz you know, Angelina Jolie would NEVER do such a thing, except of course the three times she did it. Shut your piehole Jolie you duplicitous slut!

Rumor has it there are babies RIGHT HERE IN THE U.S. who’d love to have a loving, warm, stable family to call home. I guess that makes these two nutjobs ineligible.

No, not that kind of mercy…a little girl by the name of Mercy James, from the country of Malawi:

The youngster was taken to a luxury lodge outside Lilongwe earlier this week, in preparation for being united with the singer, according to sources.

Madonna is expected to stay in the south-east African country for a week before flying out with Mercy – bar any last-minute hitches. [...]

Mercy is being cared for by a nanny at Kumbali Lodge  -  where Madonna has stayed on her previous visits to the country. She had been living at an orphanage near Blantyre, in the south of Malawi.

Madonna had hoped to keep the fact that the child is already at the lodge a secret until leaving the country.

‘Mercy has been handed over to Madonna’s people, who are already at the lodge, and is being cared for by a nanny,’ says the source.

‘They are waiting for Madonna to arrive so mother and daughter can be united and then Madonna is expected to take Mercy with her when she leaves.’ [...]

On Monday, the singer is expected to attend a court hearing in Lilongwe to formalise the adoption after having reportedly filed adoption papers.

If the judge refuses to rubber stamp the adoption, however, it will be a severe embarrassment to Madonna, now that Mercy is in the care of her staff.

It is being said that even though the little girl is already being cared for by Madonna’s ‘people’, not everybody is as thrilled about the adoption as Madonna is:

From the start, Mercy’s surviving family have been bitterly opposed to the idea of the little girl being taken by Madonna.

Her uncle, John Ngalande, reportedly said in August last year: ‘We won’t surrender her. They told us how another Malawi kid has had his life transformed by her. I don’t want that attention. We want an ordinary life.’

Mercy was placed in an orphanage after her 18-year-old mother died five days after her birth. It was reported that her father was a schoolboy and it is not clear whether he is alive.

Madonna’s determination to adopt Mercy was said to be a major cause of conflict between her and Ritchie, who was opposed to the idea.

Last year he was said to have relented but soon afterwards the couple separated.

Which brings up another sticky point…Malawi isn’t too keen on adopting out babies to divorced people; their rationalization is that the person adopting might have been the person who caused the divorce.  I’d say in this case they seem to be pretty spot on with that one.

Despite just firing David’s nanny, Madonna is so serious about grabbing this baby that she dumped her most recent boy toy Jesus Luz because the officials in Malawi questioned the appropriateness of the 50-year-old dating a man half her age.  Hey, I question the appropriateness of Madonna every day, but that doesn’t stop her from doing stupid things that end up on this blog.  Where can I sign up for some clout?

Seriously, though, it seems that she didn’t learn anything from the adoption of little David.  And whatever happened to that whole “you have to live in the country for eighteen months before you can adopt one of our children” rule?  Well, once again, what Madonna wants Madonna gets.  After all, she’s got enough money to bend and/or outright break the rules…isn’t that what money is for, anyway?

There’s no doubt that the orphans in Malawi are suffering.  I just wonder if being plucked from there by Madonna isn’t opening them up to a different sort of pain…not comparable, but still real.

HolyUnderAge Sluts Batman!

Perhaps you remember a while back a story running in the British tabloids about a baby-faced 13-year old boy named Alfie Patten. Little Alfie was supposed to be the father of brand spanking new baby birthed by his 15-year old girlfriend Chantelle.

Possessing an unnaturally youthful face, innocent-looking Alfie became the poster child for the woes of teen pregnancy. I remember being shocked that someone who looks barely a year older than my five-year old could have not only engaged in adult activities, but was even physically mature enough to impregnate his significantly more mature girlfriend.

Well I have good news folks, Alfie’s not the daddy. Bad news, this is NOT the outcome the little guy had hoped for. Alfie had cheerfully stepped up to the plate to take on the important role of father to Maisie, the little girl he thought was his daughter. Here’s more on the tawdry and sad story:

A DNA test showed a 13-year-old boy in Britain is not the father of a baby born to a 15-year-old he had unprotected sex with once, The Mirror reported.

Chantelle Stedman told Alfie Patten, who was 12 when he slept with her, he was her newborn daughter Maisie’s father.

The story caused a worldwide media frenzy, while politicians criticized what they called Britain’s declining morals.

At first Stedman said Patten was the only boy she had ever slept with, but soon after other teens came forward saying they too could be the baby’s father, because they claimed to have had sex with the girl.

Last month a friend of the Stedman family claimed Patten was scammed by the girl’s parents who wanted to cash in on the sensational story.

It is still not clear who the baby’s father is.

The parents of Chantelle get a capital C for CLASSY. Yep, this is what you call a smooth move by a couple of grade A asswipes. It’s not bad enough your 15-year old daughter is pregnant and so disturbingly promiscuous she doesn’t have a farkling clue WHO the father is, but you then go and compound the situation by bringing an innocent boy and the media into it simply for a little scratch.

Well Stedmans, great job, you have really outdone yourselves in the rotten douchebags department. I sure hope Alfie and his family don’t sue the hell out of you (re: I HOPE THEY SUE YOU, YOU GREEDY BASTARDS).

Alfie, take some advice from me: dry your eyes, blow your nose and cut your losses. You dodged one seriously UGLY bullet right there. Now, go outside and play some soccer or whatever it is little boys in the UK do besides having sex with sketchy older girls.

Well, that didn’t last long.  File this one under “So NOT Surprised”:  Octomom Nadya Suleman fired her free nanny service and has decided to hire her own team of helpers for her ever-growing brood of children:

In a startling development, Octo-Mom Nadya Suleman has decided to no longer use the services of Angels In Waiting, the non-profit charity organization that had offered to provide 24/7 care for her octuplets and six other children, at a cost.

Suleman tells RadarOnline.com exclusively that, instead, she wants to hire her own nannies to care for her children. Suleman had been using the services provided by Angels In Waiting since she brought home of the first of octuplets last Tuesday night in a chaotic mob scene that was broadcast on television worldwide.

Members of Angels in Waiting are scheduled to tape an episode of Dr. Phil tomorrow, and Nadya is concerned the organization will bash her. She tells RadarOnline.com she hopes to also appear on the program to defend herself.

That doesn’t sound promising at all.  It is rumored that Nadya fired AIW because she believed the service was spying on her and because one of them actually filed a report with CPS:

Nadya Suleman arrived home Monday afternoon, driving up in a minivan. Eyewitness News asked her why she fired this group of nurses and she had no comment, but her attorney did confirm earlier Monday that the group Angels In Waiting was indeed let go.

Angels In Waiting had been training nannies who were to help Suleman care for her eight newborns and her six other children.

Suleman’s attorney, Jeff Czech, said that the nurses were fired because one of them filed a report with Child Protective Services against Suleman. One of the nurses was apparently concerned with the amount of people who were living in Suleman’s La Habra home.

Not sure what the nurse expected.  After all, there are already six kids in the house, plus four of the octuplets are home now, plus Nadya, plus whomever else is there helping with this circus, plus Radar Online filming it all…

(I have to say, though, that I would not want strangers in my home 24/7 to see how I interact with my kids.  But on the other hand, my womb wasn’t a clown car and I didn’t have more kids than I could handle.  Yes, I did say that.)

On one of the videos shot for Radar Online, Nadya does say that she was “chastised” by the hospital for having too many people in the home.  She says that nobody from outside is allowed in the “restricted areas” in the home, which is basically where the babies are.  She also points out that she has to be very careful with who she allows around the kids, since it is very hard to judge just who is sane and who is not.  I ain’t touchin’ that one, other than to point out that if it is truly that hard to judge, how does she think she’s going to hire nannies on her own?

It does make you wonder just what Gloria Allred and AIW are going to do now.  An octonanny has already had to call 911 once to remove Gloria from her home; she was asked to leave and didn’t go.  I wonder how Gloria and AIW will try to spin this, especially since they really didn’t have enough money to swing this little adventure in the first place.  If I were them, I might secretly be relieved that I wouldn’t have to now come up with $50,000+ a month…purely on donations, of course.  Of course, that’s better than the $135,000+ a month originally quoted, but much like people have to take off options to afford a car they had to take off options to afford nursing care.

This whole circus just gets crazier and crazier.  If you go over to Radar Online, you can watch the videos and really get a feel for just how truly out of control this whole situation has become.  I hate to say it, but like I predicted way back, CPS might have to get involved and separate the family for a while until this whole thing gets sorted out.  Of course, by the time that happens, the octuplets might be in college, but…?  It is obvious that this whole thing is nothing but a mess, and the people who are going to suffer are not Nadya nor Gloria Allred nor AIW, but the children, who didn’t ask to be born into this psych ward to start with.

Come on, people…it isn’t like Britney is inside there.  This is a “You Can’t Fix Stupid” moment on so many levels.

Octomom Nadya Suleman brought home two of the strongest octuplets last night amid a swarm of crazed photographers and paparazzi and lookie-loos creating havoc in the streets and generally acting like complete fools:

It should have been one of the happiest days of her life.  Instead, Octo-mom Nadya Suleman felt she had to call police to control the chaos when she brought two of her octuplets home from the hospital Tuesday night.

First, overly aggressive paparazzi followed Nadya’s vehicle as she traveled from Kaiser Permanente Medical Center to her new home in La Habra California.
When the vehicle stopped at red lights, at least a dozen paps jumped from their cars and violently banged on the windows trying to get photos of Nadya and her babies. As bad as that was, it got even worse when Nadya arrived at her home. Hundreds of people were there, many blocking the entrance to her garage and even causing damage to it, when the garage door tried to close. 

The babies are reportedly doing well, and no worse for wear after their wild ride:

She brought the infants to her new house in La Habra, California. Members of the media and gawkers crowded the cul-de-sac, as news helicopters hovered overhead. Media swarmed the family’s vehicle as it slowly made its way through the crowd, into the home’s garage.

The babies discharged from the hospital were Noah Angel, known as Baby A, and Isaiah Angel, known as Baby C, according to the Kaiser Permanente Bellflower Medical Center.

The medical team that delivered the babies identified them by letters of the alphabet. On discharge, Noah weighed 5 pounds, 13 ounces, and Isaiah weighed 5 pounds, the hospital said in a news release.

“Both infants are able to bottle feed, are gaining weight and are able to maintain their body temperature,” the release said.

And they came home to a big new house, instead of the little house they had all been sharing:

Until recently, Suleman had been sharing another home with her parents and her other six young children. But that house ended up at risk of foreclosure, and Suleman moved into her own home.

Last week, she disputed news reports that her father had bought the new house.

“I earned it. … No, my father did not purchase this house for me. I did it on my own,” Suleman told Radar magazine’s Web site during a recent video tour of the 2,583-square-foot house.

“It’s 1,000-square-footage bigger than the old house,” she said on the video. “They [her older children] like it more than Grandma’s house.” [...]

People.com reported that their new home, which was listed for $564,900, has four bedrooms and a large back yard.

“My ultimate goal is not to be a burden on … taxpayers,” she told Radar. “So there have been a couple of offers. … I selectively picked a couple of opportunities to earn some resources for the kids.”

Great.  Now we’re gonna have Nadya and Nobody + 14: Electric Boogaloo.  Funny how she was content enough to live in “Grandma’s house” and just continue having babies, until the press showed up at her door.

(On a side note, what is wrong with people?  What was that all about?  I’m sure flashbulbs are just great for preemies just coming home from the hospital.  And why come out in the middle of the night to gawp at something like this?  Ridiculous.  I don’t agree with what Nadya has done but I also don’t agree with this bunch of knuckledraggers.)

So whatever happened with that whole Angels In Waiting thing I wrote about last week?

If you recall, there were some questions about AIW and their ability to actually pay for (and consequently follow through) what they had promised.  They at first said that they needed $135,000 a month to help pay for this care, which included an estimate of eleven nurses, and no taxpayer money would be used.  However, in 2008 it was shown that they had $5000 in revenue and $600 in assets, obviously far short of the amount they needed just for one month’s care for this one family.  They then admitted that the service would have to be paid for by donations…which of course means donations from the taxpayer.  Either way you look at it, the taxpayer is paying for their services.

At first, this is how it was described:

As our conversation ensued he named the items that would be needed, nursing care for the fragile preemies, therapists, occupational therapists (more than likely cp in the preemies) therapists for the three other disabled children (autistic, ADD, signs of autism), diapers, doctors visits and several other items.

Then came my question, “Does your organization have the budget to cover this massive undertaking”

“No, not at this time, but we are hoping to get donations and volunteers.”

Now, we’ve whittled the cost back to $50,000 a month and we’ve only heard about six nurses:

A charitable group known as Angels in Waiting has offered to be on site for Suleman’s kids, round the clock, providing 14 nurses a day, four or five at a time. Do I need to tell you how many mothers would faint with gratitude for a single nurse for an hour?

By the way, these services cost around $50,000 a month, Angels in Waiting’s attorney, Gloria Allred, told me [emphasis mine], and they are seeking to pay for that with — get this — public donations.

So what happened to the $135,000, and what services, if any, have been dropped?  Now, despite what has been assumed, I am guessing the six nurses could be for the two babies already home; two nurses at a time, three shifts a day.  It has been widely reported that the babies would only be coming home two at a time, so a huge team of nurses isn’t needed yet, therefore I’m not flipping out that a team of eleven nurses, or more, aren’t on the scene yet.  However, $85,000 still seems to be a huge chunk discounted off the previous figure.  You’d have to think that somewhere there were a few things taken off the menu.

And so just how does one donate to the octuplets, where does that money go, and what happens to it once it gets there?

If you do find the right Angels in Waiting all on your own, you link to their homepage HERE.

Do you see any mention of the octuplets there or anywhere on the links provided? I don’t.

Now link to DONATIONS at the bottom, it is a straight paypal account. Now I suppose people who donate online responsibly would be using the contact link there to find out how they can make sure that their donations are going towards the care of Nadya’s children, but fact is, front page doesn’t direct you anywhere to do that nor does the paypal account itself. Are we to suppose that AIW is putting ALL donations to them towards Nadya’s children? You know the old saying, “assume” means “make an ass out of you and me”. Without clear guidelines the donations there are very unclear.

The other link to donate for the care of Nadya’s children by Angels in Waiting is a bit harder to find unless you want to ask Dr. Phil, Nadya’s new representative of sorts who brokered the NEW deal being offered by AIW (the first offer involved the preemies going up to Lake Arrowhead to a “house” that had/or was going to be secured by AIW, a house NO reporter took the time to go see to check out) which involves AIW coming to Nadya.

First you must know to go to Dr. Phil’s WEBSITE.

Then you must have the smarts to know that you should click The Doctor Phil Foundation.

Once you reach there you then see a nice box with Nadya’s picture in it that you must CLICK.

Then you have to read down to LINK to Angels in Waiting.

Wait a minute. That’s a totally different page for donations than the one off the front of the Angels in Waiting website and it doesn’t mention the octuplets either!

Lucky for the donor, THIS link to donate for the care of Nadya’s children accessed directly from Dr. Phil’s website gives you quite a few ways to donate to Angels in Waiting. They are very curious indeed, because a few of them depend on the donor’s death to benefit Angels in Waiting. Is that going to be occurring to donors who want to help the octuplets any time soon? Let’s hope not. In other words, the scope of several of the donation possibilities there go well beyond the time Angels in Waiting will be servicing Nadya’s children, ESPECIALLY if the cash doesn’t flow in to pay the nurses SOON and CONTINUOSLY through DONATIONS.

So let’s recap before going further, an organization, Angels in Waiting, who did not have the necessary funds on hand themselves to pay for the care they were offering, tried to contact Nadya through Kaiser and her website. When they heard Gloria Allred had filed a complaint against Nadya, they contacted Gloria Allred who then went public with a plan to rescue the octuplets which in small print depended entirely on donations as the media later scorned Nadya for turning down the offer. Then Nadya relented when Dr. Phil stepped in to broker a new deal which would bring Angels in Waiting to her rather than having the preemies or her, or whoever, relocate to the “house”

The deal that Dr. Phil brokered was signed on air (the full legal documents of course are elsewhere), “The Declaration of Principles“. Number VII concerns the financial aspect of the deal between Nadya and AIW. It reads:

In the event that Nadya and Angels in Waiting are no longer working together all donations that have not been utilized shall be utilized for the support of other high risk infants who Angels in Waiting deem are in need of such care.

As it turns out, this is only true it Nadya pulls out of the deal. However, “are no longer working together” could mean that the cash donations are not coming in to cover the cost of the nursing care. What about the cash out on donations such as bank accounts upon death that materialize later. Who gets those? I haven’t seen the full legal contract as it was written so I can’t say but these are little details that haven’t been made public.

One must also remember that Gloria Allred is legal council for Angels in Waiting now. Whereas she filed a complaint against Nadya, she is now representing the organization that offered “$135,000 in wrap around care” which depended on DONATIONS to provide. Now we are seeing Angels in Waiting’s “offer’s” wings being sheared down. What happened to all the desperation for so much care needed? Note also, when the $135,000 price tag was put on the “care needed” this was entirely based on what ANGEL’S IN WAITING said was necessary.

Now, I have NO PROBLEM donating to a charity which helps innocent at-risk babies.  And I don’t even have a problem with someone stepping in and helping the octuplets…after all, somebody has to do it.  It’s clear that Nadya is in no shape to do it on her own; she can barely function in reality herself, the grandparents are exhausted, and there are innocent children involved in this mess.

What I do have a problem with is when the path of the donations and the use of the donations is unclear.  Any reputable charity will clearly have spelled out where the money goes, and to whom.  There are clear guidelines in place.  And that beggars another question…if AIW only had about $5000 last year, who is paying for nursing care for other at-risk infants?  Obviously the state pays for services rendered in the foster care system, but starting these services for the octuplets without having all their ducks in a row is shady at best.

Finally, in a clip on Radar Online, Nadya witters something I found interesting, said with a downcast look on her face as she conveniently holds a baby and talks about the pap swarm outside:

I guess I realize now that my life is a little different, and that I have to be really cautious.

Orly.  And the deals you’ve signed that have netted you the money you need for these babies fall under “really cautious”.  I have a feeling Nadya is going to quickly find out that you can’t alternately play the media and then scream about privacy.  In a world of blogs and 24/7 worldwide news and parents whoring out their children on reality shows for fame and fortune, you’d think she would have thought of that before now.

Way to go, Nadya.  You’ve just ensured that all your children are now paparazzi targets.

News on Octomom:

After first saying “no thanks”, Nadya Suleman has finally accepted the offer from Angels In Waiting for 24-hour nursing care for her octuplets when they come home, plus help with her other six children (three of which have special needs).  Not only that, but none other than Dr. Phil (tellingly enough, the only person who’s been able to get through to her, further making me believe that many people really do believe what they see on TV is real) has thrown her a baby shower of sorts.  Also, she’s finally pulling up stakes and moving into a new home…don’t ask me how she can afford a $500,000+ home when the one she is already living in is in foreclosure, because I don’t know.

The house is undergoing extensive renovation as we speak:

Don’t expect the Octo-Babies to be coming home this week. In a big setback for Nadya Suleman, social workers from Kaiser Permanente hospital just inspected the Octo-Mom’s new 2,500 square foot house in La Habra and they were not thrilled with what they saw.

A social worker liaison tells RadarOnline.com exclusively that Nadya’s new house needs the following work before her babies come home:

*All lighting moved up onto the ceiling. No lamps or cords on the floor.
*Fireplace needs safety guards
*Stairs need to be re-built.
*Upstairs banister on stairs raised to enclose entire 2nd floor.
*Hypo-allergenic air filters installed
*Bunk beds can not be next to window in upstairs bedrooms.
*Blinds need to be cordless
*Storage cabinets installed

The social workers were very surprised and disappointed Nadya didn’t show up for the inspection. She did give RadarOnline.com a tour of her new place last night.

They have demanded Nadya show up Thursday for another inspection at the new house. In short, the social workers say a lot of work needs to be done. The inspectors say the home is big enough but they tell RadarOnline.com exclusively they are concerned about the functionality and safety of the new home.

Workers are currently inside the house tearing up the carpet, taking appliances out, ripping up plumbing, measuring, adding storage and organizing… basically putting an entire new face on the new crib.

And just how much help will be needed once those babies come home?

Civil rights attorney Gloria Allred, founder of Angels in Waiting Linda West Conforti and Dr. Phil have entered into an agreement of care with Nadya for her octuplets. The agreement is formalized in a Declaration of Principles document with eight points.

Angels in Waiting estimates caring for the octuplets will cost approximately $135,000 per month and needs public donations. Aware of criticism of Nadya, the group released this statement about the babies: “These are innocents, born into the situation. We need help and we need help now.” Conforti confirmed it will take 11 nannies a day to make the situation work.

Allred told RadarOnline.com: “A retired judge, Dan Weinstein, will oversee the fund and ensure that all donated money will be used for the care of the children, and not one cent will go to Nadya or her family.”

Well, if you remember right, I suggested that someone outside the family oversee any financial donations to the octuplets.  Great minds and all that.

But let’s take a look at this phrase:  “Angels in Waiting estimates caring for the octuplets will cost approximately $135,000 per month and needs public donations.”  Wow.  $135,000 a month?  A charity which takes care of these sort of medically at-risk infants should have at least some money in its coffers to give it a good start, right?  After all, you wouldn’t offer to help innocent little babies unless you already had your funding in place, right?  You would at least know the bills would be met every month, right?

Well, not so fast.

First, when she made the offer Gloria Allred said that the help for Nadya would come at no cost to the public:

“She did not accept our offer,” Gloria Allred told co-anchor Harry Smith on The Early Show Friday. ” … There would have been no burden on the taxpayers. Instead now, it may be that the taxpayers are going to have to foot the bill for all of this.”

However, she does admit that AIW would rely on public donations:

Allred acknowledged that “Angels in Waiting’s care can only continue if it is supported by donations from the public.”

So it would seem to me that whether or not the California taxpayers are ponying up dough from their taxes or their own pockets of their own free will, somebody is going to end up paying one way or another.  I guess if the money isn’t donated and the bills can’t be paid, they will pull out and leave those children alone with Nadya?  And that is helpful how, again?

But here’s some news:  A blogger has uncovered some interesting information about AIW, and it isn’t all that encouraging.  When she called AIW herself, she got some rather intriguing comments:

Not believing my eyes at this exorbitant amount [$135,000] I put in a call to Angels in Waiting and spoke to the founder’s husband, James M. Comforti. I informed him immediately that I thought the Pasadena Star News must have misprinted the amount of money needed. To this he replied, “Well what amount do you think this is going to take?”

I responded, “I have no idea, I’m not a professional in these matters and it is your organization who is stating this”

As our conversation ensued he named the items that would be needed, nursing care for the fragile preemies, therapists, occupational therapists (more than likely cp in the preemies) therapists for the three other disabled children (autistic, ADD, signs of autism), diapers, doctors visits and several other items.

Then came my question, “Does your organization have the budget to cover this massive undertaking”

“No, not at this time, but we are hoping to get donations and volunteers.” [emphasis mine]

Other statements:

1. It is my wife who thinks this needs to be done in order to keep them out of foster care so they can stay with their mother. This is all about the CHILDREN, don’t you agree?

Of COURSE I agree.

2. We are a 5013c foundation set up to do this sort of thing.

3. Do you have this funding in place now? “NO, but we are hoping”.

4. I’m trying to figure out exactly what it is you are offering to do here. Are you offering to coordinate this effort? Answer: “Don’t try to put words in my mouth”, Response, “I’m not, but what is it exactly that you are doing?” “Look my wife thinks this is important because this is ONLY for the children and we think they need to be kept out of foster care.”

So, I got off the phone scratching my head. This organization Angels in Waiting, a charity according to Gloria Allred, wants to help but it’s going to take (per his words) “an undertaking like they’ve never done before”

(There’s also some info on there questioning AIW’s status as a charity, but it’s a bit dodgy to me and I don’t understand it all, so I’ll let you go there and make up your own mind.)

So.  To get back to the point (and I do have one), just how much actual green money does AIW have socked away to help these babies?

The charity graciously offered care for the octuplets that they estimated will cost $135K per month, but an RRF-1 form obtained by “Extra” reveals that Angels in Waiting doesn’t have anywhere that kind of dough.

According to the form from California’s Office of the Attorney General, the charity didn’t have any assets or revenue at all in 2006. In 2007, their revenue hit $100, but they still had zero assets. In 2008, the charity was up to $5,000 in revenue and only $600 in assets. The form was filed on February 26, 2009.

And tell me again just exactly how offering to help someone without the proper funding already in place is riding to the rescue of these children?

That’s like sponsoring a little malnourished child from a TV ad, and then sending the child a letter saying you can’t afford the seventy-five cents a day.  Or telling someone desperately in need of a transplant that you’ll pay for the whole thing and then backing out when they are already on the operating table, citing financial problems.

I’m not disparaging children’s charities or those who help at-risk infants and children.  People who help with these sorts of issues and problems are truly special people and the world needs more of them.  My own daughter benefited from specialized nursing when she spent time in the NICU and pediatric ward as an infant.  However, to truly help these children (and remember, it is the children who are most important here, not their crazy mother), it would seem to me that one must have a concrete plan in place and the proper funding ready to implement that plan.

Social workers are already on the case here.  From what I know of anything involving social workers, they don’t take good intentions as a solution; you’ve got to come up with a specific plan and then you’ve got to show that you are actively taking steps to put that plan in motion.

Good intentions just are not good enough; while AIW might have the best interests of the children at heart, that won’t get the job done.  Nadya had “good intentions”, and look where they got her.

I put that in quotation marks because I don’t want you thinking I just made that up out of thin air…Nadya Suleman’s latest publicist has called it quits on their professional relationship because he just couldn’t take the crazy no mo:

“It just got to be too much,” he says. “It’s pretty much a free for all over there right now. They are freaking out right now.

“Not to sound arrogant, but those people depended on me for everything,” he continues. “You have no idea what I’ve had to do for these people.

“Nadya got real greedy. This woman is nuts,” he adds. “This I can say: what ultimately destroyed the business arrangement was personal reasons.”

Munoz — who plans to meet with his lawyers Monday to go over the terms of his contract and confidentiality clause — did not go into further detail.

In other words, he was in charge of making her look like she was NOT in need of psychiatric care and her kids were NOT growing up in an incredibly dysfunctional environment, and experiencing epic fail in both because of Octomom’s continual footbullets.

I mean, what is this woman doing that she’s had people quitting her left and right?  If a publicist who deals with famous celebrities on a regular basis calls you nuts, then you know there’s a problem.  Even Drew Peterson has a publicist, for cryin’ out loud.  And one does start to wonder just what it is she is getting “greedy” about…does she think she now deserves more than her fair share?  Or is it the rumors that she’s shopping around the video of the octuplet birth?  I mean, I have no problem with people giving to the children, any of them.  After all, they didn’t ask to be born, and especially not into a circus such as this.  But as has been evidenced with the Gosselin family, for example, after a while it just becomes all about more, more, more.

And with some of the octuplets getting ready to leave the hospital soon, it is now being said that they won’t release the babies to her until she proves that she can take care of them.  Oh boy.  This is gonna get ugly.

I stick by my original suggestion that this family receive immediate, intensive help; that the children be placed in some sort of custodial care so they can receive counseling, that Nadya receive the psychiatric help she so obviously needs, that the whole family receive both family and financial counseling, all with the goal of hopefully reuniting the family at some point.  But no good can come out of the situation as it stands right now.  This is a disaster for everyone concerned, but mostly for the children, who asked for none of this.

Just when you thought this could not get any crazier, it gets crazier.  I happened to catch a few minutes of this interview this morning on the Today Show, and let me tell you…this is not what you want to be watching when you first roll out of bed in the morning feeling like twenty miles of bad road.  This woman’s voice could peel off your fingernails.

Basically, the tensions that have been simmering for a long time now have boiled over, with Angela Suleman ripping into her daughter for even having in vitro to start with:

Now, in a RadarOnline.com world exclusive Nadya and Angela face-off on camera for the first time – and fireworks erupt! Angela denounces her daughter’s decision to have the in-vitro procedure that led to the octuplets and Nadya loses her cool and lashes out at her mother on this exclusive video.

“I will never understand,” Angela tells her daughter about Nadya’s decision to have in vitro. “You should have considered your other six children.”

“You can’t go back and alter the past. Done, done, done,” an agitated Nadya tells her mom. When the discussion turns toward adoption sparks fly and Angela gets an intense reaction from Octo-mom when she says her reaction to seeing the octuplets for the first time was: “I felt sorry for them.”

Okay, I watched this video (again, taking one for the team) and the impression I came away with was that Nadya is a very intelligent woman who has obviously had some education; but she comes across as selfish, self-centered, narcissistic, in her own world, and extremely annoying.  Personally, I don’t know how grandma kept from just slapping her right across her puffy, injected mouth.  How this woman could speak that way to her mother, who has been taking care of the other grandchildren and who has already lost one house and is ready to lose another because of Nadya, is beyond me.

So just what is going on in that family?  Nadya is in Nadyaland, grandma is stressed out, and grandpa has finally broken his silence (to Oprah of all people):

Her own father questions her sanity. Her mother thinks she has no grasp of reality. Her home is besieged day and night by an army of paparazzi. The home in which she lives is in the process of foreclosure. And Nadya Suleman, California’s notorious “Octomom,” navigates calmly through life, apparently uncomprehending of the chaos around her and the enormous difficulty of raising 14 kids.

Chris Myers, senior executive editor of RadarOnline.com, described what it’s like in Suleman’s home Tuesday to TODAY’s Meredith Vieira.

“Inside the home, there’s this vacuum,” he said. “She walks in and six kids cling to her legs: ‘Mommy! Mommy! Mommy!’ There’s all this love. She’s totally focused on these kids … The house is kind of like a day care for kids. It’s kind of like a controlled chaos.” [...]

Meanwhile, Suleman’s father, Ed Doud, finally spoke out about his daughter’s situation with Oprah Winfrey on Tuesday. In excerpts from the taped episode of “Oprah” that aired on TODAY, Doud called his 33-year-old daughter “absolutely irresponsible.” He also said, “You know, she needs help. I say to everybody now, ‘People, we do need help.’ Do not punish my daughter for what she has done and do not punish the babies, because they were given by God.”

A few days ago, I wrote a long article basically saying that the sins of the mother should not affect the children…that the Suleman children, all fourteen of them, do not deserve to suffer because of how their mother is acting.  And I still stand by that article, every word.  In fact, I’m more convinced than ever that the children need help, because this woman is clearly incapable of understanding that there is no way that she will be able to raise fourteen children on a counselor’s salary (which will probably be about $60,000 a year) and that she never should have popped out fourteen babies using IVF while receiving food stamps to start with.

I had a thought that maybe having someone competent step in and temporarily place those children in foster homes or some central location away from Nadya and her special brand of crazy might be the best thing that could happen right now.  That way, the children can receive counseling, mom can get the mental help she so obviously needs, and the whole family can get family counseling.  The adults can get some financial counseling, they can set up visiting nurse and child care assistance, there can be an outside trustee to handle any donations given to the children, and then IF things work out then GRADUALLY bring the family back together.  Right now, this isn’t a family, it’s a mess.  And it has been announced that help has been offered to the family, but they have yet to take the offer:

Help has been offered. Linda West Conforti, a registered nurse who founded Angels in Waiting, a group offering to help care for the Suleman children, appeared on TODAY to repeat an offer of a house for Suleman and her 14 children and around-the-clock professional care worth $130,000 a month. Conforti and her attorney, Gloria Allred, told TODAY’s Meredith Vieira that Suleman has not responded to the offer.

Angels in Waiting has given Suleman until Thursday to respond to the offer. Allred said it was necessary to set a deadline because several of the octuplets are expected to be released from the hospital within the next two or three weeks, and substantial lead time is needed to set up a home for the family and draw up a plan to care for all the children. [...]

Allred, a celebrity attorney, had filed a petition with California’s child protection services to have the octuplets taken into state care. After she announced her action, Conforti called Allred to offer to join forces to set up a home for the family.

“Angels in Waiting will give these eight babies the best possible chance they have for growth, for brain development, for integrating sensory disorders, the whole bit,” Conforti told Vieira.

Conforti and Allred said their offer is the only way to save the taxpayers from having to pay for the care of the children and perhaps the only way to keep the family together.

Suleman had been receiving disability payments for an injury suffered while she worked at a state psychiatric hospital. The payments have ended, and she is unemployed. She has denied taking welfare, but she does receive nearly $500 a month in food stamps and another $1,800 in Supplemental Security Income for three of her children who have various disabilities. One of her six children at home is autistic.

Usually, I can’t stand Gloria Allred.  She’s like a vulture, swooping down and grabbing her fifteen minutes where she was never asked to butt in just so she can get some screen time…but in this case, I think she has a point.  It might work, it might not, but something needs to be done.

So you know, I’m not against big families.  My mom came from a big family.  But she also came from an era when things were different than they are now…plus the kids were spread out over a twentysome-year time frame.  There were not eight kids the same age at the same time.  When the younger ones were little, there were older ones to help out; some of them were even adults with children of their own.  Oh yeah, and there was a husband.  With a job.

I love babies and I love children.  I have two kids of my own.  But I’ll say the same thing about having children as I have in the past about having pets…do not have more than you can reasonably take care of and afford.  That why I only have two kids.  And two cats.  Done.

I’ll let Nadya’s daughter Amerah, clearly more mature than her mother, have the last word:

Amerah is a self contained six-year-old, clearly a bit concerned about the eight siblings headed her way.

Question: Do you think it’ll be fun to have a lot of brothers and sisters like that?

Amerah: No.

Question: Why not?

Amerah: ‘Cause there’s gonna be a lot of crying.

Question: Do you think your mom’s gonna be okay with all those kids all the time?

Amerah: she’s gonna be stressed out all the time.