What's wrong with the following snippet from a Yahoo news article today? See if you can automatically find what's got me all hot and bothered:
"Nicole Kidman has given birth, her husband Keith Urban's rep confirms to Usmagazine.com.
The actress welcomed a girl, Sunday Rose Kidman Urban, Monday morning.
The baby weighed 6 pounds, 7 ounces.
"Husband Keith was by Nicole's side and mother and baby are very well," the rep said.
It is the first child for Kidman, 41, and Keith Urban, 40. She has two adopted children -- Connor, 13, and Isabella, 15 -- with ex Tom Cruise."
ADOPTED CHILDREN?! Why in the world can't they just say "she has two children with ex Tom Cruise". Why do they have to point them out as being adopted? I remember the press did the same exact thing when Suri Cruise was born, even going so far as to paint her as his "first child", since his other two were not biological.
I'll have you know I'm not usually one of THOSE mothers, you know, the ones who freak out if someone isn't politically correct, etc. on the subject of adoption. But I do know that I would NEVER EVER refer to my first child as my adopted child if I were to give birth on down the road. Sure, I occasionally will tell people my son is adopted, usually after I get the strange looks between my beautifully dark Hispanic child and myself, pretty much the whitest woman most people have ever seen. It's no secret that we don't exactly look like we were cut out of the same cloth, and I don't want to be mistaken for his nanny or babysitter or anything. But my son is my son. Period. This is the second time I have seen the press do this to poor Connor and Isabella Cruise. It's bad enough they have a nutjob for a father, but they don't deserve to be labeled almost as second-best. I guess the bright side is that at least they aren't blood-related to him, so maybe they won't get all of his crazy genes?
One more reason I can't stand Hollywood.