ZOgh wrote:

All in all, who really friggin cares about madonna anymore? This all reeks of a P.R. event to save her faultering career.

posted at October 29, 2006 11:57 AM

Jan wrote:

It's unfortunate that Madonna and Guy can't simply adopt a sickly baby from an orphanage in an impoverished country without it becoming a media event. Who truly does not believe this adoption is in David's best interest? Madonna's commitment to Malawi was made before this adoption issue was ever raised, and that was no p.r. event. Anyone who thinks she's in this just for the publicity is too cynical to understand compassion and caring for a people who have so little. How many Americans had even heard of Malawi or it's millions of orphans before Madonna brought it to light? And how many are willing to give their time, money and hearts to these children? Give Madonna a break !!

posted at October 30, 2006 06:23 AM

sixen wrote:

I think its a cynical thought to believe that the only way to save Africa is to adopt its children and bring them to the West. Of course, that has been the thought process since colonialism began...go to the colonies and save the "savages" from their ways, even bring their children up in a civilized manner in the West. Everyone knows that material belongings are more important than your family.

Africa needs help to help itself. Solutions imposed by the West... by imperialism, by the West, by multinationals (who have their HQ guess where) have not helped. Right now China is poised to fill the vaccuum (they are hosting a meeting with 20 heads of African States to discuss issues because China would like to secure a foothold on the resources in Africa) They need assistance keeping families together by building capacity and distributing medication, water, education. There are many NGOs in place that are already trying to provide assistance and create good governance in Malawi. Oh sure, it looks good at first blush to create another organization until you realize the inefficiency of having yet another organization for a government to coordinate with .... another place to divert monies for administration rather than to people on the ground. Why doesn't she just work with UNICEF, UNHRC or the Global Fund? The Malawian government does not have the ability to properly oversee the organizations that are already there.

Why not give medicine and support development of fresh water sources and then there wouldn't be a need for an orphanage. Geez, even the cost of the separate private plane to bring little David to South Africa could likely have provided water, anti-malaria tablets, mosquito nets, HIV meds and education on human rights to the entire village David was from.

Explain what isn't cynical and calculating about Madonna's actions. Even her condescension to say that human rights organizations were terrorizing Mr. Banda (how? by educating him on his rights as a father and the legal implications of relinquishing those rights? Why didn't Madonna get Mr. Banda legal counsel? She would have had to pay the legal fees of birth parents in the west.) and that Malawi doesn't have laws on adoption...just customs (so ludicrous, other couples are adopting from Malawi in accordance with the law).

Think about it. If someone was a widower in the West, he likely wouldn't have to resort to putting his child in an orphanage to receive medical care and child care. And he wouldn't have to go to court without a lawyer to face a celebrity who wants to adopt his child because the child is cute.

People who make decisions on the issue of intercountry adoption and assistance to Africa based on their admiration/dislike for a celebrity create good cause to be cynical.

posted at October 30, 2006 09:35 PM