I am placing this in here because of the controversial nature of the subject.

Recently, pop singer Madonna gave a "donation" of $3 million, and adopted a baby from the African nation of Malawi.  This despite the fact that the father of the baby is still alive.  And even though Malawei has laws preventing adoption outside of the country, her large donations to both the orphanage and the fater seemed to make this law a non-issue.

Myself, if she really cared about the baby, she would have given the father enough money to support the child himself.  I find the idea of buying a baby (no matter how good the claimed intentions) to be horrible.

Did it say anything about whether or not the father had any interest in raising his child? Or...was he more than willing to allow someone else to raise the baby?  Perhaps he knew that he was not "father material"...I mean, if he willingly gave up his parental rights...then he is of no concern any longer....however, I don't know any specifics regarding the father...so I can only speculate. Now, Madonna is not my favorite person in the world, but, she seems to be a pretty good mother to her own children (from what I've heard/seen/etc). I am sure she will be able to provide for this child much more than the child would have received with it's father.

Other- I don't care, but if pressed for an actual answer, I think it's okay, especially after reading this:



Dad in Madonna Adoption Blasts Critics
Oct 18 11:43 AM US/Eastern
 
By RAPHAEL TENTHANI
Associated Press Writer

MCHINJI, Malawi

         




The biological father of Baby David - the 13-month-old boy adopted by Madonna _ on Wednesday criticized human rights groups seeking to reverse the move and said his child should stay with the star.
The Human Rights Consultative Committee, a coalition of 67 organizations, launched a legal challenge Tuesday to the Malawian government decision to relax the usual ban on adoptions by foreigners and relax the requirement that prospective parents have to stay with the child for 18-24 months for assessment before the adoption is formalized.



"Where were these people when David was struggling in the orphanage? These so-called human rights groups should leave my baby alone," Yohane Banda said.

"As father I have okayed this, I have no problem; the village has no problem, who are they to cause trouble? Please let them stop."

Madonna and British film director husband Guy Ritchie Thursday spent eight days in Malawi and last Thursday signed adoption papers for Baby David. Banda, David's father, counter-signed the papers and High Court judge, Justice Andrew Nyirenda, issued the celebrity couple an 'interim order' okaying the couple to take the baby away "with conditions."

The boy was flown to London on Monday.

A government official said the laws being used by the civil rights groups to mount the challenge were "archaic."

Penston Kilembe, the Director of Child Welfare Services in the Ministry of Gender, child Welfare and Community Services, told The AP the laws the civil rights groups are using are "archaic."

"These laws date back to the 1940s; things have changed now," he said. "Madonna and her husband has broken no laws as far as government is concerned. They have followed all the legal steps."

Kilembe said when approving the adoption of Baby David government looked at rights of the baby and the family and "found nothing amiss."

"These groups should fight for rights of children, not block the same like they are trying to do now," he said.

The civil rights groups chairman, Justice Dzonzi, said they were not against the adoption, but wanted the laws followed. "If Madonna really wants the child, she has to apply for residency permit in Malawi," he said.

The star found David at the Home of Hope Orphanage, which looks after more than 500 children who have lost one or both parents.

Banda's wife, Marita, 28, died a week after giving birth to David. The couple, who had been married for over 10 years, had two other sons who died in infancy from malaria.

"I was alone with a baby; I had no money, I couldn't buy him milk, that's why I surrendered him to the orphanage," said Banda.

"Orphanage life is no good. We leave kids there because we can't look after them properly ourselves. Now my son has been taken by a kindhearted woman, these people want to bring him back to the orphanage," lamented Banda, standing in his small garden of onions and tomatoes.

The peasant farmer said Madonna and Ritchie promised him nothing apart from "love and care for my David."

Banda's village is typical of many in Malawi _ no electricity or running water, and basic mud huts. Few inhabitants had even heard of Madonna before the controversy erupted.

"Whoever she is she is a kindhearted woman," said Village Headman Lipunga, the chief of the village. "We all love her here and we hope she will visit us soon."

Did it say anything about whether or not the father had any interest in raising his child?


The father has been out of work for over a year, and was not able to provide for his son.

Myself, I think it is great that Madonna gave such a lerge donation to the orphanage.  But the adoption of the baby simply leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  If she really cared for the welfare of the child, why not help provide both the baby and his father with a better life?  To me, this is simply to close to human trafficking.

And I would feel uncomfortable no matter who it is.  The fact that it is Madonna makes no difference to me.  I would be just as disgusted if it was anybody else.  Even Jimmy Kimmel did a skit on the "commercial" feel of the adoption:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bvgu6ngFWI0

After reading the father's side of it, I am fine with it.  It sounds to me like he loved his son very much and wanted him to have a better life.  Isn't that what every parent wants?  It's just so sad that these circumstances exist in the first place. 

But let's continue to spend millions in Iraq.  ::)

Another publicity ploy...I think it would, quite honestly, have been better for her to find some other Western family for the child and support them financially. Life in the spotlight sucks. How much do you want to bet Brad and Angelina's kids will grow up SO hating them?

I don't see what the problem is.  The father has no problems, Madonna can more than care for this child, she already has two great children and from what I've seen and read, she's a great mother.  I've also read that contrary to news reports, she's gone through all the legal channels in order to adopt the child, and hasn't tried to do so illegally. 

Leave these people alone.

I've also read that contrary to news reports, she's gone through all the legal channels in order to adopt the child, and hasn't tried to do so illegally. 

Leave these people alone.


Actually, she did not follow the law.

What she did was follow the US law.  What she did is actually illegal, because there is a law in Malwei that forbids adoption to foreigners, and the removal of adopted babies from the country for 3 years.  In other words, she went over and did an "Ugly American", and ignored the local laws, only following the laws of her home country, because that is what suited her.  (She did this on the advice of Anjoline Jole, who did the same thing a few years ago)

Wanna bet if she was not Madonna who gives away $3 million, but Joe & Nancy Smith a working couple from Omaha this would have ended differently?  I bet if it was almost anybody else (with less money), they would have been either stopped at the airport or had an international warrant out for their arrest through INTERPOL?

And it seems that she enjoyed it so much, she now wants to go back and adopt a baby girl from the same village.

Actually, she did not follow the law.

What she did was follow the US law.  What she did is actually illegal, because there is a law in Malwei that forbids adoption to foreigners, and the removal of adopted babies from the country for 3 years.  In other words, she went over and did an "Ugly American", and ignored the local laws, only following the laws of her home country, because that is what suited her.  (She did this on the advice of Anjoline Jole, who did the same thing a few years ago)

Wanna bet if she was not Madonna who gives away $3 million, but Joe & Nancy Smith a working couple from Omaha this would have ended differently?  I bet if it was almost anybody else (with less money), they would have been either stopped at the airport or had an international warrant out for their arrest through INTERPOL?

And it seems that she enjoyed it so much, she now wants to go back and adopt a baby girl from the same village.




I hadn't read that, hence my post.  What I had read was that she was following the law in Malwei. 


And don't you mean Angelina Jolie?

I wish Madonna would buy me instead!  I'm for sale.  I got one condition, I get to lay about for the rest of my life and never do a lick of work again!  Seems to work OK for Paris Hilton!
;D

All I can say is there's one African baby really won the lottery!  I think she'll adopt the parents too!

Omaha?

I'll take my chances in Malawei.

Actually, she did not follow the law.

What she did was follow the US law.  What she did is actually illegal, because there is a law in Malwei that forbids adoption to foreigners, and the removal of adopted babies from the country for 3 years.  In other words, she went over and did an "Ugly American", and ignored the local laws, only following the laws of her home country, because that is what suited her.  (She did this on the advice of Anjoline Jole, who did the same thing a few years ago)

Wanna bet if she was not Madonna who gives away $3 million, but Joe & Nancy Smith a working couple from Omaha this would have ended differently?  I bet if it was almost anybody else (with less money), they would have been either stopped at the airport or had an international warrant out for their arrest through INTERPOL?

And it seems that she enjoyed it so much, she now wants to go back and adopt a baby girl from the same village.

Oh, so Madonna actually kidnapped an African baby!  Madonna's annual income may be greater than Malawi's GNP, but the Ugly American thing is ill-advised!

I said "other".  While I'm glad that baby David now has a better chance of surviving, it disturbs me that she gave the $3M to the country.  I have to wonder how much of it will actually go to help the people of Malawi and how much will stay with the leaders.  I don't know too much about the country, but I doubt the village he's from will see a dime if the government there is as corrupt as it is in other African nations ???

I am placing this in here because of the controversial nature of the subject.

Recently, pop singer Madonna gave a "donation" of $3 million, and adopted a baby from the African nation of Malawi.  This despite the fact that the father of the baby is still alive.  And even though Malawei has laws preventing adoption outside of the country, her large donations to both the orphanage and the fater seemed to make this law a non-issue.

Myself, if she really cared about the baby, she would have given the father enough money to support the child himself.  I find the idea of buying a baby (no matter how good the claimed intentions) to be horrible.


Exactly my thoughts.  If Madonna was a caring as her publicists want people to believe she would have taken baby, Dad, and the whole extended family.  She can well afford it.  Why not adopt the whole village.  This whole thing is one more thing that drives me nuts(and there are many).  Of course the father will defend Madonna, and when the cameras go away he will think about his child and be glad he has a better chance at life.  Doesn't mean he won't miss him,  and hope he doesn't grow up to be an obnoxious, self-centered, celebrity child who is ashamed of where he comes from.

I have to wonder how much of it will actually go to help the people of Malawi and how much will stay with the leaders.  I don't know too much about the country, but I doubt the village he's from will see a dime if the government there is as corrupt as it is in other African nations ???


This is a big part of my problem as well, it is sad hor absolutely corrupt a lot of the governments are over there.  What gets me iare some of the quotes posted above, and what was not highlighted.

The Human Rights Consultative Committee, a coalition of 67 organizations, launched a legal challenge Tuesday to the Malawian government decision to relax the usual ban on adoptions by foreigners and relax the requirement that prospective parents have to stay with the child for 18-24 months for assessment before the adoption is formalized.

Penston Kilembe, the Director of Child Welfare Services in the Ministry of Gender, child Welfare and Community Services, told The AP the laws the civil rights groups are using are "archaic."

"These laws date back to the 1940s; things have changed now," he said. "Madonna and her husband has broken no laws as far as government is concerned. They have followed all the legal steps."

But the point is, the laws have not been changed yet.  Therefore, what she did was against the law.  And I am sure that a big chunk of her "donation" ended up in his pocket.  It is amazing how a lot of money will make people change their mind, and turn a blind eye to illegal activity.  He may claim the law is wrong, but the law is still the law.  And I bet that my imaginary couple from Omaha would not have such a statement given if they were to try it.


Exactly my thoughts.  If Madonna was a caring as her publicists want people to believe she would have taken baby, Dad, and the whole extended family.  She can well afford it.  Why not adopt the whole village.  This whole thing is one more thing that drives me nuts(and there are many).  Of course the father will defend Madonna, and when the cameras go away he will think about his child and be glad he has a better chance at life.  Doesn't mean he won't miss him,  and hope he doesn't grow up to be an obnoxious, self-centered, celebrity child who is ashamed of where he comes from.


This also is what strikes me.  In fact, some of the original reports had the father indignant.  I bet a bit of her "donation" made it's way to him as well, making him change his mind.  And I am not saying he is evil or selling his child, but when you are literally starving to death in a nation where the GNP is under $1,000 a year, being given $25,000 would go a long ways to change your outlook on things.

Morally, she would have been better "adopting" the father as well, so he and his child could experience life together.  And as you said, she could easily afford it.  Of course, most stories about the father show how horrible life has been for him.  His wife died shortly after birth, his 2 older children both died from disease, and his newest baby was starving until he put the child into the orphanage.  When you live like that, almost anything that can let your child live is a blessing, even if you never see that child again.

With so many children considered "unadoptable" in this country, I wonder at people who feel the need to go to other countries and adopt children from there.  My bosses daughter is a foster mother, who is taking care of a 15 year old girl of mixed race (and has been for 3 years).  However, because of the race, she can't adopt her, even though that is what they both want.  Their biggest fear is that someday some well-meaning Social Worker will find a "more suitable mixed race" family, and remove her from a situation where she is happy.

I also wonder at how much the child is going to loose.  Heritage is important, and this child has essentially lost his culture, heritage, and language.  He will be raised by white parents, and is now having to learn a new language to communicate with his new family.  And I would feel the same if the child was from Germany, France, or Argentina.  It was at my insistance that my Ex taught my son as much Spanish and Argentinian culture as she could.  I did not want him to forget that that is his culture also, and he was not just "an American".

not been changed yet.  Therefore, what she did was against the law.  And I am sure that a big chunk of her "donation" ended up in his pocket.  It is amazing how a lot of money will make people change their mind, and turn a blind eye to illegal activity.  He may claim the law is wrong, but the law is still the law. 


Really? Whens the last time someone was actually prosecuted for sodomy in the U.S.?

Really? Whens the last time someone was actually prosecuted for sodomy in the U.S.?


It happens all the time.

However, Consensual Sodomy is a crime in very few locations anymore.  In the vast majority of cases now, it is used as an "extenuating circumstance" in a sexual assault case.  Almost every area of the nation has removed consensual sodomy as a crime.  The only times it is prosecuted is if it somehow comes to the notice of legal officials.

The only example I can think of is during a divorce trial in North Carolina in 1990.  In it, it somehow came out that the husband had asked his wife to perform oral sex on him.  The judge immediately charged (and convicted) the husband of the crime of "Sodomy", because that sex act was still illegal according to an old law on the books.  Even his soon to be ex-wife was upset at this.

However, the next year the law was changed to make consensual acts legal retroactively, and the state supreme court threw out the conviction.

Really? Whens the last time someone was actually prosecuted for sodomy in the U.S.?
If my memory is correct, the US Supreme Court ruled in 03 or 04 that the state sodomy laws were unconstitutional.  AND, if I'm correct, it was a Texas case that brought about the ruling.  As recently as last year, the military has continued to enforce THEIR sodomy "rules" and if I'm not mistaken, a guy in the navy was prosecuted for consensual sodomy with a female (although, I believe that was overturned as well).  So, it's rare, but it HAS happened in the past 5 years.....the difference between the "sodomy laws" and the "adoption laws" is that sodomy usually occurs in the privacy of one's own home and if both parties are consenting, who's going to report it?  Adoption is a legal proceeding that does NOT occur in the privacy of one's own home. 

Let me reiterate that I applaud Madonna for adopting this boy and giving him a chance to survive, I just wish she had followed the rules like everyone else has to, but then again, what celebrity DOES have to follow the rules where adoption is concerned? ::)

Well you certainly have had a very different story reported in your press to the one have over here in England.

Yes the adoption laws in Malawi state that the prospective parent should live there for 18 - 24 months so they can be observed with the child *however* these laws are under review.
Madonna WAS NOT following American adoption policies/laws she was following English ones! The case was reviewed in Malawi and their officials agreed the child could be taken to the U.K for one year and all the usual strict adoption checks that are carried out in the U.K are to be carried out on her, her home, her husband etc, before a final adoption goes through. So at the moment she is 'fostering' David.

Finally the money she has donated has gone to 100% genuine charitable foundation NOT the government.

Well you certainly have had a very different story reported in your press to the one have over here in England.

Yes the adoption laws in Malawi state that the prospective parent should live there for 18 - 24 months so they can be observed with the child *however* these laws are under review.
Madonna WAS NOT following American adoption policies/laws she was following English ones! The case was reviewed in Malawi and their officials agreed the child could be taken to the U.K for one year and all the usual strict adoption checks that are carried out in the U.K are to be carried out on her, her home, her husband etc, before a final adoption goes through. So at the moment she is 'fostering' David.

Finally the money she has donated has gone to 100% genuine charitable foundation NOT the government.



This is what I had read too.

Well you certainly have had a very different story reported in your press to the one have over here in England.

Yes the adoption laws in Malawi state that the prospective parent should live there for 18 - 24 months so they can be observed with the child *however* these laws are under review.
Madonna WAS NOT following American adoption policies/laws she was following English ones! The case was reviewed in Malawi and their officials agreed the child could be taken to the U.K for one year and all the usual strict adoption checks that are carried out in the U.K are to be carried out on her, her home, her husband etc, before a final adoption goes through. So at the moment she is 'fostering' David.

Finally the money she has donated has gone to 100% genuine charitable foundation NOT the government.


Once again the picture given by the American media seems to be an entirely different reality from what the rest of the world is seeing. Surprise surprise. ::)

Once again the picture given by the American media seems to be an entirely different reality from what the rest of the world is seeing. Surprise surprise. ::)

Are you saying that if you leave America and go to another country you have to like follow different laws and stuff?
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/dontknow.gif

Are you saying that if you leave America and go to another country you have to like follow different laws and stuff?
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/dontknow.gif


Apparently so. :D

Are you saying that if you leave America and go to another country you have to like follow different laws and stuff?
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/dontknow.gif


Not if you are rich or a celebrity.  Then you can do whatever the heck you want.

On a side note, IRS tax fugitive Wesley Snipes has been found hiding in the African nation of Namibia.  Last year he was caught trying to sneak into South Africa with a false South African passport.  Rumor has it that on her next trip to Africa, Madonna may adopt him.  ;D

Not if you are rich or a celebrity.  Then you can do whatever the heck you want.

On a side note, IRS tax fugitive Wesley Snipes has been found hiding in the African nation of Namibia.  Last year he was caught trying to sneak into South Africa with a false South African passport.  Rumor has it that on her next trip to Africa, Madonna may adopt him.  ;D


LOL  ;D  If Brangelina doesn't get to him first

This is a big part of my problem as well, it is sad hor absolutely corrupt a lot of the governments are over there.  What gets me iare some of the quotes posted above, and what was not highlighted.

The Human Rights Consultative Committee, a coalition of 67 organizations, launched a legal challenge Tuesday to the Malawian government decision to relax the usual ban on adoptions by foreigners and relax the requirement that prospective parents have to stay with the child for 18-24 months for assessment before the adoption is formalized.

Penston Kilembe, the Director of Child Welfare Services in the Ministry of Gender, child Welfare and Community Services, told The AP the laws the civil rights groups are using are "archaic."

"These laws date back to the 1940s; things have changed now," he said. "Madonna and her husband has broken no laws as far as government is concerned. They have followed all the legal steps."

But the point is, the laws have not been changed yet.  Therefore, what she did was against the law.  And I am sure that a big chunk of her "donation" ended up in his pocket.  It is amazing how a lot of money will make people change their mind, and turn a blind eye to illegal activity.  He may claim the law is wrong, but the law is still the law.  And I bet that my imaginary couple from Omaha would not have such a statement given if they were to try it.

This also is what strikes me.  In fact, some of the original reports had the father indignant.  I bet a bit of her "donation" made it's way to him as well, making him change his mind.  And I am not saying he is evil or selling his child, but when you are literally starving to death in a nation where the GNP is under $1,000 a year, being given $25,000 would go a long ways to change your outlook on things.

Morally, she would have been better "adopting" the father as well, so he and his child could experience life together.  And as you said, she could easily afford it.  Of course, most stories about the father show how horrible life has been for him.  His wife died shortly after birth, his 2 older children both died from disease, and his newest baby was starving until he put the child into the orphanage.  When you live like that, almost anything that can let your child live is a blessing, even if you never see that child again.

With so many children considered "unadoptable" in this country, I wonder at people who feel the need to go to other countries and adopt children from there.  My bosses daughter is a foster mother, who is taking care of a 15 year old girl of mixed race (and has been for 3 years).  However, because of the race, she can't adopt her, even though that is what they both want.  Their biggest fear is that someday some well-meaning Social Worker will find a "more suitable mixed race" family, and remove her from a situation where she is happy.

I also wonder at how much the child is going to loose.  Heritage is important, and this child has essentially lost his culture, heritage, and language.  He will be raised by white parents, and is now having to learn a new language to communicate with his new family.  And I would feel the same if the child was from Germany, France, or Argentina.  It was at my insistance that my Ex taught my son as much Spanish and Argentinian culture as she could.  I did not want him to forget that that is his culture also, and he was not just "an American".


Great points!

I've always wondered why celebrities in the past few years can't just seem to adopt poor children from here. There're plenty of poverty row babies with drug-addicted and terrible parents. And yet, adopting a cute foreign baby from Africa or Asia is so much a better photo op than adopting a baby from Mississippi, Detroit, or North Dakota. Maybe it boils down to the Horatio Alger syndrome, that poverty in this country is seen as the fault of the impoverished and therefore systematically ignored, and yet poverty abroad is given to so much that people don't pay enough attention to the terrible living conditions that exist here, in our own damn country. Though Hurricane Katrina may have awakened some to this, it still doesn't appear to have awakened Americans enough. Why can't Madonna go to her home city of Detroit and adopt a few infants? Because it isn't exotic enough? Gag me with a spoon. 

Not if you are rich or a celebrity.  Then you can do whatever the heck you want.
Hmmm...seems to me it doesn't take much nowadays...as long as the tabloids market you as a hottie and you have near zero talent.  Helps to be born rich and stupid too!  Madonna's a little different.  She actually had talent and worked her azz off for the fame, and then the money poured in.  She's always had bad taste in men.  Lately she's been suffering from the same thing that got Whacko Jacko.  It's funny how pop stardom wanes in your forties...yet in all the other arts, your forties are when you start to get good at it!  Anyway, the sexpot is cooling for a perimenopausal Madonna but she has more money than she knows how to spend.  What's to do now?

On a side note, IRS tax fugitive Wesley Snipes has been found hiding in the African nation of Namibia.  Last year he was caught trying to sneak into South Africa with a false South African passport.  Rumor has it that on her next trip to Africa, Madonna may adopt him.   ;D

Wes is playing a "shell game" with the tax man.  Which of the three countries has the action movie star?  You can run but you can't hide.  The IRS makes sure it gets the last laugh!
:o


Great points!

I've always wondered why celebrities in the past few years can't just seem to adopt poor children from here. There're plenty of poverty row babies with drug-addicted and terrible parents. And yet, adopting a cute foreign baby from Africa or Asia is so much a better photo op than adopting a baby from Mississippi, Detroit, or North Dakota. Maybe it boils down to the Horatio Alger syndrome, that poverty in this country is seen as the fault of the impoverished and therefore systematically ignored, and yet poverty abroad is given to so much that people don't pay enough attention to the terrible living conditions that exist here, in our own damn country. Though Hurricane Katrina may have awakened some to this, it still doesn't appear to have awakened Americans enough. Why can't Madonna go to her home city of Detroit and adopt a few infants? Because it isn't exotic enough? Gag me with a spoon. 

I think you've hit the nail on the head.  "Exotic" has always been big with Madonna.  Aside from Madonna's thing, I've noticed American conservatives embrace African Africans as a positive contrast to African-Americans.  Native Africans tend to have what we'd call "conservative social values."  Big on authority, deeply religious, favoring familial hierarchy, and women and children better know their place!  The native Africans you meet in this country tend to be from the social uppercrust, and demonstrate deference and courtesy.  They don't come with the 400-year grudge African-Americans inherit!
::)

I think you've hit the nail on the head.  "Exotic" has always been big with Madonna.  Aside from Madonna's thing, I've noticed American conservatives embrace African Africans as a positive contrast to African-Americans.  Native Africans tend to have what we'd call "conservative social values."  Big on authority, deeply religious, favoring familial hierarchy, and women and children better know their place!  The native Africans you meet in this country tend to be from the social uppercrust, and demonstrate deference and courtesy.  They don't come with the 400-year grudge African-Americans inherit!
::)


Most of the native Africans we meet here who come from the social upper crust are descended from the people who sold the ancestors of today's African-Americans into slavery. It wasn't just the European slave traders...it never could have happened without the eager participation of African tribal leaders, though ultimately the depopulation from the slave trade and the guns they were traded in return caused African society to collapse, weakening them up for colonialism. Yes, Madonna does have talent and "worked her azz" off for her fame, and prior to 1992, probably did more to empower women in the entertainment industry than any woman before her. She was a great dancer and performer who brilliantly worked her way into the American mindset and took advantage of the music video art form like no other performer. I think lately, though, she's been trying to go out into all whacky directions to maintain fame.

I feel like saying to Angelina Jolie and Madonna, "Why don't you go adopt some poor kids, regardless of race, from this country, instead of fashionably bandying about in Namibia, Cambodia, and Malawi?" Personally, the way Angelina Jolie uses those kids to help her public image grosses me out. IMO, if she were totally being altruistic, she would make more of an effort to shield them from the cameras. 

Yes, Madonna does have talent and "worked her azz" off for her fame, and prior to 1992, probably did more to empower women in the entertainment industry than any woman before her. She was a great dancer and performer who brilliantly worked her way into the American mindset and took advantage of the music video art form like no other performer. I think lately, though, she's been trying to go out into all whacky directions to maintain fame.



Feminists were divided on the Madonna phenomon.  The Camille Paglia-type feminists loved her.  The Andrea Dworkin-type feminists hated her.  The latter "militant feminists" hated a lot of things! I don't know how many barriers she really broke, but I was always impressed with her work (prior to 1992) even the I didn't personally care for that style.  I wish more pop stars realized it doesn't last forever. 

David Lee Roth was totally over-the-top with his in-your-face style of rock stardom at the height of Van Halen's fame.  He said to Baba Wawa, "In rock 'n' roll it's here today, gone later today!"
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/03/crossbones.gif

I feel like saying to Angelina Jolie and Madonna, "Why don't you go adopt some poor kids, regardless of race, from this country, instead of fashionably bandying about in Namibia, Cambodia, and Malawi?" Personally, the way Angelina Jolie uses those kids to help her public image grosses me out. IMO, if she were totally being altruistic, she would make more of an effort to shield them from the cameras. 
I don't think Angelina is using the kids.  She's going to be photographed wherever she is and I think it's a credit to her parenting to see her with the kids all the time.  So rarely do you see celebs in public with their kids, it's kinda' nice to actually see someone who hasn't passed the responsibility off to a nanny.  Then, there's MJ and HIS kids, now THAT'S taking "shielding them from the cameras" a bit too far.....

Wes is playing a "shell game" with the tax man.  Which of the three countries has the action movie star?  You can run but you can't hide.  The IRS makes sure it gets the last laugh!

The native Africans you meet in this country tend to be from the social uppercrust, and demonstrate deference and courtesy.  They don't come with the 400-year grudge African-Americans inherit!
::)


Wesley is more then that, he is an outright fraud.  He first tries to claim that he has no income, then turns around and collects Refund checks.  In 1996, he claimed he had no income, yet still filed for (and got) a $4 million refund.  In 1997 he did the same thing, but got a $7.3 million refund.  He has not claimed any taxes since 1999, even though his estimated income since then was over $100 million.

And immigrants to this country come from all levels of society.  A co-worker of my mom came to the US with a student visa from Rhodesia in the mid 1970's.  He was from a poor family, and never had running water before he came to this country.  In the years since, his country has become Zimbabwe, and he became a US citizen because he was frightened to return home.  The last time I talked to him (about 10 years ago), he had finally gotten his sister and father to the US, by having them smuggled through South Africa.

Probably the single greatest thing that keep the "poor" from emigrating is the simple fact that they are poor.  Unlike the times up until the 1950's, we no longer have large ocean liners transporting people in "steerage class".  Ocean transport now is only for the rich, and everybody else has to fly.  The economics of emmigration has totally changed in the last half century.

People think baclk to the "glory days" of steamship travel, and think that it is the Rockefelers that made such things possible.  In fact, it was not.  The backbone of such ships was always steerage class tickets.  A suite on the Titanic was over $3,300.  But there were very few of those available.  The real money maker was the huge volume of "Third Class" tickets, which were only $35.  On most ships of the day, steerage class tickets were only $10-25.  Almost anybody that was willing to emigrate to another country could at those rates.

The ability of the poor of other countries to emmigrate to the US really died after WWII.  This is when affordable steamship travel died, and Transcontinental Jets became the norm.  Ticket prices increased dramatically, and the poor found it hard to leave their countries.  During the "Potato Famine", hundreds of thousands of Irish were able to afford transportation to other nations (including Canada, US, and Mexico).  A century later, it was impossible for the starving in Ethiopia to even think of affording transportation out of Africa.

I've always wondered why celebrities in the past few years can't just seem to adopt poor children from here. There're plenty of poverty row babies with drug-addicted and terrible parents. And yet, adopting a cute foreign baby from Africa or Asia is so much a better photo op than adopting a baby from Mississippi, Detroit, or North Dakota. Maybe it boils down to the Horatio Alger syndrome, that poverty in this country is seen as the fault of the impoverished and therefore systematically ignored, and yet poverty abroad is given to so much that people don't pay enough attention to the terrible living conditions that exist here, in our own damn country.


Well, considering that she is going out of her way to forget her American past and become English, maybe she should have adopted some of the poor from Liverpool, East End London, or Ireland.  And she also could have gone to Mozambique, which is an African member of the Commonwealth of Nations.

And of course we are now hearing of "another shoe" in her donations.  The $2 million is also going to sponsor education programs in the country.  That in itself is not bad, but it will be overseen by the Kabbalah Center.  Now I am not questioning the Center or it's members, but I am questioning the importation of what could be seen as "Religious Education".  I would question this if it was any religion, because this group does not have a long history of seperating their religious beliefs from their education programs. 

Some of the best known education programs overseen by religions (Catholic, Presbyterian, and Mormon) are known to require no "indoctrination" as a requirement for the education.  And all of those organizations are well known to accept students of all religions (including Islamic & Pagan), only asking tolerance.  I have not heard of any missionary type of education programs by the Kabbalah Center, and am curious as to what (if any) religious training may be required.

Joy of Tech from earlier this week...

Joy of Tech from earlier this week...


LOL, to funny.

Who really gives a damn whether Madonna adopts a baby from Africa or Des Moines, Iowa?  So long as the father consents, and according to everything I've read he has, then it shouldn't matter.

Who really gives a damn whether Madonna adopts a baby from Africa or Des Moines, Iowa?  So long as the father consents, and according to everything I've read he has, then it shouldn't matter.


Yea, and you gotta love Madonna's statemeny on Oprah the other day.  She said that the father conscented, "both orally and in writing."

Except the interesting thing is that by all reports, the father is illiterate.  And on many of the reports I am hearing, he said that he did not understand the meaning of the word "adoption".  He claims that the way it was explained to him, it was closer to what we think of as "Foster Care" then outright adoption.

And I would be interested in seeing this "written agreement" she claims she has.  I bet it is little more then an "X" on a long legalistic piece of paper.  I even had to have a lawyer help me go through my mortgage paperwork 20 years ago, and I am a fairly bright High School graduate.  How much would an illiterate farmer from Africa understand of an adoption release?

Yea, and you gotta love Madonna's statemeny on Oprah the other day.  She said that the father conscented, "both orally and in writing."

Except the interesting thing is that by all reports, the father is illiterate.  And on many of the reports I am hearing, he said that he did not understand the meaning of the word "adoption".  He claims that the way it was explained to him, it was closer to what we think of as "Foster Care" then outright adoption.

And I would be interested in seeing this "written agreement" she claims she has.  I bet it is little more then an "X" on a long legalistic piece of paper.  I even had to have a lawyer help me go through my mortgage paperwork 20 years ago, and I am a fairly bright High School graduate.  How much would an illiterate farmer from Africa understand of an adoption release?



Madonna is many things, but I hardly doubt she's trying to steal this man's child out from underneath his nose.