COMMENTS: 134
The Problematic Pop-Culture Movement to 'Save' Africa
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
The former Material Girl's misadventures in adopting the boy, David Banda, have made her the newest Ugly American -- big-footing her way through a foreign country, violating local laws and sensibilities in the name of a private agenda she calls "doing good." Now even the father of the boy says Madonna's adoption is a mistake, joining a growing number of human-rights critics is saying the entertainer should return the child.
"Saving" Africans is all the rage among celebrities. Hollywood is releasing a string of African morality tales, from "The Last King of Scotland," about Idi Amin's capricious rule, to "Blood Diamonds," the story of a white smuggler in West Africa who has pangs of regret over his misdeeds. Bono, who campaigns actively for African aid, unveiled his "Red" campaign last week, aimed at getting consumers to buy certain products -- and thus generate assistance funds for Africa.
Yet the Red marketing campaign, targeting youth, seems transparently dumb. One Gap advertisement, for instance, declares, "Can a Jacket Change the World? This One Can," by helping to "eliminate Aids in Africa." No details provided on how, of course.
If American consumers can be led to believe that the purchase of a jacket can assist poor Africans, then Madonna's own logic -- she thinks she can help Africa one adoption at a time -- is rock solid. Yet in her rush to claim the moral high ground, she messed up on the details, creating her own private Iraq war. The most damning overlooked detail: Her adopted son has a father who dumped him into an orphanage, he says, because he was too poor to care for the child.
But poverty should not mean the child should lose contact with his father who, after all, lives near the orphanage. There are tens of thousands of children who have lost both their parents to the AIDS pandemic. Couldn't Madonna have adopted one of those?
Maybe she just didn't know any better. On the ground, Africa is confusing terrain. I know, because I've walked in Madonna's shoes, looking for orphans in her very own Malawi.
Just days before the pop diva turned up in Malawi to bring home an African child orphaned by the AIDS pandemic, I left the country after a visit of 17 days during which I reported on rural poverty. There I met many AIDS orphans -- and people caring for them.
One in five adults is infected by HIV/AIDS in Malawi, so husband-and-wife deaths are not unusual. Every Malawian village has AIDS orphans, and every extended family, across this small country of about 12 million people, is caring for one or more as well. I met some of these orphans without even looking for them, finding them not in orphanages, but in private homes. Malawians, it seems, take in the children of their dead brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, cousins and friends, at rates that might astound Madonna. They support these orphans out of generosity and a sense of obligation, even if they suffer hardships as a result.
One afternoon, in a dusty village in central Malawi, I sat down to lunch with a very poor family. The main dish served was nsima, a porridge made from cornmeal and served steaming hot. The side dish was pumpkin. No protein at this banquet. There was not enough food even to satisfy my host's children, in part because in addition to his four kids, three others ate with us. They were the children of his dead wife's sister and husband.
My host, a small farmer named Lorence, explained that he fears these children will die if he does not help them. "I won't give them up," he says.
Last year, he built a small house from mud and dried grass for the children. The house is about 50 feet from his own.
Lorence's generosity, so typical of big-hearted Malawians, belies the presumption that Africans can't take care of themselves, even in times of distress. This presumption animates Madonna's promises of charity -- and the entire pop-culture movement to aid Africa.
By reducing Africans to the status of props in an American morality play, Africans are themselves robbed of some measure of their dignity, which is why a number of Malawians are upset by Madonna's fast-track adoption. Perhaps because she has pledged to raise money on behalf of other orphans in Malawi, Madonna received a waiver from the country's normal regulations covering adoptions in order to bring the young David Banda to London this week.
The exemption Madonna received has sparked a coalition of 40 groups to ask the government to compel the pop star to return the child to Malawi. Now even the boy’s father appears to oppose the adoption, saying he didn’t understand the legal papers he signed on Madonna’s behalf. Later this month, an African court may agree. What then? Will Madonna defy the Malawians and refuse to return her African baby, citing international human-rights law on her behalf?
Madonna isn't the first celebrity to adopt an African child. Angelina Jolie adopted a child from Ethiopia in 2005. She also gave birth to a baby in Namibia, a thinly populated coastal desert in southwest Africa that is well-known as a hangout for wealthy white South Africans and mellow Euro-trash.
Jolie would have trumped Madonna in audacity had she instead given birth to a baby in Malawi, where the hospitals are far from pleasant. During my time in country, a newborn baby died in a hospital in the capital of Lilongwe after a government nurse failed to fill an IV. The infant had just been successfully operated by a foreign volunteer who was furious with the nursing lapse. Too bad Jolie couldn't have experienced the standard level of hospital care.
Besides, if Jolie had only given birth in Malawi, the actress and the diva could be conferring right now, plotting their next humanitarian actions. Jolie, for instance, has publicly declared her intention to adopt again. Could another African baby be in her future?
Jolie told CNN in June she will make their decision on who to adopt based on "the balance of what would be best" for her current children. "It's, you know, another boy, another girl, which country, which race would fit best with the kids," she said.
By adopting again, Jolie is sending a signal to Madonna and other celebrities who want to help poor Africans one by one. Or maybe she is simply taking to a new level the cynical use of African children as props in media routines aimed at bolstering the appeal of female stars.
Either way, these adoptions highlight the complexities of helping people halfway around the world whose way of life we often know little about.
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rsaxto on Oct 24, 2006 12:29 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: simpler
Posted by: symcokid
» RE: simpler -- Material girl's photo-op stop...
Posted by: Pat Kittle
Comments are closed-
Posted by: edith on Oct 24, 2006 1:11 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» "Ugly Olympians"
Posted by: grumble-bum
» RE: I don't apologize for being selfish and following the principle of subsidiarity.
Posted by: mjabele
» RE: I don't apologize for being selfish and following the principle of subsidiarity.
Posted by: grumble-bum
» A wonderful vision
Posted by: mjabele
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Oct 24, 2006 1:12 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/Africa/AIDS.asp
US 'foreign aid' is really US loansharking, and if there aren't any natural resources available, the IMF-World Bank-Export/Import group won't be interested in making any loans - unless the loans are guaranteed by the US taxpayer.
(excerpt from the link):
"On July 19, 2000, the Export-Import Bank of the United States offered $1 billion per year for five years in loans to Sub-Saharan Africa to finance the purchase of U.S. HIV/AIDS medications and related equipment and services from U.S. pharmaceutical firms. However, three southern African countries, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe rejected the offer because the loans would further the dependency and debt of African countries, while American pharmaceutical corporations would benefit. Another criticism such motions have received is that this ends up benefitting those companies who, in effect, get a free subsidy. In this way, U.S. corporate interests are advanced."
Even those most cursory examination of the AIDS issue should reveal this unholy alliance between pharmaceuticals and the IMF-World Bank-Ex/Im system - but instead, the author of this piece decides to blame it all on Madonna?
Jeez- at least the kid is going to have a good education. It wasn't Madonna who turned the issue into a media circus - but I guess it's a whole lot safer to attack her then it is to go after Big Pharma and International Loansharking, isn't it? This approach is something I'd expect to see in the back pages of USA Today, not on a 'progressive alternative media outlet'.
Ever read http://www.guerrillanews.com/?
Compare that to Alternet's coverage today and see what you think.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The World Bank/IMF/Export-Import group is as much a threat to Africa as AIDS is.
Posted by: bonzi
» To add a level of complexity...
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: To add a level of complexity...
Posted by: WitchyNy
» Money is tool.
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Money is tool.
Posted by: WitchyNy
» Those are great ideas.
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Those are great ideas.
Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: Those are great ideas.
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» P.S. On milk...
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» "Environmental destruction" is production of human values
Posted by: Torgo
» Good point - a lot hides behind 'agricultural subsidies'
Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: The World Bank/IMF/Export-Import group is as much a threat to Africa as AIDS is.
Posted by: WitchyNy
» Patent law needs to be changed.....
Posted by: mjabele
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bobsays on Oct 24, 2006 2:27 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Actually, one of the first things you notice about Africa when you are there - apart from its long list of well-known problems - is its optimism, its dreams. Dreams are the things Africans have plenty of. They don't need to import dreams, they need to export goods and services.
I have noticed over the past six years raw, elitist and aggressive hijacking of international development and poverty issues by a small elite of celebrities. This has coincided with the biggest boom in wealth for these people ever in human history. And the result has been destructive. It has comodified the struggle to reduce poverty, it has turned it into a shameless spectical that strips the dignity away of the poor (especially with its development porn picture which always show people as weak and helpless), and it has framed ending poverty with only one concept: charity. Charity is not the way to end poverty. Today's biggest poverty fighter, China, is not using charity to end poverty. It is using solid economic development policies and education. This is what African needs.
Africa doesn't need the modern equivalent of the 'white man's burden'. It doesn't need charity. No country has ever ended poverty through charity. Africa doesn't need American dreams, it needs better government, good business deals, and fair trade agreements. And a positive attitude from all. For too long the continent has been seen as a right-off. There is much good that is going on there, especially in southern Africa. Let's focus on the good to end the bad.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: 'Dream for Africa'?
Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: 'Dream for Africa'?
Posted by: vangogh69
» RE: 'Dream for Africa'? -- "Obese?"
Posted by: Pat Kittle
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pvalemont@bigpond.com on Oct 24, 2006 3:37 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: LeftWright on Oct 24, 2006 4:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They could also use their power of the pulpit to shine a bright light on the activites of western governments/corporations that exacerbate all these problems in the first place.
But then, it is these same corporations that give them the "status" and wealth to begin with. Not good to look the gift horse in the mouth, let alone kick it in the teeth.
Standard of living does not equal quality of life. The American standard of living is sucking the life out of the rest of the world. THe U.S. economy is not sustainable in its present form, the sooner we realize this the easier it will be to transition to a sustainable economy and a more peaceful world.
We are all brothers and sisters on this big beautiful blue ball.
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Build water projects, schools and fund micro-banks
Posted by: cmaciain
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Oct 24, 2006 4:06 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sounds like one of those dysfunctional surrogate moms who don't know what the hell they want.
If they make Her Majesty give the kid back, I don't know if they should give him back to the father.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Two from column A. Two from column B.
Posted by: mandiwrite
» Thank you for the "reality check"
Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: The Eve Theory of Mitochondrial DNA
Posted by: Shehova
» The kind of father dumps his kid in an orphanage,
Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» Hmmm, you DO remember what the word "orphan" means, right?
Posted by: mjabele
» .....but I gather Madonna didn't.
Posted by: mjabele
» My apologies to kepstein, I skimmed the article too quickly.
Posted by: mjabele
» Sorry, dude.
Posted by: kepstein7777
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Cousin Jack on Oct 24, 2006 4:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: DO WHAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU! Amen!
Posted by: vangogh69
» I would say the world is in front of you.....
Posted by: mjabele
» But I believe it is becoming vogue
Posted by: WhuThe?!?
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Intraspecto on Oct 24, 2006 5:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Ignoring the problem doesn't make it disappear
Posted by: timebomb734
» I'll die anyway, regardless of the problems of distant strangers
Posted by: Torgo
» RE: I'll die anyway, regardless of the problems of distant strangers
Posted by: timebomb734
Comments are closed-
Posted by: glow on Oct 24, 2006 5:36 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: glow
Posted by: missleighanne
» RE: glow
Posted by: surferboy2001
» It's not win-win for the father
Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: It's not win-win for the father
Posted by: TennMom
» I didn't see the interview with the aunt, and
Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» correction
Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: glow
Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: glow...er, the crucifix
Posted by: vangogh69
» What a coincidence
Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: glow
Posted by: Neilium
» getting started is hard
Posted by: edith
» RE: glow
Posted by: edith
Comments are closed-
Posted by: missleighanne on Oct 24, 2006 7:35 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the light of our so-called war, these commercial, international, public relation stunts demonstrate how quickly we as Americans can be herded, like sheep, from more important issues at hand.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Third World America
Posted by: cityofangelslady
» RE: Third World America
Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Third World America
Posted by: vangogh69
» RE: Third World, period.
Posted by: mjabele
» RE: Third World, period.
Posted by: TennMom
» RE: Third World, period.
Posted by: missleighanne
» A self-righteous do-gooder responds.....
Posted by: mjabele
» RE: A self-righteous do-gooder responds.....
Posted by: missleighanne
» RE: A self-righteous do-gooder responds.....
Posted by: mjabele
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Progbiz on Oct 24, 2006 7:46 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AnimalMachine on Oct 24, 2006 8:33 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What kind of sick fuck wants people to have to endure such suffering, especially mothers and children. I don't care if people are rich or poor, nobody deserves suffering.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jkisha on Oct 24, 2006 8:43 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
JK
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Another waste of space and words...but um, the dems
Posted by: vangogh69
Comments are closed-
Posted by: chomsky on Oct 24, 2006 9:46 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't just drop a line like "creating her own private Iraq war" with a wink and a nudge and expect everyone to just "get it" because we are all in the know or something. It makes your credibility suspect.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: badkitty on Oct 24, 2006 9:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a GAP employee, and I must say I am dubious about this way of helping (I contribute to Heifer), since I don't think increased consumption is the right way to go, but let's face it, every day I am told that I don't think like other people, so if this is what they want to do, maybe it will make a difference, which would be wonderful. In the long run though (and I don't think it's that far away), global warming will get us all. What I'm really interested in is seeing if anyone else at Gap reads the Alternet (like our publicity department) and has a response. I won't hold my breath.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Charity has never made the world a better place
Posted by: Bobsays
» RE: Charity has never made the world a better place
Posted by: vangogh69
Comments are closed-
Posted by: fanny666 on Oct 24, 2006 10:03 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You are misguided
Posted by: munchkinpup
» RE: You are misguided
Posted by: fanny666
» RE: This is very, very misguided
Posted by: missleighanne
» RE: This is very, very misguided
Posted by: missleighanne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: monkeywrench on Oct 24, 2006 10:12 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What happens to all the kids who will not be chosen by celebrities? What happens when publicity-hound celebrities grow tired of this latest fad? What will happen to these kids when these too-busy stars hand them off to housekeepers and aupairs? Sure, they will be better off materially (after all, Madonna is the "Material Girl"...); but what will exposure to wretched excess do to their spirits? (The behavior of some offspring of current celebrities does not inspire confidence.)
Maybe if these self-impressed "stars" really want to help, they could use the money they would lavish on one kid in Beverly Hills and build a health clinic or school (or several) in Africa; and if helping the poor there is really more important than the career "brownie points" to be scored here at home, they could do it with little fanfare beyond what would attract matching funds from elsewhere. THAT would be worth far more than buying adoptees Farraris when they turn 16.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Madonna and Jolie are helping WHOM?
Posted by: mandiwrite
» RE: Madonna and Jolie are helping WHOM?
Posted by: vangogh69
Comments are closed-
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Oct 24, 2006 10:25 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bookwoman on Oct 24, 2006 11:23 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I always wonder about all the confusion which attends anything Madonna does. Also, with all the illness and violence in Africa these days, couldn't she find a child who was a true orphan without any family to care for them or get confused about the parameters of the adoption.
Makes one wonder.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: remember when
Posted by: munchkinpup
» RE: emember when
Posted by: greggzachary
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jsampair on Oct 24, 2006 12:29 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On October 21st, 2006, President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf was honored with the Africa Prize for Leadership by The Hunger Project. Knowing that the Harvard MBA-educated "Iron Lady" travelled from Liberia to accept this award says legions about the effectiveness of the work of this organization.
- Jim Sampair
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vangogh69 on Oct 24, 2006 12:39 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My second thing is this: why do these celebrities need to cross the Atlantic to find needy children? Do we not have adoption in America? Secondly, is AIDS for blacks in the US not an issue anymore? Sorry, but the help should start at home before Madonna or Jolie go "over there" (and you too Bono!) to "save the world...one donation at a time."
You know, if Madonna really wanted to be progressive (and help out), she could highlight the current plight of Detroit which is a city left-behind by globalization and neo-capitalism. She could highlight the infant mortality rate of that city and the cases of AIDS there. Similarly, Bono would do well to venture outside of his suburb and see how well real members of the Commonwealth are getting on since Thatcher's "Reign of Terror."
I like Madonna as a performer, but she should think more about her choices...also, the media would do well to not view things in a vacuum. (And as far as this "buy red", well, it seems suspicious that one is spending money, supporting the capitalist machine, yet eradicating AIDS? Then again, maybe I'm misinformed.)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Why Detroit?
Posted by: mjabele
» RE: Why Detroit?
Posted by: edith
» RE: Why Detroit?
Posted by: mjabele
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Skills83 on Oct 24, 2006 1:01 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tessbscharaga@sbcglobal.net on Oct 24, 2006 1:27 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Thank you. Some of us play hard to please, just like "old flat top," it's got to be perfection.
Posted by: Sojourner
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sofla100 on Oct 24, 2006 2:19 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I think it is more than 'donor fatigue'
Posted by: Bobsays
» RE: I think it is more than 'donor fatigue'
Posted by: Skills83
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Neilium on Oct 24, 2006 3:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Their policy is to only make a decision based on " what will people think of this decision one hundred years from now? good or bad"
That has to be the way to go eh?
Go Green, change the scene, get rid of the Mean, have it clean, live lean.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ssg on Oct 24, 2006 3:54 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: getoutofiraqnow on Oct 24, 2006 4:10 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
look around Madonna and Angelina and all the rest of you... there are quite a few kids right in your own country who need help... and no, they are not too hard to find.
Or maybe a millionaire from Malawi should adopt a black kid from some American ghetto heh! That's an idea!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wildfire on Oct 24, 2006 5:03 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
>The former Material Girl's misadventures in adopting the boy, David Banda, have made her the newest Ugly American -- big-footing her way through a foreign country, violating local laws and sensibilities in the name of a private agenda she calls "doing good."
Which laws is she breaking? He so much wants (PRODUCT) RED details on their billboards, you'd think he might provide some details himself in his own article. Malwai has NO adoption laws to violate. None. If she wants to adopt a child she's bonded with, why is it the author's business (the father freely gave up the child and is only now recounting after being "manipulated" by a bunch of self-righteous non-profits who'd rather see the child grow-up in poverty with a father who sent him away from home because he couldn't be cared for. THAT'S their solution??? Which human rights are they protecting again? What's the author's alternative? Do nothing?
>Yet the Red marketing campaign, targeting youth, seems transparently dumb. One Gap advertisement, for instance, declares, "Can a Jacket Change the World? This One Can," by helping to "eliminate Aids in Africa." No details provided on how, of course.
Has he NOT heard of the World Wide Web? Did he even think to go to the WEBSITE for further details!? Is he the stupidest person to write an article since, oh, 1999? You'd think AlterNet might be a little more informed seeing as they're a WEBSITE!!!!
>If American consumers can be led to believe that the purchase of a jacket can assist poor Africans, then Madonna's own logic -- she thinks she can help Africa one adoption at a time -- is rock solid.
Nobody at (PRODUCT) RED says that they are, single-handedly going to end AIDS in Africa--no one can do that. So should we NOT do something? anything? Did Madonna tell G. Pascal Zachary that she was planning on ending poverty in Africa by adopting this child? I doubt it. So why would he both put words in her mouth and be so disingenuous as to her motives? It sounds like he's got a giant stick up his ass against celebrities in general and he's focusing his venom and the one thing we might admire about their actions--at least some of them.
>Yet in her rush to claim the moral high ground, she messed up on the details, creating her own private Iraq war. The most damning overlooked detail: Her adopted son has a father who dumped him into an orphanage, he says, because he was too poor to care for the child.
Something she already knew and she spoke directly with the father who gave him up to Madonna, explicitly, before she adopted him. G. Pascal Zachary seems to have the problem with the details here.
>But poverty should not mean the child should lose contact with his father who, after all, lives near the orphanage. There are tens of thousands of children who have lost both their parents to the AIDS pandemic. Couldn't Madonna have adopted one of those?
So, every child is the same and Madonna should be mother to whomever G. Pascal Zachary picks out for her? That's pretty scary logic. Who made him God? Just because she adopted a child doesn't mean she was willing to adopt any child. Perhaps (and you can't blame her), she didn't feel she was up for adopting an HIV child? Shall we force one on her instead? She bonded with THIS child. She didn't even plan to adopt a child when she first went to Malawai. It just happened. And who says the father won't get a chance to see the child throughout his life?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wildfire on Oct 24, 2006 5:04 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
>By reducing Africans to the status of props in an American morality play, Africans are themselves robbed of some measure of their dignity, which is why a number of Malawians are upset by Madonna's fast-track adoption.
This is typical ultra-liberal bullshit diatribe. Nobody can rob anyone of their dignity. Dignity is what we carry for ourselves no matter what our circumstances. And why is dignity more important than food, medicine and shelter? This is ALWAYS the screwed-up logic used by the no-brain liberal (often academic) establishment to make their sorry points. They give real liberals such a terrible name. Dignity? These people have dignity, what they need is help--and if they don't need it or want it, there are plenty of people who do. By his own admission, Lorence and family can't feed themselves and need assistance, yet the author claims they can take care of themselves. Great, then move on to Darfur, or Sudan, or Ethiopia, or Burkina Faso where people can't and seriously DO need help. Why get on Madonna's case (or Bono's or anyone's) for trying to help people anyway they can or see fit. Madonna didn't make anyone a prop. She spent time in Malawai (just like the author) and (I bet) did more good there than he ever did. She adopted one child she bonded with (why didn't G. Pascal Zachary return with one of the AIDS children he's saying others should adopt?--or two or seventeen?). Where's the problem here?
>The exemption Madonna received has sparked a coalition of 40 groups to ask the government to compel the pop star to return the child to Malawi. Now even the boy's father appears to oppose the adoption, saying he didn't understand the legal papers he signed on Madonna's behalf. Later this month, an African court may agree. What then? Will Madonna defy the Malawians and refuse to return her African baby, citing international human-rights law on her behalf?
His words, not hers. All supposition--and disingenuous at that.
>Jolie would have trumped Madonna in audacity had she instead given birth to a baby in Malawi, where the hospitals are far from pleasant. During my time in country, a newborn baby died in a hospital in the capital of Lilongwe after a government nurse failed to fill an IV. The infant had just been successfully operated by a foreign volunteer who was furious with the nursing lapse. Too bad Jolie couldn't have experienced the standard level of hospital care.
Oh so now it wouldn't be justice unless her baby died too! What kind of fucking logic is this? Kill Angelina Jolie's baby in retaliation for som other baby dying. She should have purposely gone to a hospital where the care was so bad that her baby might have been endanger? Is this really what he wants? Guess what? More South Africans give birth in South Africa and more "Euro-trash" give birth in Europe than either in Namibia. Would the author have been upset if she gave birth in France? the UK? She chose namibia for a few reasons--not the least of which she wouldn't be mobbed by paparazzi and could control the media coverage of the event in a way she would never be able to do in the "West." That alone vindicates her choice.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wildfire on Oct 24, 2006 5:05 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And what if it is? What is this guy's point? People shouldn't adopt poor children? Or just not in Africa where the need is so great? Celebrities' humanitarian actions are bad and wrong? How? He never describes this. If he had a point to make in the entire article about how this should have been or how celebrities are hurting Africa, it would be different but there is none, just an overall dislike of celebrities using their influence to do something positive (or maybe just the celebrities he dislikes) or adding to their families when they feel the urge and connection.
>By adopting again, Jolie is sending a signal to Madonna and other celebrities who want to help poor Africans one by one. Or maybe she is simply taking to a new level the cynical use of African children as props in media routines aimed at bolstering the appeal of female stars.
It's the author who is cynical here, not Madonna or Jolie. He hasn't declared having a single conversation with either so all of his ruminations on their motives and behavior are completely made-up and without any benefit of the doubt. His assumptions about their motives are suspect, ill-informed, and just plain nasty. He can't conceive of any reason why a celebrity might adopt other than to use them as props. Whether this is so or not, the point is he doesn't KNOW this to be the case, something that doesn't stop him from declaring it nonetheless.
>Either way, these adoptions highlight the complexities of helping people halfway around the world whose way of life we often know little about.
How do they "highlight the complexities of helping people"? He hasn't provided any of that information in this article either? All he's provided is his own speculation on how and why Madonna and Jolie (and, to a lesser extent, Bono, and I suppose Oprah and everyone else connected to (PRODUCT) RED) are such terrible people for their supposedly cynical use of adopted kids and redirected profits from sale of goods. THAT'S an article? Wow, Alternet has REALLY lost whatever journalistic integrity it may have had.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: opeluboy on Oct 24, 2006 5:24 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Africa's problems are cultural, and no amount of money sent by well meaning Americans is going to change that. Those that are being slaughtered and starved now might be the ones initiating it the next time.
Almost all of Africa's problems are man-made, the result of corruption, greed and simple tribal hatred. It is hard to wrap one's head around the concept of armies comprised of children that hack people to death with machetes and rape women and children, but that's what they have. Try to imagine that here.
Africa also suffers from almost unimaginable ignorance and superstition, with a high number of those surveryed in South Africa believing that sex with virgins would heal one of AIDS. This thought was so pervasive that the South African government had to wage a campaign to stop this practice, as men were raping children. How do you work with people whose lives are entirely governed by superstition and nonsense?
My best friend served in the Peace Corps in Mali. He loved the country and the people. But how quickly can you educate people whose understanding of the world is that the United States is a city in France? The backwardness he dealt with for years, in every area of their lives, would have caused less determined people to quit, but he stayed with it.
I am not against helping people. I am not against saving those starving to death. In fact I contribute regulary to charities that help the region. But we should not fool ourselves into thinking we can change centuries of really, really dumb culture. Africans have been absolutely brutal to each other for millenia, and they show no signs of changing any time soon.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» It's history, politics, ecology, and culture - and commitment.
Posted by: mjabele
» RE: It's history, politics, ecology, and culture - and commitment.
Posted by: opeluboy
» RE: It's the culture, not the commitment
Posted by: ssg
» RE: It's the culture, not the commitment
Posted by: opeluboy
» RE: It's the culture, not the commitment
Posted by: ssg
» People Are Responsible: A Price of Freedom
Posted by: edith
» RE: It's the culture, not the commitment
Posted by: ssg
» RE: It's the culture, not the commitment
Posted by: edith
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sofla100 on Oct 24, 2006 5:58 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Another Reason Why Madonna Might Have Gone to Africa
Posted by: superfan
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Skeptic10 on Oct 24, 2006 7:51 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Jack
Posted by: edith
Comments are closed-
Posted by: missleighanne on Oct 25, 2006 7:29 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Agsrue on Oct 25, 2006 7:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This writer hasn't talked to Madonna or Jolie and so has no idea what either of them are thinking. Jolie has done a lot to lend her celebrity to help those in Africa and so is Madonna. Perhaps Madonna saw the child and came to care for him and thus wanted to adopt him.
I also find it interesting that this story is suggesting that Africans are nothing more than "props" to Madonna and Jolie yet asks the question whether Madonna could have adopted some child with both parents gone, as if she were shopping for car or some other object.
Also, yes it does seem that the adoption was botched. But is that necessarily Madonna's fault? This article and a lot of people assume that Madonna, herself, just came in and demanded like some queen and expected the child to be handed to her on a silver platter. I don't know if this happened or not. I assume Madonna got an attorney worked with the government. What if the government was so happy to deal with a celebrity and cut corners just because they thought it would please her and get some more money flowing into the country. The government could have decided to do that on its own. I doubt Madonna knows the intricate workings of government, so when they said she could take the child and her lawyer said it was OK, she did. Why would she question that?
Look, I don't know what REALLY went on with Madonna. However, I am NOT going to assume what went on. Its funny how this article talks about the attitude of high-handed celebrities and then proceeds to do the very thing it speaks out against.
I think its great that celebrities are doing SOMETHING to help. There are many, many, MANY people- celebrities and non-celebrities- that do NOTHING. Do they go about things the best way? Maybe not. But the problems in Africa are complex and full of undertones that many of us do not fully understand. Maybe what Bono, Madonna and Jolie are doing is good, or not so good, but time will tell the tale and there may be much trial in error before the world gets it right.
Maybe this attitude of "do it right the first time or don't do it all" when it comes to helping the very poor, is the reason why there isn't more help given and things are such a mess there.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: WhuThe?!? on Oct 25, 2006 8:30 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hotlipsin61 on Oct 25, 2006 12:30 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But Madonna isn't the first one. Yes, Africa is a very complex place to and where one can't simply explain it in simple geographic terms. But to help its people is where Americans run into trouble. She and others tried to adopt a child from abject conditions in Malawi and some thought she was removing a "resource." To some she was on a shopping trip.
Is it hard to adopt a child in United States? Yes. America has plenty of (foster) children who are in the same scenario as a child anywhere living in poverty. Russian, Chinese, Korean and Romanian children are adopted by us as much as African kids, but if we looked at New Orleans....no celebrity was there to snatch up a kid wandering the streets there.
I'm not angry at anyone who wants to adopt a child elsewhere, but our adoption laws are in need of revision. People with $$$ will go abroad to do it, and I wish them well. But think of our children, too. Kids matter. They all need a home. Tough call.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: harpy on Oct 25, 2006 2:24 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Angie on Oct 25, 2006 2:55 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If she was only doing it for publicity, she didn't need to also start an orphanage in Malawi (which she has done). She and Guy are shooting a documentary there and plan to take David there regulary. He will likely not feel disconnected from his homeland.
David was ill with pneumonia when they reached him and might not have survived if it wasn't for their interventions.
Why would anyone attack another human being for trying to improve someone's life for the better?? Then go so far as to reverse the good that has been done. If you only have the emotional and financial resources to take care of yourself and maybe one or two others, then please do so to the best of your ability. Others who have the wherewithal to help other human beings on this planet of ours, should be at least appreciated for stepping up and doing so. I thought this was basic stuff.
If the biological father has been pressured into wanting his son back (especially now that there might be good Madonna-funded resources available locally) that is a different story. However, I think poppa wants his son to get a good education.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Burton on Oct 25, 2006 5:08 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kaycee1257 on Oct 26, 2006 8:35 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a useful tactic for the right to infiltrate the left and get people squabbling about who's the most "correct", slamming people for their efforts to do good because they aren't good enough. It's a great way to get people to just give the f&^k up.
Is that what's going on here? Think about it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Kevstra on Oct 26, 2006 9:44 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Almost a year ago we were introduced to a young Kenyan man, near Kisii, named "Cyrus Bosire Ogega," 24, who took in 6 "OVC's" (Orphaned and Vulnerable Children"). We got to know him through email, meanwhile taking steps to verify the authenticity of his story by sending in three contacts to physically make assessment (two from Kenya and a local friend of ours who is the co-founder of a well established non-profit humanitarian agency called "A Better World").
I had on hand a donation of funds from a client who instructed us to fund the "children's charity of our choice." Cyrus received those funds. Before we knew it, he had 20, 25, 35 children and we had to put the brakes on him. The accomodations consist of Cyrus' hut and his parents' hut. Long story short is that today we have been able to provide ongoing sustenance for them and make some improvements to their living conditions, as well as rent some extra land and get it planted so that we can move towards the goal of self-sustenance. Currently, we have opened an investment fund to help pay workers, put in infrastructure, get the land secured by transferring it into a legal non-profit that we shall set up, in conjunction with the assistance of "A Better World" who has an office in Kisii.
At some point we actually have to make the trip and set the legal wheels in motion. We are looking for the right people to go and station there as missionaries to the project, longer term. Eventually we will want to see it established as an orphanage and school and community center to help young mothers to become self-supporting.
Many of these children have been surrendered, as in the case of the single father of Madonna's new adoptee. The vision in this case is not to take the children away from the influence of their culture and their local familial supports, no matter how meager those may be, but to actually strengthen these supports, where possible, toward the end of perhaps re-integrating some of them into their families and communities. Others, who are total orphans, will continue to benefit from the basic orphanage and eventual educational program.
The immediate needs are to get over there and secure the land, then establish proper housing, water supply, and kitchen facilities. For further information and questions, or to provide financial assistance, please contact Kevin at straub@direct.ca
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: helping African children
Posted by: hotlipsin61
» RE: helping African children
Posted by: greggzachary
Comments are closed-
Posted by: spenturn on Oct 26, 2006 11:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All this righteousness is sick and detrimental to the turn around of a great continent that clearly is in no position to turn down help.
Applaud famous people that use their luck for the benefit of others - perhaps instruct them - but don't hurl abuse because its utter hypocrasy and foolhardy given the millions they are raising for these needy countries.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: flairndip on Oct 29, 2006 9:35 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/29/
world/africa/29ghana.html?em&ex=1162270800&en=
5e681b9c3df8108a&ei=5087%0A
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rsaxto on Oct 24, 2006 12:29 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: simpler
Posted by: symcokid
» RE: simpler -- Material girl's photo-op stop...
Posted by: Pat Kittle
Comments are closed-
Posted by: edith on Oct 24, 2006 1:11 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» "Ugly Olympians"
Posted by: grumble-bum
» RE: I don't apologize for being selfish and following the principle of subsidiarity.
Posted by: mjabele
» RE: I don't apologize for being selfish and following the principle of subsidiarity.
Posted by: grumble-bum
» A wonderful vision
Posted by: mjabele
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Oct 24, 2006 1:12 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/Africa/AIDS.asp
US 'foreign aid' is really US loansharking, and if there aren't any natural resources available, the IMF-World Bank-Export/Import group won't be interested in making any loans - unless the loans are guaranteed by the US taxpayer.
(excerpt from the link):
"On July 19, 2000, the Export-Import Bank of the United States offered $1 billion per year for five years in loans to Sub-Saharan Africa to finance the purchase of U.S. HIV/AIDS medications and related equipment and services from U.S. pharmaceutical firms. However, three southern African countries, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe rejected the offer because the loans would further the dependency and debt of African countries, while American pharmaceutical corporations would benefit. Another criticism such motions have received is that this ends up benefitting those companies who, in effect, get a free subsidy. In this way, U.S. corporate interests are advanced."
Even those most cursory examination of the AIDS issue should reveal this unholy alliance between pharmaceuticals and the IMF-World Bank-Ex/Im system - but instead, the author of this piece decides to blame it all on Madonna?
Jeez- at least the kid is going to have a good education. It wasn't Madonna who turned the issue into a media circus - but I guess it's a whole lot safer to attack her then it is to go after Big Pharma and International Loansharking, isn't it? This approach is something I'd expect to see in the back pages of USA Today, not on a 'progressive alternative media outlet'.
Ever read http://www.guerrillanews.com/?
Compare that to Alternet's coverage today and see what you think.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The World Bank/IMF/Export-Import group is as much a threat to Africa as AIDS is.
Posted by: bonzi
» To add a level of complexity...
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: To add a level of complexity...
Posted by: WitchyNy
» Money is tool.
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Money is tool.
Posted by: WitchyNy
» Those are great ideas.
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Those are great ideas.
Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: Those are great ideas.
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» P.S. On milk...
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» "Environmental destruction" is production of human values
Posted by: Torgo
» Good point - a lot hides behind 'agricultural subsidies'
Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: The World Bank/IMF/Export-Import group is as much a threat to Africa as AIDS is.
Posted by: WitchyNy
» Patent law needs to be changed.....
Posted by: mjabele
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bobsays on Oct 24, 2006 2:27 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Actually, one of the first things you notice about Africa when you are there - apart from its long list of well-known problems - is its optimism, its dreams. Dreams are the things Africans have plenty of. They don't need to import dreams, they need to export goods and services.
I have noticed over the past six years raw, elitist and aggressive hijacking of international development and poverty issues by a small elite of celebrities. This has coincided with the biggest boom in wealth for these people ever in human history. And the result has been destructive. It has comodified the struggle to reduce poverty, it has turned it into a shameless spectical that strips the dignity away of the poor (especially with its development porn picture which always show people as weak and helpless), and it has framed ending poverty with only one concept: charity. Charity is not the way to end poverty. Today's biggest poverty fighter, China, is not using charity to end poverty. It is using solid economic development policies and education. This is what African needs.
Africa doesn't need the modern equivalent of the 'white man's burden'. It doesn't need charity. No country has ever ended poverty through charity. Africa doesn't need American dreams, it needs better government, good business deals, and fair trade agreements. And a positive attitude from all. For too long the continent has been seen as a right-off. There is much good that is going on there, especially in southern Africa. Let's focus on the good to end the bad.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: 'Dream for Africa'?
Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: 'Dream for Africa'?
Posted by: vangogh69
» RE: 'Dream for Africa'? -- "Obese?"
Posted by: Pat Kittle
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pvalemont@bigpond.com on Oct 24, 2006 3:37 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: LeftWright on Oct 24, 2006 4:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They could also use their power of the pulpit to shine a bright light on the activites of western governments/corporations that exacerbate all these problems in the first place.
But then, it is these same corporations that give them the "status" and wealth to begin with. Not good to look the gift horse in the mouth, let alone kick it in the teeth.
Standard of living does not equal quality of life. The American standard of living is sucking the life out of the rest of the world. THe U.S. economy is not sustainable in its present form, the sooner we realize this the easier it will be to transition to a sustainable economy and a more peaceful world.
We are all brothers and sisters on this big beautiful blue ball.
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Build water projects, schools and fund micro-banks
Posted by: cmaciain
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Oct 24, 2006 4:06 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sounds like one of those dysfunctional surrogate moms who don't know what the hell they want.
If they make Her Majesty give the kid back, I don't know if they should give him back to the father.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Two from column A. Two from column B.
Posted by: mandiwrite
» Thank you for the "reality check"
Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: The Eve Theory of Mitochondrial DNA
Posted by: Shehova
» The kind of father dumps his kid in an orphanage,
Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» Hmmm, you DO remember what the word "orphan" means, right?
Posted by: mjabele
» .....but I gather Madonna didn't.
Posted by: mjabele
» My apologies to kepstein, I skimmed the article too quickly.
Posted by: mjabele
» Sorry, dude.
Posted by: kepstein7777
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Cousin Jack on Oct 24, 2006 4:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: DO WHAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU! Amen!
Posted by: vangogh69
» I would say the world is in front of you.....
Posted by: mjabele
» But I believe it is becoming vogue
Posted by: WhuThe?!?
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Intraspecto on Oct 24, 2006 5:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Ignoring the problem doesn't make it disappear
Posted by: timebomb734
» I'll die anyway, regardless of the problems of distant strangers
Posted by: Torgo
» RE: I'll die anyway, regardless of the problems of distant strangers
Posted by: timebomb734
Comments are closed-
Posted by: glow on Oct 24, 2006 5:36 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: glow
Posted by: missleighanne
» RE: glow
Posted by: surferboy2001
» It's not win-win for the father
Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: It's not win-win for the father
Posted by: TennMom
» I didn't see the interview with the aunt, and
Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» correction
Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: glow
Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: glow...er, the crucifix
Posted by: vangogh69
» What a coincidence
Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: glow
Posted by: Neilium
» getting started is hard
Posted by: edith
» RE: glow
Posted by: edith
Comments are closed-
Posted by: missleighanne on Oct 24, 2006 7:35 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the light of our so-called war, these commercial, international, public relation stunts demonstrate how quickly we as Americans can be herded, like sheep, from more important issues at hand.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Third World America
Posted by: cityofangelslady
» RE: Third World America
Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Third World America
Posted by: vangogh69
» RE: Third World, period.
Posted by: mjabele
» RE: Third World, period.
Posted by: TennMom
» RE: Third World, period.
Posted by: missleighanne
» A self-righteous do-gooder responds.....
Posted by: mjabele
» RE: A self-righteous do-gooder responds.....
Posted by: missleighanne
» RE: A self-righteous do-gooder responds.....
Posted by: mjabele
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Progbiz on Oct 24, 2006 7:46 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AnimalMachine on Oct 24, 2006 8:33 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What kind of sick fuck wants people to have to endure such suffering, especially mothers and children. I don't care if people are rich or poor, nobody deserves suffering.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jkisha on Oct 24, 2006 8:43 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
JK
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Another waste of space and words...but um, the dems
Posted by: vangogh69
Comments are closed-
Posted by: chomsky on Oct 24, 2006 9:46 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't just drop a line like "creating her own private Iraq war" with a wink and a nudge and expect everyone to just "get it" because we are all in the know or something. It makes your credibility suspect.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: badkitty on Oct 24, 2006 9:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a GAP employee, and I must say I am dubious about this way of helping (I contribute to Heifer), since I don't think increased consumption is the right way to go, but let's face it, every day I am told that I don't think like other people, so if this is what they want to do, maybe it will make a difference, which would be wonderful. In the long run though (and I don't think it's that far away), global warming will get us all. What I'm really interested in is seeing if anyone else at Gap reads the Alternet (like our publicity department) and has a response. I won't hold my breath.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Charity has never made the world a better place
Posted by: Bobsays
» RE: Charity has never made the world a better place
Posted by: vangogh69
Comments are closed-
Posted by: fanny666 on Oct 24, 2006 10:03 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You are misguided
Posted by: munchkinpup
» RE: You are misguided
Posted by: fanny666
» RE: This is very, very misguided
Posted by: missleighanne
» RE: This is very, very misguided
Posted by: missleighanne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: monkeywrench on Oct 24, 2006 10:12 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What happens to all the kids who will not be chosen by celebrities? What happens when publicity-hound celebrities grow tired of this latest fad? What will happen to these kids when these too-busy stars hand them off to housekeepers and aupairs? Sure, they will be better off materially (after all, Madonna is the "Material Girl"...); but what will exposure to wretched excess do to their spirits? (The behavior of some offspring of current celebrities does not inspire confidence.)
Maybe if these self-impressed "stars" really want to help, they could use the money they would lavish on one kid in Beverly Hills and build a health clinic or school (or several) in Africa; and if helping the poor there is really more important than the career "brownie points" to be scored here at home, they could do it with little fanfare beyond what would attract matching funds from elsewhere. THAT would be worth far more than buying adoptees Farraris when they turn 16.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Madonna and Jolie are helping WHOM?
Posted by: mandiwrite
» RE: Madonna and Jolie are helping WHOM?
Posted by: vangogh69
Comments are closed-
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Oct 24, 2006 10:25 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bookwoman on Oct 24, 2006 11:23 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I always wonder about all the confusion which attends anything Madonna does. Also, with all the illness and violence in Africa these days, couldn't she find a child who was a true orphan without any family to care for them or get confused about the parameters of the adoption.
Makes one wonder.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: remember when
Posted by: munchkinpup
» RE: emember when
Posted by: greggzachary
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jsampair on Oct 24, 2006 12:29 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On October 21st, 2006, President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf was honored with the Africa Prize for Leadership by The Hunger Project. Knowing that the Harvard MBA-educated "Iron Lady" travelled from Liberia to accept this award says legions about the effectiveness of the work of this organization.
- Jim Sampair
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vangogh69 on Oct 24, 2006 12:39 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My second thing is this: why do these celebrities need to cross the Atlantic to find needy children? Do we not have adoption in America? Secondly, is AIDS for blacks in the US not an issue anymore? Sorry, but the help should start at home before Madonna or Jolie go "over there" (and you too Bono!) to "save the world...one donation at a time."
You know, if Madonna really wanted to be progressive (and help out), she could highlight the current plight of Detroit which is a city left-behind by globalization and neo-capitalism. She could highlight the infant mortality rate of that city and the cases of AIDS there. Similarly, Bono would do well to venture outside of his suburb and see how well real members of the Commonwealth are getting on since Thatcher's "Reign of Terror."
I like Madonna as a performer, but she should think more about her choices...also, the media would do well to not view things in a vacuum. (And as far as this "buy red", well, it seems suspicious that one is spending money, supporting the capitalist machine, yet eradicating AIDS? Then again, maybe I'm misinformed.)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Why Detroit?
Posted by: mjabele
» RE: Why Detroit?
Posted by: edith
» RE: Why Detroit?
Posted by: mjabele
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Skills83 on Oct 24, 2006 1:01 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tessbscharaga@sbcglobal.net on Oct 24, 2006 1:27 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Thank you. Some of us play hard to please, just like "old flat top," it's got to be perfection.
Posted by: Sojourner
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sofla100 on Oct 24, 2006 2:19 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I think it is more than 'donor fatigue'
Posted by: Bobsays
» RE: I think it is more than 'donor fatigue'
Posted by: Skills83
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Neilium on Oct 24, 2006 3:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Their policy is to only make a decision based on " what will people think of this decision one hundred years from now? good or bad"
That has to be the way to go eh?
Go Green, change the scene, get rid of the Mean, have it clean, live lean.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ssg on Oct 24, 2006 3:54 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: getoutofiraqnow on Oct 24, 2006 4:10 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
look around Madonna and Angelina and all the rest of you... there are quite a few kids right in your own country who need help... and no, they are not too hard to find.
Or maybe a millionaire from Malawi should adopt a black kid from some American ghetto heh! That's an idea!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wildfire on Oct 24, 2006 5:03 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
>The former Material Girl's misadventures in adopting the boy, David Banda, have made her the newest Ugly American -- big-footing her way through a foreign country, violating local laws and sensibilities in the name of a private agenda she calls "doing good."
Which laws is she breaking? He so much wants (PRODUCT) RED details on their billboards, you'd think he might provide some details himself in his own article. Malwai has NO adoption laws to violate. None. If she wants to adopt a child she's bonded with, why is it the author's business (the father freely gave up the child and is only now recounting after being "manipulated" by a bunch of self-righteous non-profits who'd rather see the child grow-up in poverty with a father who sent him away from home because he couldn't be cared for. THAT'S their solution??? Which human rights are they protecting again? What's the author's alternative? Do nothing?
>Yet the Red marketing campaign, targeting youth, seems transparently dumb. One Gap advertisement, for instance, declares, "Can a Jacket Change the World? This One Can," by helping to "eliminate Aids in Africa." No details provided on how, of course.
Has he NOT heard of the World Wide Web? Did he even think to go to the WEBSITE for further details!? Is he the stupidest person to write an article since, oh, 1999? You'd think AlterNet might be a little more informed seeing as they're a WEBSITE!!!!
>If American consumers can be led to believe that the purchase of a jacket can assist poor Africans, then Madonna's own logic -- she thinks she can help Africa one adoption at a time -- is rock solid.
Nobody at (PRODUCT) RED says that they are, single-handedly going to end AIDS in Africa--no one can do that. So should we NOT do something? anything? Did Madonna tell G. Pascal Zachary that she was planning on ending poverty in Africa by adopting this child? I doubt it. So why would he both put words in her mouth and be so disingenuous as to her motives? It sounds like he's got a giant stick up his ass against celebrities in general and he's focusing his venom and the one thing we might admire about their actions--at least some of them.
>Yet in her rush to claim the moral high ground, she messed up on the details, creating her own private Iraq war. The most damning overlooked detail: Her adopted son has a father who dumped him into an orphanage, he says, because he was too poor to care for the child.
Something she already knew and she spoke directly with the father who gave him up to Madonna, explicitly, before she adopted him. G. Pascal Zachary seems to have the problem with the details here.
>But poverty should not mean the child should lose contact with his father who, after all, lives near the orphanage. There are tens of thousands of children who have lost both their parents to the AIDS pandemic. Couldn't Madonna have adopted one of those?
So, every child is the same and Madonna should be mother to whomever G. Pascal Zachary picks out for her? That's pretty scary logic. Who made him God? Just because she adopted a child doesn't mean she was willing to adopt any child. Perhaps (and you can't blame her), she didn't feel she was up for adopting an HIV child? Shall we force one on her instead? She bonded with THIS child. She didn't even plan to adopt a child when she first went to Malawai. It just happened. And who says the father won't get a chance to see the child throughout his life?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wildfire on Oct 24, 2006 5:04 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
>By reducing Africans to the status of props in an American morality play, Africans are themselves robbed of some measure of their dignity, which is why a number of Malawians are upset by Madonna's fast-track adoption.
This is typical ultra-liberal bullshit diatribe. Nobody can rob anyone of their dignity. Dignity is what we carry for ourselves no matter what our circumstances. And why is dignity more important than food, medicine and shelter? This is ALWAYS the screwed-up logic used by the no-brain liberal (often academic) establishment to make their sorry points. They give real liberals such a terrible name. Dignity? These people have dignity, what they need is help--and if they don't need it or want it, there are plenty of people who do. By his own admission, Lorence and family can't feed themselves and need assistance, yet the author claims they can take care of themselves. Great, then move on to Darfur, or Sudan, or Ethiopia, or Burkina Faso where people can't and seriously DO need help. Why get on Madonna's case (or Bono's or anyone's) for trying to help people anyway they can or see fit. Madonna didn't make anyone a prop. She spent time in Malawai (just like the author) and (I bet) did more good there than he ever did. She adopted one child she bonded with (why didn't G. Pascal Zachary return with one of the AIDS children he's saying others should adopt?--or two or seventeen?). Where's the problem here?
>The exemption Madonna received has sparked a coalition of 40 groups to ask the government to compel the pop star to return the child to Malawi. Now even the boy's father appears to oppose the adoption, saying he didn't understand the legal papers he signed on Madonna's behalf. Later this month, an African court may agree. What then? Will Madonna defy the Malawians and refuse to return her African baby, citing international human-rights law on her behalf?
His words, not hers. All supposition--and disingenuous at that.
>Jolie would have trumped Madonna in audacity had she instead given birth to a baby in Malawi, where the hospitals are far from pleasant. During my time in country, a newborn baby died in a hospital in the capital of Lilongwe after a government nurse failed to fill an IV. The infant had just been successfully operated by a foreign volunteer who was furious with the nursing lapse. Too bad Jolie couldn't have experienced the standard level of hospital care.
Oh so now it wouldn't be justice unless her baby died too! What kind of fucking logic is this? Kill Angelina Jolie's baby in retaliation for som other baby dying. She should have purposely gone to a hospital where the care was so bad that her baby might have been endanger? Is this really what he wants? Guess what? More South Africans give birth in South Africa and more "Euro-trash" give birth in Europe than either in Namibia. Would the author have been upset if she gave birth in France? the UK? She chose namibia for a few reasons--not the least of which she wouldn't be mobbed by paparazzi and could control the media coverage of the event in a way she would never be able to do in the "West." That alone vindicates her choice.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wildfire on Oct 24, 2006 5:05 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And what if it is? What is this guy's point? People shouldn't adopt poor children? Or just not in Africa where the need is so great? Celebrities' humanitarian actions are bad and wrong? How? He never describes this. If he had a point to make in the entire article about how this should have been or how celebrities are hurting Africa, it would be different but there is none, just an overall dislike of celebrities using their influence to do something positive (or maybe just the celebrities he dislikes) or adding to their families when they feel the urge and connection.
>By adopting again, Jolie is sending a signal to Madonna and other celebrities who want to help poor Africans one by one. Or maybe she is simply taking to a new level the cynical use of African children as props in media routines aimed at bolstering the appeal of female stars.
It's the author who is cynical here, not Madonna or Jolie. He hasn't declared having a single conversation with either so all of his ruminations on their motives and behavior are completely made-up and without any benefit of the doubt. His assumptions about their motives are suspect, ill-informed, and just plain nasty. He can't conceive of any reason why a celebrity might adopt other than to use them as props. Whether this is so or not, the point is he doesn't KNOW this to be the case, something that doesn't stop him from declaring it nonetheless.
>Either way, these adoptions highlight the complexities of helping people halfway around the world whose way of life we often know little about.
How do they "highlight the complexities of helping people"? He hasn't provided any of that information in this article either? All he's provided is his own speculation on how and why Madonna and Jolie (and, to a lesser extent, Bono, and I suppose Oprah and everyone else connected to (PRODUCT) RED) are such terrible people for their supposedly cynical use of adopted kids and redirected profits from sale of goods. THAT'S an article? Wow, Alternet has REALLY lost whatever journalistic integrity it may have had.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: opeluboy on Oct 24, 2006 5:24 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Africa's problems are cultural, and no amount of money sent by well meaning Americans is going to change that. Those that are being slaughtered and starved now might be the ones initiating it the next time.
Almost all of Africa's problems are man-made, the result of corruption, greed and simple tribal hatred. It is hard to wrap one's head around the concept of armies comprised of children that hack people to death with machetes and rape women and children, but that's what they have. Try to imagine that here.
Africa also suffers from almost unimaginable ignorance and superstition, with a high number of those surveryed in South Africa believing that sex with virgins would heal one of AIDS. This thought was so pervasive that the South African government had to wage a campaign to stop this practice, as men were raping children. How do you work with people whose lives are entirely governed by superstition and nonsense?
My best friend served in the Peace Corps in Mali. He loved the country and the people. But how quickly can you educate people whose understanding of the world is that the United States is a city in France? The backwardness he dealt with for years, in every area of their lives, would have caused less determined people to quit, but he stayed with it.
I am not against helping people. I am not against saving those starving to death. In fact I contribute regulary to charities that help the region. But we should not fool ourselves into thinking we can change centuries of really, really dumb culture. Africans have been absolutely brutal to each other for millenia, and they show no signs of changing any time soon.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» It's history, politics, ecology, and culture - and commitment.
Posted by: mjabele
» RE: It's history, politics, ecology, and culture - and commitment.
Posted by: opeluboy
» RE: It's the culture, not the commitment
Posted by: ssg
» RE: It's the culture, not the commitment
Posted by: opeluboy
» RE: It's the culture, not the commitment
Posted by: ssg
» People Are Responsible: A Price of Freedom
Posted by: edith
» RE: It's the culture, not the commitment
Posted by: ssg
» RE: It's the culture, not the commitment
Posted by: edith
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sofla100 on Oct 24, 2006 5:58 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Another Reason Why Madonna Might Have Gone to Africa
Posted by: superfan
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Skeptic10 on Oct 24, 2006 7:51 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Jack
Posted by: edith
Comments are closed-
Posted by: missleighanne on Oct 25, 2006 7:29 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Agsrue on Oct 25, 2006 7:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This writer hasn't talked to Madonna or Jolie and so has no idea what either of them are thinking. Jolie has done a lot to lend her celebrity to help those in Africa and so is Madonna. Perhaps Madonna saw the child and came to care for him and thus wanted to adopt him.
I also find it interesting that this story is suggesting that Africans are nothing more than "props" to Madonna and Jolie yet asks the question whether Madonna could have adopted some child with both parents gone, as if she were shopping for car or some other object.
Also, yes it does seem that the adoption was botched. But is that necessarily Madonna's fault? This article and a lot of people assume that Madonna, herself, just came in and demanded like some queen and expected the child to be handed to her on a silver platter. I don't know if this happened or not. I assume Madonna got an attorney worked with the government. What if the government was so happy to deal with a celebrity and cut corners just because they thought it would please her and get some more money flowing into the country. The government could have decided to do that on its own. I doubt Madonna knows the intricate workings of government, so when they said she could take the child and her lawyer said it was OK, she did. Why would she question that?
Look, I don't know what REALLY went on with Madonna. However, I am NOT going to assume what went on. Its funny how this article talks about the attitude of high-handed celebrities and then proceeds to do the very thing it speaks out against.
I think its great that celebrities are doing SOMETHING to help. There are many, many, MANY people- celebrities and non-celebrities- that do NOTHING. Do they go about things the best way? Maybe not. But the problems in Africa are complex and full of undertones that many of us do not fully understand. Maybe what Bono, Madonna and Jolie are doing is good, or not so good, but time will tell the tale and there may be much trial in error before the world gets it right.
Maybe this attitude of "do it right the first time or don't do it all" when it comes to helping the very poor, is the reason why there isn't more help given and things are such a mess there.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: WhuThe?!? on Oct 25, 2006 8:30 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hotlipsin61 on Oct 25, 2006 12:30 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But Madonna isn't the first one. Yes, Africa is a very complex place to and where one can't simply explain it in simple geographic terms. But to help its people is where Americans run into trouble. She and others tried to adopt a child from abject conditions in Malawi and some thought she was removing a "resource." To some she was on a shopping trip.
Is it hard to adopt a child in United States? Yes. America has plenty of (foster) children who are in the same scenario as a child anywhere living in poverty. Russian, Chinese, Korean and Romanian children are adopted by us as much as African kids, but if we looked at New Orleans....no celebrity was there to snatch up a kid wandering the streets there.
I'm not angry at anyone who wants to adopt a child elsewhere, but our adoption laws are in need of revision. People with $$$ will go abroad to do it, and I wish them well. But think of our children, too. Kids matter. They all need a home. Tough call.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: harpy on Oct 25, 2006 2:24 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Angie on Oct 25, 2006 2:55 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If she was only doing it for publicity, she didn't need to also start an orphanage in Malawi (which she has done). She and Guy are shooting a documentary there and plan to take David there regulary. He will likely not feel disconnected from his homeland.
David was ill with pneumonia when they reached him and might not have survived if it wasn't for their interventions.
Why would anyone attack another human being for trying to improve someone's life for the better?? Then go so far as to reverse the good that has been done. If you only have the emotional and financial resources to take care of yourself and maybe one or two others, then please do so to the best of your ability. Others who have the wherewithal to help other human beings on this planet of ours, should be at least appreciated for stepping up and doing so. I thought this was basic stuff.
If the biological father has been pressured into wanting his son back (especially now that there might be good Madonna-funded resources available locally) that is a different story. However, I think poppa wants his son to get a good education.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Burton on Oct 25, 2006 5:08 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kaycee1257 on Oct 26, 2006 8:35 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a useful tactic for the right to infiltrate the left and get people squabbling about who's the most "correct", slamming people for their efforts to do good because they aren't good enough. It's a great way to get people to just give the f&^k up.
Is that what's going on here? Think about it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Kevstra on Oct 26, 2006 9:44 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Almost a year ago we were introduced to a young Kenyan man, near Kisii, named "Cyrus Bosire Ogega," 24, who took in 6 "OVC's" (Orphaned and Vulnerable Children"). We got to know him through email, meanwhile taking steps to verify the authenticity of his story by sending in three contacts to physically make assessment (two from Kenya and a local friend of ours who is the co-founder of a well established non-profit humanitarian agency called "A Better World").
I had on hand a donation of funds from a client who instructed us to fund the "children's charity of our choice." Cyrus received those funds. Before we knew it, he had 20, 25, 35 children and we had to put the brakes on him. The accomodations consist of Cyrus' hut and his parents' hut. Long story short is that today we have been able to provide ongoing sustenance for them and make some improvements to their living conditions, as well as rent some extra land and get it planted so that we can move towards the goal of self-sustenance. Currently, we have opened an investment fund to help pay workers, put in infrastructure, get the land secured by transferring it into a legal non-profit that we shall set up, in conjunction with the assistance of "A Better World" who has an office in Kisii.
At some point we actually have to make the trip and set the legal wheels in motion. We are looking for the right people to go and station there as missionaries to the project, longer term. Eventually we will want to see it established as an orphanage and school and community center to help young mothers to become self-supporting.
Many of these children have been surrendered, as in the case of the single father of Madonna's new adoptee. The vision in this case is not to take the children away from the influence of their culture and their local familial supports, no matter how meager those may be, but to actually strengthen these supports, where possible, toward the end of perhaps re-integrating some of them into their families and communities. Others, who are total orphans, will continue to benefit from the basic orphanage and eventual educational program.
The immediate needs are to get over there and secure the land, then establish proper housing, water supply, and kitchen facilities. For further information and questions, or to provide financial assistance, please contact Kevin at straub@direct.ca
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: helping African children
Posted by: hotlipsin61
» RE: helping African children
Posted by: greggzachary
Comments are closed-
Posted by: spenturn on Oct 26, 2006 11:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All this righteousness is sick and detrimental to the turn around of a great continent that clearly is in no position to turn down help.
Applaud famous people that use their luck for the benefit of others - perhaps instruct them - but don't hurl abuse because its utter hypocrasy and foolhardy given the millions they are raising for these needy countries.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: flairndip on Oct 29, 2006 9:35 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/29/
world/africa/29ghana.html?em&ex=1162270800&en=
5e681b9c3df8108a&ei=5087%0A
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
California Carbon Trading Allows Timber Companies to Sell CO2 Credits for Their Worst Logging Practices
How to Answer the Dumb Things Climate Deniers Say
One Company Thinks They've Created Fast Food With a Conscience -- Are They Right?




