It would simpler and more helpful to send money to Africa to help support needy children through a legitimate charity with a good track record than to go flying all over the world making global warming worse. But then rich people have a habit of doing weird things instead of the right thing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

since the celebs believe they are gods("Madonna") why don't they donate themselves to Africa? Perhaps a tribe could adopt Madonna or Angelina? We in the West are so corrupt we don't deserve to have these reincarnated goddesses living among us. We are not worthy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If you're going to talk about what wealthy people can do to help Africa, how about ending the pharmaceutical blockade on cheap AIDS drugs? How about funding groups like Doctors Without Borders instead of Nigerian military dictators?

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]

I was once in an airport in Africa when a large delegation of obese Americans in t-shirts loudly came into the terminal. Everybody turned to look at them, and we saw they all wore the same t-shirt: it said 'Dream for Africa'. As they jostled each other to get food from a stall - and I reflected on the unhealthy appearance of these people from the wealthy west, and the ebony health and beauty of the airport's workers - I also thought the group's essential idea was so part of the problem. Africans can dream; they do dream.

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]

When are the rich and famous going to get real, and become poor and famous if they are fair dinkum about it all? All they have to do if they want to end the poverty in Africa, or anywhere else for that matter, is to give over all their wealth to the country of their choice, stipulating where it should be spent, or better still, pay to set up schools, wells, hospitals, etc. then keep them running until the problems have ended. If all the wealthy film stars and entertainers did that, the suffering would end overnight. What a bunch of selfish hypocrites they all are! Putting a tiny bandaid patch on a giant weeping worldwide sore!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If "superstar" entertainers really wanted to help they would create their own fund to help targeted NGO's to build water projects, schools and fund micro-banks, as a start.

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]

What kind of father dumps his kid in an orphanage, signs him over to Madonna without reading the fine print, then says he wants access to the kid without any responsibility?

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]

No one need go to other countries to help. Look what is in front of you, right here. How many children and mothers await the return of their fathers from prison and jails for using illicit drugs here in the Untied (sic) States. How many priests are still in prison, or where they ever, for molesting children. Fight and change the broken system, here, before you think you can liberate elsewhere. If you leave your family in need, and go elsewhere to prove your compassion, you have already erred.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We have enough problems at home before we even think about trying to save the world. In my opinion, we should leave the world to its own devices and get our healthcare, education, political, and economic fronts back on the right track. Otherwise we are no good to anyone, and especially not our own people. With the average American worker sliding into poverty, and over 18,000 deaths a year attributed to Americans not having adequate health coverage, our poitical system in decay, and corporations taking over, we MUST put our people first. In light of that, I could care less about any other nations on earth- until we fix our own.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why is it so popular to dump on Madonna? I read this campaign as her calling attention to AIDS and to the plight of African orphans. She is not just adopting one child, she is setting up a large facility there for health and education. Unless we have done something what credibility do we have criticizing the very personal commitment that has been made by Madonna? Celebrities are what they are and they can use their popularity to call attention to causes. Perhaps governments [that are not overly committed to unjust wars] would be the better advocates for changes needed in crisis situations, but when governments don't do their good deeds, who will? Again, why pick on Madonna and not Bush, the U.S. Congress, Clinton, H.W. Bush, Paul McCartney, Bono etc. Is it because Madonna is a succesful and independent woman? Is this some guy thing?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Due to an inefficient government and grossly over-priced medical care, many children (and adults) in the U.S. suffer third world medical conditions. Madonna and the like would appear far more intelligent if they focused first upon the inequalities in their own countries. In the US, this would mean healthful food, comfortable shelter and accessible health care at home. One rarely sees Hollywood celebs caring for AIDS children in American overcrowded hospitals and neighborhoods, or fostering "underpriviledged youth".
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]

As an African, given the deeply desperate situation in too much of my continent, I think any help is welcome. We do need to ultimately do it ourselves and we will . Only 2% of the US population supports international aid. The various events, campiagnsm, stunts all ultimately help to improve awareness and in time action. Yes, there is a downside..but we may be deep in that ravine anyway..David will be well cared for and may come back to help, educated, well nourished, well connected and healthy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Too bad Jolie couldn't have experienced the standard level of hospital care.

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]

Who cares what Madona or any other "celebrity" does with their money. There are too many "real" problems in the world to waste time with this petty crap. Wake up, get a life. No wonder the dems can't win elections.

JK

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No explaination given on that comment? Not that this is too extreme an example, she may very well have falsely cooerced her popluation to attack a country for natural resources while using morality as the impetus, while killing more innocent civilians that enemy soldiers, but if this is the point the author wishes to make, they must state it.

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]

How can a jacket save the world? or eliminate AIDS, etc.? The Global Fund (www.theglobalfund.org) was created, according to their website, to increase resources to fight AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. "Product (RED) is a global initiative whose primary objective is to engage the private sector in the fight against AIDS in Africa by channelling funds from the sale of (RED) products directly to the Global Fund To Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Companies whose products take on the (RED) mark contribute a portion of profits from the sale of that product to Global Fund-financed programmes in Africa. Current partners are American Express, Converse, Gap, Giorgio Armani and Motorola."

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]

The woman tried to adopt a child. That's not a "stunt". It's a lifetime commitment. A lot of self-righteous griping about this from people who haven't done JACK for AIDS orphans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Madonna is about one thing and one thing only: Madonna. I suspect that Jolie is not too far behind as well (Hear that, Madonna? You're leading!...).

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]

these crazy movie stars and music stars are hurting Africa. There is no 'white man's burden' and the false promises they make hurt Africa more than helping. What's needed is for Europe and America to leave Africa alone. Stop IMF, Worldbank, and UN meddling and currency manipulation of African currency. Stop the farm substities in Europe and N.America so African farmers can compete. Share technological and agricultural information with Africa but not based on quid-pro-quo politics or using these tools to get the countries further in debt.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I remember when Elizabeth Taylor and Mike Todd adopted their daughter, Maria back in the 50s. There was one flurry of news and then they went home and Elizabeth raised her with her birth children. There was no dancing on camera with the people of the country or lengthy news conferences. Now it is Maria who is always seen helping her mother through her illnesses.

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]

Without a lot of time to give The Hunger Project the space it deserves on this issue, I invite you to follow the link and see the real change that's possible in building the dignity and humanity as partners with people in the Developing Countries.

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]

Madonna's adoption and this "buy red" campaign are merely cheap and liberal ways to help vast and complex problems. It's funny how there's no mention in either instance of how Africa arrived at its current state, almost as if 300 years of imperialism and colonialism NEVER HAPPENED. First in foremost, we need to discuss the European and American debt to Africa, a price which frankly can never be paid back and certainly not by celebs hoping to snag a photo-op.

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]

He says he's illitrate. So he didn't know what he was signing on to and neigther the Govt nor Madonna cared to inform him in ways he could understand.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Come on people, let's try and put things in perspective!Celebrities use their high profiles to bring attention to causes they are interested in, or issues that catch their attention. I have to admit that, like many Americans, I would still have trouble pointing out Namibia and Malawi in a map if it wasn't for Angie and Madonna. So first of all, let's at least give them credit for that. As for how they could best spend their money, I don't think it's any of our business. They've earned it and yes, they will make mistakes, just like the rest of us. Only an idiot would think they can help Africa one person at a time, and since we measure success by the amount of money we reap, we can all agree these celebrities are not idiots. If they could influence the rest of us to follow suit, then they could claim they've made a difference, like the grains of sand you know, stopping the mighty sea? It's not about one individual's desire to help, or one individual contribution, it's about what we can do collectively. Let's not confuse the issues, Bonno, Angelina, and Madonna got us to pay attention to what they were doing in Africa. It seems, from reading the article and previous comments, that they got us to care. Now it's up to each and everyone one of us to find a way to help.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You know, there are a number of ways of looking at this. Sometimes, only an idiot would give money to some charitable organizations because the aid inevitably ends up in the pockets of a few corrupt officials. Even in the USA, some of the so-called NGO's are nothing more then conduits that line the pockets of there administrators and the like. Believe me, I have seen it first hand. I worked on a relief campaign years ago in Africa, in Somalia, and I can tell you that warehouses were full of donated aid that never reached the people. Furthermore, have you ever really seen how kids live in Africa? If not adopted, the child will die, is that better? So she (Madonna) maybe saves one and its a drop in the bucket but at least its something. Thousands of children are dying in Africa and will die despite UNESCO, publicity campaigns, consciousness raising, NGO's, let's face it, none of that means a rat's ass to starving and hurting kids. Yes, kids are also suffering and dying in the USA. But kids suffering in one place or another is still equal suffering and anybody helping in some way, shape or form, I don't believe should be so criticized (even if you, as I, don't like some of her (Madonnas) wacky antics).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THE GREENS, WE NEED GREENIES (ENVIORENMENTALISTS) AT THE TOP OF THE TREE.
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]

While I do agree that there is something problematic and perhaps misguided about the attempts of lay people and celebrities from the West to help Africans, I don't think this article really hones in on the issues. Terms like "ham-handed", "the newest Ugly American" are clever, but the article is very vague about its critique. There's a mention of Madonna having violate local laws-- has this been substantiated, and if so, what laws and why? What specifically are the claims of the human rights critics? Also, where is the thoughtful analysis of the father's involvement? Yes, he is being quoted as saying that the adoption is a mistake, but he was also quoted as approving it. Were the initial quotes lies or misrepresentations; was he misled or manipulated? Was he manipulated then, or is he being manipulated now, and by whom? In the Gap RED ad, of course there are not going to be details about how it will help eliminate AIDS in Africa-- does anyone expect such details on a billboard? However, the information is readily available at joinred.com. I am personally very leary of any solution that involves merely throwing money at a problem, but the article seems to imply that the RED campaign is an inherently dishonest one, deliberately misleading people about its mandate. Then, there are comments like "TOO BAD Jolie couldn't have experienced the standard level of hospital care," which are downright despicable and misogynistic, and further undermine the author's thesis. If Jolie had experienced the "standard level" of care and her child did die, what exactly would that prove??? I don't believe Madonna or Angelina Jolie are adopting (African) children to "bolster" their appeal. First of all, I don't think either one of them need the help, quite frankly, and secondly, this article is the first time I ever heard this idea that "media routines" involving African children bolster the appeal of female stars. In America??? Since when??? I believe adoption is one of the greatest gifts one human being can give to another, and it is incredibly cynical to assume offensive motives just because a celebrity is involved. Are the intentions good but the actions misguided? Probably so. Is it as idyllic as the author implies, that orphaned children readily find their way into an extended family, that can provide for them? Probably not. Clearly, there are enough small farmers like Lorence to meet the needs of the orphaned population. I think mega-celebrities like Madonna are "easy targets" -- criticism of them is often as thoughtless as the adoration and worship directed toward them. Do we go the easy route of picking on celebrities-- dismiss the problem as the egomaniacal whims of American rich folks-- or can we be more thoughtful about the "complexities of helping people halfway around the world whose way of life we know little about."?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Are all Americans children wonderfully well fed and taken care of in beautiful homes? If anyone wants to adopt a child, why not adopt a homeless African American... my guess is that it is not EXOTIC enough!
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]

I know that the terms of Alternet's sign-up is that they won't tolerate attacks on their writers but, apparently, that consideration doesn't extend to the people those writers write about. This kind of terribly journalism has to be help responsible for it's own actions, however...

>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]

>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.

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]

>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?

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]

I know readers will feel this is a racist comment, but here goes.

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]

Ironically, with International Adoption, some wealthy Europeans are now coming to the USA, generally to adopt African Americans but they are usually at least seven or eight years old. In the USA, young children are generally not available for adoption, caucasion or African American. Most US judges will not terminate parental rights on young children. Even if the parents are in jail, drug abusers, and the like. It is just not the American way. You have to also remember the USA does not use the orphanage system so that it is possible for states to leave kids in foster care for quite a long time. So perhaps that is why Madonna went abroad. If she wanted a young child. Otherwise she could have adopted an African American child in the USA but probably the child would have been older.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Zachary's article is proof that civilization is doomed. The left, including the editors at AlterNet, is as clueless as the right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

According to the laws of the country, Madonna and Guy would have had to live there for one year before the adoption was legal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I find this article highly cynical and ripe with what the author accuses Jolie, Bono and Madonna of: practicing moral superiority.

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]

first sentence should say "injustice", not "justice"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes, the "Ugly American" surfaces in Africa where celebrities- a person with a recognized name-tries to do good and gets hammered for it.
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]

This is no different than Angelina Jolie traipsing around the world adopting babies from different countries. The latest plans were to "find the right baby, from the right country" like she's choosing an accessory to a jacket. It's for the publicity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes, I did have a feeling that she was "shopping" for a child. However, isn't that what everyone who adopts does?

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]

So what's the problem in Africa? These are all majority rule countries. Why don't they just vote themselves an end to hunger and disease?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't know if his history on staff at the WSJ is related in any way to the mean spirited shallowness of this article, however.

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]

In reading this, I thought it would be good to let the readers know what we are doing to help. This is not to seek praise or to puff ourselves up, but to encourage others to engage in similar opportunities as available, or to help those who are doing it already. You can also assist us with our project.

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]

All of this cliche'd attack on celebrity is becoming stale. We're easier on true selfish folk like Enron Execs than celebrities with heart. Everything celebrities do is public and therefore has a performance ring about it. This is misconstrued as meaning it is superficial. What do all of you self righteous pity tourists have that makes you superior to them. You just don't happen to be famous. The father of the boy wants her to take him as any one who loves their child would if they couldn't provide for them. In Brazil there are teenage drug addled parents living under bridges in the smog of pollution with no notion of what it means to provide fully for a child. The child is theirs but the government and other Brazilians drive by them every day and their excuse for doing nothing is that the parents have the right to raise the child. I ask: what rights do the children have to decent living conditions? I understand the plight of Africa but the time to raise the tattered flag of the Evil of Colonialism is long passed. Anyone who has raised a child knows the heartbreak they experience every time they see one - theirs or anothers - suffering in any way. I hope I would have the courage this father has had were I to be in his shoes and tell the idealistically blinded human rights groups to choose another 'cause celeb' to attack and let my child have a chance. Its not the celebrities that are destroying Africa but the cynical and devisive array of groups fighting for notoriety. Someone like Madonna doesn't need to buy notoriety but your up and coming Che's do.

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]

For those of you who think it's wrong to adopt a child from Africa, take a good look at the fate of many of the orphaned and near-orphaned children there. I hope this helps you see things from another perspective.

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]