Celebutard of the Week: Madonna
by Andrea PeyserThis is an emergency Madonna update, a warning that the one-time Material Girl has turned from a bra-baring, Britney-slurping, intercourse-simulating extrovert into a greedy baby-collector. At mid-life, an unmarried Madonna is, right now, in the African nation of Malawi, choosing a matched child to go along with the tot she already purchased from the African nation like so much luggage, David Banda.
This is why Madonna is my Celebutard of the Week, in keeping with my book, “Celebutards: the Hollywood Hacks, Limousine Liberals and Pandering Politicians Who Are Destroying America,” (Kensington).
Madonna is asking a judge to let her adopt 4-year-old Mercy James, a child who, like David, has a biological father but no mother. Her grandmother was incensed.
“Why doesn’t the singer pick other children?’’ fumed Lucy Chekechiwa to the Sun newspaper in London.
“It is stealing. I want to go to court. I won’t let her go.’’
It seems a repeat of her earlier adoption. The granny fumed, but Madonna still plucked the child from his home and took temporary custody. On her own turf, the adoption was a done deal. She also broke Malawi’s adoption laws, which prevent prospective parents from getting their hands on children without first living in the country for 18 months. Technicalities.
One has long wondered if Madge is fit to raise a house plant, let alone a child.
Her vegetarian diet, free of wicked dairy products, should be enough to preclude her from raising ice-cream-deprived kids. It comes with great remorse that her ever-expanding brood, which includes Lourdes, 12; Rocco, 8; and little David, 3; will never, at least in childhood, taste the summer staple.
But in the diet-crazed Celebutard world, this is par for the course — Gwyneth Paltrow gets to keep her little ones even after publicly cleaning out her gastrointestinal tract. Money buys anything. Including flesh. TV is also banned in the house of Madonna, 50, which might be a blessing; the kids are protected from their mothers’ egregious sexual actings-out –- at least until the babysitter breaks the rules.
But why should I complain about dairy products when, in 2003, Madonna took the stage at Radio City Music Hall in New York where, in full view of then-husband Guy Ritchie and 7-year-old daughter Lourdes, tongue-kissed Britney Spears and Christian Aguilera, giving an advanced lesson in sex education. Child service authorities looked the other way.
The environmentalist – she made the cover of Vanity Fair’s “green’’ issue – also imported 1,000 unfortunate pheasants to her British estate, Ashcombe House, so that rich friends including Brad Pitt might pay $19,000 a day to shoot the poor birds to death.
Mercy lives in same orphanage from which she plucked David. She wants the little girl to join a brood whose size has yet to be curtailed, despite Madonna’s ridding of a husband Guy Ritchie and discarding of Lourdes’ baby daddy, Carlos Leon. It is not known whether the new child’s health will be carefully screened in Africa, as was David’s. With millions of orphans afflicted with AIDS and other diseases, Madonna got herself a good one.
David, like Mercy, lost his breast-feeding mother as an infant, and the family, unable to afford formula for him, put him in an orphanage, expecting to take him back after he was old enough to eat solid food. But Madonna chose the bright-eyed youngster. The case against Madonna was closed when she told her adoption story to a credulous and approving Oprah Winfrey. “God bless you!’’ cried Oprah.’’ She also condescended to David’s dad, Yohane Banda, as a “simple’’ man. (Ouch!).
Reportedly, David’s father upset when he learned Madonna was divorcing. Too late.
In return for Africa’s generosity, Madonna founded Raising Malawi, a girls’ academy that preaches hefty doses of Madonna’s pet belief system, Kabbalah. She might have simply made a large donation to the Bandas’ extended family, including a grandma and aunts, so they might be reunited with their biological child. But what do I know about Hollywood?
This begs another question: What is wrong with American-born orphans? Mixed-race children, for example, badly need parents, even rich ones – and can be taken home without the need of an international plane flight.
I guess those kids don’t make such good conversations with Oprah.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
97 Comments
A rich white woman barging into a poor African country to buy and remove children from their families against their will.
Boy, this sounds so familiar but I just can't quite remember where I've heard of something like this happening before in history.
But she's 'saving them from poverty.' God bless Madonna, right Oprah?
you know.. that's one question that's never been answered has it?
This begs another question: What is wrong with American-born orphans?
>>What is wrong with American-born orphans?<<
They're not in style right now. I give Madonna no points for doing the right thing for the right reason. Celebrities are like politicians. Everything they do has a hidden agenda.
It's sickening how this woman is allowed to steal children away from their families, just because she's rich and famous. She has no business raising any children at all!
as much of a 'Celebutard' as she might be- and there is no doubt- it's still hard to rail against someone with such modest skills who has achieved as much for as long…
Hey, let's just rail against poverty in the US, and then go and buy a baby from another country, and install a school over there to grease the palms!! I don't know that much about Guy Ritchie, but he seemed miserable while married to her, and from what I've read, he really wanted the kids to enjoy some treats during the Christmas holidays, some sweets, and deserts. Supposedly Madge threw freakin' fits, and wouldn't even let them eat the quail that is traditionally shot and eaten the way we do turkey. She wouldn't even come in the room when Guy at any meat at all, she was afraid she would have to see and smell it. Sounds like a fun marriage.
Hey, let's just rail against poverty in the US, and then go and buy a baby from another country, and install a school over there to grease the palms!! I don't know that much about Guy Ritchie, but he seemed miserable while married to her, and from what I've read, he really wanted the kids to enjoy some treats during the Christmas holidays, some sweets, and deserts. Supposedly Madge threw freakin' fits, and wouldn't even let them eat the quail that is traditionally shot and eaten the way we do turkey. She wouldn't even come in the room when Guy at any meat at all, she was afraid she would have to see and smell it. Sounds like a fun marriage.
Nauseating. Yet another reason to dis-like Skeletor, uh, I mean Madonna. Some people's self-rightousness just boggles my mind.
You know, I do have to agree with you there.
Wait, we're against adoption now?
You're not listening.
"The right thing" – no, the 'right thing' would be for her to use some of her mega millions to fund a program that would provide formula to families so that they can feed their children without having to place them in an orphanage. Unfortunately, that course of action doesn't allow you to parade a child around in front of the paparazzi showing the world just how 'benevolent' you are. It's all about her, not the children.
Exactly!
I disagree with this post. There is no evidence whatsoever of Madonna being a bad mother. Her children are healthy and seem pretty happy (so what if they don't eat ice cream or watch TV, is that a reason to call child services?). So she kissed Britney in front of millions of people, big deal. Unlike the single mothers that Ann Coulter is (in a sense, rightfully) criticizing, Madonna is perfectly capable of raising many children and is not taking advantage government money. She might have done mistakes in her life and not going for conservative values.
Madonna doesn't adopt American kids simply because Malawi is the second poorest nation in the world and I would guess being an orphan there is a little different. It's this kind of "America is the only nation in the world" mentality that makes us an easy target for liberals. Madonna is literally saving the child's life, life expectancy in Malawi is low to an extreme.
Adoption is not a bad thing. Why is this so controversial? The sick "charity foundations" opposing Madonna are the ones who should be attacked here.
From everything I've read, Madge isn't a hands-on mother (unless the cameras are pointing at her). She has hot and cold running nannies to make sure the children do everything she want them to do.
Poor kids.
I dunno, it seems to me that most of this Madonna-bashing is just instinctive tribal liberal-bashing. Don't get me wrong, her politics are moronic and her music is not exactly what I would call "good", but why are so many people attributing nasty selfish motives to her adopting these kids? It seems more likely to me that she's just your normal guilt-ridden Liberal, feeling guilty for being rich and genuinely wanting to help out some of the poorest kids on earth. Maybe she's going about it the wrong way, I don't know, I wasn't there. But seriously, what are we, a bunch of slanderous Liberals? Shouldn't we give her the benefit of the doubt, as far as her motives go?
But in the end… Madonna is a very intelligent woman: she has managed to keep herself on top all these years by pissing off conservatives on purpose and have them write things about her… much like this article at Big Hollywood.
She's the left-wing equivalent of Ann Coulter. I might not agree with her politically but I like her music.
I am offended that Madonna gets away with buying children. These children are not orphans. They have families. They have families that want to be able to keep them, but can't feed them. Instead of stealing them, she should just give them money to buy food. You get that, right?
So, the family members of these children, who have been screaming that these "adoptions" are occurring against their wishes, that doesn't count to you, right?
At the very best, (if there is a best), this is kidnapping. At the worst, this is slavery.
Yes, slavery. I said it. I said it because it had to be said. And I'll say it again.
Watch Alfonzo Rachel and actually learn something. When individuals are "acquired" like this for someone else's life or comfort, (Madonna), it is slavery. Period. With the money involved, it becomes even more disgusting. This is the new chic. "Look how I care; I run everyone over to get what I want, and see how I saved these kids from their family and culture to have me dictate how they will live with me."
I'm sure they got a lot of people on the boats with the seduction of money and a better life, too.
It would be wonderful if someone told her to bugger off, but when you get such nice gifts for your country at the cost of one child, well, why have any principals at all?
Has it occurred to anyone that maybe Madonna is being PAID to adopt these children? Just like Angelina Jolie is PAID to adopt children and "live" in Africa – until they stop paying her and she moves back to the States? I would love to see someone "in the know" in Hollywood write an expose on how these Celebutards support specific causes – until the money dries up. I read that every time a rich American celeb adopts a baby from one of these African orphanages, contributions to those orphanages from mainstream Americans go way up. It raises the profile of the charity around the world when a rich American celebrity does a People magazine spread. This is worth MILLIONS to these charities – so they don't mind PAYING someone high-profile like Madonna to come and take these kids. Believe me, Madonna doesn't give a crap about "the poorest kids on earth." If some of these poor kids started playing in her yard in England, she'd have them arrested.
Bev, the one catch I have in this is not that there are other children that could be adopted that weren't considered (in that case, every adoption case could be looked at as "why not this child.." debate). But that she's BREAKING the law in trying to do so, and in fact is arguably participating in child slavery, otherwise I'd have no beef with Madonna's actions.. i wouldn't like it, and would argue against it, but other than that wouldn't an arguemnt to stand on.
I can't argue against the fact that she's adopting (or trying to) this little girl, because the girl lives in an orphanage… I find it saddening to learn that the family put the child in the orphanage to start with (considering the situation there, it's understandable), but that's what orphanages are for, to allow families that have the means to adopt children that need assistance to do so, not to be temporary shelters until a family is able to get back on their feet; and if I had the chance, I'd ask Ms. M to reconsider her action since the grandmother doesn't want to lose the child.
(Although if the orphanage stated that is part of how it operates, then I could see a bigger argument against Madonna's actions)
Isn't it odd that the sole reason for Madonna removing these children is that they have no father in the home?KINDA LIKE IN HER HOME? Isn't Guy Richie counting his millions in a hotel room in London, banished from Castle Madonna?
Shouldn't we give her the benefit of the doubt, as far as her motives go?
Krig, you know the old phrase, if it "looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a ducK"….
If you look at Madonna's history, you know that she does a lot of things for self-centered reasons… (see butler's post above)… it's kind of hard to ignore the lunaticism of Madonna's past, as much as you hope she's well-meaning, there's too much history that just says she's doing this for attention/press.
No matter how much I have a hard time viewing Madonna as a decent Mother, A child raised by Madonna is better off than a child living in Malawi.
Don't dis Skeletor. Some of us have fond memories of He-Man licensed products.
Don't dis Skeletor. Some of us have fond memories of He-Man licensed products.
I love He-Man stuff, too. I have fond memories from my youth. But Madonna looks like a nasty skeleton-like creature, so my hubby and I call her Skeletor. And we always will!
Exactly.
Oh, right. I'm sure the Massa said the very same thing.
Sadly, you're right.
My wife grew up in Africa. Lived there until she was 13, when her parents immigrated to the United States. She saw the results of all our nice, guilt-easing charitiable foundations, like Heifer Project, and AIDS relief money, etc.
The breeding pair of cattle to create a self-sustaining herd to feed the multitudes? It was eaten. The breeding chickens that would provide eggs every day ad infinitum? Last night's supper. The AIDS money? When the Chairman of the National AIDS Council is brought up on rape charges and admits to having unprotected sex with his accuser but claimed that he took a shower afterwards to "cut the risk of contracting HIV" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4879822.stm , well, you can imagine where the money went, and it ain't to the people with AIDS. Another National AIDS council leader said you can cure the disease with a diet of garlic, olive oil and lemon. (see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5319680.stm) I'm not making this up.
Maybe we should encourage Madonna's behavior. Growing up in Africa does not promote longevity or health.
What's wrong with American-born orphans?
American-made adoption laws. The cost and hassle of foreign adoptions is NOTHING compared with domestic adoptions. In foreign adoptions, as Madonna's case shows, once you get a kid, they are yours no matter what. In America, you can adopt a child and, depending on the state and especially if they have a half a drop of tribal blood, have to fight to keep it for years. I worked in a family law office and we had a case where a couple from out of state adopted a baby from here that had a tribal father, and a year after he had relinquished his parental rights, he *suddenly* decided he wanted the child to raise with his new wife (not babymama). Because of the way the screwy laws are written, the adoptive parents nearly lost the toddler they had raised since he was 18 hours old. It took two more years and thousands more dollars to get the courts to decide that, nope, a final adoption is final. Gee, what a concept.
By all means, adopt a kid from Malawi, but how about a kid that doesn't have a father and grandparents standing right there? Good lord, aren't there actual orphans without extended families? That's sort of the whole point.
Careful. Logic is lost on trolls.
"So, the family members of these children, who have been screaming that these "adoptions" are occurring against their wishes, that doesn't count to you, right?"____ No. Watch the interviews made with David Banda's father. Truth is, no one screamed slavery or kidnapping before a celebrity was given special treatment. Plus, the fact that these children would live the rest of their lives in misery means a whole lot to me. ____ And no, this isn't "slavery." The fact that you use that word is a little disturbing. It's also not about a more "expensive" life, it's about life in general. It is very easy to accuse Madonna of "taking the child away from its culture" (and once again it's not quite true…) when for better or worse these children simply do not have good futures in Malawi. My sister-in-law was adopted in Peru by an American couple and to this day thanks them for giving her a better life. Unfortunately children from other nations were adoption is very strict are not so lucky.____Tom Arico said it best: A child being raised by Madona is far better off than a child raised in Malawi.
Well – by all means TAKE THEIR CHILDREN. The controversy around Madonna was that she did not adopt an ORPHAN. With all of her money, she could have created a situation where this child would be raised with or near his OWN FATHER. Instead she convinced the world this child had just won the lottery because he gets to live with a Rich Rock Star. Who cares if she left behind broken-hearted grandmas, aunts, uncles, and A FATHER. Suck it up, poor people. For pete's sake, their are millions of children in this world who have noone. True orphans, alone in the world. Please choose them and stop stealing poor families' children.
Technicalities, Shechnicalities, some of us are just more equal than others.
Would YOU, trust Madonna with your child/grandchild?
jac, but in this case, she's breaking Malawi laws themselves… so it's kind of a catch-22… and to be honest, I think that the "Child Protective Services" (an oxymoron if you've ever heard horror tales about that bunch) would leave Madonna completely "alone" just because of her celebrity.
jaciscully does have a minor point about American adoption laws. They are imbecilic, and sometimes come back and bite. But she has the resources to dig deep into backgrounds to find that stuff out.
It still comes down to whether Detroit, Atlanta, New York, Chicago, Phoenix, etc. have kids like Mercy. Short answer is yes. But Mercy has an advantage they do not. She's from Malawi, and a few thou here and there gets her out easy, and Mummy Madge gets to parade the kid around and tell everyone how wonderful Mummy Madge is, because she is saving someone from some horror real or imagined, then hand the kid off to the nanny while she hobnobs with Oprah.
And off with the AIDS kids; they don't have the clean she wants, just like the crack, meth, or heroin kid of America that have the need, too, eh? Who's saving them the horror? Maybe we need some chic for them, huh? Or am I hitting too close to the mark?
This Is Madonna the great humanitarian, just like boy toy, model, conebreasts, poptart, (fill in the ____). This is Madonna marketing for the future. Hers.
Don't pick on her. Have you seen any of her plantations? They'll be happier there than they would if they had to make their own decisions and have their own families. She knows what's best for them. Hmmm, that sounds kinda familiar too, doesn't it?
Madonna is just seeking more attention. What else is new? It sad to see that the new trend in Hollywood is to use adoption as a tool to get 15 minutes of fame. There are many loving parents who try to adopt babies or children. Sadly the process is long for them, but short for the celebs. How unfair!
Says you.
Lets sub "Human Trafficking" for "Slavery" then. A difference that makes no difference is no difference. But if it makes your little disturbed feelings feel all better…
You make a good Massa apologist; why not haul ALL the kids away to a better future, right? Let's haul yours away for the same stupid idiotic reason. You get to be subjected to MY decision, pinhead, and I find you lacking. Away with yours, we'll hand them over to Cheney instead, because he can bring them so much, much more.
I need the next Powerball numbers, go stare into that crystal ball you used to justify how their lives would just be all gee-golly better by not being there, Mister oh-so-clever to couch your answer in "its for the kids".
You are a slavery apologist of the worst kind, and a financial eugenicist. You are the most pathetic creature to crawl on your belly on this Earth. Why don't you put your body where your attitude is. Go to Malawi and make it a better place for ALL the people, top to bottom, haves and have nots, family and orphan alike. You talk the talk, now walk the walk. Have Madonna get you a grubstake, she'll have to baby-shop somewhere else, but if it helps everybody, why not?
Isn't it interesting how so many things in the US are unnecessarily complicated by laws and regulations? Adoptions … immigrations … etc. And look at how many problems we have as a result. I wonder why so many people still continue to insist that we try to make laws to solve so many of our problems?
There are so many children in this world who have nobody at all. Why couldn't Madonna choose one of those children to adopt?
"this sounds so familiar but I just can't quite remember where I've heard of something like this happening before in history."
Elizabeth Bathory?
(I preemptively denounce myself.)
"this sounds so familiar but I just can't quite remember where I've heard of something like this happening before in history."
Elizabeth Bathory?
(I preemptively denounce myself.)
C'mon, Nathan, you're smarter than that!
Yes, these things are true. You cannot change anyone until they want to change, otherwise, its wasted effort. The changes have to be done from civilization inward toward the anarchy, not from anarchy out to civilization. Until the mindset change is made from eating fish to learning to fish, its all wasted effort.
But, no matter how well intentioned it is to remove a child from a family for a better life, is it right? If its deemed right, where do you decide that this child should go, this one should stay? What's the criterion? Are there exceptions? Who decides what?
I recommend "Australia". Not a bad film. And very insightful.
C'mon, Nathan, you're smarter than that!
Yes, these things are true. You cannot change anyone until they want to change, otherwise, its wasted effort. The changes have to be done from civilization inward toward the anarchy, not from anarchy out to civilization. Until the mindset change is made from eating fish to learning to fish, its all wasted effort.
But, no matter how well intentioned it is to remove a child from a family for a better life, is it right? If its deemed right, where do you decide that this child should go, this one should stay? What's the criterion? Are there exceptions? Who decides what?
I recommend "Australia". Not a bad film. And very insightful.
Having bumped heads with that very group myself, you will NEVER meet such a nasty, self serving and prideful bunch, very well equipped to be used by people against those that are disliked.
I had lefty types next door to where I used to live that loved to use CPS against my family. I had never had a problem with CPS before, and never have since. But they would show up occasionally and play twenty questions with us. My solution to the libs were to threaten to employ aggressive physical violence against them if they ever tried it again, because I couldn't afford the lawyers to fight them the more "normal" way.
It worked out rather well. It also helped that I found that the teacher of one of my kids was abusing him, (He's autistic), and the CPS never bothered to worry about her while the clowns were busy bothering us.
Get a country home, people. It helps with bureaucracy; they never trouble to bother the far-away when there are people much closer to intimidate.
Wow, I must have struck a nerve there.
I never said any of the things you accuse me of… so there is no debate here. You have a lot to learn, not only about slavery but debating respectfully. I've never been to Malawi and I don't have the condition to go there and help unfortunately.I have a feeling you've never done anything to help Malawi either.
I only disagreed with the post above and you go accusing me of being a slavery apologist when this topic had nearly nothing to do with slavery, and bringing the slavery accusations (and I have a feeling you wouldn't if Madonna had adopted the child outside Africa).
There are children in the world starving, dying, left in trash cans, and it seems that Madonna adopting a child is what makes you very angry. Fact is: Most people would rather be raised by Madonna than Malawi. When Elian Gonzales (and I know Malawi is a far step down from Cuba) was "kidnapped" by his American family, we all supported him to stay, right?
Nice to know someone else here understands this. Thanks.
I wouldn't trust her with Paris Hilton's Chihuahua. Or potted plants without a support staff.
Celebutard of the week, the month, the year, the decade, the century…
Excellent post, Nathan!
These Malawian "charity groups" indeed use the donation money for other purposes. Children in Malawi are walking in famine while the heads of these groups sleep in their nice beds. There are more than one million orphans in Malawi and most of them without school access. But at least they are not adopted by a publicity-starved millionare I guess.
In case you don't know me, I am the guy around here that could care less than zero about your feelings, nerves, or anything else about you. I do not do civil. And your disagreement means even less to me. Shove your feelings; what have you actually DONE?
Madonna is still breaking Malawi law, she is inserting herself into a family that does not want her there, she is still into collecting kids she does not care for herself, she buys off dissent by using her money, and you are still a slavery apologist for neglecting all of that. You are real good at that "for the kids act" that your last paragraph covered, and you very artfully dodged that you cannot personally do any good in Malawi even though you're artfully playing that they should be helped. But we're playing for keeps here. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?
So get off your useless apologist brown-nosed butt and do something other than act like all those kids need help, but you're too, "whatever" to be bothered with it, you coward! Go hang out at a Boys and Girls club and be useful, (unless your court order prevents your being around children) you effete snob.
LOL, I am not the "coward" one by writing ridiculously insulting posts only because I can remain anonymous behind a computer screen. I have already replied that I have never had the condition to go help other countries, though I have done occasional charity work for my community. Do you honestly care about this issue other than a good opportunity to bash Hollywood ellite? Once again, it all comes down to a leftist celebrity breaking international law, not the fact that children in Malawi live in poverty. And I won't even say anything about your accusations of pedophilia. Your disrespectful posts say a whole lot about you than Madonna, me, or anyone here. No wonder your next door neighboors called child services. You need help.
Oh totally. We call it DHS here. The horror stories…….So glad I'm not in that industry anymore.
I see what you're saying, and Madonna is the example I used because it was the most readily available. But I have foreign-born children in my family and those of my friends. What they went through, while frustrating, painful and expensive, still has no comparison with what local laws will put you through. Plus, birth parents can charge all sorts of expenses to you through their lawyers in bulk amounts with no itemizing at all. We had incidents where adoptive parents have paid for "costs" for the birth parents that turned out to be the "cost" of a flat-screen TV, among other things. The laws are only just this session in the process of being changed.
Remember how she bragged to her zombie followers at her concert how "Sarah F**king Palin" wasn't welcome and how she was gonna kick her ass? Well I think that her hostility, like so many other women's, stems from the fact that Sarah has been able to hold onto a virile, handsome husband and biologically produce five beautiful children., making it unnecessary to pilfer them from the Third World. Whereas Madge, well….to put it mildly, has probably destroyed her fertility for good due to …."internal abuse".
Okay I'll say it; her gynecologist probably needs to wear a hazmat suit.
or put on a raincoat and pretend he's the gorton's fisherman.
"It's all about her, not the children."
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!
"I do not do civil."
And you don't do intelligent either.
And neither do you. Hag.
I think it had more to do with the fact that Palin was viewed by many women like Madonna as a threat to the femenist values they fought for as well as pro-life campaign. Madonna is quite a fertile woman, she has been pregnant at least 12 times according to the unofficial biographies about her (though she only carried out two of the pregnancies, aborting the other 10 because of tour scheduling and unfit fathers…).
Plus if Madonna's daughter goes the Palin way and gets pregnant at 17, Madonna will have no one find out about it too.
Answer the questions! You are evading! ANSWER THEM!
Same questions to you. Answer: Why is Madonna is allowed to flaunt Malawi law? WHY does she get to overrun family wishes? WHY IS SHE allowed to buy out and then dump off the kids to babysitters and nannies?
BECAUSE SHE IS ALLOWED TO! She connives, bribes, confabulates, and prevaricates. She is using CHILDREN as a career enhancement. She dances to Oprah and says, "Look at me, I am saving the poor children." Its PUBLICITY that she is exploiting for her own ends through these children, you poor, self-absorbed, stubborn people!
Is she saving some addicted newborn crack baby convulsing and twitching in their bassinet? You can get those in all colors, too. She visit them, hold one against the hurt of withdrawal, take one home to bring up into the world away from the pain? ANSWER THAT!!! Don't run and spout platitudes. I heartily recommend it as an experience to get a real perspective on the world. And do either of you "me only" people do anything like that? Or are you both cowards?
No, that would be too much for you and the self proclaimed "Material Girl". Buy them at three or four, they're already past diapers and early-morning feedings and any encumbrances the nannies can't handle. No busy shot schedules, pediatrician frequent visits, and if they had HIV, it would be an easy test for seroconversion by then.
But you want to express your contempt of me. Shove it up.
Thank you for playing. WE now know EXACTLY what kind of people you both are. An
incredible stone total waste of humanity.
Octomom takes away all her attention, so she needs a new "prop"(sorry she uses a child for this) to get back the attention.Next one up is Angelina.
Thank you for proving my point. You didn't have to – but bless you, you did.
Thank you for proving my point. You didn't have to – but bless you, you did.
Mjolnir, here it is. You hold that prescription bottle with your right hand and with your left you twist the top counter-clockwise and voila! The cap comes off those meds you so desperately need. Take two and call me in the morning.
Olympic, I think you're more right than you care to admit. My inner social theorist has always believed that people do not psychologically mature past high school; and Madonna, still 16, is pissed because Sarah has the one thing she doesn't have: a steady who can really rock her world.
God love you Madge, but you're slipping, and think you might be down to your last "re-invention".
*MissQuinn*
You make good points, and Australia's already in the queue. The thing is, people have been trying to teach Africa to fish for decades. The overwhelming mindset is "I may die tomorrow. I will eat well tonight." I brought it up with my wife again yesterday, to make sure I was reporting her anecdotal evidence accurately, and her explanation was thus: "It's 'dessert first' mentality on a national scale."
The way people live there is extremely difficult for us Westerners to understand. Adopting every child in Africa is impractical, to be sure, but something has to happen to give the next generations a chance. Social Services takes children away from their parents to give them a chance at a better life on a regular basis (or so I'm told). Children in Africa are not going to know any better if all they've seen is civil war, disease, starvation, famine, and corruption. They'll just follow in their elders' footsteps. I am open for suggestions.
In news that will make many of you picturing Madonna as a baby-stealer angry… Madonna allowed David Banda's father met up with David today. David's father was impressed by how much David grew and how different he was from the "sick" baby that left him. Despite being upset that Madonna divorced Richie… He thanked God that she was able to take him away.
According to him two of his children died before Madonna took David out of Malawi.
He must be having a fit today when Madonna allowed David to meet up with his father today, keeping her promise of always connecting David to his Malawian roots.
"allowed" – how big hearted of her, right?
It's amazing how people can't get through their thick heads that this woman pretty much BOUGHT a child who already had a parent! If she actually cared about this child, she would've provided the means to keep the family together while at the same time helping them financially.
And who really thinks this woman actually raises all these kids herself? I am sure they are in the care of nannies most of the time, while she's out touring the world and doing who knows what. It's sickening that celebrities are allowed to do such things, simply because of their name and their money.
And people just cheer it on.
Can't she find a child that has no living parent or close relative? Why is there always a living parent involved in her adoptions?
So she's railed against poverty in the US, and won't let her kids eat quail? (is that the post you're referring to?) To me, she looks and walks and quacks like your typical far-left Liberal. Liberals aren't soulless sociopaths bent on the destruction of society. They're regular people like you and me, who happen to believe some silly things about the world.
If she were sponsoring these kids through World Vision or something, wouldn't that be a good thing? Then how is actually going there and literally adopting these kids anything other than an attempt to do more than just sponsor the kids?
I think Madonna is a fool, ideologically speaking, but I don't see any evidence other than baseless, biased speculation, that she has anything other than good intentions. As Heinlein said, "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Lets wait until you have a child yourself and then let someone come in and swoop it away. Lets see how much you sympathize then. These people want their children and grandchildren. Not being able to afford food for your child should not mean they are taken away from you. It should mean that someone lends a hand and helps you out, not come in and buy/steal your child/ren. As someone else said, she should have given her money if she really wanted to help. Madonna does nothing for anyone but herself. She has proven that over the last 20+ years. OH, and to say Madonna's children look happy is really a stretch. Her oldest has the look that she knows she is just a fashion accessory for her mother. I can't imagine what those children must feel to have so much but not of what matters most, real motherly love.
But jaciscully, isn't the fact that Madonna is adopting this child still knowing her grandmother wants her just immoral? This isn't a family that changed it's mind after putting her up for adoption. And yes, when you put a child in an orphanage they are there to be adopted, however I'm betting that in Malawi, since most orphans are not adopted it's evolved into the general consensus that the orphanage is temporary until the child is past formula age. I just think that it is cruel to take a child away from their family at this point most especially when you are breaking the law to do it.
I'm not defending Madonna, I'm just pointing out that there are factors besides alleged trendiness that go into making the decision between a domestic adoption and a foreign one. Yes she's wrong to take a child away from his or her family. I've never said anything to the contrary. I was simply pointing out that, for the average person as well as for a celebrity, foreign adoptions are easier both in the short- and long-term, and this is primarily due to American state and federal laws.
yeah, she really is a Horatio Alger story and has inspired millions of girls- not always smartly, but still- self made.
It does sound like I'm implying that you are defending Madonna and I didn't mean to do that. I was just wondering what your opinion is and using your experience to bottom line my feeling about what Madonna is doing. Despite the horrific conditions of Malawi, I think the child has a better chance at a nurtured life with her loving grandmother there than with Madonna and her money.
She "bought" the child. But bo you honestly think twenty yars from now David would have rather stayed with Malawi with "financial aid" from Madonna? Giving money to those "charity" foundations is pretty much useless. Of course Madonna can't raise the kids 100% herself, she's one of the busiest women on Earth. They get nanny care as much as most celebrity children. She might be doing it for publicity, but there isn't a single evidence out there of her being a bad mother. Her oldest daughter is a mirror image of her (as self-obsessed as she is, that is always a plus…
)
Evenher brother Christopher Ciccone who admits all of her flaws and has accused her of many things (including adopting for publicity) didn't really criticize her as a mother. And no, I don't think many people are cheering to an extent. I for once find it sickening that people like Madonna, Mia Farrow, and Angelina receive this treatment for literally saving these children's lives.
No one here honestly believes David would have been better off in Malawi I hope, it all comes down to hating celebrities.
Once again, David Banda's father is glad Madonna (or whoever was the nanny at the time following the organic diet rules) was able to raise him. Let's see what you choose when someone with money offers to take away your malnutritioned child when you are on a tough economical situation. If you truly love your child, you would chose what is best for them.
None of us really know what it must be like to be raised by Madonna. Please note that Madonna did not have a mother herself. That is something that upsets her to this day. I do believe that deep inside she tries to give the children love and support… after giving it all to herself at least.
Have lots of experience with that, do you? Opening pill bottles, I mean.
I also don't do illegal substances, either, That's your crowd, I don't roll that way.
You still didn't answer the questions as well. No surprise there.
I am going to have to put in for better trolls.
Still no answer to the questions.
"David, this is your dad. We'll see him for a little while, then we got to go, I have a spot on E! to do."
Wow, such exposure to his culture there. She get him National Geographic DVD's for fill time in between visits?
I won't bother anwering, it'll just be followed by another raging immature post with disturbing accusations and nonsense arguments. I'll just sit here and enjoy the show while Madonna adopts a non-American child.
I was hoping that someone from the area would have a glimmer of a solution. Thank your wife for her input for me. Her statement is, unfortunately, extremely accurate.
No, its not practical to adopt everyone out; its also not going to solve the inherent problem, either. Unlike others here, until the inherent reason for this problem is dealt with, saving one (probably without familial consent or legal basis), doesn't fix it for all the others. I thought it was about solving the problem for everyone. There's only so many self-involved spoiled millionaire celebrutards to go around.
Any direct monitoring of any aid is called "interference" or "imperialism" or any of a hundred racially-charged names, yet aid is diverted, stolen, confiscated, etc. when it isn't watched. And even if something is begun to address the problem, (urban groups working with local rural to develop a structure of development), the first regime change, epidemic, war, or drought, it all goes into the pit.
The guy I knew from Special Forces that did Peace Corps work there would just shake his head when you asked him about these very same issues. He described it as "walking into blank walls".
I'm staring at them, too. What I was thinking might help is actually very little help, skating uphill with an avalanche coming down all the time. We can't adopt out everyone in the entire continent, even if it might work.
I despise thinking about all those people dying, adults and kids both, without looking for a way out. But I keep walking into blank walls.
Yet here you are.
And here I am, disturbing and nonsensical.
Do you see Rod Serling over there in the corner of your room?
He's talking about you…
And he's pointing out how you enjoy that Madonna is adopting a non-American child. Not a child in dire need, American or Malawi. Only that the child is non-American. That's what you're happy about…
I really feel sorry for you, you sad little man…I really do. I'm very sorry for you.
Yet here you are.
And here I am, disturbing and nonsensical.
Do you see Rod Serling over there in the corner of your room?
He's talking about you…
And he's pointing out how you enjoy that Madonna is adopting a non-American child. Not a child in dire need, American or Malawi. Only that the child is non-American. That's what you're happy about…
I really feel sorry for you, you sad little man…I really do. I'm very sorry for you.
Maybe we need to look at it from a different angle. Compare the birth of our nation to the birth of African nations. Many of them now have "democratic elections" but by and large, the people that get elected are either stupid, corrupt, or both. Racism plays into the elections too.
Racism in Africa isn't like racism here. Maybe tribism would be a better word. The Zulu and the Tswana (i think that's how it's spelled) are both black, and they hate each other. Similarly, there's no love lost between Afrikaaners and the South Africans of British Descent (both white, and the latter is not the official name. I call them British, and my wife doesn't correct me, and that's her demographic.)
The Forefathers of America knew that most people back then weren't educated enough to make the best decisions. That's why they suggested the electoral college for presidential elections. People do not receive educations in Africa like they do here. They are not taught to think critically. If a politician promises a house and a job to everyone, then everyone will vote for him. It doesn't matter if he never even attempts to make good on his promise, the people will reelect him. They don't know any better.
But, Mjolnir, like you said, any attempt at going in there and trying to teach these people how to better their situation is seen as imperialism and interference. "This is Africa, this is how it's done." Change in Africa will have to come from within. Unfortunately, the leadership positions are filled by warlords, not empire-builders. They're more interested in killing their enemies or building their palaces than ruling their subjects. Until Africa grows its own John Adams, I don't think it'll happen.
Who is this "Christian" Aguilera you speak of? Does that make the he-she rumors I've heard true?
Who is this "Christian" Aguilera you speak of? Does that make the he-she rumors I've heard true?
And I thought the theories I believe in were wack…
Once again there you go assuming things… I stated out that the child is non-American because that is obviously one of the key reasons that people like you are angry. It doesn't matter to me if Madonna adopts a child from Eastern Europe, South America, Australia, etc… what matters is that she adopts a child who is in dire need (which is something that is not mentioned around here… David was in dire need…).
Don't bother Carolyn – you're going to need them far more than anyone else when you meet your pimp tonight.
Sources…
[...]check below, are some totally unrelated websites to ours, however, they are most trustworthy sources that we use[...]……
You must be logged in to post a comment.