Is Madonna a hero or a fool?

Question

Apparently Madonna has decided to adopt a poor little baby from Africa and is for once not getting everything her way due to the laws in that country.

I am so sick of these people who have more money than those counties yet they sooth their souls by acting like saints in public.

If she cared so much about Africa, why does she not sell a few of those little homes she has all over the world and give it to the people of that country instead of ripping a child away from its spiritual and familiar community?

She could actually do so much to solve those political problems with all that cash, what is she trying to proove?

Just to clear things up for those who say the 1 million dollar donation was a genorous gift.

According to Forbes in 2003 (2004, information has not been published yet), Madonna's net worth was around $600 million. The reports that I have read indicate that she earned $120 million for the Re-Invention Tour, which would put her near $720 million in 2004.

Malawi's current foriegn debt is approx $400million.

Answer 1

Madonna is a Liberal. They need for EVERYONE to know how caring they are. Can't do it anonymously, oh no," gotta tell the world how freakin' much I care", so let's hold a press conference, invite Oprah and some lesbians like "wide load" Rosie & Ellen Degenerate for a "photo op", and once all of the cameras are gone, hand over your little African adoptee to your Mexican hired help to raise. Liberals. What a phony huge a$$ed pile of horse$hit they all are.

Answer 2

Chicago a million.25 or 6 To 4 2.Questions sixty seven And sixty 8 3.Beginnings 4.Love Me day after today 5.Saturday in the Park 6.i'm a guy 7.Will you nevertheless Love Me? 8. stay The nighttime 9.Wishing You were right here 10.satisfied guy 11.you're literally not on my own 12.yet another moist Day In ny 13.Sing, Sing , Sing 14. Take Me decrease back To Chicago 15.loose Encore infant What a huge wonder Does each and every man or woman truly comprehend What Time it is. take care dave

Answer 3

People have been adopting other children from different cultures for many years. This isn't something new. From what I understand, the young boy's mother is deceased.

You're also making the assumption that the young boy will be swept off to wherever and never have contact with his homeland ever again. I don't think that's true and you don't have proof otherwise.

Throwing money at problem- political or not- does little to find a solution. Who are you to be critical of someone that can actually afford to take care of a child and will do so? Hell, I think it would be nice if people actually considered their finances before they went off and pushed out children. Instead of bringing more people into this world, she's trying to make a difference for the people that already exist. Oh wait, trying to help other people is supposed to be selfish... oops my bad.

Answer 4

Madonna is ALWAYS my heroine, so don't you go talking smack about her. She has a lot of love and good will in her heart. She is adopting the child and will give it a good life, even though I personally think she should adopt from the USA instead. Money or not, adoption is a good thing for the orphan being adopted. Madonna can adopt me any old day she wants. Lucky little bastard! Who are you to determine how Madonna spends her hard-earned money? Should someone with less money than you have determine how you should spend your money (maybe sell some of those excess handbags you have) just because they have less money than you do? Leave Madonna alone! No one can possibly understand what it's like to be that famous and that scrutinized, so just hold your judgement. Anything Madonna does, no matter how good and noble (such as this adoption), is trashed by the media and the people of the world, and I'm sick of it. We could only hope to be as wonderful as Madonna!

Answer 5

Well, 1st of all she donated over a million dollars to an ophange, which she had no obligation to do. Personally that seems to be a very nice thing to do

She also wanted to adopt a child, why not? She may have had it fast tracked because she has money but really, is that so bad? I think the sooner a baby is in the care of someone who will love him or her then all the better!

I disagree that money can solve all those political problems as you put it. Money might be able to cut through red tape but it doesn't changes people's minds, only their wallets

Answer 6

Madonna is a super star. Adopting a child is a humanitarian gesture. Everyone who has the money can do the same act to support a child of his/her own free will.

Answer 7

Why dont you get some facts before you expose your ignorance publicly?


Many newspaper and media talking heads worldwide have been vilifying Madonna and Guy's decision to adopt Malawian boy David Banda - but UK journalist Carol Sarler in today's Observer takes a more level-headed approach to the matter:

For a few short years after the fall of Ceausescu, flights from Bucharest were packed with the pale, beaming, joyful anxiety of what some called 'the desperate childless', nervously holding, for the first time, a baby in their arms. One woman, however, stood out; she carried her newly adopted two-year-old with the confidence of experience. As well she might: she had a three-year-old of her own at home and two other children slightly older.
She had wanted, she told me, to help. But she'd be lousy at politics or campaigning or fund-raising; indeed, she realised, the only thing she was really good at was raising children. So one little boy was how she helped.
That boy, now a teenager in the comforts of the shires, has no idea what he escaped; those of us who saw his orphanage have. I thought then, and still do, that this woman's reasoning and generosity were magnificent. Such a pity that nobody seems prepared to cut Madonna the same slack.
No sooner did we learn of her plans to adopt an African child than the bitching began - just as it did with fellow adopters Mia Farrow, Angelina Jolie and Meg Ryan before her. Even Jon Snow, who should know better, inquired whether this is a 'fashion', as if the labour involved in nurturing babies is akin to that of carrying a new handbag, and the consensus, from right and left, is that there is something sinister in Madonna's decision.
The willies from the right, as vigorous now as when Virginia Bottomley helped to staunch the flow of Romanian orphans in the mid-1990s, appear to stem from a suspicion that this is just another route for foreigners to 'flood' into the country and be a 'drain' on resources; too monstrous to address, save perhaps to point out that the kind of parents who pursue these adoptions are precisely the kind of parents who will produce the most efficacious taxpayers of the future.
The liberal left is at least as shocking. Pundit after pundit drones on about the perils of 'snatching' children from their 'culture'. To that I say, go and stand in the poorest orphanages of the world's most dispossessed; look, sniff, smell and don't - don't you dare - tell me that, in such a context, the word 'culture' is other than an obscenity. Any identity problems the child might develop are risibly slight beside the certain problems that would otherwise have been their lot.
Yeah but, no but, continue the pundits: the money would be better spent in donations to the child's place of birth. To that I say, whoever suggested this as an either/or? In fact, Madonna - like many inter-country adopters - has also donated lavishly to baby David's community. Yet she knows, as we know, that sometimes no amount of financial support will persuade a local family to rescue a child from an orphanage (think, for instance, of baby girls in China); furthermore, by the time the money has filtered down, it might help another David, another decade. But not this one.
I hold no particular brief for Madonna, her music or her faith. As a mother, however, based on what we know, she is diligent, hot on proper food and the banning of, say, improper TV, and I have no reason to suppose that her motives for this adoption are different from my friend's on the plane from Bucharest.
The only difference is that Madonna's fame, as with that of Misses Farrow, Jolie and Ryan, has made her an easier target for the snipers, even though it is also the means by which she can afford to do it in the first place and - precisely because the cameras will continue to monitor her and her family - the means through which she might even be able to help to keep the scandal of the needs of Africa in the public eye.
Exactly so, say the still-grumbling pundits: there are millions and millions in need; this is just useless, gesture-politics, drop-in-ocean stuff. But what they really mean is that if you can't save a million, there's no point in saving one. And to that, I have nothing to say at all.

Answer 8

Most people could do more for charity. Any act of kindness, no matter how small should be accepted. Could Madonna do more? Probably. I should do more too. What about you?

Answer 9

I feel you! There's so many orphanages in Africa who need the money. Or she could donate uniforms, school supplies, and medicine to children of the continent.

Answer 10

I think Madonna is an idiot. She used to be (?) a skank, and now she wants everyone's respect.