Well I was all set to slam all the different Human Rights Organizations in the world, except I don't know exactly who I'm slamming here, but it seems to be something called The Human Rights Consultative Committee, which on it's web-site bills itself as more or less an umbrella organization for at least 40 different human rights groups. According to another source, it is more like sixty. And, they seem to be mostly, maybe all, Malawi based groups, made up of religous leaders, teachers, womens and childrens groups, etc. Who knows who is involved in this group? You would think they do, but if so, they are saying as little as possible.
Their problem with Madonna seems to be pretty straight forward. If you want to adopt a Malawi child, then you have to follow a certain proceedure. You have to stay in the country and establish a documented relationship with the child, and this must be on-going for a period of between eighteen months and two years.
Yeah, let's do that. I can't wait to go to a country on a continent that scares the living shit out of me just reading about it and living for two years surrounded by people that live in huts that make less than a dollar a year on average. Hell, who would worry about kidnapping, rape, murder, mutilation, starvation, famine, pestilence, in a country that is one of the most populated in all Africa, and where as a white person I'll stand out like a sore thumb? Why should I care, after all, the country isn't at war yet. Now if I'm a big enough person to do that, what makes that prissy Madonna think she's too good, right?
After all, she's only started an orphanage for displaced children, with a special emphasis on AIDS victims, and has generously contributed to five other pre-existing orphanages in this, one of the poorest, most destitute countries in the world, according to this Wikkipedia article.
The child Davids father, Yohane Banda, by all accounts seems to be in favor of the adoption, and is incensed that the human rights group mentioned is standing in the way. Of course, some of his relatives are not so happy about it, and are saying Banda is illiterrate, and doesn't understand the consequences of adoption.
This is all a lot of rubbish, and I propose the following explanations.
One, that the family doesn't like or appreciate Madonna's celebrity lifestyle, which they as devout Christians consider hedonistic and amoral.
Two, they want to dig a little deeper into the pop stars bank account.
Three, they, or somebody else connected to the human rights group, are wanting to somehow end this adoption in the vain hopes they can parlay this into a later adoption of somebody close to them, say for example, one of their own family members.
Four, they are wanting to draw this out to gain continued publicity for Malawi and for their cause. In the last case, this would be limited to the human rights group in question.
In that case of number four, however, it seems odd they rarely update their web-site, in fact I think they have done so maybe twice this year, the last time in August. Plus, no mention on it whatsoever of the recent Madonna controversy, which I find remarkably strange.
I tend to think it's all about the money, or some other perceived potential benefit, but I could be wrong. Whatever the reason, the child is the one who stands to suffer for their actions.
Strangely, the UN angel Angelina Jolie didn't have to go through anything remotely like this. I guess it helps to bribe-I mean, have all the right connections.
6 comments:
That child will be outside his culture and subjected to; having to go to openings and receptions, being surrounded by creative artistic people, having the media give weight to his ideas, having to eat in the best restaraunts at the best tables etc. There is no end to the humiliation.
OT: Harold Ford JR denounced the NJ decision allowing equal protection under the law: "I do not support the decision today reached by the New Jersey Supreme Court regarding gay marriage. I oppose gay marriage, and have voted twice in Congress to amend the United States Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. This November there's a referendum on the Tennessee ballot to ban same-sex marriage - I am voting for it."
Yeah, I knew about that. Like I told somebody else- I think it was Rufus- on the comments on that post, I don't agree with him on everything. His stand on this issue would be an example of that. But on balance he's a great candidate.
As for little David, I can't imagine anybody, much less a so-called human rights group, being so heartless as to interfere with that or any childs chance to live a decent life. That's why I think there's more to it than they are letting on. There has to be.
"Truth or Dare" works pretty well as a heading. "Malwai Don't Preach-She's Going to Keep her Baby" works well too, but it's a bit too obvious.
Yeah, it would be a bit too long for a title as well. Actually, I thought of using "The Crucifixion of Madonna", and putting a picture of her on that big cross she used in some of her stage shows, but I couldn't find a good enough picture of that to suit me.
Isn't that how it works with gay rights? The Republicans say: "We oppose gay marriage" and the Democrats say: "Well, we do too! We're almost Republicans!" I mean, honestly, I can't think of a hell of a lot the Democrats have ever done for gays, but they keep getting their votes.
The difference is that a great many Democrats support civil unions, while some though not so many support gay marriage. I agree that's a calculated political decision that I personally don't agree with. For one thing, that old saw about gay marriage being potentially harmful for traditional marriage doesn't add up. If anything civil unions would be more harmful to traditional marriage, in that if you have civil unions for homosexual couples, you have to follow the equal protection clause of the constitution and give them to heterosexual couples as well. Gay marriage would have no impact whatsoever that I can see, outside of in the minds of religous fundamentalists.
Also, you are looking at just this one issue. Democrats have traditionally much more openly supported equal rights for gays in housing, employment, etc. Plus, Democrats are traditional supporters of such issues that gay people also support by a large margin, that happens to have nothing to do with sexuality or lifestyle issues. For example, health care and the environment, to name just a couple that I can think of off the top of my head.
Post a Comment