And every kid in the orphanage gets a BRAND NEW PONTIAC G6!!!!!!

you're missing 999,000 little pieces. (james frey's book was "A Million Little Pieces")

I'm an idiot. Thank you, anonymous for noting.

I guess I could talk my way out of this saying that only 1,000 out of the million were actually verifiable. But, nah...

The "is it fair" question isn't/shouldn't be whether it is fair to Madonna. She's made a career out of manipulating the public and will probably get something like either what she deserves, OR what she can get. It also shouldn't refer to whether it's fair to "the public" because we're the morons who eat this up with a fork and spoon and ask to be manipulated some more. I will avoid both celebrity AND political examples because they are both legion.

The question is whether it's fair to the child. And THAT, as you've said before, is a more complex question.

People still watch Oprah? I wrote her off as a waste of time and energy a long time ago. Why do people think that appearing on Oprah legitimizes their actions? Who died and made her the Almighty?

I'm not sure if the Oprah mojo "worked" for Tom Cruise. Wasn't his couch-jumping actaully the moment people realized he's a joke, a freakshow, and a massive tool? Seems like that was the the tipping point in anti-Tom sentiment.

Don't be so sure Oprah likes Madonna. They are not the best of pals nor do they think all that much of each other.

Oprah thinks of herself and presents herself as the Second Coming. A large proportion of the media aids and abets her in this by acting as her enabler.

She has p-whipped the media with her strategic uses of the race card and the female card.

They, in turn, have elevated her to the position of power broker and king maker.

So she had a successful talk show. So did others before her but none have amassed her power.

Oprah is a very talented broadcaster but she is not original. Her talk show copied Donahue. And now she is copying Martha Stewart. Stewart puts out a magazine. Surprise. Oprah puts out a magazine. Martha Stewart has a cooking/celeb guests talk show. Oprah sics Rachel Ray on her.

Oprah can't stand the idea of another female creating an empire. Oprah must be the top dog. Her minions must even, from appearances, carry the extra weight that she does.

For example, both Gayle King and Rachel Ray sport the Oprah-l5. But now that Oprah has pledged to drop the excess lbs., look to them to do so also.

And it is Oprah herself who has created the PR spectacle of an adoring public. Because she is in total control of how the audience is presented on her show.

I agree with the images of Madonna and David with two additions. Shots of David with Madonna and Guy (all Colgate smiles) and then shots of Madonna holding him up as Guy holds his hand, while the other kids look on.

I have to agree with anonymous. Prior to him jumping up and down on the couch Tom wasn't that bad off. However, one couch jump later and well we all know what happened one couch jump later. Maybe a trip back to Oprah will turn things around in his case. Defunk the cross mojolation.

Alicia... GREAT post. You nailed it. You can't paint Oprah any more accurately than that.

As to Madonna. As I've said repeatedly, I think she's irritate and epitomizes self-absorbed celebrities.

HOWEVER.

What's she's done for this little boy in wonderful. He went from a life where he's have to plow through garbage dumps to get enough scraps to a live to a life where he will be educated. He will be like a king.

The boy's father put him in an orphanage and forgot about him. If the boy's father really loved him he'd say "Son, go with this lady, become educated. Make something of yourself. And visit me from time to time. I love you, but this is best for both of us".

Those of you whining otherwise are not thinking clearly. You're really not.

Bunkley: If Madonna went to South L.A. and plucked a kid out of a poverty-stricken--or, by your logic, any home less well-to-do than Madonna's--should the parents say, "go with this lady, become educated, visit me sometime, we'll both be better off?" Granted, David was in an orphanage, so it's not the same, but to say those of us who have some reservations about Madonna adopting a boy whose father is still alive--and has said (at some points) that he didn't want to give him up for adoption--that we are not thinking clearly is kind of stupid. It's not that black and white of an issue.

"Granted, David was in an orphanage,"

Exactly. She didn't steal this boy from the father, the father didn't want the boy. Now he figures he'll hit madonna up for a few bucks, he'll live like a king.

Some of us know a con when we see it. The boy's father is a conning you and the media.

The boy is infinitely better off.

"he didn't want to give him up for adoption"

But yet he didn't want to spend the effort raising the boy. That's pretty black or white to me.

Let me repeat. The boy is better off by any measure. By any measure.

I don't think all children in African orphanages have been abandoned by their parents--some parents place their children there during times that they cannot care for them, with the expectation of retrieving them when they can. This sounds like what David's father is claiming now. He was unable to care for a newborn by himself, so he placed him in the orphanage to be taken care of while he is a baby.

Where his thinking seems to be fuzzy is what he means by Madonna *educating* the child before sending him back. I doubt he realized that a western education normally extends well into what he would consider manhood.

first of all, madonna and oprah are dear friends. madonna sends oprah jimmie choo boots, for crying out loud!!! (why don't i have friends like that?)

secondly, it's ignorant to suggest that david's father "gave him away" and "didn't want" him. that his father should have put forth a little "effort" to raise him?? huh? these people live in EXTREME poverty with no way out! the man had no choice but to surrender the baby to an orphanage so that the baby could survive. how dare anyone pass judgement on this man! i don't care about the adoption. but i think it's sad that people live in such dire straits that they must forfeit their own children. it's a very cruel world and anyone who doubts that is just silly.

"how dare anyone pass judgment on this man!"

What an utterly ridiculous thing to say. People judge themselves by their actions all the time. And the actions speak for themselves in this case. Take emotion out of it and think about what the father did, what Madonna did and the circumstances. Ignore what people say. What they claim they heard. What they say after the fact. What they did is their judgment.

It's too bad you're offended by the man's actions and my pointing them out. But the fact remains the boy's father gave him away, Madonna offered to raise him so that he doesn't have to live the worst possible life and then people criticize her. Senseless.

Im getting rather sick of the ridiculous comments aimed at hurting Madonna. First of all get over it, she is amazing and always will be. The problem is though THE MEDIA DID LIE, THAT HAS BEEN PROVEN BY VERY CREDIBLE SOURCES. Madonna wants the world to know that she is doing the right thing and I am glad she is doing so on Oprah. Is it right, you bet it is. If I was a celebrity and I adopted a child from Africa I wouldnt want the world to know a lie!!! THINK PEOPLE, THINK! It's no longer Madonna creating the controversy it's the media making her to be controversy. Not to mention they wanna talk about this one child, instead of the many projects she has going on over in Africa....oh wait that doesnt make good news.

I can't believe how stupid the public are to buy into the media's smear campaign. Get a grip, people! Adopting African orphans isn't evil! End of story. The Fathe gave this boy up to an orphanage, and agreed to let Madonna adopt him - he was quite happy about it, after all! Then the poor man becomes a pawn for the gutter press and ONE organisation who spots the oppotunity for some PR if they manage to make a fuss about it. The government has come out and made it clear now that this is the case. The very orphanage where the boy lived said that he would probably die if not for this adoption.

HOW CAN YOU DEMONISE IT??

And how an you put it in the context of Madonna's "publicity" machine, when clearly, if anything, the problem is that she HASN'T played the publicity game up til now, because hell, she probably thought like a sane person, and imagined nobody would find anything objectionable to saving an african orphan.

Leave the woman alone, and have a good long look at yourselves, why don't you? It says much more about you than it does Madonna.

Oprah is not going to change my mind. What Madonna did was not a good idea. She could have helped all the children in the village, not single one out to be adopted.
All this pressure on the poor boy to grow up and go back home and save his country. All the expectations on him to be grateful.

Adopting someone and calling it rescuing is creepy.

A lot of children are in orphanages, not because they are unwanted but because the parents haven't got the resources to properly care for them. The orphanage is the only place where they know they will be fed and looked after.

David is not an orphan, he has a father and extended family. Why does Madonna take one child and leave the rest? It makes more sense to help the community.

You don't see Bono or Bob Geldof doing things like that, I do wish she had taken their lead rather than insult the adoption community.