I have issues with celebrity adoptions, but Madonna is doing something besides just sitting back and sniping. It's better to save one child than none, which is what most people are doing. Perhaps you could scan and post the check you've mailed to Malawi?

I'm not usually absent an opinion but I wanted to say I found this entry to be incredibly thoughtful and well-written. I've had a hard time putting into words what struck me as so ominous about this media "event" but this did an excellent job for me. Thanks.

Isn't it easier to write a check than actually take someone into your life and be his or her mother? I don't understand why adopting a child is sneer-worthy, while the easier thing (money / press conference) is not. The one is a moment's commitment, while the other is a lifelong commitment.

Sorry, but I don't understand why the adoption is a "scandal," as the byline so eloquently phrases it. Madonna adopted a child in Africa. The child happens to be black. But Africa also happens to be poor. So, rather than freak out about the white person adopting the black child, why don't you think of it as the wealthy woman adopting a poor child? And why then don't you think of it as an opportunity for the child rather than a stripping of his heritage? Because, honestly, the child will probably be able to learn more about the politics, religon, history, etc of his country of birth by being educated in London and having access to resources such as computers and newspapers than he will being raised in a village in Malawi. In his village, his educational opportunities may be sparse, if he makes it through school at all due to financial restraints.

Are you honestly trying to say that the child would be better off being raised by a poor father without resources? Does everything *have* to have a racial spin? I suppose that the money donated, THREE MILLION DOLLARS, is irrelevant in all of this, so long as there is a white/black spin for it to take. Frankly, I haven't seen many black superstars taking up the issues of African orphanages. We should be grateful that *someone* is doing something, rather than griping that it's not how we'd *like* it to be done.

Children with fathers but whose mothers either can't or won't care for them get placed for adoption all the time despite the father's fervent desire to care for his child. One of the dirty little secrets of the US adoption industry is that it relies on getting the father out of the picture by hook or by crook. This takes on many different looks, but is a constant in every state. And it is a scandal.

The great irony of course is that, where there's a qualified father who wants to care for his child, THE CHILD DOES NOT NEED TO BE ADOPTED. Thus, its adoption takes parents away from a child who does need to be adopted.

This apparently is true in Madonna's case.

What is also true is that there are serious class issues in the adoption industry. The flow of children is definitely from the poor to the well-to-do and better-educated. This might be OK except when you consider that it's a legal proceeding and, when that is involved, the poor often get the short end of the stick. The wealthy using the legal system to deprive the poor of their children rather than adopt a child from foster care is another of the adoption industry's dirty little secrets. That too is a scandal.

We did it to the American Indians. We took their children away "for their own good", sent them to boarding schools, and I think we all know the sad result of that. A whole society of broken families, alcoholism, anger, and rage. While the American Indians have many problems today from many sources (and I'm no expert, just an observer), I have always wondered how much the wholesale removal of children from their homes 30 and 40 years ago is a cause of today's problems. One of my mother's sayings was "if you want to change a man, you have to start with his grandmother."

I'm not an adoptive parent, I'm white, and I don't speak from a position of experience. However, I agree with Pamela Merritt... Madonna's and Angelina Jolie's recent international adoptions make me vaguely uncomfortable. Being the child of a celebrity isn't a life I'd wish on anyone, but then again, neither is living in a third world orphanage. I don't know either woman personally, and I can't say how they feel other than what I read in the papers. I hope like hell that these children are not fashion statements like one of Paris Hilton's lapdogs, so that these celebrities can prove to the world how giving and progressive they are.

The reality is most people who want to adopt are Caucasian and most of the children who are avalible for adoption are of color. Madonna was damned-if-she-did, damned-if-she-didn't-on this one. If she had adopted a white child from the UK or US people would be criticizing her for that.

The truth is, she did not steal this child. The father has expressed his consent for the adoption. If anyone has the right to decide if she should adopt this child shouldn't it be him?

Also, as someone who is of mixed race I am tired of the arguments that he will not know his culture. Madonna already said she will take him to visit his native land and I believe her if only because the media will be on her to do so every year for the next 18 years or so. Furthermore, there are a lot of people with one or both foreign born parents who do not speak the language of their parent(s) country of origin. (I have a co-worker whose German father was determined not to teach him any German because he wanted him to be 'All-American'.) I can honestly say that the Chinese-American kids I have met with adopted by white parents know more about Chinese culture than I do despite having a Chinese dad.

Also, were were the media attacks when Angelina Jolie adopted her kids? The last time I looked she is not Asian or African.