Go, Madonna! And critics be damned.

The situation: a dirt-poor onion farmer and his wife, in an African nation shattered by poverty and AIDS, had their third child, David, in 2005. Their first two children had died of malaria as toddlers. Six days after David's birth, the mother dies. The father can't afford milk to feed David, and no extended-family network is available to help, because AIDS has destroyed that traditional safety net. So the father puts baby David in an orphanage, because there, at least, David will get food and basic medical care.

Recent developments: a self-made multi-millionaire and married mother of two--that is, Madonna--expresses interest in adopting David and bringing him to live with her family in London, where he will have a mom and dad, two siblings (one half-British, one half-Cuban--this is already a mixed, international family), a top-notch education, fantastic food and health care, and every opportunity in life that money can possibly buy. So instead of dying in childhood or becoming a hardscrabble farmer like his dad, maybe he'll be the next Barack Obama. Oh, also, Madonna and her husband want to make sure David stays in touch with his dad; they promise occasional visits. Also, they're donating $3,000,000 to orphanages throughout the country, to help the kids who will never be adopted.

How the nutjobs have reacted:
(1) So-called "children's rights" groups in Malawi have filed suit to block the adoption, over the objections of David's father, who asks, "Where were these people when David was struggling in the orphanage? As a father I have okayed this. Who are they to cause trouble?"
(2) Controversy explodes over the fact that a child with a living father is being adopted. Everyone seems to have forgotten that here in the developed world, that's how almost all adoptions work: children whose parents are both living are put up for adoption because the parents are unable or unwilling to raise them.
(3) And last but not least, wackjobs the world over have accused Madonna "of 'American colonialism' for transplanting the boy from an African orphanage to a life of western luxury." ("If that's colonialism," say the orphans of Africa, "sign me up!"). Analogies to slavery have been made, as have statements that interracial adoptions are selfish and unwise; Italian Foreign Minister Massimo D'Alema, who spoke to journalists in the apparent but inexplicable belief that his opinion was in some way relevant, compared David's adoption to a "kidnapping." And get this idiotic, breathtakingly arrogant blog posting by an NYU professor: "This Malawi child is leaving his heritage, his people, his language, his family. Yes, he is poor. But now he is also impoverished. The soul of the motherless child is co-opted... Sounds like colonialism to me."

My response, a.k.a. the only rational response: Nutjobs, shut the hell up. It is not your business if a child's only living parent gives him up for adoption. It is not your business if the kid's father, having seen his wife and first two children die, decides that life with an adoptive family in London is preferable to life in an African orphanage. If you're not going to step in and support this child yourself, shut up.

The best summary of the situation: Andrina Mchiela, of the Malawi Welfare Ministry, compared the decision David's father made to the story of baby Moses being placed in a basket and floated downriver in hopes that someone would save him. Moses, a Jewish child, was rescued by an Egyptian princess and raised in luxury in a foreign land; he grew up to become the liberator of his people. I, for one, agree with Mchiela and with David's dad that David should be given the same chance.