If she hadn’t chosen to adopt from a country otherwise closed to foreign adoption, she wouldn’t have provoked this media circus. So any claims on her part that the media has unfairly invaded her privacy during a sensitive time are going to be met by a loud snort in my household.

I’ve heard media reports that the father might be confused about the nature of the adoption, not realizing its permanence (in terms of removing Madonna’s obligations to return the boy to Malawi to him someday). I’ve also heard a report that the father is angry at any objections to the adoption, asking why human-rights groups should protest something he approves. On the one hand, I’m worried about any implication that a man with limited education in a developing country is de facto incapable of making an adoption plan for his child. On the other hand, there’s ample evidence from Korean history to suggest that plenty of parents in non-Western countries DO have different definitions for the concept of adoption.

Also: why do stories that INCLUDE quotations from the boy’s father refer to the child as an orphan? Is there some definition of the term that I’m missing? Because regardless of dictionary definitions, I’ve always understood the term to mean “without parents.”

ARGH!

I’m wondering how it shakes out.