Anonymously Clueless

As you may have noticed, most of the comments I get on my blog come from anonymous writers. In the past, I didn’t accept them. But as soon as I opened the anonymous box, I was flooded by ignorant rants made by little monsters and haters people who don’t have the balls to associate their stupid and uneducated idiotic comments to their blogs. So they send me messages anonymously.

The funniest thing is: they think I have to publish every single stupid thing they send me as if I was obliged to. And if I don’t, they send me messages demanding I post them (I guess they are too dumb to realize this is MY blog). Sometimes they “cyber-stalk” me on other blogs, hoping that I’ll see them there too and answer them. This is what this post is about.

I received an anonymous post that said:

“While running a blog revolving around lip syncing and who did what first, you could reevaluate your views on your idols. You’re idolising (and don’t you dare deny it) a person who promised *twice* she’d build 10 schools in Malawi without even asking for permission; of course she built none. Far more hypocritical than saying “I don’t lip sync” or “This album is gonna be the album of the decade”. P.S.: Watch your mouth, when you provide good arguments, you fuck them up with words like “cunts”.”

As I did not reply fast enough, this person then used a fellow blog (which does not belong to me) to insist that I talked about the issue HE/SHE thought I should discuss on MY blog (note the sarcasm input in the highlighted personal and possessive pronouns, giving you a hint on who really decides what is published on MY blog):

“I thought I could post it here because you don’t answer me on your blog.”

My reply was simple:

“Sorry, anonymous, I will gladly reply to the message. 

But I will only do that IF you send the same message with your screen-name, and blog/tumblr info.

I don’t want to delve into the legal complications of Madonna’s charity work in Malawi without your name/blog associated with it. 

What’s the point in explaining the technicality of it all and humiliating you online if you are hiding behind an anonymous tag?

So try again… next time, don’t hide behind an anonymous tag.

In the meantime, while you grow some balls, think about the fact that Madonna invested over $11 million dollars of her OWN money in Malawi, while Lady Gaga STILL hasn’t sent all the money to Japan from the bracelets she sold (two things: 1) it wasn’t her money, 2) she kept part of it, instead of donating 100% of it).

So, yeah, anonymous, that’s just the beginning… send me the same question again, with your blog info. Can’t wait to humiliate you. 

Muah!”

[Look how cute I was, I even blew him/her a kiss]:

Anyone who addresses the Madonna’s charity work in Malawi and its “changes” giving it a negative twist obviously doesn’t know a thing about it. That’s why I expected this ignorant “anonymous” to send the same message using his/her blog as “ID”, so we could all associate the person of such limited intellectual ability to a particular blog. 

Among other things, the anonymous replied:

“P.S.: I dont have to have a blogger account or a tumblr blog to comment here and post on your blog. I can do both remaining Anonymous. If you think that the fact that your name has a link and you have a blog makes you less Anonymous: you’re wrong. I don’t see a picture or name or age of yours anywhere. Do a research before advising others to “grow some balls”.”

Poor thing, did he/she really think I was hoping to know his/her real name? Age? What’s next? Phone number and SSN? I wonder what part of  cyber-identification didn’t he/she understand? I asked for “screen-name, and blog/tumblr info” - as it can be seen in the message I sent.

In case he/she still doesn’t get it, I’ll make it more obvious and easier to understand: I asked for some sort of online identification (not a real name), so that we could associate your stupid comment to your blog.

As I suspected, this anonymous doesn’t understand a thing about what happened in Malawi. The fact that he/she sent a few links to reports on what happened there and still criticize Madonna just shows how he is completely unaware of the complications Raising Malawi faced in Malawi that were not Madonna’s fault. So let me try to explain, maybe he/she will get it this time.

But before I do it, let me point out two hilarious moments on his/her comments that might indicate his/her intellectual level:

“While running a blog revolving around lip syncing and who did what first, you could reevaluate your views on your idols.” He/she said. Then he/she went on to: “You’re idolising (and don’t you dare deny it) a person who promised *twice* she’d build 10 schools in Malawi without even asking for permission; of course she built none.”

This intellectually challenged anonymous realized that I have a blog dedicated to the silly and ephemeral realms of POP CULTURE, and still compared the premise of my blog and the pop cultural issues I discuss here to that of a serious political discussion, such as international charity work and international adoption. Can we all agree that this person completely misunderstands the notions of appropriacy and contextualization?

The second moment that I find rather interesting is when he/she tells me NOT to “bring Gaga into this”. He/she has got to have a short-term memory, as it can be checked, he/she was the one who brought Gaga into this on the very first message I was sent:

“While running a blog revolving around lip syncing and who did what first, you could reevaluate your views on your idols (…) Far more hypocritical than saying “I don’t lip sync” or “This album is gonna be the album of the decade”. 

Isn’t it pathetic that he/she used my Gaga premise to incite me to talk about Madonna’s charity, but when I mention that Gaga has a famous case of fraud in her Japanese charity, he/she tells me not to bring up Gaga? 

He/she also kept sending me messages about the replies I was being sent on a blog that does not even belong to me (does he/she assume I monitor other people’s blogs 24/7?).

That is enough to prove how unworthy this anonymous is. But I decided to give him/her a chance and I will reply anyway - even without having his/her blog to send this reply directly to. 

Madonna is a mega super-star who got involved in charity work with Malawi before she adopted her son David Banda from that country. So unlike what you think and what some articles say, she did not promise to start charity work there to make her adoption faster. She was already working to raise awareness about Malawi before she even heard of the beautiful baby boy David. That is something journalists and stupid people should do: check facts.

Fact: Madonna met David while she was filming the heart-breaking documentary I Am Because We Are, written, narrated and produced by herself. Meaning: she was already working for Malawi at the time. In fact, David was one sick baby in one of the many orphanages they visited during shooting. Her interest in adopting him happened when she was already there, working in a project that would only benefit the country. 

If you doubt this fact, I advise you to watch the documentary I Am because We Are. You’ll get to know the whole story, educate yourself a little bit on the issue and hopefully, become a better person. 

It’s funny how you said “Madonna promised to build 10 schools, but built none”, when in fact her work in Malawi is not finished. I love it how you said “she’s obviously not interested in anything that has to do with schools in Malawi anymore and there are reports to confirm what I’m saying”. 

“There are reports to confirm it”. Really? From who? Joyce Banda? Malawi’s new president who, by the way, is the sister of one former Madonna employee who was fired for irresponsibly using charity money on herself? Joyce Banda? The same woman who appeared in Madonna’s documentary when she was Malawi’s Minister of Foreign Affairs as seen here:

The part your limited brain doesn’t understand is that it was not Madonna who deviated and mismanaged the money in Malawi, it was Philippe van den Bossche.

In fact, details of deviation and money mismanagement only emerged after a Global Philanthropy Group audit commissioned by Madonna.

Philippe van den Bossche, former executive director of Raising Malawi,  resigned the position after auditors discovered (as reported by the Malawi Voice and the Daily Mail): “cost overruns for the school” that included “outlandish expenditures on salaries, cars, office space and a golf course membership, free housing and a car and driver for the school’s director”. 

If Philippe van den Bossche hadn’t resigned after auditors found and criticized his management and his excessive spending, he would have been fired by Madonna, just like everybody else:

All the management team was fired by Madonna when Global Philanthropy Group auditors (hired by the singer) discovered mismanagement, including Joyce Banda’s sister, Anjimile Oponyo, who was one of the project’s local managers.

Under Philippe van den Bossche’s management, $3.8 million were spent on a project that never came to fruition. Part of this money came from Madonna’s pocket (she donated over $11 million dollars of her own money). She was not the executive director of the project, she was just the woman with the bank account who financed most of the project and got the word about it spread.

The Daily Mail reports that “according to staff members, Philippe van den Bossche spent money in a manner that would not have embarrassed an African dictator. Flying out first class to Malawi regularly, he took up residence in the same exclusive hotel where Madonna used to stay.”

They added: “His parties became the stuff of legend. Thrown at least once a month, they involved more than 100 guests at a time being plied with vintage wines, rare malt whiskies and fine cognacs. The parties often lasted until dawn, with all bedrooms block-booked to prevent other guests prying.”

Guess who was one of the project’s managers in Malawi at the time Philippe van den Bossche was the project’s executive director? Anjimile Oponyo (Malawi’s new president’s sister). 

According to the Malawi Voice, “managers which included Joyce Banda’s sister Anjimile (sometimes referred to as Aponjile) squandered millions of dollars before the project began. An audit revealed that those $3.8 million were spent before construction even began”. 

No wonder why Madonna fired all those people and changed her project’s direction in Malawi. And, no. Madonna was not in Malawi once a moth partying with them. In fact, she did not party at all the times she visited the country. You can imagine how Madonna’s visits to that nation were documented and registered by hundreds of photographers 24/7. And there is not one single report of her “partying”. The closest thing to a “party”, was an official brick-laying ceremony in the land the school was supposed to be built.

The Daily Mail discloses even more: “Each member of his eight-man executive team was supplied with annual membership at the capital’s exclusive golf club and leisure resort, costing thousands of pounds a year. They were also provided with luxury cars; indeed, two vehicles were assigned to staff that didn’t even exist.”

“Meanwhile, the charity’s local director, also something of a party-lover — who is the sister of Malawi’s vice-president — was a prime beneficiary of these perks.” - I hope now you understand why the president of that country is so pissed.

“Anjimile Oponyo, who worked at the United Nations Development Programme in Africa before being appointed to run Madonna’s Malawi school project, was allowed virtually free rein financially — and wasted hundreds of thousands of pounds.” They also report that Anjimile Oponyo’s friends allege “she had spent less than one million dollars in funds, using it for offices, vehicles and staff over the past three years.” Her friends say ”all her expenditure was passed by Madonna’s aides in Los Angeles”. But guess who was Madonna’s aides in LA? Philippe van den Bossche - at the time, executive director of Raising Malawi.

What is even dirtier about all this is that those people (including  Anjimile Oponyo) are protected by employment laws in Malawi. And even after being fired for mismanaging the money that was supposed to be used in charity (and not on personal luxury items), they sued Madonna for “unfair dismissal”.

If you still think Madonna was wrong about firing the managers that were using charity money on themselves, you must be the most moronic person on Earth. But at least something good came out of it:

As Trevor Neilson (founder of the Global Philanthropy Group) advised Madonna after getting involved with the project through the audit, “building an expensive school in Malawi is an ineffective form of philanthropy’, he suggested instead “using resources to finance education programs though existing and proven nongovernmental organizations”. And that’s what they are doing right now.

And according to Sarah Ezzy, a spokeswoman for the Global Philanthropy Group (which now manages Raising Malawi on Madonna’s behalf), “the organisation has just partnered with the (US charity) buildOn to construct 10 new primary schools in rural communities. Additionally, later this spring Raising Malawi will install a power grid at Consol Homes orphan care center to bring electricity to that community. Thousands of children and their families will benefit from this investment.” 

That’s what you get for being so sure about Madonna “obviously, not being interested in anything that has to do with schools in Malawi”. I bet now you know why I wanted to have your uneducated, ignorant clueless rant associated with a blog.

You can thank me later on an anonymous message.

Muah.