This image was lost some time after publication.

We're not sure if it's her recent penchant for flaunting the quality of her bikini wax in unitards and fishnet tights, or the people of Malawi's collective disapproval of the way her name and Guy Ritchie's can't be adorably bastardized into a single noun. (Maguy? Gadonna? Madochie? No.) Either way, though, the denizens of the African nation still have their knickers in a toddler-sized wad over the Material Girl's so-far successful attempts to thwart local laws and adopt a one-year old — a fiery panty-fervor that's been exacerbated by news that Baby David's departure from Malawi coincided with a conveniently timed $3 million donation to help HIV-infected kids:

[T]he action has raised the question: Has Madonna's celebrity status allowed her to steamroll Malawi's legal system?

According to Thomas Atwood, president of the National Council for Adoption, that answer is yes.

New Yorkers Erik and Lauren Noormae have already spent $24,000 trying to adopt a child.

Of the Madonna situation, Erik Noormae said, "It is frustrating because it is obviously not a level playing ground." [...]

"The caricature is that rich, presumptuous Americans are buying babies. That's not what inter-country adoption is about," Atwood said.

He added, "It's about publicity. Legacy. At least Namibia gets to be associated with Mr. and Mrs. Smith out of this deal — I've SEEN Desperately Seeking Susan and Dick Tracy, you know? I wasn't born friggin' yesterday — I know when we're being swindled." But Atwood simply isn't looking at the bigger picture. Baby David isn't just Madge's trendy new accessory: His departure from Malawi today in a special private jet can only be interpreted as the first salvo in a battle of baby ballers to be waged against the S.P. Federlines. So really, Malawi should be pleased — after all, our money is definitely on the kid whose father doesn't have trouble understanding how to operate soap. And pants.