Those Who Don't Know History

A most remarkable thing happened in Ireland on the weekend. No, I am not referring to the result of the referendum that gave the green light to homosexual marriage in Ireland, although the outcome of the vote was a natural consequence of what happened. I am referring to something else entirely. In the Bible, King Solomon of Israel tells us that there is nothing new under the sun. Both he and Moses talk about times and seasons, referring to particular patterns that God follows in order to reveal his plan for the salvation of mankind and to bring that plan to fruition. What many would not realise is that this past weekend was one such appointed time in God’s diary.

 The appointed time, scheduled every year since the time of the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, is the festival of Shavuot, better known to Christians as Pentecost. For Christians, it is a celebration of the coming of the Holy Spirit in fulfilment of the promise made by Jesus to send the Comforter to us to be with us forever. For Jews, it is a celebration of God giving the Torah, the commandments of God, to Moses and the people of Israel at Mt Sinai. While Christians and Jews each celebrate the festival differently and for different reasons, it was not meant to be that way. The two reasons are not mutually exclusive because one cannot comply with the commandments of God without the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit needs the commandments of God to lead and guide the people.

At Mt Sinai, God had invited the people of Israel to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation set apart from all others. All they had to do was to obey Him and keep the covenant, to which they readily agreed. Israel witnessed God descend upon the mountain in fire and smoke, with lightning and thunder, and with the sound of a trumpet blast. Such was the fear and trembling of the people of Israel that they asked for God to not speak to them. Their refusal to allow God to speak was the first time that the people of Israel wholly rejected the word of God, and in all probability, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit that was to come with the giving of the commandments. After this, it did not go well for them. The people soon fashioned a golden calf to worship as the God who brought them out of Egypt. Then they complained about the manna from heaven and many died after eating quail. Finally, they were condemned to spend 40 years in the desert for believing the bad report of the Promised Land. The generation that escaped the bondage of slavery in Egypt died there in the desert.

The comparison for Ireland is stark. On the very day of the celebration of the commandments of God being given to his people, Ireland votes for constitutional recognition of same sex marriage, effectively questioning the efficacy of God’s commandments regarding homosexuality and marriage. While only 37.3% of the electorate voted in favour, the 40% who didn’t bother voting effectively took an affirmative position regardless of whether they were disengaged or protesting the vote. Together, they asked for God to not speak to them.

While it can be argued as to why Ireland would reject God’s commandments, one would not have to look too much further than the Catholic Church and their handling of the child sexual abuse scandal. In not dealing with the issue openly and compassionately, the Catholic Church surrendered the moral high ground and echoed hypocrisy in mounting a defence for traditional marriage. The public, rightly or wrongly, rejected their position as hollow grandstanding and voted accordingly, at the same time rejecting God who was seen as being represented by the Catholic Church.

Now that the resolution is passed in Ireland, it is certainly a history making event. Previously, in countries and states where same sex marriage became legal, it was due to a handful of people, judges and politicians, making the decision on behalf of the population. It is certainly unique in my lifetime that an entire population has voted to reject God outright. Being the loving God that He is, He will step back and not poke His nose in where it is not wanted. He will let his beloved children walk away. Meanwhile, we will wait the unfolding of the rest of the pattern: the building of the golden calf; the complaints about the manna from heaven; the bad reports of this Promised Land; and the most frightening prospect of all, of how it will conclude after one generation.

 

No Sex Please, We're Fruitloops

Well I am bit behind the eight ball in getting the next post up, and as it happens plenty of news worthy of comment has happened. One of these days I will find time to catch up on them all, but until then I am at the mercy of my other commitments.

I was left scratching my head at the story of Storm, a four month old baby whose parents are not disclosing the sex of as “a tribute to freedom and choice in a place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm's lifetime (a more progressive place? ...).” In effect, they seek to raise a genderless baby and allow the choice of gender to fall upon the child. The parents, Kathy Witterick and David Stocker have been labelled the most politically correct in the world.

At first glance, the whole thing is a ridiculous notion. At a second glance, not much changes and it remains a ridiculous notion. ‘Political correctness’ is such an inaccurate term. Not only do most politically minded people not think this way, it clearly is not correct. Perhaps ‘socially stupid’ is a more fitting label. The parents believe they are freeing Storm from the societally imposed constraints on males and females. They claim children can make meaningful decisions for themselves from a very young age and have told their children to challenge how they're expected to look and act based on their sex. In addition, they call parents who make choices for their children 'obnoxious', an interesting turn of phrase given the choice they have made for theirs.

What these parents fail to realise is that the feminist ideology that drives their little experiment fails to allow for the vast number of differences that exist between males and females beyond the sexual organs. When God said “Male and female He created them”, He was referring to the entire person. Each of the sexes is hardwired due to differences in hormones, how they respond emotionally, sexually, and physically to a variety of stimuli. Even before a baby is born, prenatal hormones developed in the second trimester of pregnancy affect the behaviour and emotions of the foetus in the womb. Research has shown that after learning to speak, male children tell aggressive stories 87% of the time and females only 17%. In group tasks for children under four, boys will use physical tactics 50 times more than girls. Shifting the whole shebang to gender neutrality will not stop Storm from seeking out children of the same sex to play with in a social setting. It will not stop Storm from displaying certain types of behaviours common to boys or girls down through the ages.

Most disturbing is the freedom of choice given to Storm’s older brothers, Jazz and Kio. From the age of 18 months, these boys have been permitted to choose their own clothes from the store and make decisions about their appearance, again with the parents idea of dismantling gender social constructs. Five year old Jazz, for example, wears a pink dress that he loves because it 'really poofs out at the bottom' and 'feels so nice'. He also wears his hair long and in three braids. Two year old Kio loves purple and keeps his curly blond hair just below his chin. Consequently, most people believe the boys are girls, an assumption the parents do not correct. Instead, they leave that up to the discretion of the boys. Already, other children are keeping their distance, not wanting to play with a “girl-boy”, and Jazz confirms that others reaction over his appearance does upset him. So why inflict this upon the child? Is this not abuse to allow this situation to continue? Set appropriate boundaries along gender lines, allow the boys to be comfortable being boys, and nip the socially isolating discomfort of other children in the bud.

Diane Ehrensaft, a Californian psychologist believes parents should support gender-creative children, but said this case is disturbing. These children "will be unable to position his or herself in a world where you are either male, female or in between,” she said, arguing that they have created another category entirely. Susan Pinker, a psychologist and author of The Sexual Paradox says, “Ignoring children's natures simply doesn’t work. Child-rearing should not be about providing an opportunity to prove an ideological point, but about responding to each child’s needs as an individual.” Quite right, and it is more than obvious that those needs are not being met. Too much responsibility is falling onto the children at an age when they should not be making such decisions. Pinker adds, “Children are curious about their own identity, and are likely to gravitate towards others of the same sex during free play time in early childhood.”

Clearly these fruitloops are attempting to change society and using their children as their instruments. They don’t want to impose the limitations of society on the children, but happily impose their own limitations to prevent them identifying with who they are. The reality is that society has gender roles ingrained in every culture in the world and it is not changing any time soon. Men are the hunters, women the gatherers. Men are the warriors, women the nurturers. Occasionally there are exceptions to the recognised gender roles, but for the most part they are well defined. These children are being set up for failure and I would hope the child protection authorities in Canada are onto this one like a rash.

Biting The Hand That Feeds You

Did you hear it? The ping, ping, ping sound of copper on concrete. It was accompanied by a spike in electricity use and it occurred at much the same time. About 11:30am on Thursday. It was the moment that the penny dropped and the lights started going on for the members of the Canberra Press Gallery.

Senator Bob Brown, the leader of the Australian Greens, stood before a group of journalists and in avoiding some questions about his stance on some key carbon policy issues, launched an attack on the Murdoch press. “I think it's very essential to take that on at the moment because I think the Murdoch media is doing a great disservice to this nation in perhaps the most important debate of the century so far, which is how we tackle climate change,” he said. “And its negativity and its scepticism does need to be tackled because, you know, we need news in our papers but we're getting opinion far too much.”

In an extraordinary exchange, three journalists from other news organisations took him to task. Fairfax radio reporter Michael Pachi challenged Senator Brown, saying: “You just come out here every day and you just bag out the Murdoch press or any media you don't like and you call them the hate press.” To which Senator Brown replied: “Don't get too upset, this is just part of the democratic discourse.” Pachi responded by saying “Most polls would suggest that people don't want the carbon tax and you are on the wrong foot on this issue, and (that's) across the media, not just the Murdoch press”. Brown retorted that the Greens vote was growing faster than the circulation of News Limited newspapers.

Bob Brown explained his rant in response to Ten’s Hugh Riminton. “Yes, I'm being very much on the front foot here because I think the media, with some very good exceptions, can at times lose track of the fact that it's part of the process of moving Australia into a much more secure future with a more secure lifestyle, economy and job creation prospects.” Senator Brown described newspapers' front pages as unbalanced, opinionated and “not news in terms of having both sides”.

To some degree, Senator Brown does have a point. Certain news organisations have been noted to pursue particular agendas or lean favourably to one side of a debate. The climate change debate is a prime example where for so long the media pushed the claims as fact to the extent that dissenters were ridiculed and portrayed as a lunatic fringe. Tony Abbott certainly felt the effects of this prevailing media mindset at the time of his “Climate change is crap” comment, and for a long time afterward.

The irony though, is that in this environment, Bob Brown and the Greens got a free pass to express themselves on this and many other issues without challenge. They were able to stand up in front of a camera or microphone and call to account any political opponent for their position with the presumption that the Green position was understood and accepted without question. As recently as Tuesday, Brown called on Climate Change Minister, Greg Combet to explain why the carbon price should start well south of $40 a tonne, but at the same time sidestepped questions about the level he thought the carbon price should be. Providing the media is there to aid the Green machine, there is no issue. When the hard the questions start coming, the organisation asking them is attacked and labelled as haters.

The Greens are no longer on the fringes of politics in Australia. They are in the thick of it as a powerful part of a centre-left and left wing coalition government. The government hinges on their one lower house vote and as such have a lot of clout when it comes to advancing their own agenda. We are also just weeks away from the Greens assuming the balance of power in the Senate. Consequently, their policies are now under the microscope. The questions that should have been asked a decade ago are now being asked and the good Senator is finding the blowtorch a bit hot.

The ABC’s Chris Uhlman is credited with starting the ball rolling on Tuesday night during an interview with Bob Brown on the 7:30 program:

BROWN: We are going to compensate households but Tony Abbott will not. He's going to put all the money in from households into the big polluters, estimate $720 per household by the end of this decade and - either that or reduce 100,000 jobs in the country or start closing hospital wards and schools to fund the big polluters. We will not do that.

UHLMAN: That $11 billion that you're talking about is money that he would forego in the mining tax, and I noticed you started your budget and reply speech just there. How would you replace the $50 billion a year in export income which comes by way of coal - an industry that you'd shut down?

BROWN: Well, a lot of that money is bouncing straight back out to shareholders overseas. Now what we're...

UHLMAN: A lot of that money is circulating in the economy. It's creating jobs, Senator, it's bouncing through to our cities.

BROWN: Yes, Chris, and what we would do is take the advice of the Treasury of this nation and recoup the $145 billion over the next 10 years through a super profits tax. Tony Abbott says...

UHLMAN: But you can't recoup it if you shut the industry down.

BROWN: Treasury...

UHLMAN: If you shut the coal industry down there won't be that money...

BROWN: I'm sorry...

UHLMAN: ..available to you.

BROWN: I'm sorry, Chris, Treasury has no intention to shut the industry down. it tends to- it tends...

UHLMAN: No, but you do.

BROWN: No, I'm not.

UHLMAN: Didn't you say back in 2007 that we had to kick the coal habit?

BROWN: No, I did not. You're looking at the Murdoch press, where I said back in 2007 we should look at coal exports with a view to phasing them out down the line.

UHLMAN: It wasn't the Murdoch press, it was a comment piece that you wrote. So you want to phase out the coal industry?

BROWN: The world is going to do that because it is causing massive economic damage down the line through the impact of climate change.

UHLMAN: But the question-

BROWN: No, let me...

UHLMAN: The simple question is how do you replace $50 billion worth of export income?

BROWN: You go to renewables over the coming decades and you do that by exporting... Look, Germany did this. It's closed its coal mine. It's closing its nuclear power stations. It's gone into exporting renewables - including using Australian technology...

But the more insightful journalists and ex-politicians have been onto him well before this. In the days following the installation of the Gillard government by Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, former Democrats leader Natasha Stott-Despoja predicted that the Greens would implode when their policies and positions were scrutinised. Former ALP Senator Graham Richardson on his Sky News program ridiculed Bob Brown’s response to his question on what he would do for mining companies affected by the carbon tax.

The Murdoch press have been onto him for some time. In September last year, the Australian responded to a previous Brown criticism in an editorial: “We wear Senator Brown’s criticism with pride. We believe he and his Green colleagues are hypocrites; that they are bad for the nation; and that they should be destroyed at the ballot box.” In some ways, this quote justifies Senator Brown’s latest outburst, but by the same token it is the only logical conclusion to be drawn from any research of Green policy.

I for one am looking forward to seeing the blowtorch applied with greater frequency and higher temperatures. Popcorn anyone?

When The Wicked Perish

“”I’ve never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure. ”
– Mark Twain

As expected, Osama bin Laden hasn’t exactly gone quietly. The reaction to his death can been measured all across the spectrum from vows of bloody revenge to apathy and cynicism to hysterical celebration. The debate has certainly been interesting. Was the actions of the US Navy Seals a swift execution of justice? Was it extrajudicial killing? Premeditated murder even? Is the United States no better than the terrorists they are eliminating? So many questions, no single or correct answer. Some are able to meaningfully argue a position one way or the other, and others are so out of the ball park wrong that their assertions are laughable. I’ll put my position up, right or wrong, for the entire world to see, and you can pass your judgement accordingly.

Osama bin Laden was without doubt a bloodthirsty, murdering scumbag who needed to face justice for his crimes against humanity. Since 1988 when he founded al-Qaeda, bin Laden’s rap sheet has far exceeded the length of his arms. Of course, we all know about the attack on the Twin Towers back in 2001 in which over 3000 innocent people died. Perhaps you might like to know about his other activities. A bomb intended for US servicemen in Yemen in 1992 killed two Austrian tourists. The next year he authorized the first World Trade Centre attack that killed six and injured thousands. In 1998, the simultaneous bombings of US embassies across Africa killed 223 and injured over 4000. Two years later, the USS Cole was attacked while refuelling in port in Yemen. Seventeen US sailors died and 39 were injured. If that wasn’t enough, he was also directly funding the mujahideen in Chechnya, who conducted a dozen terror attacks against Russian citizens between 1995 and 2009. The total body count is upwards of 1200 people, including the 150 children at school in Beslan. It is said that he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. This has certainly played out in the case of bin Laden. Regrettably for all those families who lost relatives and friends to his blood crazed agenda, US forces could only kill him once.

But what about forgiveness I read one commentator write. Forgiveness is noble and necessary, but it does not exonerate him from his deeds. Justice must still be served. The notion that forgiveness equates to acquittal is unjust. There must be restitution. When a sinner comes to Jesus and repents, what happens? Jesus forgives the sinner and forgets the sin thereafter, but justice still has to be served. The wages of sin is death, and by the grace of God, He asked Jesus to willingly die on the cross for the sin of the world. It is here that justice is served. Jesus takes the penalty of death on behalf of the sinner. For those who don’t sort it out with God, the penalty is on you. Osama bin Laden was certainly not repentant of his crimes, as evidenced by his remaining in hiding, his continual participation in terrorism, and regular video and audio releases threatening the nations of the world.

Another commentator writes how the United States murdered bin Laden and that he should have been taken alive and put on trial. I am certain the US government would much rather have been able to parade bin Laden before the cameras and show him off to the world in exactly the way they did with Saddam Hussein. But the world is not an ideal place and criminals have a habit of resisting arrest. Osama bin Laden died in the firefight that took place inside his hideaway mansion. Seemingly, bin Laden himself may not have been armed at the time if his teenage daughter is to be believed, but others in the house were. It is not outside the realms of possibility that he was shot by one of his henchmen to prevent his capture.

Was it murder? I say no. The Legal Dictionary applies this definition to the word “murder”:

the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing another under circumstances defined by statute (as with premeditation); especially: such a crime committed purposely, knowingly, and recklessly with extreme indifference to human life or during the course of a serious felony (as robbery or rape).

The US government had declared war on al-Qaeda in 2001, so the operation that saw bin Laden’s demise was a military one, subject to the rules of warfare, not domestic statute. Being the commander of an enemy force, Osama bin Laden was an enemy combatant and a legitimate military target. As such his elimination during the course of a military operation was neither unlawful nor unjustified. He remained a threat to western interests and ordinary citizens all over the world. His death was not reckless with regard to human life. Indeed, preventing this man killing and injuring thousands more innocent people has shown the dignity and value for human life that is part and parcel of a civilised society.

The announcement by US President Barack Obama that Osama bin Laden was dead saw a spontaneous gathering of a crowd at the gates of the White House to celebrate that the world was now a better place. Critics responded by saying that people should not be celebrating anybody’s death in such a fashion, and that these made them look no different to the Arabs who celebrate a successful terror strike. Apparently, we should be saddened by his untimely passing and acknowledge the occasion more solemnly. Really? Have a look at the demise of any tyrant at any time in history and note what happens among those who were subject to their iron fist. Europe celebrated the end of Hitler. Afghanistan took to the streets in jubilation when Mullah Omar and his mates took off with their tails between their legs. Yugoslavia partied when Slobodan Milosevic fled the country. And we’ve seen it several times in recent months in North Africa with the regime changes in Tunisia and Egypt. Ordinary people need not fear Osama bin Laden any longer as he can no longer harm us. When the righteous prosper, the city rejoices; when the wicked perish, there are shouts of joy!

Of course, terror alerts have gone up a notch or three since Osama bit the dust. There is no doubting that others will be willing to step into the void. Those who do will do so with the knowledge that we have long memories and that we will leave no stone unturned in our pursuit of you. If it takes ten years, then so be it, as long as we get you one way or the other in the end.

The Royal Wedding

As I write, the Royal Wedding is going on and from my point of view my only curiousity is "Who is going to be wearing menopause blue?" This is the colour of the blue dress that is worn by the mother of either the bride or the groom. Usually only one of the two wears it, and of course we all know that Diana is currently dressed in wooden overcoat brown with earthy tones. Accordingly, Kate Middleton's mum arrived dressed in what the fashionistas called sky blue, but what the cynics like me call menopause blue.

Historically I have never been a fan of the Royal family. My republican leanings have been inspired by my long held desire to one day overthrow the government, something that would be much easier to achieve legally without the protections that the monarchy provides. As such, my television is on in the background with the live telecast screening exclusively for my wife who is doing a great job of providing her own commentary soundtrack.

As for William and Kate, they both appear to be thoroughly decent people and I wish them very well for their future together. Unlike most married couples, they will have exceptional pressures upon them from an adoring public, a protocol driven palace, and an intrusive media. The fact that these pressures occur on top of the usual ones that occur in marriage puts them on the back foot. The fairytale weddings of Charles and Diana in 1981 and Andrew and Sarah in 1986 both became nightmares amid these issues and I can only hope that William and Kate have learned the lessons from both of those disasters enough to be able to rise above the pressures and triumph in their own marriage.

If that wasn't enough, an occasion such as a royal wedding becomes a very large advertisement for traditional marriage. With so many people openly attacking the institution of marriage as outdated and unnecessary, and even advocating alternative definitions of marriage, every failure of a marriage, particularly a high profile marriage, lowers the bar and becomes fodder for those pushing that agenda. Consequently, William and Kate carry the expectations of the holders of traditional values who are relying on them to counter those so-called progressive views.

It is my prayer that both William and Kate focus on establishing their marriage before taking on too much duty. They need to remember that a three-cord rope is not easily broken and that there is more to the pomp and ceremony overseen by the Archbishop of Canterbury. One day, William is likely to be the head of the Church of England, so having a personal relationship with the God of that church will benefit his marriage if he allows the source of all wisdom to play His part in growing and strengthening their union.

Terminal Velocity

Like many others, I have marvelled at the viral video of Casey Heynes responding to the latest episode of bullying that he has allegedly been experiencing for over a year. After being on the receiving end of several blows and repeated taunts by the younger and smaller aggressor, Casey lunges forward and grabs him in a front face lock before lifting him into the air and slamming him face down into the concrete. A classic case of reaping what you sow.

As a community, we have an expectation that justice will prevail. The public’s response to the video has been of overwhelming support for Casey, more so because the school suspended him and not the bully. It wasn’t until the mainstream media picked up the story that the bully was also suspended. Many approved of the retaliation as natural justice.

An expert on bullying, Professor Kenneth Rigby of the University of South Australia, said he was worried about the possible effect of this incident in terms of thinking that the only way to deal with bullying is to come down very heavily on everybody involved. He said suspending the youth who had reacted to the bullying was the wrong course of action because it risked punishing the victim and feeding the unwillingness of victims to come forward. “He should have gone for help - told a teacher. The problem is that about half of those who do that end up feeling that the situation has been made worse, not better. People don’t tell because they’re not confident that the school will do something.”

A wise man once said that evil prospers when good men do nothing. Notwithstanding the complexities of the case at hand, clearly there has been a failure in the school to appropriately deal with this particular situation from the outset. For an issue to go so long without action is an obvious failing of the policies of the Education Department of NSW, the school administration, and the staff employed there. There is only so long that the victim can be expected to turn the other cheek or to report the incident to teachers. The video shows that the bullying incident was premeditated and co-ordinated with a number of students. They just did not expect the outcome that followed.

Of course, there has also been plenty of PC crap that has been splashed about in response to the video. John Dalgleish, head of research at Kids Helpline and Boys Town, said, "We don’t believe that violence is ever the answer. We believe there are other ways that children can manage this." He went on to say, "The longer term way is about developing better relationships between kids in the school, that will then empower young people to not be passive bystanders when these acts occur but to stand up and say this is wrong. The short term solution is to have individual counselling with each of the children." Inspector Jason Green from NSW Police said posting the video had the effect of glorifying violence in schools. "Whether it causes other incidents or not I don’t know but it seems to be a trend of late," he said. "It may incite other violence but that’s something that we can’t comment on." A NSW Department of Education and Training spokeswoman said the school "does not tolerate any violence and deals with all cases according to its community-agreed discipline code."

I found a rather interesting definition of “violence” in the online dictionary I consulted. It defined “violence” as, among other things, “an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws.” The video showed the bully use an illegal, unjust and unwarranted exertion of force several times. The victim, acting in self defence, used an act of force sufficient to end the assault on his person, a seemingly just and warranted exertion of force, which I understand is defensible in the court. Casey certainly had the opportunity to stick the boot in while the bully was trying to extricate himself from the pavement, but chose to leave it at that, giving further creedence to his actions being of self defence.

Putting this debate to one side and looking at it in its most appropriate context raises one simple question. Why is this news? This is basically an event that takes place in schoolyards all over the world every day. I was party to a number of schoolyard brawls during my school years, some spontaneous and some organised. Those I wasn’t in, I watched and cheered the participants on. Bullying wasn’t a major issue where I went to school and perhaps this was because we were quick to sort it out. Nowadays, it seems the gentle touchy, feely approach of pacifist do-gooder social work types is the accepted method. Perhaps this is why bullying is so rife today. This is not to make light of bullying in any way. Yes, bullying is a major issue in schools and one hopes that the situation is appropriately managed in the vast majority of them. Anecdotally, one does wonder though.

Sometimes, the bully gets what is coming and natural justice prevails. The bully rarely, it seems, comes back for round two. I do not think that Casey will have any more problems with his particular bully. Even if he returned with reinforcements, the bully would be uneasy in the knowledge that his mates would not be around 24/7. As it is, Casey no doubt has newfound self esteem and a whole lot of respect.

Taking The Sheen Off

They will be unloving and unforgiving; they will slander others and have no self-control. They will be cruel and hate what is good. --2Timothy 3:3

Charlie Sheen has been a permanent fixture in the news in recent weeks. It seems that every police visit, every court appearance, each trip to rehab, and now every rant is a headline creating event requiring the attention of every news outlet in the western world. Clearly, the 45 year old actor has some serious issues in his life that he needs to address if he is to have any chance of a future in Hollywood, or indeed anywhere.

As I write, Warner Brothers have announced that they are terminating Charlie Sheen from the hit series “Two And A Half Men” after an anti-semetic outburst directed at the shows producer, Chuck Lorre. A letter from law firm Munger, Tolles and Olson, Warner Brothers lawyers, published by celebrity website TMZ said: "Let us state the obvious: (Sheen) has been engaged in dangerously self-destructive conduct and appears to be very ill. For months before the suspension of production, Mr Sheen's erratic behavior escalated while his condition deteriorated. His declining condition undermined the production in numerous and significant ways. Now, the entire world knows Mr Sheen's condition from his alarming outbursts over just the last few weeks," it said, lamenting "the public spectacle of his self-inflicted disintegration."

And self-inflicted it appears to be. While his addiction to drugs and alcohol is well documented, it is only now that we are beginning to see his carefree attitude to the situation that he finds himself in. "It's like, I heal really quickly. But I unravel pretty quickly. So get me right now, guys," Sheen said, suggesting he should return to work while he still could. A fortnight ago, he lamented, "I was sober for five years a long time ago and was just bored out of my tree. It's inauthentic - it's not who I am.”

Sheen went on to say that crack cocaine was bad, but not for everyone. "I said stay off the crack, and I still think that's pretty good advice, unless you can manage it socially. If you can manage it socially, then go for it, but not a lot of people can, you know?" He was unapologetic about his drug use, calling his parties "epic.'' The last time he took drugs, he stated he had probably taken "more than anybody could survive.'' Sheen earlier claimed that he had cured himself of his addiction. "I closed my eyes and made it so with the power of my mind."

Even more painful is the toll that his behaviour is taking on his family. Just days ago, his father Martin and brother Emilio Estevez appeared in an interview where clearly they are distraught at having to watch Charlie Sheen’s televised destructive ways. Martin Sheen stated, “If he had cancer, how would we treat him, you know? The disease of addiction is a form of cancer and you have to have an equal measure of concern and love and lift them up, so that’s what we did for him.” Charlie Sheen called his fathers prayers “the gibberish of fools”.

Then there is the children who have been exposed to alcohol and drug fuelled violence directed at their mother, the bedhopping by the porn star girlfriends that Charlie Sheen has stated he wants a polygamous marriage arrangement with, and of course the upheaval of having child protection authorities forcibly removing them to a safer situation. In defending his living arrangements, he stated, "There is more love, compassion, support, child care and everything else you could possibly want for a child in this lovely home. It's not a house. It's a home."

His estranged wife in her court brief claimed, "I am very concerned that (Sheen) is currently insane. I am in great fear that he will find me and attack me and I am in great fear for the children's safety while in his care." She further alleged that on a previous occasion, she had been threatened by Sheen, who allegedy said, "I will cut your head off, put it in a box and send it to your mom."

There is no doubt that there is a lot more heartbreak to come in this situation. In a business where all publicity is good publicity, how much to blame for this situation are we who readily consume celebrity gossip? The media is having a feeding frenzy because there is value in them covering this story and the public is proving insatiable for the next morsel. The proof is in the 2.1 million followers that Charlie Sheen amassed inside a matter of days from launching his twitter account.

Clearly, Charlie Sheen needs immediate help. Whilst he denies this obvious fact, one wonders if he would reassess his situation if the publicity wagon were to come to a halt. As long as his every move is published and he is paid by the tweet, there is no incentive to turn his life around. Many of his adoring fans want to see him come back better and stronger than ever. Unfortunately, that is simply not going to happen while the monster is being fed. The best thing that could happen is for the media spotlight to switch off completely, ignore all the rants and goings on, and let the medical professionals do their thing when he decides that it has to happen for his star to shine again.