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 With so many people openly attacking the institution of marriage as outdated and unnecessary, and even advocating alternative definitions of marriage, every failure of a marriage, particularly a high profile marriage, lowers the bar and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.

The True Wilderness

After reaching the end of a long email about the aftermath of the floods in Queensland, the seriousness of occasion was broken by the signature file that was found at the bottom. It read “The only true wilderness is between the ears of a Green.” Needless to say the acronym ROFL applied here and it took sometime for the muscles in my face to return to normal.

When we think of the Greens, we generally think of party leader Bob Brown. He is not one of my favourite people in the world and I look forward to the day that he and his party disappears from our parliaments for good. That said, good on him for stepping up, having a go, and participating in our democracy. He has been a very successful politician for a long time and the good people of Tasmania are obviously very satisfied with his performance to keep returning him to Canberra.

But what of the true wilderness? We have heard the mantra from Bob Brown for several years now. Climate change. Climate change. The drought was caused by climate change. Climate change. Climate change. The Black Saturday bushfires were a direct result of climate change. Flooding on an unprecedented scale since 1974 was caused by climate change. And don’t forget the cyclones, climate change again. It matters not what the situation is, climate change is responsible. Or so he would have you believe.

If one was to take a non-refundable hour to peruse the website of the Australian Greens, we can see a number of policies that they support that is devoid of any sanity and reason. Banning live exports of cattle, sheep, and pigs would kill off 13,000 jobs and wipe $1.8 billion from the economy. Closing coal fired power stations and relying on wind and solar power for our future energy needs is a major problem when the population is increasing and renewable energy sources are only a fraction of the capacity and efficency of coal. The banning of political donations is interesting given that the Greens gratefully received $1.6 million from wotif.com director, Graeme Wood. Then we have the usual no nuclear position, with no nuclear power stations or uranium mining. That’s another $900 million gone, which if added to the closure of the coal export industry will total around $56 billion and the unemployment that goes with it. The Lucas Heights OPAL nuclear reactor in Sydney has long been a target for closure by the Greens, a move that would leave hundreds of thousands of cancer sufferers without treatment.

The latest escapade of the Greens has been a dip into the flood levy that Prime Minister Julia Gillard has proposed to pay for infrastructure repair and replacement in Queensland. A fortnight ago, Ms Gillard announced that she was cutting a number of programs to find $2.8 billion in funding for the rebuilding effort. On the chopping block were the Cleaner Car Rebate Scheme, the Green Car Innovation Fund, the Carbon Capture and Storage Flagships and Solar Flagships programs, the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute, the National Rent Affordability Scheme, and the Australian Learning and Teaching Council.

As you could no doubt imagine, the Greens were not happy with this announcement since it ran a scalpel through what are significant environmentally friendly programs. The problem with them, as the Prime Minister rightly alluded, was the fact that they are outrageously expensive. A good PM weighs up the costs and benefits of each program to ensure the taxpayer gets value for money. Ms Gillard herself stated prior to the election that she does just that. The evidence was slashing $100 million from the solar flagship scheme on the grounds that it was money wasted. “Cash For Clunkers” and the “Green Car Fund” went the way of the dodo because there were far cheaper ways of cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

However, good governance disappeared out the window when Senator Bob came knocking…. The Greens would not support any moves to cut wasteful green programs and threatened to scuttle any legislation to impose the flood levy unless the Prime Minister agreed to reinstate the funds. Rather than telling Senator Brown where the exit was, Ms Gillard rolled over, forgoing an opportunity to paint the Greens as the treacherous opponents of flood victims everywhere. Given that a significant number of Green supporters are disaffected ALP voters, she missed a chance to bring those votes home.

So the Greens sold their vote on the flood levy for $100 million to restore the cuts to the solar flagships program, and another $264 million for the national rental affordability scheme. Just like that, one fifth of the levy’s revenue base went into inefficient Green programs in preference to infrastructure rebuilding and repairs. If that wasn’t bad enough, ex-Green Independent Andrew Wilkie siphoned off another $88 million for the Australian Learning and Teaching Fund. That totals $452 million spent by the Prime Minister just to win votes for a levy to raise $1.8 billion. Others might point out that Senator Steve Fielding exchanged his vote for $500 million for infrastructure repairs to Victorian flood effected communities. At least he remained within the spirit of the proposed levy to ensure that not only Queensland benefitted from the proceeds of the levy.

It seems to me that the Prime Minister is desperate for this bill to successfully pass through the parliament. In her quest for a significant political victory, Ms Gillard has left her brain in a jar on the desk. Identifying and cutting waste is the role of any government employee and she did it well, only to backflip and restore the funding at the first sign of pressure. Some would call that negligent. This lunacy makes me question the true wilderness further. Maybe it is not just between the ears of a Green that it is found…

No Love Lost For Julia Gillard

There appears to be no middle ground with Mark Latham. You either love him or you hate him. The former ALP leader has never been a stranger to controversy after a number of incidents that occurred during his federal parliamentary career. His unconventional approach won him a lot of support particularly as Opposition Leader, but there was always a niggling doubt that bugged the electorate as to whether this bloke was a suitable alternative Prime Minister. Although the electorate was tiring of John Howard’s government, the 2004 federal election proved that he was seen as a safer pair of hands than Mr Latham to guide the wheels of government.

To his credit, Mark Latham was not a political clone and he remained his own man. Following the 1998 federal election, he butted heads with leader Kim Beazley over policy and resigned from the shadow cabinet, leaving a political enmity that continues to this day. Add to that some widely publicised comments referring to then Prime Minister John Howard as an “arselicker”, the Liberal Party front bench as “a conga line of suckholes”, and US President George W. Bush as incompetent and dangerous. To top it all off, there was an accusation by a taxi driver that Mark Latham had broken his arm in a dispute over a fare.

Since his departure from public office, Mark Latham has popped up periodically to create some news headlines and some major headaches for his former party. During the 2010 federal election campaign, he emerged from the press pack as a guest reporter for Channel 9’s Sixty Minutes program and confronted Julia Gillard over a complaint she had allegedly made about his current assignment. He went on to demonstrate the power of one by urging people to leave their ballots blank on election day, a move that may have contributed to a slightly higher than usual informal vote count, and a pivotal point in the outcome of the election.

Last week, Mr Latham stuck his head up again as the media picked up on an opinion piece he had written for The Spectator Australia. In the article, Mark Latham observed of Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s performance during the flood crisis: “She is not a naturally empathetic person - displaying, for instance, noticeable discomfort around infant children.” He was not the only person to remark upon her cold, distant, clinical interaction with flood victims, a demeanour that was magnified by the outpouring of compassion and emotion from Queensland Premier Anna Bligh.

Mr Latham went on to stick the boot into Ms Gillard by stating: “the femocrats will not like this statement, but I believe it to be true: anyone who chooses a life without children, as Gillard has, cannot have much love in them.” Current and former politicians from both sides of the political divide rightly condemned the remarks, with the office of the Prime Minister refusing to comment.

Like it or not, Mark Latham does raise an interesting aspect of Ms Gillard that has largely been ignored, that of her childlessness. In 2007, Senator Bill Heffernan was forced to apologise when he questioned Ms Gillard’s leadership credentials because she was “deliberately barren.” He said a politician needed to understand “family and the relationship between mums, dads and a bucket of nappies.” In 2010, following Tony Abbott’s “virginity is a gift” interview with the Australian Women’s Weekly, Senator George Brandis hit out at Ms Gillard’s understanding of parenting by saying: “I think that although Julia Gillard is a very clever politician, she is very much a one-dimensional person and I do think her reaction, her over-reaction to the, in my view, quite unexceptionable remarks Tony Abbott made as the father of daughters, is not something she would have said if she were herself the mother of teenage daughters.”

So, is Mark Latham right? Does Julia Gillard have no capacity to love because she has no children? Interestingly, it was Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce, who made the best defence case. He said, “It is absurd and cruel in the extreme to think that a person who doesn't have kids is a less deserving human being or has less of a capacity to love. I can assure you there are an abundance of people in this world without children - and for that matter with - who are caring and loving.” Think Mother Theresa. Think Florence Nightingale. Minister for Human Services, Tanya Plibersek added, “Julia Gillard is a fine leader and she demonstrates that every day, both as Prime Minister and when she was minister of education when she worked tirelessly for the benefit of millions of Australian children.”

The Prime Minister has been forthright throughout her political career about her decision to not have children. On the ABC’s Australian Story program in 2006, Ms Gillard recalled: “And so in my head when I was, when I thought about these things I guess I thought either-or. You're working at this intense high level or you're having kids.” She went on to say, “I've certainly watched some of my Labor colleagues in Parliament who have had children, and you just, you know you've got to be full of admiration. …You just look at that and say "I mean how does anybody ever make that add up" …but the pressure of that is obviously very, very acute …a lot of emotional pressure, a lot of juggling and it's very tough. So when you watch the women around you, there are a number who are just putting together looking after kids and having great Parliamentary careers. I'm in awe of it, but for me I don't think I could have done it like that. I can understand it all at an intellectual level and I do admire it but I think I just emotionally would have found that all very tough.”

Despite the reasons for her decision, Ms Gillard has been criticised as being selfish to seek the trappings of high office over having children. For some, it was felt that she was unelectable because she could not identify with the issues of working families. Her response was quite dignified, “No one person can encapsulate everyone's life experience. A man doesn't know what it's like to be a woman, a person with children doesn't know what it's like to be a person without children, a person from a wealthy background doesn't know what it's like to grow up on a housing estate.” She also pointed out that no-one seemed to question the leadership credentials of former US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, who is also unwed and childless.

Ultimately, our parliament is meant to be representative of the people. We need talented people from all walks of life and from all sorts of backgrounds to participate in our democracy. Julia Gillard has made the sacrifice of family to devote her energies completely to the causes that are important to her. She recognises the toll that public office takes on those MP’s with children and appears to understand the commitment that having children requires. There is plenty of issues that I don’t agree with the Prime Minister on, but I accept her decision in this instance. There are many children in our society who are neglected because their parents are pursuing their own interests. It is a responsible choice to not have children if one knows that you are unable to devote your resources to properly raising that child. Which brings us back to Mark Latham. When Mr Latham resigned as Opposition Leader and as MP for Werriwa, he cited a desire to devote himself to his family. One can’t help but draw the conclusion from his words that balancing the demands of being Labor leader with the demands of raising young children was too hard.

The Phantom Farters of Malawi

Some years ago during my education, a paragon of enlightenment in an attempt to have me contribute more to class discussion told me that there was no such thing as a bad idea, just a poorly executed one. In the moments afterward as the teacher let that enormity of wisdom sink into my skull, I processed the words of this oracle and had thoughts to myself of the byproducts of the gastrointestinal system of the male bovine animal. If ever I needed proof of both a bad idea and a poorly executed one, it was given to me this week by, of all people, the President of Malawi.

Forget about multiple cyclones bearing down on the Queensland coast, and put the uprising in Egypt out of your mind because the years’ most earth shattering news came out of Africa with Malawian President Bingu wa Mutharika declaring that farting would be made a crime. Naturally and most deservedly, he became the subject of ridicule all over the world. Like most people, I figured that if I was subject to a law like that, I would be on first name terms with the magistrate very rapidly.

It was not only internationally that the President was ridiculed. His own citizens questioned the workability of a law where the burden of proof would be so difficult to carry. After all, the evidence disperses after a short period and there is not always a sound to enable a finger to be pointed in the direction of. Often all that remains is a skidmark on the undies and the benefit of the doubt goes to the person who had an itch in that department.

Can you imagine the court system and the volume of cases this would generate? Mind you, each trial would be very short. The defense lawyer would address the judge by saying, "M'lud, my client is innocent of the charge. Bring his accuser before the court. It is a long standing legal principle that 'He who smelt it, dealt it'." The prosecution leaps to his feet and cries, "Objection! He who denied it supplied it, M’lud! I rest my case." The judge would then say “Guilty as charged! Fined the same amount as yesterday!” after which the defendant would say “Righto. Same time tomorrow?”

Seriously though. Is this effort by President Mutharika a case of too much sun or is he laying the foundation for something bigger, like a descent into despotism? Is this an attempt by the government of Malawi to exercise control over the individual on a very personal level and the beginning of things to come? Whilst despots and dictators are not an uncommon thing in Africa, Malawi appears to be in pretty good shape constitutionally after reforms in the 1990’s saw their self-declared “president for life” Dr Banda shown the door. Elections for the parliament and president are held regularly, with the current president emerging victorious with a solid majority. That said, there is a long memory on the part of millions of Malawians who lived under the oppressive Dr Banda and a great deal of suspicion about whether the current incumbent is setting himself to override the will of the people.

In announcing the Local Courts Bill, which contains the anti-farting law, it was said that the reason behind the statute was to "mould responsible and disciplined citizens". In and of itself, moulding responsible and disciplined citizens is a noble ideal that sets a course to build a strong society for future generations of Malawians. Like many African nations, Malawi has internal challenges including corruption, the HIV/AIDS epidemic, limited natural resources, and significant poverty (Malawi is the fourth poorest nation in the world). By attempting to address issues of personal conduct, some of the challenges that face Malawi such as corruption and HIV will be reduced and those resources diverted to the bigger problems of building the economy and national infrastructure.

The Local Courts Bill seeks to establish a local court system with powers to handle civil cases under the penal code and limited criminal cases including importation of prohibited publications, publication of false news, fighting in public, insulting the modesty of a woman, common nuisance, idle and disorderly persons, conduct likely to cause breach of peace, use of insulting language, common assault and, of course, farting in public. Whilst there is a lot of opposition to the bill due to concerns over government interference and impartiality, I cannot fault the apparent desire by the President to see a more moral society. The Ten Commandments similarly addressed the personal conduct of the Israelites and this underpinned the establishment of the nation of Israel. Such was its success, that it has been replicated many times throughout the world down through history. Maybe the President needed to start here as well.

It is obvious that President Mutharika needs to rethink some of the practical implications of his bill and address the concerns of the people on the street, especially those who had cabbage and beans for lunch. Banning farting is a bad idea and a poorly executed one. And while we might laugh and poke fun at the flag of Malawi in the context of this story as well as his rather dodgy proposal, perhaps we should not talk too loudly. This little gem can be found in Section 245 of the Queensland Criminal Code…

(1) A person who strikes, touches, or moves, or otherwise applies force of any kind to, the person of another, either directly or indirectly, without the other person's consent, or with the other person's consent if the consent is obtained by fraud, or who by any bodily act or gesture attempts or threatens to apply force of any kind to the person of another without the other person's consent, under such circumstances that the person making the attempt or threat has actually or apparently a present ability to effect the person's purpose, is said to assault that other person, and the act is called an assault.

(2) In this section-- applies force includes the case of applying heat, light, electrical force, gas, odour, or any other substance or thing whatever if applied in such a degree as to cause injury or personal discomfort.

Yep. Pulling one’s finger can land you in the clink in Queensland. In case those of you who know me well are thinking that this might slow me down a bit, think again. Getting locked up for farting might be just the touching human interest story that the chequebook journalists at A Current Affair and Today Tonight are looking for!

Would You Accept A Gift From This Woman?

For many people, the subject of charitable giving is a rather touchy one. We saw the ire of the general public squared at both Queensland Premier Anna Bligh and Prime Minister Julia Gillard when they announced their matching $1 million gifts to the Queensland Flood Appeal. Surely, this was a paltry sum compared to what was given for overseas disasters, such as the Boxing Day Tsunami. Doesn’t charity begin at home?

For charity organisations, they each scramble for a slice of the limited charity dollar, taking any opportunity they can to stick their hands out for their cause. I recall a television report a couple of years ago that told how Australians waste millions of dollars each year on food they don’t eat, clothes they don’t wear, books they don’t read, etc. The high profile CEO of a high profile charity indignantly remarked that if Australians couldn’t spend their money properly, then we should give it to his charity to ensure that it is spent properly. How to win friends and influence people…

Then there is the super wealthy who many people believe should share their vast fortunes with those less fortunate. Multi-millionaire Jamie McIntyre in the days when he wasn’t so well off researched the financial habits of the mega-rich and found that the vast majority donated a percentage of their income to charitable causes. Today, he teaches the Biblical principle of tithing as a fundamental of wealth creation.

Which brings me to Oprah. Oprah Winfrey is one of the wealthiest women on the planet, with a personal fortune of $US2.7 billion and earnings of $US315 million in 2010 alone. She is also very famous for her philanthropy. Between 1998 and 2007, she gave $US230 million to her Oprah Winfrey Foundation for distribution to over 170 projects throughout the world. She also established the Angel Network, a charity for Oprah’s viewers to partner with her in these many projects.

Oprah’s most famous acts of giving have come on her own program. In 2004, she gave away a car to all 286 members of her hand-picked audience in a gesture valued at $US7.8 million. Her annual “favourite things” episode is one of the most sought after tickets in the world because every member of the audience gets all ten products that Oprah lists on her top ten favourite items of the year. Recently, all 302 members of her studio audience received airline tickets to Australia for a recording of some shows down under. While here, Oprah gave away $1 million worth of computer gear to a needy school, $250,000 to a cancer sufferer and his family, 6000 pearl necklaces, and 6000 diamond pendants. For these acts of kindness and charity, Oprah is lauded and revered the world over.

So is there anything wrong with this picture? Let’s face it, Oprah is a woman with serious clout. One word from Oprah can take an author from struggle street to the top of the best sellers list overnight. A product endorsement from her means serious dollars for the manufacturer in question. Company chiefs know that giving Oprah an item for each member of the studio audience is a small seed that grows to a rich harvest in a short space of time. Oprah’s acclaim grows with each gift, the audience are thrilled, and the company chiefs count the cash. Everyone is happy.

Well, not always. The car giveaway in 2004 generated unprecedented publicity for the Oprah Winfrey Show, its host, and General Motors. Nothing like it had ever been seen before on US television. The hand-picked studio audience were all worthy recipients on the grounds of poverty, need, or good works done for others. The recipients wept with joy, the television audience rode the wave of emotion, the cash cow at General Motors mooed, and Oprah basked in the glory of it all. Lost in all the publicity was the $7,000 tax bill the US government imposed on the recipients that caused many of them to have to return the car because they didn’t have the means to pay. Oprah inexplicably refused to come to the party to pay the shortfall, as did General Motors. The stark reality of trash consumerism raised its ugly head, and nobody noticed as the adulation continued unabated.

So is Oprah the philanthropist she makes out to be? She publicly gives away stuff that doesn’t belong to her and reaps the benefit of an enhanced reputation through greater fame, higher ratings, and increased bargaining power. The companies who supply the goodies achieve prominent product placement, an Oprah endorsement, and a substantial boost to sales. The marketing and PR people on both sides do the rest, and the audience again is most satisfied. Purely a commercial transaction.

But it must be said in Oprah’s defense that she does not make the claim that she gives the products out of her own resource. The manufacturer is appropriately credited as supplying the goods, with Oprah acting as the conduit between the seller and the consumer, a connection that otherwise might not have been made. It is a classic win-win situation.

There is no doubt that Oprah Winfrey is a giver. She has gone to great lengths to document her charitable acts either as the primary giver or as the go-between. For some people, Oprah’s publicising her donations is distasteful in the extreme. This is curiously at odds with the desire of the community to see the mega-rich give more. However distasteful one may find Oprah’s public show of giving, one has to consider whether or not her ambassadorship for philanthropy inspires similar behaviour in others. The Bible tells us that the giver’s reward is in heaven if they give on the quiet, but have already received their reward if they make a show of it. As an ex-Baptist, Oprah doesn’t appear too concerned with heavenly rewards. Still, true religion is looking after widows and orphans, and Oprah can teach us all plenty on the subject.