Oprahs African all Girl School

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Mar 17 2007, 07:09 PM) [snapback]407673[/snapback]</div>

Plenty of other choices in Africa? That's a good one! :lol:

Wildkow

p.s. BTW, I got curious as to why Oprah, net worth appox $1.5B choose the figure $40M to donate. Check this, her donation comprised 2.67% of her net worth. Take that figure and put it in some type of instrument earning at least 2.67% and viola at years end she earns $40M. She must have huddled up with the bean counters.

 

If this were downtown Chicago and Oprah gave $40 mil, it would be a situation where they accept her money, waste most of it on unionized labor, build a shoddy building, ask her for another 40 million for cost overruns, then sue her because of the limitations she wants to put around the school. In the end they get 35 students in a 80 million dollar school who have so many rights and liberties that all 35 can be shooting up drugs and delivering babies within the first year. No actual education will occur.

So, donate the thing to Africa, but don't give them a wad of cash and say... "Here's your new school, now, business as usual in your culture with this"...

She says no... If we're going to do this, we're going to wrap some parameters around it so that after a few years the students actually have education. I imagine some educators and people who understand the culture there have put the time in so that they know what cords need to be cut so that this will work.

Kudo's to Oprah for what she's doing. On an individual basis if people need to leave the school to maintain the 'as usual' closer family ties then that's their choice. If they can give up some of that, the kid can get a real education and have a 'really' different life after.

If you go for both, I think the education end will suffer. If you do that, why not just close the school.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(barbaram @ Mar 17 2007, 11:48 PM) [snapback]407724[/snapback]</div>

You're right. She built a bunch of homes for the victims of Katrina and held a donation campaign to finance the furnishings. They were move in ready. The families had nothing to worry about except future taxes. She seems to try to pick up where governments fall off, even our own.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Mar 17 2007, 07:49 PM) [snapback]407706[/snapback]</div>

This is a consequence of 30 years of neocon rule of the airwaves and churches. You can thank Rush, O'reilly, Phelps et al for ingraining hate so deeply the haters can't even see what they are causing. Now that the liberals are fighting back it's even getting more ingrained, all to the determent of us all. It's in the same grain as Rove singlehandedly hijacking democracy. Especially painful for us 'oldsters' who remember a civil society. The youngers have no reference so are completely clueless to my point. I don't mean to blame the youngers, as it is a select subset of oldsters who are the airwave and church 'preachers of discord ' who make great fame and personal fortune by driving a permanent wedge when they could have taken an opposite tack and illustrated our commonality. It's painful to some, a slippery slope for all, and I doubt there's a way back to the common good when the fashion is to divide and conquer.

 

I don't follow Oprah, so I really wasn't aware just how involved she is with charitable causes. I mean, I knew she had that Angel Network, I just didn't know to what extent that facilitates progress. I just looked at her website and it seems that she's very effective coupling her name and influence with other charitable organizations which improves public donations to these campaigns. She's built 59 schools in 12 different countries around the world. She's galvanized support for the tsunami victims for around 1 Million. She's provided grants to different types of organizations throughout South Africa ranging from training centers to health care centers. She's working w/ Habitat for Humanity to construct homes for people in the U.S. I'm sure that her involvement with charitable causes prompts her viewers to give to charitable causes they would otherwise not engage.

She's doing a lot of good throughout. Notwithstanding the apparent strict family visits to her recent school, it seems that her intent is in tact. As with any new venture, adjustments are made as operations continue and deficiencies are noted. I'm sure this'll be the case here, if not only to avoid negative publicity. It's kinda funny though that people continue to criticize such giving acts, especially as they skip over all of the positive effects of these charitable acts. I've never seen yogurt become such a matter of such discontent!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Mar 18 2007, 12:55 AM) [snapback]407802[/snapback]</div>

May I suggest that you do your homework and educate yourself on the subject matter before you make a fool of yourself?

Oprah's school is located in the country of South Africa, which has plenty of schools and choices.

You should also familiarize yourself with this Wikipedia® article:

There is more information on the South African Government Information - Education website.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Mar 18 2007, 12:24 PM) [snapback]407939[/snapback]</div>

So Oprah’s philanthropic exploit was an empty gesture made more for self promotion and tax reason’s than any heart felt need on her end for the girl’s situation. Thanks glad you did the research for me. [attachmentid=6938]

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Mar 18 2007, 12:19 PM) [snapback]407964[/snapback]</div>

I see. Philanthropic endeavors should be only permitted to be undertaken by those whose political and moral philosophy you approve.

 

That's interesting.

Class sizes in South Africa are lower than they are here.

I wonder if they spend more of they GNP on their schools too.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Mar 18 2007, 10:39 AM) [snapback]407900[/snapback]</div>

John, I think you and I have pretty similar views on social issues. But I'm not sure where you got this idea that hatred and venom are anything new in America. This country was founded on hatred and intolerance, and the sort of venom being thrown around today is historically far more normal than is civility in American politics

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Mar 18 2007, 02:04 PM) [snapback]407986[/snapback]</div>

Does anybody in the world spend less than we do on education and health care, as a percentage GNP, GDP, or personal income?

As for Oprah, I knew nothing about her, as I don't have a tv, and the few times I've surfed past her program while in a hotel during my travels, I've found it pretty cheesy. But from the above, it sounds like she's a big-time philanthropist. It's been my observation that people who do nothing to help others are very quick to criticize other people's means of contributing. I do think that the school should make an effort to assure that the girls have good contact with their families, but unless someone demonstrates that the present restrictions are unreasonable, given the circumstances and conditions at the school, I'm going to give Oprah and the school the benefit of the doubt, based on her overall history of caring about people's conditions of life.

Maybe the conservatives are just lambasting her because she's viewed as liberal? (Assuming she is... I don't even know that about her, but philanthropists are more often liberal than conservative.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Mar 18 2007, 04:58 PM) [snapback]408088[/snapback]</div>

If you don't care for the moderation here, you are free to express your views on bulletin boards that are moderated in conformity with your conservative Christian values and right wing political inclination. Just as no one is compelling the girls to attend Oprah's school in South Africa, no one is forcing you to read and post on PriusChat FHOP.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Mar 18 2007, 05:58 PM) [snapback]408088[/snapback]</div>

I don't consider you to be a moron by any means. However, bad spelling does not convey a favorable impression.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Mar 18 2007, 08:48 PM) [snapback]408114[/snapback]</div>

I believe Conservapedia has a talking forum.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Mar 18 2007, 03:55 PM) [snapback]408065[/snapback]</div>

Daniel, We do agree a lot, and I think perhaps my post wasn't clear. I was referring to a civil society, not politics. But now that you mention it, it is my belief that while politics has always been a 'contact sport' it is also becoming more so. Certainly, in any case it once was more 'contact sport' than general society, and still may be.

I've followed Oprah for years, and have often wondered about her politics as she does a pretty good job of remaining neutral. Naturally, at some point or other, she has appeared somewhat of a liberal and also a conservative, but overall I find she *tries* to remain above the fray.

Through my business I have found your statement about philanthropists being more liberal than conservative to have a ring of truth. I see hundreds of people's income, donations and who they donate to each year and my experience follows your statement as a general rule. (exceptions on both sides). This is even more evident comparing donations as a percentage of income. There is also an inverse relationship between 'old' vs. 'new' money. Old money recipients are often taught in childhood the old axiom 'with great wealth comes great responsibility', so even if they are 'conservative' many with old money hold their noses and give. However, donations and philanthropy are 2 separate issues and the true philanthropists (people who set up foundations for the expressed purpose of giving away lots of money) I know are definitely more liberal in their politics. The one thing I have learned from true philanthropists is a reflection found in the bible...'give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach him to fish and feed him forever'. So most philanthropists I have come in contact with feel more comfortable funding projects which have far reaching consequences than a 'here today and gone tomorrow' project.

 

A note on one of the observations that seems to have run through this thread...

For four summers when I was a kid, I went to sleepaway camp (as we called it--is there some more "correct" name these days?) for NINE weeks each summer...Okay...I went KICKING AND SCREAMING...but I went, because that was where mom sent me. We were allowed NO phone calls, except for emergencies, and there was ONE visiting day, when the visitors were restricted to a very specific list of immediate family members or their nominees. The food sucked. My husband spent several summers at camp, for 8 weeks at a time, with limited telephone contact and one family day. The food sucked. He also spent a year at a boarding school. Limited telephone contact and maybe one family day per month. The food sucked.

We both (well, all--one of my sisters was subjected to the same tortures as I was) wrote letters, as did our families. What did the letters of we, the tortured children say? The food is awful and we miss you. Did that mean we shouldn't have been there--not necessarily. My husband LOVED his camp, and HATED his school. My sister and I hated the camp after the first year. Did the stuff we didn't like mean we got nothing from it? Nope. Not that either. Hell, yeah it's been 40 years, give and/or take since those years for all 3 of us--and some of the value we are STILL learning. (I bet I can STILL beat mosta you wimps at hula hoops!)

Yeah, Oprah could have chosen to do other things with her money. She chose this. Is it bad because she gets publicity for it? Nope. It is GOOD because she gets publicity for it--maybe some other people with money might consider doing some good if they can. Is it bad because she's not running it by committee? HELL NO. Is it bad because she might(!) get some tax breaks for charitable donations? Ummm...go try to change the law. I tend to suspect that Oprah isn't TOO concerned about that sort of tax break for her tax bracket, ya know?

Oprah giving away a room full of cars, now, that--I didn't understand as anything OTHER than a publicity stunt.

Saying this school is bad because it has rules? Nah. I don't think so. Believe me--if I had had the option to send my now 19 yo and aimless son to such an academy about 3 years ago--I would have leapt at the chance to have him learn some (self)discipline and how not everything can (or SHOULD) be just as you want it to be RIGHT NOW. You have to learn to earn a good life. It doesn't just get handed to you. Or it shouldn't, anyway. And by "earn a good life," no, I do not necessarily mean financially. (Except in the case of my son, who, please god, will become the rich and famous rock star he wants to be so he can support me and his father sometime before he kills us with worry...)

 

OK now that this topic seems to have run its course I'd like to set the record straight. My views posted here is not the way I feel about Oprah's school. I was letting the lefties have a taste of their own medicine and demonstrating how easy it is to twist and turn anyone’s actions into something that is vile and hateful.

Just so you know Oprah’s actions are laudable and noble. I don’t agree with some of her policies, if they are even hers, but overall the school is a good thing and I wish her and the school only the best.

Wildkow

 

ok so not everyone is happy... next question...

what policy?

what law?

what religion?

what moral, social or economic code?

or ANYTHING else for that matter is??