Why wont Bono go away?

I'm guessing it has something to do with head from underage girls/boys/goats.

Oh baloney. If he "walked it like he talked it" he would've given all his material posessions away and done a Siddhartha/Jesus. Instead he's still a millionaire rock star working for corporations largely responsible for all that suffering he's oh so worried about.

Quite seriously: I refuse to measure myself against Bono in terms of whether I'm doing some good or not, I think that's a ridiculous stance. I'm hardly saying I'm perfect in life. But there are causes I support, financially or otherwise, and there are actions and beliefs I stand by. If he is doing something similar on a broader scale via his public status, bully for him, but I'm not going to use that as an excuse to flagellate myself or anyone else for not exactly being like him in turn.

The whole "oh he works for a company which is owned by..." argument doesn't seem very persuasive to me. First of all a very large chunk of the ent't industry is owned by such corporations, and in order to reach the number of people Bono is reaching one has to have their participation. Second, we--all of us--are complicit every day, in our purchases, etc. with the world as it exists now. And corporations with their many tentacles are a very large part of that world. I guess I can see how Bono making money for Universal is a mite hypocritical, but the difference between his hypocrisy and the everyday hypocrisy of the rest of us is a matter of degree, not kind.

Bono just seems overeager and egocentric to me (also a v. bad lyricist). Both sins can be easily forgiven in the scheme of things.

Gimme a break, I don't have any fucking respect for those morons either.

http://www.aidshealth.org/NewsRoom/press/N012903.htm

I was having an argument w/a friend about celebrities (mainly actors) who are protesting against the war. He was saying how they seem pompous and we shouldn't care about their opinions anymore than anyone else. I said that they seem to 'mean well', they feel passionately about something, realize that the media will pay attention to them no matter what they say, and are just trying to use their notoriety to affect some change. I think the self-aggrandisement is not inherent w/in them, it just appears to us who resent them for the attention they get.

Is this enough to impale Bono for? No, the connection's fairly indirect - but it underscores the fact that trumpeting your concern about about these issues while actively putting a lot of money in the pockets of evil people is kind of putting yourself at cross-purposes.

The key phrase here is "a lot," since we're all putting money in the pockets of the MASTERS OF WAR. (Stomp on their graves, Shakey! Do it!)

I mean, shit, he could be using his time/money to amass a collection of Lambourghinis (sp?) and kiddie porn, and we would be fine-and-dandy with that, huh?

In fact, I feel very similarly for another artist-activist often accused of self-aggrandizement, maybe a little moreso for the grassroots-ness of his brand of activism - that would be Tom Morello.

That's pretty dubious reasoning. You don't need a lot of money to serve the public. It's not like he lives like, oh, Ralph Nader. You can't honestly tell me that Bono doesn't live a needlessly lavish lifestyle (yes, one that includes $1000 leather jackets).

"I mean, shit, he could be using his time/money to amass a collection of Lambourghinis (sp?) and kiddie porn, and we would be fine-and-dandy with that, huh?"

Like I said up-thread, no that would not be fine-and-dandy, it just means he would be an asshole.

I dunno. Theres something sensible in this mess. I've secretly hidden some grand truth somewhere in it. First one to find it and explain it to me gets a cookie.

I have a bad visceral reaction to Morello's Chomsky-derived and Maoist-inflected statements, while I can laugh at but easily tolerate Bono's "love one another" banalities.

***

Shakey: the point was that you aren't busy starting threads asking David Lee Roth to go away.

Also I don't know much about Bono's actual lifestyle. (More sincerity ahead.) Aside from the leather jackets, what do you know of his lifestyle?

There was some right-wing bullshit about this on a 24 hour newschannel last week. They were criticizing Martin Sheen for doing an ad about what you can do if you're against the war. (Now, maybe Martin Sheen has said some other shit about why we shouldn't be going to war - and, granted, he's no expert and I don't care about his reasons any more than I care about Bill O'Reilly's..) - but this example was not giving reasons for avoiding war, it was telling people who are against the war how they can direct their energy. So Tucker Carlson or whomever it was can fuckoff for arguing that celebrities shouldn't lead the cause... because they're there to motivate people, not because they think they know more than the 'experts'. (OK maybe Susan Sarandon & Woody Harrelson do..)

..and maybe Bobo (that's Bono, but I like Bobo better) thinks he knows more than he does - but from what I've heard, he actually has done research and does know a bit about debt relief.

I didn't start this thread. I never said Bono should go away. I said he doesn't "walk it like he talks it." This is the THIRD TIME I've had to repeat this on this thread.

Well, maybe the fact that 'poverty' and 'thousand dollar jacket' both relate to money. I thought it was beyond obvious

☺

(insert geeg you're not in the military so don't suggest that it does anything usefull argument here)

(insert geeg you're not in the military so don't suggest that it does anything usefull argument here)

and please oops explain these dubious needs of which you speak, as they reflect the current situation

Bono: "When I met with Senator Jesse Helms, he wept."

What exactly did you do to make Jesse Helms weep?

"I talked to him about the Biblical origin of the idea of Jubilee Year, the idea that every 49 years, you were supposed to release people from their debt and slaves were supposed to be set free. It's very punk rock for God, but I think it's in Leviticus. He was genuinely moved by the story of the continent of Africa, and he said to me, 'America needs to do more.' I think he felt it as a burden on a spiritual level."

The U.S. is interested in going into Iraq for the sake of "Empire" in order to secure U.S. control over Iraqi oil fields

now here's why oops is an idiot:

a War on Iraq will cost more money then could possibly be justified if the war was aimed a controlling oil. the debate around a war with Iraq centers on the issue of intention. The conservatives and Neo-cons suggest that the war on Iraq is to eliminate Saddam as a threat to the region (and as such a legitimate threat to the world's supply of oil) and to construct a democratic society desperately needed within Arab society. War-detractors suggest that America is an imperial power who seeks to control Iraq's oil supply. Both use Historical prescedent to legitimate their concerns. It is my opinion that the conservative opinion on this matter is more accurate and valuable. It is undeniable fact that no other nation has done more to rebuild the society of a defeated enemy than the United States (ie. Japan, Germany), and has done so without being a colonial controlling power in either nation. However, this does not mean that we should not engage in a debate concerning the leftist anti-war sentiment. The left often points to examples throughout the last fifty years, in which America has been an active participant in overthrowing a leader, and supporting, in many cases, a military dictator who assumes power. The job of the neo-con position is now to demonstrate why this model of American foreign policy is not apt in reading the current situation in Iraq; and the way to do this is through analysing motive. If it is true that the United States is only concerned with oil, we must ask why have a war in the first place. In most examples of america foreign policy which removes one form of government in order to secure a 'american-friendly' ally, the ideology of the leader deposed was of the utmost importance. During the cold-war, America made decisions (both good and bad) that were greatly informed by the existence of soviet power; as such the ideology of a leader was read and interpreted, (ie. would this leader be sympathetic to us, or to the soviets). I don't offer this explenation of american policy, as a defense, nor do I deny that American policy is informed by its interest in securing resources and trade with foreign countries. But rather I cite it in order to ask this simple question: what is the point of a war with Iraq if it is based solely on stealing oil...seeing as Saddam has no ideological links to any real anti-capatalist philosophy or group...why would america spend billions on a war to depose a dictator and put in a new puppet dictator, when they could easily do business with Saddam himself??

by the way your quote in question was "What exactly is the military doing to protect my freedom?
Are Swiss people not free?
It's pretty disturbing to think that killing foreign people is the thing which gives me my freedom"

I see nothing negative about the latter. Bono - as a popular artist - has a lot of power, and he is using it to try and make the world a better place. Nothing wrong about that. Same goes for Sting and Peter Gabriel.

"every 49 years, you were supposed to release people from their debt and slaves were supposed to be set free."

So for the other 48 years, crushing debt and slavery are a-OK with God? How punk rock!

"It's very punk rock for God,"

Please tell us more about how the Ramones inspired you to form U2 Bono...

"but I think it's in Leviticus."

Allright! Discussing a biblical concept with a redneck Bible-belter and he can't even accurately cite the correct Biblical passage! That oughta be good for credibility.

"I think he felt it as a burden on a spiritual level."

If I had to listen to Bono's bullshit I would probably feel seriously spiritually burdened too. Oh God, why hast thou forsaken me?!

Thus, you just wasted your time typing all that.
As I have wasted my time with someone as condescending, pompous, and rude as you. I was in a good mood before and will try to regain that by ignoring you.

We all know Saddam is bad news and something needs to be done, but I don't think we need to go to war this very second.

something tells me that was just copied and pasted from some silly neo-Con thinktank site.

True, I wish I could say I'd done the same. Maybe a little more sodomy and miscegenation on my part would help....

rushing into war is not the point...the point is knee-jerk anti-american reactionism...its dangerous, and its sick...i'm not saying you're that...but if you don't think its a huge part of the anti-war movement then you're crazy....

oh and I did write it shakey

What does Shakin' Stevens have to do with this? ;-)

the new sean paul track is amazing

I'm sure this type of thing is a big part of war protestors reasoning, but that doesn't mean everyone who is against war is anti-American, as so many have tried to say. On the contrary, it is my love of America and its people that makes me not want to go to war today. Last option is all I'm saying.

Vivendi Posts Huge Loss; May Shed Assets
By JOHN TAGLIABUE

PARIS, March 6 — Vivendi Universal reported today that it lost more than $25 billion for 2002, largely as a result of huge write-offs on investments made in the heady years of the 1990's.

Vivendi's board, meanwhile, gave its chairman, Jean-René Fourtou, the green light today to explore shedding its American entertainment assets.

And there is 'no King of England'.

And if there was he'd be the 'King of Britain'.

I think U2 suck, I'm sure Bono is doing some good in publicising debt relief to the mainstream, but there remains something condescending about him in the third world saying: '"Oh Jeezus, so this lad's got AIDS, bludy tragedy eh?'

How much did the Popmart tour alone cost??!?!?

Bono has the potential to make a stance against Western multinationals but he seems more prepared to play ball with them. But, hell, he IS out there doing something. For that he earns more brownie points than Nicky Wire and Bobby Gillespie - who both just come across as confused and silly when they play the political game...

Way to go for the extreme!
If someone is the public face for the movement to end poverty, they should set an example and not lead an extravagant lifestyle. Why is this such a hard thing to agree on? I don't think he practice asceticism, just live like a 'normal' working class person.

...

Nope. Ben Kingsley did it better.

ihttp://img446.imageshack.us/my.php?image=2ah8ozm1hk2.jpg

http://img446.imageshack.us/img446/5122/2ah8ozm1hk2.jpg