Bono on the cover of _Time_...

Paragraph that struck me the most:

At 41, Bono says, he has given up on music as a political force. He believes his work negotiating in political back rooms is more vital and effective than singing in sold-out stadiums. "Poetry makes nothing happen," the poet W.H. Auden once wrote, and Bono wistfully agrees. "I'm tired of dreaming. I'm into doing at the moment. It's, like, let's only have goals that we can go after. U2 is about the impossible. Politics is the art of the possible. They're very different, and I'm resigned to that now. Music's the thing that stopped me from falling asleep in the comfort of my freedom. I learned about South America from listening to the Clash. I learned about Situationism from the Sex Pistols. But that's a long way from budget caps and dealing with a Congress that is suspicious of aid because it has been so misused."

Maybe he should just stop singing in sold-out stadiums, then! (Pleaaaaase?)

Although it might seem a little *cheap*, it would be very good to have someone as high-profile and looked-up-to (perhaps for the wrong reasons w/r/t debt relief, but nonetheless) as Bono fighting for political reform. Hey, if good works are being done, why argue with the source? (NB: I don't necessarily agree wholeheartedly with this line of reasoning; I'm just putting it out there as fodder.)

Here's a good article on Bono's utter naivety:
http://www.zmag.org/content/Activism/BleakneyBono.cfm

It's a good and pointed response, and certainly paints Chretien in a light I hadn't been aware of before -- but it says as much about the writer's mindset than anything else, and that mindset I find extremely troubling. It's coming from a belief that there is a clear, obvious and total division between right and wrong that is completely intrinsic and that Bono is only and solely a tool of wrong. Leftist ideologues please me about as much as right-wing ones -- ie, not at all. I can't imagine this guy being much of a persuader when it comes to those who need to hear it the most, and I don't see much in the way of a solution being offered by him in return.

That said, it's clear that there's a line in the sand drawn between the Zmag writer, who obviously regards the eternal system as corrupt, and Bono, who figures that some form of negotiation is necessary if anything would need to be achieved. Both would regard the other as being well-meaning (though I'm not even sure the Zmag guy would grant that much, which strikes me as incredibly self-serving on his part) but ultimately incorrect -- and inasmuch as that's the reflection of a long line of left-leaning thought throughout decades now, there's not going to be a final answer anytime soon.

the eternal system

Now *there's* a slip of the tongue. ;-) 'Entire' was my intent, but eternal certainly can feel like the whole damn edifice sometimes.

Self-serving is right...I guess when all you listen to are left-wing diatribes, then yeah: the only thing you hear about Chretien are the things mentioned in that article. That doesn't change the fact that the Bono/Chretien love-in is extremely bizarre..

Hah! Harvard invited Bono to give a commencement address last year because of his contributions to political activism, or something. Of course we all know the truth--Harvard likes sucking up to celebrities. (They just gave some sort of award to Bruce Willis, too.) Meanwhile we kids at MIT got the head of NASA as our commencement speaker--and man, he was a loser. I figured we could have at least gotten "The Edge".

I need more vodka.

Ned I must take issue with your statement on the Left being wrong on every account : Women's rights ( face it most feminists are also leftists), Abolition of child labor, gay rights, worker protection, etc... Lets not make broad statements!

You have misread my point and I'm very annoyed about that. I am not talking about the issues the left in general argues for, I am talking about ideologues who by and large tend to quash their points in a humorless, stiff-backed and tiring fashion. Both sides of the general political divide suffer far too much from such people.

First, Bono. Who's next: Liz Fraser?

Well, Liz has the incomprehensibility thing down pat, so she's certainly got a good future in politics if she wants one.

By the way, SP, your input might be useful on this thread here.

Has Mr. Raggett been listening to too much Green-era REM? Everyone knows that Bono has been dipping into Mr. Raggett's deep pockets.

i wonder if bono contributes his own moolah to debt relief?

Maybe he can help out by letting politicians from the countries in question fly around the world on the U2 corporate jet. Y'know, until the bottom line looks better and stuff.

When did Bono become like the most important person in the world? He really is some sort of Illuminati spy, isn't he?

Everyone knows that Bono has been dipping into Mr. Raggett's deep pockets.

Hm. I'll have to congratulate you on making the most confusing post I've read in a long time...

Well, Ned, everyone knows your pockets are extremely deep, with the amount of music you buy. Surely Bono has gotten a COUPLE bucks from you.

I think the only money he got from me over the past...ten, twelve years?...would be the greatest hits thing. Unless you count the songwriting royalties via Negativland. ;-)

>It's coming from a belief that there is a clear, obvious and total >division between right and wrong that is completely intrinsic and >that Bono is only and solely a tool of wrong. I don't think, personally, that it is obvious that it is coming from that angle. It's more of a case of Bono is significantly more of a tool for 'wrong' than the 'good' that gives us all a warm gushy feeling inside. I think the most important thing about the article is it shows how naive and how little bono actually knows. Lending credence to the notion that his little patronising rants are more about feeding his own ego and making him feel good than anything else.
> Leftist ideologues please me about as much as right-wing ones -- ? >ie, not at all. I can't imagine this guy being much of a persuader >when it comes to those who need to hear it the most, and I don't see >much in the way of a solution being offered by him in return. What kind of solution do you want? I mean, do you mean you want the author ,or any leftist author, to offer up their vision of an alternative society in every article they write?
>That said, it's clear that there's a line in the sand drawn between >the Zmag writer, who obviously regards the eternal system as >corrupt, and Bono, who figures that some form of negotiation is >necessary if anything would need to be achieved. That's not really the point of the article. The point being made is more about the ignorance of Bono, as demonstrated by his ill informed statements. And the 'eternal system'? I mean, these are rather vague notions. It also seeks to educate anyone fooled by the portryal of Bono as some one who has a clue.
Both would regard >the other as being well-meaning (though I'm not even sure the Zmag >guy would grant that much, which strikes me as incredibly self- >serving on his part) but ultimately incorrect -- and inasmuch as I'm not sure the Zmag guy really cares if Bono is well meaning or not. And I don't think anyone else does either. He's a twat. >that's the reflection of a long line of left-leaning thought >throughout decades now, there's not going to be a final answer >anytime soon. God, I mean, I think your response to the article reflects more of your deep seated hatred of leftist thought than any content in the article

Bastard HTML

I mean, do you mean you want the author, or any leftist author, to offer up their vision of an alternative society in every article they write?

The article gives me nothing to go on in terms of what the author thinks would be the right thing to do, especially since he's spent the entire time telling us what he thinks the *wrong* thing to do is as encapsulated in Mr. Vox's behavior. Which is more constructive, telling someone 'you suck' or telling someone 'you could do this instead'? And since there are many different ways to do 'this,' whatever it is -- and not all of them I agree with -- I don't see why I should cut Bleakney any particular slack.

God, I mean, I think your response to the article reflects more of your deep seated hatred of leftist thought than any content in the article

Spare me. You think I'm at all happy with the past six months, with all the death and destruction and more foisted on the world by a wretched government here in the States, for one thing? And that's just the culmination of various problems. Let's just take it as read that there's no real point in coming across as the voice of outrage against a supposed conservative here, because you're barking up the wrong tree, and I have no interest in justifying myself to you on that point further.

I don't have a deep-seated hatred of leftist thought, I have a deep- seated hatred of shrill ranting passed off as thoughtful analysis. It's precisely *because* my views are generally to the left that I'm pissed off with the Zmag writer, who instead of making a cogent case against Bono -- and who did raise some good points regarding Chretien, thank you very much -- comes across as self-righteous martyrology incarnate, crossed with an explicit interest in reducing Bono to nothing but a demon to project fears onto, a melange of soundbites and sunglasses that Bleakney seems to have difficulty acknowledging might actually be a human being. Indeed, Bleakney's contempt for Bono's line about no 'easy bad guys and good guys' is quite revealing, because clearly he himself cannot allow shades of grey into his vision of the world -- and like I said, I'm sick of ideologues, I'm sick of those who have implicitly or explicitly claim to have figured it all out. No, Anas, that may not be the 'point' of the article, but it is the stance where Bleakney comes from, and I immediately distrust and fear it as much as I would anything from Ann Coulter.

This nonsense is *not* what the left needs right now, goddammit, and it doesn't need you just presenting the link without comment and then acting huffy if someone decides to call the content into question. It seems all you're doing here is saying again and again, "Bono's ignorant, Bono's ignorant, Bono's a twat!" and pointing to the article. I find that limiting and tiresome.

I have to say as well that the article's end attribution bugged me, because why the hell should this guy have even identified himself as a musician, and why should Zmag have cared? It's almost a 'oh look, let's put up our *own* musician in response to Bono' -- such justification is pointless. Let this guy's thoughts stand or fall on their own merits; would it have made a difference if the fellow hated music and was tone deaf?

The article gives me nothing to go on in terms of what the author thinks would be the right thing to do, especially since he's spent the entire time telling us what he thinks the *wrong* thing to do is as encapsulated in Mr. Vox's behavior. Which is more constructive, telling someone 'you suck' or telling someone 'you could do this instead'? And since there are many different ways to do 'this,' whatever it is -- and not all of them I agree with -- I don't see why I should cut Bleakney any particular slack.
 

I think that you can draw pretty obvious conclusions from the article. I mean, I think the author assume you don't need to be spoonfed every fact. I mean, I think one conclusion that Bono , at least, should draw is that, just because you're rich and famous doesn't mean that you can open your mouth regardless of how little you know. Another conclusion is how the media seems to portray Bono as being some sort of important spokesman  and thus eliminating from the picture people who really do know what they're talking about, such as canadian postal workers, or whatever, and marginalising their perspectives.  It did a service by providing information not usually given by mainstream sources, and that's gotta be good, right, Ned?
 

God, I mean, I think your response to the article reflects more of your deep seated hatred of leftist thought than any content in the article

Spare me. You think I'm at all happy with the past six months, with all the death and destruction and more foisted on the world by a wretched government here in the States, for one thing? And that's just the culmination of various problems. Let's just take it as read that there's no real point in coming across as the voice of outrage against a supposed conservative here, because you're barking up the wrong tree, and I have no interest in justifying myself to you on that point further.

 against Bono -- and who did raise some good points regarding Chretien, thank you very much -- comes across as self-righteous martyrology incarnate, crossed with an explicit interest in reducing Bono to nothing but a demon to project fears onto, a melange of soundbites and sunglasses that Bleakney seems to have difficulty acknowledging might actually be a human being.

what?!??! are you reading a different article from me? OK, as I read it, the article seems to be saying Bono is ignorant regarding the matters he speaks of. He does this by quoting some relevant lines from ol' Bono, and then simply adding some facts (though you may debate they're facts) that seem to suggest that Bono is acting from some sort of inflated ego rather than a full regard for the facts.. I think that Bleakney acknowledges Bono is human, and falling prey to all too real human frailties. I think maybe you took Bleakney's attempts at humour the wrong way. This is on the whole a humourous article, not some grand Marxist/Leninist-style denunciation. I think you're reflecting a different  leftist/liberal viewpoint. Just cause Bono says good stuff about debt, it doesn't matter what shit comes out of his mouth. As long as he's getting the message across to the press, etc. It doesn't matter  how much   he leaves out or ignores. Comprimise, regardless of what you're giving away. I mean, consider if Bono actually brought issues that made leaders uncomfortable. He has the access. Imagine if he pointed out as loudly and brashly as he could the extent of US influence in all those south american trouble spots he gets so teary eyed about (if he has I haven't heard about it, though maybe media didn't cover it). I mean, it's clear from their treatment that protestors are worrying those in power, if someone like Bono came along and stood with the protestors instead of sucking old guys cocks and gaining the illusion of having power and said stuff they really didn't want to hear and suffering some discomfort himself,  it would make a difference(IMHO). Bono doesn't really seem to have any sense of solidarity with those protesting. Maybe he thinks he's speaking for the dispossesed. To an extent he is. But it is a laughable extent.
 

Indeed, Bleakney's contempt for Bono's line about no 'easy bad guys and good guys' is quite revealing, because clearly he himself cannot allow shades of grey into his vision of the world -- and like I said, I'm sick of ideologues, I'm sick of those who have implicitly or explicitly claim to have figured it all out.

Mmmmmm, once I think you're falling into a similar trap. There are shades of gray in every situation, yes. But it does not follow that  in every situation both sides are more or less ethically justified. In some cases, the fact is that there are people who are to anyone with common sense and a command of relevant facts, let's say, less ethically justified. In some situations, who's wrong seems very obvious, and who's right seems very obvious. And I don't think Bleakney claims to have figured it all out, just seems to have access to more relevant knowledge than some(i.e., Bono). If you don't believe me , read the article, he seems to have some good points in it.
 

No, Anas, that may not be the 'point' of the article, but it is the stance where Bleakney comes from, and I immediately distrust and fear it as much as I would anything from Ann Coulter.

I don't think it is as easy to discern Bleakney's stance, and really I don't think it's that important when reading the article. I think the fact that you 'immediately' distrust based on your (mis)perceptions doesn't bode well for your reading the article with an open mind, regardless of who wrote it.

This nonsense is *not* what the left needs right now, goddammit, and it doesn't need you just presenting the link without comment and then acting huffy if someone decides to call the content into question. It seems all you're doing here is saying again and again, "Bono's ignorant, Bono's ignorant, Bono's a twat!" and pointing to the article. I find that limiting and tiresome.

OK, I think the article is *exactly* what the left needs. What it does not need is the media directing all its attention to someone who is to all extents and purposes a puppet for those in power. I think the article really powerfully speaks for itself on the issue of Bono's ignorance. I didn't think I needed to address that after I left the post. Especially as you haven't really given any decent arguments showing that Bono has a wealth of knowledge on the subject.
 
 

I have to say as well that the article's end attribution bugged me, because why the hell should this guy have even identified himself as a musician, and why should Zmag have cared? It's almost a 'oh look, let's put up our *own* musician in response to Bono' -- such justification is pointless. Let this guy's thoughts stand or fall on their own merits; would it have made a difference if the fellow hated music and was tone deaf?

I think you're reading too much into the end attribution. On the other hand, I don't think you've really let the guy's thoughts stand ontheir own merits. Rather you've ploughed into your preconceptions of 'leftism'. No, this does't mean you can't think of yourself as coming from a 'left' perspective.

Another conclusion is how the media seems to portray Bono as being some sort of important spokesman

He *is* there, he *is* leading a group of people who get into discussions on this matter, etc. If you want to complain about the ideals of the NGOs he represents/works with, then by all means. But implying he has no role at all, that this image seems to have been solely dreamed up by people looking for a news angle, is strange.

and thus eliminating from the picture people who really do know what they're talking about, such as canadian postal workers, or whatever, and marginalising their perspectives.

Uh, wait. Surely you're not saying that just because Bleakney is a Canadian postal worker he therefore has Secret Knowledge about the universe? Lord knows he's not saying that himself! If you want to say that the relative fame levels in question mean that attention automatically goes to Bono, that's fair -- but there's a distressing undercurrent here which implies that because Bono is who he is he can therefore never really know what's going on at all, that he can never once learn otherwise, and that he seems to know *nothing* at all about the matter, period. This idea I don't buy in the slightest. Please note I am not arguing that Mr. Vox is therefore *right,* which you seem to think I'm doing.

It did a service by providing information not usually given by mainstream sources, and that's gotta be good, right, Ned?

Contrasting reports are good in order to try and get at the truth, because there will always be slant and spin, often unconsciously applied. But keep in mind that you can just as easily find voices on the right implying that the biased evil corp media is a tool of the left, and that you'll find insanely right wing equivalents to Zmag ranting about their own information beyond the mainstream. So I welcome other perspectives, but I see no reason to substitute them for mainstream perspectives as the objective truth just because. Slant and spin takes all forms and all kinds... what?!??! are you reading a different article from me?

Great, now we're the Melody Maker letters page circa 1991.

He does this by quoting some relevant lines from ol' Bono, and then simply adding some facts (though you may debate they're facts) that seem to suggest that Bono is acting from some sort of inflated ego rather than a full regard for the facts.

Let's look at those lines -- merely four short quotes in total for the whole article -- in detail.

"These politicians keep taking the lead on issues that really concern us, people who are what you might call the movement for change in the developing world."

On the face of it, Bono's most unjustifiable line, and maybe it still is. Bleakney uses it to contrast with another vision of Chretien in particular. My thoughts: who are 'these politicians,' anyway? Where was this line spoken? What was the full context? In fact, very depressingly, there's no citation at all to any of these quotes. Now you might think to yourself that's unimportant, but contrast Bleakney's approach with that of someone who actually has a sense of humor and outrage in equal amounts, Tom Tomorrow. In his most recent comic, concerning a particularly vile statement from dear ol' Ann Coulter, he followed up questions on that statement by providing links and further details on his webpage. Perhaps Bleakney will rewrite to add the info later, which would be nice. As it stands, I want to see what more Bono said here before I conclude he's 'obviously' a tool.

As for the other statements:

"I think they need to make the profits, we need to do the research".

Spoken regarding drug companies, and once again a very strange line on the face of it. Who is the 'we,' though? We the people? Our governments? Associated research agencies? Lack of context means there's no further clue. As for companies needing to make profits -- this is called capitalism. It's hardly perfect, but he's not saying anything that isn't already apparent there. Bleakney in quoting this line without *any* further comment seems to be preaching to an audience that apparently wants to think the worst of the comment -- and what does that say about Bleakney and his audience?

"It's more difficult than you imagine to get attention for these issues"

Time to take a universal view here -- how many issues, how many concerns, get activist attention? How many causes -- that I think are just, that you think are just -- need more attention than they are getting right now from the general public? Our lists could and would go on forever, from local matters to worldwide fears. How many flyers, phone calls, mailings? There is so much out there and so little in many ways is being done. Like it or not, Bono is right, it *is* hard to get attention, especially in a relatively prosperous country like America (and before you complain, let me say it again, *relatively* -- we are not all bathing in milk and honey, far from it). The complaint is that Bono's fame is the focus rather than the issues in question; he clearly sees it as a case where the fame might be used to focus on those issues. Bleakney rejects this, Bono presses ahead regardless. Time may cause one or both of them to change their minds in future. But right now, I for one couldn't say which one was right. Bleakney sure hasn't convinced me, but I'll say it again, I'm not here to say Bono is perfect. But I am not interested in writing him off, not considering what could be at stake, not without more info to go on.

The final comment, the 'easy bad guys/good guys' comment, I've already mentioned. But what 'facts' does Bleakney offer in response to those last two comments above? None. Instead, he brings up more about police tactics in protests, a good thing to note. But he prefers to let the quotes stand on their own, trying to imply that they are enough. Are they? I do not think so.

I think maybe you took Bleakney's attempts at humour the wrong way. This is on the whole a humourous article, not some grand Marxist/ Leninist-style denunciation.

Perhaps. But I don't find the humor very successful, and the denunciation seems pretty explicit to me. Industrialized capitalist governments = evil skull-cracking bastards. The people = source of implicit goodness against the Man. Repeat as needed. And how interesting that the examples Bleakney beats into the ground at the start of the article involve right-wing governments or political groups, when examples exist of leftist governments using the same tactics. A more thoughtful writer would have spread the blame all around.

Imagine if he pointed out as loudly and brashly as he could the extent of US influence in all those south american trouble spots he gets so teary eyed about (if he has I haven't heard about it, though maybe media didn't cover it).

But what is the answer, if we are going to deal with this as a specific case -- that he can't talk about that, that he won't talk about that, or that he doesn't want to talk about that? Do you know the answer to the question? I sure don't. Does Bleakney?

I mean, it's clear from their treatment that protestors are worrying those in power

Are they? This isn't Russia 1917, it's not even France 1968. Personally, I'm thinking most leaders go to sleep at night relentlessly untroubled by them.

if someone like Bono came along and stood with the protestors instead of sucking old guys cocks

Can I just say that this is a pathetic way to attack the guy? I mean, really. What type of leftist activist who has a sense of fighting for a cause uses this sort of implicitly homophobic crud? You can do better.

Bono doesn't really seem to have any sense of solidarity with those protesting. Maybe he thinks he's speaking for the dispossesed. To an extent he is. But it is a laughable extent.

So your real problem with Bono isn't that he's talking to people but that he's not toeing your line, yes?

In some situations, who's wrong seems very obvious, and who's right seems very obvious.

Doubtless. But invoking 'common sense' and 'relevant facts' in a world where any number of political groups and speakers of all stripes claim to have both is still a loaded gun. Still, you do say 'seems,' and have throughout, which is important...

And I don't think Bleakney claims to have figured it all out, just seems to have access to more relevant knowledge than some(i.e., Bono).

I must disagree. Remember, I did say there was a distinction between constructive criticism and complete denunciation. Bono in this article is beyond salvation, "silly," "dangerous," "inflated feeling of self" - - there's not one time where Bleakney even takes a neutral stance regarding him. But Bleakney doesn't actually go into the 'relevant knowledge' regarding a central question -- namely, what Bono himself is arguing for regarding debt relief.

*At no point* does Bleakney try to present and then directly engage Bono's statements on those issues regarding what he believes should be done and the details of how it should be carried out, which is all the more interesting given that at the end of the article Bleakney feels that Bono should just shut up. What are Bleakney's own thoughts on the matter in comparison? What are the differences there? Wouldn't it be very interesting if there were less differences between the two than might be thought?

I don't think it is as easy to discern Bleakney's stance, and really I don't think it's that important when reading the article. I think the fact that you 'immediately' distrust based on your (mis)perceptions

Interesting use of parentheses. If I'm wrong, might I ask why therefore you are right? And perhaps 'immediately' is a poor choice of word indeed, but here take it as shorthand for my initial response to reading an article that at base seemed outraged that Bono is not the writer's identical twin when it comes to looking at the world. *That* is the kind of attitude I distrust, and further rereading leads me to conclude that that's all that's driving this article in the end.

OK, I think the article is *exactly* what the left needs.

Only if you want a narrow vision of the left to talk to itself. And do you?

I think the article really powerfully speaks for itself on the issue of Bono's ignorance.

You said flatly that he had 'utter naivety,' nothing more. On the basis of four short quotes? I want more than that, thanks, especially given how thoroughly the ax is being ground by Bleakney.

Especially as you haven't really given any decent arguments showing that Bono has a wealth of knowledge on the subject. As I've said, because I don't think much of Bleakney's article doesn't mean I'm therefore in love with Bono. You said yourself you appreciated that shades of grey are what's important here -- well, this is not a division between two teams with me and Bono and against you and Bleakney. I have no arguments to advance regarding Bono's knowledge of the situation because I haven't done the research to show otherwise. But I don't think Bleakney has done a very good job in showing he's done much research either. This is an article that needs a much better writer in order to make a really conclusive point.

On the other hand, I don't think you've really let the guy's thoughts stand ontheir own merits. Rather you've ploughed into your preconceptions of 'leftism'.

Wrong. I haven't claimed anywhere that Bleakney's stance is 'leftism' -- I have said he comes across as an ultra-left ideologue, though, and I will stick to that. He's as humorless as any ideologue is, however much he tries to dress it up otherwise, and he prefers slogans to analysis and constructive thought to outline his vision of the world. That is enough for me to say that he's his own worst enemy.

man alive!

This is one way to spend your birthday. :-)

I'll make this as short and sweet as possible, this being a music forum and all.
 

Uh, wait. Surely you're not saying that just because Bleakney is a Canadian postal worker he therefore has Secret Knowledge about the universe? Lord knows he's not saying that himself! If you want to say that the relative fame levels in question mean that attention automatically goes to Bono, that's fair -- but there's a distressing undercurrent here which implies that because Bono is who he is he can therefore never really know what's going on at all, that he can never once learn otherwise, and that he seems to know *nothing* at all about the matter, period. This idea I don't buy in the slightest. Please note I am not arguing that Mr. Vox is therefore *right,* which you seem to think I'm doing.

MMmmm, I meant that since some of the issues dealt with in the article were regarding canadian workers, a canadian worker may well have more knowledge of the situation. Nothing to do with fame. And since Bono didn't seem to know about the situation in Canada, I can only conclude that I didn't make too brash an assumption.
 

Contrasting reports are good in order to try and get at the truth, because there will always be slant and spin, often unconsciously applied. But keep in mind that you can just as easily find voices on the right implying that the biased evil corp media is a tool of the left, and that you'll find insanely right wing equivalents to Zmag ranting about their own information beyond the mainstream. So I welcome other perspectives, but I see no reason to substitute them for mainstream perspectives as the objective truth just because. Slant and spin takes all forms and all kinds..

I think there is a really good argument to be made that the mainstream media doesn't cover a lot of relevant information. Right-wing commentators can go on about left-wing bias as much as they can, but this doesn't really hold up to any amount of analysis (read Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky or watch any mainstream media source). So if the mainstream is itself so skewed there is every reason to use other sources heavily (but not substitute).
 

 As it stands, I want to see what more Bono said here before I conclude he's 'obviously' a tool.

Listen to his recent music if you want to reach that conclusion
 

Spoken regarding drug companies, and once again a very strange line on the face of it. Who is the 'we,' though? We the people? Our governments? Associated research agencies? Lack of context means there's no further clue. As for companies needing to make profits -- this is called capitalism. It's hardly perfect, but he's not saying anything that isn't already apparent there. Bleakney in quoting this line without *any* further comment seems to be preaching to an audience that apparently wants to think the worst of the comment -- and what does that say about Bleakney and his audience?

I think such a detailed analysis wouldn't really be that appropriate in what is really a light-hearted article. But, who knows?
I think the quotes are pretty unambigious and given Bono's flavour of the month with world leaders, I think you wouldn't be
too wrong in reaching the kind of conclusions the author wants.

Perhaps. But I don't find the humor very successful, and the denunciation seems pretty explicit to me. Industrialized capitalist governments = evil skull-cracking bastards. The people = source of implicit goodness against the Man.

It's true , though, innit?

 And how interesting that the examples Bleakney beats into the ground at the start of the article involve right-wing governments or political groups, when examples exist of leftist governments using the same tactics. A more thoughtful writer would have spread the blame all around.

what leftist governments?
 

Are they? This isn't Russia 1917, it's not even France 1968. Personally, I'm thinking most leaders go to sleep at night relentlessly untroubled by them.

Those trying to keep the trade agreements (for example) from public gaze might not be though.
 

if someone like Bono came along and stood with the protestors instead of sucking old guys cocks

Can I just say that this is a pathetic way to attack the guy? I mean, really. What type of leftist activist who has a sense of fighting for a cause uses this sort of implicitly homophobic crud? You can do better.

I'm not being homophobic. It's a fact most leaders are men. It's a pity, yeah. But if it were more equally split, maybe bono would be up there eating pussy too.
 

So your real problem with Bono isn't that he's talking to people but that he's not toeing your line, yes?

Yes, that's it!
 

In some situations, who's wrong seems very obvious, and who's right seems very obvious.

Doubtless. But invoking 'common sense' and 'relevant facts' in a world where any number of political groups and speakers of all stripes claim to have both is still a loaded gun. Still, you do say 'seems,' and have throughout, which is important...

What's required is as much reasoned analysis as one can possibly do with the resources available to one. You can't do better than that, but that can still give you an 'accurate' picture, insofar as one can exist.
 

I must disagree. Remember, I did say there was a distinction between constructive criticism and complete denunciation. Bono in this article is beyond salvation, "silly," "dangerous," "inflated feeling of self" - - there's not one time where Bleakney even takes a neutral stance regarding him. But Bleakney doesn't actually go into the 'relevant knowledge' regarding a central question -- namely, what Bono himself is arguing for regarding debt relief.
 

mmmmmm, from what I read I don't think that was what the article was about, maybe it should have been. You're right, it was a short article with not much content. Zmag has much better articles.
 

Only if you want a narrow vision of the left to talk to itself. And do you?

No more so than when you said it was what the left didn't need. Although that's fallacious reasoning on my part I can't be arsed to add more.
 

On the whole, my perception has been that you've been reading more into the article than what was there. I guessed early on that you might have had bad experiences with what you call the 'left' and this left (heehee) you bitter. That was reading too much into what you wrote, possibly. I don't know.  Anyway, I'll try and read some Bono interviews and see what the fuckwit has to say for himself. Damn, that was neither short nor sweet.
Happy Birthday, btw.

This thread is now officially incomprehensible to those who grew up with MTV and video games. Too much text! Not enough italics to indicate who said what! My brain hurts! Can we please talk about his sunglasses some more? Thanks!

There there, Sean, the balm of more episodes of Cribs is there for you. And thanks, Anas, much appreciated. :-)

*whimper*