|
Post by jonneth on May 17, 2006 10:18:34 GMT -5
Yes some of the things he has done havent gone as hopped . But in the end isnt trying to do something and it not achive everything it was meant to much better than doing nothing at all?...
|
|
Mike
Punter
Popjustice Almighty
?No quiero otro, no hay igual!
Posts: 1,964
|
Post by Mike on May 17, 2006 11:59:11 GMT -5
Maureen is of course absolutely right. The problem most people seem to have is that they can't separate the cause from the rockstar promoting it. Greg, your posts are normally a pleasure to read, but you're like a dog with a bone about this. It seems pretty obvious that you don't like U2's music, which is fair enough - but why drag a perfectly worthy cause into the argument? Also, I don't think the Darkness have much to teach the world about anything, except perhaps how to be fleetingly popular in 2003. 'Yeah, how you gonna wash the blood from your hands? Eh? EH?!' Cheerio, Michael. xxx Get yo' ass on up and out. Go on, step.
|
|
flufff
Punter
Guess what Jamie?!!!!!!!!!
Posts: 836
|
Post by flufff on May 17, 2006 13:39:49 GMT -5
EDIT: Actually Fluff, Cam and Mike there is a book about this stuff! You should read A Bed for the Night: Humanitarianism in an Age of Genocide by David Rieff. It's fascinating stuff and it might make you all reconsider your opinions on the ham fisted bungling of Bono and his vile ilk. Even Geldof admits he might have been wrong - didn't you all think it was strange why we weren't called to donate at Live 8 and instead give our names instead? I didn't think it was at all strange, especially as Bob explained the reasons himself several times. The point I was making was that a lot of the problems are political and rich popstars donating money is never going to be as effective as famous popstars stimulating debate on the subject and encouraging members of the public to place pressure on their politicians. Bono was being criticised for trying to raise awareness of the issues including the politics instead of quietly donating money. So we are on agreement on the main point. There were some mistakes made in the management of the monies raised from the original Live Aid, but that doesn't mean that lives weren't saved. It's also important to consider that the original Live Aid was a learning experience for everyone involved in the whole World Poverty/World Aid issues.
|
|
Kirkland
Punter
Lady Sovereign Vs Some Poncy Little Twats. No Contest!
Posts: 999
|
Post by Kirkland on May 17, 2006 14:46:52 GMT -5
EDIT: Actually Fluff, Cam and Mike there is a book about this stuff! You should read A Bed for the Night: Humanitarianism in an Age of Genocide by David Rieff. It's fascinating stuff and it might make you all reconsider your opinions on the ham fisted bungling of Bono and his vile ilk. Even Geldof admits he might have been wrong - didn't you all think it was strange why we weren't called to donate at Live 8 and instead give our names instead? I didn't think it was at all strange, especially as Bob explained the reasons himself several times. The point I was making was that a lot of the problems are political and rich popstars donating money is never going to be as effective as famous popstars stimulating debate on the subject and encouraging members of the public to place pressure on their politicians. Bono was being criticised for trying to raise awareness of the issues including the politics instead of quietly donating money. So we are on agreement on the main point. There were some mistakes made in the management of the monies raised from the original Live Aid, but that doesn't mean that lives weren't saved. It's also important to consider that the original Live Aid was a learning experience for everyone involved in the whole World Poverty/World Aid issues. Of course lives were saved but I was pointing out that good intentions can be hijacked by 'tin pot tyrants' (as I said) and used to kill loads of other people. As for Live 8, let's not even go there. It was a total waste of time.
|
|
flufff
Punter
Guess what Jamie?!!!!!!!!!
Posts: 836
|
Post by flufff on May 17, 2006 15:37:30 GMT -5
Of course lives were saved but I was pointing out that good intentions can be hijacked by 'tin pot tyrants' (as I said) and used to kill loads of other people.e. It's important to acknowledge the things that went wrong last time so we can do it better next time. Not so that we have an excuse not to bother ever again. Live 8 hasn't made everything better, end of story, but it has pushed us along the road to where we need to be. There is no single solution to the world's problems, but that doesn't mean that it's a waste to do something Exactly how many lives need to be saved or improved before it was worth all those popstars doing a big concert for no fee?
|
|
Kirkland
Punter
Lady Sovereign Vs Some Poncy Little Twats. No Contest!
Posts: 999
|
Post by Kirkland on May 17, 2006 17:04:22 GMT -5
That grotesque excuse for a concert was mutal masturbation material for all those involved. It's not that I'm against music for charity, per se, but there is a cosy conspiracy amongst egotistical rockers desperate to be included in an 'event' so that in years to come they will be invited onto VH1 to discuss 'that magical day' and their career in some vile context.
You must think me a cynic Fluff. I apologise. Charity is good, the first Band Aid was good but Farm Aid and all that just leaves a bad taste in my mouth and worse, my ears.
|
|
Fax Mactor
Punter
It's me. Oliver Rosenfeld! 28/11/15
Posts: 647
|
Post by Fax Mactor on May 17, 2006 17:08:17 GMT -5
all those popstars doing a big concert for no fee? Mariah Carey demanded a glass of water. The show was nearly fee free but she had to go and wreck it, didnt she! She mimed aswell. The cheek of her.
|
|
spinme
Punter
I'm not an ugly fucking old bitch from Sweden!
Posts: 811
|
Post by spinme on May 17, 2006 17:50:31 GMT -5
The problem that I have with regards to these events is that they claim to promote fundraising or - at the very least - active debate around a cause, but last summer everything seemed to revolve around Live 8 and little plastic armbands, yet I can't say I ever heard G8 discussed anywhere I wouldn't have expected it to be discussed (ie. on the news, in the newspapers, and in the student union). It all seems very 'support this cause blindly - everyone else is doing it! Look, even Bono!'. It's very wrong.
Wow. Political, much? I've come over all faint...
Cheerio, Michael. xxx
|
|
|
Post by xtina613 on May 17, 2006 17:58:26 GMT -5
well he might be preachy but i find it refreshing that someone gives a shit beyond attending the occasional bullshit fundraiser. the fact is mose people don't care about the third world, can you blame someone for attempting to get us to do so? if it takes a preachy popstar to make a few people less ignorant then so be it.
|
|
|
Post by Markelangelo on May 17, 2006 19:50:13 GMT -5
Well the fact of the matter is that Bono is a high-profile pop star so anything he says automatically will be picked up on by the press. The average third world worker who lives in Africa providing relief etc may be doing good work but neither the press nor the public could give two fucks about anything they may have to say. It's not ideal but you have to understand that rock stars are seen as heroes by teenagers, much more so than people who actually go out and risk their lives to help eg firemen and aid workers.
I don't think he claims to be Superman. He's just doing his bit.
I still can't figure out Live 8 though. A year on and what has it really done? At the time the media harped on like it was the second coming of Christ and that "a generation was coming together to say no to poverty" or other such bullshit but realistically most people just wanted to see Coldplay and Robbie Williams do a free gig. What was the point? The only message seemed to be that poverty is bad, but I already knew that.
|
|
|
Post by audrey potnoodlehorne on May 18, 2006 4:33:04 GMT -5
I still can't figure out Live 8 though. A year on and what has it really done? At the time the media harped on like it was the second coming of Christ and that "a generation was coming together to say no to poverty" or other such bullshit but realistically most people just wanted to see Coldplay and Robbie Williams do a free gig. What was the point? The only message seemed to be that poverty is bad, but I already knew that. I know there's a point where "awareness raising" becomes unnecessary and folks have to put their money where their wristbands are. Do Bono et al actually have any real practical solutions up their sleeves? Dropping debt, increasing aid etc sounds well and good, but I suspect it may not be that easy, there are probably more complex, long-term causes of 3rd world poverty and the Aids situation. By dealing with things only on a superficial level, not much will change, apart from Geldoff's increasing wealth. Greg is completely right in everything he says, although he's being overly-generous in saying that U2 make music for people with hearing impairments. Fact for the day: Deaf folks mostly they like rap and dance music, because it's more expressive and the bass/beat ("beat?" that makes me sound like my dad) is more easy to hear/feel. To someone with a hearing loss, U2 would sound like a load of plodding, over-rated wank. Much like it sounds to the rest of us.
|
|
Kirkland
Punter
Lady Sovereign Vs Some Poncy Little Twats. No Contest!
Posts: 999
|
Post by Kirkland on May 18, 2006 4:34:39 GMT -5
I still can't figure out Live 8 though. A year on and what has it really done? At the time the media harped on like it was the second coming of Christ and that "a generation was coming together to say no to poverty" or other such bullshit but realistically most people just wanted to see Coldplay and Robbie Williams do a free gig. What was the point? The only message seemed to be that poverty is bad, but I already knew that. I know there's a point where "awareness raising" becomes unnecessary and folks have to put their money where their wristbands are. Do Bono et al actually have any real practical solutions up their sleeves? Dropping debt, increasing aid etc sounds well and good, but I suspect it may not be that easy, there are probably more complex, long-term causes of 3rd world poverty and the Aids situation. By dealing with things only on a superficial level, not much will change, apart from Geldoff's increasing wealth. Greg is completely right in everything he says, although he's being overly-generous in saying that U2 make music for people with hearing impairments. Fact for the day: Deaf folks mostly they like rap and dance music, because it's more expressive and the bass/beat ("beat?" that makes me sound like my dad) is more easy to hear/feel. To someone with a hearing loss, U2 would sound like a load of plodding, over-rated wank. Much like it sounds to the rest of us. Hear hear.
|
|
|
Post by verytallgirl on May 18, 2006 5:15:11 GMT -5
There is a huge difference between a pop star throwing their not-inconsiderable influence behaind a campaign to raise awareness, and actually telling people the form their giving should take. Administrative incompetence notwithstanding, there are plenty of establised NGO's who are capable of channelling funds to where they will make the most difference. Again, staying with the established NGO's, it has been a reality for a long time that they don't chuck bags of grain at people and expect them to chomp happily - they campaign to change the law and raise awareness. So any increase in awareness, and the increased funding that follows, is a good thing, and I doubt they give a fuck where that comes from.
What sticks in my craw, however, and what damages the reputation of many NGO's - who are to all intents and purposes no different to a multi-national, with the obvious difference of where their money goes - is superstars like Bono prancing around promoting the red American Express card, earnestly telling us what super-duper guys they are at American Express for agreeing to donate ONE PERCENT of what you spend (note: not their profits or a fraction of the 12.9% APR interest you will be paying, but of what you spend).
This is not an acceptable alternative to donating for a charity. No-one with a infinitisemal grasp of financial affairs is going to be fooled that this is an efficient or reasonable or sensible way of alleviating poverty or of funding an education programme. And it is seriously irresponsible of Bono to chuck his heavyweight media presence behind it.
|
|
|
Post by audrey potnoodlehorne on May 18, 2006 7:55:40 GMT -5
I agree massively with the above, but what does NGO stand for? Greg is completely right in everything he says, although he's being overly-generous in saying that U2 make music for people with hearing impairments. Fact for the day: Deaf folks mostly they like rap and dance music, because it's more expressive and the bass/beat ("beat?" that makes me sound like my dad) is more easy to hear/feel. To someone with a hearing loss, U2 would sound like a load of plodding, over-rated wank. Much like it sounds to the rest of us. Hear hear. Pardon? *comedy trombone*
|
|
|
Post by verytallgirl on May 18, 2006 9:11:22 GMT -5
Sorry - it's Non-Government Organisation: Oxfam, Water Aid, and the like. They take money from governments and taxation so they have to make the distinction clear. x
|
|
Storm
Punter
Popjustice Almighty
Play
Posts: 1,163
|
Post by Storm on May 18, 2006 10:18:58 GMT -5
Sometimes, this board truly horrifies me. And I hope to God this board isn't representative of the society we're producing.
I'm not a Bono or a U2 fan. I find both the man, and the music extremely boring. But I don't understand how anybody can knock him for trying to do something for the world. Yes, he may not get it completely right. Yes, he may come across as a bit pompous and sanctimonious. But at least he's trying. Live8 may not have 'worked' last year, but what it did do was get the issue of third world debt in the press, thus raising awareness. Thank goodness there's musicians out there that, instead of trying to make as much money as is physically possible, spend their own time using their profile to help others.
And can I just say that the 'we should be helping people closer to home' thing is so, so offensive. People are people, and that's the kind of thing I expect to read in the Daily Mail......
|
|
|
Post by audrey potnoodlehorne on May 18, 2006 10:44:19 GMT -5
And can I just say that the 'we should be helping people closer to home' thing is so, so offensive. People are people, and that's the kind of thing I expect to read in the Daily Mail...... No one here has said this. And everyone seems to be pretty much in agreement that poverty etc is bad and that Bono is merely stating the obvious while massaging his own ego.
|
|
Storm
Punter
Popjustice Almighty
Play
Posts: 1,163
|
Post by Storm on May 18, 2006 10:53:58 GMT -5
Erm, then where did this come from?
|
|
xolondon
Punter
I grew up to the sound of the synthesizer.
Posts: 1,052
|
Post by xolondon on May 18, 2006 11:08:59 GMT -5
Sometimes, this board truly horrifies me. And I hope to God this board isn't representative of the society we're producing. well said.
|
|
Fax Mactor
Punter
It's me. Oliver Rosenfeld! 28/11/15
Posts: 647
|
Post by Fax Mactor on May 18, 2006 11:13:22 GMT -5
I find it hilarious how one flippant comment spawns a serious discussion.
And if this board was a good representation of modern society then Rachel Stevens would have been #1 in the albums chart for a year with Come And Get It.
|
|
xolondon
Punter
I grew up to the sound of the synthesizer.
Posts: 1,052
|
Post by xolondon on May 18, 2006 11:17:00 GMT -5
You are so obnoxious.
Should we be talking about Paris Hilton's crotch instead...
|
|
|
Post by verytallgirl on May 18, 2006 11:21:22 GMT -5
Erm, then where did this come from? I don't share the 'only in my country' view like the one quoted above - but I will condemn Bono for not doing his research properly, and essentially promoting a corporate attempt to cash in, in a way that is no different from the recent Carol Vorderman fuss. She has established her mathmatical credentials, only to cash in by advertising an extremely dodgy financial deal; substitute 'ecological' or 'social' for 'mathmatical' and the analogy stands for Bono. I find it hard to believe that Bono or anyone surrounding him - all of whom, including his wife, appear to have a genuine desire for social change - has not worked out that the American Express Red card is a total joke, a simple way for those who can afford a charge card to wave it in the air and promptly buy into the ideology of those who support the unfortunate poor. He supported - and helped win - Oxfam's Drop the Debt campaign, and so obviously has a competent grasp of fiscal matters, a fact that makes his recent decision so hard to take. My opinion has nothing to do with Live 8 or any other speech/flag-waving/protest he cares to do for the illumination of the causes he believes in; that is promotion, and as I said above, all of that is good news for charities. Allying himself with American Express, however, smacks of the alliance and mutual benefit of two brands - with little concern for those who need help, lost behind the smoke and mirrors of clever advertising. EDIT: god, all that sounds pompous; I just want to say, before someone quite rightly points it out, that just because it's my opinion does not mean it's right. Um, yeah.
|
|
xolondon
Punter
I grew up to the sound of the synthesizer.
Posts: 1,052
|
Post by xolondon on May 18, 2006 11:28:51 GMT -5
Thank you for some decent criticism based on the actual issue at hand, verytallgirl. Education. how refreshing!
|
|
Storm
Punter
Popjustice Almighty
Play
Posts: 1,163
|
Post by Storm on May 18, 2006 11:36:11 GMT -5
Seconded - rather than sounding pompous, you sound like you know what you're talking about. As I said I'm not a fan of Bono, and I don't profess to know loads about his charitable endeavours. I'm sure he's made loads of mistakes. But saying you don't like someone BECAUSE they're a bit gung ho in their charity endeavours is a bit off.....
|
|
Kirkland
Punter
Lady Sovereign Vs Some Poncy Little Twats. No Contest!
Posts: 999
|
Post by Kirkland on May 18, 2006 14:01:47 GMT -5
Erm, then where did this come from? Shit. That was me. Trust a comment I made to cause an uproar. Actually, if people read what I had written in the first place they would see I was pro charity but against some of the public events that usually do much more damage than people realise - like I stated, it's alleged (and even Geldof has admitted) that Live Aid possibly helped fund many a tyrant as money was diverted away from those that needed it most. That comment above (the one Storm is quoting) was something I wrote in response to what I felt was a real need to get things done in this country. I didn't state we should dump other countries that need us and again, if you read what I said properly you would see that. It just galls me to see homeless people and even homes with a low water supply when we're a very wealthy country. THAT was my point. Clarified I hope?
|
|
|
Post by jonneth on May 18, 2006 21:24:16 GMT -5
The make poverty history people think in hindsight that they shouldnt have got involved in live 8 as it became about live 8 and not the actual issues. And then once the concerts were over that was that.. people werent so interested anymore.
But the make poverty history was only a one year thing and once the year ended.. it stopped which in my opinion is a shame as yes alot of joe public didnt really get the point but there was also alot of people who did and people who have for awhile becoming reinvigorated and then joining together.. but then it kinda disbanded and they all lost thier way.. and any momentum was lost with it.. as yes the G8 agreed to such and such but now the pressure of the campaing to make them agree to do something is gone they will wrangle out of it..
And people are saying bono and geldof are doing it to boost thier ego's im sure thats not it at all.. they have been to africa it's different to watching it on the tv when your there and people ask you to take thier baby as they have no food.. that is something that lives with you and is why they are so relentless in getting publicity for things.. as they can give some of thier money and that family might be ok.. but they will go meet another family and another and they know money alone wont do it.. it's about changing our way of thinking and us making our governments change..
and live 8 has it's faults but it did create awareness and world poverty isnt the most important priority of the public.. but it jumped up alot of places. So in the next couple of years hopefully there will be something else that makes it move up more places on the list to the top..
|
|
|
Post by Markelangelo on May 18, 2006 21:46:24 GMT -5
Well said Jonneth. I guess the concerts did bring publicity to the cause but the problem is that the concerts were seen as a big climax when really they shouldn't have been. The week after the gigs G8 and poverty were seen as "yesterday's news" with the media looking for the next big story.
This also has the effect that people will make some sort of once-off payment to a worthy cause and then never think about it again.
I do think Bono and Geldof's hearts are in the right places though. As Jonneth pointed out they have been to Africa numerous times and have seen the effects of poverty first hand, they're not just detached millionaires trying to grab some publicity.
|
|
xolondon
Punter
I grew up to the sound of the synthesizer.
Posts: 1,052
|
Post by xolondon on May 18, 2006 22:57:03 GMT -5
For those who think Live 8 was wankfest, I ask you to remember the performance of (and visuals used by) Annie Lennox that day.
There are a lot of assumptions made on this board (constantly) and a lot of believing rumors / gossip. It's good to keep that in mind in these situations, but I think this is a good thread.
|
|