Bononsense

Tim Robbins

Well look's like Bono's up to his nonsense once more. As he tries to save the planet his tour is probably going out of its way to emit as much CO2 as possible.

Here's a good letter from today's times...

Today's paper wrote:

Madam, – In May this year Croke Park announced that it was one of the first “carbon neutral” stadiums in the world.
Last week a convoy of heavy machinery moved onto the pitch and the entire surface was ripped up to facilitate U2’s upcoming concerts on July 24th, 25th and 27th. The U2 360 tour features three 390-tonne stages criss-crossing the globe, along with 200 crew and backstage staff. The carbon footprint of the latest U2 tour has already been heavily criticised. Following the concerts, Croke Park will lay a completely new turf which will be imported from the UK.
Forgive me for being cynical, or perhaps green, but Croke Park will be anything but carbon neutral in facilitating such an event. Declarations of being carbon neutral are worthless if used primarily for PR purposes and not based on scientific facts and made clearly visible. – Yours, etc,
RICHARD COFFEY,
Wainsfort Manor Crescent,
Terenure, Dublin 6W.

The last concert, Bono was telling everyone how important it was we paid 0.7 of GNP to oversees aid as agreed in the milenium goals.

We have not only failed to come anywhere close to this, we have decided to cut ouor oversees aid, and it is suggested it is cut altogether by An Bord Snip Nua.

I wonder how Bono feels about that? Will he bring it up or will he be too busy trying to cover his CO2 emissions?

Bono, an annoying Irish icon - discuss.

turgon

U2 are buying carbon credits to make up for it.

Banter Joe

From a times review of the Barcelona concert:

A seemingly scripted satellite link-up with the orbiting International Space Station was intended to remind us that we all had a duty to look after “the beautiful blue earth”

If we need to take 120 trucks to 44 stadiums around the world to highlight the need to reduce carbon emissions, and that message only gets to one person, in the end I think it will all have been worth it.....right?

:rolleyes:

Tim Robbins

turgon wrote: »

U2 are buying carbon credits to make up for it.

As far as I am concerned, that's just like farting in a room and just using an air freshener.

turgon

Tim Robbins wrote: »

As far as I am concerned, that's just like farting in a room and just using an air freshener.

Actually it more like farting in a room then subsequently pulling the gasses you released into the air back.

Tim Robbins

turgon wrote: »

Actually it more like farting in a room then subsequently pulling the gasses you released into the air back.

Or farting in a room (when you don't have to) and paying someone else to pull the gases you release into the air back!
PS you think buying carbon offsets is that effective?

Joey the lips

You know whats even funnier. Bonzo spent a long time fighting fot the healthier nations to fund the poor it was proved recently that the bands method of dogdging tax is no different than the countries he is so critical of

Dades

As long as someone is tax compliant, they can (and should) do what they like with their financial affairs. I don't doubt he throws a few quid to charity every now and again.

prinz

To hear bono describe the Croke Park concerts as a 'homecoming' almost made me choke on my dinner. U2 'inc.' has no connection here at all. He makes me sick, telling the Government how my couple of euro in taxes should be spent and then using every trick in the book to avoid paying tax himself.

Tim Robbins

Dades wrote: »

As long as someone is tax compliant, they can (and should) do what they like with their financial affairs.

Of course. But don't you think they should leave the moral philosophy to someone else?

Goduznt Xzst

Tim Robbins wrote: »

they should leave the moral philosophy to someone else?

Pray do tell who is more qualified to have an opinion on "moral philosophy". If you're looking for someone who isn't a hypocrite, well... good luck with that.

Green sells tbh. Although it's aging badly with the recession hype changing peoples rationale to weighting an extra few pence in their pocket to being more morally just than buying fairtrade products or worrying about the environment.

Are U2 a bunch of hypocrites? Yes. Are they the first to portray a false image of themselves that will sell? No. Are they the last to do this? No.

faceman

Hang on, i think a bit of perspective is needed here.

I cant almost zero time for Bono's rants and lectures. Im not a U2 fan. but this carbon footprint nonsense for putting on a concert.

What should we do, stick our heads in the sand and give up on anything that is co3 omitting altogether? Who is getting on their high horse here? Bono? the GAA? Or just Mr. Coffey? Bono isnt claming they are the greenest band in the world, nor is he claiming that Croker is the greenest venue. Although its probably alot greener than staging the concert in a rural venue in ireland where transport options are limited.

Personally i feel the bigger ethical/moral issue is suggestions that we cut overseas aid.

Dades

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Of course. But don't you think they should leave the moral philosophy to someone else?

I don't see how prudent tax planning precludes someone from philosophising any more than the average worker - who would undoubtedly use any means available to him to minimize tax.

Bono may rich as a Nazi and have a bit of a God complex, but there's no doubt he offers a lot of his time campaigning on behalf of worthy causes. Compare him to "Sir" Mick Jagger, who, content with his millions is just a tight-fisted old Lothario.

Goduznt Xzst

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Pray do tell who is more qualified to have an opinion on "moral philosophy". If you're looking for someone who isn't a hypocrite, well... good luck with that.

Green sells tbh. Although it's aging badly with the recession hype changing peoples rationale to weighting an extra few pence in their pocket to being more morally just than buying fairtrade products or worrying about the environment.

Are U2 a bunch of hypocrites? Yes. Are they the first to portray a false image of themselves that will sell? No. Are they the last to do this? No.

Who determines the qualifications needed to be an expert on Moral philosophy? and I have to wonder has anyone actually asked Bono to be that spokesperson on Moral philosophy?

TBH, I think he's probably done worse by promoting his views than anything else. myself, and most people I know, turn away whenever he starts ranting about his views.. Whereas I would have been receptive before. I guess I've never liked being preached to, and Bono seems as Hypocritical as any priesthood.

He's just a member of a band. Not anything special. I didn't mind Bob Geldof asking help for Africa, but Bono just gets under my skin for some reason.

Dades wrote:

As long as someone is tax compliant, they can (and should) do what they like with their financial affairs. I don't doubt he throws a few quid to charity every now and again.

And I wonder how much of that is done solely to get tax breaks? If someone is going to lecture me, I'd prefer them to be extremely good examples.. At least, Mother Theresa gave as much as she could to support her cause. Thats worth giving respect. But U2/Bono.... ? Nah.

Tim Robbins

Dades wrote: »

I don't see how prudent tax planning precludes someone from philosophising any more than the average worker - who would undoubtedly use any means available to him to minimize tax.

Of course it doesn't preclude him but surely they are people who are better placed to moral philosophise than him.

Bono may rich as a Nazi and have a bit of a God complex, but there's no doubt he offers a lot of his time campaigning on behalf of worthy causes. Compare him to "Sir" Mick Jagger, who, content with his millions is just a tight-fisted old Lothario.

I don't see anything good Bono has done. He's a very poor, simplistic understanding of what's he's talking about. He's done about as much for humanitarian issues as Michael Moore has.

faceman

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Of course it doesn't preclude him but surely they are people who are better placed to moral philosophise than him.

Unfortunatley however, celebrities get more airtime and more ears on issues like this.

wrote:

I don't see anything good Bono has done. He's a very poor, simplistic understanding of what's he's talking about. He's done about as much for humanitarian issues as Michael Moore has.

I agree, his understanding of some issues really reeks of secondary school student sometimes.

Tim Robbins

Deleted User wrote: »

And I wonder how much of that is done solely to get tax breaks? If someone is going to lecture me, I'd prefer them to be extremely good examples.. At least, Mother Theresa gave as much as she could to support her cause. Thats worth giving respect. But U2/Bono.... ? Nah.

I hate anyone who has very strong opinions but excuses themselves from rational criticism of those opinions.

Whether it's Bush, people who vote to Lisbon, Bible bashers, the list is very long and it certainly includes Bono.

He has all these opinions about development aid, hiv / aids, his tax avoidance etc but you rarely see him being challenged on these opinions.

He did come out with a statement about U2 tax affairs, but it was an appauling argument that anyone with a modicum of debating skills would have easily refuted. I have never seen him on a debate or being interviewd by a tough interviewer e.g. Vincent Browne who'd challenge his opinions. I think this is very unhealthy as it's very unlikely his opinions are spot on and infallible and hence don't need to be examined, questioned etc.

Mick Jagger etc. don't pontificate and they don't engage in sloppy arguments. So in this respect they are better than Bono.

As for the other point about who else should preach to the masses about philosophical issues, well I like people who have experience with working with humanitarian problems:
John O'Shea, Colm O'Gorman, Fr. McVerry.

At least they are speaking from a position of knowledge and experience not just because they've had a number of rock albums. All Mr. Bono is doing is subverting democracy. He is meeting G8 leaders, Tony Blair you name it, purely on the basis he's a popular rock star and politicians can't tell him f* off as they are paranoid they'd loose votes.

This means political time is being eaten up by someone who has no democratic mandate and pretty no expertise in the issues he's talking about.

He's an irritating fool.

Tim Robbins

faceman wrote: »

Unfortunatley however, celebrities get more airtime and more ears on issues like this.

I agree, his understanding of some issues really reeks of secondary school student sometimes.

If he didn't have such a big ego, he could easily just reference people who have more expertise than him and then take a back seat.

prinz

It's the same rubbish as the UN appointing "ambassadors" for this and that cause. Not too long ago IIRC Ginger Spice Halliwell was made a U.N. "special ambassador" for something or other. Actually I just feel bad that there a hundreds, and thousands of people and organisations expert in fields like refugees, human rights, humanitarian aid etc., who don't get the chance to present a platform to U.N. Sec Gen, or G8 or whatever. It's pitiful and says a lot about society tbh.

Dades

You guys do understand the power of celebrity?

Bono's diatribes on stage are more likely to raise awareness of (and donations to) certain causes than Fr. McVerry, or some beardy economist in a plaid shirt.

Children in Need is a nauseating cringefest every year, but by jasus do they raise a lot of cash.

Deleted User wrote:

And I wonder how much of that is done solely to get tax breaks?

Giving money solely to get a tax break wouldn't really be part of a prudent tax (or any) strategy. Claiming a tax break on money given, would.

Dades

Dades wrote:

Giving money solely to get a tax break wouldn't really be part of a prudent tax (or any) strategy. Claiming a tax break on money given, would.

Semantics. Its pretty much the same thing when the parties expect returns based on their charity giving, or do you think the companies/people who highlight their charity giving, don't expect potential customers to consider them better than the competition who doesn't give to charity? The money isn't given out of pure generosity, but rather for the breaks they receive from other areas, simply because they're listed as a contributor. Sure, people benefit from the monies given, but the motives for giving the money, might not be as altruistic as promoted.

Bono glorifies in the attention he receives from the media for the various attention he gets. He's a media whore, and will take any cause just to get attention. I'd love to know what % of his overall income is given to Charity... And whether it would match that of other spokespersons.. (on a % of income basis)

Dades

Since neither of us know how much or how little Bono, Mick Jagger, Nelson Mandela or Eddie the Eagle Edwards give to charity it's all moot really.

And although your idea that ones worthiness to preach is proportionate to the percentage of your income you give to charity is interesting, it is somewhat narrow in my view.

prinz

Dades wrote: »

And although your idea that ones worthiness to preach is proportionate to the percentage of your income you give to charity is interesting, it is somewhat narrow in my view.

Ones worthiness to preach on what the Irish government should do with monies collected through taxation is in my directly related to whether or not you contribute your fair share of that money. I do. U2/Bono et al. do not. I couldn't care less what he gives to charity. I don't tell him what he should do with his money, unfortunately he does spend his time telling the government what they should do with mine.

Let him tell the charities he contributes to what they should do with his money. No problem from me there.

See for example Bill Gates, or even Michael Schumacher who has given tens of millions away to charities... without making a spectacle of himself.

Dades

Dades wrote: »

And although your idea that ones worthiness to preach is proportionate to the percentage of your income you give to charity is interesting, it is somewhat narrow in my view.

Not really, since I did mention Mother Theresa above, and I doubt she could give all that much in the way of money to her cause. No. I was referring to these "rich" & "successful" people who become spokespersons, and whether they're any more qualified than the people who don't have as much to give..

turgon

Do I get the feeling that no one wants to have a real debate about Bono and his footprint here, but just want a cheap and easy rant?

turgon

turgon wrote: »

Do I get the feeling that no one wants to have a real debate about Bono and his footprint here, but just want a cheap and easy rant?

well, start off..... What is his footprint because you haven't actually said anything since you spoke about farting?

turgon

Tbh klaz, I dont really like these kind of threads. The first post is usually kind of arrogant and dismissive and the one thing thats clear is that they dont want or accept any opposition to their dogma. Its seen a lot lately in Politics with FF threads. Basically, one cant discuss anything here rationally because people just look down at you for taking a viewpoint outside the "status quo."

Ive no problem with people arguing about Bono. I do have a problem with the way people generally argue about him, that is: if your with Bono theres gotta be something wrong with you and I will now look down at you from my perch atop my horse.

Turgon, I have a problem with people who pop into a thread just to pass judgment on the contributions of others, when they themselves haven't joined in with anything substantial.

Bono's irritates me but my objection isn't so much that, as the hypocrisy I see from his own lifestyle, compared with the numerous messages he seeks to promote.. Bob Geldof made more sense to me, since he actually seemed to believe in his message.. Both in his personal and public life.

turgon

No thats fair enough! Im ranting about the attitude of people who start these thread not those who contribute.

Tim Robbins

Dades wrote: »

You guys do understand the power of celebrity?

Bono's diatribes on stage are more likely to raise awareness of (and donations to) certain causes than Fr. McVerry, or some beardy economist in a plaid shirt.

That's simply not true. He last concert he harped on about fulfilling our committments to oversea's aid by giving 0.7 of GNP to overea's aid.
This got a huge cheer and applause from the crowd.

However, we have abjectly failed in this. In fact, McCarthy suggests we postpone this altogether.

So in this one particular issue, the power of the celeb has been nothing more than a meaningless showpiece.

In the sametime, in the last four years you can put accurate metrics on the work Fr. McVerry has done. How much money he has raised and how many people is has helped. It's also hard to find people he's p*ssed off.

The celeb is losing if you look at it objectively. He's also demeaning charity by being so insincere about it.

I think with all things in our "western" society we go through phases of popularity for causes. When the celebs first started promoting the causes they believed in, the general population sat up and took notice. This originally came from the charismatic politicians like JFK who encouraged people to hold up to an ideal. And then it filtered into the Actors and musicians who promoted in regards to Africa or such.

The problem though is that we get bored, or saturated with it. Too many people jump on the bandwagon, usually actors/musicians with flagging careers who are looking to get their own publicity out of championing a cause. Which leads to people becoming very cynical about the reasons they are promoting the message, and we just turn off.

The point is that Bono just doesn't stand out. He's not charismatic enough. He doesn't hold enough respect to warrant people giving him the serious attention to make any change. There are damn few celebs these days who can do this. In the 80's and 90's there were a lot more who could promote a cause effectively, but not now.

prinz

Dades wrote: »

You guys do understand the power of celebrity?

it's not that powerful. I actively avoid having to listen to Bono prattle on about something he came across in a pop-up picture book. The "power" of celebrity is a curse on the world, a cancer that needs to be cut out tbh. I'm getting sick of seeing people ride roughshod over nation and international law just because they once-upon-a-time might have been able to hold a tune. The new fad for adoptions for example. Now there are hundreds and hundreds of couples begging to be allowed to adopt, at home and abroad, who go through years of tests, and waiting, and interviews etc....... but if you're Madonna you can go pick one up like a new handbag.

The power of celebrity is a lot less than you might imagine. Do I remeber what Ginger Spice was special UN ambassador for..... uhmmm no. Not in the slightest. Have I seen her promote any cause, draw attention to any ills, campaign against wrongdoing.... uhmmmm no I haven't. I couldn't care less. Just like I couldn't care less what Bono has to say about anything.

The only celebrities I respect are people who do their job, and go one about their business. Whether they give 1% or 100% or their money to charity doesn't bother me. What I don't like is some uneducated one-trick ponies trying to set government policy.

Goduznt Xzst

Deleted User wrote: »

Mother Theresa gave as much as she could to support her cause.

You need to read more about Mother Theresa. Again a fine example of the veil of celebrity in action. Also a large supporter of the richest tax exempt organization in the world.

prinz wrote: »

See for example Bill Gates, or even Michael Schumacher who has given tens of millions away to charities... without making a spectacle of himself.

Why is this relevant. Why does "making a spectacle" lessen the result of the act. Does the personality of the philanthropist reduce the weight of the act?

Bono is an eejit, true, no one is arguing that, he also has an opinion, he's human, and he thinks he's absolutely right, he's Irish.

Also you'd be a fool to underestimate the power of celebrity. In fact I think you do recognize it's power by calling it a "cancer" and a "curse". Harsh terms for something so powerless. You also accept that celebrity even has a hold over international law. In the capitalist west celebrities are our new Kings and Queens. Charities and research groups need celebrities, because I'm damn sure more people will listen to the vacant jabberings of Bono on curing cancer than they will listen to Nobody Phd who's spent his life in a lab doing the actual work.

prinz

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Why is this relevant. Why does "making a spectacle" lessen the result of the act. Does the personality of the philanthropist reduce the weight of the act?

it's very relevant when other posters defend Bono's right to try and influence national policy and expenditure by virtue of the fact that he "gives a few bob to charity". Michael Schumacher gives a "few bob" to charity but I haven't seen him meeting the Pope, the G8, x, y and z, telling the German government how to spend money.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Bono is an eejit, true, no one is arguing that, he also has an opinion, he's human, and he thinks he's absolutely right, he's Irish.

He has an opinion. Fine. What he doesn't have IMO as a non-contributor to taxation is a right to tell the Government how the taxes of other peoples should be spent. O he's Irish...does that make it ok?

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Also you'd be a fool to underestimate the power of celebrity. In fact I think you do recognize it's power by calling it a "cancer" and a "curse". Harsh terms for something so powerless. You also accept that celebrity even has a hold over international law. In the capitalist west celebrities are our new Kings and Queens. Charities and research groups need celebrities, because I'm damn sure more people will listen to the vacant jabberings of Bono on curing cancer than they will listen to Nobody Phd who's spent his life in a lab doing the actual work.

Simply because they haven't got the wherewithall to learn anything for themselves. They prefer being spoonfed sound-bites on the fashionable cause for the day from the same people who tell them what shampoo to buy or aftershave to wear.

Dades

prinz wrote: »

Simply because they haven't got the wherewithall to learn anything for themselves. They prefer being spoonfed sound-bites on the fashionable cause for the day from the same people who tell them what shampoo to buy or aftershave to wear.

That's the world we live in.

prinz

Dades wrote: »

That's the world we live in.

It's not the world I live.I am a conscientious objector to a celebrity fuelled vacuous lifestyle. . If I want to hear about Tibet I'll ask the Dalai Lama, not listen to some talentless tart on a redcarpet in LA.

Goduznt Xzst

prinz wrote: »

He has an opinion. Fine. What he doesn't have IMO as a non-contributor to taxation is a right to tell the Government how the taxes of other peoples should be spent. O he's Irish...does that make it ok?

But he DOES have the right to an opinion. Nobody has to listen to him, he has no say in how peoples taxes are actually spent. Take a Taxi around Dublin and I'm sure you'll hear plenty of opinions on what should and should not be done with this country. Bono is no different than the guy down the pub with the master plan. The only difference is the size of his audience, should he censor his opinions because some people don't agree with him? Never, the beauty of free speech is that people can say whatever they want. The problem here is`not what Bono has to say but the idiots that will choose to listen to him purely because of his celebrity.

Tim Robbins

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

But he DOES have the right to an opinion. Nobody has to listen to him, he has no say in how peoples taxes are actually spent. Take a Taxi around Dublin and I'm sure you'll hear plenty of opinions on what should and should not be done with this country. Bono is no different than the guy down the pub with the master plan. The only difference is the size of his audience, should he censor his opinions because some people don't agree with him? Never, the beauty of free speech is that people can say whatever they want. The problem here is`not what Bono has to say but the idiots that will choose to listen to him purely because of his celebrity.

But does anyone actually listen to him and change their actions about anything?

I bought a book written by Jeffrey Sachs, probably because I had only heard about Jeffrey Sachs through Bono. I read the book, didn't really feel I learnt anything I didn't know, didn't give any more or less than I currently give.

prinz

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

But he DOES have the right to an opinion. Nobody has to listen to him, he has no say in how peoples taxes are actually spent. Take a Taxi around Dublin and I'm sure you'll hear plenty of opinions on what should and should not be done with this country. Bono is no different than the guy down the pub with the master plan. The only difference is the size of his audience, should he censor his opinions because some people don't agree with him? Never, the beauty of free speech is that people can say whatever they want. The problem here is`not what Bono has to say but the idiots that will choose to listen to him purely because of his celebrity.

Sure he has a right to an opinion. Just as I have a right to an opinion that he's been consistently leaking talent for years, should concentrate on music and lyric writing instead of trying to be a part-time social crusader, and should really talk about things he knows something about. Same goes for guys down the pub. If I don't know enough about some issue, I keep schtum until I do. I don't go blathering crap because that's what people 'want to hear'. You won't get a big cheer for saying unpopular non politically correct things, regardless of how accurate, apt or prescient they may be. Bono isn't stirring things up, he's just repeating the same worn out lines. Perhaps if he brought something new to the table and drew attention to it, then yeah he'd be worthy of being listened to. But as you say he's not saying anything I haven't heard being said at a pub urinal.

Goduznt Xzst

prinz wrote: »

If I don't know enough about some issue, I keep schtum until I do.

Bully for you, although I think you'll find it's common for the average human to voice an opinion on a subject when they don't have all the facts, only the ones they've personally learnt and/or experienced. How do you determine when you know "enough"... it seems rather a subjective gauge.

Should Bono use his stage as a soapbox, probably not. But is he wrong for doing so, not in the slightest. Again the burden lies with those that listen to him, not with Bono for voicing his opinions.

prinz wrote: »

Perhaps if he brought something new to the table and drew attention to it, then yeah he'd be worthy of being listened to.

By "something new" do you mean "something I agree with".

prinz

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Bully for you, although I think you'll find it's common for the average human to voice an opinion on a subject when they don't have all the facts, only the ones they've personally learnt and/or experienced. How do you determine when you know "enough"... it seems rather a subjective gauge.

I am not in the habit of making a tool of myself by speaking out of turn. If I want to voice an opinion, I at least make sure it's a well informed opinion.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

By "something new" do you mean "something I agree with".

No. I happen to agree with a lot of what Bono says. What I don't agree with is his position to be telling anyone what they should be doing, his ability to swan in somewhere for a photo op with a President here, a Prime Minister there... You might have seen an interesting piece on Sky News about the recent G8 summt in Aquilani, Italy and the hundreds of representatives of NGO's, of lobby groups, experts in their fields actually being penned in and restrained from actually meeting anyone important. They were told there would be an opportunity for meeting and greeting the heads of state but apparently it never came about or was extremely rushed and limited. I remeber them interviewing one woman who was invited to attend, had accreditation to be there.... and did she actually get to present her case? Er...no. She was never allowed near anyone with any clout. On the other hand if you're a middle aged rock 'star' with stupid sunglasses well then....... come on in Paul...

Affable

Joey the lips wrote: »

You know whats even funnier. Bonzo spent a long time fighting fot the healthier nations to fund the poor it was proved recently that the bands method of dogdging tax is no different than the countries he is so critical of

Precisely. Don't be pontificating about giving GDP to Africa when you can't even give a tiny bit of your fortune back to your own country,

Goduznt Xzst

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

You need to read more about Mother Theresa. Again a fine example of the veil of celebrity in action. Also a large supporter of the richest tax exempt organization in the world.

Thats a rather vague answer... telling me to read more. Perhaps you should air your objection? She as an individual did much to help people devoting most of her life to that aim. That is worth quite a bit in my book.

As for the organisation she represents, I actually don't care. She made the sacrifices. It was her life that she dedicated.