Bono Partners With Monsanto?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Yeah I never even understood this stupid debate. They still pay fuckloads of taxes in Ireland on properties and everything they do there.

There are alot of misinformed opinions on both sides of the "U2 tax" debate.

I've yet to see anyone produce any reasonable estimation - base it on another person altogether, even - about how much tax is actually paid in Ireland by the owner of a corporation where the majority of the assets are outside the country.

Property taxes? First off there's a billion loopholes for that and secondly that's the price everyone on earth pays for owning a house.

Take a read of this:

U2Station.com | News | U2's Bono and Ryanair Michael O'Leary highlight errors in Ireland's property tax evaluations

I pay EU 2,930 per year in property tax alone. And I don't live in a EU 2.5 million home or even a modest (lol!) EU 600,000 one.

Would you believe that his property tax is currently estimated at EU 2,775? And that if the new system being described in that link goes into place, it could actually drop?

And for the record, I'm not saying he's not paying taxes or should be paying more property taxes. If he lived in my hood, he'd be paying more, probably.

But..the notion that somehow we should include property taxes as evidence that a person pays tax, is pretty much irrelevant.
 
At this risk of sounding like I've come here to troll, Bono is fucking shady.

I have never, ever agreed with an article written by Monbiot but he is uncomfortably on the money with this one.

Bono needs to step away and shut the living fuck up already. Let someone else deal with this, he has become a burden to the cause. If he truly is interested, and I still somehow believe his heart is in the right place, the best thing he can do is properly fund this organisation. Oh, and how about pay some fucking taxes in Ireland, too.

That's a story for another time, though.

I've really started getting back into U2's older stuff again lately (post 90's has never been my thing), but it's really hard to listen to this without thinking about what Bono does when he's not singing songs.


I do think that if this Monsanto thing starts gaining traction, it'll make the tax story look like small potatoes. Bono - and by default, U2 - could be sailing into a really ugly backlash. I sometimes get the feeling Bono treats U2 like a lucrative hobby, and being a "power player" on the world stage is where his heart is really at. I'm a big fan of U2, but not necessarily a big fan of Bono these days, and seeing U2 get bashed by every man and his dog is quite dispiriting. So, yeah, try being "only" a rock singer for the next few years, Bono :lol:
 
Maybe rather than arguing over whether what Bono has done equals endorsement, we can observe that his organization has promoted and facilitated Monsanto's presence in Africa on Monsanto's terms.

Bono's been clear on his feelings about the capacity of capitalism to do good. And it can. But Monsanto is a whole different ball game... Maybe we can hope that Bono really doesn't understand how cutthroat they are, and excuse his ignorance. But I don't really feel confident about that.

I'm sure he sees them as a way to inject huge amount of fast cash into Africa. And they are. But their long term objectives are anything but self sufficient food security, for individuals or nations.

Do any of you who are bashing Monsanto REALLY know what they do? And if so, do you REALLY understand what is good or bad about any of their products?

I don't work for them and don't care. But it seems the public has latched onto a few things lately that are illogical:

1) Parabens - so many products advertise as "paraben-free" as if that's a good thing. Some thing parabens are linked to cancer, but there is no research indicating this. Parabens are used as preservatives in topicals - both drugs and cosmetics. Unless the product is a one time use only item, parabens help prevent bacterial growth. Without them, you are literally putting tons of bacteria on your face or other parts of your body. So much for getting better. Yet, anti-paraben the world is.

2) Genetically Modified Food - this is the big Monsanto issue. People claim that either genetically modified food is bad/unhealthy or that if we give into Monsanto, they will have a monopoly on seeds. Neither is true. To date, not enough research has shown any issue with genetically modified food to any human disease. Genetic modifications help seeds grow with less water or become more resistant to insects without harmful pesticides (which HAVE been shown to be bad for humans). Monopoly? Maybe at first, but other companies will compete. Will it be bad for the ground? Well, do you plant grass seed that uses less water? Tell me, how is your lawn these days? Is it dying because of that genetically modified seed? So while I'm not fully supporting Monsanto on any topic, it seems the public doesn't really know what this means (keep in mind, your pet is most likely genetically modified as are many other plants).

3) Vaccines - don't use them as they may have mercury and mercury can cause autism. No study to date has linked the trace amounts of mercury used in vaccines - again as a preservative - to autism. Yet people are not vaccinating their children for fear of this. So when your child gets small pox or polio, don't come running to the doctors asking "Why?"

4) Global Warming - or the lack thereof. A winter or ice storm does not mean there's no global warming. And whether you believe that the warming planet is due to humanity or natural actions is irrelevant - the planet is warming. CO2 is a known gas to help global warming. If we can reduce that, even a little, it helps. But go ahead, keep thinking this is all a big conspiracy.

If anyone can show me GOOD, PEER-REVIEWED, HIGHLY RESPECTED evidence to the contrary on the above, then well done. And by that, I don't mean one token paper in some rare journal that conspiracy theorists claim is true. I may change my mind if proper science is produced. Until then, be careful about jumping on any bandwagon that the "press" produces.
 
Do any of you who are bashing Monsanto REALLY know what they do? And if so, do you REALLY understand what is good or bad about any of their products?

yes and yes :wave:

(i clearly wouldn't be making such a fuss if i didn't :lol:)
 
But..the notion that somehow we should include property taxes as evidence that a person pays tax, is pretty much irrelevant.

Not really, it's exactly the point... People say Bono should pay tax. He does. It's irrelevant, however, how much. :shrug:
 
Do any of you who are bashing Monsanto REALLY know what they do? And if so, do you REALLY understand what is good or bad about any of their products?

I don't work for them and don't care. But it seems the public has latched onto a few things lately that are illogical:

1) Parabens - so many products advertise as "paraben-free" as if that's a good thing. Some thing parabens are linked to cancer, but there is no research indicating this. Parabens are used as preservatives in topicals - both drugs and cosmetics. Unless the product is a one time use only item, parabens help prevent bacterial growth. Without them, you are literally putting tons of bacteria on your face or other parts of your body. So much for getting better. Yet, anti-paraben the world is.

2) Genetically Modified Food - this is the big Monsanto issue. People claim that either genetically modified food is bad/unhealthy or that if we give into Monsanto, they will have a monopoly on seeds. Neither is true. To date, not enough research has shown any issue with genetically modified food to any human disease. Genetic modifications help seeds grow with less water or become more resistant to insects without harmful pesticides (which HAVE been shown to be bad for humans). Monopoly? Maybe at first, but other companies will compete. Will it be bad for the ground? Well, do you plant grass seed that uses less water? Tell me, how is your lawn these days? Is it dying because of that genetically modified seed? So while I'm not fully supporting Monsanto on any topic, it seems the public doesn't really know what this means (keep in mind, your pet is most likely genetically modified as are many other plants).

3) Vaccines - don't use them as they may have mercury and mercury can cause autism. No study to date has linked the trace amounts of mercury used in vaccines - again as a preservative - to autism. Yet people are not vaccinating their children for fear of this. So when your child gets small pox or polio, don't come running to the doctors asking "Why?"

4) Global Warming - or the lack thereof. A winter or ice storm does not mean there's no global warming. And whether you believe that the warming planet is due to humanity or natural actions is irrelevant - the planet is warming. CO2 is a known gas to help global warming. If we can reduce that, even a little, it helps. But go ahead, keep thinking this is all a big conspiracy.

If anyone can show me GOOD, PEER-REVIEWED, HIGHLY RESPECTED evidence to the contrary on the above, then well done. And by that, I don't mean one token paper in some rare journal that conspiracy theorists claim is true. I may change my mind if proper science is produced. Until then, be careful about jumping on any bandwagon that the "press" produces.

Many people object to Monsanto because of their love affair with litigation against farmers.

In the US Monsanto has waged a relentless war on farmers. They create a technology that can't be controlled (wind-blown pollination of GE crops) and then when neighboring crops are pollinated by the protected genes, sue the hell out of the farmers for "piracy" who never wanted the product in the first place and usually didn't even know it was there. They have driven many farmers out of business, including their own customers. Plus, their products don't even work as they are supposed to. Yields of Roundup Ready corn and soy are actually lower and less reliable than non GE, even though it's much more expensive to grow. It's not hard to ferret this stuff out with a quick google search.

There's a host of other issues too, of course. Another notable one is that bodies don't really seem to digest GE foods effectively-most animals won't eat them if given a choice, because they don't really recognize it as food. And that Monsanto objects to labeling and puts huge amounts of money into lobbying the US government to prevent it, which prevents consumers from making an informed choice on whether to buy them. The big problem with them is that they are opposed to knowledge and choice. If the pollination of their crops could be controlled and one could make an informed choice on if and when to eat them, things would be different.
 
Not really, it's exactly the point... People say Bono should pay tax. He does. It's irrelevant, however, how much. :shrug:

GG, that's just semantics... everyone knows U2 are being "tax efficient", which is perfectly legal, like Google, Starbucks, Amazon etc., but this is actually frowned upon right now especially due to the economic crisis...
 
Not really, it's exactly the point... People say Bono should pay tax. He does. It's irrelevant, however, how much. :shrug:

What?? So people say Bono should pay tax, and then others say "he does" and point to his property taxes??

That's ridiculous. Maybe I'm misreading but its sounds like saying that because he pays some form of property taxes, he pays enough?

Everyone has to pay property tax. When people say "Bono should pay tax" they aren't speaking of property tax. They're talking about personal income tax and whatever business taxes that are appropriate.
 
If Monsanto isn't a problem, then why are countries wary about American food exports?

After GMO Wheat Seeds Found, EU Recommends Testing U.S. Shipments

Even Japan halted U.S. wheat.

yep, from one of the links i posted on the first page:

The EU has little love for Monsanto or other chemical companies with a stake in agribusiness, like Germany's BASF. The EU has approved only two genetically modified crops – corn from Monsanto and potatoes from BASF. Even those modest approvals have met cultural roadblocks. Around eight EU, including France, Italy and Poland, have taken steps to ban Monsanto's GM corn. BASF, after seeking approvals for three of its potato varieties in Europe, gave up trying after a regulatory quest that took nearly four years.

How could Bono support this, I do not know. I hate to think that he has gone power hungry, but I also hate to think he's become very blind to the people he's rubbing elbows with.

:up: that is exactly what is blowing my mind right now
 
George Monbiot – Corporate Carve-Up


Corporate Carve-up

Under the pretext of preventing hunger, the rich nations are engineering a new scramble for Africa.


By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 11th June 2013

One of the stated purposes of the Conference of Berlin in 1884 was to save the people of Africa from the slave trade. To discharge this grave responsibility, the European powers discovered, to their undoubted distress, that they would have to extend their control and ownership of large parts of Africa.

In doing so, they accidentally encountered the vast riches of that continent, which had not in any way figured in their calculations, and found themselves in astonished possession of land, gold, diamonds and ivory. They also discovered that they were able to enlist the labour of a large number of Africans, who, for humanitarian reasons, were best treated as slaves.

One of the stated purposes of the G8 conference, hosted by David Cameron next week, is to save the people of Africa from starvation. To discharge this grave responsibility, the global powers have discovered, to their undoubted distress, that their corporations must extend their control and ownership of large parts of Africa. As a result, they will find themselves in astonished possession of Africa’s land, seed and markets.

David Cameron’s purpose at the G8, as he put it last month, is to advance “the good of people around the world”(1). Or, as Rudyard Kipling expressed it during the previous scramble for Africa, “To seek another’s profit, / And work another’s gain … / Fill full the mouth of Famine / And bid the sickness cease”(2). Who could doubt that the best means of doing this is to cajole African countries into a new set of agreements, which allow foreign companies to grab their land, patent their seeds and monopolise their food markets?

The New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, which bears only a passing relationship to the agreements arising from the Conference of Berlin, will, according to the US agency promoting it, “lift 50 million people out of poverty over the next 10 years through inclusive and sustained agricultural growth.”(3) This “inclusive and sustained agricultural growth” will no longer be in the hands of the people who are meant to be lifted out of poverty. How you can have one without the other is a mystery that has yet to be decoded. But I’m sure the alliance’s corporate partners – Monsanto, Cargill, Dupont, Syngenta, Nestlé, Unilever, Itochu, Yara International and others – could produce some interesting explanations(4).

The New Alliance offers African countries public and private money (the UK has pledged £395m of foreign aid(5)) if they strike agreements with G8 countries and the private sector (which means, in many cases, multinational companies). Six countries have signed up so far.

That African farming needs investment and support is indisputable. But does it need land grabbing? Yes, according to the deals these countries have signed. Mozambique, where local farmers have already been evicted from large tracts of land, is now obliged to write new laws promoting what its agreement calls “partnerships” of this kind(6). Cote d’Ivoire must “facilitate access to land for smallholder farmers and
private enterprises”(7). Which, in practice, means evicting smallholder farmers for the benefit of private enterprises. Already French, Algerian, Swiss and Singaporean companies have lined up deals across 600,000 hectares or more of this country’s prime arable land. These deals, according to the development group GRAIN, “will displace tens of thousands of peasant rice farmers and destroy the livelihoods of thousands of small traders.”(8) Ethiopia, where land grabbing has been accompanied by appalling human rights abuses, must assist “agriculture investors (domestic and foreign; small, medium and larger enterprises) to … secure access to land”(9).

And how about seed grabbing? Yes, that too is essential to the well-being of Africa’s people. Mozambique is now obliged to “systematically cease distribution of free and unimproved seeds”, while drawing up new laws granting intellectual property rights in seeds which will “promote private sector investment”(10). Similar regulations must also be approved in Ghana, Tanzania and Cote d’Ivoire.

The countries which have joined the New Alliance will have to remove any market barriers which favour their own farmers. Where farmers comprise between 50 and 90% of the population(11), and where their livelihoods are dependent on the non-cash economy, these policies – which make perfect sense in the air-conditioned lecture rooms of the Chicago Business School – can be lethal.

Strangely missing from the New Alliance agreements is any commitment on the part of the G8 nations to change their own domestic policies. These could have included farm subsidies in Europe and the US, which undermine the markets for African produce, or biofuel quotas, which promote world hunger by turning food into fuel. Any constraints on the behaviour of corporate investors in Africa (such as the Committee on World Food Security’s guidelines on land tenure(12)) remain voluntary, while the constraints on their host nations become compulsory. As in 1884, the powerful nations make the rules and the weak ones abide by them. For their own good, of course.

The West, as usual, is able to find leaders in Africa who have more in common with the global elite than they do with their own people. In some of the countries which have joined the New Alliance, there were wide-ranging consultations on land and farming, whose results have been now ignored in the agreements with the G8. The deals between African governments and private companies were facilitated by the World Economic Forum, and took place behind closed doors(13).

But that’s what you have to do when you’re dealing with “new-caught, sullen peoples, / Half-devil and half-child”(14), who perversely try to hang on to their own land, their own seeds and their own markets. Even though David Cameron, Barack Obama and the other G8 leaders know it isn’t good for them.

George Monbiot
 
That African farming needs investment and support is indisputable. But does it need land grabbing? Yes, according to the deals these countries have signed. Mozambique, where local farmers have already been evicted from large tracts of land, is now obliged to write new laws promoting what its agreement calls “partnerships” of this kind(6). Cote d’Ivoire must “facilitate access to land for smallholder farmers and
private enterprises”(7). Which, in practice, means evicting smallholder farmers for the benefit of private enterprises. Already French, Algerian, Swiss and Singaporean companies have lined up deals across 600,000 hectares or more of this country’s prime arable land. These deals, according to the development group GRAIN, “will displace tens of thousands of peasant rice farmers and destroy the livelihoods of thousands of small traders.”(8) Ethiopia, where land grabbing has been accompanied by appalling human rights abuses, must assist “agriculture investors (domestic and foreign; small, medium and larger enterprises) to … secure access to land”(9).

And how about seed grabbing? Yes, that too is essential to the well-being of Africa’s people. Mozambique is now obliged to “systematically cease distribution of free and unimproved seeds”, while drawing up new laws granting intellectual property rights in seeds which will “promote private sector investment”(10). Similar regulations must also be approved in Ghana, Tanzania and Cote d’Ivoire.

sorry, but that is disgusting and evil :down:
 
Doctorwho, if you really want to know... here's an excerpt:

GRAIN — GMOs: Fooling – er, "feeding" – the world for 20 years


GMOs: Fooling – er, "feeding" – the world for 20 years

GRAIN | 15 May 2013 | Other publications

Defending seeds and biodiversity. No to GMOs.

Myths and outright lies about the alleged benefits of genetically engineered crops (GE crops or GMOs) persist only because the multinationals that profit from them have put so much effort into spreading them around.

They want you to believe that GMOs will feed the world; that they are more productive; that they will eliminate the use of agrichemicals; that they can coexist with other crops, and that they are perfectly safe for humans and the environment.

False in every case, and in this article we’ll show how easy it is to debunk these myths. All it takes is a dispassionate, objective look at twenty years of commercial GE planting and the research that supposedly backs it up. The conclusion is clear: GMOs are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

An article by GRAIN, published in Soberania Alimentaria, numero 13.

MYTH: GE crops will end world hunger.

FACT: GE crops have nothing to do with ending world hunger, no matter how much GE spokespeople like to expound on this topic. Three comments give the lie to their claim:

FAO data clearly show that the world produces plenty of food to feed everyone, year after year. Yet hunger is still with us. That’s because hunger is not primarily a question of productivity but of access to arable land and resources. Put bluntly: Hunger is caused by poverty and exclusion.
Today’s commercial GE crops weren’t designed to fight hunger in the first place. They aren’t even mainly for human consumption. Practically the entire area planted to GE crops consists of soybeans, corn, canola, and cotton. The first three of these are used almost exclusively to make cattle feed, car fuel, and industrial oils for the United States and Europe, while cotton goes into clothing.
More damning, there appears to be an iniquitous cause-and-effect relationship between GE crops and rural hunger. In countries like Brazil and Argentina, gigantic “green deserts” of corn and soybeans invade peasants’ land, depriving them – or outright robbing them – of their means of subsistence. The consequence is hunger, abject poverty, and agrotoxin poisoning for rural people. The truth is that GE crops are edging out food on millions of hectares of fertile farmland.
In the year GMO seeds were first planted, 800 million people worldwide were hungry. Today, with millions of hectares of GMOs in production, 1 billion are hungry. When exactly do these crops start “feeding the world”?

MYTH: GE crops pose no threat to health and the environment.

At the very least, the biosafety of transgenic crops is an open question. Do we really want to entrust our health to an industrial agriculture system in which GE purveyors control food security offices and dictate their own standards? I don’t think so. Food sovereignty requires that the people, not the companies, have control over what we eat.

Nevertheless, our plates are now filling up with food items from plants with altered DNA and heavy pesticide loads, and we are told to simply shut up and eat. Concerns have been heightened by a number of credible reports on GMOs and their attendant herbicides:

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) stated in 2009 that genetically engineered foods “pose a serious health risk.” Citing various studies, it concluded that “there is more than a casual association between GE foods and adverse health effects” and that these foods “pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health.”
The latest studies by Dr. Gilles-Éric Séralini looked at rats fed glyphosate-tolerant GE maize for two years. These rats showed greater and earlier mortality in addition to hormonal effects, mammary tumors in females, and liver and kidney disease.
A recent study at the University of Leipzig (Germany) found high concentrations of glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, in urine samples from city dwellers – from 5 to 20 times greater than the limit for drinking water.
Professor Andrés Carrasco of the CONICET-UBA Molecular Embryology Lab at the University of Buenos Aires medical school (Argentina) has unveiled a study showing that glyphosate herbicides cause malformations in frog and chicken embryos at doses much lower than those used in agriculture. The malformations were of a type similar to those observed in human embryos exposed to these herbicides.
Finally, there is the incontrovertible evidence that glyphosate can have a direct impact on human beings, causing abortions, illnesses, and even death in high enough doses, as explained by Sofía Gatica, the Argentine winner of the latest Goldman prize.
 
short-term fix ignoring the long-term consequences

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, or even that it's what Bono is thinking; I'm just suggesting that there may be another alternative to "Bono has gone power hungry and doesn't give a shit."
 
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, or even that it's what Bono is thinking; I'm just suggesting that there may be another alternative to "Bono has gone power hungry and doesn't give a shit."

i don't for one second think that "Bono has gone power hungry and doesn't give a shit.", i think he has good intentions but is seriously misguided/blinkered, at least i hope so, otherwise it is even more worrying
 
If anyone can show me GOOD, PEER-REVIEWED, HIGHLY RESPECTED evidence to the contrary on the above, then well done. And by that, I don't mean one token paper in some rare journal that conspiracy theorists claim is true. I may change my mind if proper science is produced. Until then, be careful about jumping on any bandwagon that the "press" produces.

you can check out this link if you're interested, there's loads of info out there:

http://re.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/reports-documents/adverse-impacts-transgenic-cropsfoods
 
I sometimes get the feeling Bono treats U2 like a lucrative hobby, and being a "power player" on the world stage is where his heart is really at.
Because we all know that it can't be both, his heart can't be in music and saving people at the same time. You have to choose one or the other.

I hate to think that he has gone power hungry
How would this make him "power hungry"? I mean it's a pretty loose "endorsement" to begin with, don't get me wrong it has me scratching my head, but really? Power hungry? Bit of a stretch don't you think?
 
Well, he's lunching with FLOTUS today, so I'll go with "power hungry."

That's it! :rant: I wish Bono would just choose where his heart is and move on. I mean does he want to be a rockstar, does he want to be a "power player" on the world stage, or does he want to to a tour guide to the elite Muslim communists that are conspiring to bring Armageddon to this planet?

Fucking make up your mind BONER!
 
Doctorwho, if you really want to know... here's an excerpt:

GRAIN — GMOs: Fooling – er, "feeding" – the world for 20 years

That piece doesn't even list an author. It can't be taken seriously. Second, when I look at the list of contributors to the site, none hold degrees in any field of scientific study.


A better source for GMO/Food issues:

Biology Fortified, Inc.

They have editors who are actual scientists.

Karl Haro von Mogel-PhD. Candidate in Plant Breeding and Plant Genetics at UW-Madison.

Anastasia Bodnar- PhD in genetics with a minor in sustainable agriculture from Iowa State University.

Pam Ronald- PhD. Professor of Plant Pathology and Chair of the Plant Genomics Program at the University of California, Davis.

David Tribe, PhD. Applied geneticist with a faculty position in an Australian University.

Melinda Yerka, PhD. Graduated from the Plant Breeding and Plant Genetics program at UW-Madison.
 
Or he thinks the good they could do outweighs the negative.

No doubt. Monsanto is supposed to invest $30,000,000 in Africa.

Bono is supposed to tell them to go pound sand because they're a corporation.

And replace their $30,000,000 with what?

Cause, ya know, he has that much power.
 
How would this make him "power hungry"? I mean it's a pretty loose "endorsement" to begin with, don't get me wrong it has me scratching my head, but really? Power hungry? Bit of a stretch don't you think?

He's getting kickbacks from all these corporations. That's the verified rumor.

It's really funny. The dude catches TONS of flack for this. TONS. So much that I think the position that his work is all PR to help album/ticket sales is sufficiently debunked.

Seriously, his charity work actually costs him $. People who might dig a U2 record or enjoy a U2 show won't participate cause Boner is a twat.

We're well beyond the tipping point here.

Yet there he is. Still doing it. Still taking all the shit slinging. Not a care in the world. Hell, he seems happy about it. Everyone hates him. The Left hate him. The Right hate him. People write books about how much they hate him.

Yet he still goes out and does it. I think any notion that Bono only cares about what other people think of him is gone now as well. How could that be true? In any way?

You do something. Everyone hates you for it. You keep doing it.

He might have the biggest balls in the history of rock.
 
No doubt. Monsanto is supposed to invest $30,000,000 in Africa.

Bono is supposed to tell them to go pound sand because they're a corporation.

And replace their $30,000,000 with what?

Cause, ya know, he has that much power.

yes because the corporations are just giving the money away asking nothing in return :cute:

have you even read into the issue?

and no, i don't think he has got that much power actually - but he is the face of ONE which supports the Alliance, he has publicly expressed his support for the Alliance, this is all over the media now, and you can bet, if and when the sh!t does hit the fan, that he will be in the firing line - check back in 20 years - i will hate to say i told you so :D
 
Yet there he is. Still doing it. Still taking all the shit slinging. Not a care in the world. Hell, he seems happy about it. Everyone hates him. The Left hate him. The Right hate him. People write books about how much they hate him.

That just tells me he's doing something right.

Yet he still goes out and does it. I think any notion that Bono only cares about what other people think of him is gone now as well. How could that be true? In any way?

You do something. Everyone hates you for it. You keep doing it.

I knew there was a reason I liked him.
 
No doubt. Monsanto is supposed to invest $30,000,000 in Africa.

Bono is supposed to tell them to go pound sand because they're a corporation.

And replace their $30,000,000 with what?

Cause, ya know, he has that much power.

Do you know how big Africa is?
30,000,000 is a drop in the bucket. That is unless it goes toward their (Monsanto's) personal interests.
Ask yourself why Europe is preparing to go to war against Monsanto because they wont leave. Why are they willingly burning down their crops? Why dont livestock voluntarily eat GMO feed when presented the real McCoy right next to it? Why do you only hear good things from Monsanto's side? Surely genetic modification has its blunders and failures during research and development...Monsanto is like Kim Jung Un and the world is North Korea. Only the news they want you to hear gets out. The powers that be want complete control. Communication, FOOD, Transportation, Entertainment, Economy, Everything that is directly related to influencing you on a day to day basis. Youre being conditioned and persuaded from the second you wake up until you fall asleep again. Its not marketing anymore, its Programming. Were beyond goods and services here, its all about you.

Monsanto is the one attacking you from within while Hollywood and Washington attack you from the outside.
 
I knew there was a reason I liked him.

I think we all like Bono. Even the Monsanto haters in this thread don't want to believe that he understands the shitty things Monsanto is responsible for. If they didn't they wouldn't be here on this thread feeling all uncomfortable about it- they'd be out on youtube leaving Bono-hating comments.
 
I think we all like Bono. Even the Monsanto haters in this thread don't want to believe that he understands the shitty things Monsanto is responsible for. If they didn't they wouldn't be here on this thread feeling all uncomfortable about it- they'd be out on youtube leaving Bono-hating comments.

Well, I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying I like Bono in spite of this Monsanto thing, I'm saying I like him because of it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Monsanto and am well aware of their corporate misadventures. I'm not defending them and maybe I'd make different choices than Bono. But frankly one of the things that's always impressed me about him is that he really doesn't care what other people think of those he works with, left and right...as long as they can help him get the results he wants. Which is pretty impressive considering how sensitive he is to criticism about his music, he seems immune to it with regards to his politics. If he cared what people thought of all that he wouldn't have heaped praise on people like Bush, Blair, Jesse Helms, Merkel, Paul Volker, etc. over the years (sometimes even over the objections of his lifelong friends in his own band). Good for him. He's clearly made the calculation that, despite their shortcomings, Monsanto can further his agenda in Africa. Considering his opinion that capitalism can be a force for good, and his extensive corporate (he sits on the board of an investment group for crying out loud) and government network, this should surprise no one.

And frankly, the notion that Bono doesn't understand what Monsanto has done and the reasons activists hate them so much is a little insulting. One of the things that has set Bono apart from other celebrity activists is the depth of his knowledge. He knows his stuff. Even his critics acknowledge that, and he wouldn't get into see, let alone earn the respect of, some of the tough people he deals with if he didn't know what he was talking about. So the accusation that a bunch of activists on the internet know something he's somehow managed to miss, and if only he'd read X article on the subject he'd feel differently, is a little preposterous.

So I think the Monstanto haters who are also Bono lovers need to come to terms with the fact that he knows exactly what he's doing and knows everything they do...if not more...about Monstanto, and has decided he wants to work with them anyway. And that he respects Bill Gates opinion on this more than yours. You don't have to agree with it, or even respect it, but you probably should get used to it (those are rhetorical "yours" and "you" Jeevey, and not directed at you specifically).

“To be independent of public opinion is the first formal condition of achieving anything great.” ― Hegel
 
Back
Top Bottom