Oreilly Article On Bono & Africa

[MBH]

The following is an article written by political/news commentator Bill O'reilly detailing the problems in Africa and Bono's intentions. I posted an article written by Rush Limbaugh last week based on the same subject. Although I thought that Limbaugh's article made some valid points(to which most of you disagreed), you may find this one more objective, level-headed and fair. Look forward to discussing the article with all of you.


What does Bono want from us?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 6, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern


? 2002 WorldNetDaily.com


You have to love this guy Bono. The lead singer for U2 really wants to help the world, and I admire that. His trip to Africa with Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was a great photo opportunity for both men. But behind the glittering 8-by-10s, Africa is still a major mess.

The problem is that in most African countries there is no infrastructure. Tribalism has crippled coordinated attempts to improve the standard of living for the 800 million or so people who live there. Life expectancy on the continent is the lowest in the world ? about 50 years ? and the main reason is because ancient hatreds rule, cooperation among people even in the same nation is rare.

Bono and many others want the United States to send more money to Africa. The New York Times screams that America sends less aid than any other developed area. On a per capita basis Canada sends more and so does Europe.

But in real dollars America has been a generous player in Bono's band. In the past 25 years, American taxpayers have contributed almost 40 billion dollars to help Africans. And what do we have to show for our money?

Nothing, that's what.

Now some of that is our fault. We sent millions to brutal dictators to keep them out of the Soviet orbit. We bribed killers so they wouldn't become commies. But it didn't matter whether they embraced Leninism because thieves are thieves no matter what ideology they spout. Much of the aid that America sent to Africa went directly into the bank accounts of the Robert Mugabes of the world. Thugs, pure and simple.

Bono and some American media people would have us believe that things are different now, that the African governments are ready to "evolve" as they say in California. Well I'm from Missouri on this one: Show me.

One of the biggest fallacies going is that America can afford to send a lot more money to Africa. American workers are taxed to the hilt and the war on terror is costing the U.S. about 2 billion dollars a month. That's real money ? not loans or credit.

In case Bono and everyone else with their hands out haven't noticed, America is protecting the world here. We are hunting down terrorists and rebuilding pathetic countries like Afghanistan. It is enormously expensive.

Should we rebuild other pathetic countries in Africa? The answer is no. But we can help Africans help themselves ? if they stop the nonsense.

First off, all American aid should go toward specific projects overseen by the American Embassy in the country receiving our money. If Nigeria needs a highway, then American officials should oversee the project. If South Africa needs money for AIDS education, then Americans should sign off on the nature of that education.

With all due respect to Bono and other concerned rich guys, most Americans work hard to pay their taxes and having aid money stolen by greedy thugs is not only insulting, it is criminal. The days of wine and roses are over for corrupt, coup-installed "generals." Do it our way or you don't get the highway.

A few years ago another Irish rock guy, Bob Geldof, put on a big benefit to help victims of a terrible African famine. Millions poured in. Did the money get to the starving people? Not according to many associated with the project. The African bureaucracy overwhelmed Geldof's good intentions.

So I hope Bono and Secretary O'Neill had a nice time running around Africa. It is a fascinating place to visit. But you wouldn't want to live there because it is so easy to die. Millions of Americans would like to help improve that situation. But African nations must stop the chaos and corruption and begin to help themselves. That is the only way things will ever get better over there and everybody should know it. You too, Bono.

 

[diamond]

Hmm.
I think Brother O Rielly is missing the pt.
I still like him tho.

Diamond

 

[404 Not Found]

Bono and some American media people would have us believe that things are different now, that the African governments are ready to "evolve" as they say in California. Well I'm from Missouri on this one: Show me.

wasn't that the point of the Africa trip? For Bono to show O'Neill where aid is working?

 

[mug222]

I think Brother O Rielly is missing the pt.
Diamond

Agreed.

A more spot-on editorial by Jeffrey Sachs appears in today's issue of the Wall Street Journal.

 

[MBH]

Hmm.
I think Brother O Rielly is missing the pt.
I still like him tho.

Diamond

O'reilly is not missing the point. He totally understands it and has made an objective opinion on the issue. He is not an extreme conservative like Limbaugh who constantly bashes liberals and enjoys putting down others. He makes his decisions and opinions on the facts and he totally has it right on this issue. Face it: Bono has good intentions but his methods have not worked in the past(fact) and most likely will not work in the future. Although his intentions are in the right place, his methods are not.

 

[diamond]

O'reilly is not missing the point. He totally understands it and has made an objective opinion on the issue. He is not an extreme conservative like Limbaugh who constantly bashes liberals and enjoys putting down others. He makes his decisions and opinions on the facts and he totally has it right on this issue. Face it: Bono has good intentions but his methods have not worked in the past(fact) and most likely will not work in the future. Although his intentions are in the right place, his methods are not.

MBH-
What I understand is..that GW is willing to help Bono a insomuch as the money is accounted for and being well spent.
In the past this WAS NOT the case-it was more like 'throw gobs of money at the problem out of guilt w/no accountabilty'.
Recently Bono even said that was WRONG.
Bill O missed this pt. tho.

your friend-
diamond

 

[sulawesigirl4]

Sounds like O?Reilly and MBH are both missing the point.

 

[Lemonite]

I think I know the true reason.. Deep in the depths of Bono's mind on this Africa Aid. He gave us a clue into what this was really about in one of his quotes.. It is something that is spectrum wide and extends beyond just the Africa Aid situation, but I haven't the time to begin this discussion.

L.Unplugged

 

[kobayashi]

is something that is spectrum wide and extends beyond just the Africa Aid situation, but I haven't the time to begin this discussion.

L.Unplugged

are you discussing his plan to colonize the african continent with the newcomers ?

 

[oktobergirl]

I think if there is one thing missing from the Public Relations standpoint on the recent trip to Africa and it's subsequent media coverage, it's that IN THE FUTURE that money is NOT going to fall into the wrong hands. If the powers that be can convince the average Americans of that fact, there will be overwhelming support. Most of the criticisms I have read so far ( be it from the general pubic or the media) are not well informed enought to realize this. And that is frustrating.

I liked most of Bill O'Reilley's article for the most part tho.

Do you know what I wish? For Bono to be on Bill O'Reilly. I think Bono could stand his own and MUCH MORE. He'd probably never do it tho...

 

[MBH]

Sounds like O?Reilly and MBH are both missing the point.

]

Sula,
You are so predictable. I have never seen you disagree with ANYTHING that U2 or Bono does. (I'm sure you have, I just haven't witnessed it). I constantly bring up well-thought, FACTUAL statements and evidence to the contrary and you always seem to disagree. That is your perogative. I acknowledged that many political pundits(ie Limbaugh) are somewhat off-base and others just simply wanna take shots at Bono. However, much of what is written by Oreilly(et al) is a fact: much money has been wasted in 3rd world nations and it must change. Granted, Bono is doing a good thing and he has a big heart; however, you simply seem to ignore the obvious. I am middle of the road when it comes to politics; I try to view both sides objectively and fairly and make a cognizant opinion based on the facts(as I'm sure you do as well). However, the facts cannot be ignored simply because you disagree with something. You come across as the stereotypical liberal who gets annoyed and ignores the facts for the sake of a political point of view.

 

[MBH]

I think if there is one thing missing from the Public Relations standpoint on the recent trip to Africa and it's subsequent media coverage, it's that IN THE FUTURE that money is NOT going to fall into the wrong hands. If the powers that be can convince the average Americans of that fact, there will be overwhelming support. Most of the criticisms I have read so far ( be it from the general pubic or the media) are not well informed enought to realize this. And that is frustrating.

I liked most of Bill O'Reilley's article for the most part tho.

Do you know what I wish? For Bono to be on Bill O'Reilly. I think Bono could stand his own and MUCH MORE. He'd probably never do it tho...

Wasn't Bono on Oreilly back in November of 2001(the 20th or 21st I believe, prior to U2's performance on Jay Leno)? If you or anyone else has details about this, please pass it on. Thanks.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

Sula,
You are so predictable. I have never seen you disagree with ANYTHING that U2 or Bono does. (I'm sure you have, I just haven't witnessed it). I constantly bring up well-thought, FACTUAL statements and evidence to the contrary and you always seem to disagree. That is your perogative. I acknowledged that many political pundits(ie Limbaugh) are somewhat off-base and others just simply wanna take shots at Bono. However, much of what is written by Oreilly(et al) is a fact: much money has been wasted in 3rd world nations and it must change. Granted, Bono is doing a good thing and he has a big heart; however, you simply seem to ignore the obvious. I am middle of the road when it comes to politics; I try to view both sides objectively and fairly and make a cognizant opinion based on the facts(as I'm sure you do as well). However, the facts cannot be ignored simply because you disagree with something. You come across as the stereotypical liberal who gets annoyed and ignores the facts for the sake of a political point of view.

MBH, you are also extremely predictable. You seem to revel in trying to stir up controversy simply for the sake of controversy. (which may also be merely my misunderstanding, but that?s how it looks). It is also your prerogative to do so of course, but don?t be surprised when people disagree with you.

Ok, so I do happen to agree with a lot of what the members of U2 have to say, Bono in particular. Does that mean I don?t think for myself, or does it mean that perhaps I just happen to concur with many of their views? I would say it?s the latter, and I would hope that I?m in the best position to judge. Furthermore, I find it highly amusing that you are labeling me as a ?stereotypical? liberal, when I?m actually someone who generally votes Republican and holds pretty conservative views on a number of issues. I have studied economics and at an institution that holds capitalism and free market wisdom to be practically gospel, so believe me that when I disagree with you on the issues surrounding debt relief and aid, I am not doing so out of a liberal biased vacuum.

What I disagree with is your insistence on putting Bono?s position into this little box labeled ?aid.? What I have gleaned from articles and comments and interviews is that, yes he is definitely pushing for continued aid towards Africa, but that he?s not merely saying that we should give free handouts and then abandon these countries to their own devices. What I hear him saying (and what I tend to agree with) is that while we should definitely be trying to help these countries move towards economic freedom and accountability, we cannot expect it to happen overnight and we cannot abandon them to the luck of the open market without taking into account the huge amounts of debt they carry, the ravaging effects of HIV/AIDS, the instability of many of their economic structures, and the inequity of trade tariffs. We owe it to ourselves to help and if that help takes the form of both aid and trade, then so be it. Personally, I won?t be upset if a cent of every dollar I pay in taxes goes to help people in the Third World. I?ve lived there, and I know that they can probably use it a helluva a lot more than I can.

But probably the thing that bothers me most about the articles is that they seem no more than a conservative knee-jerk reaction and one that overgeneralizes the issues and oversimplifies the solution. Not to mention the highly arrogant tone that screams condescension. I don?t know when calling African countries ?pathetic? came into vogue, but I find that word choices like that in an article do tend to shred my opinion of the writer?s credibility.

So in conclusion, I don?t think that the above article is objective at all. It does validate one point of view, one that you seem to share, and of course you are welcome to it. But please don?t try to convince me that it?s an unbiased and fair assessment of the situation, because as far as I can tell, it doesn?t even scratch the surface.

Hopefully that helped clarify my position and where I?m coming from. Sorry if I was vague before, and I do look forward to debating this issue civilly in the future.

 

[Salome]

But probably the thing that bothers me most about the articles is that they seem no more than a conservative knee-jerk reaction and one that overgeneralizes the issues and oversimplifies the solution. Not to mention the highly arrogant tone that screams condescension. I don?t know when calling African countries ?pathetic? came into vogue, but I find that word choices like that in an article do tend to shred my opinion of the writer?s credibility.

and the crowd roars

I have also studied enough economy and picked up enough of Bono's (+ Co) ideas to come to the same conclusions as Sula did

 

[melon]

Sula's a "stereotypical liberal" now??? LOL...I think I've heard everything now. I can tell you, from speaking to her as long as I have, she is anything but "stereotypical." She certainly researches her opinions ahead of time.

I'm also quite dismayed over your comment:

"However, the facts cannot be ignored simply because you disagree with something. You come across as the stereotypical liberal who gets annoyed and ignores the facts for the sake of a political point of view."

Conservatives, especially Rush Limbaugh, are very much guilty of this. You should really check Limbaugh's own factual record, as they often "ignore the facts for the sake of a political point of view" most certainly. If you wish for me to dig up his backlog, just say the word...

Melon

 

[mug222]

Conservatives, especially Rush Limbaugh, are very much guilty of this. You should really check Limbaugh's own factual record, as they often "ignore the facts for the sake of a political point of view" most certainly. If you wish for me to dig up his backlog, just say the word...

I agree with you, but please stop referencing Limbaugh--it has long since ceased to accomplish anything except long, meaningless, thread wars of attrition.

By the way, can anyone find/post the Sachs column from today's WSJ? It's the most informative and most informed treatment of the subject yet. (It's entitled "Bononomics Rocks.")

 

[sulawesigirl4]

By the way, can anyone find/post the Sachs column from today's WSJ? It's the most informative and most informed treatment of the subject yet. (It's entitled "Bononomics Rocks.")

mug, I can't access the WSJ article because it's on a subscription basis, but here is a recent interview with Sachs from MSnbc that has some relevance to the discussion at hand.

A Call for African Aid

Harvard economist Jeffrey Sachs on global poverty issues

NEWSWEEK INTERNATIONAL

June 10 issue ? Harvard economist Jeffrey Sachs made a name for himself tackling tough economic problems around the world. In the 1990s he advised Russia on how to move to a free market. He helped Mongolia to privatize a herd of 24 million yaks, and Bolivia to turn around its economy. In recent months Sachs has turned to a broader challenge: reviving the moribund economies of some of the world?s most impoverished nations. Earlier this year Sachs agreed to take a post as an adviser to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on global poverty issues, and will leave Harvard to head Columbia?s Earth Institute, where he hopes to bring scientists into development debates. Sachs spoke with NEWSWEEK?s Adam Piore last week. Excerpts:


PIORE: U.S Treasury Secretary Paul O?Neill and Bono the rock singer have been in the headlines visiting development projects in Africa. O?Neill has been quoted basically saying ?This is a waste of money.? Bono has looked at the same projects and said ?This is great, we need more like it.? You took Bono on his preparatory trip to find projects that were successful. Who?s right?

SACHS: Of course Bono?s right and Paul O?Neill?s going to learn! I think the basic point that Bono was making is that we?re going to have to put some effort into some of the extreme problems, like hunger, epidemics, that the two of them were seeing this week. We had hoped this could be done basically for free, that it was just a matter of African governments? governing themselves, focusing on corruption, reform... But O?Neill and Bono went to places like Ghana and Uganda?places that are governing well but can?t face these enormous problems on their own. It?s what the Treasury secretary saw with his own eyes, and I know he was absolutely shocked. He went into a hospital ward and met people who were dying not because they have to be dying but because they couldn?t afford drugs that cost about a dollar a day.One thing we learned over the last 20 years is that traditional development recipes?focusing on market reform and good governance?are far from enough. Our approach is like telling a starving person to stand up and walk through the desert for 10 kilometers to get your food.

But what is your response to critics who say you can throw all the money you want at some of the problems in Africa and they won?t go away?

I have studied these problems in more detail than any person on this planet in recent years and I know that the amounts of money going to fight AIDS, TB, to address hunger issues or for primary education have been grossly insufficient compared to any real estimate of the need. When you ask Americans what they think they?re doing, they think they are spending [lots of money]. In fact we?ve been spending about one penny out of every $100. Do you think that?s enough to get the job done with the world?s largest pandemic? The answer is no.

So you don?t think the money has been squandered through corruption and inefficiencies?

The programs that are being funded are working. The problem is that when you give very little?as we have done in the last 20 years?then the immunization coverage is very low, or the children don?t go to school, or the hunger intensifies. If rich countries turn their backs, of course you?re going to get mass death. And Secretary O?Neill stared it in the face.

If you could wave a magic wand and change two things about the way development aid is doled out, what would they be?

Sums of money that are commensurate with the scale of the problem, and that donors pool their money instead of doing it project by project, donor country by donor country. When you get a large enough pool of funds, whether it?s to eradicate polio, African river blindness, or to get leprosy under control you produce real results. But if instead you?re pretending?if every country puts flags up, with nobody producing real resources?you get a lot of people dying and a lot of people blaming victims.

Let?s talk about science. You have said that one of the reasons you are moving to Columbia is to try and get scientists involved in development. In recent years some development experts have come to the conclusion that there are large swaths of the world in Africa and Central Asia that are simply beyond help due to environmental conditions. You seem to be saying that science can transform these environments and fix these problems.

I think that all over the world it?s now possible to help children be born healthy, to be raised in good health and to get an education that can help them be productive members of the world community?and that can be true from Central Asia to Central Africa. But the kinds of problems that the poorest countries are facing require major investments in science to find solutions and understand them. There?s very little research in malaria, on tropical drought, on how to handle climate change or soil degradation that is causing the collapse of economies.

 

[diamond]

Mug-
Something tells me youre dialed into Brother Sachs quite well.
Would you care to elaborate?


diamond

 

[mug222]

mug, I can't access the WSJ article because it's on a subscription basis, but here is a recent interview with Sachs from MSnbc that has some relevance to the discussion at hand.

Thanks Sula, I hadn't seen that interview--it's a good one. He has the right response, it seems, to the charge that all of the money we've given has been completely squandered, as O'Reilly says. The truth is that you simply cannot expect results from nickels and dimes: quantitative results vs. financial aid given is not at all a linear graph (i.e. 1 billion dollars will NOT be a tenth as beneficial as 10 billion dollars, but far less. This seems to be true, for instance, because you cannot combat half of malaria: if you do not eradicate the entire disease then it will always return with renewed force.) You can't touch the problem whatsoever until you are giving money on the right order of magnitude.

Thanks again. If anyone has a WSJ online prescription, Sachs' column would be a good one to post.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

Here's an analysis from the Financial Times that also has some bearing on the discussion. Has a bit more technical jargon, but nothing anyone in here can't understand, I'm sure.

O'Neill's African tour

Published: June 4 2002 5:00 | Last Updated: June 4 2002 5:00

Paul O'Neill, the US Treasury secretary, should have learnt at least two things as a result of his trip round Africa with the rock musician Bono. One, he looks better in silly hats than he might have expected; and two, development may not be as simple as it looks.

He can be applauded for his courage in undertaking the trip, especially with such a media-savvy companion adept at manipulating each visit to press for more aid than the extra $5bn that the US has already announced.

But when it comes to starting a new relationship between the US and sub-Saharan Africa, Mr O'Neill's powers are limited.

Out of what the US has to offer Africa's development - more trade access, more aid and more debt relief - the greatest of these is trade. It was unfortunate that Mr O'Neill's trip started just days after the White House backed the disgraceful US farm bill, a further distortion to global agricultural markets and a handicap for Africa's farmers. This was not Mr O'Neill's fault. A convinced free- trader, he conspicuously failed to defend the principle behind the bill when a succession of African leaders and campaigners brought it up. But he also did not manage to prevent it.

On the aid front, the trip was intended to flesh out the US's plans to direct the ring-fenced $5bn fund towards well performing countries. Traditionally, US aid to Africa has largely been used to reward political allies in the corrupt and murderous tradition of Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire or Samuel Doe in Liberia. Even directed towards its proper purpose, its effectiveness is limited: US aid is often inflexibly tied to specific projects and, shamefully, to the use of US contractors.

Rewarding good policy

During the trip, Mr O'Neill made welcome sounds about shifting towards directly underwriting the budgets of trust-worthy countries. The US will also try to come up with metrics for rewarding good policy with aid.

Both these policies are already being pursued by some of the more progressive bilateral donors, particularly the Nordic countries and the World Bank. There is a legitimate debate about how effective they have been. Critics say, for example, that the World Bank's selection criteria depend too much on subjective judgments by its staff and that there is still insufficient discrimination between the Ugandas and Ghanas towards the top of the class and the Kenyas and Zambias towards the bottom.

Unhelpful unilateralism

But although it makes noises about learning from all past work in this area, the US administration seems to retain an unhelpful unilateralist bias. Early signs are that, rather than aligning aid allocations with existing mechanisms such as the poverty reduction strategy paper (PRSP) process, which increasingly co-ordinates International Monetary Fund and World Bank help with that of other bilateral donors, the US intends to go it alone. This may be a shrewd tactical move, since multilateralism plays badly in Congress. But it risks bringing back the bad old days when African ministries had literally hundreds of bank accounts to comply with complex donor reporting procedures. Poor countries should not be forced to create swelling bureaucracies to satisfy prejudices in donor countries' legislatures.

Moreover, Mr O'Neill should curb his tendency to offer homespun development advice based on initial impressions. It could just be that the solutions he has thrown out during the trip - dig more wells, plant better tomatoes - are as effective as he makes them sound. But the history of top-down technocratic solutions to development problems is littered with embarrassing errors.

A fresh and intellectually honest pair of eyes looking at the problems of African development, particularly from a country whose aid delivery has lagged behind best practice for so long, will be welcome. Continued hypocrisy on trade, ideological unilateralism and policy by anecdote will not.

 

[mug222]

Mug-
Something tells me youre dialed into Brother Sachs quite well.
Would you care to elaborate?


diamond

I'm not sure what the implication is, but your overflow of smilies frightens and confuses me

 

[MBH]

and the crowd roars

I have also studied enough economy and picked up enough of Bono's (+ Co) ideas to come to the same conclusions as Sula did

Now is patting the back of confidants on this site necessary??

 

[HeartlandGirl]

MBH, you are also extremely predictable. You seem to revel in trying to stir up controversy simply for the sake of controversy. (which may also be merely my misunderstanding, but that?s how it looks). It is also your prerogative to do so of course, but don?t be surprised when people disagree with you.

Ok, so I do happen to agree with a lot of what the members of U2 have to say, Bono in particular. Does that mean I don?t think for myself, or does it mean that perhaps I just happen to concur with many of their views? I would say it?s the latter, and I would hope that I?m in the best position to judge. Furthermore, I find it highly amusing that you are labeling me as a ?stereotypical? liberal, when I?m actually someone who generally votes Republican and holds pretty conservative views on a number of issues. I have studied economics and at an institution that holds capitalism and free market wisdom to be practically gospel, so believe me that when I disagree with you on the issues surrounding debt relief and aid, I am not doing so out of a liberal biased vacuum.

What I disagree with is your insistence on putting Bono?s position into this little box labeled ?aid.? What I have gleaned from articles and comments and interviews is that, yes he is definitely pushing for continued aid towards Africa, but that he?s not merely saying that we should give free handouts and then abandon these countries to their own devices. What I hear him saying (and what I tend to agree with) is that while we should definitely be trying to help these countries move towards economic freedom and accountability, we cannot expect it to happen overnight and we cannot abandon them to the luck of the open market without taking into account the huge amounts of debt they carry, the ravaging effects of HIV/AIDS, the instability of many of their economic structures, and the inequity of trade tariffs. We owe it to ourselves to help and if that help takes the form of both aid and trade, then so be it. Personally, I won?t be upset if a cent of every dollar I pay in taxes goes to help people in the Third World. I?ve lived there, and I know that they can probably use it a helluva a lot more than I can.

But probably the thing that bothers me most about the articles is that they seem no more than a conservative knee-jerk reaction and one that overgeneralizes the issues and oversimplifies the solution. Not to mention the highly arrogant tone that screams condescension. I don?t know when calling African countries ?pathetic? came into vogue, but I find that word choices like that in an article do tend to shred my opinion of the writer?s credibility.

So in conclusion, I don?t think that the above article is objective at all. It does validate one point of view, one that you seem to share, and of course you are welcome to it. But please don?t try to convince me that it?s an unbiased and fair assessment of the situation, because as far as I can tell, it doesn?t even scratch the surface.

Hopefully that helped clarify my position and where I?m coming from. Sorry if I was vague before, and I do look forward to debating this issue civilly in the future.

Just as I did when sula voted for the Edge as the "sexiest member of U2," I concur with what she has written here.

Two thumbs up.

 

[MBH]

MBH, you are also extremely predictable. You seem to revel in trying to stir up controversy simply for the sake of controversy. (which may also be merely my misunderstanding, but that?s how it looks). It is also your prerogative to do so of course, but don?t be surprised when people disagree with you.


If trying to add objectivity to a situation is considered predictable, then so be it. BTW, when I disagree w/Bono and then people (on this site) disagree with me, I am not surprised.



Ok, so I do happen to agree with a lot of what the members of U2 have to say, Bono in particular.


My point exactly.




But probably the thing that bothers me most about the articles is that they seem no more than a conservative knee-jerk reaction and one that overgeneralizes the issues and oversimplifies the solution.

Sure, some of the criticism of Bono is unfounded and false. However, did you EVER read any article that disagreed with him concerning Africa and agreed with it?




So in conclusion, I don?t think that the above article is objective at all. It does validate one point of view, one that you seem to share, and of course you are welcome to it. But please don?t try to convince me that it?s an unbiased and fair assessment of the situation, because as far as I can tell, it doesn?t even scratch the surface.


I'm not surprised that you feel this way. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. It would be nice if someone would acknowledge the other person's point of view, that's all. As for scratching the surface, well, it would take more than a few paragraphs to get deep into this subject. However, I think that O'reilly makes some valid points.




Hopefully that helped clarify my position and where I?m coming from. Sorry if I was vague before, and I do look forward to debating this issue civilly in the future.

Yes, you have clarified your position. Speak to you soon--MBH

 

[diamond]

I'm not sure what the implication is, but your overflow of smilies frightens and confuses me

Nothing to fear boss.

DB9

 

[doctorwho]

]

Sula,
You are so predictable. I have never seen you disagree with ANYTHING that U2 or Bono does. (I'm sure you have, I just haven't witnessed it). I constantly bring up well-thought, FACTUAL statements and evidence to the contrary and you always seem to disagree. That is your perogative. I acknowledged that many political pundits(ie Limbaugh) are somewhat off-base and others just simply wanna take shots at Bono. However, much of what is written by Oreilly(et al) is a fact: much money has been wasted in 3rd world nations and it must change. Granted, Bono is doing a good thing and he has a big heart; however, you simply seem to ignore the obvious. I am middle of the road when it comes to politics; I try to view both sides objectively and fairly and make a cognizant opinion based on the facts(as I'm sure you do as well). However, the facts cannot be ignored simply because you disagree with something. You come across as the stereotypical liberal who gets annoyed and ignores the facts for the sake of a political point of view.

If Sula disagrees, I do not think it is because of her love for Bono or U2. It's because she feels as many of us do - that the systems currently in place, and this includes the current amount of aid to African countries, are simply not enough.

As others have stated, Bono has acknowledged that just throwing money at countries (or in this case, reducing the amount that countries had to spend through debt relief) is not the answer. The classic cliche of "give a man a fish, he eats for a day; teach him to fish and he eats for life" truly does apply here. However, the glaring difference is that Bono is saying, "teach them to fish, but ALSO help them by buying new fishing polles" whereas O'Neill is saying, "hey, that crappy fishing poll they already have is good enough".

I think it is painfully obvious that we can't just throw $$ at African countries and say "go." This was done before with disastrous results. I also don't think we can just march in and completely govern these countries either. But we do need to monitor the aid received to fight corruption and further waste. When a county of a million has but one hospital with just under 400 beds, this proves that there simply are not enough funds. When O'Neill states that people should be treated for AIDS at the expense of teaching prevention, that proves that there are simply not enough funds.

It seems to me MBH that you are almost looking for a way to post an alternative view. If you disagree with Bono, rather than post Rush's view or some other naysayer who has NOT done enough homework (and I do consider O'Neill in this category), why not state specifically what you think is wrong with the plan and then possible alternatives. I think this would lead toward a healthy discussion far more readily than just throwing up another's view point and then criticizing those who agree with Bono.

 

[MBH]

If Sula disagrees, I do not think it is because of her love for Bono or U2. It's because she feels as many of us do - that the systems currently in place, and this includes the current amount of aid to African countries, are simply not enough.

As others have stated, Bono has acknowledged that just throwing money at countries (or in this case, reducing the amount that countries had to spend through debt relief) is not the answer. The classic cliche of "give a man a fish, he eats for a day; teach him to fish and he eats for life" truly does apply here. However, the glaring difference is that Bono is saying, "teach them to fish, but ALSO help them by buying new fishing polles" whereas O'Neill is saying, "hey, that crappy fishing poll they already have is good enough".

I think it is painfully obvious that we can't just throw $$ at African countries and say "go." This was done before with disastrous results. I also don't think we can just march in and completely govern these countries either. But we do need to monitor the aid received to fight corruption and further waste. When a county of a million has but one hospital with just under 400 beds, this proves that there simply are not enough funds. When O'Neill states that people should be treated for AIDS at the expense of teaching prevention, that proves that there are simply not enough funds.

It seems to me MBH that you are almost looking for a way to post an alternative view. If you disagree with Bono, rather than post Rush's view or some other naysayer who has NOT done enough homework (and I do consider O'Neill in this category), why not state specifically what you think is wrong with the plan and then possible alternatives. I think this would lead toward a healthy discussion far more readily than just throwing up another's view point and then criticizing those who agree with Bono.

I think my point goes way further than just this one issue. Maybe I should've realized that posting an alternative view (of Bono; and it isn't even a critical one on my part!) in a U2-fan forum would only lead to backleash. Disagreeing with him or the band or stirring up controversy(as someone naively accused me of) is not my intention; in fact, part of the reason I am an avid fan of U2 in the first place is due to much of the similar views that I share with the band in the first place.

Unfortunately, I find that when someone posts a view that differs or is critical of U2 or anything having to do with U2 on this site, an instant onslaught takes place. It's funny how an earlier post mentions something about Conservatives having a knee-jerk reaction toward Bono when that is the exact same reaction that many people in this forum have as well; these same people seem to gang up on the person who disagrees with them and stick up for one another(I guess it's true when they say that U2 fans are passionate!; that is ridiculous; let the person stand on his or her's own comments. If they want help, they can ask for it.

Ironically, I don't completely disagree with Bono's ideas on Africa(I actually admire the man very much). Certainly, trying to convince someone to agree with me is not my intention; objectivity and acknowledgement of others point of view is; O'neill objects to simply throwing more money toward Africa with nothing in return whereas Bono, although he wants to see governmental changes in the places where money is provided, is liberal with other people's money(granted, he has good intentions). There is such grand evidence of aid producing minimal results in these areas over the years and I wish Bono(and people on this site!) would acknowledge that more frequently.

Like I said, I am a middle-of-the-road Democrat(even leaning toward liberal). However, some of Bono's views are so liberal that they sometimes seem ridiculous(refer to a quote(s) in the book UTEOTW by Bill Flanagan for this).

One of the reasons I posted this article was to point out the significant difference between a Limbaugh article and some of his views compared to O'reilly's. Unfortunately, many ignored this and quickly lambasted me much in the same way they did when I posted the Limbaugh article last week. Notice a trend here?

In the end minds won't change and we could go on and on. I would suggest the post being closed. Next time, I will think long and hard before posting an opposing point of view (on Bono or U2).


-MBH

 

[U2Bama]

I find this thread to be intriguing.

MBH, I always thought you were liberal, and I have always known that Sulawesigirl4 leans conservative on most issues. Personally, I lean conservative on most issues, as do Congressman Spencer Bachus (R-Alabama), former Congressman John Kasich (R-Ohio), Senator Orin Hatch (R-Utah), Senator Bill Frist (R-Tennessee) and, last but not least, Senator Jesse Helms (R-North Carolina). The thing is, Sulawesigirl4, Bono, these Republican members of both houses of Congress, and myself hav looked to ECONOMISTS for information rather than mass media political pundits like Limbaugh and O'Reilly (I am watching him now, FYI, as I do quite often). Rush and Bill may make some good points, but more often than not, it is because of their delivery rather than their facts.

There are political issues on which I have disagreed with Bono, undoubtedly. But I agree with him on this one. He is on the same page as my Congressman (Bachus), my Church, possibly my President, and most importantly, my conscience.

~U2Alabama

 

[Lemonite]

Unfortunately, I find that when someone posts a view that differs or is critical of U2 or anything having to do with U2 on this site, an instant onslaught takes place. It's funny how an earlier post mentions something about Conservatives having a knee-jerk reaction toward Bono when that is the exact same reaction that many people in this forum have as well; these same people seem to gang up on the person who disagrees with them and stick up for one another(I guess it's true when they say that U2 fans are passionate!; that is ridiculous; let the person stand on his or her's own comments. If they want help, they can ask for it.



-MBH

You're finally seeing the manifestation of my accusations of Peoples heads residing in Bono's Rectal Tubes. A gaudy statement yes, and maybe a bit of a hyperbole, but not without evidence.

L.Unplugged

 

[mug222]

Brilliantly said, U2Bama. Thanks.