(09-11-2004) U2, The Band That Never Embarrasses Itself -- New York Times*

[Elevation01]

U2 are not afraid to stand up for their concerns or in fact the concerns of the global community. They have always worn their hearts on their sleeves. Obviously, they would not 'use' their album solely as a tool towards or on American Politics (It's a global concern anyway..or at least it should be). But they have their message. Messages on love, messages on anger, messages on poverty, on disease, on the cure (most likely-Miracle drug) messages against choosing the wrong path perhaps as well.

Why oh why do some people think that we are saying that U2 has to "spell out" something in order to get their points across.
One could write a song about forced sex and have its real message be about invading another country. Invading one's beliefs, invading what's most dear to someone. There can me sooooo many meanings, and so many points articulated in one line. And, sometimes, if your music is any good at all...you don't have to say anything. HA! That's greatness. Have the music do the talking for you! As The Edge did thru his 'airplane-like' guitar in bullet the blue sky.

Hey...remember this, "AM I BUGGIN' YA!!!!

 

[Elevation01]

This is my point. This is what I'm trying to articulate. U2 are and will remain relevant. They don't have to be overtly political. It's about belief & not being afraid to share what it is that you believe in.
I'm not sure that expressing concern for what's right on a global scale should be labeled as political. And I don't believe that stating what you believe in is an embarrASSment.

To take an inward approach as to not stir things up a little is taking the high road. The easy way. More worried about being cool and hip. High School mentality. U2 care. They're not worried about being 'cool' or posing and going with the flow. We should care as well; if not for our own well being then for the well-being of others, our children & children's children.

 

[elevateandy]

Please people- why bash Bush or anyone for that matter in here. Think out of the box and get your heads out of your asses.

 

[Elevation01]

#$@%!!!??? Thank heavens you're not proposing any solutions.

 

[sthomas]

"Please people- why bash Bush or anyone for that matter in here. Think out of the box and get your heads out of your asses."

Right. For that matter, why bash Hitler or Stalin? Think outside the box!

 

[Elevation01]

Right On sthomas! I love it. Why are people so afraid of speaking out? What are they afraid of? Has the news and television really desensitized most of us this much to the point that we don't care anymore. Is there nothing left to say???

 

[U2luv]

I distinctly recall interviews during the Joshua Tree Tour where Bono is ripping into Reagan.

Yeah, and I have some of those on video

 

[Judah]

I thought this was kind of a lame article, lacked context and seemed choppy. Is it a story or is it a column? States some weird opinion of how U2 doesn't embarass itself, but is that really a major concern in the world?

No reference to any of the songs, no reference whether the reporter had heard any of the material and no new interview with any band member. Yes, it makes an interesting point about U2's longevity and important standing in our culture, but that's hardly a new point.

It just seemed like the entertainment editor saw all these new U2 stories and said at a story meeting "Dave, this U2 thing is heating up. Get me a couple hundred words on the new album...er, or something."

 

[TheFirstBigW]

I just don't see the point in labelling anyone (in this case Bush & Cheney) in such simplistic black-and-white terms. Bush was criticized by the political left for doing the same kind of black-and-white labelling when he delivered his "Axis of Evil" speech.

During the recent O'Reilly interview, Bono talked about how he used to view conservatives in the same kind of way, and then he started trying to reach across the aisle in America to the political right and ended up becoming good friends with one of the most controversial right-wing conservatives in America at the time: Jesse Helms.

Here is what Bono said (I think the transcript has a few typos): "I have my opinions of conservatives, and they weren't all good. And then I met some conservatives that really turned me around on that. They were really just conservatives. They were people that will had their convictions that were different to mine, but they held them, you know, from a true place."

In other words, when Bono took the time to talk with and get to know people who had different political views than his own, he ended up befriending many of them and respecting where they were coming from rather than labelling them with the easy stereotypes which tend to paint people in simplistic terms and automatically assume the worst about them.

 

[ajcro]

Elevation01''s post is utterly preposterous

People like you are making this election fun for people like me.

 

[Bono's shades]

Steering away from politics here:

I also thought the phrase U2 The Band That Never Embarasses Itself was kind of weird. To me U2 has always been the band that does things that some people might consider embarrasing - whether it be wearing their hearts openly on their sleeves during the 1980s or coming onstage in a giant lemon during the 1990s - without being afraid of what people think. To me a band that never embarrasses itself is pretty darn boring.

 

[bonosrage]

Actually I haven't seen it bonosrage. I may buy it on DVD though. Did you see it? What did you think?

I detect a hint of sarcasm, but that's Ok, I can take it!

Your sarcasm radar is fully functional and operational. I didn't see it but have heard all about it - almost as if I have. Plenty of my friends use it's propaganda as a base for their arguments -- always the Cheney Halliburton connection. That's all. Since you haven't seen it, I apologize.

 

[sthomas]

"I didn't see it but have heard all about it - almost as if I have."

Ah, so typical of the central defect of the Republican mentality. Seeing and hearing are two different senses, involving two different organs (eye for the former, ear for the latter). And the possessive form of the pronoun "it" doesn't take an apostrophe (its, not it's). And you're confusing the word "propaganda" with the word "fact." Case in point: Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, which means there's a connection. It's quite simple.

 

[Elevation01]

I think sthomas is my hero!

I'm amazed by the number of people who confuse fact for propaganda, and who assume that when you present fact that you are using a stereotype (I don't think that anyone on this site has proposed that all republicans invade other countries?! We are talking about the current state of things. You know, it's possible to have a great country with a belligerent leader or government just as it's possible to have a positive political party with a delusional figure head. They don't have to be one & the same. We have the power to change.)

I surmise that those who cannot decipher the differences are typically black & white thinkers. They believe that something cannot possibly be a certain way, so they categorize that 'something' as its polar opposite. They have preconceived thoughts on subjects, and when offered a different viewpoint they knock it off as slander or fiction rather than collecting and connecting evidence to support an opinion or change an opinion.

Such dangerous minds!

Stay tuned for more of "How to Dismantle a Belligerent U.S. Presidency"

 

[TheFirstBigW]

I guess what I'm objecting to is the personal attacks part of the discussion.

Why can't we just debate whether or not the Iraq war was a bad action and/or decision rather than debating whether or not Bush has bad motives or is a bad human being (something which only God can know for sure and is qualified to judge)?

 

[Elevation01]

I guess what I'm objecting to is the personal attacks part of the discussion.

Why can't we just debate whether or not the Iraq war was a bad action and/or decision rather than debating whether or not Bush has bad motives or is a bad human being (something which only God can know for sure and is qualified to judge)?

Because most of us realize that INVADING Iraq or any other country that did not attack us 1st is a very bad decision!

HMMMM..I also seem to know that God helps those who help themselves.

Let me ask you...IF YOU PERFORM POORLY AT YOUR JOB, WILL YOUR BOSS LEAVE IT UP TO GOD TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN KEEP YOUR JOB??

Whew! I'm sorry..but this is ridiculous, and it's getting a bit frustrating.

 

[Elevation01]

Check out the article in zoonation.com
It's on Bush. Very interesting. Like the t-shirt says, "there's good bush & there's bad Bush". hehe.


Just remember, "Everything you know is wrong.".

 

[bonosrage]

No doubt, it's fact on the Cheney Halliburton connection. I call the film propaganda simply because Michael Moore paints the situation as...

ahhhhh, I'm too tired for this.

All I want to do is plug in "How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb," but I can't cause it's not freakin' out for 2 more months.

 

[TheFirstBigW]

Let me ask you...IF YOU PERFORM POORLY AT YOUR JOB, WILL YOUR BOSS LEAVE IT UP TO GOD TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN KEEP YOUR JOB??

There's nothing wrong with debating whether or not Bush should be re-elected, I'm just concerned with the tendency by some to assume the absolute worst about the motives of his heart (i.e.- the "Bush started a war for personal gain" theory) and comparing him to people like Adolph Hitler. Those assertions are far different than an objective discussion of his job competency, which I welcome.

 

[Elevation01]

There's nothing wrong with debating whether or not Bush should be re-elected, I'm just concerned with the tendency by some to assume the absolute worst about the motives of his heart (i.e.- the "Bush started a war for personal gain" theory) and comparing him to people like Adolph Hitler. Those assertions are far different than an objective discussion of his job competency, which I welcome.

Fair enough ThefirstbigW Just to set things straight: It was not me who made that direct comparison. And I think the person who did make that comparison was trying to get us fired up enough to want to think & respond. I really don't think it was implied as a direct comparison (maybe I'm wrong?).

Anyhow, if the topic is whether or not Bush is like Hitler; I say yes and no. Yes, because they both believe(d) in their actions and motives. Yes, because they both believe(d) that they are/were doing this for the benefit of their respective countries. Yes because they both have tried to incorporate religion in their decision making & have tried to justify their decisions thru their religious beliefs. Yes, because they both have gone to a 'win at any cost' mentality.
No....they are not the same because Hitler set out to erase an entire group of people. That was his focus. Bush? well....I think he was/is really a pawn (which in a sense makes him more dangerous. Perhaps religion (not spirituality) makes him blind to the point that he cannot see that he's walking over dead bodies; that he actually has blood on his hands.), but also had his and his family's personal interest as a primary focus; Oil and money for personal gain justified by the fight against terrorism, religion (A 'God is on our side, not our enemy' type of mentality) his attempt to correlate 9/11 and Iraq (which failed), and perhaps pressure from military leaders wanting to flex muscle and secure an important stronghold in the middle east in order to set up a base & become a dominant force for future business/financial gain. CONTROL!!

I don't think Bush took the time to fathom the consequences. I don't think he could envision the devastation his approval caused; in a U2 vernacular- a Bloody Sunday.... x 1000, perhaps. Children who had seen their mothers shot, fathers never to return home, 'brothers/sisters torn apart'. You get the picture? (This is what our news won't let us see.) I at least hope for his sake as he will eventually be judged by God, that he didn't rationalize what Hell his approval to instigate war would cause. Maybe he could just get thru the pearly gates if he blamed it on stupidity? But I doubt he was stupid enough to not know what would happen.
Ok...so this is a U2 site. I will answer this w/a U2 song: "Peace on Earth".

 

[Elevation01]

Peace on Earth. The words are so poignant. I will paraphrase.

How could we as a nation be blinded and convinced to go along with bush's war approval?

The answer is, "They say that what you mock will surely overtake you. And you become a monster so the monster will not break you" It does not of course justify anything. It just states and explains how weak we were as a nation to allow ourselves to become 'the monster'.

And I say (we all should say) to Bush and the U.S. government , who in my opinion has been trying to 'play God', "Tell the ones who hear no sound, whose sons are living in the ground- Peace on earth". "No one cries like a mother cries for peace on Earth. She never got to say goodbye, to see the color in his eyes. Now he'sin the dirt-that's peace on Earth." "They're reading names out over the radio. All the folks the rest of us won't get to know...Sean and Julia, Gareth, Ann & Breda..THEIR LIVES ARE BIGGER THAN ANY BIG IDEA"
Bigger than OIL, bigger than CORPORATIONS (HALIBURTON), Bigger than MONEY & CONTROL.
BUSH.. what will you say before GOD when he asks if you thought about the consequences? What will you say about all the families that have been torn apart? WHAT WILL WE ALL SAY FOR NOT PREVENTING THIS. (I will at least say that I expect better decisions from our leaders, even though that's not good enough)
Again..."Their lives are bigger than any big idea".
Let's pray for peace, and pray that we make the right decisions to heal this.
And..hopefully U2 will say something about this disruption in the life-force. And in ways, I hope that their music will bring an insight to heal as well as to provide some songs that will serve as an oasis away from the current state.

 

[Elevation01]

In this discussion whether it's about Bush's qualifications, his morals, his religion...whatever, I think we should consider his decisions & how he justifies his decisions. I think that a track record speaks volumes. I think we should elect or not elect someone (or re-elect), based on their track record and what their message is as well as how they justify their message; how they rationalize their decisions.

We should not fall into the trap of electing someone because they are a good family person or because they throw a baseball well. We should also not make the mistake of electing someone simply because they believe in God, especially when they justify any action (including KILLing) in God's name; when they want to believe so badly that they are right just because they prayed about it and later we all find out how terribly wrong it was. I am most scared of someone who originally makes decisions based on temptation and then convinces himself (in God's name) that we are in Iraq to liberate. I'm scared of someone who destroys everything in his path under the guise of freedom. Does the correct vision of freedom have to be death? Who will be left to free? The people of Iraq (living in Iraq) have to want freedom. And, they above all should be the ones who weigh the price (i.e. their families) and decide which path is best in regards to their own future; not bush, not the oil companies & not Halliburton. Not you or me.
Unfortunately we, under President bush, who believes he received approval from God are now all responsible in making their decision for them.
Hitler...maybe not. Hey.. didn't Charles Manson say God made him do it?

(Note: I'm not REALLY comparing Bush w/Manson) Did make you think for a second though, huh?

 

[biff]

I thought Charles Manson said The Beatles made him do it.

(Just trying to bring this thread back into the neighbourhood where it started, which was a MUSIC preview.)

 

[Elevation01]

Could be..I don't know him as well as you perhaps. We were discussing music just so you know and U2's music encompasses so many things.

If you want an easier band with bubble gum topics try..Nsync!!

Hey...didn't ya notice the date of this article? That could be a very good reason why other important things have been discussed. Let's never forget this date: 9/11

Also, it sounds as if U2's new video and title is taking into account the disturbances in our world. So, deal with it

 

[biff]

Such a mature rejoinder!

 

[Elevation01]

hehe

 

[Elevation01]

I thought Charles Manson said The Beatles made him do it.

(Just trying to bring this thread back into the neighbourhood where it started, which was a MUSIC preview.)

hmmm... wasn't this a music 'ARTICLE'? It's not a preview as you've stated because it doesn't really preview anything.

Since you're being pedantic..I just thought I'd assist you.

 

[biff]

 

[Elevation01]