do you think that bono truly believes in his causes...

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Liesje said:
Is there any point to bringing up Bono and Iraq? It's not one of his "causes" and he's never clearly stated how he feels. Everything is pure speculation, especially what we base on the Vertigo songs and performances. U2 has always been known for leaving things open-ended so pretty much anyone can adopt a song and find meaning for him- or herself. Are we really going to evaluate Bono's work against poverty based on what we *think* he *might* feel about Iraq? :eyebrow:

I disagree with a lot of my friends and half of my immediate family re. the Iraq war, but we still love each other and can get on without passing judgment based on a single issue. Why even go near this can of worms?

Actually he has quite clearly stated what he believes. I have seen several interviews where he has said "I believe Tony Blair is sincere in his beliefs on the war in Iraq. I believe he is sincerely wrong but I respect that he has stood by his belief." That is just one example. What he side steps is the journalists efforts to get him to bash on politicians. They want him to do like everyone else and make demons out of those who don't agree with him and Bono is quite rightly refusing to do that. If you demonize everyone who doesn't agree with you then you if you need those very people to pass a resolution you have shot yourself in the foot.

He has also clearly stated that when he committed to focus on Africa he had to give up other things that he might normally do such as attending anti-war rallies. He has always clearly stated that he felt going to war was the wrong move, but he also clearly supports and honors the soldiers who are putting their lives on the line. He does not hesitate to say what he feels when asked but he has limited what he will campaign about. Bono has had his day as an activist at the barricades, but he has now gotten into the corridors of power and has been effective in what he has wanted to do. He has accomplished more this way than he ever did with just protesting. Yes, we still need the protestors but you also need people who can work the system from within and that is what Bono is doing now.

I highly recommend reading "The Debt Threat" by Noreena Hertz. The first chapter give a blow by blow account almost of the beginnings of Bono's campaigning on the Jubilee 2000 campaign which was the predicesor of Drop the Debt. This shows just how much time and effort that he put in to this that was behind the scenes with little publicity. The photo ops from that time period were just the tip of the iceberg of what he was doing. You will also get an idea of how he is viewed on Capitol Hill. The rest of the book gives a good education on the global debt picture in terms that don't require an economics degree. Very enlightening reading that shows that corruption exists on all sides not just in Africa.

In the Music Express interview during Vertigo he spoke about the charity issue. He said that the band has several times talked about whether to publicize what they do, but they always come back to what the bible says "that your left hand should not know what the right hand is doing.". They know that they could defend themselves by being open about their charity but what it boils down to is that they believe that when you publicize it, it is no longer charity, it's advertising.

Dana
 
MrBrau1 said:
There are 2 possible choices:

1. He really believes.

2. He doesn't really believe. It's all just PR to sell more records and make more $$$.

but how do explain the chirac incident then? didnt that look like a publicity stunt more than anything else?
 
rihannsu said:


Actually he has quite clearly stated what he believes. I have seen several interviews where he has said "I believe Tony Blair is sincere in his beliefs on the war in Iraq. I believe he is sincerely wrong but I respect that he has stood by his belief." That is just one example. What he side steps is the journalists efforts to get him to bash on politicians. They want him to do like everyone else and make demons out of those who don't agree with him and Bono is quite rightly refusing to do that. If you demonize everyone who doesn't agree with you then you if you need those very people to pass a resolution you have shot yourself in the foot.

He has also clearly stated that when he committed to focus on Africa he had to give up other things that he might normally do such as attending anti-war rallies. He has always clearly stated that he felt going to war was the wrong move, but he also clearly supports and honors the soldiers who are putting their lives on the line. He does not hesitate to say what he feels when asked but he has limited what he will campaign about. Bono has had his day as an activist at the barricades, but he has now gotten into the corridors of power and has been effective in what he has wanted to do. He has accomplished more this way than he ever did with just protesting. Yes, we still need the protestors but you also need people who can work the system from within and that is what Bono is doing now.

I highly recommend reading "The Debt Threat" by Noreena Hertz. The first chapter give a blow by blow account almost of the beginnings of Bono's campaigning on the Jubilee 2000 campaign which was the predicesor of Drop the Debt. This shows just how much time and effort that he put in to this that was behind the scenes with little publicity. The photo ops from that time period were just the tip of the iceberg of what he was doing. You will also get an idea of how he is viewed on Capitol Hill. The rest of the book gives a good education on the global debt picture in terms that don't require an economics degree. Very enlightening reading that shows that corruption exists on all sides not just in Africa.

In the Music Express interview during Vertigo he spoke about the charity issue. He said that the band has several times talked about whether to publicize what they do, but they always come back to what the bible says "that your left hand should not know what the right hand is doing.". They know that they could defend themselves by being open about their charity but what it boils down to is that they believe that when you publicize it, it is no longer charity, it's advertising.

Dana

Thanks Dana!

Nice Post!:up: well thought out and someone who actually did her research too! As opposed to some on this board who rant their rhetoric over and over w/o doing any real research beforehand. :|
 
This took me a couple of minutes as well, I believe Kimby is referring to the countless stories about Paris Hilton/Lindsey Lohan/Brittney Spears without their underwear and the incredible amount of press they get because of this.
 
elevated_u2_fan said:
This took me a couple of minutes as well, I believe Kimby is referring to the countless stories about Paris Hilton/Lindsey Lohan/Brittney Spears without their underwear and the incredible amount of press they get because of this.

lol okay, i though kimby was saying that we'd know bono truly believed in his causes if he wore a short skirt with no panties. i got scared...and then turned on. i'm sick, i know.
 
MrBrau1 said:
There are 2 possible choices:

1. He really believes.

2. He doesn't really believe. It's all just PR to sell more records and make more $$$.

isn't there a third choice? he believes AND knows that it is also good PR?

or is that contradictary?
 
Last edited:
U2Man said:


isn't there a third choice? he believes AND knows that it is also good PR?

or is that contradictary?

But it's not good PR. Most of the people I know that can't stand Bono or U2 say it's because they don't like or don't care to listen to what Bono has to say regarding poverty and AIDS. If he wanted to promote the band, he wouldn't be advocating. He also has said explicitly and repeatedly that U2 is his highest priority, so I'd assume if he wanted to promote himself, he'd do so be being a rockstar and promoting U2, not by humanitarian campaigns.
 
redhotswami said:


very interesting question U2Man. i'd have to respond saying that there are different forms of walking, so to speak.

i, for one, have a pretty outgoing and spontaneous personality. my world is pretty big, so, i get around :wink:

however i do have friends that are passionately concerned for a lot of the same causes that are important to me. however their personalities aren't as dynamic. so they don't go around volunteering or tossing around money. BUT, that isn't to say they aren't walking. they vote, they engage in discussion, and they keep up with the lastest news about it.

so...just because we can't see the walking all the time, i don't think that means that walking isn't happening. i read this one poem...i can't remember who wrote it, but there was this one line that said even one tiny drop of water can cause ripples in the lake.

so there are walks, and there are ripples. lots of people care about causes, but can only act on them given their own capabilities.


:scratch: did i at all answer your question? i don't know if i did...

i believe you did, and you made a good point.

i guess you can be filthy rich and still believe in the eradication of poverty without donating a single dime of your own money (we don't know if this is the case here but let's assume it is), but it is quite easy for bono's opponents to point fingers at him because of this, right? it's so obvious...if you want to do something concrete about the poverty issue here and now, do it - you're better capable of it than 99.9% of the rest of the people on the planet.

that's simplifying, of course, but in the end, poverty won't be brought to an end, unless money are transferred from those who have to those who don't have, regardless of how much we talk.
 
my green tights. will you change your name to marion and go with me? :drool:

seriously though, don't you think the critizising people have a point?

can you hide from taxes and still claim to want to help the poor?
 
Last edited:
U2Man said:
my green tights :drool:

seriously though, don't you think the critizising people have a point?

can you hide from taxes and still claim to want to help the poor?


actually if you read through the thread in PLEBA (u pleban u!) there is a closed thread called "Lola is at it again" where it is stated that:

This quote is from Biff.

Actually, it's not taxes "on merchandise and other stuff". Up to now, artists in Ireland have been exempt from paying taxes on royalties earned from their creative endeavours. Starting next year, those particular earnings will be taxed. U2 have moved only the publishing wing of their business interests to The Netherlands.
They have always been taxed on all other income, including income from touring and related merchandise. As well, those of the band who own businesses in Ireland (Bono owns several) have always paid and will continue to pay full taxes on those earnings. They all have paid and will continue to pay huge amounts in personal income tax.
The press has, as usual, made a mountain out of a relatively small molehill. The band have not become "tax exiles" nor have they "refused to pay taxes", both of which I have seen claimed in the so-called reputable press.



So it seems that PM isn't dodging all taxes just the publishing wing of their business. And this includes Bono since he a part of that organization and not the only decision maker there..
 
U2Man said:
my green tights :drool:

seriously though, don't you think the critizising people have a point?

can you hide from taxes and still claim to want to help the poor?

hmm...that is a good point. but from what i heard isn't it a specific part of U2's business being moved? Like...was it marketing or something? I can't remember...but they get taxed on all sorts of other things.

Plus, that is the band, not Bono, the individual. We don't quite know how the conversation between the guys went, but that one group doesn't speak for the one man.

Plus...he still LIVES in Ireland, so certainly he is still paying taxes to the Irish gov't.

Perhaps the key in this is to separate the business, U2, from the man, Bono.

What do you think?
 
Yeah, I think if U2 starts moving more and more pieces of their business out of Ireland to avoid more taxes, then people would have an argument on that point.

Right now I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they do actually want to remain based in Ireland.
 
redhotswami said:


hmm...that is a good point. but from what i heard isn't it a specific part of U2's business being moved? Like...was it marketing or something? I can't remember...but they get taxed on all sorts of other things.

Plus, that is the band, not Bono, the individual. We don't quite know how the conversation between the guys went, but that one group doesn't speak for the one man.

Plus...he still LIVES in Ireland, so certainly he is still paying taxes to the Irish gov't.

Perhaps the key in this is to separate the business, U2, from the man, Bono.

What do you think?

well, regardless of whether it's bono himself or a business he is part of, or how big a part of that business it concerns, the fact remains that a business is moved out of ireland in order to avoid taxes. and this isn't really any different from what the big corporations of the world are often accused of, those who are blamed for causing more inequality and poverty all over the planet because of that same behaviour.
 
I don't think you can really group the publishing portion of PM with those so called big corporations of the world. Especially grouping them with the corporations who are being blamed for causing the inequality and poverty all over the planet cuz of their bad behavior. That is a assumption that I think we cannot make.
 
only noticing that their behaviour and the outcome are exactly the same.
 
Possibly....

But why make such broad assumptions (at least it seems that way to me..) on something that we have no way of knowing whether it may occur in the future or not with their business specifically.. I mean who bloody knows.
 
U2Man said:


well, regardless of whether it's bono himself or a business he is part of, or how big a part of that business it concerns, the fact remains that a business is moved out of ireland in order to avoid taxes. and this isn't really any different from what the big corporations of the world are often accused of, those who are blamed for causing more inequality and poverty all over the planet because of that same behaviour.

What big, mean corporations are generating profits from royalties? I really can't think of any, except for other companies representing big bands. And funny enough, a lot of those are already in Amsterdam!

Yes, it's a matter of principle, but how do we know that the motive really is? Yeah, it could be they are cheapskates, but maybe with less in tax they can donate MORE money or pump more money into these humanitarian campaigns? Or maybe it's a protest to show that not enough taxes, even from Ireland, are being put towards these causes so they are sick of it? Or, maybe since Bono has said so many times that U2 is his first priority, this is what is beneficial for U2? Any of those motives are matters of principle as well.

Either way, we can't judge Bono's humanitarian efforts on something than only pertains to the band as a whole and is outside of his control. There's just not enough information to say for sure, and when it's millions of people's lives that are at stake, I'll give Bono the benefit of the doubt. It's not like there's anyone else in the world stepping up to the plate quite like he has....
 
elevated_u2_fan said:
This took me a couple of minutes as well, I believe Kimby is referring to the countless stories about Paris Hilton/Lindsey Lohan/Brittney Spears without their underwear and the incredible amount of press they get because of this.

Yep...:wink:
 
blueeyedgirl said:

And where's the fun in that? Research? :huh:

Oh you are right...w/ research you may actually *learn* something...heaven forbid!:D
 
U2Man said:


well, regardless of whether it's bono himself or a business he is part of, or how big a part of that business it concerns, the fact remains that a business is moved out of ireland in order to avoid taxes. and this isn't really any different from what the big corporations of the world are often accused of, those who are blamed for causing more inequality and poverty all over the planet because of that same behaviour.

1) They are still paying taxes on the part of their business they moved to the Netherlands...the taxes are lower, but still taxes.

2) They are paying the taxes to the Netherlands.

3) On another fan website a poster mentioned that the Netherlands was the only European country currently meeting the spending goals on world poverty...

It's not *avoiding* taxes, it's putting them where they'll do the most good...:wink:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom