| Mr Mercury 23.09.2010 17:00 |
I seriously hope the Mercury Pheonix Trust doesnt do this. As good a singer as Bono is (well I think so anyway), this just stinks to high heaven...... I mean only handing out £123,155 to charities out of a publicly donated fund of £9.6 million and then using the excuse that they "don't provide programs on the ground. We're an advocacy and campaigning organisation." is just garbage, link |
| GratefulFan 23.09.2010 17:47 |
It's not garbage at all. That's precisely what they are. 'One' is and has always been about lobbying, awareness and political pressure, rather that direct relief efforts. The modern media is a menace sometimes. How many people will read these headlines and become unnecessarily cynical about charities? Sad. |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 24.09.2010 02:28 |
this is why i refuse to donate to "charity" as the money NEVER ends up with the victims/needy but just lines the pockets of the pen pushers or buys a nice Rolls Royce/Lear jet for some African dictator. its called exploitation and this is exploitation of the highest degree,no wonder Bonio can send his cowboy hat first class on a plane.Ive always suspected him of being a hyprocrite and this is just further proof of "celebs" of using their fame to profit on the poor and sick. |
| Mr Mercury 24.09.2010 06:05 |
@ Grateful Fan. - with all due respect, it is garbage. Most people who donate to charity think that they are donating straight to the cause and not the people running the charity. What Joxer said in his post, is unfortunately the way most people now think when it comes to charity. Bono's "charity" is, in my opinion, a bad example of that. Taking over £9 million of publicly donated funds and handing out over £4 million on expensive gifts to the media, is a bit over the top. Take some money by all means for admin, etc, since no charity can run without cash these days, but not anywhere near as much as this lot has done. |
| thomasquinn 32989 24.09.2010 07:26 |
GratefulFan wrote: It's not garbage at all. That's precisely what they are. 'One' is and has always been about lobbying, awareness and political pressure, rather that direct relief efforts. The modern media is a menace sometimes. How many people will read these headlines and become unnecessarily cynical about charities? Sad. ======= That's a pretty lame excuse for raking in about 9 million under cover of what are at best vague explanation and at worst false pretences. Even if this isn't strictly speaking illegal, it is highly immoral. Then again, what else can you expect of a person like Bono who milks the bit of effort he puts into charity for all it's worth - in the end, in the world of Bono, Bono comes first, Africa comes second. He tends to make me a little sick when I see how much attention he gets (and how much he evidently enjoys it) in comparison to those who actually *do* something. |
| Bo Rhap 24.09.2010 08:37 |
Bono.A good singer,i grant you But this is proving once and for all what we all knew.He's all self self self and "Me me me".To give only that amount out of 9M is scandalous to say the very least. |
| GratefulFan 24.09.2010 08:39 |
Great theories folks, if they solicited public money. But they don't, as they're almost soley funded by philanthopists on their own Board of Directors, most notably the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Both 'One' and the Gates Foundation have issued statements clarifying the funding issues and the aims of 'One'. If Bono seems like he's in your face all the time, it's because his charity is precisely about being in people's faces. It's an awareness and lobbying group to effect change at the highest levels, which effects change on the ground, which is a separate but equally important movement covered by other organizations with different specific goals. They are in effect an organization of internally funded lobbyists. People with goals of change and influence throw pots of money at lobbying because it works. http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2010&indexType=i |
| *goodco* 24.09.2010 11:57 |
Here is the original article: link The Post is a Murdoch owned rag. Note what ONE was trying to advocate, items in the goodie bags, and the reasons for their inclusion. Now note what most of the press wrote about, and not the AIDS funding and amount they were trying to garner support for. In the scheme of things, they are spending pennies to promote awareness and the need for spending millions and billions. Good for them. Had this been a right wing organization, the Post would have praised what the items related to, as well as whatever bill and funding was being represented. Or, maybe the author was just peeved that they were left out when the coffee was made. |
| john bodega 25.09.2010 00:26 |
Bono's a rat - nothing new here. I feel vindicated, because the last time I had a go at him for his disingenuous 'charity' bullshit, I had a grand old dingdong with one of his fans. |
| thomasquinn 32989 25.09.2010 08:09 |
Zebonka12 wrote: Bono's a rat - nothing new here. I feel vindicated, because the last time I had a go at him for his disingenuous 'charity' bullshit, I had a grand old dingdong with one of his fans. ======= Yup. The bottom line here remains that it's all about Bono. Africa comes second, if at all. Some apologetics like "yeah, but the money wasn't conned off Joe Public" or "but it's about awareness, so Bono's self-obsessed megalomaniac cries for attention are *good*" are being strewn around, but they are completely *full of it*. Bono doesn't do shit for Africa. He lobbys around and gets close to the people with power. I suppose he gets off on that. In the meantime, he draws attention away from charities that are actually making a difference. Even if there *were* truth behind the "it's about awareness" lie, Bono should have the fucking decency to spend part of his obscene fortune on actually making a difference. While people are starving, he dines with the jet set. That disgusts me. |
| GratefulFan 25.09.2010 14:06 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: Yup. The bottom line here remains that it's all about Bono. Africa comes second, if at all. Some apologetics like "yeah, but the money wasn't conned off Joe Public" or "but it's about awareness, so Bono's self-obsessed megalomaniac cries for attention are *good*" are being strewn around, but they are completely *full of it*. Bono doesn't do shit for Africa. He lobbys around and gets close to the people with power. I suppose he gets off on that. In the meantime, he draws attention away from charities that are actually making a difference. Even if there *were* truth behind the "it's about awareness" lie, Bono should have the fucking decency to spend part of his obscene fortune on actually making a difference. While people are starving, he dines with the jet set. That disgusts me. ====================================================== You're pretty hilarious TQ. You're on QZ bragging on your MA, yet you don't even have the information gathering wherewithal to do a quick search for readily available data before you charge off spouting nonsense about the mostly internally funded group raking in about 9 million "under cover", and referring to a campaign that couldn't be more clear on it's nature in it's public face or on it's extensive website as operating with "what are at best vague explanation [sic] and at worst false pretences". And then "Even if this isn't strictly speaking illegal, it is highly immoral.". Ridiculous. No, it's unlikely to be illegal to sit on a board of directors and provide money for a direction you set. Nor can it possibly be construed as immoral. But you're clearly a guy that didn't let the facts get in the way of a good, drooling rant. I know their funding model is completely appropriate. I know that people who sign up for ONE on the group's website couldn't be given any more clear information on what the group is about and how it operates. I know that the lobbying and awareness model is completely valid in principle, as people with real power in the world achieve it in significant part through influence and pressure at the top. I know that having a somewhat grating and insufferable celebrity as the face of a movement might have a tendency to jam up my perception, so I make sure I make every effort to go around that and look for reality. I don't have enough information to know how effective his group is, but I know they've made specific claims that if accurate make them more than effective enough. I know that "Bono should have the fucking decency to spend part of his obscene fortune on actually making a difference. While people are starving, he dines with the jet set. " is embarassing rhetoric far more worthless than any allegedly empty statements Bono might ever make. Based on your input on this thread I wouldn't trust you to inform me about anything, on any subject. |
| Holly2003 25.09.2010 16:30 |
I think some people just had their collective arses handed to them on a plate. Go Heather, it's your birthday, go Heather! :) |
| Mr.Jingles 27.09.2010 07:55 |
Does One.org really think that dropping the debt is going to help in anyway? They've been sending money over to African leaders for years, and it's either stolen or mismanaged. What also bothers me about One.org is the sheer hypocrisy of celebrities who claim to be part of the campaign for their own publicity. P.Diddy is seen on the ads pretending to bring awareness, while he run a sweatshop for his clothing line in Central America. It makes me sick to the stomach. |
| john bodega 28.09.2010 02:16 |
"While people are starving, he dines with the jet set" That's not what bothers me, exactly. I don't care if his wine cellar costs more than the house I live in. If he wants to live the high life, he can go for it, because surely he can afford to do that and help the third world at the same time. What he can do for me, though, is wipe that fucking look off his face. You know the one. Go watch "God's Gonna Cut You Down" by Johnny Cash. Bono has a cameo in that video, and by God if that isn't his "I'm saving the world single handedly" face mixed in with a bit of "I just filled my wife for the 4th time tonight", then I don't know what it is. By all means Bono, keep up the charity work, but go down to that cellar and find yourself a slightly chilled bottle of '66 Chateux The Fuck Up. |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 28.09.2010 02:59 |
Mr Mercury wrote: I seriously hope the Mercury Pheonix Trust doesnt do this. As good a singer as Bono is (well I think so anyway), this just stinks to high heaven...... I mean only handing out £123,155 to charities out of a publicly donated fund of £9.6 million and then using the excuse that they "don't provide programs on the ground. We're an advocacy and campaigning organisation." is just garbage, link reply: perhaps one can find out exactly what the Mercury Phoenix Trust does with the money they collect under the Freedom of Information Act..? |
| GratefulFan 28.09.2010 23:01 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: Does One.org really think that dropping the debt is going to help in anyway? They've been sending money over to African leaders for years, and it's either stolen or mismanaged. What also bothers me about One.org is the sheer hypocrisy of celebrities who claim to be part of the campaign for their own publicity. P.Diddy is seen on the ads pretending to bring awareness, while he run a sweatshop for his clothing line in Central America. It makes me sick to the stomach. ============================= In a funny way this post hits everything that's important about this thread. First, you're absolutely right - it's important that people everywhere speak out against things like third world corruption and sweatshops. And how do we even know that there are sweatshops to speak out against hidden behind our expensive purchases in shiny shops? We know about them because of awareness campaigns. Those in position to make things happen confer power on us to make a difference through leveraging the power of celebrity to bring focus and create news. We don't know about every sweatshop - we know about the sweatshops connected to major manufacturers and celebrities. The public responds and those with the power become highly motivated to react appropriately under fire. Awareness and celebrity simply works in this business, both ways, like it or not. It also illustrates the way these headlines can dog for years after the fact. The P. Diddy sweatshop scandal was years ago now, and within a year of being called on the carpet by a major fair labour proponent as a person with a lot of power who could make a difference, that same labour leader said P. Diddy had in fact made a major difference in the working conditions and lives of the workers. So he had done the right thing within a very short time, and before he ever appeared in the One.org awareness ads. Applying it to this situation, if the misleading and damaging headlines reduce ONE's effectiveness even a little bit for years into the future then I don't think that does those parts of Africa benefiting from the programs one bit of service. Particularly if it was all for the opportunity to take some pointless, passing shot at Bono. There are many examples of countries taking advantage of freedom from oppressive debt to make real improvements on the ground by investing in schooling and public health and the like, despite ongoing inefficiency and corruption in other pockets. It's not perfect, and it's not the solution alone, but real progress happens because of it. |
| YourValentine 30.09.2010 11:12 |
I totally agree, GF. It seems like many people hate Bono so much that they cannot believe that his motives might be good. It's well possible that he likes to be in the limelight but it's better to do charity work than to release these awful U2 records ;-) Certainly Bono has done more for the poor in the third world than the majority of his peers combined. As to the Mercury Phoenix Trust, you can check out the projects they support on the MPT website. link |
| john bodega 10.10.2010 01:00 |
"but it's better to do charity work than to release these awful U2 records " If, hypothetically, people a thousand years into the future look at the Bayeux of our time (should one survive), I wonder what they would pay more attention to? Charity work, or popular music? |