PJ/Bono/etc guilty of hypocricy?

2»

Comments

  • ZodZod Posts: 9,945
    Wow some backlash to what I started :)

    I just thought I'd re-iterate my argument. I'm not arguing against musicians support charity causes and I'm not arguing against them promoting them.

    I arguing against them lobbying governments for forced donation while they live in luxury themselves. I guess the Bono thing got to me in this stretch where I'd finished university, but couldn't find work. So I was working a crpapy job barely paying the bills, and I saw him on the news, and it upset me, because he didn't seem to realize what kind of people a tax hike might effect.

    I'm better off that I was 3 or 4 years ago. I do donate money (usually to Unicef), but I like choosing who I donate too. Bono's cause is noble, but it sits the wrong way with me, when you see how much money he wastes, and how well he lives. Thats all.

    Most musicians/famous people don't hit the government up for money, but they do promote causes. I'm all for that, and its a good way to use your fame. I'm just against forced donation, because not everyone in Canada would be able to absorb higher taxes. Usually i'm a little left wing, but I guess I'm a little on the right with this one. People should be able to choose their causes, not be forced into them.
  • velogatorvelogator Posts: 174
    yield2me wrote:
    Zod wrote:
    In the previous thread, someone asked why not consider pearl jam hypocritical as they also support various causes.

    I think they key difference, is I don't recally Mr. Vedder going to the head of our government and asking for a percentage of domestic revenue. Pearl Jam's supports when/where they can, under the radar, and they don't go telling us to donate, or trying to force us to donate to anyone.

    Bono was actually asking for a percentage of countries GDP to cure world hunger. I think the cause is very noble. That money would come from taxes, taxes of which a majority comes from the middle class. So he's asking people who are less off then himself to donate.

    It just seems off to me. Some people are supporting their families on 50k a year.. some people are better off with multiple 50k salaries. It depends on the person/family. But to ask a government to do that, without considering the consequences of people less of than yourself... its cocky.

    I think it'd be better if he went after people instead of governments.. allow people who can afford it to donate.. I think sucking it through taxes is the wrong way to go.

    I'm not sure if I agree with you on this. World hunger is a worldwide problem that anyone who can afford to eat should be able to give something to help. The GDP that Bono was asking for was a small amount and when you divide that amount by the # of people living in the countries and their actual individual contribution, it works out to about $2.00 each. I think the major countries of the world could afford to ask their people to give $2.00. Also, by going about it through governments you ensure that everyone participates, whereas if you just ask people to give, most of the time they won't even though they can afford it.

    For example, I see an advertisement on tv that is asking for money for starving kids in Africa. I feel bad for them and I think "I really should give some money to this organization." Then the ad ends and Ghost Hunters comes back on and I instantly forget. Now, if the president came on tv and said that the USA would be donating a certain amount of $ to Bono's cause and that it works out to each of us giving $2.00, I would have no problem with that. It's not egotistical for Bono to do what he is doing, it's admirable in my opinion.

    Spot on, totally agree...either we all donate $2.00 or we (the U.S.) can knock a couple billion dollars off of the $700+ billion defense department budget to kick in to feed the hungary ;)
    Manchester, TN - 2008
    Washington, D.C. - 2008
    Philadelphia, PA I - 2009
    Bristow, VA - 2010
    Baltimore, MD - 2013
    Milwaukee, WI - 2014
    Hampton, VA - 2016
  • velogatorvelogator Posts: 174
    p.s.


    we are all guilty of hypocricy

    This is also spot on, we are ALL guilty of some form of hypocracy...it only varies by degrees. And one question, how does everyone on this board know what Bono, Springsteen, or our PJ guys net worth's are? I have no idea myself...seems like we are ascribing more worth (financially speaking) to them then they themselves have...just a thought. :)
    Manchester, TN - 2008
    Washington, D.C. - 2008
    Philadelphia, PA I - 2009
    Bristow, VA - 2010
    Baltimore, MD - 2013
    Milwaukee, WI - 2014
    Hampton, VA - 2016
  • petrocspetrocs Posts: 4,342
    JD Sal wrote:
    petrocs wrote:
    ...OH..JD Sal..U2 donated $30 million dollars to charity this year..it was a figure that leaked out from a reporter who dug deep and the band wasnt too thrilled to have it known cause they wanted it anonymous..now that $750,000 a day isnt to house the show..its what it costs them in trucks and salary...so there are people with jobs making good money because of this tour. Now I ask you...would thousands of people have these jobs IF U2 wasnt touring?

    I still have a problem with it Petrocs. It's extremely noble that U2 donates millions to charity, but why do they need to spend almost a million dollars a day for their tour? I understand that is puts some people to work, but does it justify the elaborate set up and unncecessary expenditure? It my mind, the answer is no. For me, it's more of a philosophical difference. Pearl Jam doesn't need a 100 foot high claw, or whatever the ridiculous prop is that U2 uses. Pearl Jam's music speaks for itself live. And I feel that U2 is musically gifted enough to just play their tunes without all of the extras.

    Here's a comparison...my wife was watching a show on VH1 and they showed a $400 bottle of skin moisturizer that Beyonce uses every day. Now, even if Beyonce donates a lot to charity, does anyone really need to spend $400 a day on moisturizer? Absolutely not. Does a band really need to spend a million dollars on a day on their tour setup and props? Absolutely not. It's hypocritical.

    And to Johnny Sitar, yes we are all hypocrites in some way - "if you hate something, don't you do it too?" But how can you do so much for charity then basically throw money out of the window? Now, I own 2 hybrids, I recycle cans / bottles / plastics / paper every day, I started a green program at work, etc. If I do all that, then leave the lights on in my house all day when I'm not home, isn't that counterproductive to my efforts to reduce carbon emissions and help do my part? It's the same example with Bono and U2. Yes, they help out immensely with charitable work, but they also live a life that is completely hypocritical to their stances, and I have a problem with that. I understand they are millionaires and aren't going to live a middle class lifestyle, but the million dollar a day cost to house their tour is completely unncessary and that money could be put to much better use.

    Do some businesses NEED to spend $750,000 a day for employees? I mean seriously come on...its not like someone is saying U2 is making $750,000 a day and they are screwing their workers by paying them minimun wage..we're talking about thousands of people with JOBS during hard times..The band isnt trying to rape anyone for ticket prices..this is a win win for everyone EXCEPT the band. Note they havent turned a profit.

    Bono and U2 are trying to bring a spectacle..its the same in movies and theatre as it is in music. Do they need it? nope..have you seen this tour? Its amazing. The stage they built really brings the crowd and the band that much closer and the video screen is absolutely breathtaking. I had NO problem dropping my $55 for a ticket..oh..and btw...most bands like the Who, Genesis, Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney and others charge $100+ for EVERY ticket in the house and they dont offer any sort of stage show and most play for a whole lot less time than U2..the U2 tour is worth every penny. Ticket prices are reasonable ($30, $55, $95, and SOME $250 seats) Now where I am not a big fan of the $250 price tag I understand that sometimes there are certain tickets that might cost a bit more.
    Shows:
    9/24/96 MD. 9/28/96 Randalls. 8/28-29/98 Camden. 9/8/98 NJ. 9/18/98 MD. 9/1-2/00 Camden. 9/4/00 MD. 4/28/03 Philly. 7/5-6/03 Camden. 9/30/05 AC.
    10/3/05 Philly. 5/27-28/06 Camden. 6/23/06 Pitt. 6/19-20/08 Camden. 6/24/08 MSG. 8/7/08 EV Newark, NJ. 6/11-12/09 EV Philly, PA. 10/27-28-30-31/09 Philly, PA., 5/15/10 Hartford,5/17/10 Boston, 5/18/10 Newark, 5/20-21/10 MSG
  • JD SalJD Sal Posts: 790
    petrocs wrote:
    Do some businesses NEED to spend $750,000 a day for employees? I mean seriously come on...its not like someone is saying U2 is making $750,000 a day and they are screwing their workers by paying them minimun wage..we're talking about thousands of people with JOBS during hard times..The band isnt trying to rape anyone for ticket prices..this is a win win for everyone EXCEPT the band. Note they havent turned a profit.

    Bono and U2 are trying to bring a spectacle..its the same in movies and theatre as it is in music. Do they need it? nope..have you seen this tour? Its amazing. The stage they built really brings the crowd and the band that much closer and the video screen is absolutely breathtaking. I had NO problem dropping my $55 for a ticket..oh..and btw...most bands like the Who, Genesis, Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney and others charge $100+ for EVERY ticket in the house and they dont offer any sort of stage show and most play for a whole lot less time than U2..the U2 tour is worth every penny. Ticket prices are reasonable ($30, $55, $95, and SOME $250 seats) Now where I am not a big fan of the $250 price tag I understand that sometimes there are certain tickets that might cost a bit more.

    To clarify, U2 will eventually make a profit off of this tour, they just haven't yet. And that's exactly the point. If they are not worried about breaking even during the first part of this tour, then why spend all of that money for stage set up / props / employees / whatever when it is absolutely unnecessary. The money they are wasting could easily be put toward fighting hunger. Surely you see this as hypocritical? I mean, it's not like they are doing some great humanitarian work here by having the elaborate props and employing a bunch of underprivileged folks to set it up every night.

    I look at it this way -- the current U2 tour goes from 6/30 - 10/28, or 120 days. At $750,000 per day, they are spending $90,000,000 dollars in 4 months just to employ people to lug around their 100 foot claw. When Bono is lobbying governments to essentially tax their citizens to cover a percentage of the country's GDP in order to help fight global hunger, how can you look at $90 million in expenses over a 4-month period and say that is justifiable?
    "If no one sees you, you're not here at all"
  • petrocspetrocs Posts: 4,342
    JD Sal wrote:
    petrocs wrote:
    Do some businesses NEED to spend $750,000 a day for employees? I mean seriously come on...its not like someone is saying U2 is making $750,000 a day and they are screwing their workers by paying them minimun wage..we're talking about thousands of people with JOBS during hard times..The band isnt trying to rape anyone for ticket prices..this is a win win for everyone EXCEPT the band. Note they havent turned a profit.

    Bono and U2 are trying to bring a spectacle..its the same in movies and theatre as it is in music. Do they need it? nope..have you seen this tour? Its amazing. The stage they built really brings the crowd and the band that much closer and the video screen is absolutely breathtaking. I had NO problem dropping my $55 for a ticket..oh..and btw...most bands like the Who, Genesis, Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney and others charge $100+ for EVERY ticket in the house and they dont offer any sort of stage show and most play for a whole lot less time than U2..the U2 tour is worth every penny. Ticket prices are reasonable ($30, $55, $95, and SOME $250 seats) Now where I am not a big fan of the $250 price tag I understand that sometimes there are certain tickets that might cost a bit more.

    To clarify, U2 will eventually make a profit off of this tour, they just haven't yet. And that's exactly the point. If they are not worried about breaking even during the first part of this tour, then why spend all of that money for stage set up / props / employees / whatever when it is absolutely unnecessary. The money they are wasting could easily be put toward fighting hunger. Surely you see this as hypocritical? I mean, it's not like they are doing some great humanitarian work here by having the elaborate props and employing a bunch of underprivileged folks to set it up every night.

    I look at it this way -- the current U2 tour goes from 6/30 - 10/28, or 120 days. At $750,000 per day, they are spending $90,000,000 dollars in 4 months just to employ people to lug around their 100 foot claw. When Bono is lobbying governments to essentially tax their citizens to cover a percentage of the country's GDP in order to help fight global hunger, how can you look at $90 million in expenses over a 4-month period and say that is justifiable?

    It costs over $90 million to make a hollywood blockbuster. Does anyone ask Warner Bro or Fox why spend that kind of money? Do you think they take the hundreds of millions in profit and give it to the poor? U2 gave away 1/3 of the money they will make this year. the rest has gone to the workers...all to put on a show for their fans to remember. I dont find it hypocritical at all. Is it excessive? maybe. But they have earned the right to do what they wish. KISS has always been over the top..Rolling Stones have always been over the top with their setups...why criticize U2. They are at least donating large amounts of money to worthy charities. What worthy charities are the other bands trying to save? WM3? Baby Seals? Nothing? U2 is trying to help save LIVES HUMAN LIVES..any amount of money they donate is honorable. And it IS up to the governments to do something..not just Bono..hes just setting the example

    Oh...and for the record...U2 hasnt had a tour like this in over 13 years...they have had a stripped down setup for the last 2 tours. Maybe they just wanted to give back to the fans this time..spend a ton..I highly doubt they are gonna make much from this tour. Live Nation and the workers will benefit more than the band this time.
    Shows:
    9/24/96 MD. 9/28/96 Randalls. 8/28-29/98 Camden. 9/8/98 NJ. 9/18/98 MD. 9/1-2/00 Camden. 9/4/00 MD. 4/28/03 Philly. 7/5-6/03 Camden. 9/30/05 AC.
    10/3/05 Philly. 5/27-28/06 Camden. 6/23/06 Pitt. 6/19-20/08 Camden. 6/24/08 MSG. 8/7/08 EV Newark, NJ. 6/11-12/09 EV Philly, PA. 10/27-28-30-31/09 Philly, PA., 5/15/10 Hartford,5/17/10 Boston, 5/18/10 Newark, 5/20-21/10 MSG
  • JD SalJD Sal Posts: 790
    petrocs wrote:
    It costs over $90 million to make a hollywood blockbuster. Does anyone ask Warner Bro or Fox why spend that kind of money?

    That is different, although I still find it excessive. Will a studio be able to make a hollywood blockbuster movie with an extremely low budget and still be profitable? Probably not. Can U2 spend considerably less than $90 million dollars on a 4-month tour and still profit substantially? Absolutely.
    KISS has always been over the top..Rolling Stones have always been over the top with their setups...why criticize U2.

    Because this thread is about U2 and Bono.
    They are at least donating large amounts of money to worthy charities. What worthy charities are the other bands trying to save? WM3? Baby Seals? Nothing? U2 is trying to help save LIVES HUMAN LIVES..any amount of money they donate is honorable.

    I agree that saving human lives is more important than saving baby seals. But again, how can you lobby governments to tax citizens for money to help fight hunger when you spend $90,000,000 in 4 months on a concert tour? It's ridiculous. Someone in this thread said the Edge had no answer for it. Couldn't explain it or justify it. Seems like you can't either.
    Oh...and for the record...U2 hasnt had a tour like this in over 13 years...they have had a stripped down setup for the last 2 tours. Maybe they just wanted to give back to the fans this time..spend a ton..I highly doubt they are gonna make much from this tour. Live Nation and the workers will benefit more than the band this time.

    For the record, if Pearl Jam every spends $90,000,000 on a 4-month tour and has a 100 foot claw as part of their stage set up, I will not attend any of those shows.
    "If no one sees you, you're not here at all"
  • petrocspetrocs Posts: 4,342
    JD Sal wrote:
    petrocs wrote:
    It costs over $90 million to make a hollywood blockbuster. Does anyone ask Warner Bro or Fox why spend that kind of money?

    That is different, although I still find it excessive. Will a studio be able to make a hollywood blockbuster movie with an extremely low budget and still be profitable? Probably not. Can U2 spend considerably less than $90 million dollars on a 4-month tour and still profit substantially? Absolutely.

    Plenty of movies have been made for minisule budgets (accoridng to Hollywood) and have turned an excessive profit...look at My Big Fat Greek Wedding, District 9, The Proposal, The Hangover and most Horror movies remakes..why dont THEY donate money to help better the world!

    They are at least donating large amounts of money to worthy charities. What worthy charities are the other bands trying to save? WM3? Baby Seals? Nothing? U2 is trying to help save LIVES HUMAN LIVES..any amount of money they donate is honorable.

    I agree that saving human lives is more important than saving baby seals. But again, how can you lobby governments to tax citizens for money to help fight hunger when you spend $90,000,000 in 4 months on a concert tour? It's ridiculous. Someone in this thread said the Edge had no answer for it. Couldn't explain it or justify it. Seems like you can't either.

    Ugh..why can Bill Gates? why can Steve Jobs? why can any actress or actor? Why can anyone whos rich? cause they are a recognizable figure and thats the only way to get these things across..as sad as that sounds
    Shows:
    9/24/96 MD. 9/28/96 Randalls. 8/28-29/98 Camden. 9/8/98 NJ. 9/18/98 MD. 9/1-2/00 Camden. 9/4/00 MD. 4/28/03 Philly. 7/5-6/03 Camden. 9/30/05 AC.
    10/3/05 Philly. 5/27-28/06 Camden. 6/23/06 Pitt. 6/19-20/08 Camden. 6/24/08 MSG. 8/7/08 EV Newark, NJ. 6/11-12/09 EV Philly, PA. 10/27-28-30-31/09 Philly, PA., 5/15/10 Hartford,5/17/10 Boston, 5/18/10 Newark, 5/20-21/10 MSG
  • DB41DB41 Posts: 539
    I live in Toronto and used Coles Notes in high school.
  • bicyclejoe wrote:
    P.S. -- Maybe we should spend some of that international aid on education, namely spelling. It's Hypocrisy, not "Hypocricy."

    you know, I have no problem with listening to someone's point of view. But tell me, PLEASE, what the HELL is the point of this?? So I used a C instead of an S. Does that make someone's argument less plausible? Get over yourself.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • Just for the fun of lively debate, I remember being forced to donate to a little something called the Vitalogy fund last time I bought tickets to a PJ show. I could use the same argument as some are using against Bono: why don't Ed and the guys use their money to donate to the causes they believe in and let me do the same? Isn't that hypocrisy?
  • the concept that the middle class pays for it when a country sends aide to another country really is not very accurate.

    for instance, here in the USA, only 57% of earners will pay ANY federal income tax for 2009. So really, it's the upper class, and a portion of the UPPER-MIDDLE class who are bearing most of the brunt of this.

    And it's silly to say that since Bono and Ed are filthy rich that they shouldn't try to inspire charity in others. Silly is the nice word in my head.
  • Hey everyone, I'm new to posting but I have been reading on the board for a few years now. I just thought I would share this little bit of info: Bono and his bandmates pay almost NO income taxes in their home country. Remember the Beatles lyric in "Taxman", about how its 1 for the tax payer and 19 for the tax man? High tax rates drove many musicians out of the UK in the 60's and 70's. The Irish wanted to avoid losing their creative talent, and amended their tax code. I found this via a quick Google search for Irish tax rates:

    "The profits from the publication or sale of an original and creative work exempts an Irish resident from income tax if it falls under one of the following five categories: 1. A book or other writing 2. A play 3. A MUSICAL COMPOSITION 4. A painting or other like picture 5. A sculpture."

    So, yeah, I have a problem with him telling my government how to spend my tax money when he pays next to nothing himself in taxes.
  • petrocspetrocs Posts: 4,342
    Hey everyone, I'm new to posting but I have been reading on the board for a few years now. I just thought I would share this little bit of info: Bono and his bandmates pay almost NO income taxes in their home country. Remember the Beatles lyric in "Taxman", about how its 1 for the tax payer and 19 for the tax man? High tax rates drove many musicians out of the UK in the 60's and 70's. The Irish wanted to avoid losing their creative talent, and amended their tax code. I found this via a quick Google search for Irish tax rates:

    "The profits from the publication or sale of an original and creative work exempts an Irish resident from income tax if it falls under one of the following five categories: 1. A book or other writing 2. A play 3. A MUSICAL COMPOSITION 4. A painting or other like picture 5. A sculpture."

    So, yeah, I have a problem with him telling my government how to spend my tax money when he pays next to nothing himself in taxes.

    So you fault the band for the law? I dont think its called the U2law
    Shows:
    9/24/96 MD. 9/28/96 Randalls. 8/28-29/98 Camden. 9/8/98 NJ. 9/18/98 MD. 9/1-2/00 Camden. 9/4/00 MD. 4/28/03 Philly. 7/5-6/03 Camden. 9/30/05 AC.
    10/3/05 Philly. 5/27-28/06 Camden. 6/23/06 Pitt. 6/19-20/08 Camden. 6/24/08 MSG. 8/7/08 EV Newark, NJ. 6/11-12/09 EV Philly, PA. 10/27-28-30-31/09 Philly, PA., 5/15/10 Hartford,5/17/10 Boston, 5/18/10 Newark, 5/20-21/10 MSG
  • So you fault the band for the law? I dont think its called the U2law[/quote]

    No, sorry, I didn't mean it that way, the law was in place before U2 existed. what I'm saying is that Bono is most likely paying taxes at a lower rate than 99% of the people on this board. I have nothing against realistic solutions to poverty issues, but he should start at home. Why doesn't he volunteer to pay more taxes so the Irish government could donate that money? Or petition his government to change its tax laws? I'm sure Ireland has people living in poverty...
  • So you fault the band for the law? I dont think its called the U2law

    No, sorry, I didn't mean it that way, the law was in place before U2 existed. what I'm saying is that Bono is most likely paying taxes at a lower rate than 99% of the people on this board. I have nothing against realistic solutions to poverty issues, but he should start at home. Why doesn't he volunteer to pay more taxes so the Irish government could donate that money? Or petition his government to change its tax laws? I'm sure Ireland has people living in poverty...[/quote]

    why would he give the money to the irish government just so they can take their cut when he donates so much directly to the charities of his choice? think man, think.

    government doesn't manage money efficiently. Bono donates more dollars in a month VOLUNTARILY than most of us will pay in taxes in 10 years or more. get a grip, seriously.
  • government doesn't manage money efficiently. Bono donates more dollars in a month VOLUNTARILY than most of us will pay in taxes in 10 years or more. get a grip, seriously.[/quote]

    Great point! I can't think of 1 government program that is efficient and effective. Philly takes over 5% of my wages, on top of property and sales taxes, and my neighborhood doesn't even get plowed after a snowstorm. The rec centers are covered in trash, empty drug baggies, and graffiti, the roads are beat up, I could go on...

    I'm well aware that U2 donate a lot of money to charity. That's well documented. They would have a lot less to donate if they paid taxes at the same rates as the rest of us. I guess my point is that charity should start at home, and that people who pay very little in taxes can upset people who feel that they are taxed too much when they come to our country and tell us how to spend our tax money. For me to pay more than 1/3 of my money in taxes every year, and him to pay next to nothing, doesn't seem very "progressive." That's all I was trying to point out. Sorry if I wasn't clear, I'm new to posting.
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,219
    I think a sensible way to look at this thing is like this:
    Instead of looking to Rock Stars or celebrities... ask yourself, "What am I doing?" instead.
    If you are okay with doing nothing... that's okay. but, don't get down on others (Bono and Eddie, included) if they are asking you to lend a hand. It's your call on how you respond and there's nothing wrong with saying, "No Thanx...".
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • i wish people wouldnt bring up U2 when talking about PJ. leaves a bad taste in my mouth...
  • petrocspetrocs Posts: 4,342
    The University of Oklahoma will receive $200,000 -- possibly in the form of an endowed scholarship for student athletes -- for renting its football stadium for rock band U2's performance next month in Norman.

    The contract for U2's performance Oct. 18 is between the University of Oklahoma Board of Regents and Live Nation UTours. It was released to the Tulsa World this week after an open records request.

    It stipulates a $300,000 service fee to the university for personnel, services and rented equipment. OU will also receive part of the box office convenience fees and will retain all the profits from concession sales and parking, according to the contract, which is dated Aug. 10.

    University donors with club seats were to have the first opportunity to buy tickets to the concert, and pre-sales were to be offered to OU students, staff and faculty, as well as seat donors and season ticket holders, according to the agreement.

    The stadium doesn't often serve as a music venue and one of the last concerts it hosted was 12 years ago, when the Rolling Stones appeared during their "Bridges to Babylon" tour.
    Shows:
    9/24/96 MD. 9/28/96 Randalls. 8/28-29/98 Camden. 9/8/98 NJ. 9/18/98 MD. 9/1-2/00 Camden. 9/4/00 MD. 4/28/03 Philly. 7/5-6/03 Camden. 9/30/05 AC.
    10/3/05 Philly. 5/27-28/06 Camden. 6/23/06 Pitt. 6/19-20/08 Camden. 6/24/08 MSG. 8/7/08 EV Newark, NJ. 6/11-12/09 EV Philly, PA. 10/27-28-30-31/09 Philly, PA., 5/15/10 Hartford,5/17/10 Boston, 5/18/10 Newark, 5/20-21/10 MSG
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 28,258
    So all this info means what to me personally :oops: :oops:
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • ZodZod Posts: 9,945
    Cosmo wrote:
    I think a sensible way to look at this thing is like this:
    Instead of looking to Rock Stars or celebrities... ask yourself, "What am I doing?" instead.
    If you are okay with doing nothing... that's okay. but, don't get down on others (Bono and Eddie, included) if they are asking you to lend a hand. It's your call on how you respond and there's nothing wrong with saying, "No Thanx...".

    Thats the difference between Bono and Pearl Jam. Bono wasn't asking people if they wanted to donate. He was going to over our heads, to our government, asking them to donate, which would FORCE us to donate.

    Thats a very distinct difference in my mind. I donate to charity, but not because I have to. And I think people should have the choice, especially people worse off then me that would be more affected by tax hikes that would be a result of government pledges.
Sign In or Register to comment.