Decision ‘08

My Main Man

So, you’re the biggest rock star in the world, with unbelievable wealth, fame, and a world that is your oyster. What do you do? Snort cocaine and shoot up heroin in a nihilistic orgy of self-indulgence? Chase supermodels around the globe? Sit on your fat butt eating peanut butter and banana sandwiches and shooting holes in the TV screen?

None of the above, if you’re Bono. The frontman for The Only Band That Matters is touring sub-Saharan Africa once again, this time with Great Britain’s Gordon Brown, to see how the money he’s helped raise for the world’s least fortunate is being put to use:

…[T]he No. 2 man in Britain has faith in the rock star from Ireland. Bono brought then-U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill to Africa four years ago. He boldly persuaded the eight wealthiest nations to forgive massive African debt, and he successfully lobbied President Bush for billions. Gordon Brown long ago became a believer in Bono.

“Bono inspires,” Brown says. “He changes people’s opinions about what’s possible. He has had a huge impact on public opinion right across the world. He doesn’t actually seek the glare of publicity for so much that he does. He’ll spend hours talking to people all over the world, but he wants to see everybody have the same chance that he’s had.”

Yes, indeed, he does inspire. The five U2 concerts I’ve had the privilege of seeing have been among the most joyous, uplifting occasions I’ve ever known. I leave the arena on a natural high that lasts for days - and so do tens of thousands of others. And not once has Bono failed to thank the thousands in attendance for giving him the wonderful life he enjoys.

Or to put it in the words Bono chanted like a mantra during the 4th time I saw the band (Austin, TX - Elevation Tour, 2002) during the spine-chilling intro to Where The Streets Have No Name:

How can I give back to God

The blessings He’s given to me…

It’s a debt he’s been repaying his entire adult life. Well done, you scrappy Irishman, you…

25 Responses to “My Main Man”

1 mason Says:
May 22nd, 2006 at 10:05 pm
The Only Band That Matters.
2 Mark Says:
May 22nd, 2006 at 10:34 pm
Hey, why not? If the Clash earned the appellation, surely U2 has a dozen times over…
3 Gwedd Says:
May 23rd, 2006 at 6:18 am
Comrades,

Hmmm… well, considering my age and priorities, I would have selected Black Sabbath, or perhaps The Sisters of Mercy… but that’s just me:)

I’ve felt the same sort of regenerative rush after both of those band’s concerts as well…..

Respects,

Gwedd
4 mason Says:
May 23rd, 2006 at 7:27 am
I don’t disagree Mark. “The Only Band That Matters” is almost as cool a phrase as “speaking truth to power.”
5 peter Says:
May 23rd, 2006 at 7:28 am
Bush promised Bono $3 billion for relief — this was chopped down to $600 million by Congress — Bono said of the GOP Congressmen that they welcomed him with open arms and “misled him with their eyes” the whole time — if Bush and the GOP were as enthusiastic about honoring Bush’s promises as they are about passing $70 billion in tax cuts …
6 Mark Says:
May 23rd, 2006 at 7:35 am
peter, Congress chopped it down to $600 million and you blame Bush - yet you don’t suffer from BDS, right?

Suit yourself…but it would be nice if you provided a link…
7 peter Says:
May 23rd, 2006 at 8:37 am
The figures above were from yesterday’s New York Times editorial — but similar reporting is:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3055924.stm

http://wwww.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/AllDocsByUNID/88b5395747989a1549256ccd001e5c15

I would blame Congress as well as Bush — the first for misplaced priorities and the latter for making empty promises –offering $3 billion in aid without using political capital to achieve it is an empty gesture.

I would also find Clinton to be similarly culpable — American aid to Africa during his administration was also shamefully low.
8 Mark Says:
May 23rd, 2006 at 8:43 am
Well, I appreciate the links, but I still don’t see the Bono quote. That sounds very unlike him…
9 peter Says:
May 23rd, 2006 at 8:54 am
the quote was in yesterday’s Times editorial –
10 Mark Says:
May 23rd, 2006 at 8:59 am
peter, I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt because you’re our good friend here - but Bono said no such thing. Here’s the NY Times editorial:

“We spoke to the good men and women,” Bono said at a news conference after touring a hospital in Kigali. “They welcomed us with opened arms, patted us on the back and shook our hands, and their eyes misted up at the right place.”

Anyone who knows Bono’s efforts to reach across the aisles would have been suspicious of your quote…and with good reason…
11 Mark Says:
May 23rd, 2006 at 9:02 am
Just so no one thinks I’m playing with the facts, the editorial went on:

And when he left town, Bono said, those same committee members turned around and slashed President Bush’s request for $3 billion more for foreign aid down to $600 million.

Now, I assume that Bono is not happy about that - but I find it significant that her the Times turns to paraphrase…I’ll see if I can find the transcript…
12 Mark Says:
May 23rd, 2006 at 9:09 am
An update: you’re right and I’m right - the actual comments were, if anything, even harsher than the Times editorial let on - but they didn’t have a partisan face such as you tried to portray.

First, there’s this:

“We spoke to the good men and women about this. They welcomed us with opened arms, patted us on the back and shook our hands and their eyes misted up at the right place,” Bono said.

“When we left town, they slashed the budgets by 2.5 billion,” he added.

But this is much stronger:

“We spoke to the good men and women. They welcomed us with opened arms, patted us on the back and shook our hands and their eyes misted up at the right place,” Bono said.

“When we left town, they slashed the budget. So there is real jeopardy here and now we appeal to the Senate: Don’t let the House disgrace your country, don’t let the House disgrace all that activism.”

I would say call it a draw - but I’m feeling generous. I’ll say you win, 60-40…
13 peter Says:
May 23rd, 2006 at 9:13 am
I’m reciting from memory here — so I’ll take the 60 and go to the next hole –
14 too many steves Says:
May 23rd, 2006 at 10:38 am
Apples: $70b in tax cuts that allow citizens to keep their money.
Oranges: $600m (or $3b) in relief aid to citizens of other countries.

To Bono, who I admire and respect greatly: welcome to the world of politics; aka: priorities, compromise, and reciprocity.
15 peter Says:
May 23rd, 2006 at 11:14 am
Not so.

First, the $70 billion tax cut does not allow citizens to keep their money. It is citizens collectively borrowing $70 billion from foreign central banks. The $70 billion belongs to the central banks, not the citizens (who will ultimately have to repay the banks).

Secondly, there is a finite amount of money which can be raised through taxes and borrowing. Passing a budget – by deciding how much money to tax, how much to borrow, and how it will be spent — is possibly the most important thing which Congress does. These three things are intertwined, and can’t be viewed as discreet items.
16 too many steves Says:
May 23rd, 2006 at 11:55 am
If I earn $1.00 and the government, via legislating a 25% tax cut, takes $0.30 versus the $0.40 they used to take, then I am keeping a larger portion of the $1.00 that I earned. I’m not borrowing anything from anyone.

Now, if the government has to borrow money from foreign and domestic banks to meet its financial obligations, then that is a spending problem which, btw, can be fixed short-term via program cuts or long-term via future tax collections.

Why, pray tell, are we committing $1 or $600m or $3b in aid to other countries when we are presently running a budget deficit?

Bono is now experienced with the politician as glad-hander. Imagining these words spoken in an Irish accent: “We spoke to the good men and women. They welcomed us with opened arms, patted us on the back and shook our hands and their eyes misted up at the right place,” I hear considerable sarcasm, irritation, and, possibly, disgust, especially at being condescended to by the “good men and women” of the Congress.
17 peter Says:
May 23rd, 2006 at 12:47 pm
Well, that’s prestidigitation, not accounting: the government is borrowing money so you and I have a smaller tax bill. If you look at things only from the perspective of our own balance sheets, we are keeping a larger percentage of income. However, this sidesteps the fact that we are all, in a sense, shareholders in the federal government, because its obligations are our obligations. If I get run over by a bus this afternoon, then I will have saved a few bucks in taxes and others will have the burden of repaying the debt. If, on the other hand, I live to the age of 107 (when I expect to be shot by a jealous husband), then the money which goes in my pocket today will leave my pocket later. The liability side of the ledger matches the income side.

Also, the spending problem cannot be fixed through program cuts, because the government will never do the things which would achieve fiscal balance (e.g., drastic reductions in entitlements, military spending, etc.).
18 peter Says:
May 23rd, 2006 at 12:49 pm
“Why, pray tell, are we committing $1 or $600m or $3b in aid to other countries when we are presently running a budget deficit?”

Because it’s the right thing to do. It is a miniscule fraction of national income and it will do a world of good. The better question to ask is: why are we giving out tax cuts when we are running a budget deficit?
19 too many steves Says:
May 23rd, 2006 at 1:55 pm
“Well, that’s prestidigitation, not accounting: the government is borrowing money so you and I have a smaller tax bill.” This is a chicken-and-egg argument then and not worth pursuing much further. I say it is my money to begin with, you say the government borrows because it doesn’t take enough of my money. Ok.

“Because it’s the right thing to do. It is a miniscule fraction of national income…” if that is the standard where do you draw the line? In a world full of need how do we choose which to ignore and which to get involved in? I think it reasonable to make that assessment based on what we can afford. I would argue that Congress, by approving $600m rather than $3b, was being most prudent (of the imprudent options).
20 peter Says:
May 23rd, 2006 at 2:33 pm
I think that it would be reasonable for us to contribute at least as much as other industrialized countries do, measured on a percentage of GDP. The fact is that we contribute a much smaller percentage of national income than nearly all other major industrialized countries.
21 peter Says:
May 23rd, 2006 at 2:37 pm
The chart in the middle of the page shows that the US is last among the industrialized countries surveyed in donating foreign ad as percentage of national income:

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp#SomedonatemanydollarsbutarelowonGNIpercent
22 dmac Says:
May 23rd, 2006 at 4:42 pm
“The fact is that we contribute a much smaller percentage of national income than nearly all other major industrialized countries.”

If you look at just the pure governmental aid numbers, you never get even close to the full picture here. When you adjust the numbers to include the immense private donations that citizens and corporations make, the US comes out on top, every time, in every measure, year after year:

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp

There are so many objective figures like this that it’s not even a debatable point anymore. The UN likes to trumpet the numbers you referenced, but they shut their pieholes quickly when you bring up the total largesse - it’s all about who is controlling the money in their view, and our country has always encouraged private charity over governmental sources.

There has never been a more monetarily (and personnel) generous country to other nations than the US in world history, no matter what measuring stick you prefer to use.
23 peter Says:
May 23rd, 2006 at 5:07 pm
That’s an interesting obligation — however I’m not sure that private largesse should diminish government largess — because Bill Gates has given millions (billions?) to a number of good causes, does that mean that it should be a smaller part of the federal budget?
24 peter Says:
May 23rd, 2006 at 5:07 pm
sorry, meant to write observation, not obligation
25 dmac Says:
May 23rd, 2006 at 7:13 pm
Peter, I’m not suggesting that foreign aid should not be a part of our federal budget - if not for the Marshall Plan, where would the world be these days? But our history has usually put the primacy of private giving over the wishes and whims of the US gov’t.

If people started to realize how many foreign aid dollars are spent on dubious causes (witness the billions spent on Egypt), they’d probably feel that they could do a better job themselves of distributing aid funds. Since they won’t get that opportunity (aside from soliciting their local rep’s), they choose to give out of their own pockets. The private monies sent after the Tsunami disaster from this country were truly staggering - and the relief efforts in places like Ethiopia (during the food famine) were primarily of a private nature as well.