Bono of the Irish rock group U2 (who has nothing to do with
Cher) strikes us as someone who is both extraordinarily charitable and possesses
a certain hardheaded practicality (in a good way). His list of charities is “impressive,” to put
it mildly. We don’t agree with some of
them, but unlike some celebrities and most media figures he has on occasion
admitted to making mistakes.
Of course, we’re defining “mistake” as any disagreement with
us or anything we might not or shouldn’t do. . . . Shockingly, like G. K. Chesterton, Bono seems
to have a degree of acceptance for people who might not agree with him.
Perhaps even more amazing, Bono has said positive things
about the Great Satan — the United States — and the amount of money that America
pours into helping the poor. This is at
a time when it’s becoming ever-more popular to excoriate greedy Americans and
demand that Yankee not only Go Home, but have the decency to be killed to
eliminate the greatest threat to peace the world has ever seen . . . aside from
the Jews, the neo-cons, or whoever else you happen to be pissed off at this
week.
Bono has even said Good Things about (gasp!) Evangelical Christians and President Bush! What next?
Israel? Feh. And do you know who wrote the foreword to one
of capitalist pig poster child Jeffrey Sachs’s books? (Well, we said
he made mistakes. . . .)
Now for the real shocker.
Bono has claimed that “capitalism” has helped more people out of povertythan foreign aid. That’s enough to get him condemned for all
eternity to neo-distributist hell for all eternity and then some. Compounding his heresy and highlighting his
hypocrisy, Bono seems to be something of a fan of Christian apologist C. S.
Lewis, and is thus deliberately
distorting the words of the Master!(!!)!!!
What’s next? Saying mean things
about “the great Dr. Marx” (Karl, not Groucho),
as “Small is Beautiful” guru E. F. Schumacher called him?
Let’s stop and think about Bono’s statement for a moment,
though. What is the purpose of foreign
aid? Is it to help keep people alive
during an emergency until a solution to the problem can be found? Or is simply throwing increasing amounts of
money that you don’t have at the problem the solution to everything?
Having said that, we need to put in a caveat, lest our
critics pull their usual stunt and start screaming that we’re “against” helping
the poor, are neo-con/rad-trad/Zionist/capitalist non-kosher pigs, or whatever
else is bunching their drawers at the moment.
We are not against helping the poor.
We are all in favor of redistributing wealth in response to an
emergency. It is absolutely essential as
long as the powers-that-be insist on screwing up the system.
