Let’s look at the first part of the argument (the part about celebrity rock stars being ineffectual philanthropists) first.  Perhaps there is some weight behind this point of view.  But if there is, that weight tends to throw itself more behind Bono than behind the anti-Bono crowd (I was trying to think of something less accusatory than “anti-Bono,” but gave in once more to simplicity and laziness).  After all, it’s nothing if not self-defeating to attempt, over and over and over and over again, to convince the same moneyed institutions and organizations to give a small percentage of their profits to relieve suffering.  A short example should be sufficient. 

Let’s say you and a group of like-minded individuals want to relieve the suffering of the homeless population in your community.  Let’s say that to really relieve the suffering of the people you would need $3 million, but that you know that with at least $500K you can make a significant dent in the hunger problem and can begin setting up the infrastructure necessary to continue to provide relief.  Now let’s say that you begin preparation a year ahead of your intended launch date and inform the city that you need only $500K to begin to significantly reduce the problems associated with homelessness in your community.  Now let’s say that the city government responds by pledging $50K.  Now go ahead and go back to those same people every year and ask them for help.  Sick of it yet?

For Bono to have the patience to go back time and again and not either give up or move on to something a little more gratifying is as commendable as the things he has actually accomplished in his mission to reduce poverty and hunger.  And for Bono to stake his band’s reputation on such causes as the ones here mentioned is also commendable.  But that may not be quite enough for the final half of the preceding argument…the part about Bono being in if for the money.  It’s not so easy to prove that any particular man is motivated entirely by good intentions.  I’ll still try, though.

In 2009, Bono and the rest of his band came under fire for moving their assets out of Ireland to a tax haven.  The obvious result is that Ireland received no tax money from U2’s income, which is no doubt substantial.  Both Bono and Bob Geldof have been accused of strong arming competing philanthropic groups that donate money to Africa out of the say because they don’t have the same philosophy as those who run Live Aid, or any of the other poverty and disease eradication programs.  So is Bono just another rich, opportunistic celebrity?  Is Bono, after all of this, a douche bag?

I don’t really know how to answer the questions concerning their business practices or how they handle their money.  All I can say is that, as much as I despise companies and individuals who avoid paying taxes on money that they earn, I also know that, if I were to become insanely rich, I’d probably be very tempted to do the same thing.  No justification here, I’m just sayin’.  Perhaps Bono is just in it for the money.  But dealing with the stress of running multiple charitable, philanthropic organizations, dealing with the schedule on would be forced to keep if one were to meet with as many world leaders as Bono meets with on a monthly basis, and dealing with the regular pressures of being one of the greatest rock bands in the history of humankind?  Why would one voluntarily choose to do so much, when one could do substantially less and still have enough money to buy everyone in Ireland lunch on Fridays?  I think it’s probably a safe bet that, at least on some level, they really mean it.

Fin.