Another bloated, saurian spot of activism

[EL the Famous]

ONE Campaign jumps into 2008 politics

By MARY CLARE JALONICK, Associated Press Writer

 

WASHINGTON - The anti-poverty campaign founded by U2 rocker Bono and others is investing $30 million to pressure the presidential candidates to focus on the oft-forgotten issue, with its leaders arguing on Monday that helping the poor is a national security issue.

 

Dubbed ONE Vote '08, the bipartisan political push aims to get President Bush's successor to commit to taking concrete steps to combat hunger and disease while improving access to education and water across the globe.

 

"People do not go to war with people who have saved their children's lives," former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., told reporters at a church in the nation's capital.

 

Frist is co-chair of the effort to mobilize activists to pressure the 18 or more presidential aspirants through the media and grass-roots work. The other co-chair also is a former Senate Majority leader, Democrat Tom Daschle of South Dakota.

 

"Some of the most vivid memories of our experience (in Congress) didn't happen in Washington, they happened in Africa," Daschle said. "It is incumbent on all of us to recognize that this must be a key part of national domestic security."

 

Created in 2004 by rocker Bono and the country's leading anti-poverty groups, the ONE organization counts 2.5 million members from across the political spectrum and all 50 states. The organization has attracted high-profile support from a wide range of celebrities, including Brad Pitt and Matt Damon. Until now, the focus has been on raising awareness of global poverty and encouraging activists to lobby Congress to devote more money to the cause.

 

Now, the mission will include mobilizing activists. Among the donors: the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

 

For months, scores of volunteers wearing black-and-white ONE T-shirts and carrying placards have been attending presidential debates and some campaign events by Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and other Democrats, as well as Republicans such as John McCain and Mitt Romney.

 

Activity will only increase in the coming months, with town-hall-style events, mailings, a celebrity bus tour and TV advertisements.

 

For now, the focus is on the early primary states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina. But the effort eventually will be expanded to the more than dozen states holding contests on Feb. 5, and will continue through the general election.

 

At least one candidate, Democrat John Edwards, has focused on combatting poverty, heading an anti-poverty center in North Carolina in recent years.

 

In the fall, the group will ask candidates to sign a pledge and embrace a platform that lays out concrete steps to:

 

- Fight HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.

- Improve child and maternal health.

- Increase access to basic education, particularly for girls.

- Provide access to clean water and sanitation.

- Reduce by half the number of people worldwide who suffer from hunger.

 

___

 

ONE: http://www.one.org

 

Sounds good to me.

[lizish]

couldn't they just do a nude bike ride instead?

[Beltmann]

couldn't they just do a nude bike ride instead?

You want to see Bono's schlong?

[anodyne]

it might explain his name.

[Elixir Sue]

couldn't they just do a nude bike ride instead?

"chafing"

[EL the Famous]

couldn't they just do a nude bike ride instead?

 

you first...i'll be right behind you.

[Dude]

[ikol]

The anti-poverty campaign founded by U2 rocker Bono and others is investing $30 million to pressure the presidential candidates to focus on the oft-forgotten issue, with its leaders arguing on Monday that helping the poor is a national security issue.

 

Couldn't they just use the $30 million to help the poor?

[caliber66]

Couldn't they just use the $30 million to help the poor?

There's something to be said for treating the cause as well as the symptoms.

[ikol]

Fine, use the $30 million to spray Africa with DDT.

[caliber66]

Awesome, that takes care of one third of one of their five goals.

[mountain bed]

Thanks for that El F. I'll take good news anytime these days. Frist is NOT one of my favorite people, but him & Daschle involved together on this is a good thing imo.

[ikol]

Awesome, that takes care of one third of one of their five goals.

 

That's also about the only one that's easy to solve. Most of the other goals would require overthrowing corrupt regimes, something which Boner and company are probably not too keen on.

[Guest Speed Racer]

I will start off this post by saying I think it's really great that this cause has the possibility (though not very large) to cloud partisan issues and hold politicians responsible for an issue nearly all of their constituents could get on board with. Then again, the U.S. has completely ignored their dues for UN Millenium Development Goals (many of the same goals as the ONE campaign) for, oh, seven years, so I don't know how realistic it is that they would choose ONE over the UN.

 

I have to admit, Bono's humanitarian efforts really make me think he's a greater douche than I did prior to all of this. Granted, I am NOT saying that what he's doing isn't wonderful for the world, but I wish the cause weren't so entwined with his celebrity (though I do acknowledge that it certainly contributes to the campaign's success).

 

Also, everytime I see one of those godawful plastic/rubber bracelets championing any cause, I always wonder how much our ecosystem was offset so that some consumer could spend $.30 to brag that he had the amazing goodwill to donate $.70 to charity while he listens to U2 on their $350 special edition iPod.

 

The day I began loathing Bono was Superbowl Sunday 2002, when they were performing the Half Time show. Halfway through the first song, he opens his leather jacket to reveal (*gasp!* *amazement!* *patriotism!*) an American flag jacket lining. Oh, heavens, the terrorists have NOT won! Horribly contrived and politically palatable, which really pissed me off.

 

I'm not saying this is rational for me to feel at all, but geeeez he makes my skin crawl.

[caliber66]

That's also about the only one that's easy to solve. Most of the other goals would require overthrowing corrupt regimes, something which Boner and company are probably not too keen on.

We should probably just not try to do the ones that will be difficult, then.

[EL the Famous]

That's also about the only one that's easy to solve. Most of the other goals would require overthrowing corrupt regimes, something which Boner and company are probably not too keen on.

 

Take some time and look over their site...

 

While corruption is harmful to all governments, losing resources to corrupt leaders is particularly devastating in poor countries where every dollar lost results in one less child in school or one less well dug to provide clean water. Approaches like America's Millennium Challenge which direct assistance to honest governments are the most effective, as is channeling assistance through private (and faith-based) relief and development agencies.

 

...just a snippet.

 

I have to admit, Bono's humanitarian efforts really make me think he's a greater douche than I did prior to all of this. Granted, I am NOT saying that what he's doing isn't wonderful for the world, but I wish the cause weren't so entwined with his celebrity (though I do acknowledge that it certainly contributes to the campaign's success).

 

Also, everytime I see one of those godawful plastic/rubber bracelets championing any cause, I always wonder how much our ecosystem was offset so that some consumer could spend $.30 to brag that he had the amazing goodwill to donate $.70 to charity while he listens to U2 on their $350 special edition iPod.

 

You're right...that isn't at all rational and the second point is just a super generalization that marginalizes anybody who may have actually purchased one to help.

[Guest Speed Racer]

You're right...that isn't at all rational

 

The great thing is, it doesn't have to be.

 

and the second point is just a super generalization that marginalizes anybody who may have actually purchased one to help.

 

Seriously, as long as you're going to spend between $1-5 on a piece of plastic, why not just give $1-5 to the charity that's making the plastic ring? I can't figure out why you would wear one unless you wanted other people to think that you were awesome/moral/good for thinking that AIDS/cancer/domestic abuse is bad or that gays/kids/healthcare is awesome.

 

As for bracelets raising awareness - please. Everyone recognizes the 'big ones,' and there are enough of them that no one really gives a hoot about the lesser known ones. It's like when those little ribbons were big - if they weren't pink, red, or red/white/blue, no one really asked. 'Oh, they support causes. Awesome!'

[ikol]

We should probably just not try to do the ones that will be difficult, then.

 

No, we just shouldn't be lobbying our government to do something about them. World poverty, diseases, etc. are all great causes for private charities.

 

Take some time and look over their site...

 

Fair enough. I still don't see where our government needs to get involved.

[caliber66]

No, we just shouldn't be lobbying our government to do something about them. World poverty, diseases, etc. are all great causes for private charities.

Clearly, doing nothing is working!

[anodyne]

if helping people is the domain of private charity, what the fuck is the purpose of a government? dividing and harming people?

[EL the Famous]

I can't figure out why you would wear one unless you wanted other people to think that you were awesome/moral/good for thinking that AIDS/cancer/domestic abuse is bad or that gays/kids/healthcare is awesome.

 

As for bracelets raising awareness - please. Everyone recognizes the 'big ones,' and there are enough of them that no one really gives a hoot about the lesser known ones. It's like when those little ribbons were big - if they weren't pink, red, or red/white/blue, no one really asked. 'Oh, they support causes. Awesome!'

 

Another sweeping generalization, but okay...pessimism is doing much better job than bracelets, so keep on saving the world.

[ikol]

Clearly, doing nothing is working!

 

Clearly, doing nothing is the only alternative to having the government do something!

 

if helping people is the domain of private charity, what the fuck is the purpose of a government? dividing and harming people?

 

If helping people is the domain of a government, what the fuck is the purpose of private charity? dividing and harming people?

 

Of course, "helping people" can be defined pretty broadly. Providing a national defense can be helpful. I'm not sure that means the government should also give everyone free ice cream and puppies.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Another sweeping generalization, but okay...pessimism is doing much better job than bracelets, so keep on saving the world.

 

Sweeping generalization? All I'm saying is that I think the bracelet crap is a status symbol/waste of money. Clearly, if I think that the $.30 cost of production is a waste, I do have some sense of the exponential value of goodwill.

 

As for pessimism, I've already referred to the Millenium Development Goals set forth by the UN that the United States championed in 2000 and is now wholly ignoring funding pledges for. I don't see why, if we call it the ONE Campaign, the US will be any more likely to pay up. It doesn't make sense, unless it magically becomes salient that the same demographics that have been starving/dying as of 2000 are still starving/dying.

 

And for what it's worth, to my knowledge, neither of the places I volunteer at nor the place I donate to annually have any bracelet thing going on. They're local, so I'll give them that, but I've still got nothing around my wrist but the scar of pessimism.

 

Speaking of generalizations, I'm pessimistic because I think bracelets are stupid, sir? Doing wonders for your skin, that hypocrisy. 'Criticism' is not a synonym for 'pessimism.'

 

EDITED TO ADD: I'm not sure this was clear in my original post - the "Bono is a douche" statement and the "bracelets are a waste" statements were about as related as the statements "I like this t-shirt" and "my car is awesome." Both true, both filed under the same category, but not dependent on each other.

[EL the Famous]

Part of the initiative is to hold the US more accountable for the Millenium Development Goals. As you've stated, the current administration isn't doing it...so why not get a jump on those who may be taking eventual control? If you actually check out the ONE site, you'll see that work being done isn't to replace the MDG's, but augment or help make them an actuality...they allude to these goals all over the place.

 

My statement on generalizations and pessimism, was directed at the whole 'anybody who wears one is only doing it as a status symbol'...maybe some people really are looking to both donate and raise awareness. I'm also going to guess that some do donate over and above the cost of that bracelet or opt not to wear the bracelet at all...at the end of the day, who cares? $ still went to the cause that may not have had the organization/campaign been there. I guess I saw that as pessimistic generaliztion that anybody wearing one wasn't actually doing so to show support and help.

 

As far as Bono goes, just so I have this straight...he's a douche because he's a celebrity who's also an activist or just because he's a celebrity or an activist or ? Would his work be more substantial were he not a celebrity? My guess is, good/bad/ugly, it wouldn't have near the scope...but whatever. I guess I just don't get the sliding scale of what makes one cause or activist more relevant than another if someone is better for it.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Too lazy to quote your original part, but is it that likely that the US will support the same goals they aren't supporting now because...because why? I am grateful that people are hounding them, but I really, REALLY wish more people knew that the ONE Campaign is due in large part to the fact that the US messed up the first time.

 

I guess I saw that as pessimistic generaliztion that anybody wearing one wasn't actually doing so to show support and help.

 

I see what you're saying in that regard certainly. I spent the last four years on a college campus - and one where the only kinds of people who wore those bracelets were the kind of people that had no idea how much of the proceeds went where, but knew that everyone else was wearing bracelets and so, omg, they were HELPING PEOPLE! Their dispensible income went to alcohol, clothes, cars, concerts, and other self-centric spending. So I'm a bit jaded in that respect, yes, but I do think there's a false sense of 'I bought a bracelet therefore I'm part of the solution.' I wish that stuff like that couldn't so easily turn into some cop-out for actual goodwill.

 

As far as Bono goes, just so I have this straight...he's a douche because he's a celebrity who's also an activist or just because he's a celebrity or an activist or ? Would his work be more substantial were he not a celebrity? My guess is, good/bad/ugly, it wouldn't have near the scope...but whatever. I guess I just don't get the sliding scale of what makes one cause or activist more relevant than another if someone is better for it.

 

Like I said, my distaste for Bono is largely irrational, and started at the Superbowl of 2002. Watching him wave the American flag as if we were some largely oppressed country in need of a Bono pick-me-up really, really irked me, particularly when he was singing songs that I believe he originally wrote to honor the strife in Northern Ireland. And since then, he's just bothered me like a tag sticking out in my clothing.

 

So, bottom line - I like what he's doing, and I don't like him. The scope IS greater because of his celebrity, but I find his celebrity wholly annoying.