Forum Post: Bono to visit Oakland!!!!
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 1, 2011, 10:57 p.m. EST by juco
(77)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Celebrity personality Chaz Bono may be in Oakland soon according to sources, following her losing season on a lame TV show.
Rock star and humanitarian, Bono, is too busy using his intellect and being resourceful; working WITH Corporations and World Leaders to achieve large, scalable change to directly change the lives of others.
Which Bono are you?
I am neither Bono! They are both clowns
Your best post yet.
Great, now everyone will think we're self-important douche bags.
I remember someone saying to Bono "before you start asking us to give away our money to the poor, donate yours first".
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1314543/Bonos-ONE-foundation-giving-tiny-percentage-funds-charity.html#ixzz1cVyUAxYr
Bono is no humanitarian. In fact, he made millions from a shady deal with Live Nation in which other investors were made to subsidize his multi-million dollar stock options regardless of market value. The stock tanked, Bono unloaded, and those 'other' investors did in fact take giant losses in part, so the 'humanitarian' Bono would not have to.
Ch'Ching!
I've said it many times and I will say it many more. There is no such thing as a multi-millionaire humanitarian.
Not to mention his one foundation.. That is another joke.
I'm gonna have to read up on that.
read about it and let us know what you think.. IT is amazing how he moves from charity to charity making bank
Dodges taxes too.
Yep!
That may be true and I won't pretend like I know the Live Nation deal. I was speaking more to the RED campaign which has had good success, with close to a quarter billion dollars going to AIDS research in Africa.
Maybe he had a misstep, maybe not, but he has worked hard to educate himself - and sway politicians who probably didn't care - and gain corporate donations to get money to Africa. He doesn't need to work - and either way, he's doing more than sitting around a park that will end up doing nothing.
The red campaign was nothing but a marketing gimmick. They spent nearly $100,000 in advertising for a boat load of commercial products. The corporations involved made huge profits, but the 'humanitarian' effort only reaped $18,000,000 worldwide. The funds you refer to came from other sources. Not the Red campaign.
Humanity my ass. It was about marketing. Very similar to all this 'pink' crap. Awareness my ass. It's about marketing.
Isn't awareness and marketing the means to create a sale (e.g., obtain donations)? In 1985, what if Live Aid wasn't on TV? And Michael Jackson and Quncy Jones shouldn't have made that stupid "We Are The World" video? I'm sure the plight of the starving in Africa would have been better if all of the above sat in a park for a month. Do you happen to like anything in the world - or are you just a "tear-downer?"
First of all let me make one colossal point about helping the poor:
If you are concentrating millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions, or billions in wealth, then you have some God damn rotten nerve trying to take one ounce of credit for helping the poor. There are three primary factors which cause poverty. The relentless concentration of wealth and resources, the reckless and irresponsible population growth of the third world, and Mother Nature.
If the rich want to help the poor, they can start by not concentrating so much wealth to begin with. This would allow others below them to help the less fortunate a little more. And so on and so on.
We don't need anymore millionaire humanitarians. We need fewer millionaires.
Live Aid, We Are the World, and the Red Campaign are separated by decades. In the mid '80's celebrities were just beginning to sell out the concept of 'good will' for personal gain.
Bob Geldof deserves some credit for his work on Live Aid. Quincy Jones was already a very successful record producer. He produced 'Thriller' and got much richer as a direct result. He was getting richer in 1985. He must have known that Jackson's records would sell even more as a direct result of his involvement with 'We Are the World'. The same goes for every agent of every major performer who took part. They in turn would have advised their clients.
That being said, the relentless concentration of wealth was still in it's early stages in the mid '80's. Very few understood what was happening. It wasn't being reported. Therefore, I'm willing to admit that most of those performers, even with all of their vanity, were probably unaware of their own hypocrisy.
It's a different story today. The world's wealth is more concentrated than ever. Anyone unaware at this point is either a recluse or an idiot. Modern era celebrities are neither. They are more savvy and calculated than ever. They know God damn well that they are concentrating the world's wealth and resources. So I will not cut them an ounce of slack unless they 'give back' enough to significantly lower their position in the 'one percent' club.
The same goes for executives. They are every bit as savvy and calculated.
The numbers don't lie. The Red campaign was an obvious 'for profit' marketing gimmick.
I'm not a 'tear downer'. I'm miserable over this. It's consumed my life. I have zero hope for the future. Zero. I desperately want a positive sign. Something to celebrate. But I will not dumb down or desensitize. I've been on this cause for over 6 years now. I've done thousands of hours of research. I'm telling you the ugly truth.
Good will has become big business.
Where do charitable organizations obtain funds from? So, rich people should stop their giving?
A number of sources. Regardless, I will not cut an ounce of slack for any high ranking member of the 'one percent' club.
We all have personal choices to make. Thanks.
The rich and famous do not want to be seen as 'pigs' or go down in history as 'villains'. They want to be seen as 'heros' and go down in history as 'humanitarians'. The market for their product has become global. The fan base has become global. Therefore, the 'humanitarian' effort and 'good will' PR machine has gone global. These 'humanitarian' efforts and 'good deeds' are not chosen to address the greatest need or injustice. They are chosen almost exclusively to appeal to the largest demographic for their respective commercial products. The largest fan base. Efficiency or effect is of little or no concern. Its all about PR, marketing, image, and fame.
This is why the rich and famous have all taken up 'philanthropy' or 'good will' around the world. This is why so many have 'schools' or 'foundations' in their name. This is why so many play golf or appear on a TV game show for 'charity'. This is why so many sign motorcycles, other merchandise, or auction off their own 'personal effects' for 'charity'. This is why so many have TV shows with a 'charitable' gimmick. This is why so many arrange photo ops with wounded veterans, firefighters, or sick children. This is why so many have adopted children from around the world (Which they always pay others to care for full time. The hired professionals are sworn by legal contract to confidentiality. Not allowed to discuss or appear in public with the children they care for. Those 'photo' and 'interview' opportunities are reserved exclusively for the rich and famous 'adoptive' parents.). This is why every 'humanitarian' effort and 'good deed' is plastered all over the media worldwide. Its not about 'humanity' or 'good will'. Its all about marketing, image, fame, and PROFIT. This is why we are so often reminded of their respective 'good deeds' or 'humanitarian' efforts shortly before or after the release of their latest commercial product.
Charitywatch.org and Charitynavigator.org are both non-profit charity watchdogs. Of all the well rated charities (about 1500) only three are closely affiliated with celebrities. Michael J Fox (not the primary donor), Tiger Woods (not the primary donor), and Bill Clinton (not the primary donor). That's three well rated celebrity foundations out of 1500. In general, celebrity foundations run like crap because they blow half the money on private jet rides, five star accommodations, and PR crews.
The fans have been terribly misled. For example:
Virtually every penny 'donated' by Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt to date has come from repeated sales of baby photos. With each sale, the baby money goes to the 'Jolie-Pitt' foundation. A foundation which has never done anything but shelter funds. The 'donation' is immediately publicized worldwide.
When Jolie or Pitt have a new movie to promote, a portion is then donated from their own 'foundation' to a legitimate charity. This leaves their ignorant fans under the impression that 'another' donation has been made. When in fact, its the same baby money being transferred again and again. Another portion is blown on private jet rides, super-exclusive accommodations, photo ops, and PR crap. This saves Jolie and Pitt millions in travel/stay expenses and their respective studios tens of millions in advertising. It's all very calculated.
Of course, Jolie and Pitt could simply endorse any of the 1500 most efficient and effective charities. Of course, the baby money would go much further and do far more good if it were donated to such charities to begin with.
But that would be too boring.
The 'Make it Right' Foundation took in over $12,000,000 the first year alone. Tens of millions overall. Brad Pitt has never been the primary donor, planner, or designer. He is a figurehead and salesman with a position on the board of advisors. Nothing more. Still, he has been showered with glorious praise by fellow celebrities and media outlets around the world. Again, the fans have been terribly misled.
In order to move into a 'green' home, the innocent victims of Katrina are required to provide a property deed, meet a number of financial requirements, and pay an average of $75,000 UP FRONT. The difference is offered in cheap loans or on occasion (according to the website) forgiven. To date, only a few dozen former home owners have qualified.
The 'Make it Right' foundation was never intended to help the lower income residents of New Orleans reclaim anything lost in Katrina. In fact, 'Make it Right' is part of a calculated effort to rebuild the Lower Ninth Ward without them. Part of a calculated effort to raise property values in the area by displacing the poor. They are by design, excluded. Unable to qualify. Of course, Brad Pitt could have simply endorsed 'Habitat For Humanity'. A well known, proven, and efficient home building operation. Of course, the tens of millions in funding would have gone MUCH further.
But that would be too boring. Big name celebrities have no desire to make the world a better place.
Their primary goal is to appear as if they do.
It's a sham. Good will has become big business.
U2 Bono is a tax evader too!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394422/Saint-Bono-facing-huge-Glastonbury-protest--avoiding-tax.html
Hey, maybe he SHOULD join OWS - why pay for stuff!!!!!
He probably does agree with OWS.. Him and Michael Moore are one in the same if you ask me..
U2 Bono is a scammer.. He has made a ton of money off of his fake humanitarian programs.
Yeah, man. Another conspiracy.
Conspiracy? He just tell people how to donate their's
Only 1% of the money donated to his one foundation ever made it to charity!
I don't care how much you like U2!
Yes, you sound very informed. I'm sure your 1% comment is well researched and founded. Please educate me on your 1% comment.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1314543/Bonos-ONE-foundation-giving-tiny-percentage-funds-charity.html
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/poor_idea_bono_bsUzJMfT2mBJbqyXgp6YoO
Thanks. You were right about One.
I really thought the guy was doing good until he started getting really pushy, so I had to see what the motive was.
I didn't know much about One - just the RED campaign. Will have to read all of those articles about him.