Bono's 'Red' label follow-up
I don't know entirely how I feel about Bono's escapade yet (apart from nauseous and deeply mistrustful), and I do agree with your comments that we need and deserve clear, transparent outlines of how much money is going to who; when it's going, and how it's getting there. Alex said (and I think probably most people would agree that):
Whether they're getting rich or not at least they're doing something to help, and surely pure intentions are irrelevant as long as the ends are a benefit to some people who need the help.
Do the ends justify the means? Well, they can do. I just don't really see why these 'means' are the best way, or even a particularly good way, of achieving 'the ends'. It will still just amount to Western individuals donating cash, rather than systematic change, which I'm sure everyone agrees is necessary? Is this so different from Live8 really - it's just more feel-good placatory philanthropy (with the added benefit of helping companies 'broaden their customer base' - *shudder*)?
Am I wrong in thinking that the main obstacle to treating the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa is that the drugs companies are still refusing to bring their prices down (thanks to good ol' 'hard commerce', Bono's bestest friend)? Am I also wrong in thinking that the combined efforts of western governments, the UN, the EU, and a smug, past-it popstar prick with a God complex and stupid sunglasses might be able to force those prices down?
One uncontentious point to finish on: Bono wants shooting for the phrase 'punk rock commerce' alone.