Bono nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
 

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...nobel_peace_dc
Either this is the WORST JOKE EVER, or the Nobel Peace Prize no longer has any meaning.

Not that I would begrudge Bono... I think he certainly qualifies. That guy has done a lot for Peace, Human Rights and the general betterment of the world. Before you scoff have a look at what he has done...

That said, the article states:

You might also remember that George W Bush was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize either last year of the year previously... THAT was a joke.

Many are nominated but only one wins.

well, i have to politely disagree with you thinktank. Bono has done more work than most politicians to help solve the AIDS epidemic in Africa as well as the ongoing problems in Darfur. he also uses his prominent position in the music industry as a way to inform people about what is going on in the world, and telling them information that the mass media doesn't cover. personally, i feel that Bono is very deserving of this award, but i doubt he will recieve it.

I was drinking water as I read that and spit it all over my monitor as I burst out in laughter.

The sad thing is that it was true...


LINK

I think he should get it.


Why not? Eminem has an Oscar.

Let's not turn this into yet another anti-bush thread, hmm?

Not my intention.

I was just trying to underscore the fact that there are often contoversial nominations and that Bono is hardly controversial by comparison...

LOL, funny. And poignant.

He might have done a lot to deserve it, but if anything he should be denied it just because his ego is big enough as it is. I watched a few minutes of interview footage with him (from numerous interviews) and he's got to be one of the cockiest, most egotistical musicians I've ever seen.

...and from what I've read, he would be the first to tell you he's all that.

That said, you need to have the ego to do what he has done.

I can't imagine a shy, unassuming person would take leaders of the world to task... let alone stand on stage in front of thousands of people and rock out.

Bono is one of the few rock stars I have any respect for beyond their art. He doesn't just talk shit... he gets out there any *does* something about it. That is commendable for someone who could just sit on his ass and collect royalty checks between gigs.

Bahahaha.

I don't have a problem with it, he's done a lot of good things for Africa, but on the other hand he's so annoying.

Sic vis pacem para bellum.



as for bono, rock stars really need to realize they are entertainment, I for one personally don't care what they think, he certainly is entitled to an opinion, but because of a lot of what he has said, I'm not a U2 fan anymore.

Just curious... what did he say that specifically turned you off?

Well I don't mind someone with confidence, or even a bit of ego, so long as they keep it in check. Bono looks like he's constantly on the verge of trying to have sex with himself. I don't know; I do like U2 though, and I like the whole "helping the world" thing. Just he as a person kind of pisses me off.

Whoever rushes to make a saint out of Bono should check the comments of maddox first, regarding the song "Crumbs from your table". I think it says it all...

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=11worst

Now, I'm not saying that U2 or Bono are "bad". They're just pop icons FFS... not Nobel Prize Winners...

Sorry but what is that link but a big steaming pile of Sour Grapes...

I'm not saying one thing about Bono's music... they are pop icons... but if he wins a Nobel Peace Prize I'd say he's earned...

In effect, i put Bono on thinktank's "List of Capitalist Phonies" along with just about everybody in entertainment who tries to make a political statement, but still rakes in millions every year. It's a matter of having your cake and eating it too. Everything Bono does is one big publicity stunt to line his pocket. Great, he donates a small fraction of what he makes to chairty, but thats just not enough for me to consider him some great humanitarian. In the last century, let's look at some of the people who have won the Peace prize... Nelson Mandella, The Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu, Mother Theresa... I just feel it would be an insult to put Bono on the top of a list of people who really did sacrifice a LOT. People who did a lot more than drop a couple pennies to the dollar while they snort coke off of the dash of their 62K car, or whatever Bono does when he's not trying to force people to pay attention to him. Sorry if i offended anyone, but i saw it as a pretty negative statement about the current state of affairs in our world.

Just so I understand you... someone who has a lot of money, made in via Capitalism is automatically off the list?

I don't disagree that Bono has a big ego, nor that he craves attention... he is brimming wiht mea culpa on these issues.

I don't get the idea that Bono is on that list of noms because he "drop a couple pennies to the dollar while they snort coke off of the dash of their 62K car" and a reading something like that just shows me you don't know what you are talking about...

The guy is rich, the guy is famous. Are you suggesting that just because he has this going for him, anything he does for the betterment of the world is tainted. Let's just say, for sake of arguement, that he managed to convince some world leader to spend an extra 100 million on the Aids crisis in Africa... would the fact that he has money and fame make those people less better off? Hell no.

As for your list of Nobel Laureates... you were a bit selective no? Where idoes it say you have to "suffer" to win this prize?

From the Nobel website:
Looking at their list, some other interesting winners: Jimmy Carter (Hey! he has money...), Yasser Arafat (isn't he a terrorist?), Lech Welesa (isn't he just the head of Union?), Henry Kissinger (the biggest joke on the list)...

My point isn't to belittle other members of this august list (except for Kissinger and Arafat... they really are bastards). I am pretty sure that in the year they won, they did something to further the cause of peace that was greater than anyone else in that year...

If Bono is deemed to have done something more that the other 165 people on that list, I say bully for him.

Agreed. I was thinking of something along those lines earlier but didn't quite know how to put it. Were Bono living a modest lifestyle due to the sacrifices that he made for something he felt strongly about it would be one thing. But I think a great deal of how people esteem this guy (as well as most other personalities) is simply due to the misplaced hero worship that they have for him being a pop music icon. Bringing attention to some of the things that he has felt the need to "bring to light" is much like stating the obvious. AIDS was a recognized problem long before anyone ever heard of U2 or Bono.

You're reading a lot more into what i'm saying than is there. But for the sake of argument, what exactly ARE Bono's great acheivements that make him a figurehead for peace this year?

Not being a huge fan or anything, I will have to look this up... give me a minute or so.

In 2000, he led the Drop the Debt campaign, which sought to forgive billions of dollars in Third World debt, in the spirit of biblical Jubilee.

In 2002, he founded the humanitarian organization, Debt, AIDS and Trade in Africa (DATA).

He has been recruiting American politicians and church leaders to join the fight against AIDS in Africa (President Bush has committed $2 billion to the cause and congress is considering a five-year, $15 billion global AIDS initiative... is this a direct result of his actions... hard to say... is he a big part of the growing awareness of these issues that have lead to change... I'd say yes)


The way I look at it is Bono is a good diplomat and statesman for many causes (causes that aren't always the most popular causes of the day -- let's have a raise of hands for those here who know that much about debt relief or give a damn). He has the power (of celebrity) that allows him to reach the ears of those in political power. To me, this is using his power wisely and effectively.

It is articles like this one in Time that convinced me there is more than meets the eye with Bono... http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020304/story.html

How is this using power wisely? Wouldn't the vote of the people be a more important measure of how an elected official does his duty than one man's agenda?

Sorry I don't follow you... please explain what you mean.

How is one person's view on something automatically wise? Why should an elected official devote any more concern to a matter because it was brought up by a celebrity? Should an entertainer really have any more power to influence political power than the common person who has no more say than what they can get by casting a ballot?

I didn't say Bono was wise. I said he is using his celebrity wisely. There is a difference.

Good questions all. Get back to me when the system works like that...

Your question would be better formed like this:

Whay makes *any* lobby group have any more power to influence political power than the common person who has no more say than what they can get by casting a ballot?



Ultimately, if Bono was doing what he is doing and wasn't a celebrity and was nominated for the Peace Prize would we be even having this conversation? No.


I agree, there are many celebrities who jump on causes of the day and parade around raising some money, etc. They give a little money, give a little PR to a cause and then go back to whatever they were doing...

From what I have read, and what I have seen I think Bono is the exception to this. He is actually making a difference (or pounding his head against the wall with there rest of the NGOs in an attempt to make a difference).



For the record, I am the last person to follow someone because of their celebrity status. I either like music or not. I either like a film or not. Etc. I am *very* tired of the whole cult of celebrity. It cheapens us all.

In terms of lobbying, you also have to remember that any group or individuals who work through Congress 'directly' rather than going through some sort of popular vote is lobbying. Whether it's a Union, a scientific organization, the mob... whomever.

This one man's agenda just happens to be a pretty damn good one, and if we as a nation are too stupid to pull something together to get the government to notice, why not the workings of a person who is actually trying to get something worthwhile done, where the man is not actually gaining anything from it. (ie, he doesn't have AIDS, nor lives in Africa.)

Note: This may not be the best case in a lot of situations, but for this one, it does seem to help out quite a bit.

I agree that it is a good cause, but caution should be used when we suggest that one person, be it a celebrity or not should be allowed to carry too much influence over any elected head of state.

One more thing... who says this *is* one man's cause? He may be the face of the cause but there are many more people behind the scenes who share this cause.

For example: was ending Apartheid one man's cause? Mandela largely became the face of that cause, but no one would argue it was one man's cause...

OK, it is not his cause, but why should he be recognized more for it than someone actually working for a cure but not finding the resources they need because they don't have celebrity status? What one concrete solution does Bono have that sets him atop the rest?

Do you really hate Bono *this* much?

Why can't you just accept that there are people who get shit done. Bono is one of these people.

Again, for sake of arguement, let's say Bono isn't a rock star or a celebrity and his the head of the same debt relief organization. He's just another lobbyist with a cause. Would you still ask the same thing you did above?

If no, you've answered your own question.

If yes, you are addressing a different subject than the one that is being addressed here... namely what is the purpose of *any* lobby group.

I don't hate him at all. I'm just having a discussion. Neither one of our views is going to have any bearing on the selection process if he is awarded the prize or not. I just don't see where he has really gotten any more done in this area than anyone else. He did not discover the AIDS problem and I don't see where he has us any closer to a cure.

I'm talking about his work on both AIDS, Debt relief and Africa... His organization -- DATA (Debt AIDS Trade Africa)
I would argue that he has done a lot to not only raise awareness on an issue that doesn't really play to the heart strings that most celebrity issues do (it's a policy thing rather than a, "how sad look at the dying and starving people" thing).

Let's face it... this is not a sexy cause.


In the US Bush has made commitments of 3.2 Billion dollars to African aid. I understand that much of the language he used to announce this was exactly the kind of language that Bono has been using... Congress ha apparently pledged a further 15 Billion...

Have a look at the DATA website... http://www.data.org/ To me it feels like the website of any dedicated NGO... The only difference is they have a spokesman in Bono that gives the a profile. The difference between Bono and other spokespeople, as I see it, is that he isn't just a pretty face... He apparently knows his shit.

This is a guy that sits down at the World Economic Forum and can argue policy... not just show up for a photo op...



Sorry about the "hate" thing... I'm just annoyed that I defending a celebrity... it goes against my nature. Anyone else and I'd be quiet. I just think Bono is sincere in his beliefs and *is* doing what he can to make a difference. Oddly enough, he seems to be making some headway.

No it wasn't. AIDS wasn't a seriously recognized problem until the mid '80s. I also don't see what this has to do with him trying to help against it. If I were to go out and start trying to raise money for cancer, am I just not worth any consideration because I happened to be born after cancer was discovered?

Anyway, as much as Bono pisses me off (and he does), the arguments you two are making do not make much sense to me. I mean no offense, but they have the appearance of being made out of jealousy rather than logic. You can't look at these things in terms of absolutes like "this is the living wage, this is what the average person makes, therefore this is all you need". If you think in absolute terms like that, one could attack nearly anyone on this forum for choosing to selfishly hoard all of their money instead of giving it to charity and living "modestly". Bono still does a lot of work with AIDS and other causes, and whether it is for publicity or not, he has put a lot of effort into it and has raised government awareness, money, and other things.

did anyone else notice...Hitler and Milosevich?!?!? ...the mind boggles :crazy: :eek:

Y'all are doing a fine job at attacking me and psycho dad... but none of you have answered my question. You want to argue against an opinion go for it, but let's have the facts to change my mind. Calling me jealous and inventing situations that are hanging by a thread of similarity really arent doing it.

I thought I did here...

...and I'm not attacking anyone. :icare:

Nothing to apologize about. You see him as a difference maker and I'm not convinced. And as far as if he is sincere or not, even the best intentions are often not the most useful.

I recall talking about AIDS when I was in Jr-high, well before the mid '80s. I know that there was quite a bit of concern about it then. And again, I have no problem with him trying to raise money for AIDS causes, but is it making a difference? AIDS awareness and education will only stem the spread of AIDS, not stop it. Is the money that is being raised getting into the right hands? Before anyone gets too fuzzy and warm about Bono, Elizabet Taylor ar any other AIDS activist we have to question if what is being done is the right thing.

So... he called up Bush and said "Hey, give Africa 2 billion dollars" and Bush said "Thats a great idea, we never though of that!"
No. We've been donating money for years, and hell yeah i think it's awesome that this year we're going to put more money into it. But if you honestly think that Bono is convincing anyone to do anything, and you honestly think that he cares, you're living in a dream world. Thats all I have to say in the matter.

Skepticism is a good thing... cynism doesn't help anyone.

I guess we just view his actions differently.

What the fuck has Bono done to show that he doesn't care? If he was so self-absorbed why wouldn't he just bang chicks in his limo all day?

I'm really sick of all this celebrity hating from the right. Ever notice how they never say this kind of shit about a right wing celebrity?

I feel that way about any celebrity. If I find a personality entertaining, I'll watch their show, movie or listen to their music. But I see no reason to give credence to someone simply because they are popular for a reason unconnected to their cause.

Bahahahahaha. Thinktank right-wing - that sir, is comedy-fucking-gold.
Rush Limbaugh is a pill-munching neo-Nazi, and all televangelists deserve to be dragged into the street and shot... how's that? If Ol' Bono didnt care about money, and had this heart of gold that you all seem to think he does, why does he release music on Geffen? Geffen is one of the major record labels that have contributed to the RIAA and helped ruin music for just about everybody. They care about nothing more than money, and until i see Bono in rags because he gave so much of himself that he didnt have anything else, i WILL NOT consider him as anything other than a greed-head. Get over it, none of you have done anything to convince me otherwise.

This is the nail being hit on the head.

I find that sort of thinking rather counter productive. Are you saying, for example, that the money Bill Gates gives to charity (billions a year by the way) are somehow less valid than someone living in rag doing the same thing?

I think you are really getting hung up on the fact that he is a superstar with a big ego... Why should I care what the goof does for living if in his philanthropic pursuits (which he claims takes up about 50% of his time) he does something to better the world on a grand scale?

You nay-saying smacks of the same attitude that suggests that any musician who signs with a big label, "Isn't keeping it real." A tiresome arguement.

Again, from what I have read, Bono *does* know his shit. The only difference between him and other NGO policy wonks is that he is famous. You can't give him credence because you are basing your opinion on a collection of sound bites generated in the celebrity machine. The same machine that tells us to feel good about Paris Hilton because she's giving money the SPCA or some shit like that...

Do yourself a favour and read the DATA website... it is an organization that is doing go work. It also just happens to be run by Bono and some other concerned people.

Is Bill Gates up for the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE? no. He's not. My only argument is that Bono has no place on that list. I'm not saying it isnt awesome when musicians can make money at what they love either. I'm saying that anything Bono does in the vein of a humanitarianism is at least mostly to further his career. His PR guys love this kind of stuff, because you can feed the public out of the palm of your hand... and get them to buy your record. The man has no humility... he wants to be paid attention to, and thats just what he's getting. I just dont think he would be such a self-proclaimed figurehead if he didnt have his own interests in mind. Chuck D said it years ago, friend.... "Dont beleive the hype."

I don't entirely disagree with you... I think we disagree in minor degrees.

Don't kids yourself that Gates will one day be nominated... surprised if he wins but he will be nominated at some point.

I don't think this neccessarily lessens the end results of what he's done.



In the end, I would be shocked if he even came close to winning... As I pointed out above, if Bush and Blair can get nominated and Kissinger and Arafat can win... Why should we be surprised by anyone on the list of nominees (of where there are 166 this year).

Way to defend Bono! So many people see the name and think he's some washed out old guy. They don't realize just how much good some former celebs choose to do.

Like i said, it's great that money is going to solving the problem, personally i think health and education are the two single-most important issues going anymore. But i think, if anything, it's sad that these people who probably are just trying to sell albums get so much credit. I think the true heros are the ones who give selflessly, and thats why i dont think Bono deserves to even be nominated. It's a cold world we're living in.

Just curious... would you have been upset if Princess Diana had won for her work on landmines? If she hadn't died she would have won (they don't award them posthumously).

The agency she was fronting won instead.

I honestly dont know enough about that situation. But I think it is better off that her agency won than her personally (bummer that she died none-the-less).

You're doing the exact opposite. You are using their celebrity status as an excuse to be cynical about their actions. That's as bad as idolizing someone just because they're a celebrity.

I'd go so far as to say idolatry is much worse than cynicism... hell, for the first time ever i have god on my side in an argument. I really dont think you understand exactly where we're coming from (sorry to speak for you Psycho Dad).

Suave... well put. I've been struggling to say that all along.

Ok, sorry about that, it was just the impression that I got because most of the celebrity hating comes from the right these days.

Personally, I don't give a shit about Boner and I hate his music. That said, I think it's sad that you won't give him credit where credit is due. Based on what you've been saying it seems like there is nothing he could do, short of giving up all of his money and quitting music, to make you think that his work is because of a genuine desire to help people.

/off topic rant about their shitty music
I really hate the spanish mixed in during the Vertigo song. The worst is the beginning: uno dos tres catorce. What the fuck is that? Who counts 1, 2, 3, 14? Did he fail spanish classes?

Wow.

As degrawj can probably tell you I'm a freaking huge U2 fan...I've read sooo much about the band and would eventually really like to compile a U2 reference guide. Thus I've read a lot about the band, watched a lot of their videos and read a lot of observations made by other people about the band.

Bill Flanagan is a journalist who traveled with U2 from the production of "Achtung Baby" in 1991 to the conclusion of the Zoomerang tour in Japan at the end of 1993. Over the course of those two years he made several observations about Bono that can be read in his book "U2 At The End of the World." You would think that as a journalist Flanagan would be looking to find some dirt--any dirt. But there really is very little to be found. The biographies I have read where "dirt" is to be found are overreaching and obviously written by people looking to make a quick buck by trading on U2's name.

That aside, Flanagan talks to several people about their perception of Bono--and it seems to me, based on reading these observations, that Bono is one of those people who just genuinely cares. The book is full of instances where Bono gives kids rides around Dublin because they came all the way from Germany or the United States to see where U2 was from and didn't know where they were going or what they were doing. Someone in the book says that Bono is so giving he often forgets himself--he so wants to be everything to everyone that he loses track of himself and the things he should be doing (he will tell you his wife keeps him very much in line).

As for his own money--having read what I've read I sincerely doubt he is overly concerned about it. U2's finances are largely managed by one man in their organization. Also, their drummer, Larry Mullen Jr., will tell you that they are a lot less rich than people seem to think they are--a lot of their money is tied up in their organization, Principle Management (an organization which supports hundreds of people during tour time).

As for Bono's "sudden" interest in humanitarian work...don't get me started. U2 has been writing songs with a political theme since the very beginning, and they're not the kind of people to stand idly by--Bono certainly isn't. He has been very outspoken since day one about various causes, and looking at their liner notes confirms this: nearly every album since War features addresses to join Amnesty International (among other organizations). Bono performed on the Band Aid charity single in 1983. The band performed at Live Aid. They have done fundraising for Amnesty International. In 1992 they staged a publicity stunt for the benefit of Greenpeace at the Sellafield Nuclear Plant in Great Britain. During their European tour for ZooTV they drew attention to the slaughter occuring in Sarajevo and Bosnia--they were largely responsible for getting the rest of the world to notice what was going on.

So you can see that DATA and Bono's efforts towards debt relief and AIDS in Africa are just one thing in a long, long line of previous humanitarian efforts. Heck, the song "One" raised millions of dollars as an AIDS charity single in 1991-92.

As for the argument that U2 are fervent capitalists and that Bono is as well--I disagree. In the 1980s, in order to save their record label at the time, they loaned several million dollars back to Island Records. They have never accepted corporate sponsorship for a tour. As for the iPod ads for Apple--no money changed hands.

So there you have it. Now I hope you can see why Bono is a worthy candidate to be on the Nobel Peace Prize shortlist. I should note that this isn't the first time--nor the second. I believe he's made the shortlist three or four times now. :)

I hope that all made sense. :) If you have any questions about U2 or Bono, I'd be happy to answer them.

woo hoo!!! amen sister!! i was waiting for you to respond to this thread. you said it better than pretty much anybody else in here. nothing to argue there. you can't refute the facts. it seems to me that the people in this thread who are bashing Bono just don't know the facts. stereotyping is one of the worst forms of hatred. uninformed and hasty opinions are just another form of sterotyping.

Thank onesnowyowl... Not being the "fan" type I don't have this sort of stuff at my finger tips...

Oh, see, I'm a huge fangirl...and when I like something I tend to learn everything there is to possibly know about it. U2 is just one of many, many things I'm passionate about.

:)

yes, you are a very huge fangirl. almost scary, but not quite. :-)

Thanks for the info, onesnowyowl. I'm a U2 fan as well and know that Bono is involved in charity work. I don't have one problem with him being nominated and think his nomination is more deserved than some previous candidates.

Here's my take on it. I myself like people who have the ability to be humble. This doesn't rule out cocky when it's needed. But it really isn't in most cases and will get you any extra benefit.

And on the Nobel Price thing... Arafat got the nobel peaceprice, and he was a real badass turned soft. I believe he got the nobel price in an effort for peace in the region - but it took his death to start the shurning wheels.

About musicians etc:
I have this idea about how and why most bands suck after a while. First, they start out in agony - hell, it's a bitch to play in a garage and go on foodstamps. They write kickass songs about the agony and what a bitch life is - and make it big. Now what the hell are they supposed to write about? Well, this calls for a clause - drugs! If they start doing drugs things the band touches will most likely turn into shit - family, fortune, health etc. Either the band stops doing drugs and continues to suck or they do the drugs and write good music.

Sucks don't it?

Anyone have a take on my thoughts?

As good Christians from Dublin U2 never took this route...

Another interesting thing, U2 is probably the only band from the early 80s that is still relevant... Some would suggest no, but those are the ones that are looking for a band like U2 was in the early 80s only now... U2 isn't that band anymore.
Most of you are too young to remember that U2 was often mistaken for a "Christian" rock band when they first came out because three of the members were devout...

I see no harm in questioning things. I just don’t automatically get passionate over an issue only because it is championed by a celebrity. Every U2 fan that has read this thread has likely thought that I’m bashing Bono when I’m not. At one point Charlatan seemed to even feel like I hated the guy. That is no more accurate than thinktank’s assumption that I agree with him on his points.

I’ve not said that he doesn’t deserve this nomination I’ve just questioned why people feel like he does. I’ve not said that his AIDS work is without merit, I’ve just questioned why people feel it elevates him above other AIDS activists. If the guy wins the award, as Charlatan said, good for him. But it isn’t important to me if he does or doesn’t. There are a lot of problems in the world and some of them have more importance to some people than they do others. I just think that often a person’s celebrity tends to polarize people rather than make them do something more constructive.

Questioning is a good thing... and you *are* right, there is no reason to get passionate about an issue just because someone famous is associated with that issue...

It is just a marketing gimmick to raise awareness... Ultimately if it works I can't argue with it... However, the truth is that, for the most part, it renders an issue just another commodity that we can forget about when the next thing comes along...

The reason I think Bono is different is that I get the feeling he'd be doing this even if the cameras or journalists weren't there "catch him in the act".



As to his ego and the fact that he is a rockstar, I've heard him (and the other band members) underscore this... They got into rock 'n' roll to be rock stars and feel that anyone in a band that says otherwise really isn't being honest with themselves... If you are just in it for the music why bother, you could just sit at home and make it for yourself...

As for the iPod thing... onesnowyowl is right, no money changed hands... however, it was very effective at marketing their new album. Some don't like this BUT in this day and age of fragmented and niche media, it was a brilliant way to circumvent the system... Let's face it, most people think iPods are cool and associating themselves with something cool isn't a bad thing (or vice versa... iPod gets cred by assocication).

Personally, I wish this melding of marketing and art wasn't the way things are... I would love for art to be popular but seperate... but that just isn't how it works and an organization as big as U2 can't afford to not play in that realm (and not be the superstars they want to be).

Well... This is in terms of lyrics... When they first came out, they had these amazing lyrics, for example Pride, Sunday bloody sunday, Where the streets have no name, Angel of Harlem. They had a message. They don't any more... Heard there latest albums? They're musically good, but not lyrically.

Now *had* they taken drugway-express they would probably still write lyrics that matter, but they dont. And don't get me wrong - kudos to them for sticking it to the crackpipe... I believe much of U2 still being a multi-million selling machine is thanks to Bono and his love for politics. But drugs would have made better music.

While I agree that some of their earlier lyrics were quite good--"Pride" is a good example, "One Tree Hill" off of "Joshua Tree"--there are songs in their later work not to be dismissed. (And their earlier work also had its fair share of lyrical clunkers.) For instance, their entire album "Pop" is simply amazing--probably the most underrated U2 album out there. "Last Night on Earth" has to be one of my favorite U2 songs. Furthermore, the album "All That You Can't Leave Behind" features the fabulous song "Walk On" (also notably politically themed) and their latest album...while some of the songs aren't the greatest, "Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own" always, ALWAYS makes me cry. Bono wrote it about his father's death--a lot of the album is a result of his father's death. (I should note I'm REALLY critical when it comes to lyrics--and some of the songs on the new album make me want to hit Bono over the head with a frying pan and ask him what the HECK he was thinking.)

On a side note, he says it's what really pushed him to work hard for debt relief--he basically overworked himself to keep his mind off of it (thus the "How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb").

I agree on pop, I absolutly dig that album. I like the sound more than anything... However, I think that my thoughts are true in a broader sense, that money, fame what-not corrupts. It makes the music crap basicly... Metallica is an example... Drugs worked a while for those guys :)

Yasser Arafat....makes the Nobel Peace Prize meaningless.....Kofi Anan....oh don't even. I'll prolly get flamed but thats OK

Bono is as good as the next guy as far as I'm concerned

He has been aiming to get the Nobel Peace Prize. The prize was not meant as an incentive for doing good things, but an award (duh). This leads me to believe that he "did it for the prize."

A nomination for the nobel prize isn't like a nomination for an oscar. It doesn't carry any prestige at all to be nominated for the nobel prize, only the winner is important.