It was mostly a rhetorical question.

And the answer was mostly ironic


As is this

naturally i think supporting charities is a good thing to do but bono's association seems too sickly, like the awful gold plastic hearts that people wear in the u.k.to denote they have donated.
giving to charity shouldn't be about getting recognition, some people see it as buying karma when, in reality, they would be better off making changes to their own lives in order to save the charities work in the future.

you can't watch the tv these days without some Z list 'celebrity' advertising something or making an appeal, i feel insulted by it all.

brands and logos are no guarantee of anything, it's all designer brainwashing, peer pressure for the insecure masses. todays fashions will be ridiculed tomorrow. style, on the other hand, doesn't need a label, create your own, be happy with who you are, there's no-one worth impressing anyway, they're all too busy fretting and trying to fit in...

I agree with the general feeling here.

But on the other hand :
Right now, the world is based on corporations.
On a global scale, nothing significant can be accomplished if it doesn't serve corporate interests.
Having corporations using charity as advertisement helps the companies, but also the people in need.
(if the charities were proved inefficient, then the advertisement would lose any credibility)

In this whole scheme, Bono is a corporate actor, on behalf of the 'U2 Corporation'.
He's in it for the money, like any copmpany.
But if it benefits to people in need, there's no way I'd oppose such a scheme.

I won't change my buying habits out of a mislead sense of duty.
but I wan't bitch and moan, when the corporate world actually tried to do something that could help the needy masses.