Sorry for the typos

Your argument that´s Bardem answer reflects ignorance and it was irresponsable shows no idea of what happened in Spain during that period. His position against the war in Irak was consistent and supported by the majority of spanish population and all the other artists in Spain, it´s rejection of the terrorist attacks was clear and firmed as well as the his rejection of the manipulation of the information from the spanish government at that time. The governmet of Aznar denied the islamic connection and they accussed ETA, the made the foreign press in Madrid change the information and affirmed that the attack was from ETA. It was the susccession of lies during that weekend that led to the defeat of the goverment. The polls were already announcing the defeat since the PRESTIGE dissaster, and the disconform with the government increased with the involvement in the war against the will of the spanish population.
I think is you the irresponsable judging Bardem´s opinion based on one short answer. I understand why you prefer Bono´s actions. There are simple and comfortable, you just need to go to big concerts and pay some money to charity and contrary to those of Bardem , Bono`s causes do not make you question your commitments.

To Ninahagen,

I understand that for changes to come there needs to be an entire infrastructure change throughout the many countries of Africa, but again, it is not the fault or responsibility of any one person. I am also completely aware of the conditions brought forth by Imperialism, and "bloodthirsty, power-crazed leaders," but it is not up to the U.S. to police the world (Despite popular belief). In regard to the aforementioned celebrities, we need to understand that it is not their responsibility to go into hostile situations, possibly risking their lives, to help others. They act and sing songs, they aren't part of the military and are not trained to do so. When we give donations to charities for Darfur, or for cleaner water throughout Africa we are not scrutinized by the public, and it just doesn't seem fair to do it to them. This is something that they are not obligated to do, yet there is that same mentality that they still aren't making "enough" of a difference. I just don't understand when it became a bad thing to help other people.

'Fraid Africa's misery is the product of its bloodthirsty, power-crazed leaders or would-be leaders, manipulated here and there by various, nefarious other powers. So what to do? Recolonize? Send in the troops and "democratize"? It worked in Sierra Leone, but it ain't easy. Seems only the Bonos, Angelinas and even Madonnas are able to make a difference in being "neutral", so don't knock them, Another Mike. Even if it's a drop in the ocean, better that it be borne by hope than blood and tears.

'Fraid Africa's misery is the product of its bloodthirsty, power-crazed leaders or would-be leaders, manipulated here and there by various, nefarious other powers. So what to do? Recolonize? Send in the troops and "democratize"? It worked in Sierra Leone, but it ain't easy. Seems only the Bonos, Angelinas and even Madonnas are able to make a difference in being "neutral", so don't knock them, Another Mike. Even if it's a drop in the ocean, better that it be borne by hope than blood and tears.

I don't find any fault in any celebrity using their status to bring an agenda to the rest of the public. Our society tends to idealize anything that celebrities mention, and they are either criticized or praised. Regardless, if their celebrity alone is able to shed some light on some of these causes it has to be worth something. In the case of Bono or Angelina Jolie, it isn't up to them to "Save the World." The contributions of many to ANY cause are usually what brings change. Doing something at all is what makes a difference.

In our zeal to defend the exceptions to the 'celebirty cause' rule, namely Bono and Jolie, let us not forget the systemic damage that celebrities can do to a cause.

Rosie O'Donnell was a force majeur against gun control, but the brow-beating of NRA and celebrity bigwig Tom Sellick set her cause back irreparably. The same is true of Sean Penn's comical trip to Iraq, or Tim Robbins' perpetual rantings about clandestine money trails in corporate America.

These examples, along with just about every colored cause-ribbon worn in every awards show, show the unfortunate truth about celebrity causes: Most are taken up out of calculation, or out of reactionary (but well-intentioned) ignorance.

Every once in a while, we get a celebrity like Bono and Jolie who, while not effective in an official capacity, bring attention to their causes without letting their sense of self-importance inflate. This undeiably a good thing.

It's bad thing that so many dialogues are encroached upon by celebrities with an overzealous publicist. It's the worst thing that so many more dialogues are ignored because of a loose-lipped and ill-informed star.

Brenna,

I don't know if you live here in Washington, but you would be pleasantly surprised to see how many celebrity activists of all persuasions actually do get out and participate in the marches and rallies here on the mall; I have seen this particularly in the anti-war, gun control, and Million Mom and Million Man marches over the years, as well as some of the rallies over Darfur.

Whether one agrees with their politics or the specific issue is a personal thing, but I have personally (not just on TV or in the paper) seen Susan Sarandon, Rosie O'Donnell, Don Cheadle, Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, Oprah Winfrey, Ben Affleck, Will Smith, and many others who are famous (though not as famous)actually marching arm-in-arm with average citizens at rallies for their various causes here in town over the years.

I have seen MANY others attend rallies on the mall (though not march down the street), and even when the celebrity is largely confined to the speaking dias(as is the case with celebs Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, and Bono), I suspect it has more to do with logistics, security, and crowd management than the celebrity wishing to not "get their hands dirty" with the common folk.

Steve, your posting at 4:43 begs a couple of questions. If you chastise a celebrity for adopting a child who would otherwise starve because now that child will be a drain on the resources of the earth (by virtue of being alive)...I think you end up on some shaky ground. If you extrapolate that point of view out to its logical conclusions (actually not that far from what you state) you end up justifying letting people die so that others can live. Well then, who dies and who lives? Are you willing to starve to death for the rest of us? Probably not.

To the main point: I get pretty sick of folks like Madonna adopting kids from overseas because it does seem like a celebrity trend, and I'd challenge them to adopt some kids from the US who are in dire straits. Whether these folks are sincere remains to be seen - we'll only know after years of parenting (or nannying). Jolie seems sincere, but who knows.

I think Bono is doing what he perceives as the right thing - you have to give him credit for devoting time and energy to something worthwhile because he could certainly be sitting around on his rear doing nothing as many wealthy folks do.

And as far as Africa is concerned, serious economic development - developing sustainable business models, both large and small - and serious financial investments by business will help much more than handouts from the G8.

I do not doubt Bono's sincerity - but he and all of you should realize - Western Aid to Africa is at best useless or at worst, a prop to African dictators married to useless and cruel socialist ideals. Africans are not grateful Angelina Jolie or Madonna are raising a few of their children. Instead of shaking down a guilty G8 for more cash, why don't they all simply espouse the simple idea of ECONOMIC FREEDOM. It's a simple idea - do not subject a person or their property to unreasonable seizure by the Government. If one has that, any nation will easily become prosperous and take care of itself.

To Special K:

In Ireland, writers, artists and musicians are given tax-exempt status by the Irish government. Although there have been efforts to change this in light of U2's massive financial success (among other groups including The Corrs, Cranberries, etc.), so far it still holds. So, its not Bono's fault really...

I just wanted to agree with the idea that celebrity activism is a good thing. When someone who has name/face recognition trumpets a particular cause, they bring attention to said cause, obviously. Hopefully this will illicit information-gathering on the part of the average Human, and perhaps also funds and other support. I do not, however, think that it is necessary or warranted to tout any celebrity activist as a hero.

I believe that some celebrities do work very hard to support causes close to their hearts, but when was the last time you saw one on the streets handing out literature? When did you see one marching side-by-side with a thousand other activists on the streets of washington? Are they making hundreds of phone calls to congressional contacts? Are they photocopying, faxing, writing letters, or talking to people one-on-one to spread their message? Yes, a celebrity can make a media-heavy appearance in Washington or in Africa, but does this prove their earnest intensions?

Although celebrities can bring real change to the world through their activism, I believe that "causes" are too much like accessories, or like adopting children from a foreign country. It's in Vogue and that might be just about the depth of it. (And when fashion magazines run blurbs about what causes are HOT or NOT, I think you have your answer.)

Mr. Krauze,

I agree with you.

I am reminded of a certain big (or formerly-big)celebrity who recently lost credibility in Hollywood with his childish behavior both in his personal life (left his wife & kids for a younger woman, not the 1st time) and talk-show antics (jumping up & down), who makes seemingly intelligent pronouncements about issues he seems to know nothing about. I recall one remark about antidepressants, for instance. I personally have decided not to watch any more of his movies, which I used to enjoy. I think he's a good actor, but not a good person. I won't support him.

If only everyone would vote with their pocketbook....

Mike: Thanks for your thoughtful response and the further information (which I probably could have found had I looked harder). You've given me something to chew on, and chew on it I shall. You're a credit to discussion boards like this.

Excuse the typo above. Should read "He doesn't just do the high profile stuff."

Yes, U2 as a company (and let's face it, a band that big has to be operated as a company) has some of its assets incorporated in the Netherlands for tax reason, much like most US companies are incorporated in Delaware.

Personally, I don't really care. I'm sure the tourist draw generated by U2 helps offset some of those lost taxes for Ireland. And anyone who's willing to put in as much legwork has Bono gets my respect. (That said, Bono and the band also own business ventures in Dublin that pay taxes to the Irish government and help generate money for the local economy as well.)

I'm sure if all he did was give money and make a few speeches but not actually help in any other way he'd still get slammed for being some out of touch rich guy. He doesn't just to the high profile stuff; he and his wife have spent time in Africa working for several weeks aid camps. They've invested their own money in African business as well.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Bono recently in the news for keeping his earnings out of reach of the Irish government? Does that not suggest a certain arrogance, and even a libertarian streak? He gets to decide where his money goes, but the rest of us schmubs have to let our governments decide that. Come to think of it, he's been telling our government where to spend our money, too. pro Bono publico, my foot.

People in the movie and any other entertainment industries have as much right as anyone else to speak out on what they believe. Just because they have more name recognition and therefore even have an edge over most of us should not be construed to work against them. Just like another one else, it is their own responsibilty to be as educated and informed as possible. Probably the reason why they are so often negatively perceived is because most of them, because of their background and working environments, are more open to new ideas (aka more liberal in their thought process) and to the rest of the world and so they were more often targeted by some specific groups of people. America is so much better because of people ike Bono, Joline and even Penn! Bravo.

To Steve's comment:

The world is indeed being stretched to it's limits, but I can't agree that the solution for the earth's sustainablilty issues is to ignore human suffering. Perhaps we should all adopt, perhaps we should share our wealth, our food, our technology with struggling countries. Perhaps I should bike to work more. The point is that there's a lot we could do. More than one person can be expected to take on. I'm glad that these celebrities are picking a cause and running with it instead of being overwhelmed by all the problems and taking a deer in the headlights stand or partying away their influencial years.

Att: 4:15pm C H U C K Y B O Y! You said;

".obvious schizophrenics like .. EVERY TIME I read an article here one of the first few posts is invariably one of his.."

Every Time? Remember what they say in the Army about Do Not Ask & Do Not tell? Similar?

Are you the Guy who said, "Musicians rule the World"?

Can you sing in 12 Languages or are you harping that same old stale "JEALOUS" Comment Above?

I am Flattered when you call me a "schizophrenics" Gr. Shivago, et al.

"ECLAT" [G-d if any] + "i" [you] = LIGHT IN LIFE!

"Together Forever With "Source-One" this is your NEW (prophetic) SONG!

Can you Feel the Vibes & the Harmonic Convergence in that new song CHUCK? I Can. If you Cannot, then "Check-in" or talk to a "Cyber Psych" or a "Cruxologist" like Meself. Ya Chuchy Cheese Boy. Ya this is a song just for you "Heuristical" to Behold!

Ya Chucky, Ya Chuck what ever your name, keep in tune boy so to speak. Happy Fathers Day to ALL good Eclati-On's and never the Off's.

((((((((((( Enjoy OURS New Song Chuck Enjoy... ))))))))))))))))))))<>(((((((( ...

Anyone who is sufficiently sincere, intelligent, and who has actually performed their due diligence in studying and researching the cause they decide to become involved has the right to promote and/or trumpet that cause. Others have the right to either support, oppose, or ignore. But don't put down Bono with some inaccurate, speculative comments.

Joe Nash is an idiot--clearly he thinks knee-jerk, defensive, and ill-studied retorts are worthwhile. But they are not. And he makes himself look like the ignorant racist moron that he is.

If certain politicians and leaders did their due diligence before, oh, I don't know, putting our soldiers in harm's way, we'd be much better off as a planet.

Anyone who is sufficiently sincere, intelligent, and who has actually performed their due diligence in studying and researching the cause they decide to become involved has the right to promote and/or trumpet that cause. Others have the right to either support, oppose, or ignore. But don't put down Bono with some inaccurate, speculative comments.

Joe Nash is an idiot--clearly he thinks knee-jerk, defensive, and ill-studied retorts are worthwhile. But they are not. And he makes himself look like the ignorant racist moron that he is.

If certain politicians and leaders did their due diligence before, oh, I don't know, putting our soldiers in harm's way, we'd be much better off as a planet.

What a celebrity thinks is "good" or "helpful" may in fact be harmful in the larger picture.

In our massively overpopulated planet, sustaining additional lives that consume resources greater that the planet's replenishing rate means that all are harmed by misguided efforts to increase human population.

We should avoid "feel good" solutions, including tolerance for harmful ideas that ignorant people promote, no matter how well meaning they are. Life is precious and we can not allow the ignorant people to make mankind extinct simply because they have an opportunity to promote an idea they don't sufficiently well understand.

It is gratifying to me when celebrities realize that all their fame and fortune can be channeled into something positive, whether it is a national or international cause. Bono, Jolie, Oprah, Gore, and Bill Gates have used their influence to pull awareness to causes that they strongly embrace. The fact that they are educated about their causes helps them to relay the message in a way that inspires others to step up too. Whether it is a multi millionare that is famous or a kid with ten dollars in a piggy bank, it is meanigful and admirable when someone takes the time to care and to help someone else have a better life.

Not that I'm in favor of censorship, but wouldn't it be reasonable for the washpost editors to automatically remove the posts of obvious schizophrenics like the first poster here (Jacob Jozevez et al)? It seems like everytime I read an article here one of the first few posts is invariably one of his, and it invariably illustrates the classic "disordered cognition" symptomology of a schizoform mental disorder. Moreover, this individual's posts inevitably fail to provide any insight, question, or comment of substance to the discussion. I understand the importance of free speech, but surely no one is served by big chunks of word salad randomly distributed around the comment section.

As for Mr. Nash, aside from the silly racist flambait, how does your point address the underlying issue of how well informed celebrities are about the causes they espouse? I think his point is well taken - celebrities like Sean Penn who rant about whatever left-wing cause is currently in vogue in Hollywood, whether they know anything about it or not, do no one any good.

To Joe Nash:

You make Krauze's point. Check your facts. Bono has been quite influential in global political circles, converting even former Sen. Jesse Helms -- a pol of your ideological ilk, I suspect -- to the cause. As to Bono's "vast fortune," every last penny of it would hardly make a dent in the need, so he's recruited Gates, Buffett, and governments to the cause. But even still, I'd wager he's contributed far more of his fortune than you have of yours, even in percentage terms.

So as you nurse your fear & loathing with tired, ignorant epithets, realize that the world will always be complicated and that the comfort and certitude you crave will always be elusive. (Darn!)

To Joe Nash:

You make Krauze's point. Check your facts. Bono has been quite influential in global political circles, converting even former Sen. Jesse Helms -- a pol of your ideological ilk, I suspect -- to the cause. As to Bono's "vast fortune," every last penny of it would hardly make a dent in the need, so he's recruited Gates, Buffett, and governments to the cause. But even still, I'd wager he's contributed far more of his fortune than you have of yours, even in percentage terms.

So as you nurse your fear & loathing with tired, ignorant epithets, realize that the world will always be complicated and that the comfort and certitude you crave will always be elusive. (Darn!)

My question to Mr. Krauze....how much of Bono's vast fotune money did he spent on his causes? The answer is zero. Bono's stance is just a gimmick to sell more records and his clothing line. Only morons like Mr. Krauze are falling for this gambit. Also, Mr. Krauze....don't jump the border like your fellow brethen. We'll deport you right back to your hell hole.

Besides Harping a New-Song, Genuine belief in sincerity to do Good or Spread Good and to be able to "Touch Someone" in Philonthropy is an Unexplainable Feeling.

Especially when one makes Fantacy's or even "Pipe dreams, so to speaketh, come TRUE!

Being a "Celebrity" has It's ups & down. Nothing is forever except LOVE LOVE LOVE. Imagine!