So, I’m listening to Pandora while packing up my office, preparing for the big move at the end of the month.  I turn on the U2 station that I created (of course), and out of sheer curiosity, I click the band’s biography and peruse the user comments.  I find it interesting that several of the comments totally slammed the band, Bono in particular, for their social work.  Now, I realize that not every one likes U2’s music, and I can live with that.  To each his own.  But some of these users need to get their facts straight.  U2 has not been around for so long just because they’re “the critics [sic] little darlings.”  They’ve won 22 Grammy Awards and have sold almost 150 million albums worldwide, despite getting hammered by those very same critics for releases like Ratttle and Hum and Pop.  More to my point, however: just because you don’t like their music, does that mean you have to bash their character and their charity work?  How is Bono a hypocrite?  How is he “using the children”?  What?  Criticize the music if you must, but I suggest you lay off his charity work.  What have YOU done for societal betterment bromide01, jayroy, and dave3569?  Bono’s got money and star power, and he’s using his cache to try to draw awareness to some pretty horrific situations.

This is a kind of Catch-22, in that Bono’s getting impugned for his charity work because he’s “just a rock star,” yet many of these trigger-happy critics turn right around and attack stars for doing absolutely nothing with their fortunes except horde it for themselves.  Why so bitter, boys and girls?  Jealousy?  Or just plain cynicism?  The way I see it, you can hate the music.  Fine.  You can disagree with his politics.  OK.  But to attack his charity (which comes out of his own pocket, mind you), that’s uncalled for.

Now, I realize that because I wrote my dissertation on U2 this entry isn’t entirely unbiased.  But then again, this blog isn’t about being unbiased; it’s about how I see things.  Disagree with me?  Bring it.