So That’s Why Bono Calls it the ONE Foundation

[dante]

This story http://michellemalkin.com/2010/09/23/so ... oundation/ about Bono's humanitarian work came as no surprise to me really.I must say that it was more than expected result when someone as hare-brained as Bono proved a lot of times to be is given the responsibility and money to play humanitarian.To steal money donated to starving people is a bit disgusting,specially if you already have millions.

The non-profit organisation set up by the U2 frontman received almost £9.6m in donations in 2008 but handed out only £118,000 to good causes (1.2 per cent).

The figures published by the New York Post also show that £5.1m went towards paying salaries.

I like the version of a verse from his song "One" given in the comments of the article, adapted to this occasion:

Did I donate too much?
More than a lot
I gave 1000
But it’s 10 they got

[russcable]

ONE does not claim to be not a charity but an advocacy organization. They never said they were going to give the money away.

[dante]

Good point russcable :) Ok,I'm joking,it isn't.

On what account did they raise those donations then if it's not for giving it away for humanitarian purposes? To pay more than 5 millions,out of 9 millions of donations for the salaries of the people working for the organization?That doesn't make sense.

My opinion is that the work of every single fundraising organization should be transparent to the last cent they received and they spent.Because it leaves a bitter taste in the mouth when people make such organizations to satisfy their greed,turning the whole purpose of it upside down.If people like to portray themselves as philantrops,they should let people who give those donations know where they money went.This way, in the future,no one will give a cent to any humanitarian action however genuine and honest is the people's intent.

[dante]

I've read an explanation given by the spokesman of the organization,so I'll add one more thought to what I said in my previous post.The explanation is crazy and I should be also crazy to believe it:) But,as Phil Hunt noted in some of previous discussions,I'm hard to be convinced really:)
Here's from a Daily Mail article:

ONE spokesman Oliver Buston has now defended the way the organisation is run, insisting the money is used for promoting its campaign and raising awareness rather than being given straight to those who need help.

He said: 'We don't provide programmes on the ground. We're an advocacy and campaigning organisation.'

Another spokesman in New York today dismissed the notion of lavish salaries being paid to its 120 members of staff and said the organisation was highly efficient in its raising of awareness.

ONE said it took no money from the public and that most of its funding came from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

I wonder what it exactly means "raise awareness and promoting its campaign".Paying for commercials on TV stations?And they must have been working hard on raising awareness to treat themselves with more than five millions in salaries for a year.Awful lot for a non-profit,filantropic organization.It's 53 percent of the entire budget for salaries.I also wonder if that wouldn't be even more highly efficient if all 9.6 millions went directly to those who needed them,without the brokering of this organization?

[russcable]

"Accepting donations" has no relation to "giving money away". Organizations may accept donations for many reasons.

I wonder what it exactly means "raise awareness and promoting its campaign".

That would be "advocacy" - the stated purpose of the organization which they seemed to have acheived. People donated money so they could provide advocacy not money. They suceeded.

[dante]

I've taken a look at the site of the organization.No single information about their spendings,so I can't tell what's the exact meaning of rather general terms as "raising awareness" or "advocacy" are in this case.
I still think it's dishonest that the organization with such proclaimed mission spend all the annual budget of 10 millions for raising awareness of poverty in Africa. Besides,5,1 million dollars fee they charged for advocacy can be called a profit I guess,and One has declared themselves as a non-profit organization.There's a bit of hypocrisy in it I think.
If "raising awareness" basically means "spreading information",and I think it does,I don't see that "raising awareness" on these issues is the first thing Africa or the rest of the world lack at the moment.I believe that anywhere in the world even children have enough information about poverty in Africa,about lack of water supply there,HIV and general conditions in which people there live.Finally if people in Africa don't know that poverty is a bad thing,and that protected sex (or abstaining from sex altogether which would be my choice in the circumstances) is advisable when HIV is widespread and so on,people could be donated a lot of computers and Internet access for that money,so they could raise their awareness on this and all other issues for themselves,without anyone's brokerage.
Another question is if there's any point or true effect in repeating the same things the whole world has heard billion times on the state of things in real life.I believe that even children and adults in Africa have educational systems where they are taught about such things.
Since there's no publicly available financial statement about the spendings of the organization (speaking of which,someone should raise their awareness about the need for transparency in spending other people's money)I can only speculate where that money went actually.But being a cynic as I am,I doubt that the people who got that money in the end spend it on raising their awareness on anything:)

[Phil White]

I've taken a look at the site of the organization.No single information about their spendings,so I can't tell what's the exact meaning of rather general terms as "raising awareness" or "advocacy" are in this case.

Then you missed this. It's a perfectly adequate statement.

They do not raise funds from the general public. Most of their money comes from the Gates Foundation, who believe that they do good work.

They claim to have a staff of approximately 120, and if they did actually spend £5.1 million on salaries, that works out at an average of around £45,000 per head. A good salary (by UK standards), but not a vast one. All charitable organizations at some time become the targets of criticism about the amount of money spent on salaries, but why on earth should we expect that people who decide to spend their careers doing good should also do it for nothing? The good, highly skilled workforces at organizations such as Oxfam, the Red Cross and many hundreds and thousands of others are only able to respond quickly and effectively to disasters and long-term need because they have staff who know what they are doing and infrastructures capable of coping with sudden demand. Is there any cogent reason why those staff should live on a pittance because they choose to help others? Undoubtedly one could argue about the level of individual salaries in the same way that we are arguing about the salaries of public servants in this country, but I for one would rather see a good organization ready to leap into action than a bunch of half-trained volunteers with good intentions, and when I donate, I'm prepared to pay that price.

To steal money donated to starving people is a bit disgusting,specially if you already have millions.

I can only say again, read what they say. The money primarily comes from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and that money in turn primarily comes from their own resources with generous support from Warren Buffett and perhaps others. The objectives of the Gates Foundation in turn are also not geared to direct aid to the poor and underprivileged, but to setting up structures that will combat the causes of poverty and underprivilege in the long term.

It is wrong and malicious to say that the money was donated to starving people and wrong and malicious to say that it was stolen.

Whether or not you believe that advocacy is an efficient way of combatting poverty is a legitimate discussion, and there are plenty of people who feel that such sums of money would be better spent on direct aid, but it is the direction the One Foundation has chosen, and top level advocacy costs a vast amount of money - money that the Gates family and the managers of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation gave to them through their foundation for precisely this work. It was not public donations except insofar as we have all contributed to Gates' personal fortune by purchasing Microsoft software and hardware.

For me, I think they do valuable work that complements, but does not replace other frontline work being done by other organizations. Without the huge public pressure exerted on the politicians in the wake of the Live 8 concerts in 2005, there would undoubtedly not have been agreement on debt relief for poorer countries or pledges of increased aid from the richer ones at the G8 summit, effectively pumping tens of billions into the poorest economies of the world. Similarly, in 2007, a concerted effort by One resulted in debt relief US$ 842 million for Liberia from the IMF. Taking numbers like that (and those are only two examples), it seems to me that the One Foundation delivers excellent value for money.

As a result of their awareness campaigns, money has flowed into the frontline charities from people who have suddenly become motivated to actually do something instead of saying "oh, how sad!". It's an amount of money that cannot be quantified, but it never went to the One Foundation. The One Foundation was the catalyst that loosened people's wallets, and the beneficiaries have been people in need via the mediation of the charities.

Frankly, I get very irritated by the press misrepresenting good work done by people and organizations. It seems to me that people can't bear the idea that a celebrity also has a social conscience, possibly far more so than the reporter. Ultimately, whether I like it or not, people like Bono, Gates and Geldof are only in the position to do the good they do because they remain rich celebrities. If they were poor or average earners and completely unknown, they would not have the voice. That's the world we live in.

[dante]

Phil,I noticed that you were irritated with the writing in the article:) Your labelling my writing with nonsensical qualifications won't change the state of facts unfortunately.

I followed elementary logic,(which you didn't bother to use obviously :),and I said clearly,and I will repeat again,now even more simply,and I will break down that a bit so we can know which part is too difficult for you to understand Phil:

1.Someone put aside money for humanitarian purposes,whoever it is,and that money never bought ANYTHING to people who needed that money.

As a result of their awareness campaigns, money has flowed into the frontline charities from people who have suddenly become motivated to actually do something instead of saying "oh, how sad!".

This is completely unfounded information which you didn't argument with one single fact Phil.You didn't even bother to check what is exactly the sum that the organization raised.Which is my another point:

2.Why don't they give financial report on their expenses so malicious people as I am wouldn't doubt their honest effort?

Here's point three:

3.Whether "raising awareness" means "convincing someone to loosen their wallet" or it means "spread information about platitudes obvious even to those utterly unintelligent",ten million dollars went to words that didn't change a thing.That's the ultimate effect of the money that could save a lot people from starving.It's true that,similarly to you,I can't measure the effect of the words those people in particular are selling to people in Africa but people who sell "raising awareness" for hefty money are often cheats.I have many illustrative examples on mind really.I wrote on this forum at length about the case of Kouchner,a petty figure .He charged millions from African dictators for something that,I'm sure, he too called "raising awareness" or something to that effect.The crucial reason that people in Africa never moved ahead from the poverty they live in,lays exactly in their inability to constitute law and order in their communities.Part of the answer why they didn't succeed in it are those roaming hyenas dressed in humanitarian skins. think that the world would do much better without fake humanitarians.That kind of sweet talk you can hear anywhere anytime nowdays,from many politicians and many humanitarians.And at the same time this planet is becoming a very shitty place to live for more and more people in the world.The division between "haves" and "have nots" was never bigger I guess.

Another point that crossed my mind:

4.Truly human people do not charge so much money for humanitarian work. I'd like to make clear that thing,for the sake of many truly human people who lived their worthy lives to help other people,those who volunteered to help others,those who did humanitarian work with the real warmth in their hearts for their mission.The work of those people has to be set apart from the "humanitarians" whose services are so expensive.If they wanted money they should have worked something else.
One can agree or disagree on the significance of "raising awareness",and they could have raised a billion dollars and gave it to charity as a result of "raising awareness",it won't change the fact that they could have charged their "raising awareness" less at least.To work in such organizations is a noble work when it's done in a noble way,and one need to be clear with himself if he's ready to curb his greed for the sake of doing such a thing.

It's an amount of money that cannot be quantified, but it never went to the One Foundation. The One Foundation was the catalyst that loosened people's wallets, and the beneficiaries have been people in need via the mediation of the charities.

I haven't followed the work of that foundation,but one obvious question comes to mind here.Again Phil,why does that process of convincing people to loosen their wallets takes so much money?I can't figure out the costs that could amount to that sum, related to convincing someone to give you their money.Can you Phil? Any plausible explanation is welcome:)


About Bono Vox celebrity,I don't give a bad fuck for his celebrity really.I wrote on this forum earlier what I think about that brainless plonker.His appearance on G8 summit is something that can only worry a sane person.I guess that he and George had some really meaningful discussion there:)

Finally,I don't charge my words Phil,consider yourself lucky.I will be glad if I helped you raise your awareness:)

[PhilHunt]

why does that process of convincing people to loosen their wallets takes so much money?I can't figure out the costs that could amount to that sum, related to convincing someone to give you their money.Can you Phil?

I think you are confusing 'charity' with 'awareness'. Raising awareness increases the pressure on people's consciences. The more pressure you put on people’s consciences, the more likely they are to give money for a cause. You may be thinking too small scale Dante. The money doesn’t necessarily come from individuals like you and me but companies, other fund raising groups and millionaires. These people need that extra push to part with their money.
A way to think about the One foundation is to compare it to a war photographer. Every time you look at a photo of a starving baby in a war zone, just remember that someone was paid to take that photo and someone paid to publish it. One of my favourite war photographers is Don McCullen. He was one of the first to photograph famines and bring the images back to America, thus raising awareness and interest in the problem. Imagine the work of Don McCullen amplified into an awareness group to put pressure on politicians and government.
In America huge amounts are already spent on pressure groups that raise awareness of everything from guns to HIV, not always in the best interests of the people but that's democracy for you. The One Foundation, however, sounds very similar to the Kennedy Foundation in its scope and one can only hope that their efforts help to influence people to get money in the field rather than to invest in more guns and pharmaceuticals.
Also remember that money alone isn't enough. Often money gets relocated into arms (as one recent story claimed happened with the original Live Aid funds) or lays unused (as was the case with the Tsunami fund) because people don't know what to spend it on. Often skilled workers and educators in the place of the disaster are worth more than just throwing dollars to a country. I think it’s a bit naive to believe that every penny collected must go to the needy for all the reasons Phil mentioned. However, transparency does help, and some organisations such as Emergency in Italy publish a full breakdown of where the money is spent, with a promise to keep running costs at a minimum (something like 5% if I remember rightly). I personally know very little about the One Foundation or Bono (though I don’t like his glasses), however, if I may mix my metaphors, try to think to the positives for a change Dante rather than jump straight for the throat

[marie26]

Dante , while I understand your passion for the poor starving folks in Africa, I think your anger at Bono, and closer-to-home, Phil is a bit misplaced. I love your posts however, as they are thought provoking. I must say Phil, that your response was classy. You have reminded me how much better the view is from the high road.
~Marie~
Whose opinion is much like a snowstorm

[PhilHunt]

Thanks you Marie, though I'm sure you meant PhilWhite ;)


PhilH: Willing to accept praise in any way he can :D

[dante]

Phil Hunt,since most of what I'd answer you I've already discussed in previous discussions,I will only say here that I stick to what I said: Ten million dollars spent on salaries and who knows what else amounts to an unscrupulous theft of the money that someone gave to humanitarian purposes.Until it's public and transparent what exactly they spent their money on I can't possibly think otherwise.Specially not after unconvincing phrases that were given as an explanation.

Marie,you're right that I don't like Bono Vox or whatever his true name is,but it wasn't a reason I opened this thread.It's not my manner to criticize someone for something he did only because he had done something wrong before.Here,I was discussing the point of spending ten million dollars of charity money on salaries and I don't know what else,and I'm sure I'll never know because any document of it will never come to light.Maybe it was taking photographs that was so costly Phil,I don't know,we can only speculate on it.

To tell you why I think that Bono's father would have done a favour to humanity if he had masturbated the day Bono was conceived,I'll need to put things into perspective.

Mr.Two at most three chords has more talents than I have time or fingers to type them all here.Musician but at the same time a humanitarian solves all kind of problems including poverty in Africa,AIDS,plugging the ozone hole,bringing freedom to people in Bosnia etc.

And it's when he engaged himself on a noble mission of bringing freedom to people in Bosnia that I learned more closely about his tremendous intellectual abilities.

This article here http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/st ... vo_1008628 reminded me of the BBC parody "Taking the flak" portraying similar sort of people,that Phil White recommended to me.It tells a lot to those who have eyes to see, ears to hear and the thing between the ears to understand.

"Right on the edge of Europe there was a symbol of tolerance, where three ethnic groups - Croats, Serbs and Bosnians - lived together in peace. "And this tolerance was being challenged by an appalling siege by Serbian forces. "So I agreed in an emotional moment to do a gig there. And after I've agreed on Sarajevo Television, I then have to explain to the band why putting our lives at risk is going to help the people of Sarajevo."

You can't but trust the words of this expert for how people on the Balkans lived and how they came not to live harmoniously anymore:).This guy is a living proof that the only human activity that doesn't require any objective knowledge worth speaking of is dealing with social problems,be it global or less globall,national or municipial issues,you really don't need to sweat a lot to learn about them before you get to work on solving them.You only need to be stupid enough,enormously unscrupulous and untold hypocrite,and to wear a Superman suit,and voilla..here you go flying hero:)


Whatever else you take up doing,it is going to take a deep,lifetime devotion and interest into the subject to get into the position you can competently discuss something publicly.And you need to experience things before you can really get a grasp of them.Even if you're a plumber for example,you'll need years of work before you can tell that you can competently and successfully deal with most of the plumbing problems you come across.

However,it takes really a lot patience to listen to a simpleton with a significant political clout,explain where and how things went wrong in Bosnia.
He doesn't know a thing about Bosnia or the Balkans.The lie about putting their lives at risk two years after the war in Bosnia ended,illustrating himself as a hero who comes to rescue,is only an indicator of the world of illusion this simpleton lives in.If it's true what Shakespeare said that we are all but actors on a stage in our lives,the role this guy got is truly pathetic.

But how such people come to have such a political influence?That is one of the puzzles of life that can hardly be explained in any rational manner.If anyone manages to do that he will earn my lifetime admiration.I promise I will make his or her figure in bronze and put it on my TV.

And what if things maybe,only maybe,weren't so straightforward and so black and white as Bono understands them.If I say that things were rather grey as they really happened? That would get me all kind of labelling and qualifications for being wrong and malicious or trying to "cover things in political slime",as another very inspired and equally intelligent pay-per-article analyst said.And it would also spoil the whole "feel good" thing for writers of articles like this http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... _90469051/# as well as their numerous consumers.That would burst their bubble:)
One of the "feel good" stories,for the intended audience with under average intelligence,able to understand only plots as complex as "Wolf and three little pigs",or those who are simply disinterested to think about it,and who read that kind of stories while they're sitting on the toilet for example.It wouldn't surprise me if I learned that Bono had read exactly this story and it inspired him to go to his mission of a superhero:)

Unfortunately,voices of people who really have competence and moral to talk on so deeply contentious subjects are drowned in the rattle of halfwits of Bono's type.I mentioned some of those half wits in my previous threads on this forum.There's a long list really,this guy is neither better or worse than many others,they're rather low intelligent clones,that modern world establishment somehow brings to surface,and I really don't know how that happens.

Keep reading my posts Marie,it's a good idea:)

[PhilHunt]

Whatever else you take up doing,it is going to take a deep,lifetime devotion and interest into the subject to get into the position you can competently discuss something publicly.And you need to experience things before you can really get a grasp of them.Even if you're a plumber for example,you'll need years of work before you can tell that you can competently and successfully deal with most of the plumbing problems you come across.

Can I just say, that is a load of bullshit Dante. The last plumber who came to my house was sure no expert with years of experience. Rather, he was a migrant worker who had stumbled into the trade with a rudimentary knowledge of piping, but he managed the job ok :)

When politicians talk about the economy, do you really think they are experts in that field? No, they have advisors and researchers and scriptwriters to aid them. Sometimes these people make slip-ups and feed the politician false or misguided information. I don't see Bono as any different in this. He is not claiming to be an expert in the field, but I hope he talks to people who are, and I hope that the people he speaks to are less politically biased than those that a politician may have to talk with.

Regarding the situation in Sarajevo, many years ago, about 1995, I was involved in installing a huge international art event in Istanbul. At this time artists from Sarajevo were very high profile and were included in the show. Their work was trying to represent the hell they were living through, but the thing that struck me the most was how little anger there was in their work; much of it was in fact very funny. For a brief time their work was shown internationally, I caught it at the Edinburgh festival and numerous London shows, and this went some way to raising awareness of the situation. However, if you take a cynical view you could say that these artists only profited on the misery of the situation and the galleries lined their own pockets by showing the latest trend. I prefer to take the positive view. I'll try to dig out the catalogue and see if I can find the names of some of the artists, be interesting to see what's happened to them.

[dante]

Can I say Phil Hunt that to explain something to you is after devising perpetuum mobile the next most difficult thing the human can hope to do:)

[PhilHunt]

My word, you are in an insulting frame of mind these days. Have you been sniffing the newsprint again?