Okay, I'm sorry, but Bono is the one who's infuriating.

What's all this bullshit about calling Paul Martin infuriating anyways? I mean, personally, I think what the PM is saying is logical.

Bono's been going on and on ad nauseum, pushing Canada to commit 0.7% of our GDP to foreign aid 'cause right now, we only spend about 0.26%.

Okay, look --- I'm not saying that we shouldn't do that, but what Martin said about not making any promises because he wants to commit to small increases that he knows he can afford was logical and sensible. What's the point of making bullshit promises that you can't afford to make good on?

If anything, I applaud Martin for being upfront and honest and sticking to what he knows is feasible.

It's all good and well for the likes of Bono and Bob Geldof to come riding in and telling the G8 leaders that this is what we should do to wipe out poverty...and it's a worthy, admirable cause that we really do need to do something about...but I think Martin's the only one who's looking at things in a realistic light. And come on --- he's the one who's running a country. What do Bono and Bob Geldof know about that?

Dumping more money's not going to wipe out poverty in Africa right away. Geldof has acknowledged this. This sort of thing takes time and money's not the catch-all solution.

What really irritated me was when Bono called Martin's unwillingness to make promises he can't keep "very frustrating and annoying and infuriating."

Um, yeah.

I think that Martin's being honest, at least --- which isn't something you can say about a lot of politicians.

Martin flat out said, "We will ultimately (reach) the 0.7%, but we're nto going to do it...until we can basically say to Canadians, 'Here's how we're doing it and here's when we're going to do it and there are no caveats and conditions."

*

Geez.

And here I was, thinking on Americans got all patriotic and shit.

London Underground Explosions

"It is particularly barbaric this has happened on a day when people are meeting to try to help the problems of poverty in Africa," British Prime Minister Tony Blair said from the G8 summit in response to the series of London explosions.

That, more than anything else that's been said in the media, was the most poignant thing said of all.

Someone had sent me an e-mail earlier this morning with pictures taken by Pulitzer Prize-winning photojournalist, Kevin Carter, who took his life shortly after winning the prize in 1994.

The e-mail, sent en-masse to a whole bunch of people, read, "The next time you feel like complaining..." and then featured the following pictures:









If Live 8 did its job right, then it should have mobilized millions of people all across the world to press for real change so that these kinds of photos wouldn't have to exist anymore.

But then you've got mentally unbalanced extremist groups pulling shit like this in London, eager to divide people, to spread hate, to inject more violence and senselessness in the world...and you have to wonder why so many people don't see the bigger picture...don't understand that if you're religious and you truly love God, taht you would be working towards helping people like those who are featured in Kevin Carter's mind-numbing pictures instead of going out and killing them.

But seriously, do you think those fantatic, can't-think-rationally-for-themselves little shits from Al Qaeda actually give a fuck? We're talking about crazy extremists who are too intellectually-inferior to form semi-coherent thoughts or understand what it's like to be moral. Instead, they chalk every vile thing that they do in "the name of God" as if God doesn't have anything better to do than to instruct people to blow themselves up and kill innocent people.

The BBC reported that a statement was issued by Al-Qaeda, claiming responsibility for the London bombings, and of course, they start off their statement praising God.

Get this: the exact wording is, "In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate, may peace be upon the cheerful one and undaunted figter, Prophet Muhammad, God's peace be upon him."

How do you go from exalting a "cheerful, merciful and compassionate" God to sending out some clueless idiot who doesn't have the brain power to realize that, "Hey, maybe blowing myself up for nothing ISN'T such a hot idea?" to go out and kill people.

It just doesn't make any sense.

But then again, when we're talking about Al Qaeda, nothing makes sense. We're talking about people who twist religous texts to suit their purpose; who don't have the faintest inkling or understanding of what Islam actually preaches; who are too intellectually inferior to see the morally repugnanancy of their actions.

It gives us all a reason to fear for this world.

Commentary From Local Africans

Forget about all of the reviews devoted to the live8 concerts the next day.

The most interesting article I came across was the Toronto Star's Alejandro Bustos, who interviewed several Africans who are now living in the greater Toronto area.

Munyonzwe Hamalengwa, a Toronto-based lawyer from Zambia, said, "What live8 is doing is making the Western world feel good. But it will have no impact ont he ground because corruption will continue."

Kobena Acquaah-Harrison, a musician and media producer born in Ghana, said that while the live8 concerts did a good job of raising awareness about Africa, it's not going to do anything to help eliminate poverty unless there's major changes in the world trading system.

What was advocated by Obert Madondo, a native of Zimbabwe and board member of CAP AIDS?

Send money directly to grassroots groups.

In other news sources floating around the web, it's been reported that in Britain, the extensive publicity around winning live8 tickets through a text competition has netted $5 million --- but none of that was slated for Africa.

When a friend and I were discussing the flaws surrounding live8, we were more focused on the intentions of the people in the crowd.

Someone had told me that it was silly to worry about what the intentions of all those concert-goers were.

But is it silly?

We're talking about mobilizing people to demand the beginnings of real change for some of the most impoverished nations in the world.

If all those concert-goers were there just to see a free concert, then yes, live8 was really, really flawed. It wound up being nothing more than a grand old party. The intention of Geldof went to waste.

But if all of those concert-goers were there to make a real difference and every one of those people will actually move forward and demand change in the event that the G8 leaders decide NOT to cancel Third World debt...then, yes, live8 was a marvelous grassroots initiative.

And in the end? I hope that the latter proves to be true.

More On Live8

Had a discussion with someone about how flawed live8 was.

Bob Geldof made it pretty clear that live8 was all about bringing "populist pressure" on a group of eight world leaders to make a difference --- to cancel Third World debt and to make global trade more fair. Geldof said he wasn't interested in our money --- he just wanted our voice.

Trouble is --- most of those people who went to a live8 concert was there for a big old party to see celebs for free.

If I had a discussion with Geldof, I'm pretty sure I know what he'll tell me --- that any money that could have been raised by the live8 concerts wouldn't have had any lasting impact on the lives of millions of dying Africans.

True.

But the money that could have been raised if we'd charged just one fucking dollar for every single wanker who showed up at a concert could have gone towards sending a kid to school.

Wasn't that what Brad Pitt was talking about in that Diane Sawyer interview? That we could send a kid to school on less than the cost of one cup of coffee?

Then why not do it?

Does Geldof REALLY think that all those millions of people out there at one of the concerts were there for the right reasons?

I don't have that much faith.

If I was organizing the event, I would have still been standing at the entrance, with my palm outstretched, asking for more than $1 a ticket and turned around and used it to build homes.

Sure, it wouldn't have been enough to stamp out poverty once and for all and it wouldn't have done anything to eradicate poverty in ALL of Africa --- no, that's the job of the G8 leaders when they meet three days from now. But the couple of million dollars that could have been raised? It would have made life a little bit better for a few people, at least.

Live 8 Concert

I was pretty pissed when some guy basically said I was being silly, worrying about the intentions of all those concert-goers for the live8 concert.

"Does it matter? Sure it'd be nice if all the good done in the world was entirely altruistic but saving kids from hunger is saving kids from hunger. A meal provided by someone who thought the Live 8 would be a cool concert is just the same as a meal provided by someone who wanted to stop hunger. It just seems silly to me to be worrying about the intentions of the crowd when so much good is being done," he wrote in my Livejournal.

I thought he was either incredibly naive or incredibly stupid.

Does he really think that a huge, international concert is going to save kids from hunger?

Sure, maybe it'll provoke discussion among the G8 leaders about whether they ought to cancel Third World debt, but ultimately, it's their decision that will lead to the eventual eradication of death by hunger.

And what happens if they decide not to eliminate debt and make trade laws fairer?

How long has extreme poverty been killing Africans? Are you telling me that it's only beginning to sink in now that a child dies of poverty every three seconds?

The intentions of the crowd matters in the end --- whether they're in it to see a cool, free concert that'll go down in music history as one of the greatest concerts ever staged or if they're all really in it to make a difference and to put an end to poverty as the concerts were intended to do.

Yes. It does matter what the intention of the crowd is...because after this concert's over and done with, the intentions of all these millions of people who've managed to get into a Live 8 concert will have a direct impact on what happens next.

What happens if our world leaders decide, "Nah. We'd still like our money back?" What happens, then?

What I'm wondering about is if the intention of the concert --- which is to mobilize millions of people to demand their governments cancel Third World debt --- will amount to anything.

Because, in the end, it's about 8 people deciding to do this...and what if they don't? Will all of these millions of people who've gone to the concert actually mobilize to do something about it? Because, in the end, if their intentions are to just see a great concert, then this will have amounted to nothing. Just millions of lucky bastards who got to see well-intentioned musicians perform for free.

It's not enough for us to get a cheap thrill from watching our favourite singers perform on stage. This will do nothing --- on it's own, anyways --- to put food on a kid's table.

Ultimately, the intention of this crowd does matter, because if our governments don't do anything, what happens next? Most of us will forget about this issue the way we've already forgotten about the victims of the tsunami. It's the same thing highlighted in that movie, "Hotel Rwanda" where Don Cheadle's character gets hopeful after he sees jaded TV reporter, Joaquin Phoenix, shooting footage of the war. Cheadle's character thinks that seeing all these horrible images will mobilze people to bring help to his war-striken nation.

Phoneix sets him straight and says, ''If people see this footage, they'll say, 'Oh my God, that's terrible,' and they'll go on eating their dinners.''

So.

In the end, if 8 world leaders in Scotland decide not to make trade laws more fair and not to cancel world debt, then the intentions of all those concert-goers becomes very important.

It comes down to this: what are we going to do about it?

Has the message been hammered into our heads? Are we going to stand up as a group and say no to these 8 world leaders and demand that they listen to us as a united front --- united by music, brought together to speak as one voice to demand that we work towards ending poverty?

Because, if we're not willing to do that, then all of this was just a waste of time and effort of idealistic people like Bono and Bob Geldorf, who actually believed that the sea of people they were looking out at from a stage were there because they were united by their belief that no child should die of hunger.

Tell me that all those concert-goers were united because of that reason and not because they got to see U2 and Coldplay perform for free.

Tell me that I don't need to worry about their intentions because this will lead to something great.

It's what I hope for --- to be proven that yes, the world can be united to make a huge difference.