Ronnie Wood Rejects Bono's 'Pointless' Do-Gooding
"Save the world" organizations shouldn’t count on Ronnie Wood for support. The Rolling Stones guitarist took aim at Bono and Bob Geldof for their international aid efforts, saying it was pointless.
The 59-year-old also said all he wanted to do was entertain people.
He stormed: "I would never go into politics like Bono. Geldof and him can keep trying until the end of the earth but it won't make a difference."
He added: "I like to make people happy. Politics doesn't do that. Art does."
First off, genius, it’s not politics - it’s humanitarian aid. (And yes, politics are involved, but it’s clear Bono doesn’t care if you’re conservative or liberal as long as you’ll help the cause... and pose for a photo op.) Second, being an artist and an activist aren’t mutually exclusive. Some people are capable of doing both. Third, it’s been a long time since you’ve made relevant "art."
However, I imagine he’ll support Bono and Sir Bob just fine if they shell out the dough him to perform at charity gigs.
It’s been quite an uncensored week for Ronnie. In a different interview he also abuses his bandmates for not wanting to tear up the town.
The veteran rocker - who recently announced he would play live concerts "until he dropped" - hit out at fellow members Mick Jagger, 63, Charlie Watts, 65, and 62-year-old Keith Richard because they don't want to party with him anymore.
He told Britain's Daily Mirror newspaper: "They can't f***ing take it.
"They always have to go home to rest. They leave all the f***ing partying up to me."
Come to think of it, Wood is pretty entertaining.
Katherine Harris is a political columnist's wet dream (though certainly not in any literal interpretation of the phrase.) She's like the Tara Reid of the modern political world, with questionable fashion choices and little to no sense of propriety, or any sign of overt intelligence. Her utterly partisan and despicable performance during the 2000 election debacle in Florida elevated her to a prime target for progressives, and her disastrous Senate campaign have kept her in the headlines long after her fifteen minutes should have expired.
Now she's back in the headlines after having stuck her foot her in her mouth yet again with some truly inspired words about our government.
Separation of church and state is "a lie we have been told," Harris said in the interview, published Thursday, saying separating religion and politics is "wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers."
"If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin," Harris said.
Forget the patently offensive nature of these remarks - they're also entirely illogical. If, as she claims, God chooses who wins our elections, then what exactly is the purpose of asking the voters who they're going to pick? How can one reconcile the notions of predestination (to the Senate) and elected, representative democracy? It seems contradictory to think that the people are making the choices (which is, you know, the foundation of democratic philosophy) when they've already been made for them.
Harris was absolutely shocked that people could have interpreted her comments as being anything but a statement of her commitment to values though, as her campaign explained.
Harris' campaign released a statement Saturday saying she had been "speaking to a Christian audience, addressing a common misperception that people of faith should not be actively involved in government."
The comments reflected "her deep grounding in Judeo-Christian values," the statement said, adding that Harris had previously supported pro-Israel legislation and legislation recognizing the Holocaust.
Nice straw man, Harris. I'd love to see which political figures have claimed that "people of faith should not be actively involved in government." Because I can't think of any, and it's not a plank in the platforms of any national political party fielding candidates this year that I'm aware of. Opposition to a theocracy, which incidentally is what she's advocating, isn't quite the same thing as preventing religious people from partcipating in government. Acknowledgement of the existence of God is virtually a prerequisite for running for any political office of consequence in the US, so it's not exactly like people with professed religious faith are not getting elected. Harris, however, will almost certainly not be one of them.
