Protestors at the G8 summit made a lot of noise and were promptly ignored by the attendees. Another group of people that were promptly ignored were the organizers of the giant charity concerts . While many millions were entertained by the live 8 concert(s) very few took the time to sign the online petition. I say what did they expect? People attend these concerts to hear music not necessarily to support the cause. I don't understand why entertainers feel they can solve all the worlds problems by doing a charity event. Criticisms of faluire aside at least Live Aid raised real money. Live 8 is supposed to do what? Raise awareness and pressure leaders into increasing aid and cutting third world debt. It will most likely be a misguided failure. And according to polls it looks like most people agree. The world leaders, hopefully, are going to do make their decisions based on the advise of their advisors that are paid big bucks to sit down and weigh the facts and make informed decisions. I'm certain that none of them are going to be swayed Bono and company. In general I'm sick of entertainers thinking they can save the world by singing or speaking out against prescription drugs.

So what was the point of Live 8. Well, I suggest that it was to raise money. Unfortunately not to fight poverty but for the entertainers and big businesses. How can you have a "free" charity concert that is distributed "on demand and only on AOL" and on MTV presented by Vonage, via phone by Sun Microsystems and USA Wireless. Live 8 is sponsored by AOL, Nokia, Capital Radio, O2, Sun Microsystems, and USA Wireless. They are getting publicity and so are the entertainers. At least most of these sponsors are being couth about it but I was almost floored this morning when I heard a commercial touting "watch this historic charity event exclusively on AOL." Does anyone else see this as a little less then completely altruistic?