Mr. Burd Goes to Washington

It's Steve Burd's eighth or ninth trip to Capitol Hill this year -- he can't quite remember. Sitting in a hotel lobby late last week, what the busy Safeway CEO does know is that by the end of this trip, he'll have told all 100 U.S. senators his company's health-care story. That alone might deserve applause.

As most of corporate America sits on the health-care sidelines -- issuing vague statements, trying not to offend a new U.S. president -- Mr. Burd has charged into the political debate. "I'm here because health-care simply isn't a partisan issue," he says. There is what works, and what doesn't. "I'm genuinely concerned someone might try to solve this by nationalizing health care, at the moment we at Safeway have proven that it is the market that reins in costs."

Prove it, he can. As recently as 2004, Safeway was suffocating under health-care costs growing at 10% a year. Mr. Burd, who had long been intellectually and politically drawn to the health-care issue, decided it was time to hit the restart button. He blew up the company's existing health-care structure and replaced it with one that embodied market principles -- choice, responsibility, competition and price.

Getty Images

Steve Burd (R), president and CEO of Safeway, testifies before Congress.

Today, Safeway has accomplished what Washington claims is the goal: The company's per-capita health-care expenses have remained flat, compared to the near 40% increase experienced by the rest of corporate America over the past four years. This has not been done by cutting care or shifting costs to employees. Nearly 80% of the 30,000 nonunion Safeway workers who take part in the program rate it good, very good, or excellent.

Magic? Not even. Mr. Burd explains that the "cure for today's ills is simply removing the obstacles to a free health-care market."

The Safeway plan has two main parts that work in tandem. The first involves giving employees a financial stake in the system. Safeway demolished the traditional PPOs and HMOs that encourage consumers to be cavalier about costs. The company today fully pays for an array of primary and preventive visits and tests. But beyond that, employees have skin in the game. The company deposits $1,000 each year into a "health reimbursement account," which workers can use to pay for care. The next $1,000 in expenses is the employee's responsibility. After that, employees pay 20% of costs up to a $4,000 maximum.

Safeway workers these days treat that first $1,000 carefully, since anything beyond it comes out of their pockets. The company is alive with stories of people who no longer visit the emergency room for routine care but instead call around to doctors to ask prices, and swap information with colleagues. Safeway is doing its part to improve price transparency, by having its care administrator, Cigna, analyze claims information. One discovery was that within 30 minutes of its California headquarters routine colonoscopy prices ranged from $700 to $7,000. By the end of the year, employees will be able to go on a Web site, punch in a zip code, and get a list of providers and costs.

The second part of Safeway's plan was an embrace of the obvious: Healthy people cost less. Mr. Burd notes that 75% of health-care costs are the result of four conditions -- cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity. The majority of these are preventable. "Obesity in this country went from 18% to 40% in 20 years -- this is not genetics, this is behavior," he explains. He says that an obese employee can require 10 times the number of doctor visits in a year than someone of healthy weight.

The result was Safeway's "Healthy Measures" program, which is voluntary. Employees are tested for smoking, weight, blood pressure and cholesterol. Every area they "pass" results in a reduction in their premium, of as much as $1,560 for a family, a year. Those who fail but prove progress can get refunds. Safeway complements this with an intense culture of health: weight-loss tips, fitness competitions and smoking cessation programs.

Critics of price incentives argue that they pressure consumers to forego necessary care. Mr. Burd counters that Healthy Measures and the company's free preventive care -- designed to catch problems before they become expensive -- have in fact resulted in a healthier work force. Safeway's smoking and obesity rates are roughly 70% the national average. The program has even been cautiously greeted by Safeway's union leaders, who understand that soaring health costs are eating into union wages.

When I ask Mr. Burd what he hopes to accomplish here, he is blunt that one goal is to prevent a "public option" that would only "piggyback on the experience of Medicare." It's a "Trojan Horse" that will steer people to government and ultimately squeeze out innovative programs like his.

He's also working to ensure that any health-care bill contains provisions that would replicate or encourage Safeway's success. That includes changing current law so that he can offer even steeper premium discounts for good behavior. It also includes his idea to make available Medicare's vast database of providers and costs so Americans can shop around. An optimist, Mr. Burd says he's had "extraordinary receptivity" from both sides of the aisle.

As for his fellow CEOs, Mr. Burd is eager to debate anyone who thinks he will escape costs by dumping health care on the government. Business will still be taxed to pay for the program, making the U.S. less competitive. Far better, says Mr. Burd, for companies to control their destiny, and prove markets can also work for health care. We're about to find out if Washington will let them.

Write to kim@wsj.com

Market-based solutions can reduce the national health-care bill by 40%.

By STEVEN A. BURD

Effective health-care reform must meet two objectives: 1) It must secure coverage for all Americans, and 2) it must dramatically lower the cost of health care. Health-care spending has outpaced the rise in all other consumer spending by nearly a factor of three since 1980, increasing to 18% of GDP in 2009 from 9% of GDP. This disturbing trend will not change regardless of who pays these costs -- government or the private sector -- unless we can find a way to improve the health of our citizens. Failure to do so will make American companies less competitive in the global marketplace, increase taxes, and undermine our economy.

At Safeway we believe that well-designed health-care reform, utilizing market-based solutions, can ultimately reduce our nation's health-care bill by 40%. The key to achieving these savings is health-care plans that reward healthy behavior. As a self-insured employer, Safeway designed just such a plan in 2005 and has made continuous improvements each year. The results have been remarkable. During this four-year period, we have kept our per capita health-care costs flat (that includes both the employee and the employer portion), while most American companies' costs have increased 38% over the same four years.

Martin Kozlowski

Safeway's plan capitalizes on two key insights gained in 2005. The first is that 70% of all health-care costs are the direct result of behavior. The second insight, which is well understood by the providers of health care, is that 74% of all costs are confined to four chronic conditions (cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity). Furthermore, 80% of cardiovascular disease and diabetes is preventable, 60% of cancers are preventable, and more than 90% of obesity is preventable.

As much as we would like to take credit for being a health-care innovator, Safeway has done nothing more than borrow from the well-tested automobile insurance model. For decades, driving behavior has been correlated with accident risk and has therefore translated into premium differences among drivers. Stated somewhat differently, the auto-insurance industry has long recognized the role of personal responsibility. As a result, bad behaviors (like speeding, tickets for failure to follow the rules of the road, and frequency of accidents) are considered when establishing insurance premiums. Bad driver premiums are not subsidized by the good driver premiums.

As with most employers, Safeway's employees pay a portion of their own health care through premiums, co-pays and deductibles. The big difference between Safeway and most employers is that we have pronounced differences in premiums that reflect each covered member's behaviors. Our plan utilizes a provision in the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act that permits employers to differentiate premiums based on behaviors. Currently we are focused on tobacco usage, healthy weight, blood pressure and cholesterol levels.

Safeway's Healthy Measures program is completely voluntary and currently covers 74% of the insured nonunion work force. Employees are tested for the four measures cited above and receive premium discounts off a "base level" premium for each test they pass. Data is collected by outside parties and not shared with company management. If they pass all four tests, annual premiums are reduced $780 for individuals and $1,560 for families. Should they fail any or all tests, they can be tested again in 12 months. If they pass or have made appropriate progress on something like obesity, the company provides a refund equal to the premium differences established at the beginning of the plan year.

At Safeway, we are building a culture of health and fitness. The numbers speak for themselves. Our obesity and smoking rates are roughly 70% of the national average and our health-care costs for four years have been held constant. When surveyed, 78% of our employees rated our plan good, very good or excellent. In addition, 76% asked for more financial incentives to reward healthy behaviors. We have heard from dozens of employees who lost weight, lowered their blood-pressure and cholesterol levels, and are enjoying better health because of this program. Many discovered for the first time that they have high blood pressure, and others have been told by their doctor that they have added years to their life.

Today, we are constrained by current laws from increasing these incentives. We reward plan members $312 per year for not using tobacco, yet the annual cost of insuring a tobacco user is $1,400. Reform legislation needs to raise the federal legal limits so that incentives can better match the true incremental benefit of not engaging in these unhealthy behaviors. If these limits are appropriately increased, I am confident Safeway's per capita health-care costs will decline for at least another five years as our work force becomes healthier.

The Healthy Measures program currently applies only to our nonunion work force. While we have numerous health and wellness provisions in our union contracts, we are working with union leaders like Joe Hansen of the United Food and Commercial Workers to incorporate healthy measures provisions in our union work force as well.

While comprehensive health-care reform needs to address a number of other key issues, we believe that personal responsibility and financial incentives are the path to a healthier America. By our calculation, if the nation had adopted our approach in 2005, the nation's direct health-care bill would be $550 billion less than it is today. This is almost four times the $150 billion that most experts estimate to be the cost of covering today's 47 million uninsured. The implication is that we can achieve health-care reform with universal coverage and declining per capita health-care costs.

There is a very real possibility that we will see positive transformational health-care reform in the near future. I am encouraged by the effort I see on Capitol Hill, particularly the bipartisan effort in the Senate. While some tough issues remain, if we continue to work in a bipartisan manner I believe we will resolve these issues successfully and find agreement on meaningful reform.

Mr. Burd is CEO of Safeway Inc., and the founder of the Coalition to Advance Healthcare Reform.

Obama’s New Liberal Realism

President Obama has largely drawn praise for his tepid response to the mass uprisings in Iran challenging the reelection of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In general, Obama has offered three justifications for his tentativeness — and they have strangely been accepted by his supporters, who almost immediately evolved in lockstep from liberal Wilsonians to hardcore realists.

Here are Obama’s three justifications:

1. Given the historical record of U.S. intervention in Iran, we do not wish either to perpetuate that shameful record, or to hang on the necks of the dissidents the smelly albatross of U.S. support.

2. We don’t know which side will emerge triumphant. Supporting losers in the street will only antagonize the Ahmadinejad regime and render Obama’s ongoing diplomatic overtures null and void.

3. There is not much difference anyway between the agendas of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and those of his challengers, led by Mir-Hossein Mousavi Khameneh. No matter who wins, Iran will still have an overtly anti-American government bent on acquiring nuclear weapons. Why then incur further hostility for a response that would bring no advantage anyway?

There are a number of things wrong with all this — well aside from the strange spectacle of seeing once-fervent liberal critics of old-style Kissingerian realism suddenly espousing Barack Obama’s kinder, gentler version of it.

1. The coup that unseated Mohammad Mossadeq was in 1953 — nearly six decades ago. Its details are still controversial: the proportional degree of CIA intervention compared to that of the British, the role of fundamentalist clerics in the opposition, the degree to which Mossadeq himself entertained authoritarian measures, and so on. What Kermit Roosevelt Jr. did or did not do as the CIA officer in charge, what were the actual intentions of the Mossadeq government in the Soviet-American Cold War rivalry — all of that is all now in the distant past.

Blaming America for undermining Mossadeq but not blaming it for later undermining the Shah is about as logical as claiming we must hold the current generations of Japanese accountable for Pearl Harbor, or that German actions in World War II permanently warped the American psyche, or that the Chinese Communists’ butchering thousands of Americans in Korea must be held against current generations of Chinese. At some point, all nations, big and small, need to get a life and move on. Of course, when one rushes in and blabbers out apologies without context, then one becomes a prisoner of those past actions — we are to be sorry about Iran then and so must be sorry ever after.

Iran, remember, has no such reluctance about meddling. It endorsed Bush in the 2004 presidential race — to the delight of the Kerry campaign. For six years, it has tried to murder Americans in Iraq and destabilize the Iraqi democracy. It has killed Americans in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, and done its best to thwart democratic government in Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Iraq. How odd that Iranian theocrats have no worries about violently overthrowing democracy abroad, while we are terrified of supporting democracy by words alone.

Criticizing the Ahmadinejad government for its election fraud and its response to peaceful demonstrations is not synonymous with crudely egging on street demonstrations. Reagan found a way to voice support for the Polish resistance to Soviet thuggery. Kennedy made sure that the Berliners knew that we believed they were right and the Soviet-sponsored East German Communists wrong.

In contrast, Ford’s calculated snub of Solzhenitsyn brought no gratitude from the Soviets, but plenty of shame to America. The elder Bush’s allegiance to Gorbachev over Yeltsin was finally embarrassing, and was rendered obsolete almost before it was embraced. To the extent that George W. Bush spoke out against autocracy in the Gulf and Egypt, he was to be praised, and some liberalization followed; but to the extent that he grew quiet in his second term, we were branded as hypocrites for supporting freedom in Iraq but not elsewhere in the Arab world.

Support for the reformers can be framed in terms of shared criticism of what we and they oppose, rather than clumsy cheering for their own agenda.

2. Voicing careful and wise support for the challenge to Ahmadinejad’s thuggery can influence events. That’s why the European Union is well ahead of us in its condemnation of the Iranian election fraud and subsequent crackdown.

Ahmadinejad is going to blame the U.S. whatever it does. He rightly sized up the new administration and realized there is now an American government that will apologize for the CIA’s actions in 1953, but not ask Iran to apologize for its deplorable record in Iraq from 2003 to 2009. So it is a one-way street with Iran, and it’s better to be damned for voicing criticism than for being afraid to voice criticism.

The Iranian theocrats are realists par excellence; they do not give a damn about ideals or morality, and will deal with us in the future on their perception of their own self-interest: whether or not we “meddle” now, if they find it useful to talk in the future, they will; if they find it of no value to talk in the future, they won’t.

3. Obama’s third assumption makes even less sense than the first two. Mousavi may be a past supporter of Khomeinism, as are ostensibly all Iranian politicians. But he is not on a moral or even a practical par with Ahmadinejad. He has already voiced criticism of Holocaust denial, and has called for freer expression and communication, and for liberalization of Iranian theocratic law. In other words, he is a type of multicultural “other” who is a rational opponent of U.S. policy, but whom Obama actually could court.

Furthermore, the crowds seem already to have transcended Mousavi, seeing in him more a tool than a totem, hoping that his election would lead to far more liberalization than even he intended. One of the reasons Gorbachev was welcomed by Reagan was that he began to initiate change that would soon render Gorbachev himself obsolete. The same may well be true with Mousavi.

In conclusion, we are seeing a new multicultural realism in American foreign policy — the result of a number of currents in our popular culture. We do not judge the authoritarian “other” in the same way in which we judge authoritarian conservatives abroad who ape Westernism.

There is also a weird sort of multicultural fantasy about cleric-ruled Iran, fueled by the non-Western dress of its elites, the constant evocation of 1953 (ironically by fundamentalists whose forefathers approved of Mossadeq’s removal), and its serial Hollywood-like denunciation of America. Ahmadinejad brilliantly ties into the Che effect, which makes his blood-curdling remarks about Israel’s end about as disturbing to American public opinion as the fact that Che himself was a cold-blooded killer who executed the innocent with his own hands. Add it all up and we get a reprise of Bill Clinton at Davos in 2005 gushing on about Iranian democracy and its progressives, as if a rigged plebiscite overseen by a group of unshaven dictators in Nehru-like coats is somehow neat.

Iraq explains a lot — and provides the greatest irony of all. We wish not to meddle in Iran in order to encourage real democracy there, but we accept Iranian meddling intended to destroy Iraqi democracy. We reach out to the Shiite thug Ahmadinejad in Iran, but not to the Shiite moderate Maliki in Iraq. We feel so guilty about promoting Iraqi democracy that we won’t aid its budding counterpart in nearby Iran. We are so wedded to the canard that the removal of Saddam removed the counterweight to Iran and empowered the clerics that we cannot see the existence of Iraqi democracy as a great catalyst to the democratic forces in Iran, undermining the theocracy more with words than Iran could undermine the Iraqi democracy with guns.

Then, of course, there is Obama and his quest for a global messianic rather than an American presidential role. So far it pays to be Hamas and the Palestine Authority rather than Israel, Chávez rather than Uribe, Ahmadinejad rather than Maliki, Putin rather than an Eastern European elected prime minister, a Turkish Islamist rather than a Greek elected prime minister. The former all gain attention by their hostility, the latter earn neglect by their moderation and generally pro-American views. Praising Islam abroad is a lot more catchy than praising democracy — one boldly inspires Bush’s critics, the other sheepishly dovetails with Bush’s agenda. All that, in varying degrees, also explains the troubling neglect of the Iranians in the street.

One mystery remains: Does Obama do this because the squeaky problem gets the attention, or does he really empathize with the tired anti-colonial, anti-imperialist, and anti-capitalist refrain of those who used to be considered hostile?

Our Historically Challenged President

Understanding the Age of Obama

Are you confused by all that has changed since President Barack Obama took office in January? If so, you're not alone. Perhaps, though, this handy guide to Age of Obama "logic" might be of some assistance.

1. The Budget. Wanting to cut $17 billion from the budget, as President Obama has promised, is proof of financial responsibility. Borrowing $1.84 trillion this year for new programs is "stimulus." The old phrase "out-of-control spending" is inoperative.

2. Unemployment. The number of jobs theoretically saved, or created, by new government policies - not the actual percentage of Americans out of work, or the total number of jobs lost - is now the far better indicator of unemployment.

3. The Private Sector. Nationalizing much of the auto and financial industries, while regulating executive compensation, is an indication of our new government's repeatedly stated reluctance to interfere in the private sector.

4. Race and Gender. Not what is said but who says it and about whom reveals racism and sexism. For example, an Hispanic female judge isn't being offensive if she states that Latinas are inherently better judges than white males.

5. Random violence. Some assassinations represent larger American pathologies, but others do not. When a crazed lone gunman murders someone outside the Holocaust Museum or shoots an abortion doctor, we should worry about growing right-wing and Christian extremism. But when an African-American Muslim convert brags about his murder of a military recruitment officer or an Islamic group plots to kill Jews and blow up a military jet, these are largely isolated incidents without larger relevance.

6. Terrorism. Acts of terror disappeared about six months ago. Thankfully, we live now in an age where there will be - in the new vocabulary of the Obama administration - only occasional "overseas contingency operations" in which we may be forced to hold a few "detainees." At the same time, ongoing military tribunals, renditions, wiretaps, phone intercepts and predator-drone assassinations are no longer threats to the Constitution. And just saying you're going to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay is proof that it is almost closed.

7. Iraq. The once-despised Iraq war thankfully ended around Jan. 20, 2009, and has now transformed into a noble experiment that is fanning winds of change throughout the Middle East. There will be no need for any more Hollywood cinema exposés of American wartime crimes in Iraq with titles like "Rendition," "Redacted," "Lions for Lambs" and "Stop-Loss."

8. The West. Western values and history aren't apparently that special or unique. As President Obama told the world during his recent speech in Cairo, the Renaissance and Enlightenment were, in fact, fueled by a brilliant Islamic culture, responsible for landmark discoveries in mathematics, science and medicine. Slavery in America ended without violence. Mistreatment of women and religious intolerance in the Middle East have comparable parallels in America.

9. Media. The media are disinterested and professional observers of the present administration. When television anchormen and senior magazine editors bow to the president, proclaim him a god or feel tingling in the legs when he speaks, it is quite normal.

10. George W. Bush. Former President Bush did all sorts of bad things to the United States that only now we are learning will take at least eight years to sort out. "Bush did it" for the next decade will continue to explain the growing unemployment rate, the most recent deficit, the new round of tensions with Iran and North Korea, and the growing global unrest from the Middle East to South America.

Once we remember and accept the logic of the above, then almost everything about this Age of Obama begins to make perfect sense.

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and author, most recently, of "A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War." You can reach him by e-mailing author@victorhanson.com.

Inc: Who are the five most influential entrepreneurs of the past 30 years?

Bono

Bono is illustrative of the broadening role in society for entrepreneurs. Through his organization, ONE, he has helped to persuade governments to forgive $100 billion worth of debt. Like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, he has used his expertise, his fame, and his contacts to make some truly impressive gains.

Bono - a case for the defence

The latest issue of The Word magazine has a picture of Bono on the cover, with the headline ‘Superstar saviour or sanctimonious git? Bono On Trial: A WORD investigation.’

Of course, it is no such thing. An investigation would suggest a genuine issue and a serious journalistic attempt to get to the bottom of it. It is just an attention grabbing headline yolking together some skimpy reminiscences of encounters with the rock star by Word magazine regulars, some axe grinding by familiar Bono bashers and a bit of ranting diatribe by a couple of obscure freelancers who presumably glad of the soap box. With well rehearsed anecdotes U2 watchers will have heard many times before, we learn, well, that Bono is short (its amazing the number of journalists who mention this, as if size explains everything, from Napoleon and Hitler’s desire to conquer Europe to Prince’s musical drive and Tom Cruise’s box office clout. It’s the pygmy theory of megalomania, of which anyone less than 5′ 8″ is automatically suspected), that he is extremely charming, driven and ambitious and that some people don’t like him. Eammon Forde (who he?) doesn’t like him because Bono ruined his teenage years, apparently, by being in a successful Irish band in the 80s when Eammon would have rather there had been a different successful Irish band . Hmm. I think we all have a band like that in our teenage subconscious, Eammon. “Get over it,” is the usual adult response. Hazel Davis (who she?) says he can’t really sing, but then uses nothing to support this apart from insults (she doesn’t tell us which rock singers she thinks can “sing”, or why “singing” matters, and where, say, Bob Dylan, Leonard Cohen, Lou Reed, Tom Waits, Nick Cave, Pete Doherty fit in her particular scale of measuring vocal accomplishment. I have a soul loving amigo who pretty much thinks no rock vocalists can sing, but at least he puts up a structured argument). Dave Marsh (now, I have come across him, because the complete failure of celebrity politics is one of his hobby horses, which he can argue cogently and passionately, although he doesn’t really get into it here, instead trading in insults and trotting out one hugely controversial survival-of-the-fittest African economist, Dambisa Moyo, to support his vague assertion that “Africans” complain Bono speaks for them without so much as asking their permission). Laura Barton concludes this 9 page feature with a kind of vague concern that Bono’s politicking may be driven more by narcissism than philanthropy. She’s not sure, mind you. It’s just a bit of a nagging notion. Now, I really like Laura’s writing about music because she approaches her subjects in an original, poetic, emotional, almost touchy-feely fashion, but as a witness for the prosecution she’s about as damning as Mr Magoo at an identity parade. And that’s about it. If only all trials were conducted in such a random, anecdotal and highly opinionated fashion, with so little recourse to the facts, and no opportunity to answer back.

Now I like Word magazine, and I like the people who make it, but they should be embarrassed about this. It reeks of something cobbled together at the last minute because they didn’t have a suitably heavyweight cover star. The fact that they thought it was a good idea is indicative of the place Bono now occupies in popular culture.

At the height of Live8’s ‘Make Poverty History’ campaign, some wags made a bit of money on the side with a ‘Make Bono History’ t-shirt. For some, Bono is the greatest rock star of our times, to be celebrated as much for his idealism as his music. For others he is an insufferable bore, preaching about how we should live our lives. Perhaps more than any other rock star, he has become a divisive, love him or hate him figure. It is something of which he is well aware. “I’m sick of Bono,” is his standard line. “And I am him.”

It is no secret where I stand on this. I ghosted U2’s autobiography. I have known Bono a long time, and followed his band since my schooldays but every time I mention his name the anti-Bono brigade start sniping at me. I can be accused (and regularly am) of bias and even sycophancy yet I consider myself lucky to have had a front row seat at the gestation of one of the defining rock bands of our times, and I am sure I would feel the same way if it had been The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, The Smiths, Nirvana or Oasis. In terms of ticket and album sales, U2 are up there with the biggest bands of all time. In terms of cultural impact, their influence is all over modern rock, from the scale and imagination of their live presentation to the sonic tapestry of Edge’s guitars and producer Brian Eno’s synths. Many of the most popular rock bands of the moment (Coldplay, Kings of Leon and The Killers, amongst others) are unabashed in their devotion to U2, yet arguably their real influence is not so much musical as ideological. It is about commitment and passion, the notion that a band can stay together for thirty years or more with a work ethic that pushes them to forge music that is relevant, engaging with the pop charts and the wider world too.

Yet it is for the latter that Bono, in particular, is held in contempt. The roots of Bono’s activism lie in his Christian faith, the sense that he has to give something back in order to justify the privileges of his success. He is accused of asking people to dip into their own pockets when he lives a millionaire lifestyle but, in fact, his principal approach is to lobby for political change rather than call for charity. Behind the spotlights, his personal charitable commitments are significant, and critics might be surprised at the relatively modest scale of his family lifestyle. Indeed, his real engagement with Africa started when Bono and his wife did voluntary work at an Ethiopian orphanage during the 1985 famine, where he witnessed despair and heroism that left an indelible impression upon him. Bono acts because he is compelled to.

I have seen what he puts into this, how it possesses him, what it means to him, and the accusations of dilettantism or narcissism are so far wide of the mark as to be laughable. Is there ego involved? Of course, it would be absurd to pretend otherwise. Ego is part of the job description, it’s a necessary force to get someone on stage in front of a rock band in the first place. But it takes more than ego to put in the office hours that Bono does (at least two days a week, even when his full time job in U2 is in full swing). And the ego is reigned in by a palpable humility, a sense of being in service to others, his strong feeling that this is the price his God (not mine, by the way) asks of him in return for all the good things that have happened in his life. You can ask questions, as Dave Marsh regularly does, of the point of celebrity politicking, but the answers lie not in fatuous opinion about motivation, they lie in the math of investment and policy change. There are plenty of figures publicly available, particularly with regard to third world countries who have had billion dollar debts cancelled and have been able to put that money to work in health and education. If you are interested, you might take a look at Data co-founder Jamie Drummond’s comprehensive answer in 2007 to pernicious questions posed by Financial Times journalist Gideon Rachman, which I have copied here. Bono’s organisations, Data and Red work within an umbrella of established aid groups, and I don’t hear them complaining about his involvement. Bottom line, I always think, is that there are people around today, educated and healthy, who wouldn’t have been alive without his energy and commitment to their cause. He is putting in his own time and energy in an effort to make a difference. What exactly is the problem? That he annoys you?

I often hear people suggest that Bono would make his life easier if he wasn’t so in your face, constantly turning up in photo shoots with politicians and other wealthy movers and shakers, but that is his role as a lobbyist, his particular deal with the devil. He wants to get his organisations, packed with highly regarded economists and aid experts, an audience at the highest table, and the price he pays for that is to be the celebrity in the flashbulb, to submit to the photo op.

To ask Bono to reign himself in would be to go against his nature and dilute his impact. Back in the early days of U2 he created two characters to act out onstage, the Fool and the Boy. Only the latter made it onto record (in the songs for U2’s debut album, Boy) but the fool has often been called into service nonetheless. Bono is an optimistic, over enthusiastic, energetic character not afraid (as many in his profession are) of being too cool to make an idiot of himself (which is one reason the criticism of him is so ineffective, Bono has a thick skin). As the lead singer in a band, he considers it his job to jump around and make a big noise, to bang a drum, draw attention, fly a flag (sometimes literally), rally for the cause. He wants to make a difference and so he uses the best tool at his disposal: his fame, his passion, his talent. It is what makes him such a powerful irritant: he is in your ear (and the ears of world leaders) buzzing away, getting his message across.

The same spirit that drives Bono onstage drives U2 in the studio. And ultimately, politics is secondary, because without the music no one would be paying attention. While many of their contemporaries have either retired or retreated to a comfort zone of nostalgic hits, U2 constantly strive to create new work to rival their best, and in the process have had a run of sustained creativity and popularity that sets the bar for everyone in rock and roll (as to recent reports that their new album has been a flop, it currently stands at over three and a half million sales worldwide, not bad going in a peer 2 peer download era. And the tour hasn’t even started yet). Love them or hate them, Bono and U2 will be history when they no longer make music that engages our attention.

I am not suggesting Word are wrong to ask questions of Bono. But what, really, is the question? How about what kind of rock stars do we want? Idealists driven by passionate belief, who stand up to be counted, who try to make a difference, and who espouse the same ideals in their life as in their music? Colourful characters whose imaginative participation in the hurly burly of the world makes pop culture more interesting? Compassionate human beings who feel beholden to give something back for the immense privileges they receive? Or shallow self-interested showbusiness celebrities who never stick their heads above the political parapets for fear that it will get shot off?

There are plenty of the latter, you can see them on magazine covers every day. There is only one Bono. And I’ve got a question for Word and all the other Bono critics who seem to be so offended by his existence. What does it say about them, that the rock star they would put on trial is the one who is making the most effort to do some good in the world?

NMC

Bikers take a 'Revolutionary Ramble' around Morris; Event raises money for local rescue squads

STAFF PHOTO: ELBALIZ MENDEZ

Jessica Giorgianni, who works in Parsippany, attaches her name tag to the back of her bicycle before the Revolutionary Ramble Bicycle Tour that started in Madison on Saturday.

More than 500 bicyclists christened the first Revolutionary Ramble on Saturday and traveled varying routes around Morris County to raise money for 13 local emergency rescue squads.

"There were some good hills," Jerry Keselman, 53, of Warren, said after finishing the 62-mile course in four hours. "I'm trying to get some hills in, and there were some hills here I didn't expect."

Keselman, like many riders, was training for another event. In his case, he said he's going to partake in a ride through Death Valley in October to benefit juvenile diabetes.

The Morris Area Freewheelers riding group organized the event, which saw roughly 550 participants, ride director Jim Hunt said.

"We are absolutely thrilled ... with the volunteer support we've had for this ride," Hunt said.

Entry fees ranged from $30 to $40, depending on when people registered. Those who signed up for the 62-mile loop left at 8 a.m. The 40-miler participants departed at 9 a.m., and the 25-milers left at 10 a.m. The last group, which rode 12 miles to Washington's Headquarters in Morristown, left at 10:30 a.m.

Hunt said he wouldn't know how much the ramble raised for emergency rescue squads until the money was tallied.

The Ramble rambled on rain or shine, and Saturday brought both. However, depending on the route the bikers took and the positioning of the clouds, they either got drenched or stayed dry.

"It wasn't raining where I was — I could have used some rain," Keselman said.

New Providence residents Krina Griffin, 43, and Jennifer Zimmerman, 45, took the 40-mile route and got drenched.

Both said rain doesn't just get the riders wet, it saturates the road, pushing debris to the sides of the street where bikers ride, which results in many flat tires.

"You avoid it as much as you can," Zimmerman said. However, they weren't so lucky.

"We each had two," Zimmerman said of flat tires.

Despite that, both women said they loved the event.

"It was a challenging ride, it was a good ride," Griffin said.

"The way it was organized was phenomenal," Zimmerman said, adding routes, paths, and directional signs all were clearly marked.

People from Rhode Island, Texas, Pennsylvania, New York, Missouri, Maryland, Florida and Connecticut took part.

"We got caught in the rain but it was a great ride," Rockaway resident Mike O'Hara, 52, said of the 12-mile course he rode with his 13-year-old son, Brendan O'Hara.

Both said it was their first ride and that the rain wasn't a problem.

"It's just another part of the experience," Brendan O'Hara said.

Matt Manochio: 973-428-6627; mmanochi@gannett.com

Bicycle Dreams