Ed....you really think so?!

2»

Comments

  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    Pearl Jam and toast wrote:
    I haven't seen the DVD yet so I can't reference his eyes.. :p

    WTF are you waiting for? :p
  • vedderfan10
    vedderfan10 Posts: 2,497
    is there something wrong with being a cockeyed optimist? (other than being Billy Mumphry's downfall)

    I thought he was going to say "if you took 100 monkeys and locked them in a room, they'd solve the world's problems"....That might actually work - although the marmasets might muck up everything just to be different...
    be philanthropic
  • JD Sal
    JD Sal Posts: 790
    Vedderfan10 wrote:
    is there something wrong with being a cockeyed optimist? (other than being Billy Mumphry's downfall)

    I thought he was going to say "if you took 100 monkeys and locked them in a room, they'd solve the world's problems"....That might actually work - although the marmasets might muck up everything just to be different...

    Nice Seinfeld reference :)
    "If no one sees you, you're not here at all"
  • PJ_Saluki
    PJ_Saluki Posts: 1,006
    Jerram wrote:
    I posted this on the DVD thread but perhaps its more appropriate here...


    I do NOT believe (like some) that Ed should shut up and sing. So I always listen to his comments/rants/opinions etc. and often agree.


    You're damned right. When you earn the mic, make sure you have something to say. People might not listen tomorrow.
    "Almost all those politicians took money from Enron, and there they are holding hearings. That's like O.J. Simpson getting in the Rae Carruth jury pool." -- Charles Barkley
  • Obi Once
    Obi Once Posts: 918
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    i disagree.
    on a bus with 200 people shouting turn around turn around, ONLY the driver can make the move.

    I think global policy is TRULY driven by a small handful at the top with their eye on the pie.

    If you got them to focus on Peace, Prosperity, and Cooperation i guarantee Eds comments would ring true.

    But they just don't care about that.
    They care about cooperating with eachother for prosperity. That's about it.
    I think you make a very good point. At 1st I thought it was rather naive, but if the worlds leaders had Peace, Prosperity, and Cooperation as a common goal, sat around a big table and talked and talked, compromised and set aside ego a lot of the worlds problems could be solved. We have the know-how and money to really do good, why don't we?

    Keep in mind that we the ppl elect these so called 'leaders'. Can't say the new 'leaders' of the world make me optimistic.. Putin, Bush, these 'socialistic' presidents in South America....
    your light's reflected now
  • Eliot Rosewater
    Eliot Rosewater Posts: 2,659
    onelongsong wrote:
    i think you're spot on. the only people that can change golbal warming are the people. as for other conflicts; they have been there for thousands of years. it's human nature. we fight for our borders and we fight for what we believe in. but once again it's the people who make the difference.
    Bullshit. If that were the case we would be out of Iraq today. Leaders push for war and they don't need majority support from the "people" to do a goddamn thing once they're in office.

    I agree with Ed and even if he's simplifying it, that doesn't mean he's naive. Sometimes the answers to huge fucking complicated problems really are simple.
  • MCG
    MCG Posts: 780
    If the 100 richest men in the world all got together with the goal of making the world a better place, they could make an astounding impact on society.

    It will never happen, but it would be nice.
    Which came first,
    the bad idea or me befallen by it?
  • pjhabit
    pjhabit Posts: 211
    I think you guys may take him to literally
    Boise 11/3/00~Fargo 6/15/03~Winnipeg 9/8/05~St. Paul 6/26/06~6/27/06
  • Ledbetterus
    Ledbetterus Posts: 592
    bootlegger10 wrote:
    Here is what the breakdown could be:

    6 Americans
    20 Europeans
    1 Russian (Putin runs the place)
    1 Mexican
    1 Canadian
    8 South Americans
    3 Chinese
    10 from the Middle East
    4 Japan
    15 Africa
    2 Australia
    9 Misc.

    Should export this to a new "list making" thread lol.

    I don't think it's an awful thought.. Obviously it's something that would NEVER happen. But imagine if it did.. Lock people in a room and no one comes out until there is a full blown peace agreement. It's obviously meant metaphorically, but it holds water. Something so simple, that could never happen.
    Abraham Lincoln once said, "If you are a racist, I will attack you with the North."
  • sweetpotato
    sweetpotato Posts: 1,278
    LikeAnOcean wrote:
    I think he made it a point that it was wishful thinking that you could get a group of men together to fix all of the worlds problems.

    Obviously a handful of men aren't going to fix all of the worlds problems. Thats how it is now and its not working quite right.

    not to mention, why 100 MEN? what about women? ed, darling, you're slipping, hon. might wanna keep your wine guzzling to a minimum when spouting political ideas. :rolleyes:
    "Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."

    "Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore

    "i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
    ~ed, 8/7
  • Derrick
    Derrick Posts: 475
    @ the original poster:

    You should note Ed sometimes says stuff to get an emotional response out of his audience, be the audience a stadium or a DVD viewer. I know the comment you are referring to, and I believe it is just pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking.
  • Derrick
    Derrick Posts: 475
    sweetpotato wrote:
    not to mention, why 100 MEN? what about women? ed, darling, you're slipping, hon. might wanna keep your wine guzzling to a minimum when spouting political ideas. :rolleyes:


    Because maybe he believes that if women were in charge, we probably wouldn't be this messed up as a planet? just a thought...
  • JordyWordy
    JordyWordy Posts: 2,261
    Derrick wrote:
    Because maybe he believes that if women were in charge, we probably wouldn't be this messed up as a planet? just a thought...

    you must be a politician. ;D

    i agree with people who agree with ed.

    political leaders do not need to seek the approval of their people in their decisions (for the most part) and if it were mandatory that there were national votes in each country regarding military issues, pollution, etc then sure you could say we all play a part.

    but we dont. that doesnt happen. thats what the leaders do. so its not exactly naive of him to say it. its over-simplifying a problem but then again, all problems can be best viewed in simple ways. i personally think its total bullshit to say that its anymore complicated than eds 100 guys analogy. sure its unrealistic, but its fairly spot on. its only unrealistic cos of these leaders inherent flawed human nature, not cos of they lack the power to achieve it.
  • slightofjeff
    slightofjeff Posts: 7,762
    I think his point was more along the lines that all the power in the world (literally) is consolidated into the hands of so few.

    And, in a way, he's right. The world's problems are basically caused by the people in power -- like 100 dudes. As s human being, I personally have no problem with some guy living in the Middle East somewhere. And he has no problems with me. If we were stuck on an elevator together, we probably wouldn't even look twice at each other. If we met at a bar, we might end up drinking buddies.

    But because of the whims of a few, his country is trying to blow up my country, and mine is trying to blow up his.

    It really is amazing if you think about it.

    Some of the 9/11 bombers spent the night before the attacks in a strip club in New Jersey. I'm sure they didn't hate every person in there. They probably even tipped the bartender.

    It's strange what terrible things the ideology of a few in power can cause.

    So I don't think Ed REALLY thinks it would be possible to force these 100 men to agree. I think his point was just to point out how most of the world's problems have nothing to do with the rank and file in the world. We just live our lives. It's the governments that create the friction.
    everybody wants the most they can possibly get
    for the least they could possibly do
  • slightofjeff
    slightofjeff Posts: 7,762
    sweetpotato wrote:
    not to mention, why 100 MEN? what about women?

    Because he's talking about solving the world's problems, not baking the world's best chocolate cake.









    I'm kidding, of course. ;)
    everybody wants the most they can possibly get
    for the least they could possibly do
  • elmer
    elmer Posts: 1,683
    Jerram wrote:
    I guess I was surprised by what I consider naivete (sorry no accent there) when he waxes philosophical on the idea that "100 men from all over the world and solve the worlds problems, lock em in a room and don't let them out til they sort it all out"


    I thought this as well.

    Theres no reason why EV should/would know more than the average human, he has only seen more of the world from his own bubble. Occasionally there have been political comments I've heard on some boots and thought perhaps he should just leave it be. Lennon was one who at times gave banal, naive quotes that you just know were construed as some deep & meaningful bu many.

Categories