Ed's political rant

musicismylife78

I say this with utmost respect for eddie. he has shaped my worldview and inspired me musically and politically. He isn;t one of those meatheaded rock stars who thinks they are the greatest. He is humble. However he is wrong in terms of what he said in relix mag.

He said, something along the lines of that, "there will be an antiwar leader who comes along, only when the polls show that people will support one". Ed seems to me to be a intelligent and very aware guy, the article in relix confirmed this, however, how could he say such a quote!

Since last year, same time, the same time the Karl Rove/CIA leak story heated up, the american public started souring big time on the war in iraq. Until then, the war was somewhat popular, lukewarm popular basically. Last year in the summer it became unpopular in terms of popular opinion of it. Doesn't matter the source, ABC, NBC, CBS, Wall Street Journal, Fox news, Ny Times, La Times, all have taken polls fairly regularly, and again since July of last year, the war has been extremely unpopular. All the polls point this out. But oddly enough dems (senators, or congresspeople) arent popular either.

The polls have asked what would americans rather do: put more troops in, stay indefinitely, withdraw some, or withdraw all immediatly. The most popular choices since last year have been the latter two, withdrawing.

Granted americans dont want to pull out immediately, but americans seem to want to pull out of iraq soon, within a year or so. This isnt just a blip or because of some news in iraq. It has remained constant for a year.

Getting back to the point of the post, ed suggested americans aren't antiwar and that the polls don't reflect an american public that is antiwar.

I beg to differ. Americans overwhelmingly are antiiraq war and want troops out. Its surprising ed seemed to suggest otherwise. I mean look at the websites and reccomended websites on the ten club site. They are independent news sources who arent curropted by mainstream influence. I visit them daily myself. Which makes it all the more strange ed wouldnt be aware of said polls.

The war started out popular 70 percent were for it in the months leading up to the start of the war. Now the war is almost flipped in terms of support with nearly that amount 55-60 percent against the war and a majority of americans for withdrawing of troops in a year.

Pearl Jam and toast

You need some sleep, man.

I think Ed was half kidding with whoever he was talking to giving that poetic anti-war view...

But the half that wasn't kidding motioned towards a leader in the political sense of things... like a strong Democratic anti-war Presidential candidate (does that even exist?).

It's one thing that the American people are overwhelmingly anti-war, but our government has its head up it's own ass.

PaperPlates

Ed tends to get in over his head with his mouth. Stick to rockin ed.

ballbag

ed humble???

hahahahaahaaaaa!!

monkey spanker

PaperPlates wrote:

Ed tends to get in over his head with his mouth. Stick to rockin ed.

hey now, i disagree with about all of eds political views. but his views are thought out, and he is honest about them. he is also very consistent. when i was younger and didn't give a shit about alot of political stuff, it was ed that brought things to my attention.

angelica

If we think we're ready for non-war or peace, look through these threads. Most of us supports side taking and ongoing battle. Even when we say we want peace, we act in ways that do not support peace. I agree with Ed, although I'd love to hear the exact quote to know what he specifically said. We'll attract such leaders when we're ready to support them. We're not even close to attracting that in my opinion. The masses are not close to recognising a good leader, much less supporting one. We're still way too territorial and into right/wrong, to understand what we are doing is not working. We're way to bound by past actions--believing the past dictates what must happen. Therefore we don't appreciate the visionary approach of creating differently for once. We're just not even close.

Does anyone have the exact quote?

monkey spanker

"Most of us supports side taking and ongoing battle. Even when we say we want peace, we act in ways that do not support peace."

i guess its all in how you define peace. peace is not sitting back while your sworn enemies are trying to figure out ways to kill you.

Puck78

monkey spanker wrote:

i guess its all in how you define peace. peace is not sitting back while your sworn enemies are trying to figure out ways to kill you.

a lot of people here talks like if they are hiding in their homes with rifles with their house surrounded by "enemies"....... I have no doubt that most of you are really sitting in your houses with rifles close, but I have doubts about the enemies...

angelica

monkey spanker wrote:

"Most of us supports side taking and ongoing battle. Even when we say we want peace, we act in ways that do not support peace."

i guess its all in how you define peace. peace is not sitting back while your sworn enemies are trying to figure out ways to kill you.

I rest my case.

Seeking peace is seeking peace. Period. Justifying not seeking peace is justifying NOT seeking peace.

monkey spanker

in order to have peace, both conflicting parties have to want peace. in regards to the current conflict..do you think hezbollah wants peace with israel?????

angelica

monkey spanker wrote:

in order to have peace, both conflicting parties have to want peace. in regards to the current conflict..do you think hezbollah wants peace with israel?????

Hey, whatever the justifications one might adhere to, I agree with what Ed says and I add, we're not close to honestly wanting peace. We're not close to looking for an anti-war hero.

monkey spanker

"we're not close to honestly wanting peace."

i disagree, i think we all want peace. but true peace is what should be desired. peace is not just ignoring your enemies while they plot to kill you. we were supposedly at peace through the late 90's..but we really weren't. we had known enemies that swore to attack us, yet we did nothing.

even flow?

Cheguevara6 wrote:

I say this with utmost respect for eddie. he has shaped my worldview and inspired me musically and politically. He isn;t one of those meatheaded rock stars who thinks they are the greatest. He is humble. However he is wrong in terms of what he said in relix mag.

He said, something along the lines of that, "there will be an antiwar leader who comes along, only when the polls show that people will support one". Ed seems to me to be a intelligent and very aware guy, the article in relix confirmed this, however, how could he say such a quote!

Since last year, same time, the same time the Karl Rove/CIA leak story heated up, the american public started souring big time on the war in iraq. Until then, the war was somewhat popular, lukewarm popular basically. Last year in the summer it became unpopular in terms of popular opinion of it. Doesn't matter the source, ABC, NBC, CBS, Wall Street Journal, Fox news, Ny Times, La Times, all have taken polls fairly regularly, and again since July of last year, the war has been extremely unpopular. All the polls point this out. But oddly enough dems (senators, or congresspeople) arent popular either.

The polls have asked what would americans rather do: put more troops in, stay indefinitely, withdraw some, or withdraw all immediatly. The most popular choices since last year have been the latter two, withdrawing.

Granted americans dont want to pull out immediately, but americans seem to want to pull out of iraq soon, within a year or so. This isnt just a blip or because of some news in iraq. It has remained constant for a year.

Getting back to the point of the post, ed suggested americans aren't antiwar and that the polls don't reflect an american public that is antiwar.

I beg to differ. Americans overwhelmingly are antiiraq war and want troops out. Its surprising ed seemed to suggest otherwise. I mean look at the websites and reccomended websites on the ten club site. They are independent news sources who arent curropted by mainstream influence. I visit them daily myself. Which makes it all the more strange ed wouldnt be aware of said polls.

The war started out popular 70 percent were for it in the months leading up to the start of the war. Now the war is almost flipped in terms of support with nearly that amount 55-60 percent against the war and a majority of americans for withdrawing of troops in a year.

Count the countries that the US has bombed since even the late sixties. Peace? You have got to be kidding me. War is what they love down south.

angelica

monkey spanker wrote:

"we're not close to honestly wanting peace."

i disagree, i think we all want peace. but true peace is what should be desired. peace is not just ignoring your enemies while they plot to kill you. we were supposedly at peace through the late 90's..but we really weren't. we had known enemies that swore to attack us, yet we did nothing.

Wanting something is about lip service. Being willing to work for and support peace is a very different matter. And the majority is not even close to being willing to work for and support peace. That is because the majority is busy backing or supporting the views on why we can't have peace. We reap what we sow. When we rationalise and justify why we can't have peace, we keep ourselves believing we can't have peace. We get exactly what we create.

Byrnzie

PaperPlates wrote:

Ed tends to get in over his head with his mouth. Stick to rockin ed.

Lest he upset your unstable ultra right wing world view. God forbid!

Byrnzie

even flow? wrote:

Count the countries that the US has bombed since even the late sixties. Peace? You have got to be kidding me. War is what they love down south.

Down south? I thought Wshington D.C was in the north of the country?

monkey spanker

Byrnzie wrote:

Lest he upset your unstable ultra right wing world view. God forbid!

oh man...you believe that if you disagree with ed you are ultra right wing? i hate to tell ya, but ed is FFFAAAAAAARRRRRR left.

angelica

While we continue to justify lack of peace and explain why we can't have peace, we reveal that we have a lack of inner peace. We reveal that we don't know how to create peace inside our own selves. We don't have inner peace, and therefore, we can't create outer peace. In our lack, we blame the guy outside of us for our not having the ability to create peace. We are blinding our own selves to the way to peace, which is within ourselves, only.

Yep, we're a long way off from being willing and able to support and create peace. Therefore we won't recognise the validity of the leaders who do speak of peace. Our weakest links--our hidden inner fears dictate that we need to have war-supporting leaders in order to keep us "safe". As we totally overlook that it's our own inner lacks that are to be feared. Who keeps us safe from our inner demons?

humanlight

I think (from what I read in the first post) that ed may mean something like:

Our presidental candidates offer us what we want. If the country wants war, then the candidates are all about war. If we demand the war to stop, then who ever runs would be crazy to run with a pro-war status. There will not be a president who is against war until we demand that there be.

I think that is what he is saying.

angelica

humanlight wrote:

I think (from what I read in the first post) that ed may mean something like:

Our presidental candidates offer us what we want. If the country wants war, then the candidates are all about war. If we demand the war to stop, then who ever runs would be crazy to run with a pro-war status. There will not be a president who is against war until we demand that there be.

I think that is what he is saying.

I'm not sure what Ed means, but I agree with you that the politicians are totally pandering to what we want. We have the power as a mass, and yet many overlook that and point to the leaders. The leaders reflect what we are capable of generating and supporting. They reveal our very weakest links.

even flow?

Byrnzie wrote:

Down south? I thought Wshington D.C was in the north of the country?

South of the border that makes up the country I live in.

Eliot Rosewater

anyone have a link to the Relix article mentioned?

Pearl Jam and toast

even flow? wrote:

South of the border that makes up the country I live in.

plus, DC is in the maryland/virginia area which is basically the southern USA... borderline.

angelica

The actual quote is:

“I don’t think any Democrat or Republican is going to lead an antiwar movement until there is a shift in the polls that says that movement will be supported. If people are united, forceful and opinionated in letting their voice be heard and they support an antiwar candidate, then we will get one.”--Eddie Vedder.

I note the part that says: "If people are united, forceful and opinionated in letting their voice be heard and they support an antiwar candidate, then we will get one".

angelica

don't gimme no wrote:

anyone have a link to the Relix article mentioned?

Thanks to hippiemom: http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=209336

surferdude

angelica wrote:

The actual quote is:

“I don’t think any Democrat or Republican is going to lead an antiwar movement until there is a shift in the polls that says that movement will be supported. If people are united, forceful and opinionated in letting their voice be heard and they support an antiwar candidate, then we will get one.”--Eddie Vedder.

I note the part that says: "If people are united, forceful and opinionated in letting their voice be heard and they support an antiwar candidate, then we will get one".

It sure sounds as if Ed has had second thought about his support for Kerry and is changing tactics. It looks like he has come to the realization that there is no real leadership in either the Democrat or Republican parties.

Pearl Jam and toast

surferdude wrote:

It sure sounds as if Ed has had second thought about his support for Kerry and is changing tactics. It looks like he has come to the realization that there is no real leadership in either the Democrat or Republican parties.

And he's right.

Eliot Rosewater

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

And he's right.

Without question.

BeBe

angelica wrote:

While we continue to justify lack of peace and explain why we can't have peace, we reveal that we have a lack of inner peace. We reveal that we don't know how to create peace inside our own selves. We don't have inner peace, and therefore, we can't create outer peace. In our lack, we blame the guy outside of us for our not having the ability to create peace. We are blinding our own selves to the way to peace, which is within ourselves, only.

Yep, we're a long way off from being willing and able to support and create peace. Therefore we won't recognise the validity of the leaders who do speak of peace. Our weakest links--our hidden inner fears dictate that we need to have war-supporting leaders in order to keep us "safe". As we totally overlook that it's our own inner lacks that are to be feared. Who keeps us safe from our inner demons?

I couldn't have said it better. Great post Angelica.

NCfan

angelica wrote:

I rest my case.

Seeking peace is seeking peace. Period. Justifying not seeking peace is justifying NOT seeking peace.

I would think that most everyone wants peace.... even maybe Kim Jong Il. I dunno, that guy is a whack job - but I don't think these other jokers like Amejabilabidadydad or whoever he is Iran - I don't thing they want war.

I just think they want the power to lead the world in a direction they want it to go. But their way cannot co-exist with Western views. Separation of Church and State is a fundamental cornerstone of Western society.

So in essence, the two sides are trying to undermine each other - weaken each other. We are basically fighting for the future of the world.

It can look like a future dominated by the US, which is scary - don't get me wrong. But it is much more palatable than a future dominated by theocrats- and Muslim theocrats at that!

RockinInCanada

NCfan wrote:

I would think that most everyone wants peace.... even maybe Kim Jong Il. I dunno, that guy is a whack job - but I don't think these other jokers like Amejabilabidadydad or whoever he is Iran - I don't thing they want war.

I just think they want the power to lead the world in a direction they want it to go. But their way cannot co-exist with Western views. Separation of Church and State is a fundamental cornerstone of Western society.

So in essence, the two sides are trying to undermine each other - weaken each other. We are basically fighting for the future of the world.

It can look like a future dominated by the US, which is scary - don't get me wrong. But it is much more palatable than a future dominated by theocrats- and Muslim theocrats at that!

I see what you are saying....however the Western governments need to do a better job of separating church and state than currently is occuring.....overall I agree, very generally, with you....unless it is Buddhist theocrats I agree....