The Extremes of The Extremes... ("More than words can say...")

"Saying I love you
Is not the words I want to hear from you
It’s not that I want you
Not to say, but if you only knew
How easy it would be to show me how you feel
More than words is all you have to do to make it real
Then you wouldn’t have to say that you love me
Cos I’d already know..."

- Extreme, "More Than Words"



it's pretty crazy, but they're all right.

all of 'em.

all the ones that have peers, persistance and proof.

all of 'em.

all the ones that can make sense of it.

all of 'em.

(...)

now it's a question of incorporating that knowledge...

understanding and interpreting it's value...

and accepting shortcuts to belief...

(...)

perhaps i'm getting incorrigably crotchety and paranoid in my investigation into the ills of humanity, the sources are troubling: humans.

"bah! puny humans! hulk smash!!!"

there's the smell of humans crapping their pants over what's going on, and institutional infallibility becomes more important when scared - so we forget to ask how these idiots got us in pants-crappyville in the first place.

i traded a couple of conversations with a friend recently that i think speak to it:


1) Ingrained Institutional Infallibility

i asked: since gas prices recently and quickly went up about 25%, or a fairly substantial increase the cost of living to millions of people, was that ripple felt up the entire supply chain? did the gas companies also face a 25% reduction in profits? is this just middle-east instability screwing everybody?

i've always felt economic theory was a bunch of pretentious gobbledygook.

i felt i understood it as explained, but it always seemed to fall on one point: they consistently get it horrendously wrong on a daily basis, occasionally with massive international consequences, and then use more normative economic theory to explain the need for a few economic saviours to bless us all and save the day. my friend gave me some new insights into how the system is structured and admitted flaws, but basically it seemed to boil down to having faith in the power of markets to self-correct, and how rules need to always first protect corporations from taking a hit and harming shareholder value or the whole thing is threatened. both money and jobs lost become collateral damage to stabilize the economy in paper transactions that are ultimately neglible to the majority of shareholders: does that make sense?

so...

let me get this straight...

i'm a restaurant owner, and my plastic-forks-guy comes in...

he says: "plastic forks are now 10-cents each."

i say: "what? but they used to be 5-cents each? what's the problem? is there a big plastic shortage? are we all screwed?"

he says: "umm... no. i'm just making a lot more money. sorry. ha-ha."

somehow that doesn't seem right.

i had ideas on how the oil-guys were doing, and a quick Google News search shows:

"While the oil and gas companies are reporting record profits, American families are being squeezed every time they fill up the tank," Waxman said. "Congress should not provide oil and gas companies with this egregious and unnecessary $1.5 billion subsidy."

- Congressman Henry Waxman, D-CA, 4/Aug/05

SOURCE - http://www.dailytexanonline.com/media/paper410/news/2005/08/05/TopStories/Bill-That.Critics.Say.Is.Just.Pork.Could.Aid.Ut-966050.shtml

(btw, all the craziest stories have the longest links... weird.)

so, not only are they making money, they're getting massive government subsidies too, and the institutional character flaws are hiding behind rules and regulations that some economic theory says is needed. these same rules and regulations are scaring the crap out of us. maybe not directly, but you can feel an undercurrent of unease swimming in a paradoxical pool of numerous entertainment options, so as we move further towards fewer defined centres of power to find trustworthy answers - we end up with nagging doubts about their honesty.

the media and financial institutions that created jessica simpson should be commended, however we forget to see if they asked the right questions. with consolidated media consolidating information, there is no need for the press to compete anymore: they've re-standardized a thinner gruel as substantive with little serious competition, and even self-correct on occasion to demonstrate a faux-humility. this corporate collusion on information is either lazy or fascist, only no one we trust will even come close to admitting it.

perhaps the media need a curve: it's at least twice as bad as they tell us. and, of the 5 W's: WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WHY and HOW, how many are unanswered in each story? there is no product that needs to be of a higher quality in a democracy than the press, for if it slips we never know what's going wrong - or have trouble believing anyone else who does. this is cliche stuff, but it does beg the question: why are they fumbling the ball?

after locally underfunding education for as long as i've been alive, then collectively mismanaging the U.N., IMF and World Bank into worsening conditions for most of the Third World - yet trumpeting isolated stories as proof to bludgeon our common sense with, we have to ask: how they hell are they screwing it up so bad, and yet making record profits and growing in power?

there's playing the game and understanding it, and separating the two is key. the biggest power-brokers have a real-politik view of the value of investments and information, everyone should do the same, and recognizing that the people who run these institutions have less faith in their rules than they ask us to is key in deconstructing their myths.

the shell-game is simple: who is asking us to believe what and why? "qui bono": who profits? how much do they profit? what would you do for a million dollars? what would you do for a billion?


2) Trust in the Couch

what does it take to get off your couch?

i'm not sure anymore...

i haven't seen this much questioning of people, sources and information in my lifetime, at least not as long as i can remember. there were always discussions and arguments, but with more open and engaged minds and less obstinate beliefs than today - often reflected by the diversity of mainstream sources one could use to back up a given position. i see this clearer now and can chart the history, and the lack of trust in each other's intelligence could pose real dangers up the road - including ignoring those telling us there are real dangers up the road.

the implication of "bias" as "evil" is a great deception, as it moves genuine questions of accountability into the realm of mere opinion. there are good points on each side of a debate, but better still there are damnable indictments on each side of the debate - and sometimes only one, that help common knowledge evolve and become more inclusive. the idea of dismissing everything someone says as inherently biased has blossomed the last few years, or the "damn-he-lyin'!" effect: explain positions are at best equally weighted as part of a natural paradigm, while in environments of fear and uncertainty power always breaks any tie. the mass-media fails to analyze information, neutralizes criticism in sound-bites, and legitimizes the ability of governments to push for power disguised as a push for policy.

my friend noted that despite the huge number of cops at a local street-fest, there was still somebody shot.

so, if the cops didn't work, what's the solution?

more cops.

it has to be.

less cops is unfathomable, and looking at the problem from any other angle is neglible: we know how the world works, social issues are worthless gambles, and exponentially increased security is key to our society's prosperity.

or is it...

i would argue that our friends bring up ideas just-because, and there is little need to question the worthiness of a statement made on principle: to bring it up is to endorse it's rational discussion. there is a bizarre fear of information today as poisonous, like we lack faith in our ability to determine what's reasonable from anyone else's school of thought. the wave breaks a few ways: gossip is a quick-digest, while the bigger political issues entrench positions. most notably it reflects blatant lies used to repeatedly and publicly sell policy, with the most insidious poisons coming from the most powerful and trusted sources.

i've heard comments for a while about protestors and activists, and their well-intentioned but misguided and potentially dangerous impact on society. however, as usual - "qui bono": who profits? how much do they profit? and how the hell did they get off their couch?

the marginalization of dissent is a reaction to the biggest period of dissent in history, and is a very active and deliberate process. for people to fight against these odds, for them to know their actions will be ignored, mocked, and discredited until they end up more feared for their potential violence than revered for their potential peace, is an embarrassing intellectual failure by the masses. i have complete and absolute faith in the ability of the couch and a hundred digital television channels to be utterly engrossing and relaxing, and a nurturing source of passivity that beckons anyone with a couple of bucks to spare. plus-plus-plus...

so: who's saying what they feel needs to be said? and what the hell did they see to make them say it? they are the true cannon-fodder of the information age, and to favour historically evil and exposed power-brokers over hard-working, knowledgable and passionate people is to reward those who poisoned our fountain of knowledge in the first place.

the recognition of the obvious prior research-base and dialectic of any intelligent or passionate opinion should be simple, and combined with a so-rare-it's-unrecognizable altruism often seen as a virtue of ancient history or advanced age, the: "what the hell are they on about?" factor should kick in.

the buy-in doesn't have to be 100% on-sight, but those who seek - find, and an endorsement of unrealized value of their questions could eventually answer all our prayers...


(...)


"Estimates of how many participated in the protest march neared 400,000 people, with the procession stretching for miles. But little of the predicted violence and unrest materialized."

- Raja Mishra and Tatsha Robertson, Boston Globe Staff, August 30, 2004


A New York policeman is helped to safety after an altercation at Herald Square during a march by a national coalition of nearly 900 groups during the United for Peace and Justice march. (Globe Staff Photo / Bill Greene)

SOURCE - http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/30/crowds_protest_as_gop_gathers/


(...)


Rapilogue: Where are we going?


"We've got a long way to go
When snow hits the asphalt, cold looks and bad talk come
We've got a long way to go
It's beyond Martin Luther, upgrade computer..."

- Gwen Stefani, "Long Way To Go"


Chiggidy-check yo'self...




Martial Law 9/11: Rise Of The Police State (2005)

Evil has spread across the land. Martial Law: 9/11 Rise of the Police State exposes the high-tech control grid that is being set up across America.

Out of the ashes of the September 11th tragedy, a dark empire of war and tyranny has risen. The Constitution has been shredded and America is now a Police State. This film exposes not just who was behind the 9-11 attacks, but the roots and history of its orchestrators.

Downloaded 4,214 times

SOURCE - http://www.archive.org/details/MartialLaw911