Gravel throws rock in pond explained

 

mike stands and does nothing but stare then throws a rock in the pond and walks away

 

the ripple effect of doing nothing is more of doing nothing

 

his stare politely asks - is this what you are doing, and is this the effect it is having?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rZdAB4V_j8

 

Comments

My interpretation

Here is how I interpreted the video:

Half of the video is spent with Mike staring at the camera, doing nothing.  The second half is Mike throwing the rock in the pond and walking away.  This indicates, to me, a choice.  You can either do nothing, signified by Mike doing nothing, or you can take action, signified by Mike throwing the rock in the pond.

If you do take action, it doesn't need to be something big.  Mike often encourages people to donate to his campaign only as much as they would spend on a movie ticket.  Even something so insignificant as a small rock thrown into a massive body of water makes an effect.  It causes a ripple, extending much farther than the rock itself.  Next, Mike walks away.  Even after Mike is gone, the ripple continues to spread; the positive effects of your contribution/action will continue to be felt after you're gone.

Nothing comes from nothing.  The effects of taking action can be felt forever. 

__

"It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it."

-Eugene V. Debs

Just imagine...

It was good to revisit this video, arpi.  Those of us touched by the Gravel Ripple have a responsibility to keep the Ripple going.  It's as simple as that.  "You may say I'm a dreamer but I'm not the only one.  I hope someday you will join us and the world will live as one."  www.youtube.com/watch

 

Get yourself a rock and throw it!

so far away

 

 

look look and keep looking.

 

how can representative government, a government that supposedly represents the common ideals and goals of an entire people,

a government that is broadly recognized and deeply scrutinized, display such extremism in policy and action?

 

Involvement, motivation, participation all play roles, yet - we see results than can and do rise - we ARE kept distant from something that belongs to us, I emphasize 'are' because it is deliberate and intentional distancing. Power corrupts, and it does it by manipulation, fear mongering, insidious and now inane sanctions against personal and public freedom - but the People still have something very desireable that can't be bought or obtained by coersion.

 

Their sense of decency and unity in humanitarian practices.  

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2hhYh_pCyg

 

Power to the people.

Cleaning up Ron Paul's act

Foreign Policy, Welfare, and 9/11 (Ron Paul op-ed)

 

The tragedy of 9/11 and its aftermath dramatize so clearly how a flawed foreign policy has served to encourage the majoritarians determined to run everyone’s life.

 

Excessive meddling in the internal affairs of other nations and involving ourselves in every conflict around the globe has not endeared the United States to the oppressed of the world. The Japanese are tired of us. The South Koreans are tired of us. The Europeans are tired of us. The Central Americans are tired of us. The Filipinos are tired of us. And above all, the Arab Muslims are tired of us.

 

We believe bin Laden when he takes credit for an attack on the West, and we believe him when he warns us of an impending attack. But we refuse to listen to his explanation of why he and his allies are at war with us.

 

Bin Laden’s claims are straightforward. The U.S. defiles Islam with military bases on holy land in Saudi Arabia, its initiation of war against Iraq, with 12 years of persistent bombing, and its dollars and weapons being used against the Palestinians as the Palestinian territory shrinks and Israel’s occupation expands. There will be no peace in the world for the next 50 years or longer if we refuse to believe why those who are attacking us do it.

To dismiss terrorism as the result of Muslims hating us because we’re rich and free is one of the greatest foreign-policy frauds ever perpetrated on the American people. Because the propaganda machine, the media, and the government have restated this so many times, the majority now accept it at face value. And the administration gets the political cover it needs to pursue a “holy” war for democracy against the infidels who hate us for our goodness.

 

Polling on the matter is followed closely and, unfortunately, is far more important than the rule of law. Do we hear the pundits talk of constitutional restraints on the Congress and the administration?  No, all we ever hear are reassurances that the majority supports the President; therefore it must be all right.

 

The terrorists’ attacks on us, though never justified, are related to our severely flawed foreign policy of intervention. They also reflect the shortcomings of a bureaucracy that is already big enough to know everything it needs to know about any impending attack but too cumbersome to do anything about it. Bureaucratic weaknesses within a fragile welfare state provide a prime opportunity for those whom we antagonize through our domination over world affairs and global wealth to take advantage of our vulnerability.

 

But what has been our answer to the shortcomings of policies driven by manipulated majority opinion by the powerful elite? We have responded by massively increasing the federal government’s policing activity to hold American citizens in check and make sure we are well-behaved and pose no threat, while massively expanding our aggressive presence around the world. There is no possible way these moves can make us more secure against terrorism, yet they will accelerate our march toward national bankruptcy with a currency collapse.

 

Relying on authoritarian democracy and domestic and international meddling only move us sharply away from a constitutional republic and the rule of law and toward the turbulence of a decaying democracy, about which Madison and others had warned.

 

Once the goal of liberty is replaced by a preconceived notion of the benefits and the moral justifications of a democracy, a trend toward internationalism and world government follows.

 

Can one imagine what it might be like if a true worldwide democracy existed and the United Nations were controlled by a worldwide, one man/one vote philosophy? The masses of China and India could vote themselves whatever they needed from the more prosperous western countries. How long would a world system last based on this absurdity? Yet this is the principle that we’re working so hard to impose on ourselves and others around the world.

 

In spite of the great strides made toward one-world government based on egalitarianism, I’m optimistic that this utopian nightmare will never come to fruition. I have already made the case that here at home powerful special interests take over controlling majority opinion, making sure fairness in distribution is never achieved. This fact causes resentment and becomes so expensive that the entire system becomes unstable and eventually collapses. Democratic socialism is so destructive to production of wealth that it must fail, just as socialism failed under Soviet Communism. We have a long way to go before old-fashioned nationalism is dead and buried. In the meantime, the determination of those promoting democratic socialism will cause great harm to many people before its chaotic end and we rediscover the basic principle responsible for all of human progress.

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Well said, Ron

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

but - how do you plan to isolate America from global involvement? Repeal free trade? How far will the corporations bewilling to go along with that? How do your plans as an individual representing the masses differ from any other individual doing the same? There is no fundamental difference. One person doesn't have all the answers, and isolating the U.S. from 'global politics' is dangerous, - if you can't see the benefits of pooled management resources then you are acting despotically, taking the citizenry with you, as much as the current administration is,  and stand to gain as much success as any other despot.

 

So you think America can stand on its own regarding energy non-renewable energy needs? How are you goingto back off the world stage yet simultaneously remain connected? Bush is doing that already. You don't have any answers. No one person does. You're just eloquently pissed off, - nowheres as near a solution as Mike is. If Mike fails it's because he has taken on more than humanly possible, but when you fail - who pays?

 

There IS a ripple effect, think about it. For every action there is not a reaction - for every action there is a series of reactions equalling the original action. It's not always 'black and white' - it never was. It doesn't mean we can't be successful, it just means we have to do something we aren't very good at - trusting our fellow human beings to do the right thing.

That trust is something that has been sorely absent in positions of power for much too long.

 

The alternatives to capitalism/free enterprise may not be democracy or socialism - we need something new, something with trust in it. Mike is the only candidate who is completely trustworthy. the ripple effect is his support - and that is all that matters.