I want to bark
& snarl & growl
Until the world
Clears a path for you.
I want to bark
I want to bark
& snarl & growl
Until the world
Clears a path for you.
(About a 4 minute read)
The story begins more than 25 years ago when I owned and operated a tiny little business in Illinois employing 13 people. To make this brief, I won’t go into the details of how one day I found myself thumbing through Victoria’s Secrets catalogs on a business mission to find flannel pajama prices — but it happened that one day I found myself doing just that.
I was flipping through the pages quite rapidly when I felt stopped in my tracks. What had I just seen? I thumbed back two or three pages. There, posed on a bed, was a young model in her underwear looking straight at the camera.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Paul offers his opinion that people today have all too often come to treat each other as interchangeable, faceless grains of polished rice.
THE CRITICS EMOTE! “De hunne of blogging, Paul Sunstone has excreted yet another one of his innumerable atrocities upon the world. The immediate effect that ‘Our Lives Have Broken’ has upon the honest and orderly reader is to provoke him or her to yearn for the nearest body of water deep enough to drown in. Sunstone is the refutation of the thesis that history is progressive. He is the refutation of the dialectics of both Hegel and Marx. A Spengler would see in Sunstone the decline of the West, and he would be correct.” — Johanna Meyer, Der Blogkritiker, “Die Fussen-Welt”, Fussen, Germany.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Paul offers the two most inflexible rules that he personally tries to adhere to in all of his relationships from his most casual friendships to his most passionate loves.
THE CRITICS RAVE! “I think it’s more than safe to say these are pretty hard-ass rules to be coming from a head as soft as Paul Sunstone’s.” — Gus “Gunning Gus” Johnson, The Blog Critic’s Column, “Leper’s Gulch Gazette”, Leper’s Gulch, Colorado, USA.
THE CRITICS WORSHIP! “Perhaps the most charitable thing the world can say about Paul Sunstone’s ‘Two Hard-Ass Rules’ is that they do not provide explicit encouragement to the murdering of old ladies, saints, and orphans.” — Aloyse Leblanc, Le Critique Passionné de Blog, “La Tribune Linville”, Linville, France.
THE CRITICS GO BALLISTIC! “With his ‘Two Hard-Ass Rules’, Paul Sunstone launches an unprovoked thermonuclear attack on the both the foundations and edifice of all decent morality.” — Merriweather Sterling, Blogs of the Day, “The Daily Burtie”, Berwick-Upon-Tweed, England, UK.
(About a 6 minute read)
The spider had been stalking the fly for minutes. There didn’t seem to be anything on the barren patch of ground to attract a fly. I expected it to finish its investigations and leave. But it would only buzz away a few inches when the spider approached it, then in a minute or two return.
Sometimes it would allow the spider to get very close before flying off.
Disclaimer: The following opinions are my own — I am usually wrong about most things — and so you should examine these issues for yourself. On the other hand, only a boring, bumbling, berkle-snozer would disagree with me about anything.
(About a 5 minute read)
It is my esteemed and noble opinion that the fear of death is a major factor in how folks experience life, and a major motive behind much of human behavior.
How much of a factor and motive, you might ask? Ernest Becker, the psychiatrist who authored, The Denial of Death, thought it unconsciously drove most of human experience and behavior. And here the word “unconsciously” is key to understanding the fear of death.
I do not agree with all of Becker’s ideas, but I am in complete agreement with him about the fear of death being very largely a hidden, unconscious fear. Ask ten people if they fear death, eight or nine will not be aware of themselves fearing it.
(About a 1 minute read)
Years ago, there was Mike,
A Native American man who belonged
To the people of a Southwest nation,
And who was trying to teach his son
The people’s traditional values.
Can you imagine how tough that was?
Maybe the values are the same
But the world is not.
No, it’s not the same at all.
But Mike was determined,
Still made the effort.
Each weekend he drove his boy
Eight hundred miles South
To the villages where
He could play with his cousins,
Talk with his grandparents,
Learn from the whole village
How to walk with one foot on the earth,
And with the other foot firmly planted
In the spirit world.
His son made Mike proud.
Once the whole community
Gathered to share candy —
I think Mike called it,
“Halloween, Hopi style.”
Forming a circle of young and old,
The people tossed the candies around
For several minutes, catching and tossing
Back the candies, the people shared
A good thing in life, and stopped
Only when everyone had something sweet.
“Cooperation”, Mike told me,
“It’s how the people live.
Not like what he learns in school.
There it’s fight for yourself,
Live for your close kin alone,
And screw all the rest.”
(About a 3 minute read)
The internet has made it now
Bound to happen
Tomorrow or the year after.
Bound to happen.
Up to you.
The politicians and the preachers,
The two dogs of the capitalist class,
Will once again want a war,
Just as they always do.
War to them is a gift, you see,
It’s not personal, it’s not their blood.
But war makes some folks rich
And you will never change that,
You will never change that,
Though the dogs will bark it’s not so.
A war of aggression
Against some people somewhere,
Most likely brown,
Most likely poor,
Most likely weak,
Most likely no real threat.
War for the sake of the banks
And for the merchants of death.
War for the sake of the pulpit,
And for the corridors of power.
But not a war for the sake
Of you and of me. We don’t count.
Our side is the one side
That has never counted.
That’s how war goes, it’s always been so
And it’s bound to happen again,
Soon happen again.
This is your world,
How it really is —
The world you think,
The world you were taught,
The gods want you to live in and love
Them more than you love each other.
In your world are great nations:
Nations the greatest in history,
Nations with the power of suns,
A thousands suns,
To do good, make truths come true
For even the poor man, the poor woman,
The poor child. Make truths come true.
But these nations,
Nations great and greatest,
Act only like whores,
Fucking folks raw,
Spreading their diseases,
Recruiting new girls,
Ever younger girls
To fuck you, to fuck all of you,
To fuck everyone.
This is your world
Your world without end.
But now someday you see
Someday now for once it will happen
For once it will stop
Stop the day they give a war
You rise up, join hands
By the millions, possibly billions,
Linked together by the net
And by love, and by common sense.
At last you will rise, singing
“At last my spirit shall have water!
At last my cries shall be heard!
At last my thirst shall be slaked!”
Yes, you will rise up and you will say
In a voice thunderous and magnified
By the whole world joining in,
Say, “Those people are our friends,
We chat with them by day and by night.
We know their hopes, we know their dreams,
We know their troubles, we know their fears.
We know them, we know their names.
“Jane and Matthias. Terese and Sindhuja.
Mark, Parikhitdutta, and Min.
We even marry them now and then —
They shall not this time be murdered.
“You will not touch them,
Our brothers, our friends;
This once the bombs won’t fall.
This once the bombs won’t fall.
You politicians and preachers,
You capitalists and bankers all —
This once the bombs won’t fall.”
Yet you know it will ever be a dream
Just a dream, just a mere dream.
It will ever be a dream
If you, if we, keep on dividing,
Never uniting, never joining,
But instead just staying, just keeping,
To my echo chamber or to yours.
So let’s come together
Let’s come together,
Let’s come together.
So let’s come together
Before the nukes fall,
Before the demons fall.
Before we die in the winter,
And we come together
Never once come together at all.
Please seriously consider spreading this poem — spreading it to your site, to the social media sites — in an effort to make it go viral. We need it viral well before the next war, we need folks mulling over the idea of rebelling against the violence. Spread this poem and then you too write — write about the ideas presented in the poem. For you, for your brothers and for your sisters, for your children after you — stop the wars of aggression!
Please Note: Matthias has responded by dedicating his poem, Pooling Strength, to this cause.
Bruce has reposted the poem on “The Life and Times of Bruce Genencser“.
Kat has responded by posting this article: I Don’t Know Anything About War.
(About a 7 minute read)
Often, when I think of the people in my life who have most deeply — some might say “most traumatically” — impressed me as smart in some ways and stupid in others, I think of my high school math teacher, Mr. B.
No one — not even I — questioned Mr. B’s competence as a mathematician. I will submit, however, that Mr. B, despite his smarts in math, was twenty years ahead of his time in some kinds of stupid.
I had Mr. B as a teacher in the early 1970s. William F. Buckley was alive, and Buckley was frequently a very smart man. He also had the clout to be the intellectual guardian of the Republican Party. That is, if he decided someone or some group was too stupid to fit in as a Republican, Buckley would use his considerable influence to exile them from the Party. The Republicans have no one like him today. Today,. the crazies have become the Party.
The John Birch Society was one of the groups Buckley succeeded in kicking out of the Party. The “Birchers” believed — in the way stupid people fanatically believe things — all sorts of nonsense. For instance, they thought Dwight D. Eisenhower was a willing tool of the Soviet Union and a deliberate traitor to America. Buckley thought the Birchers were in danger of sliding into fascism. Perhaps he was right.
My math teacher subscribed to the John Birch Society, and perhaps to other Radical Right organizations as well. We knew whenever he had received in the mail another one of their newsletters — he would put aside teaching mathematics for the day and instead lecture us on themes that were rarely enough heard in the early 1970s outside of certain circles.
I can still recall a few of his more memorable pronouncements: “Pollution never killed anyone”. “Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Communist out to destroy America. Don’t let anyone tell you different.” “The Soviets will invade us any year now. Maybe any day now.” “Women don’t need equal rights. Men do! Women are smarter than men.” “Negroes are shameless whiners. They haven’t been discriminated against since the end of the Civil War.”
I am a strong believer in the notion that, although everyone has a right to his or her opinions, not all opinions are created equal. Some opinions are forged of sound logic and a weight of evidence. Some other opinions are forged of logical fallacies and nonsense. Many people believe that differences of opinion never reflect differences of intellect. I’m not so sure. It seems to me some opinions are so stupid their owners, if not merely ignorant, must be stupid. But then I’m no psychologist, so maybe I’m wrong about that.
Yet, it is simply true that — often enough — the same one of us who is so stupid as to believe the Theory of Evolution is a conspiracy of the world’s 500,000 biologists, is nevertheless a brilliant (or at least competent) engineer. How can we account for that?
Mr. B once said something that I think is about half true: “No matter how good you get at math, you will never cease to make mistakes. But if you practice, you will catch your mistakes as you make them, and then correct them yourself, instead of needing someone else to correct them for you.”
I think it sometimes happens that way. But I also think very few — if any — of us ever get so good that we catch and correct every one of our own mistakes, whether in math or in any other field. We will always need the help of others. Indeed, it seems one reason the sciences have been so successful at establishing reliable facts and producing predictive theories is because they employ methods of inquiry that encourage people to correct each other’s mistakes. That is, science is a profoundly cooperative endeavor.
Buckley once described some of the notions of the John Birch society as “paranoid and idiotic”. To some extent, those two things go together. A “paranoid” person is typically unwilling to accept anyone correcting his ideas. Quite often, the result is his ideas drift into idiocy. That’s to say, it seems one of the best ways to become stupid is to systematically reject or ignore the efforts of others to correct us when we are wrong.
But why are we humans so often wrong in the first place?
Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber have come up with a rather interesting theory that could go far to explain why our species of great ape seems prone to cognitive errors. It’s called “The Argumentative Theory”, and it is well worth reading up on.
The gist of it is that our ability to reason evolved — not to figure out what is true or false — but to (1) evaluate arguments intended to persuade us to do something, and (2) to persuade others to do what we want them to do. Consequently, our ability to think logically and evidentially is imperfect — one might even say, “somewhat remedial”.
Part of the evidence for the Argumentative Theory is our species built in cognitive biases. By “built in”, I mean that the biases seem hereditary. The fact our thinking is inherently biased is strong evidence our thinking evolved for some other function than to merely figure out what is true or false. Mercier and Sperber would say that function was to persuade people by arguments and to evaluate their efforts to persuade us by arguments.
Regardless of whether the function of reason is to discern reality or to win arguments, the fact our species is so prone to cognitive error might go far in explaining how it happens that the same person can be smart in some ways and stupid in others. That is, perhaps we are smartest — or at least, we tend to act smartest — when we have some corrective feedback.
That feedback might come in the form of ourselves “checking our work” — as when we check a mathematical solution. It might come in the form of whether we achieve our intended outcome — as when we fix a car so that it runs again. Or the corrective feedback might come in the form of constructive criticism from well trusted others.
Perhaps the less corrective feedback we have, the more likely we are to adopt stupid opinions. Or, in other words, we should not expect our own reason alone to take us where we want to go. Rather, we should expect our reason plus some form of corrective feedback to take us there.
I think my high school math teacher, if he were alive to read this essay, would be appalled by my suggestion that — no matter how good we get — we are still wise to listen to the critiques of others. It seems to me Mr. B cared so little to hear the opinions of others that he might as well have been a space alien orbiting his own little planet and all but totally out of touch with earth. He seemed to think he was his own sufficient critic. And perhaps his lack of concern for the input of others explains why he found it so easy to harbor so many “paranoid and idiotic” notions. Notions that, in a sense, were more stupid than he was.
“I maintain that fully supporting either of the two major parties is morally wrong. I maintain that we can not achieve peace by choosing the lesser warmonger, human rights by choosing the lesser trampler of human rights, or equality by choosing the lesser bigot. If liberals and progressives refuse to hold the Democratic Party to account — not just with our words, but with our votes — then all is lost, and we will be complicit in that loss.”
Do you agree with DV8? Why or why not?
I have been thinking this morning about the internet and how it allows everyone who so desires to find a group of like minded people who will never challenge his or her pet beliefs.
So, if one happens to think the sky is not typically blue, but forest green, one can with ease find at least a few thousand others who share the same belief. Somedays, I even suspect no one today is any longer capable of coming up with an idea — no matter how off the wall that idea is — that cannot find a following on the internet. That is, the internet has made it very easy to be both grossly wrong and have a like-minded support group too.
Of course, the ability to isolate oneself from dissent — from any reality checks — is not a new thing. Nor is it a new thing to be able to find a support group of like-minded people. Yet, today, the internet has made it easy to do both. And, because doing both has become much easier, doing both has become more likely.
Support groups are important because, among other reasons, people in support groups routinely feed off each other. Like sports fans, they can feed off each other’s enthusiasm. And, they can also feed off each other’s ideas. They can ramp each other up.
In the absence of any reality checks from dissent, someone with a bad idea and a support group can easily go from, “The sky is forest green”, to “The sky is forest green and in it live elves”, to “The eternal and unchanging sky is forest green and in it live elves”, and so on. There seems to be no limit.
Truth is not universally important to most of us. (Perhaps ironically, believing we know the truth is nevertheless crucially important to most of us.) Instead of being universally important, it is merely locally important: Typically, we have areas of our lives in which we are careful to establish truths, and other areas in which we are more or less indifferent to truths. The same person who believes the sky is forest green might be a complete realist when it comes to driving a car.
I suspect that, when establishing the truth is really not important to us, we tend to choose our “truths” according to their entertainment value, or by the pleasure they give us, or by whether we find them otherwise in some way rewarding. If that’s indeed the case, then in the future will we see a world in which nearly everyone has an internet support group for his or her half dozen or so bad ideas?
My deepest fear is that US support for Israeli militarism, and the terrorism that support inevitably engenders, will be what finally finishes off the civil liberties enshrined in the American Constitution.
There are, and always have been, serious threats to US Civil liberties. But I think Cole is correct in pointing out that today one of the greatest threats is the loss of our liberties in reaction to terrorism. Our politicians are spineless folk who will try to trade away our liberties for a little security.
Indeed, this is already been happening — we have already lost some of our liberties in reaction to terrorism due to the unwise policies of the Bush and Obama Administrations. And, unfortunately, every sign points to a further loss of liberties with the next successful terrorist attack. Moreover, such an attack seems sooner or later inevitable so long as we continue to support Israeli militarism.
Ultimately though, I think it is — not what any terrorists can do to us — but instead our own willingness to trade our liberties for the illusion of a little security that will do us in. Some say America has become a nation of wusses. I don’t yet know if that is really true. But I do suspect we will someday soon enough see if it is true.