Flexing my K'GOTO

Generally speaking, most humans are basically all alike, save one detail: Many lack a K'GOTO. This is something that I fear. Not personally, but for all of humanity. Contrary to popular belief, the Apocalypse will not come in the form of some huge catastrophe, which by the way, would probably sound like this: "Whaabaangg!!" . . . . (long echoe from the whabang) . . . . (then silence) . . . (then maybe add a wind sound, but not a real wind sound, more like when someone just uses their mouth when they're trying to mimic wind)

No. Not like that at all. The end of the world will come when humans lose their K'GOTO. I can see the whole thing unfolding right now:

First, mankind loses all their ability to feel, much less flex, their K'GOTO. Once this happens, of course, we're already done for. Then, Jesus bursts in from some clouds in the sky (probably cumulus clouds, since that would look cooler), waving a big sword. On his right are a bunch of angels with those big long trumpet things blasting music in the air, but since those kinds of trumpets don't have valves on them, the song will likely have only three or four notes. And on his left will be a vicious pile of gnashing teeth.

Then Jesus will say, "Alright listen up everybody. Now we all know what this means."

"What what means?" A voice burst from the crowd before Jesus even starts in.

"The whole bursting through the clouds bit with the trumpets and gnashing of teeth," says Jesus. "What do you think I meant?"

"Well, I thought you might have said something before you said 'alright listen up' and I missed it, since I really wasn't paying attention," replied the voice. "That pile of teeth is really gross."

"Never mind the teeth, as of now anyway, and just pay attention!" says Jesus.

"Where'dya git dem teet from?" chimes in another voice.

"Never mind where they came from, just listen . . ." says Jesus.

"How come they're moving like that?" another interrupted. Which starts an argument with the fellow next to him.

"You dummy! Dont t'chew know what gnashin' means? It means like to chew on somethin'. That's why they movin'."

"Yeah, but those teeth aren't chewing on anything. There just all there moving together in a pile."

"Why dont t'chew ever shut up?"

"Don't tell me to shut up . . ."

"Say that again . . . fool . . ."

"Hey, Hey, just relax you two" Jesus says. "Now as I was saying. There's going to be some changes around here. Now listen carefully, some of you will make a line towards my right, and the others will line up on my left."

So Jesus gets everyone to line up on their proper side. About half on the angel side, and the other half on the gnashing of teeth side.

"Excuse me. But I'm still kind of freaked out by those teeth, and now that I'm in the gnashing of teeth line, it's making me a little nervous, does anyone want to switch with me?"

"No, no, no. You don't really have that choice . . ." Jesus started replying.

"I'll switch with you", said some voice from the angel line, "these really long trumpet type things are kind of hurting my ears."

"Kin I sweetch too? I nevva was muchuva one a dem music folk. An' I could use a new pair a doze teet."

Then the huge commotion begins. Everyone starts jumbling around and lining up in the line that they wanted instead of the line they were assigned too.

"Hey, Hey, Hey. What the heck is wrong you guys?" shouts Jesus. "Don't you understand what's going on here? This is the Apocalypse. Some of you are coming with me, and some of you are staying. And then this whole place is going up in flames . . ."

"Hey! You can't say heck!" says a voice from the once again jumbled crowd.

"Did you at least bring some marshmallows?" says another voice who was on the gnashing of teeth side of the jumble.

Jesus, realizing he's getting nowhere, finally concludes that someone beat him to the punch. But it didn't really look like an Apocalypse had already come through? At least not the kind he was going to unleash. What happened to these people? They all turned into morons somehow. They must have lost their ability to use their K'GOTO, thought Jesus; no common sense. What a shame. Such potential.

Then Jesus rises back up through the cumulus cloud and back to where he came, leaving the poor, senseless, crowd behind. The disappointment of not being able to implement the end of world is all too apparent on his face. What a shame; it was gonna be neat, thought Jesus.

So the main point of this story is fairly clear: mankind will destroy itself through lack of common sense, not through natural, or supernatural, disaster; a slow devolving slip into into the bowels of decadency. This foresight is nothing new, of course. Many have extrapolated on such happenings. Noam Chomsky's thesis in Hegemony or Survival, for example, uses a parallel that is much more interesting than my "late on the Apocalypse" parable. Basically, it would be far better to be a dung beetle than a human, because despite their perceived superiority, humans are bent on destroying themselves and the rest of world, while dung beetles have learned to survive in stability.

And so we turn now to the topic at hand; the blasphemic comments that were made by a cousin of mine, who shall remain nameless at this point. I am talking, of course, about the charge that my compass is broken, then trying to laugh it off, and then letting loose a little "sort of" to drive his point home. (See the wall on my facebook for the low-down) The whole thing is obviously an overt slander of my system of beliefs. The nerve! My own flesh and blood! It's no secret that my family, as other families, is diverse in their beliefs. It's kind of like we're all from the same blood, but some of us are going one way, and others are going the other way. Kind of like veins and arteries. So when I'm cruising on an artery, said cousin, who is by the way much shorter than me, is cruising on a vein. Then on occasion, we happen to pass each other, and then we'd say "hey, how's it going?" "Just on my way back to the heart" he would say. "Yeah, I'm going the other direction; to the big toe actually." "alright, see you next time." But not this time. This time, instead of a nice hello, said cousin took a stick and smacked me upside the head when I wasn't looking and probably said "ha, gotcha!" And then I would say "what's with the smacking?" Then he'd say, "seeya sucker!" And off he goes to some other body part. My own flesh and blood.

So I guess it's time to flex my K'GOTO. I knew that at some point, with all this writtin' and typin' that I would have to divulge into society; no more shuckin' and jivin'. I suppose the political compass on that facebook thing got things going a little faster, seeing that that's what got cousin all riled up. But still, this confrontation comes sooner than expected.

First, I need to deconstruct some of the stereotypes that exists in politics today. Specifically, the term "liberal" is perhaps one of the most misused words in American politics and media. The actual definition of "liberal" has more to do with words such as "freedom and liberty"; to free something, hence, liberalize something. In American politics, the term has flipped all over the place. For example, if one advocates welfare or environmental policies, you're likely to be tagged as a "raging liberal." However, both those policies entail more governmental control; the opposite of liberalization. So one would do well to throw out the "American" notion of "liberal."

Second, a political compass measures beliefs and ideas. They measure, generally speaking of course, how you feel society should be, and what values society should have. They do not necessarily measure how these ideas are to be implemented, although using a generalization, you may often come close to supposing. So to assume what anyone believes based on a dot on a compass is a grievous mistake. The compass only measures, in a general and subjective way, beliefs about basic principles, not really anything in specific, only in a conceptual way.

Let us then explore "the corner of common sense." The bottom left square in a political compass can be labeled any number of things. All of these labels are of course, subjective, in the sense that each person may look at it in a different way. You can't box a system of beliefs. Some of these names include:

• Anarcho-Syndicalism
• Social Anarchism
• Libertarian Socialism
• Democratic Socialism
• Participatory Democracy
• Anarchist Communism
• Council Communism
• Inclusive Democracy
• Left Libertarianism

And the list goes on . . .

*It might be important to note that many of these terms are also misrepresented in mainstream America. Ideologies such as communism, socialism, and in particular, anarchism are grossly misunderstood. A quick look at the origin and history of these Ideas would be sufficient to dispel negative stereotypes.

Of course, each of these differ in terms of it's history, context, and emphasis, but the core remains the same, and they represent the main ideals of the lower left corner on a typical political spectrum. These core principals are two fold:

1. Regarding "Society and The State," this spectrum is usually measured vertically. The top is Authoritarianism, Fascism, Statism, etc. Whatever you want to call it. The bottom is Libertarianism, Anarchism, Individual Freedom, etc, whatever you want to call it. The basic principle in Libertarianism/Anarchism is simple: AUTHORITY SHOULD ONLY EXIST WHEN IT IS LEGITIMATE. Examples of both legitimate and and illegitimate authority are easy to come by, with, of course, some level of subjectivity.
   
2. Regarding "the Government and the Economy", which is usually characterized by the more well known left/right axis, analysis is sometimes more complicated. It's a lot easier to explain the difference between Hitler and Ghandi than it is Bakunin and Friedman. Here, there is a lot more theory involved. For example, unless one truly understands not only what a "free-market" is, much less how it operates, you might have some studying to do before you develop your own ideals. The basic principle behind the left side is that ALL PERSONS SHOULD HAVE A SAY IN EACH DECISION PROPORTIONATE TO THE DEGREE TO WHICH THEY ARE AFFECTED BY IT. This accurately describes the underlying principle of what is know as participatory economics (parecon) and can also be applied to participatory democracy. Many socialists call this "true democracy." Yes, it revolves around worker solidarity, rights and all that, but it would be a mistake to write it off as a workers party movement or some overpowering union.

With these two basic principles in line; the principles of "the corner of common sense," we can then reflect on the reality we see around us. Does society really make democratic decisions? Are so-called "free-markets" really good for all? As Noam Chomsky would say, these answers are all on the surface, you have to work hard to not see them.

So let's look at just one aspect of "society and the state," Militarism:

• U.S. military spending is almost equal to rest of the world combined; 711 billion a year (or 48% of the worlds' total). The next closest is China at 122 billion, who represents four times more people. All of Europe is 289 billion.


• The 2009 budget allocates 54% of the almost 1 trillion in federal dollars to "defense" spending. If you add up education and health, it's only 11 %.


• There are 737 U.S. military bases in over 130 foreign countries (as of 2005). As Chalmers Johnson has noted (in his work "Nemisis"), even if you just count the larger bases (38), that still outnumbers the British Empire of the 19th century and even the Roman Empire at it's height. These bases (outside the U.S.) include 2.5 million personnel. Worldwide, U.S. bases account for nearly 30 million acres of land.
  
• The number of times the U.S. has defied international law, from large scale acts of aggression to individual cases of torture to the use of illegal weapons such as landmines and clusterbombs is so numerous, to even try to make a complete list would be impossible.


• The U.S. maintains almost 10,000 nuclear weapons, over half of which are considered active. Over 1,000 are on "one-minute alert." Since 2006, in defiance of the non-proliferation treaty, the Bush Administration has developed the "reliable replacement warhead" program, which basically rebuilds and replaces old nuclear weapons. This program does not include the new types of nuclear weapons currently being build, more commonly known as "bunker busters".

LEGITIMACY?

And of course, this does not even get into the subjects of Nationalism, Corporatism, Human Rights, etc.

So ask yourself two questions:

1. Are the two basic principles of the bottom/left on a political spectrum good principles?
   
2. Does our current society/government reflect these values?

As already mentioned, these things around us are so apparent it is embarrassing that more people don't see it. In a way it's understandable. We live in a very powerful culture, with powerful distractions, and powerful media that "manufactures consent." But this, of course, does not excuse the fact that all these things are right in front of our eyes. All one needs is a

Keen Grasp Of The Obvious.

A Well Structured Essay

I kind of feel as though it's time that I write a well structured essay. To me, it felt like my first two blogs had way too much rambling invloved. I suppose the last one had potential. I mean, all my main points were bulleted, and I even had subcategories. But then somehow I started talking about going to college and Barack Obama. What was that all about?

So in the course of analyzing how such a diversion could happen, I was reminded of this whole idea about words, and how they (meaning words) can produce subconscious networks of association. In other words, you think of other things when you hear words, even when you don't realize you are doing so. I actually expanded on this one time when I wrote a little article called the "power of words." It was based on a study I had some students of mine complete. (We talk about words in this one class that I teach). It's all basically about mind control.

This whole conversation about what happens to a brain when a word goes into it reminds me of how versatile some words are, which also reminded me about this one time when I used the word "soggy" in two very different ways in the span of a couple days. The first time, I was talking to a good friend of mine over some sort of digitized messaging system. I was looking at a still photograph that was stored in the byte of a web, I think. It was in this case that I used the word "soggy" to describe the predictable actions of said fellow. Actually it was about a piece of paper, not really my friend.

The second time I used "soggy" was when I was commenting on the cool vibe my brother had going on when he was climbing over the Great Wall of China. I remember being frustrated that I wasn't able to achieve the same vibe because the venison stick I was trying to light up was too soggy. So I just kept it hanging in my mouth trying to act like I'd toke up later when it was more convenient.

This also gets me thinking of all the other ways the word "soggy" could be applied in one's life. For instance, if a group of people were looking for a good picnic spot and they asked you how the ground was over there, you could say "well, I don't know, it looks pretty soggy to me." And they'll say "Oh, okay. I guess we'll find another spot." This is a very useful ploy, because you may have been saving that picnic spot for your own group of friends. Here's where the versatility of the word "soggy" comes in. It's such a subjective word, that even if they called you out on it (because the ground probably wasn't soggy since you were trying to save it for your own friends), you could just say "oh, I guess it must have been the dew."

Another good demonstration of the versatility of "soggy" is if you happen to be watching someone play a pinball game at a roller skating rink. Lets say you get so excited that you pee your pants. Usually, you'd be in a mess of trouble. First of all, the roller rink workers don't have extra pants and underwear, they only have lots of shoes with wheels attached to them, so that's not an option. You might be wearing black sweat pants, which is probably your best bet of sneaking out of there with none the wiser, but in the dreadful case when someone comes up to you and says, "Dude . . . did you just pee? Your pants are all wet?" You should probably respond something like this, "actually they're just soggy." Hopefully by then the person will forget all about it and keep playing the pinball game.

In conclusion, that last story probably never happened to me. I was probably remembering what happened to someone else . . . Besides you don't really want a picnic spot with dew all over the place anyways, you can't really walk around since you might slip. Plus the blanket might get soggy.

Life Lessons

Despite my youthfulness, I figure I have a tremendous amount of wisdom (meaning experience) on some of the most important aspects of life. If there's any question about this, just look at the different stages in ones life that constitutes "big stuff":

-find "the" job
-get married
-own a house (probably w/ a garage)
-have kids (probably two)

So the way I figure it, I'm done. I've done all those things. Perhaps back in the day this is not a big thing, but I would say this is becoming more of a rare occurrence; to accomplish these things as early as 27.

Needless to say, I have so much to share about jobs; dealing with people, "sticking it to the man," and almost being interrogated by the secret service. Marriage? This July will be eight years! Eight! And then there are the joy's to owning a house. Oh boy, do I have some things to say about that . . . "what the hell's with this wire!?!" . . . And kids? Whether it's dealing with the disastrous affects of a two-year old attempting to change their own diaper or trying to hit a fly in the backseat of a car with a metal bat, man, do I have some advice to give you . . .

So, here is what I have to say about all these great things in life:

Don't worry about accomplishing ALL of these things right away. If you were to categorize these aspects in life, and then make all these subcategories that are all related to the main topic but are distinctly different, hence the use of the subcategory, then what you will be left with is a nice long check list of all these things that are no doubt going to stress you out. And now it's even more stressful because, instead of looking at the four categories I listed above, now because you subcategorized them, it looks like a lot more. But just look at it this way: You don't have to be perfect. In fact, my vast years of experience in the educational field will tell you that most teachers will set the grading curve at about 60% to pass. Therefore, in a breakdown of the "own a house" area, for example, if, in the subcategory of "the mortgage," you seal the deal without any hiccups in bureaucratic paperwork, you will probably get an "A." But on the other hand, in the subcategory of "neighborhood," you end up living next to Senor' Cardgage (a moldy man with big sunglasses and boxing gloves), you'd probably end up with an "F". No problem though, if you average out to that 60%, you'll pass in "owning a house" *to calculate, add up the percentages of all subcategories and divide by the number of subcategories.

However, most schools at the collegiate level will not accept such a slacker performance. My suggestion is to try and maintain at least a "B" average. That way, you can go to college and learn things.

College is where you can then learn to legitimize a subjective grading scale bent in your favor. This will alleviate many headaches in the future. Unless, of course, you happen to be arguing with someone who took more legitimizing courses than you. In which case you may have to counter with, what I like to call, the artful application of satire and sarcasm. (this way, you feel like you win, even if you lose . . .)

Of course, I already graduated from college, so I really don't have to worry about all the tuition hikes. What is that all about? Perhaps a "defense" department that spends more than all other developed nations combined . . ?

Which reminds me . . . what do you think of Barack Obama?

On "swanny"

First and foremost, on the topic of the nickname "swanny." I'm unsure of the number of generations this goes back, but I know my dad was called swanny in his day. I got mine from a high school coach who went to school with the ol' pa. Then for whatever reason, after a variety of nicknames from some of my closer friends (which shall remain confidential so as to prevent poser nickname-callers), the name popped up again when I started my current teaching job. I don't mind it. In it's proper context, that is to say, natural syntax, "swanny" does quite well as far as nicknames are concerned.

Recent thoughts of have placed doubt. The name was given to me, as most nicknames are, and was not something I necessarily asked for. Yet, I made this stupid blog and called it "blog of swanny." I realize something like "my blog" is too vague, not to mention stupid, but does the creation of this blog; the concious creation of a webpage with said name, give a sort of fake legitamicy to "swanny"? I guess the question I seem to be wrestling is this: In creating a "blog of swanny," has the term 'swanny,' which used to be, as mentioned, a perfectly acceptable name, become one of those self-proclaimed nicknames that turns into a "look i'm cool and macho, cool mr. crazy fun guy!"? You know, like this:

Setting: A man with a six-pack (of beer . . . probably MGD) named Karl (the man, not the six-pack), gets out of a car, walks toward some party scene where David, Jeff and Mary are hanging out.

-David: "Hey, look who it is . . . it's Karl."

-Jeff: "Haven't seen him around lately."

-David: "I wonder what he's been up to?"

-Mary: "I think he's working for his uncle . . . driving trucks or something . . ."

-Karl: "WHOOOAAA MAAANNNNN, check it out! check it out! It's KILLER . . . KILLER KARL!!! WHOOOAAAA MAANN!!!

-Jeff: "what?"

-Karl: "HHHAAAAAA Jeffy boy!! You were always the funny one! Well, THE KILLER's here man, ready to rock-and-roll!!! Party Man!!!!"

-David: "your three hours late . . ."

-Mary: "yeah, actually we were all just about to leave . . ."

-Karl: "WHOOOOAAA MAAANNN!!!! No way! THE KILLER'll keep this going AALLLL NIGHT!!! WHOEW!! ALL NIGHT!!!! YYYYEEAAAHHH!!!!

-Jeff: "what?"



Know what I mean?

I certainly hope "swanny" has not turned into "Killer Karl". I would never have thought of this before, but out of curiosity, I googled "swanny" and sure enough, there are like a million people out there that call themselves SWANNY!

My only solution is to set some ground rules . . . First, I will not refer to myself as "swanny," although there was a time when I did like "The Swanny" because it was kind of like "The Swammi", which is a Hindu wise man, and very cool. Second, others should only refer to me as "swanny" if that is indeed the nickname that comes natural; again indicated by proper context (syntax).

Of course, if things get out of hand, I'll have to change course, although I really don't think it will come to that. It's not that bad. I mean, it's not as cool as Kyle "the yellow dart" Smith or Leroy "the legend" for that matter, but it sure beats "lardo," "scuba steve" or "dork"