Cannabis' anti-aging properties

Stress Ages (grey haired presidents = evidence).  Cannabis is excellent for stress.  The world's most popular herbal remedy is a youth elixir.  Nailed it.

Calling All Quarter-Life Angsters

There’s a reason so many vets are homeless.  And Native Americans alcoholics.  And young gods in their primes dead.

Society sucks.

Subjectively, that is.  Objectively, this is the greatest country in the history of the universe.  Highest glass ceilings; plushest safety net (for those who choose to accept  charity from a hegemon).  But to some scarred souls, none of it is worth it.

Neizsche, first among many, described the phenomenon.  PTSD isn’t exactly the same as nihilism, but it’s similar.  Watch the supermarket scene in The Hurt Locker.  Read Into the Wild.  McCandliss was an old soul although a young naïve one, that is to say, a searcher.  His sister’s “childhood trauma from a broken home” explanation galls, because I believe I know her brother better than she did, which is sad; he wanted to taste the marrow, to paraphrase Robin Williams quoting Keating.  As did I, in my mid-twenties.  Twenty-seven, actually, was the epitome of my disaffectedness.  Like Morrison, Cobain, Hendrix, Joplin…

Once you’ve been exposed to the core; your soul flayed open; what we lemmings are striving so purposefully to achieve appears – subjectively – to be bullshit.

Fair enough.

I get jaded.  I get not wanting to participate in modern society if it means busting my ass to fit in with drones about whom I could give a sippy cup of diarrhea.

If you were Native American, would you choose to assimilate, to digest the colonizer’s ethos?  I’d shit on it.

If you were a rock god, at the absolute pinnacle of your power, would you fixate on the futility of your existence, and giggle at the finality of your death?

After inhaling the nectar, humdrum workaday living (which we all pressure each other to idealize, for some reason [we’re dependent upon one another for tax funded infrastructure development, so we enter into a mutual castration compact]) is noticeably bland.  Gimme flavor!  Gimme vivid! Something which stimulates my spirit, otherwise no thank you.

The Buddha is considered to have become enlightened.  Subjectively, of course.  His main message was: become willing to give it all up.

Hindus believe anyone can become enlightened.  Millions of Indians are holy men; you can be too.

Give it all up, and catapult yourself out of your comfort zone – just don’t give up.  Choose existentialism.  Choose transcendentalism.  Find your Purpose; don’t let anyone else tell you what it is.  Except maybe a Shaman.

To give it all up is to make a great sacrifice; the closest-to-guaranteed way I know to launch one’s self on a spiritual trip.

Buy a one-way ticket with the last of your cash.  Bring a backpack, and gifts.

Or not.  Ok but be warned:  You may be your own best bullshitter but you can’t fake it forever.  Your superego’s mission is to drown out your id.  But your iGod will out if you let it.  Let it, before you regret it.  Be the god of your life in your prime; refuse to be anyone’s bitch until you’re good and ready to surrender to the bliss of monochrome oblivion.

First and hopefully last words on Trump

I hate to even mention his obnoxious dumb ass because I'd rather he just disappear off my radar, however since he's the current GOP frontrunner I can't not comment on Trump's offensive ethos, to wit: if you're smart you must be rich and if you're rich you must be smart.

(I refuse to respond to his comments about Mexican-American immigrants - I can't stoop that low without wrenching my back.)

Here's what I know:

Many of the most enlightened beings I've met been humble ascetics, by choice.

The decisions I've made in my own life which have enriched my existence immeasurably while impoverishing me financially are those I regret the least.

Not everyone born into privilege is a rocket scientist (Bush II, anyone?); many "self-made-men" simply luck into it (see: the inventor of the paperclip).

The donald isn't just wrong, though, or I wouldn't be writing this - far more caustically, he is full-on declaring that struggling lower and middle class men and women are in their situations because they lack IQ, not because people are in any way a product of their circumstances.  Talk about ignorance! Talk about an inability to see through the eyes of one's potential constituents!

Typical entitled Anglo-Aryan rhetoric, easily dismissed.  Except, for some reason, it's not been - yet.

I'm flabbergasted that Trump is apparently striking a chord with my fellow countrymen, that he is in the news so much, that he's considered a serious contender for the most respected job in this or any other country.  Are we the people, who figuratively have the entire world in the palms of our hands, really so impressed by this circus act, this bully who arrogantly crows on and on about how he is everyone's "better"?  Or (please o please) isn't our impulse to watch him, to goad him, to spur him on, more akin to that which causes us to rubberneck car wrecks?

Just try to imagine for a second, if you will, the donald holding high level diplomatic discussions with Putin or Netanyahu, for example.  Somehow, I just don't see how shouting over the top of them and calling them idiots and whatever other names he could think of would result in a positive net gain for our nation.

He's unstable, not someone we can count on for anything other than shock-value soundbytes.  He'd make a horrible president, no question about it.

C'mon people, ain't politics meant to mean something more than entertainment?

The real question is: what does it say about the state of the Grand Old Party that none of the fifteen other candidates compares favorably to him?!

Gay Marriage, what next? Oh that slippery slope...

Same-sex marriage has won.  “Definition of Marriage” traditionalists’ best argument didn’t meet the rational basis test, much less any stricter scrutiny requirements potentially on deck.  Now then…  What about that slippery slope argument Scalia and his ilk railed so vehemently against?

As I recall, it went something like this:  If we let a man marry a man or a woman marry a woman how could we prevent a man marrying two women, or three people marrying each other, or a couple marrying a couple, or a grandmother marrying her grandson, or a retard marrying a broomhandle or a collie?

(That language isn't mine, it's Republicans')

C’mon, even the slipperiest slopes get tacky.  I’ll guarantee you that it shall be slightly tougher to stop a throuple from tying the knot henceforth than it has been.  Incest, though, has always been and will continue to be distinguishable not just on religious grounds but on “health and welfare” grounds [1]. Everyone who has taken freshman genetics understands the risks of truly “unnatural” intercourse.

Neither the nation nor the state can prefer one religion over another.  Nevertheless, the Mormons got railroaded by Lincoln, look it up!  He also suspended Habeus Corpus!  Father of our nation, what?

For all of its avowed commitment to the separation of Church and State, our nation has always been a Christian one, "under [the Bible]" with liberty and justice for the domesticated.

Both the Latter Day Saints and Mohammed's Men believe in the sanctity of polygamy.  But radical mainstream conservatives demonize those "others'" faith as un-American. [2]

Before today, any swinging couple with a good lawyer could marry another down couple in all meaningful ways except assigning federal government benefits; it’s just that sometimes those government benefits are the best (social security, pensions, immigration).  That is separate, but NOT equal. Unacceptable.

Why should the fed care if various claimants split their hard-earned, well-deserved benefits as they choose?  What, they anticipate being rendered incompetent by the slightly more complicated paperwork?

Although a man can have a sexual relationship with a broomhandle or a collie, this can’t be the only reason we’re granting people marriage licenses.  Neither can procreative ability be.  Thus, a grandmother can legally marry a man young enough to be her grandson in every state today (without being required to submit proof of her fertility).  On a completely related note:  one of the best reasons to let gays wed is that they’re dying to adopt needy kids into often prosperous, surely stable loving homes- do you dare to contest homosexual people’s ability to epitomize family values?

That is to say, Don’t you know it’s better for kids to have mas responsible, committed, loving, concerned, invested adults around than menos? 

Indeed, I say,

Why not consensual polygamy?

Where're the Lesbians 4 Libertarians t-shirts!  Homos, why don't you heart sluts!  (C’mon: polys need your support, you’re a dominant democgraphic now, after such a long brutal epic struggle to victory!  Way to go, congrats on all your success!  Won’t you be empathetic, in turn?  Don’t you remember how it was?  Help your fellow outsasts.  Or wouldn't that be "just"?)

At least co-habitation is no longer prohibited in Utah - thanks Kody Brown.  Many ancient and modern societies both abroad and at home actually encourage it.

God forbid we respectfully ponder our forebears’ conclusions; just because they were wrong about a few things don't mean they had pittance IQs.

 

Big family=successful model.  Tried and true.  Tell me I'm wrong.

Law of contracts dictates parties should have the freedom to promise what they like, so long as they possess the capacity to give informed consent and it’s not otherwise illegal.

Marriage is a contract; it should be governed by contract law (no coercion, unconscionability, impossibility, etc.), not majority values - that's tyranny, man!  

And yet,

Plural marriage will remain illegal for at least another generation (I predict). 

Eventually, though, tribe mating will rear its chillaxed head, because so many "normies" are doing it.

By 2099 each man woman and child will be required to work 5 hours per month minimum, nobody more than 10/week max; all arbitrary boundaries will be erased like an etch-a-sketch. 

[1] States' police powers allow them to pass laws for benefit of their citizens, interestingly, the U.S. Congress does not have any police powers, but not to worry; it has apparently convinced the Court that the Commerce Clause is basically unlimited, so it now feels it has carte blanche to legislate however it wishes.  Federalists rightly argue that the founding fathers intended the powers of the federal government to be limited.  To be fair, however, they never could have conceived of the modern United States, with its 300 million citizens.  The game has changed since then, fundamentally.

[2] In Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145,162 (1878), the Court opined that polygamy was "Non-Christian", and "more appropriate for Asians and Africans" than for Americans, and that, like human sacrifice, polygamy was not a legitimate spiritual practice which should trigger First Amendment protection.  Embarrassingly, this case remains good precedent today.  See, e.g, State of Utah v. Green, 2004 UT 76. (emphasis added)

Teachers should have to pass standardized tests themselves

Teachers who demonstrate mastery of their subjects should be compensated like professionals.

Talent must be wooed, especially to places like White Center, WA.  Ideally, all teachers statewide should be excellent.  Their teaching credentials say they are highly qualified, why not sit them down with a scantron and  see how they stack up, then compensate them according to their demonstrated proficiencies?  (At least partially,that is - the calculus should account too for subjective measures like instructional fluency, adaptability, ability to establish rapport and to motivate, cultural competency, and tenure should also be factored in.)

Teachers should be respected instead of sniffed at as underachieving presumptive pederasts (if one can't do, teach, many say; why else would one with other options choose such a poorly paid position?).

We should thank teachers every time we encounter them for their sacrifice, like we do soldiers.

Unfortunately, even for those who derive significant satisfaction simply from seeing the lightbulb pop on, the sacrifice is often too much.  The bureaucracy which keeps educators-by-calling from ever earning a decent wage, yet pays dinosaurs who ignore the individual requirements of their charges and deliver the same material year after year passionlessly by rote (Buhler...  Buhler...?) far more than they're worth, is enough to discourage most would-be-careerists.

Pay young (especially minority) rock star teachers who are willing to live and work in the neediest neighborhoods the six figures they're worth!  Replace all mailers-in whose professional skills are are covered in moss!  Or else let the whole system go private-charter.

Let the schools themselves compete, like businesses.

Forget the smaller class size argument (result: more mediocre-at-best mentors - albeit a perfect union outcome [unions are, of course, dominated by greyhairs - no wonder so many talented energetic young instructors wash out]) because one excellent mentor can enlighten 200 kids at a time. Especially in this digital age.

PAY GOOD TEACHERS GOOD!

Unions are anti-progressive; they incentivise doing the bare minimum not to get fired.

Sorry if you're a teacher and got offended by this rant; if it makes any difference, if you're decent at your job I'm not dissing you I'm praising you, indeed I'm in awe.

Grammar police: "Literally"

Will EVERYONE PLEASE stop using the word literally like literally every sentence? 

Especially cause y’all be using it so blatantly incorrectly. Also superfluously – and that too is quite literally annoying. ("Quite" literally - really?  As if there is another valid kind?)  

One properly uses the term literally only whilst contradicting an idiom. Such as: that pool is cool, literally (I don't mean neat-o, I mean temperature-wise), or gay bars are gay places, literally (i.e. they're happy and full of pep).

If you insist on continuing to use such a so-2014 term, please at least amend it to "like literally". As annoyingly valley girl as that turn of phrase is, at least it approximates accurate.

Thank you.

Which is the All-‘Mrrcan-er holiday, Black Friday or Thanksgiving?

Thanksgiving should be a two day holiday. Black Friday should not exist cause it’s disgusting. 

Binge-buying is the opposite of Thanksgiving; indeed it is antithetical to the whole idea of Thanksgiving. That Black Friday is what it is when it is makes us hypocrites.

As my immigrant wife says:  the United States would be a much better country if Thanksgiving were two days long. The idea is that Thanksgiving should be the biggest, most important holiday we have. We should really focus on giving thanks.

Thanksgiving is a uniquely ‘Mrrcan holiday. Therefore it should be our greatest. Right? Most people make it a four day holiday already - except for retailers of course. 

Due to a certain festering canker of a trend. 

Has Black Friday become the quintessential 'Mrrcan expression? 

Which better epitomizes our culture, Thanksgiving or Black Friday? 

Is what it means to be ‘Mrrcan: spend spend spend? Sure.  Course it is.  Feed like a pig watching football all day watching millions of ads then go out the next day and buy a bunch of crap you want don't need- is that what it means to give thanks?

Once upon a time the final Thursday in November was designated to be a day of appreciation for the indigenous of this land.  And we should be thanking them - for saving our ass. Also for the land I suppose, though we fought them fair and square for that. Except for the smallpox, etc. Let's just not think about that.

Americans spent $9.1 billion dollars "saving money" on "deals" this Friday- in addition to $3.2 billion on Thursday itself!

Thanksgiving should be about going out and buying anyone who has any indigenous blood at all a beer rather than a smorgasbord of self-gratification. The least we can do as wannabe mindful citizens is to boycott Black Friday; c’mon, man. Thanksgiving should be the greatest of all ‘Mrrcan holidays, y'all, a break from our all-consuming materialism!