"LIFE SUCKS, THEN YOU DIE"... IS THAT WHAT YOU BELIEVE? - PART ONE

Go ahead, type that query into Google and you'll get 2, 130,000 results. Yikes! That many hits??? So, where to begin?

How about the English Rock Band album - Cerebral Fix, the band that released an album by that name - "Life Sucks, Then You Die" in 1988. The origin of the expression itself I don't believe is known. The reality is, many people feel this expression is true on a daily basis. That is the reason for this topic... dealing with the reality.

Mike Treder, who posts on IEET.org writes as good of an article on the topic as I believe is possible. A brief excerpt:

"As an existentialist, I am committed to the recognition that most of life is suffering. To be born is to die, and to live is to experience pain and agony.

Only the tiniest fragment of humanity has ever been so fortunate as to “enjoy” life, even briefly. The vast majority of humans who have ever lived have perished in anonymity, their hopes, dreams, joys, passions, laughter, tears, toils, fears, and even names lost forever, abandoned to oblivion."

He goes on to offer hope:

"But, aha, it doesn’t have to be that way."

"If we have proven anything in the last 10,000 years of advancing civilization, and especially in the last 300 years of the scientific era, we have shown an ability—indeed a compulsion—to kick against the pricks, no matter how painful that might be, until we break free from whatever bonds held us down. We will not be satisfied with the status quo. Life can be better, and we can make it so."

Ahhh...

Others are not so optimistic:

ThinkExist, for example...

“Most people think life sucks, and then you die. Not me. I beg to differ. I think life sucks, then you get cancer, then your dog dies, your wife leaves you, the cancer goes into remission, you get a new dog, you get remarried, you owe ten million dollars in medical bills but you work hard for thirty-five years and you pay it back and then -- one day -- you have a massive stroke, your whole right side is paralyzed, you have to limp along the streets and speak out of the left side of your mouth and drool but you go into rehabilitation and regain the power to walk and the power to talk and then -- one day -- you step off a curb at Sixty-seventh Street, and BANG you get hit by a city bus and then you die. Maybe.”

Wow! That sucks!

*

I have the sort of job where I can browse the internet 8 hours a day in between the work I do. I read the news... most of it is bad news. What's not bad is offensive... what's not offensive is disgusting. So why do I do it. I do it because the internet is my only way to keep abreast of life, and whats happening.

Not all of it is depressing, though. I love what's happening in science, space exploration, cures for diseases, and positive people with a positive role in shaping our future. Angelina Jolie, for example; Bill Gates and malaria prevention and cures; Lady Gaga, her activism! ... yeah, odd choices. Forever being edited, updated and subject to change.

*

It ALL started for me at birth. Yeah, imagine that - birth. Something my mother would remind me about for 50 years of my existence until I finally told her I don't want to be reminded... about how she gave birth to me... oh joy! And all.

My parents were very decent folks, even if they were neurotic. But here's the thing... on a personal level, why I am a member of the "Life Sucks, Then You Die" collective.

When I was around 16 they took me to a shrink... I was bullied terribly in MS and HS and they were very concerned. It turned out I saw the shrink once, however my parents went for months.

The shrink told them I was "normal", yes, NORMAL but that I needed direction and rules. He told them 1 in 99 people are what shrinks consider "normal"; and to imagine that he considered me one of the 1% who were normal. Let me tell you, looking back, that is not a good thing! I'd give anything to be abnormal... lol!

What was barely tolerable before I saw the shrink, became completely intolerable afterwards. To this day I'm not sure what really happened, I simply know my mother started controlling my every move and my father, oddly, was the "good guy". Like bad cop/good cop.

I graduated HS and by age 18 I couldn't wait to get out on my own... my psyche was changing, maturing...

At the time the only things I knew about life was that "when the bird leaves the nest it needs to survive"... which is exactly what my plan was. To survive, and prosper. That was the seed my parents planted, a seed I wished to grow.

This is simply the tip of the iceberg...

I became the Titanic... unsinkable. Or so I believed. What i didn't adjust for was family tradition... the lengths my mother would go to, especially after I moved out on my own, to assure that I conformed to expectations and tradition.

Although I know the simple answer, to this day I'm tortured by the WHY?

The best years of my life were age 18 to 24... after that it was plain old survival. I'm not ashamed to admit I was defeated, my goals destroyed, my life sent off in directions I'd never intended.

It was almost as if, finding "success" personally was a selfish objective. I know this is not true as I read about personal success stories everyday. I was simply not so fortunate, and it's been a curse ever since a particular day, an event that happened back in July, 1979.

My sinking ship...

And making the best of defeat and rebuilding my life...

Next Post: Life Sucks, Then You Die, but why by suicide (?) and what's the big deal about being unconventional? Why does life have to suck? Why can't we choose how to live and die? Why do some people have the urge to take down others with themselves? Is life really unfair, or is it simply a choice we've accepted as fact?

NEWT GINGRICH, MARIJUANA AND THE DODO - POLITICS 2012 - PART 2

Imagine... there are no predators. You have wings, but it becomes unnecessary to fly. Your wings slowly disappear, to make you flightless. That is the Dodo bird.

Source: Wikipedia

A "chicken" that stood there to let you kill it... that was the Dodo.

First discovered by Dutch sailors in 1598, by 1681 the Dodo was hunted to extinction.

That is the inconceivable wish that the Federal government has with regards to users/affectionatoes of cannabis/aka marijuana. Eradicate marijuana users, as the theory goes, and you erraticate all "illegal drug users".

If you ask newt Gingrich, illegal drug users are users of cocaine and heroin. If you ask him if cannabis users should be arrested and jailed, he'd say "no". He has absolutely no cognizance of the average cannabis user. He firmly believes that not only are cannabis users unable to provide to a society, but they ultimately go onto harder drugs. Not true. It's all a boogeyman to him.

Hate to tell you Newt, a little late with the sermon... people have been using, what you call "drugs", for millennia. And, cannabis is not a "gateway-drug", so you can forget that line of drivel. Cannabis users, like the Dodo, feel safe in the USA.

You make clear they're not. And they're not. But do you expect to get elected having threatened a good 50% of the population with your "death-threats"???

Cannabis users aren't Dodos... they've been under attack since 1937... and are now victims of a undeclared war. The difference is... cannabis users statistically are well educated. Not stupid by any stretch!

Question for Newt (January 4, 2012 at Concord, NH Town Hall Meeting):

“I’m a recreational drug user, should I arrested?"

Gingrich: "No you shouldn’t be arrested, but you also shouldn’t do it.”

Newt's another one of these "born again politicians" that used to use cannabis and other "drugs", and has reformed their ways.

“Gingrich’s response to questions about his youthful drug experimentation (“That was a sign we were alive and in graduate school in that era”) was uncharacteristically graceful and in perspective and mature… ”

1 May 1995, New York Magazine, page 42: SOURCE:

Initially, in Newt's early years, during the 1980's he was pro-legalization, at least for medicinal purposes. In the 1990's he did a reversal... sponsoring a bill that would make marijuana smuggling a felony with a sentence of death.

H.R. 4170 (Drug Importer Death Penalty Act of 1996) to the House of Representatives, which sought to “provide a sentence of death for certain importations of significant quantities of controlled substances”.

Section 2: Increased Penalties For International Drug Trafficking

Section 1010 of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960) is amended by adding at the end the following:

(e)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall sentence a person convicted of a violation of subsection (a), consisting of bringing into the United States a mixture or substance--

(A) which is described in subsection (b)(1); and

(B) in an amount the Attorney General by rule has determined is equal to 100 usual dosage amounts of such mixture or substance;

to imprisonment for life without possibility of release. If the defendant has violated this subsection on more than one occasion and the requirements of chapter 228 of title 18, United States Code, are satisfied, the court shall sentence the defendant to death.

(2) The maximum fine that otherwise may be imposed, but for this subsection, shall not be reduced by operation of this subsection.'

September 25, 1996, 104th Congress (1995 - 1996), H.R.4170

So How did Newt go from supporting legalization of cannabis to outright hostility?

"See, when I smoked pot it was illegal," he reportedly told the Wall Street Journal's Hilary Stout in 1996, "but not immoral. Now, it is illegal AND immoral. The law didn’t change, only the morality... That's why you get to go to jail and I don't." reportedly Newt said.

So, okay, change of morality. But is Newt God? I guess in a way the way I read him he thinks he is. He implies, marijuana use is now a violation of morals? Holy Batman on that one... how does he validate that statement???

Several quotes summarize his position, courtesy of NORML:

“If you import a commercial quantity of illegal drugs… it is because you have made the personal decision that you are prepared to get rich by destroying our children. I have made the decision that I love our children enough that we will kill you if you do this.”

August 27, 1995, New York Times, Gingrich Suggests Tough Drug Measure

“I don’t have a comprehensive view. My general belief is that we ought to be much more aggressive about drug policy. And that we should recognize that the Mexican cartels are funded by Americans. In my mind it means having steeper economic penalties and it means having a willingness to do more drug testing.”

(Yahoo! News Interview, November 28th, 2011

“I think that we need to consider taking more explicit steps to make it expensive to be a drug user. It could be through testing before you get any kind of federal aid. Unemployment compensation, food stamps, you name it.

It has always struck me that if you’re serious about trying to stop drug use, then you need to find a way to have a fairly easy approach to it and you need to find a way to be pretty aggressive about insisting–I don’t think actually locking up users is a very good thing. I think finding ways to sanction them and to give them medical help and to get them to detox is a more logical long-term policy.”

(Yahoo! News Interview, November 28th, 2011

So, if you like to use marijuana, newt mandates detox...

He would like to see an increase in enforcing the War on Drugs.

Much like Mitt Romney, he's another "prehistoric thinker..." but what really gets to me is this quote:

“I think Jefferson or George Washington would have rather strongly discouraged you from growing marijuana and their techniques with dealing with it would have been rather more violent than our current government.”

(New Hampshire Voter Event, January 2012

I don't think so Newt! Especially Thomas Jefferson. Both probably even used it... it was a common herb and medicine even back then - far from being illegal, immoral, or discouraged.

Neither President believed infringing on the rights of adult individuals was good governing. But somehow Newt, you believe otherwise. Maybe that's why the Dodo bird appears in Lewis Carroll's - "Alice In Wonderland". Newt's in his own wonderland.

Think the casual cannabis user, generally with a college degree, is going to listen to Newt? Not likely.

Sorry Newt... but you're also a prehistoric thinker, like Mitt Romney.

Prohibition doesn't protect children. It endangers them.

MITT ROMNEY, MINISKIRTS AND MARIJUANA - POLITICS 2012

Here begins my 2-Cents towards the upcoming Presidential Election. I'm the guy on the fence, a member of neither party. Even the Libertarian Party, though I like the Jeffersonian (ref towards: Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the US, 1801-1809) approach to politics, I feel we've grown far beyond what a Libertarian gov't could provide and accomplish.

What I'd like is a Party that's Not a Party. I'd like a government that is rational, realistic, fair and humane, believes in the US Constitution, Human Rights, Personal Rights and Liberties. One that serves and protects.

The question is who qualifies... Obama? Or one of the ever dwindling stock of Republican contenders? The only modern, really intelligent man I see is, Ron Paul, and his own party won't endorse him. The most conservative of the bunch, and he's seen as too libertarian.

Mr. Obama is a good man. He's smart. He's made some good decisions and at least things haven't gotten worse, yet. He's had the worst Congress perhaps in history to deal with, and overall, he's taken action in stride, not fumbling. But he's done some things in office that give me serious mis-givings. He's not done enough for the average guy/gal. He's not pushed for common sense, science based laws; protection of civil liberties, an end to the War on Drugs.

Now a part of me feels he's got the potential to do a lot of good if elected to another four years as President. Another part of me also realizes, he's not exactly the man who campaigned for President in 2008. It's like he was given a script, told to follow it when he was elected, and he's done what he can to both follow the rules and achieve his goals.

Would I vote for him again? Well that depends upon who's running against him. I wouldn't if Ron Paul was the nominee. More on that in my next post perhaps. What if, Mitt Romney was the nominee, as is now being predicted?

Mitt Romney:

Ex-Governor of Massachusetts. A state with a mandated health care-law that he created. The same law he now denounces as bad... this in response to President Obama's health care law. A state where marijuana was decriminalized for several years ago. Mitts state...

What's Mitt's views on marijuana? If you ask me my opinion, marijuana to Mr. Romney is a lot like a woman in a mini-skirt. Remember the 1960's? If not, here's a peek:

This gorgeous gal, circa 1960, is rocking the planet, from gov't perspective, same as marijuana and hippies.

Others felt a woman dressed like this was "begging to be raped". And that's no joke. Some people still believe it today. Just like some people today still believe marijuana is the gateway drug, to hard drugs.

Mitt Romney:

October 4, 2007, Romney speaking to students at St. Anselm Institute of Politics in Manchester, New Hampshire

“I believe marijuana should be illegal in our country. It is the pathway to drug usage by our society, which is a great scourge -- which is one of the great causes of crime in our cities, and I believe we are at a state where, of course, we are very concerned about people who are suffering, and there are various means of providing pain management.”

or:

“People talk about medicinal marijuana, and, you know, you hear that story: People who are sick need medicinal marijuana. But marijuana is the entry drug for people

trying to get kids hooked on drugs. I don’t want medicinal marijuana. There are synthetic forms of marijuana that are available for people who need it for prescription.

Don’t open the doorway to medicinal marijuana.”

Sorry Mitt... it's already open.

In this country maybe we've pretty much gotten over the min-skirt madness era... but in other parts of the world they have not. It's very much like politicians in this country do not want to understand, marijuana is much like a min-skirt. Using marijuana doesn't cause crime. In the majority of the cases it doesn't lead to hard drugs. It's safer than prescription forms of the plant, and in fact much safer than what most humans ingest. The Marijuana Myth is Broken!!!

In Malaysia, in the news recently, was the alleged attacks by street vendors on women wearing trousers and mini-skirts. The men in question assaulted the woman and stripped them naked. They claim they were enforcing the law.

Man In Military Fatigues Undresses a woman in public. 2012

SOURCE: BULAWAYO NEWS 24

The law they are speaking of, "The Decency in Dress Act", 1973, was repealed in 1993. It did in fact make it a crime for women to wear trousers or mini-skirts in public.

This is what a cannabis user feels like when accosted by inane laws. Laws with no more basis in reality than women should not wear mini-skirts or trousers.

I don't believe Mitt Romney seriously knows what is a danger to society today. I think he pretends to know. There may be hope for him, just as there may be hope yet for President Obama.

By now most everyone is aware the of the fact that use of marijuana does not lead to hard drugs or increased crime. It's been legal for years in CA, NY, CO, ME, CT, AZ... and a number of other states. The nations rate of homicides I read recently is down, to # 16, the first time since the 1960's. And in MA, people are not jumping out of windows, nor has there been an increase in crime. CA is still more likely to fall into the ocean than it is to get overrun by hoards of rabid cannies/cannabinoids. Time for this country to get real... deal with real problems, and let people alone that aren't harming others.

A woman wearing a mini-skirt is not an invitation to rape, anymore than a marijuana user is a future user of hard drugs or or a threat to society.

50,000 dead in Mexico, and 100'000's Americans with criminal records, or incarcerated because

of the noble cannabis plant. Thousands more either dead in the US because cannabis is a thriving underground business, with many shady and dangerous players. The War on Drugs is like a war on the mini-skirt. There's no Just Cause to make war on people because of what they wear, read, express or ingest.

This link to The Women's Center for Change (WCC) Panang offers an excellent "Myth Vs. Reality" when it comes to the myth about the mini-skirt, as well as other worthwhile reminders; the point being - a woman wearing clothes is not inviting rape, just as a person using marijuana is not asking for trouble, nor likely to harm society just because... it's a mindset people have, and when the laws cause more harm to society than the perceived goal and/or validity of a law, it's time to stop. As they did in Malaysia.

Not that Malaysia has a great Human Right's record, but then neither does the US.

When voting for President I want someone with for the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and a respect of an individual's pursuit of "Life, Liberty and Happiness".

Mitt Romney is a prehistoric thinker. It's time he and others realize the year is 2012. It's not 1912... Mitt Romney is not a man who thinks like a 21st Century thinker. He's stuck in the past, and we really need a future of real change. The kind President Obama promised.

Think FREEDOM, Legalize cannabis! Vote to Stop The Hurt!

And Save the Mini:

Source: Photobucket: http://s192.photobucket.com/albums/z229/Swinging_Sixties/1960s%20-%20Mini%20Skirts/?start=all

Jane Birken, c 1960's

Twiggy, c 1960's

Amsterdam Cannabis Cup Winner: White Widow

THE WAR ON SEMEN - SPECIAL REPORT

SPERM:

It's come to that.

The FDA has determined your gonads are factories, "manufacturing cells"... and as such, the FDA believes that what your gonads produce/manufacture is a controlled substance. Under their control. Imagine that while it's pending. The goal of the FDA is your well-being, naturally; I suspect that may not be true. Decide for yourself...

*

Originally this topic was going to be an interlude, a break for a bit before I tackled a more difficult topic... it was to be light-hearted satire to warn against the encroachment of government on human freedom. A humorous topic, I thought!

*

Seriously. The FDA has declared a "war on semen"...

Case in point:

Trent Arsenault:

Tim has his own blog where he advertises free "donor sperm". He runs it as a business, a not-for profit business. He provides full medical disclosure to potential clients. He's fathered 14 children, and the FDA recently raided his home, and attempted to ... they, the FDA is conducting some kind of investigation... determining what crimes Trent committed. Odd thing is, semen is in high demand. Who would have guessed? Click the image for the story or here:

CBS San Francisco News - "FDA Cracks Down On Fremont Man’s Sperm Donations".

Trent is not alone.

Here's a link to a forum Post-It Board where anyone can ask for, or advertise, they're seeking, or willing to donate sperm:

VOY_FORUMS.COM

*

I simply never thought of myself as a "factory".

*

I'll bet the ex-AL politician who was running a private sperm donation clinic didn't think of himself as a factory. The irony with the case of Bill Johnson, 52 of Alabama is that #1, his age. #2, he's married and his wife didn't know. #3, He donated mostly to lesbian women, yet was opposed as a politician to gay rights. In New Zealand, Bill felt generous, and fathered at least 4 children.

*

What really convinced me to take this topic seriously was when reading that Jennifer Aniston's former agent encouraged her to ask Brad Pitt for some of his semen, before he left for good. The story is here: Agent Urged Jen Aniston To Ask for Brad Pitt's Sperm Post-Split; Published December 23, 2011; FoxNews.com

*

There's the story of the Texas man who found out he was the father of twins. He always used a condom with his previous girlfriend who gave birth to his children. She stole his sperm in the condoms he used and deposited the sperm in a sperm bank. He's suing.

Story Here: "A New York man was stunned to find out that his four-year-old twins were not an accidental pregnancy after all — but that his desperate girlfriend secretly stashed away his sperm..."

*

Here's an account of what it's like to donate sperm at a "government approved facility"... THE GENIUS FACTORY, by David Plotz.

*

And to conclude an in-depth news report entitled: "You Got Your Sperm Where?" Newsweek.com. This last article goes way into the reality of donated sperm. College student can make $1200/donation, I've heard. Gosh, wish I'd known!!!

But as the article begins, one can see that all is not well being a sperm donor:

The Daily Beast: ""

*

That's enough...

It's bad enough when the government tells me what plants I may have and use. It's another when it tells me my "sperm is manufactured in a factory"! My own personal factory. So, the FDA is thinking of regulating my sperm.

*

What is it about government that as an elected entity it believes it can decide plants and semen are manufactured, and therefore, subject to government regulation? That it believes it can regulate and even prohibit certain naturally occurring substances? Taking this mindset to semen is taking it way too far. If a guy wants to donate his sperm, when has it been the government's business to interfere? We're talking about SEX. Since when has the government had the right to tell a man where he can plant his seeds? Especially since we're talking about consenting adults.

*

I'm thinking 2012 should be especially interesting...