If Memory Would Sustainably Serve

I know buzz words and chic code phrases when I hear them, but I tend to forget, so I think the ticket is to make a list which is constantly updated.

One common thread on trendy words and phrases is that they often lack much meaning if harsh analysis is applied.  Lots of what I think and say has that same vague foundation.  It's a curse.

These words are used quite often to imply that an argument is settled, and debate unthinkable.

Off the top of my head I can list several PC and oddly chic terms which are used to influence people and promote whoknowswhat:

sustainable
green
empower
diversity
multi-cultural
give back (actually phrase, often in front of 'to the community')
advantaged
disadvantaged
The Rich
99%
earth-friendly

The longest lasting, and one of the least well defined words is "fair".   When kids use it, it means "reality is not how I wish it to be".  Unions use it to mean any number of things, usually with the bottom line being we, the management of the union, demand power.   It rarely means equitable, or anything to do with quid pro quo, value for value, etc.

Fair is a good one.

I'm sure I'm missing the best ones.  Just can't remember.  Perhaps "braindead" is one of them.

This did not work out; can't remember what I was thinking, and don't like how it worked out.  This idea seems unsustainable, and it is not fair.  I know there are many diverse, green, eco-friendly terms and ideas I could have considered which would have made me feel more empowered.

For the longest time "empowered" meant "As a female, I am now more powerful than males".  I know, that sounds so bad, but it is the truth.  Empower was constantly used in a sense of political sex war.   Now metrosexual males in places like California tend to use it more.  It is great when tied in with "giving back" in diverse, and earth-friendly, green initiatives.

So, what am I saying?  I don't know for sure.  I think I am saying that our culture has been so bombarded with mind conditioning nonsense for so long that a huge portion of what we think, and how we direct those with guns and badges to control us is total and utter non sense.

It could just be me that finds his mind is nothing but a clutter of nonsense.

edit:  How could I forget FISCAL CLIFF?  Or, in some circles, physical cliff.   Because everyone from repubs to dems to news mannequins use the phrase, it must have real meaning. What it means I'm not sure, but unless the cliff is only four feet high, it is probably painful to go over it.
I'll bet the Bridge to the 21st century was put there so we wouldn't go off a millennial cliff.  It must have spanned between two cliffs.

.

.

Congratulations and A Little Rain on the Parade

Good for Washington state.  Drug laws, especially ones involving hemp and cannabis are a sap on the treasury, and an affront to free people.   Just because one agrees with that statement does not mean one is using drugs or suggesting it.

I don't use cosmetics or get tattoos, either.  Doesn't mean I wouldn't be alarmed of such things were illegal.  Your choice.

So, good for you.  Aside from the fact it ought not be an issue, it is kind of like throwing up the middle finger to the Feds for regulating what they have no real, legitimate right to regulate.

Oh, Obamaites, your golden boy has not called off the dogs in this area.  They still raid California dispensaries of medical marijuana on an irregular and inconsistent basis.  BO ain't as cool as you think. Whether he cares what's being controlled or not, he is not going to stand up for what's right and let go of any power. Power and glory.  Very much the nature of that game.

Anyway, to rain just a little on the parade, expect WA to issue the permits and such for sales and production according to the forces of cronyism, and hence corruption.

Still, it beats wasting another dime on worrying what someone might be smoking.

Little Thought on Cost to Society/National Interest

The doctrine of 'compelling state interest' has an evil origin. The Supreme Court created this so-called 'balancing test' in 1944 to justify the criminal arrest and imprisonment of thousands of innocent Japanese-Americans.

Those aren't my words. I pulled them from an article somewhere, and since I am not a news source, or expecting to receive a grade or a promotion, I'm not bothering to further vet this.

The article goes on to say, blalblablablabla, etc.
And:
The 1944 Court dared to assert that it could balance the 'interests' of The State against the rights of individuals."

The matter of the interests of the state trumping the rights of individuals has been one of greater and greater concern since that time.  

I find it odd that those most likely to separate us into ethnic groups, and then decide who needs what based upon such foolishness, are the same people who think rights of the individual are expendable and  really just permissions granted by the state.  The same people who, over 60 years later make a big deal of apologizing to the mostly dead Japanese who were locked up.

Hypocrites.  We'll know mankind has truly evolved when we find ourselves governed so sparingly that it will be like gossamer compared to the thick wet heavy wool under which we function today.  But people can't be so small as to relish the thought of controlling the resources and personal choices of others.   Presently, most people cannot resist that cheap bit of power and revenge.

Hence this ridiculous generalization and demonization of The Rich.  A campaign largely conducted by those who are far richer and more powerful than most.  You'd think those on the bandwagon would ask themselves why those who fund and instigate such tangents do so.