Trump?

I'm not opposed to the idea of a businessman as President. I do think there are many skills that translate directly from the business world to the political realm. However, in elections, we deal not with generalities, but specifics. The specimen before us is Trump. First of all, how did he make his money, and what kind of skills has he demonstrated, and what was the nature of his deeds? Simply having the money is not impressive by itself, nor is making it. If Trump could indeed make America great again, I'd vote Republican. His career is a long history of enriching himself at the expense of others and not bringing a lot of benefit to his community. When does Trump think about anyone else besides Trump? Never, would be my guess. A Trump Presidency would be rich on self-gratification and self-promotion. Trump has shown himself to be thin-skinned and vengeful, so he would have a lengthy enemies list and punish anyone that said or did the slightest thing against him. He would spend most of his time combing his hair, looking in the mirror, and acting important. Trump does not strike me as particularly intelligent or original. He has street smarts, though, and made short work of the nitwits that the Republicans usually place before voters. Perhaps he is a better choice than they were.

I'd prefer a normal manager-type, one that knows what she is doing and is used to it, like Hillary Clinton. I hope that she does the right thing and selects Bernie Sanders as her running mate. If they have a rocky relationship, so much the better. VPs and Presidents don't have to be best friends, and I think that Hillary would gain credibility by having a prominent and vocal critic in her administration.

Silence

I admire those that have learned to be, or who always were, quiet watchers and listeners. Silence is really underrated. People, politicians and socialites, talk and talk, out of nervousness, anxiety, or boredom, not realizing that in many cases, they help themselves not at all. It best to talk when one has something to say. When one has nothing to say, silence is best. Talkers help their listeners in forming opinions and gathering information. One conserves energy and prestige by saying as little as possible. To observe, retain, and use knowledge is really the way. Except when there is something useful to say, silence is best. Silence has the tacit approval of Tacita.

Tacita

For the most part, we see in this world as through a glass darkly, but to see with clear vision is a gift.

I derived the name of the Goddess from a phrase that came to me in a dream. I did not recognize the phrase as an acrostic until I had turned it over in my mind a hundred times.

What little we know is that the ancient world thought of Tacita as goddess of the dead and importuned her to exact vengeance upon hated enemies.

She does nor preside over, but remembers the dead, who are truly gone. She remembers what was & sees what can be.

The Model vs. the Ideal

I compare myself to the ideal, as conceived by me, and come up short. I know there is room for improvement, in areas such as memory and intelligence, and suspect that improvements are the name of the eugenics game being played by modern scientists around the globe. Indeed, who cares about workers and their rights, because the future won't need workers, or at least not as many of them. If H. Sapiens improves (evolves), becoming stronger, more robust, more agile, smarter, and longer-lived, then the world could get by quite well with a tiny fraction of the existing population of workers. How many living people are really required to run a society? That is open to debate, given the emergence of automation and robotics, as well as the possibility of improving human DNA. If future people become capable of living thousands of years or forever, then that is a huge advantage over current models of people. If future people will be ten times smarter than me, then I suppose that people like me can be dispensed with. Of course, that is what has always happened on this planet. H. Sapiens is only the latest iteration of many different models of the walking ape. Maybe there will be a successor created not by evolution but by the laboratory and market forces.

This seems to be the thinking, or rather the deeper, unspoken, secret thinking, behind trends in the world. Technology, philosophy, and economic forces point in the direction I have described. It is not necessarily wrong, even if it is unpleasant and frightening. If the end result is a better H. Sapiens, then perhaps sacrifices need to be made, in terms of quality of life or even life itself. I don't like it, but that seems to be the way that the world is headed, whether I like it or not. I would hope for a gentler transition, but I think that may not be part of the program. One can't count on stability. Stability is a bonus, a prize denied to many of our ancestors.

If I am fortunate, I will survive to an appropriate old age, such as eighty or so, and then cash in my chips, well-liked and well-remembered by those who know me. I hope the economy does not crash, or war break out, or something foolish like that, but one never knows, with Trumps and Putins and Khameinis and Kim Il-Jongs running around in the world stirring up trouble with their nuclear bombs, missiles and tanks, and nasty threats and disregard for others. Many people seem to think that hatred and warfare is the way, and that peace is for sissies, and morality is for losers. The warrior ethos still holds great appeal for wannabe candidates to Valhalla. This may be a fatal flaw in H. Sapiens, given the capabilities of our weapons. Hatred and warfare, so much of it, reinforced over generations. To recover from traumatic violence may require more than one lifetime, and cycles tend to repeat and reinforce.

If I am not fortunate, then that is okay too. I think the world will go on turning.

Yes to Tariffs

I do support the idea of tariffs to protect American jobs. Too much is made in China, which seeks to conquer the world, beginning with its backyard. China will soon eclipse the U.S. in economic might, and then the military will follow. We need to add twenty to fifty per cent to the cost of goods manufactured overseas, to encourage companies to manufacture goods in the U.S. If this results in a trade war, then the U.S. will win that war, because it is the largest consumer economy in the world at this time. Another idea would be to include all of North and South America in a development zone that is free trade, and then place a tariff on goods outside of the New World. Just about everything can be produced in the New World. We need to take an interest in our neighbors and friends, rather than enriching future military adversaries like Russia, Iran and China.

The idea that one day, America will be able to compete with China on jobs is ludicrous. China has zero protections for workers and the environment. They will always be cheaper. Either you want an America where your child will grow up to flip burgers at the Waffle Goon, or else you want an America where future generations can get decent jobs that pay well enough to enjoy a good quality of life. It seems pretty simple to me. The only people that benefit from so-called "free trade" are the stockholders in the big corporations. Workers don't see any benefits.

I do realize that slapping tariffs on China would result in a drastic increase in prices for all computer parts and all kinds of other goods. My purchasing power would go down, in the short term. There would be a long period of pain, maybe even a whole lifetime. That would be a price I am willing to pay. One has to think, not just about today, but about fifty years from now. What will America be like? People just don't think about anything other than themselves and today. That is why America is in the situation it is in, where good jobs are hard to find.

Naming a Spirit

Despite my skepticism, it pleases me to experiment with Tyson's as yet unproven hypothesises. Skepticism seems wholesome, robust and right. Morally, I think we should be skeptics about everything, save goodness and love, in which we should be true believers. Credulity is a big problem in H. Sapiens. We must question, or we seem like ants. People will vote for Trump only because they lack skepticism. He is confident, sure. He is more confident than he really should be. Is he right? Is he good? People don't bother to look past the bravado. They want their tribe, Republicanus, to win, and "Trump=Win" seems to be the thought behind all the brouhaha. Well, Hillary is a known quantity and, I suppose, predictable. Boring, I think, is better than Bad. Perhaps people have forgotten. History provides us with many examples. But I digress.

Skepticism seems a tedious pose to maintain long-term among believers, and I feel swamped by believers in various things that don't make much logical or physical sense, and there seems no real harm in indulging in a bit of magic, whereas there would be real harm in supporting a bad politician. So, although I don't believe very much, I suppose I can manage to pretend just a little bit, sure. Perhaps pretending is what this thing is all about.

I shall attempt to take notes of my ongoing experiments. Based upon my reading, I believe imagination may be the best interpretation of what magic is to the believer. Whatever one thinks of, if it seems to arrive from an external source, might be, instead, a communication of sorts or even a divination. Intentions, motivations and environment seem to be relevant. Good attracts good, evil attracts evil, and so on.

Unlike Wiccans, I do not place much stock in rituals, spells or suchlike, which strike me as silly and ridiculous, especially in this modern age. It seems like so much nonsense and rather debasing and primitive. If Tyson felt free to deviate from tradition, then why not deviate further, and dispense with much of the nonsense, forging one's own way, provided it seems right or makes sense to the user. One seeks a dignified and original approach. After all, languages and cultures vary, and so too will words, inflections and practices, so I don't think any of that matters very much. Thoughts matter, if anything, but not specific formulas of words or marks. Tyson's treatise on sigils gave the game away. None of that really matters. The sole purpose is to inculcate patterns of thought in the user. That can be done with or without sigils, and the shape of the marks clearly is irrelevant.

I have thought about certain words that seem interesting or meaningful. The first name that occurred to me was Fra. It is convenient to have a monosyllabic handle, no? This is in accord with Tyson's recommendation to have a name for one's familiar. Apparently, it is possible to manufacture one.

A second word, Mishante, occurred to me whilst walking in the rain, and may or may not be a name. I think, rather than a name, it may be a subject and an action verb, as in, "I sing," or "Me chantez," which is poor French grammar. It could also be méchant, or wicked, but that is a depressing and paranoid thought and not at all what I felt when the word occurred to me, for I felt good then, even though it was raining. The rain does not bother me. I like walking, and I did have an umbrella after all. I prefer the "Me chantez" interpretation, because rain is the way that water "sings", and presumably Fra is of water, so there is a bit of poetry from Brother Fra.

Veneration for Things Ancient

I'm dismayed by a certain writer's reverence for the ancientry, their practices and beliefs. We moderns have, most of us, concluded that our ancestors were wrong about a great many things. And in any event, whether they were correct in any specific instance, there is no question but that modern, Western societies are nicer places to live than ancient kingdoms. I would not want to go back two thousand years. Ancient people hurt others for little or no reason and waged war as a regular profession. Cruelty was commonplace. Everything was the fault of invisible demons or gods or spirits, and people were afraid of the dark and did not understand anything about science. Ignorance was rampant, reason in short supply, and people died for stupid reasons.

Also, our ancients were not that old, in the cosmic sense. Ten thousand years is not really all that much compared to the age of the planet we live on. What reason have we to suppose that there was anything the ancients knew that we do not? What sort of advantage accrued to the practitioners of magic? We do not today see any on the public stage. Why should they hide, and why should they be in the minority, if their practices work, even in some small way? These questions should occur to anyone that reads about magic. If magic were a really useful thing, would we not learn about in school?

Donald Tyson's Sexual Alchemy

I suspect people dabble in magic to horrify the orthodoxy. Christians seem upset by mentions of witchcraft, fearing it comes from the Devil. The Islamists behead people for witchery, along with a thousand other supposed crimes. The Jews, who knows? They invented the Kaballah back in the day. But most modern Jews are probably amused by witchcraft and don't take it seriously. There really is not a clear Jewish position on magic.

I think witchcraft comes from foolishness, not the Devil. I don't believe in the Devil, but if he does exist, then he is a rather weak and unimpressive bogey. I quit believing in the Devil around the age of thirteen. It is an easy matter to establish whether the Devil or any other entity has real power and authority in the world. Invoke the thing by name, and if it does not appear, insult it. Nothing happen? Fine, then you know the thing is the fantasy of shaman from long ago.

I've been browsing Donald Tyson's book on sexual alchemy, in which he discusses how to attract and recruit a spirit lover, presumably, one that has no material existence in the world as we know it. One never really knows what is meant by the word "spirit" or "spiritual" when it is bandied about by those who really believe. I am not sure Tyson knows what is meant by the word "spirit," either. He seems unperturbed by pesky logic.

Tyson lays out an intricate system for harnessing magic. He is rather vague on material results, but who cares about the material world, anyway? He does not promise material results--a wise and prudent move on his part as a writer, because in my opinion, there will be none. Instead, he talks about communing with spiritual entities and traveling through the astral plane, which is a more achievable goal for the self-deluded. For me, airplanes are more effective than the astral plane. Magic seems like a mind-trip people indulge for pleasure and amusement. If it were effective, then we would all use it, not only lonely dabblers in the dark. It is not prejudice or close-mindedness that keeps us from magic. Magic does not work. Even if magic worked a little bit, people would use it. People use software all the time that doesn't work that great. We don't expect miracles, but need to see a little bit of benefit in this world, not the imaginary world.

As for Tyson, I can't help but feel like he is in magic for profit. People want to achieve power beyond the human capability, so they buy his books, because he promises that the process is easy and just requires certain rituals and a lot of patience, I assume a lifetime of patience, because nothing will happen in a whole lifetime spent dabbling in magic. He explains a complicated system, which fills up hundreds of pages to the end of his book, and then counsels patience. Clever, no? He regurgitates a mixed salad of superstition from the ages: astrology, mythology, the Kaballah, and who knows what else, flaunting his knowledge to establish himself as an authority on magic. I suppose this is pointed at other magicians, who might dismiss Tyson if he didn't know all of the lore they knew, but might accept him if he reveals things they did not know. If someone believes all of that and takes it seriously, then by the time they reach his book's end, they will have invested a lot of time learning and constructing their own reality with his ideas. I think magic only works when people believe in it. Thus, it is the same as any other delusion, such as religion. I do not think that Tyson can achieve power or knowledge over me or anyone else by using only magic. If only the world were that simple, then life would be easy indeed. The Tysons of the world are these romantics that hope human beings are more powerful, and human life more meaningful, than it really is. In reality, we are numbers generated by other numbers, and math is at the heart of the cosmos and explains everything. Magic appeals to those befuddled by arid, difficult math, like Tyson, because it is easier and more accessible.

Magical practice can transform the self, like any other exercise that people do, but whether for good or ill depends upon the nature of the practice. I do think there are odd things in life that beg explanation. We do not understand them yet, but magic is not an optimal hypothesis. Old gods and demons are not the answer. The lore of the ancients can be discarded. Direct experience and experimentation is the way. That which is called a goddess, what is it really but a facet of ourselves, and why should we not call it by another name?

Hadrian

This prediction concerns not the future, but what remains unknown in the past. After watching a BBC documentary of the Roman Emperor Hadrian, I have the uneasy feeling that he slew his beloved Antinuous. The Emperor Hadrian's ego was out-sized and improper, smacking of hubris. His innumerable statues and monuments give testimony that their patron valued himself too highly. Towards life's end, he became increasingly paranoid. And he was terrible toward the Jews, making their rebellion inevitable. I believe he certainly had to have been capable of fratricide. Perhaps he was one of the so-called good emperors, if "good" means nothing more than effective. He was not a very good man, though. What emperor was?

Donald Tyson

Donald Tyson has written two books based upon the mythology invented by the old, dead pioneer of horror, H.P. Lovecraft. Given the derivative nature of Tyson's work, one might assume it pales before the stories of the original creator, Lovecraft. Yes and no. Lovecraft is good, sometimes very good, but uneven. There are flaws in Lovecraft's writing that put me off. I really enjoy Tyson's Necronomicon and Alhazred. Tyson's style is crisper. He is an economical writer that does not waste my time telling me that the horrible horror was horribly horrible. Lovecraft blathers with a hundred words to convey an idea that Tyson can convey with twenty. Tyson is sparse even to a fault. I sometimes have to go back and re-read paragraphs to remind myself of what he assumes I already know. He does not paint pictures with very much detail, but is more of a sketch-artist. He also takes a lot of shortcuts as a writer and cheats when it suits him. In that respect, he reminds me of my own style. I find his stories endlessly fascinating and better for being built upon the solid, well-thought out foundation of Lovecraft's universe. There's no harm using a popular author's creations if they are excellent.

Nose Buried in His Phone

I vaguely remember an attractive young man, a friend of a friend, who introduced himself to me and several other people, then sat down at a table with us. After a few words, he buried his nose in his phone, surfing the web or whatever it was he was doing, and that was the end of him. I had been preparing polite questions in my mind, but discarded them and decided instead to forget his name, and to this day I don't remember it. That's okay, because he had no relevance. His phone indeed is more interesting than he is, as his behavior implied. He had fought traffic to meet us, but then blown any chance of making a positive impression. I do remember that he was an actor, and I found it amusing that here was a presumably social person, whose career depends upon interaction with others, and his nose is buried in his phone, and he has nothing remotely interesting to say. I learned later that his career went bust, he lost his job and had to move back in with his parents. I guess there isn't a big market for actors that stand on the stage silently fiddling with their phones.

Optimal Configuration of Smplayer for Intel-based Video in Linux

And here are the PPA's I have installed in Software Sources:

My Review of GalliumOS v1.0

When Google first released the Chromebook, my interest was piqued, because here was a laptop designed from the ground up, hardware and all, with Linux in mind, albeit Google's stripped-down, mutilated monster, rather than the full-fledged penguin we know and love. Still and all, the hardware is good, good with Linux, which is the real pull, and cheap, too. Ever priced Acer's refurbs on E-bay? Do so today. You might be in for an eye-opener. Google gives Chromebooks away, but makes bank in their ChromeOS, because the business user has to pay to play. The App Store is what the Chromebook is all about. Understand the business model? Even so, Google left a little backdoor open for all the poor hackers of the world.

I have nothing to do with GalliumOS's developers and, indeed, have no idea who they are. I found GalliumOS through Googling for a fix for my Chromebook. My Chromebook is a cute little web kiosk, but what if I want to FTP, RDP, run LibreOffice, and do all of the other nifty things that Linux can do? I don't like being prevented from doing things. I despise ChromeOS. It's wonderful if you don't understand computers. It protects the user from himself. But if you need to actually get things done, then ChromeOS is terribly limiting. Goodbye, ChromeOS. Enter GalliumOS.

As always, I highly recommend torrenting the .iso for GalliumOS, because by doing so, you are assured an error-free copy, besides saving the developers bandwidth. I did so and then followed very carefully and very slowly--the only way to ride on a new pony--the instructions for installing. Yes, the instructions are a wee bit more involved than a veteran Linux user might be accustomed to, but that is not the fault of GalliumOS developers. Whose fault is it? Why, the manufacturer, Google, of course. Google does not necessarily want you to be ridding yourself of their ever-loving, money-making ChromeOS. For my part, I could not wait to be shod of the thing, and my feelings were, if I brick my computer, then so be it. As a matter of fact, you must feel this way in order to install GalliumOS. You will be required to type a similar phrase in order to install. Otherwise, GalliumOS will not install. There is a risk. You could make a typo or something else could happen. Be at peace with your decision before proceeding.

All went well for me, and I had GalliumOS installed in less than half an hour. Not much sorcery is required and little in the way of prayers. Fear not. If you read the instructions very carefully, and then go back and read them again, and don't rush off in an all-fired hurry, then you should be okay. Just slow down, sip your coffee, rub your beard, ponder the situation, and get things done. Trust me, it's easy. I can't really improve upon the wiki's installation instructions. The GalliumOS wiki is your friend, and you should read everything there that might assist you.

The wiki has instructions for making a backup of your ChromeOS, in case you suffer a knock on the head and decide to go back to ChromeOS just because it's easier. I went ahead and backed up my ChromeOS to a flash drive, but I will probably delete the backup, because I'd rather have the flash drive for other purposes. You can optionally create a multi-boot system with both ChromeOS and GalliumOS or even something more exotic. I went the nuclear route. Out with ChromeOS, in with GalliumOS. Whole disk, baby! I don't ever want to see ChromeOS again, seriously.

The Chromebook is "prepared" by running a special script that wipes out ChromeOS and hacks the BIOS to allow the booting of a nonstandard operating system. This is a script made by John Lewis, and it worked flawlessly on my Acer ChromeBook running an Intel Broadwell cpu.

In the end, I am presented with the following screen when I boot my Chromebook. GalliumOS calls this the "scary screen," but I guess I don't scare easily. I just think it's an ugly BIOS-type screen with some misinformation thrown in by Google.



At this screen, we must press Alt-L. If we neglect to press Alt-L, eventually our Chromebook will play the nanny and suggest reinstalling the ChromeOS, which we don't really want to do. Unfortunately, a hack has not appeared to bypass this screen. It is merely a minor annoyance, courtesy of Google, again to protect the clueless business suit from himself. Remember, the suits have more money than we do, and almost everything is designed for them, not us. But that's okay, because we can fix the Chromebook to do what we want it to do, and I'm at least grateful for that.

After Alt-L, we enter hackland:



All we do here is press Esc, followed by 1 to boot the system, and that's it. We enter the familiar territory of good old Linux.




You will notice I encrypted my entire disk. I think this option is a no-brainer. A laptop can get stolen, duh. I chose a very difficult password and wrote it down in a secret place. I then configured the system to log in automatically, because there's not much of a case for requiring a log in, if the encryption itself requires a password. I really don't understand why everyone does not use full-disk encryption. It is like they are not living in 2016, with all the identity theft, password theft, fraud, hacking, and so on.

GalliumOS is based upon Xubuntu, which I am familiar with, but lacks Xubuntu's Software Manager. Instead, it has Synaptic Package Manager. Otherwise, it's pretty similar to Xubuntu, with additional optimizations to ensure a smooth experience on the Chromebook. My hardware, consisting of the Chromebook itself, a USB drive and a USB-connected Ethernet cable, all worked OK. I installed Qbittorent, Remmina (an RDP client), Filezilla, Firefox as my default browser, and Gcolor, and now feel like my Chromebook is actually worth something to me.

The desktop comes with a picture of a high-rise building as seen from the ground. I suppose that is an allusion to the idea that they intend to be moving up, going places, improving, since they are on version one right now. I replaced it with solid black, as I always do.

Other than the missing Software Manager, I did not see much difference between GalliumOS and Xubuntu, which is intended. This OS boots fast, is responsive, and I feel like I can actually get things done, as opposed to ChromeOS, which was great as long as all I wanted to do was surf the web.

The one thing that bothers me about GalliumOS has nothing to do with the technical side. I want to know who the hell they are. Just a name, a location, a picture, and a little bio, you know? In fact, post a life story, with twenty-nine chapters, a thousand pages. Knock yourself out. That may seem hypocritical coming from me, mystery man that I am, but then again, I'm installing their code on my machine. I am giving them root access. It would be nice to learn that the developers aren't actually the Russian mafia, the NSA, the Chinese Red Army, Iran, or North Korea. Just post a dozen or so pictures of the developers strolling through a garden sipping tea, holding hands and singing or dancing or vaporizing. That would be nice. Seriously. It might also jumpstart the donations, so the public knows the money isn't going to ISIS or something. I don't get why there are no names at all on the GalliumOS web site. It's not like they are discussing anything controversial. Perhaps they are in fear of getting sued by Google. Is that even possible? I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. Is it legal and okay to hack a device that one owns? I think it is. But again, I'm not a lawyer.

The next version of GalliumOS will be based upon the next LTS of Xubuntu and should be coming out this year, 2016. I'm looking forward to it.

Step-by-step instructions that are easy to follow, a distribution that just works right out of the box, and a distribution optimized and customized specifically for my machine. I'm gushing with gratitude for the perceived added value to my Chromebook. I award GalliumOS a 10 out of 10. It converted my Chromebook from a fairly useless hunk of junk to something I actually will use. I feel like Distrowatch should definitely add this to their list of distributions, because it is extremely useful to owners of Chromebooks.

Reinvention

A good skill I developed is reinvention. I have the capability of reinventing myself. I can reduce this trait, increase that trait, in order to cope more effectively with my environment. Some have less of this capability, and I pity them.

Why persist in behavior that produces results contrary to one's interests?

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." I think Emerson wrote that, although Longfellow also may have. I first saw the quote not in a book or classroom, but in a ward. A counselor that I liked, a fine physical specimen who was the most effective counselor, the most perceptive, and one that gave me good advice, had written the phrase on a marker board. I doubt any of the others understood. But I place great stock in the written word, in ideas. I remember the ideas, when I have forgotten the names of every person in that strange place, even the ones that liked me, or that I liked, or that hated me, or that I hated. The only name I remember is that of a doctor. He was strange, alien, cold. I have no use for such doctors. I think the process of getting the doctorate annihilates competence. Perhaps the doctorate programs are wrongheaded and rife with corruption. But he didn't matter. None of the stupid doctors mattered. The only reason I remember his name is because I wrote a story about him. I deleted it decades later, because I felt like he didn't matter and the story didn't matter. The memory had no basis for surviving. One day, it will be gone.

One adapts. Already I am getting close to what is needed in the role I find myself in. There are just some tweaks that need to be made. Silence, patience, watchfulness, preparation, and deliberateness. These are the traits I need most.

Mr. Robot

I've been watching Mr. Robot lately. Everyone on that show seems slimy in one way or the other. I suppose this is the modern method of scriptwriting--no heroes. I don't like that. I like there to be a hero or, at least, someone that has a reasonable proximity to good. Modern writers seem to have a lot of difficulty with good. Is no one good? Come on. Surely there are some good folk left.

At any rate, I don't approve of Elliott's incessant hacking of everyone. I think that sort of thing is below the belt, like reading someone's diary. Not cool. Besides, the only people that tend to get victimized by that sort of thing are the ones that are open, social, merry, and communicative--just the sort one should wish to protect rather than exploit.

Still, I'm hooked, because the show does seem tapped in to the zeitgeist somehow and is technically literate. It reminds me an awful lot of work.

Vampires

Some are vampires, requiring the proximity of others to replenish their ever-diminishing supply of vitality. They drain. It is well to avoid them, when possible.

Others are independent, drawing energy from the earth and the air. These I count among my friends.

Calling the 2016 Election

It is obvious Hillary Clinton will be the next President. I find it so obvious that I don't even feel the need to explain. I'm far from alone in seeing this. Probably everyone with a functioning brain sees the same outcome.

I prefer Bernie Sanders, but perhaps he is too old and obscure. He does not enjoy name recognition, unlike Clinton. I don't think Bernie can beat Clinton at this time. Young voters prefer Bernie, but young people are apathetic and don't tend to vote. I see grayhairs when I go to the polls. Young people stay at home playing video games or whatever. That is why the country is in the jam it is in.

I will vote for Hillary Clinton, because the alternative, Trump, would be unpleasant. I think Trump may even win some televised debates, because he's a seasoned TV personality, and what seems to matter is style rather than substance. Trump has a more flamboyant style than Hillary Clinton. Even if Trump wins all the debates, he will not win the election. I will be surprised if he carries the white vote.

Guns WIll Be Obsolete

By 2100, guns will be obsolete, because the purpose of guns, slaying humans, will no longer serve a purpose.

Humans will cease to inhabit their corporeal forms. They will, instead, exist in data. We are just a series of numbers, like anything else. By digitizing our personalities, we can exist eternally and endlessly replicate through cloning. Thus, slaying a single clone will not have quite the effect that gun violence does today. Not only will guns be obsolete, but all forms of violence, which will be diminished in status from a great evil to an annoying rudeness. Once one body dies, another takes its place.

The great question is who will be cloned, and what sorts of people will they be? If history is any guide, they will probably be a better sort of people.

The physical body is such an obvious horror in so many ways that people will eagerly embrace their liberation from its cruel tyranny. In virtual reality, one can exist in a perfect heaven of one's own construction. This may indeed offer the solution to overpopulation. Given a choice, most people would choose to die immediately, if guaranteed eternal life in virtual reality, because millions of years in virtual Heaven is better than a short span of years in a form subject to pain and suffering. There only need be a few physical avatars tending to the needs of the computer system, ensuring continuous power and smooth operation.

Reality Is What We Make of It

Reality is what we make of it. I feel this is true about everything. My opinions seem like the simple truth to me. Others have contrary opinions and seem to have great conviction that they, instead of me, are right. I am impressed by those with conviction, but also suspicious, because I wonder how quickly they arrived at their opinions, and whether they considered the other sides much at all. Perhaps their opinion was formed long ago on the basis of information that has since been discredited.

Marijuana has had reams of misinformation broadcast about it. So many lies have been cultivated about marijuana, it is a strange wonder that anyone at all likes it. Based upon the lies, you would think every human being on the planet would be actively engaged in eradicating the demon seed. Yet that is not the case. Instead, hundreds of millions of people adore marijuana, and great numbers have done so since ancient times. Why? Who is right? Is marijuana good or bad?

I like to call marijuana "weed," because it is, in fact, a weed, particularly in areas where it is illegal. It grows quickly and spreads on its own in the wild, and humans have declared war on it, for better or worse, ever since the 1930s, although before that time, Americans found marijuana useful. Abe Lincoln liked to smoke it.

Some have the modest and humble opinion that weed is, at the very least, better than alcohol. They are not saying it is good, but only that it is better than alcohol, which is not saying very much at all, because we know alcohol is bad. I have this opinion, and I think it is self-evident, requiring very little in the way of debate, that is, if both sides are being honest and objective. Many believe this based upon direct experimentation with both substances, individually and in combination. Their opinion is, therefore, grounded in direct experience, which is the best manner to form an opinion. Their reality is evidence-based. Bolstering their position is a pretty vast amount of scientific literature. To ignore the science surrounding marijuana is not dishonest, but it is lazy. In summary, alcohol is toxic to the human body, while weed is not. Twenty years of drinking will devastate the body and mind more surely than an entire lifetime of vaporizing. Emphasis must be placed on the verb, vaporizing. One does not smoke in 2016. Smoking is a relic of the past, and anyone who believes that weed is smoked is not living in the modern age. All of the arguments about the negative effects of smoking must be revisited to come to terms with modern methods and to come to terms with legal weed, a product that is pure, unadulterated, unsullied by crime and by criminals, and sold in well-lit and state-sanctioned retail stores.

A diminishing minority of Americans, less than fifty per cent, believe weed is worse than alcohol, and therefore should remain illegal. Within this group, some have never tried it. Their reality is based upon what others have told them. Other people have constructed reality for them, and they have accepted that version of reality, often without question, much as religious zealots do. Others within the group have tried weed, and for whatever reason, have concluded weed is worse. I heard from a man today who once smoked marijuana, but quit. He told me "Dope is wrong," and his reasoning was that weed makes people stupid. Well, it so happens that I agree. Inebriates tend to make people stupid. No one is arguing that weed makes anyone smarter. The effect, however, is short-lived and does not persist. He also said that when he used weed, it gave him the munchies, and he overate, resulting in his obesity. Well, weed varies. Some weed does trigger appetite. This is extremely useful in those suffering from nausea. For an obese person, abstinence may be best. But to conclude from all of that that people should go to jail for possessing weed is ridiculous. Nevertheless, he seemed to think that there is nothing wrong with locking people up for weed. I think that he simply likes the idea of locking people up, and it pleases him so, he does not stop to think about the rightness or wrongness of the law. What profit is there, after all, in debating the merit of things? Why not just accept everything as it is, however bad?

Lovecraft Bubblegum

I want to scrape the bubblegum off my shoe after reading Lovecraft. I'd describe him using a word he frequently deploys, queer. His main characters are always naive, feeble, pretentious intellectuals, and by a story's end, are screaming or fainting at the terrible, horrible horrors of the terrible terror, or whatever. And he really does describe his horrors using the word "horror" or "horrible", and his terrors are "terrors" that are "terrible." Lovecraft is not for subtlety. When Lovecraft struggles with the science of his time, the result is embarrassing. The planet Pluto, uh-huh, the Einstein space-continuum, uh-huh, the vibration rate of electrons, uh-huh. His aliens and gods are all meanies out to get the human race, leaving unexplained why titans would concern themselves with the affairs of fleas.