soup saves solar

Building on years of research conducted at solar farms from Qatar to New Mexico, scientists at schools such as the Eastern Grigovian Technical College (EGTC) now store the sun's energy in thick stew. Unlike other solar reactors that sequesters the rays of Sol in molten salt, the Grigovian system uses rich broths filled with nutritious seasonal ingredients such as carrots, beets, leeks, parsnips, and garlic. Sociologists praised the decision to use edible liquids, saying that such systems could be used to both fight hunger and store sustainable energy. “It is delicious,” said Theggorast Yu'uyendt, professor of poverty studies of Pylta the Terrible University, while eating his third bowl of tchuirff and yellow curry goulash. A mobile version of the system is in development for use in areas stricken by natural disasters or wherever access to piping hot, tasty soup threatens to be disrupted. “The system was originally built to run on plain water,” said Y'annina Hourthogarst, 19, of University of Grigovia, Gar Nuuzsh, “but someone loaded it with an assortment of tasty tubers and healthy herbs, and it not only stored solar power more efficiently but via swift circulation and high heat made a delectable stew. Fascinating.”

© americanifesto / 場黑麥

on changing tastes

In a stunning reversal of gastronomic preference, the American people started to demand high-fat, high-salt foods, refusing to eat anything that claimed to be low in fat or devoid of added salt. “We have not seen a shift in public sentiment – especially when it comes to the sodium and transfat content of food – occur so quickly, almost overnight, in a long time,” said chairwoman of the United Heartland Food Councils, Darlene T. Wikkelbak. “Not since Wafflegate, when the Pastrymakers of America publicly announced that although waffles were utterly delicious they were essentially sugar-packed, dimpled pancakes made up of massive amounts of gluten, not since that tragic day have the American people changed their minds so quickly.” Preliminary reports indicate that a single, 42-second-long, shoddily-produced parody of a fast-food commercial playing on the YouTubes has shaped Ynki opinion more effectively than all federally-funded public service campaigns of the last two decades, combined.

mentiri factorem fecit – 場黑麥

on private property

or, On the individual's right to the body, the ultimate and irrefutable private property.

  Humans have bodies. Without the body, the human dies. There is no way to separate oneself fully from one's body without killing oneself. Therefore, the body is the only truly private property that man possesses. His house can be destroyed; his land taken from him; his car can crash; his clothes will fade and turn to rags; but, throughout his whole life, his body is always his private property, which by right of irrevocable possession he may affect as he pleases.
  If an individual decides to destroy her house, to smash up her car, to tear her clothes to ribbons, i.e. if she decides to do with her external private property as she sees best fit, no government agency will prevent her from altering or destroying her property unless said destruction and alteration should pose a threat to other people.
  In the United States of America, the use of external private property does not fall under federal jurisdiction, unless of course said usage poses a threat to others. Yet, the use of the ultimate private property, the body, does. It is illegal to introduce a great number of substances into the body, substances such as marijuana, cocaine, heroin et cetera, substances that can create feelings of euphoria and that expand the capabilities of the human mind. Instead of these entheogens (see here), Americans are allowed by the federal government to introduce into their bodies a number of other substances that excite the mind to a lesser extent, substances such as sugar, caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, and salt. It is not illegal to consume these substances, although over-usage of same can and very often does lead to addiction, physical disease, and death.
  Caffeine, alcohol, and nicotine together kill tens of thousands of Americans every year (see here), yet their use is unrestricted, and the federal government does not raid the homes of people using these substances. If police officers suspect that someone is smoking weed, they sometimes conduct, in appalling violation of the Constitutional protections, what are known as a "no-knock warrants" (see here), in which the smoker's property (the door to his home) is destroyed and his peace is violated by the forced entry of heavily armed officers.
  Why is this individual's home being raided? To protect him from himself? To protect those who live around him from potential harm? On average, the marijuana smoker is not a violent person; his drug of choice makes him hungry, prone to conversation, and generally happy. The alcoholic is violent, abusive, and unpredictable, and would therefore be the person who is more likely to be a threat to himself and to those around him. But I doubt a single "no-knock-warrant" has been ever issued because someone was witnessed carrying a case of beer into his house.
  Americans must be allowed to choose for themselves which substances they want to consume. We are already allowed to buy drugs like alcohol and nicotine, drugs that destroy the body and that cause inestimable harm to individuals and their families. Perhaps the greatest harm ever caused by marijuana is the removal of the smoker from society to a prison cell. Imprisonment leads to criminalization. Imprisonment breaks apart families. Imprisonment forever reduces the individual to life as a second class citizen.
  Outlaw all substances or legalize them all. Anything else is hypocritical. Anything else violates the right of the individual to do with her private property as she sees best fit. Anything else violates the essence of the Declaration of Independence, the notion that government is established: "As to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
  The incarceration of non-violent drug offenders does not effect, or create, Happiness; it destroys Happiness.
  The prohibition on substances other than those deemed acceptable by a majority of the population is un-American. We must have the right to choose how we handle our ultimate private property, our bodies. We have the freedom: to eat too much sugar, too much salt; to drink too much booze; to smoke too many cigarettes.
  The freedom to consume these substances is literally killing us. Ergo, any argument claiming that the prohibitions on substances such as marijuana, cocaine, and opium exist to protect us from harm and death are completely invalidated.
  Outlaw them all, or legalize them all.
  Let the People find Happiness where they may.

Ultima Ratio Regum.

JPR 30APR2011