Quick, Hot, and Cool Minutes: The Paradox of Slang

So what's the deal with this new slang referring to minutes as quick, hot, and cool that seems to be catching on? One of my coworkers was trying to tell me about a friend that she hadn't seen since grade school and told me that she hadn't seen him in a "quick minute," ultimately meaning over a decade. As far as I can tell, a quick minute is the longest duration, followed by hot,  then cool. This makes no sense right? If we are talking about cooking terminology, a hot minute should be the shortest right? And the cool minute should be the longer since it would take a while for the hot food to cool down?

I guess what I'm trying to understand is the paradoxical nature of slang. How did "Bad" become a substitute for "good," or "sick" a replacement for awesome? As far as I can tell, a lot of slang tries to defy comprehension by those not in the know, perhaps because those in the know don't want outsiders to know what they are talking about. If someone from, let's say, Orange County heard someone from Long Beach talking about how he hadn't hung out with his sickest, gnarshtiest friend in a quick minute, the Orange County dude might think that the Long Beach guy was just taking a small break from visiting his friend at the hospital.

In short, slang is  a huge part of the culture war. It's a code that different generations use to include and exclude certain people from knowing what they're talking about. The trend in slang will ultimately have to change though, for if slang continues the trend of simply meaning the opposite of what is actually said... the narcs will catch on pretty soon.

Stay strong... and stay creative

Conservative and Liberal Life Spans

     Many people have noticed and written about the discrepancy between the right wing's and the left wing's paradoxical views of life; the right wishes to preserve "life" within the womb while wholeheartedly supporting capital punishment, and the left feels that a mother should be able to terminate a pregnancy if she wishes while taking a position against the death penalty. Well, I'm not here to discuss that, but I am here to discuss a related issue. How do the differing wings look at a human's life span and the government's role in that life span?
     Let's look at the conservative life span first. A conservative government essentially sees your life lasting about nine months, from the moment of conception to the moment of birth; that's when they feel it their responsibility to actually care about you. After that they could give a shit whether you live or die because at that point you become either a victim of or implicit in the exploitation of the free market. Hopefully you are raised in a wealthy family because the right won't be sending you any government cheese any time soon. If you are not, even better because then you'll just beg for a job and receiving whatever wages you can get. 
     The left's view of life extends a bit longer. It goes from the last trimester of a pregnancy to roughly 80 years of age, give or take a few years depending if you are a man or a woman. They feel the role of government is to take care of you once you are actually in the world where so many more terrible things can happen to you rather than when you are unconsciously gestating in the womb, but at the same time they feel that you can take and destroy as many lives as you want and still  get three square meals a day and receive decent living conditions until you die of natural causes.
     It's a complicated, paradoxical, contradictory, somewhat incoherent issue... so the question is... what do you feel the political life span should be? Should the government be concerned about your life at all? Should your life be one of their main concerns?