Alexander the Great, what a fucking name! But how much do you actually know about him?

Sure, he was a successful conqueror and all, but how successful do you have to be in your lifetime, or how many asses do you have to whoop, to deserve the title “the Great”? I mean, a guy can call himself that all day long, but for other people to do it and do it for a couple thousand years and counting, he has got to be one hugantinormous gangsterlicious Championshipism. And I say “guy” because women aren’t nearly as ridiculous as men. In fact, only a guy would use the term “hugantinormous gangsterlicious Championshipism.”

Now, there are extraordinary people to whom the title “The Greatest” has been applied when alluding to their craft. Like Michael Jordan, the greatest basketball player; Marlon Brando, the greatest actor; Babe Ruth, the greatest baseball player. But how influential do you have to be to be called, or to call yourself, “The Great”?

It’s equivalent to being named the greatest of the great.

If you read the history books, they’ll tell you that Alexander the Great never lost a battle, that he was a military mastermind, one of the most influential people that ever lived. But I think it is safe to say that Mozart never wrote a shitty tune. And Nabisco never made a shitty cookie.

So then, is it plausible to agree that greatness is entirely in the eye of the perceiver? That the title is completely subjective to where and when that person lived and what they did to gain notoriety?

And that while people will boast of their own greatness, like every cannabis grower claims to grow the greatest weed, the validity of the claim is proven only with time.

By the way, the best weed in the world is the weed that is sitting in your pipe.