Branches curiously root-like replicate themselves into the frozen air to jointly host today’s fair burden of romancing winters frosty breath upon their once deathlike limbs. A skeletal framework now flattered to be spangled by nature’s artistic compliments ironically outlines the now treacherous icy road routinely worn in attempts to make a living. Fortunately, the real crisp breaths of livelihood come not from arriving at ones destination, but from traveling on that slippery road while admiring and acknowledging the six inches of snow that transformed the once lifeless scenery into a breathtaking live illustration.

It takes a bit of dirt to choreograph the freshest flower concert.

“Satellite City (Charlie Brown Remix)” was my song submission to AcidPlanet’s “Satellite City” Remix Contest. I titled it the “Charlie Brown Remix” because It reminded me of something that Charlie Brown might bob his head to. Enjoy!

Click the speaker to listen to my track, Satellite City (Charlie Brown Remix)

If love is “granted” because it is requested, is it of equal value to love that is volunteered without request? Here are my thoughts on this query.

If one loves another, and then asks that the other love them in return, I feel that such a request may belittle the love that the other person may eventually have or already felt for the requester. Because now, after the request, any love expressed could be reasoned away that is was only because it was asked for and not because they truly loved. Therefore, to maintain consistent integrity of one’s expressions of love, I think it is best that one express ones love voluntarily, and not by demand. Also, if one is just not in the true spirit to express their love at that time, I think it is better that they wait until when the feeling naturally arises instead of expressing a forced counterfeit love due to a request.

So I would not honor such a request unless I knew I could express my love voluntarily. I would explain this to the requester. This way, the requester knows that any love I ever express is always and truly genuine. On another note, I don’t think that one should have to ask another to love them to begin with. If another is going to love you, they will do it on their own, it shouldn’t have to be requested, and it should not influence your possible love for them.

If extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, then how is it that a single word which represents such an extraordinary claim has the ability to survive for such a long time without extraordinary evidence to support it’s implications? Simple, never clearly define the word to begin with, and allow it’s hosts to adapt it’s definition to the environment. Allow it’s authors to change the definition and characteristics of the word at their will. Allow it to be redefined over and over again so that it can conveniently attempt to avoid old and new contradicting evidence. Permit people to redefine it at any time to meet their own personal needs. I present to you, the independently experienced personal “god.”

It’s evasiveness is legendary, it’s definition is elusive, it’s meaning is adaptable, it is intangible to all except to the one who provokes the thought. It is the impalpable, definition shifting, meme replicating, evasive “god“ expression.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to ponder about and be skeptical of as to why it is that people who declare to have such a close relationship to god and even go so far as to claim that they “know” god, why they are so reluctant to provide even a moderately clear and coherent description of god. The obvious answer is that they really don’t have the close relationship to god that they claim they do, and of course how can they, since god is just a concept, a meme that they have acquired and modified to accommodate their own personal usage of. To give a clear definition of god would be to reveal that god is their own personally modified concept riddled with traits that they have applied to it to fulfill their own personal needs. Any knowing of “god” would be in the same sense as knowing all the traits that they themselves have assigned to their imaginary friend. Of course they would know this, they imagined it. Revealing that would expose that god is their own custom creation. It is because of this that they must avoid defining the concept of god clearly. This allows them maneuverability with their creation so that they can add and remove attributes on the fly, correct once applied characteristics that have been proven to be nonsensical, contradictory, and unnecessary at the current time to comfort their needs, and improve traits that will best meet their needs now and support and strengthen the concept’s survival for future self support.

The person hosting the god concept assigns their imaginary friend the appropriate skills, powers, and characteristics depending on what their current needs, desires, gaps, and requirements are at that specific time. So depending on the state a person is in at any moment in time, their imaginary friend will be assigned a complimenting set of fulfilling traits to support and meet that persons specific requirements for comfort at that time. Each person’s god idea is slightly to incredibly different yet often reflects a more “complete” reflection of themselves. The concept is them with all of their holes filled, intertwined with the characteristics of how they imagine a supernatural consciousness would be.

Make a skeptical or critical remark about god to one of these individuals, and they more often then not, become defensive. However, they are not defending their god concept, they are defending themselves. Because their god construct is them, to criticize and be skeptical of god is to be skeptical of them. Because they are both one and the same. God is an embodiment of them. I think the word should be discarded all together, it is overly and improperly misused, thrown about as easy as the word “love” now is, is inconsistent in substance, and does nothing but represents mans selfish attachment to comfort. Evade that.

Children’s personification of inanimate objects compliment their imaginary friend complex and subjects them to being unable to distinguish between reality and fantasy to the point of where even as an adult they cling to an Imaginary attic friend whom they have been conditioned to believe really exists and should be referred to as an almighty omniscient god whom spares no rod to those without faith to worship it’s name and proclaim to all others that they too need to worship this invisible “who” whom they do not have evidence exists yet cite as fact and deny sciences act of studying reality in which no supernatural events have been found to be sound or even remotely possible in a world where respect for nature is being replaced by mans attachment to comfort and his imaginary attic friend who claims to fill in all the gaps to its host’s unknowns and stones all others who do not share the same grand delusion of the idea of a peaceful supernatural deity who curiously allows suffering and peculiarly requires it’s followers to reject reason, logic, and evidence for carefully arranged words in a man made book without proof to support its claims so it remains a spoof to me and all others who think reasonably free from such memetic debris.

Click to speaker to listen to my new track, Raven’s Requiem

Today, remember Charles Darwin whom proposed and provided scientific evidence that all species of life have evolved over time from one or a few common ancestors through the process of natural selection. Feel free to spread these Darwin day e-cards to celebrate Darwin’s discoveries.

If it is the intention of Valentines day for lovers to express their love for each other to each other, then I think that the day defeats itself in serving its purpose. If one needs a special day to express their love and are doing so only because the day asks for it, then how sincere could such expressions of love be? I am tempted to think that expressing ones love on any other day then a day that calls for it would be more sincere then expressing ones love because one has been called upon to do so. To have a single day to promote the importance of love not only seems to belittle those of us who love with the same passion every day, but it also diminishes the value of love on this day by making the motivation of love on Valentines day to be Valentines day itself. Why wait to send flowers, chocolates, cards, etc… in the name of love only on this day, rather then being open to send such tokens of love on any day one feels like it. Every day we should share our love, and we should not need a day like Valentines day to be motivated to express our love. If you do need such motivation, then you need to reexamine if what you are feeling is indeed, love.

I should remark that I am not suggesting that ones love cannot be sincere on Valentines day, but the day certainly has the potential to try to steal one original genuine motivation of love and try to take credit for it. Do not allow such a day to take credit for your love, express your love everyday, and do not articulate your love simply because it is Valentines day but do so with the same genuineness like you would have done so had it of not been a holiday promoting love.

While I do have these concerns with Valentines day, I do give it credit for reminding those who normally do not love, to love. It should be understood however, that any expressions of love should be done so on ones own accord, not necessarily because it is Valentines day, and ones love should go beyond just one day a year.

Take a trip into the depths of space with my new track, “144 seconds of Oxygen.” The thing is, enjoy it while you can because you only have 144 seconds of air left in your oxygen tank.

Click on the speaker to listen to 144 seconds of Oxygen