Sweet Song

These soft
almost silent
swift winds
carry carols
the fatal
calling card

Death kisses
treats all
chocolate covered

so when
the whisper
comes calling
the strangers
an infinitely
dark embrace
a place
of infinite grace

By | 2009-03-11T15:52:04+00:00 March 11th, 2009|Journal|Comments Off on Sweet Song

Adam and Eve: God was a terrible Parent

   I think such a bold statement requires a bit of introduction so without further adieu here is “Adam and Eve” for dummies. I’ll then relate it with modern day and why I feel that God was a terrible parent.

  For whatever reasons, God created man from dust (or whatever silicone based material you fancy) and then made a fancy garden. After this God created a whole bunch of animals, if it was badass and fun to be around the garden had it. However none of these animals made a good friend for Adam, not even the cute Siberian puppies :(. Well God decided “Hey I got a great idea!” and knocked Adam out yanking out of Adam’s body one of his ribs (It was that one that the other ribs hated). From that rib God created the smoking hot Eve and set the two out into the garden to get with the multiplying and being fruitful. Now the rules were simple. “Alright you two. You can eat absolutely ANYTHING in the garden as long as you don’t eat from the garden of Good and Evil.” The two agreed and gleefully went around having fun. Indeed they were essentially utterly innocent (read: Gullible) adults.

  Now, as you would expect, a Serpent either got into the garden or was made when God was going SimAnimals all over. That slick little bastard went up to Eve and slyly tricked her into eating from the tree of Good and Evil. Essentially the conversation went something like this: “Hey you should eat some of that fruit.” “But dad said we can’t eat from the Tree of Good and Evil.” “Well yeah I know but that isn’t the tree, its just like, a similar one.” “Oh coolio! *munches*”. At this point she chucks one over to Adam who is likewise interested. “Hey this is good fruit right?” “Yes. It’s safe.” So he gobbles it down and now the two can see evil, hate their bodies, and God pops in and kicks their asses out. Also God forces women to have painful childbirth, just to make sure the message hits home.

  So for those confused on my point lets look at a modern example. You have a child, and you tell the child to not touch boiling pots. However you likewise do not tell the child exactly what a boiling pot looks like, you just say “all other pots are fine.” Now, you have no other job besides taking care of this child, however you leave a boiling pot on the stove and you go off to do whatever you are doing.

  Now the neighbor is an asshole and he comes in and tells your young child that they should touch the boiling pot on the stove in the following manner: “Hey little Adam you should touch that shiny pot right there. Your parent said it was ok to touch pots.” “But isn’t that the boiling pot?” “Oh of course not silly. The boiling one is…ugh…over there.” To which your child yanks down the pot horrible scalding them across there entire body. Now you return to find your child scalded, would you then punish your child with child birth pains and life outside of your home, or would you punish the neighbor for fucking with your kid OR would you punish yourself for not paying attention to your only child?

  This is not to say some ridiculously negligent creator doesn’t exist. But I would argue that if a deity like this cannot take care of two people, how on Earth do millions (if not Billions) of people honestly feel that this being is able to keep up with the everyday events of their life? Freedom of thought and action has nothing to do with proper protective care. This was nothing more than negligence that, given the powers of the parent involved, seriously requires involvement of some sort of inter existence court.

  Just seems like a pretty poor case to punish all further generations for. It’s certainly been a problem I’ve had with the entire story for a while.

By | 2009-03-10T20:47:57+00:00 March 10th, 2009|Journal|Comments Off on Adam and Eve: God was a terrible Parent


Dogs Dream of Silver Seamed
Bones buried beneath
Mounds of magnificent Earth
Indeed everything
With mind wide enough
Finds the worlds of night
Dancing delightedly
Within their heads
Eyes closed upon hope
that darkness brings sweets
Nighttime Nectar
Left with the sunrise

Dreams build bridges
between streams
unseemly boundaries
raging waters
of failure and fixation
upon misfortune
Dreams conquer
the weakened state
that is life
below the sun

Someday maybe
build a thing
a contraption of sorts
cogs twisting within the clouds
smiles churning like ice cream
pouring into bowls of diamond
crystal clear shining stars
billions battling
Galactic Gallery
then we’d see
that dogs dream

By | 2009-03-10T13:26:05+00:00 March 10th, 2009|Journal|Comments Off on "Dreams"

Comprehension: Color Blue Vs. God

  It’s official I have apparently hit a point where I set off at least one persons matchbox. So I figured I’d write a post on this topic so that when they get angry and Google someday they end up here ;). Likewise it provides all of you with something interesting (I hope) to read. Perhaps even a bit of redundancy once again if I brought it up before.

  Theoretically since before the beginning of time (to some folks) there was an entity or perhaps entities that defied all forms of logic and decided to create something from the vast nothingness in all directions. Certainly an intro that would sell a couple of books methinks. What we are to take for granted is that something so amazingly vast, powerful, seemingly the pinnacle of all thought power and any other trait humanity finds valuable, a convenient coincidence is an entity that we, beings with noses less accurate than dogs, ears less accurate than bats, and eyes less accurate than a verifiable arcs worth of animals supposedly have good sense enough to just ‘know’ that something out there exists. However I put forth, if we can understand something as vastly powerful and infinitely old as a deity, theoretically we should be able to “in words” explain in good enough detail anything else that is lesser than such a being. For it would come to reason that absolutely anything lesser than god would be child’s play in our hands if we can indeed grasp the thought processes of something that wouldn’t even (one would surmise) belong to any realm of understanding we have, seeing as this being or beings can overwrite or at the very least create laws that all things must follow (and thusly is freakishly gifted in possible activities).

  But I would like to take it a big step down, I realize that technologically its unfair to assume that we could explain any of the trillions upon trillions of things that exist outside of our senses. Sure we can’t see almost all life on Earth with our naked eye, but hey that’s just not as important as being able to sense the greatest form of life (well technically not alive in the conventional sense since living things are bound by natural law). It just seems incredibly naive of me to think that man can overcome arguably the greatest question that the universe has to offer yet cannot break down something as simple and elementary as color.

  Indeed I would argue that until a language has the power and versatility to describe a base color, without any visual examples (like showing a blue shirt), to a person who has never seen or knows blue, that that same language is entirely incapable of describing something more complex than blue. You can say that a color is merely a frequency of light, but that does nothing to generate the same mental image of blue in others as you. It’s not to say God isn’t real (however my personal belief is pretty obvious) but I feel that it is wrong headed to think that “Yes we can understand God…that’s easy peezy. But color, now THAT’S complicated.”

By | 2009-03-09T19:29:23+00:00 March 9th, 2009|Journal|Comments Off on Comprehension: Color Blue Vs. God


  Taking another break from Metaphysics I wanted to discuss today the idea of Renewability. I tend to talk about tons of things and sometimes I am quite redundant so if this is a topic I’ve covered previous I apologize.

  There is one major factor that limits our ability to be rather creative with our automation of processes. It has been a question late at night for me if currency would have a purpose in a civilization that has optimized recycling and renewable energies and meshed those with entirely automated production facilities. If nobody has to work to provide humanity with the supplies to survive and the luxuries we desire would there be a purpose to currency? Probably, but I think it would stick around for the few who actually like it. That bit of philosophy aside lets continue.

  We already have the technology to build structures that generate more power than they use annually. This doesn’t take into account other technologies that are particularly user and nature friendly like wind power and hopefully in the future I believe its called fusion. I’ve read in multiple places that you need to cover roughly the area of Arizona to produce enough energy (with quite a bit of excess) to power the US yearly. That may sound like a great deal of space but you figure that Arizona has 113,998 square miles of surface area. The entire US has a surface area of 3,537,441 square miles! That means we’d need to cover roughly 3% of the united states in solar paneling, which might cause one to ask “Dear Lord! You crazy penguin! That’s 3% of the US that nobody could live in!” but that’s the wonderful thing about Solar Paneling. The less distance you put between you and the Sun the better, mainly because (as far as I know) our atmosphere is a big jerk when it comes to light which is why you tend to find astronomers cuddled together on the top of mountains with big telescopes :).

  So once you have all this power and essentially an infinitely existing source (considering once the sun is gone we’ll be gone too in one way or another) you start dealing with other resources you require. Firstly is the obvious one of water. With copious amounts of energy we start looking towards methods of renewing water. I would figure there are quite a few very simple systems that could be used, like evaporating and recollecting water and filtering it through large sand (or sand like) basins. This way we’d have essentially infinitely renewable water, likewise desalination plants could take in water from the oceans and do whatever they do. Hopefully figuring out a system that doesn’t kill sea life of course :). Also rain water collection and filtration plans to tap into the wonderful transportation system of the Earth.

  Food I would think would be incredibly simple to keep up with. Tower like Hydroponics facilities could act like massive green houses that would supply tons of, insecticide free, food for everyone in there region. Likewise building it like a tower helps to supply you large amounts of food and use up little in the way of land. The excess that comes from the facilities that is inedible (whatever that be as long as its organic) could be used as fertilization for various gardens and such across the nation.

  So you have food, water, and energy. Now we just have to deal with transportation and housing (essentially). For transportation I’d look into fuel cell systems to use the extra energy that is continually saved up from the solar power that is generated nationwide. Likewise I’m sure they’ll devise other successful systems of transportation, for those that have never tried you can bicycle pretty long distances pretty easily as well ;). Not that I expect the world to switch to cycle energy tomorrow. The only real casualty to switching to electrical energy would likely be that people will have more trouble breaking speed limits, which is likely not a big casualty.

  Finally the deal with housing. Certain plants find themselves being very handy for building. In particular Bamboo, it spreads like a weed (might be considered one) and can be used for basically anything wood is used for. The general argument against it that I read about is that it can destroy land by growing too voraciously, however I imagine if you had these hydroponics towers you could grow bamboo in a self contained area. It wouldn’t take much area to grow more bamboo than you’d be able to use yearly.

  Anyone who has ever used products made out of bamboo can attest to its amazing versatility. It’s sturdier than most wooden tools I’ve used, seems to resist bursting into flames well enough to keep me alive, and frankly it looks sexy. What I’m trying to get at is the only thing I can see that is keeping us from being entirely (or well into the 90% range) renewable is the greed of a very small portion of people. It’s a shame too, renewable energy is beautiful (ever seen a solar panel? It’s like thousands of tiny rainbows :D) and it smells great (relatively speaking ;D). Plus I doubt you’ve ever heard of a wind farm leaving acres of land radioactive and unusable, or heard of solar panels turning one of the worlds largest cities into a smog cloud.

  I do feel that within 10 years any nation with a reasonable level of revenue, like say the US, could become a completely self sufficient entity that could then spend much of its excess cash on positive projects to help further humanity. Unfortunately none of this really arouses the interests of political parties and so there will likely be many years (I hope not before they end of my life) of crude energy sources that-well frankly-should have stopped existing long before I was even born. It’s unusual the diverse levels of technologies we use, it’s like watching cave men dropping atomic bombs it just feels weird.

By | 2009-03-08T17:29:42+00:00 March 8th, 2009|Journal|Comments Off on Renewability