Sunday, March 15, 2009

What if all dogs DON'T go to heaven?

Every day, the news depresses me. This country's going to war with that country, the world's economic infrastructure is on the verge of collapse, more soldiers have died unnecessarily, etc.

It makes a man wonder - what if we're wrong?

Perhaps it's the fact that I saw Watchmen on Saturday (which I liked despite its flaws), but I have been pondering on the nature of good and evil of late. Most of the world's religions believe that those who are "good" will go to "heaven", or its equivalent. Conversely, those who are "evil" will be condemned to the fiery pits of "hell". And so I ask this question - how many good men are damned?

There are basic rules that tend to bind human societies together. Don't commit murder. Do not take things that are not yours. Respect those in authority, even if your society supports those who disagree peacefully. These rules are generally mirrored by religion, with the added caveat of "obey ". And, for the most part, this works.

However, we must also understand that various rule systems are sometimes at odds with one another. And what happens when these rule systems collide? Conflict, often in the sense of war for human societies. And it strikes me as odd that, in these times of war, the very rules that a society is built upon are cast aside in an utter paradox of morality. Soldiers, no matter who they represent or what conflict they participate in, are REQUIRED to murder and steal. They go out with the express intent of killing the enemy and taking things that did not originally belong to them (i.e. territory, resources, government), all in the name of a civilization that denounces killing and stealing.

And yet, when these individuals return home, are they denounced as criminals and degenerates? Are they berated and cast aside as evil? No. They are hailed as heroes. They are vindicated as good men and women by pauper and pope alike.

So, then, it appears that laws always have asterisks.

What also strikes me is the utter conviction of nearly all individuals that their cause is just. I would be willing to bet good money on the fact that the "evils" of history were all done with the "good" of humanity in mind. The road to hell, as they say, is paved with good intentions.

In our modern, western world, Islamic extremism is generally seen to be the primary force of evil. And yet, has anyone who denounces Islamic extremism tried to see things from the point of the extremists? I guarantee that they see themselves as the paragons of virtue, and that we are an evil and depraved society that must be eradicated for the good of mankind.

And can we, as so-called moral men, say that they are wrong? They may commit atrocities, but can they not say the same thing about us?

Who, then, is good? Who is evil?

When this is all over, and all the works of man are but dust and undifferentiated particles, will we stand before our cosmic judge and argue that we were, in fact, right?

Will the Dalai Lama go to hell?

Will Mullah Mohammed Omar be exulted on high in heaven?

Perhaps it is we, as humans, who are pants on head retarded for our adherence to the belief that all is black and white.



I'm curious as to your ideas on this subject.

Monday, March 9, 2009

Boot To Capital Hill's Head!

It's an odd thing living only a few minutes away from the capital city of the United States. Traffic's lousy, body cavity searches are to be expected, and the cost of living is astronomical. However, the one shining beacon in this otherwise dreary area is the fact that we are within striking distance of Capital Hill.

And while others may strike with a glove, I shall strike with a boot.

Today was supposed to be good. Barack Obama who, while far from the perfect president, was the best of what we had, overturned the policy of the Bush White House that banned federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Bravo, Mr. Obama. Jolly good show. This was an important step in washing away the sour taste in our nation's mouth that George W. Bush left. Should all go according to plan, the European Union and other first world nations will no longer leave us in the proverbial dust, choking to death. Stem cells are an important, if not the most important, field of experimental medicine available to us, and our President just made sure we can actually do stuff with them.

Now allow me to put down the martini and remove my monocle, so that I may explain why the government gets hit with my boot anyway.

Republicans in Congress panned this move, claiming that Obama's actions "rolled back important protections for innocent life, further dividing our nation at a time when we need greater unity to tackle the challenges before us." (Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio)

NO!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!



"But Mighty Author!" I can hear you say. "Surely you can agree that life must be protected!"

I certainly can, my friends. In fact I do.

Life is sacred. Ideally, I would try to save every life. And this is what Mr. Obama's new policies are aimed to do.

"But Author!" again you exclaim. "Stem cells can only be harvested by destroying innocent babies!"

*slap*

Quiet, you. Before I aim the boot cannon in your direction.

WRONG! While this was the case when the Bush Administration put its policies in place (a move I disagreed with), this is no longer true!

Waaaaay back in 2006, Advanced Cell Technology (a U.S. biotech company out of Mass.) announced they had developed a method in which a single cell is removed from a developing embryo at the eight-cell stage, then allowed to culture in a petri dish as the original embryo goes on to become a full-fledged fetus. While less effecient, science has effectively found a way to harvest human embryonic stem cells WITHOUT DESTROYING OR EVEN HARMING THE EMBRYO THEY COME FROM!

Let me say that again.

EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS CAN BE GATHERED WITHOUT HARMING THE EMBRYO ANYMORE!

It boggles the mind that I, a lowly college student who daylights as a junior accountant, knows more about this subject than a United States Congressman!

So. Representative John Boehner, you get a boot to the head for speaking on a subject you know jack shit about, having a last name that makes me giggle, and for being pants-on-head retarded.

And for those of you who agree with him, you'd best remove the pants from your own head before I hurl my next boot.

The End Is Upon You

KRYPFYH is now online.

You may now begin the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

(Yes, I need a better acronym)

Kindly Remove Your Pants From Your Head shall be a blog focusing on how certain groups, and indeed humanity as a whole, are pants-on-head retarded. I can guarantee right now that one of my future posts will be a response to all those people who are getting red in the face right now because I used the word "retarded" and not "mentally handicapable" or some such drivel.

I am not politically correct. I do not pull my punches. I am a pinko liberal bastard who believes sarcasm is the epitome of comedy.

And you're most likely in my sights.