Never Censored

As a sequel to Is Earth worse than Hell, I decided to also question the existence of Heaven in its commonly-described state, and I think I came to the conclusion that the current conceptions about "Heaven" make their conceptualization of "heaven" impossible. Overall, it seems most Christian sects treat Heaven as eternal paradise-- essentially, all of your dreams come true, and sadness, suffering, sorrow, and grief all fade away. I mean, who wouldn't enjoy that? Well, I, for one wouldn't, and therein lies the problem.

I think I've devised a good method for determining whether a particular political action is good or bad, without having to worry about things like patriotism, party loyalty, or campaign contributions. I call it the Hitler Test, and it works for pretty much every current event and proposed legislation.

The idea behind it is if you can take any given action and it sounds acceptable if you imagine Hitler doing it or saying it, then it's probably an action that the government should be cleared to do, and that the people should probably be behind. If, however, it sounds ominous and/or downright scary when Hitler does it, then it should be an action to be avoided at all costs.

So, here's the formula:

I stumbled across this recently. Try to spot the difference between the two posters:



Give it a second, then continue on.

From the Tribune's article:

SPRINGFIELD -- The Illinois House overwhelmingly approved a statewide smoking ban in public places Tuesday that would eliminate a confusing patchwork of local laws and leave smokers in every community with one place in common to light up—outside.

I've got mixed feelings about this. On one hand, I can totally understand the recent move toward bans on smoking in public places. After all, smoking cessation aides like Nicorette are able to completely replace the addictive qualities of cigarettes in a relatively non-carcinogenic way by providing a high quantity of nicotine in various forms. Essentially, these yummy drugs have quickly and efficiently replaced the cigarette's primary addictive chemical so that smokers can now transform their addiction to a gum or patch. That alone is pretty evil, but then again, it's not the nicotine that's the problem, now is it? Realistically speaking, nicotine's no more dangerous than caffeine, but if you put caffeine in cigarette form, caffeine would be the bane of humanity-- not nicotine.