ElectionsVote

(By Chris Sharp) First of all, the moon is history. NASA has already brought man to the moon, remember – if you can remember. In fact, the last time NASA brought man to the moon was in 1972, when it planted Alan Shepard there and with the light gravity around him he went on record for hitting the longest golf drive ever hit.

So the next logical place for NASA to spend all our money that we do not have would be on Mars.  But let’s stop and ponder for a moment.  Where else can we plant people in outer space now?  They would burn alive in on Mercury and Venus.   And on the gaseous Jovian planets of Jupiter, Neptune and Uranus, they could drown into the gas surfaces in a way that would be worse than going into quicksand.

So Mars looks like about like the only place you can put people that you would want as far as possible away from you.

I would like to propose that we send the people who telemarketers to Mars.

Because I understand that NASA is having a little trouble finding people uniquely qualified to make this historic journey. I believe the people who telemarket to me are thus uniquely qualified.  The problem that NASA has today is finding people to go to Mars who will stay determined to return, in spite of a multitude of Apollo 13-like problems they are likely to have in outer space. 

Well, to be sure, the telemarketers who work on me don’t exactly sound like astronaut Jim Lovell over the phone – in fact, they seem to always have heavy accents.  But I do know that in spite of all the bad names I throw at them, my telemarketers have a determination to return again and again.  I am sure they would be just as determined to return to earth when it is time.

I am thinking also that Mars would need telemarketers.  In any case, we know how that we do not need telemarketers around us, so by the logic of default they would be needed more on Mars.  They could  feel more wanted there.  That is for sure.

Basically, I am using the logic here that some people who are calling themselves environmentalists are using to try to call the shots on what to do with the garbage of the Santa Clarita Valley.

It seems that local landfills have lost their appeal for a lot of these people.  So, they are picking on local landfills as (a) major pollutants or (b) potential major pollutants.  Actually, for political reasons, (a) and (b) are the same thing.

I am beginning to think I may understand the problem. The problem really is that outside of the mental health wards of our hospitals, there is really no such thing as an anti-environmentalist.  An anti-environmentalist– someone who actively works to destroy our environment for the sake of destroying it – will in realty not be allowed by our justice system to go beyond his first act of destruction.

Read more here: A Sharp View: How about we send our telemarketers to Mars?