keeping our chins up and staring into the heavens, let's talk about that big ol' satellite of ours.
i mean of course, the moon.
check out this news-blurb! (nurb?):
boom! we're going back to the moon!
not only that, but read the fine print (sometimes called "the article"): we're gonna stay there.
you hear that, hawking! NASA loves you.
but you may be asking yourselves "why? why are we building a home on the moon?"
well, jerk, why not? you don't want to be cool and live on the moon? you know how many space-chicks you'll get with some real estate on the moon?
hear that moon-ladies? NASA's best and brightest are coming for ya.
see, this is exactly why we need to double our expenses and danger: just in case there are moon women who need human love.
but heartless experts disagree. read what those dorks have got to say:
Given the price tag, the danger, and the all-out technical hurdles of sending people to the Moon, not to mention building a long-term home on the closest rock to the Earth, some experts have claimed that manned lunar flights are more quixotic than scientifically sound. Instead, they suggest that robots and unmanned flights can do most of what humans can at half the cost (or less).robots?! now you want to give human jobs to robots??
(yahoo! news, "http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20061205/tc_nf/48523")
listen up right wing conservatives: here's your new scapegoat. robots.
these metal bastards are gonna go take our astronaut jobs and rob sexy scientists of their space-ladies.
why, i'm so angry i could, i could--i could end the post right now!
in fact, i think i will. yeah. out of anger, not hunger.
you keep it real, reeds. i'll see you on the flip-side of a sting. go out with your star-net and catch me a stellar babe.
(pun!)
No comments:
Post a Comment