[1463] in Humor
HUMOR: Downsizing Continues
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Andrew A. Bennett)
Wed May 29 16:01:02 1996
To: humor@MIT.EDU
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 15:35:10 EDT
From: "Andrew A. Bennett" <abennett@MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 12:22:28 +0800
From: gml@ata.ca.boeing.com (Gregg Lobdell 234-0884)
From: rgarrard@xmission.com
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 13:04:00 GMT
For your entertainment, from
http://www.misty.com/laughweb/political/congress.reduces.solar.system.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Congress reduces solar system
A Press Release
Bob Haberle reporting.
WASHINGTON D.C. The House Appropriations subcommittee on NASA
oversight, in another effort to reduce the NASA budget, passed a
resolution today to downsize the solar system. According to an unnamed
congressional staffer, House Republicans felt there has been "too much
redundancy in the solar system" and that streamlining the 4.5 billion
year old planetary system is long overdue. Such action would give NASA
fewer places to go and this would allow the agency to carry out its
space exploration goals within the funding profile that the House
proposed earlier this summer.
"Look, we have three terrestrial planets" said Congressman Rip U.
Apart (R, Del.), "and only one of them really works! So why not get
rid of the other two and clean up the neighborhood?" Most subcommittee
members felt that while downsizing was definitely in the cards,
eliminating both Mars and Venus was going too far. "We have too many
international commitments to Mars." said Rush N. Hater (R,
Calif.). "So I think we should keep Mars and dump Venus. Its too hot
to live on, and liberal Democrats keep using it as an example of what
global warming can do. So from a political and practical point of
view, Venus has got to go."
Also at risk is the planet Mercury which lacks support because of its
small size and poor visibility from Earth. "Who needs it?" asked
Congressman Newt Onian (R, N.C.). "Have you ever seen it? I haven't.
So what good is it? We just don't need useless planets. And speaking
of useless planets, what about the asteroids? If you've seen one,
you've seen them all. So I say we ought to get rid of the little
boogers once and for all."
However, the downsizing recommendations do not stop with the
terrestrial planets. The resolution also calls for a reduction in the
number of gas giants which contain most of the planetary mass in the
solar system. Most subcommittee members favor retaining Jupiter and
Saturn, and eliminating Uranus and Neptune. "Jupiter employs the most
molecules, and Saturn has those pretty little rings everyone likes."
said Rep. Con Mann (R, Fla.). "On the other hand, Uranus is a bore
and its rings are dirty. And Neptune, for God's sake, is just too far
away. So begone with those ugly bruisers."
But the influential Wright I.M. Fornow from South Carolina has
publicly announced he will fight to eliminate Saturn. Fornow is
especially miffed by NASA's success thus far in keeping Cassini, the
next mission to Saturn, alive which he feels is waste of taxpayers
money. "If there ain't no Saturn, then there ain't no Cassini" he
exclaimed. The congressman also expressed concern about sending
back-to-back spacecraft bearing Italian surnames to the outer planets
(The Galileo spacecraft arrives at Jupiter this December).
The subcommittee was unanimous in its views towards Pluto which they
deemed a moral misfit. "Now here's a planet we can definitely do
without." continued Fornow. "A few years ago, it was farthest from
the sun. Now its not. Its just too confusing. And now they tell me its
really two planets instead of one. What the hell is going on here?"
The resolution must now be presented to the entire House, where it is
expected to pass easily since only a minority of Representatives have
constituents on the affected planets. NASA Administrator Golden has
vowed to resist any further reductions to the solar system, saying
that "NASA has expended considerable effort to make the planets
cheaper, faster, and better. Much of this work would be wasted if the
solar system were downsized" stated Golden.
Critics say, however, that reducing the number of planets will not
produce the expected savings to taxpayers. Textbooks, they note, would
have to be revised to reflect the new arrangement, and facilities
would need to be constructed to remove the planets themselves. The
resolution is also likely to draw strong opposition from religious
fundamentalists who have long opposed the elimination of any of the
biblical planets. Thus, the matter is far from resolved.
============================================================
"Be excellent to one another." --Bill
R. A. Garrard rgarrard@xmission.com Salt Lake City, Utah
============================================================
