Published on April 20, 2005 By philomedy In Current Events
Link

So NASA sends a craft loaded with explosives to blow a crater in a comet to see what is inside the comet. Fine. Forget the fact that NASA has proved itself completely useless in the recent past, and that we continue to fritter away money on them while we can't fix the problems we have on this planet, at this time, which might possibly be more of a pressing issue that figuring out what the hell is inside a large, burning, flying rock in space. My guess? The same crap that's inside the large, non-burning, no-flying rocks on Earth. More rock. But moving on:

There is a Russian astrologist who has sued NASA, demanding that it call off the mission, because destroying the comet would
"infringe upon my system of spiritual and life values, in particular on the values of every element of creation, upon the unacceptability of barbarically interfering with the natural life of the universe, and the violation of the natural balance of the Universe."

Really. I wonder how much stock she'd put in interfering with the natural life of the universe if the rocket was a bullet and the comet was her. I'm sure she'd enjoy some sort of interference then. If the comet was a car coming at her, and the rocket was police cruiser aware of the situation coming to her rescue. If the comet was a comet actually coming towards Earth, and the rocket was a rocket that would save all of our lives. Can we interfere with the natural balance of the universe then?

Another astrologist said that "of course everyday people will feel the implications of destroying a comet."

Really. I feel the implications of spending 311 million dollars on looking inside a rock. That's what I feel the implications of. But as long as we're wasting that money, as long as it's been wasted, as long as the damn ship is in space, we're not gonna call it off. Cuz here in America, we get our wasted money's worth. And we sure as hell do not give you 311 million more dollars for your "moral distress" at having the comet destroyed. Sorry.

The astrologist goes on to say that this would mess with the "psychic environment", which would most likely lead to "mass anxiety".

Really. Mass anxiety. This is what concerns you? Are you aware of the little thing we got going in Iraq? Ya keeping up with the little Israel/Palestine thing thats transpiring? Does the name Kim-Jong Il ring any bells? Consequently, have you tried to get through an airport recently? Have you tried to be Muslim recently? The mass anxiety ship sailed ages ago, dude. If this is what you're worried about, it's already happened. Maybe destroying a comet would fix things.

A couple of competent remarks in the article, mainly that destroying a comet could cause radio wave disruptions and asteroid showers.

Some friendly advice: If you want to know what you should be focusing on if you don't want the comet destroyed, SEE ABOVE SENTENCE! Tell us asteroids will get us. We will listen. Tell us we can't listen to Rush Limbaugh/Al Franken. We will listen. Tell us satellite signals will fail and we'll miss the first week of NFL Sunday Ticket; Americans will assault NASA like Frankenstein was living there and put a hurting on that place that would leave Bastille Day crying in a corner.

But our spiritual environment is in danger? We might get anxious? Too late.




Comments
on Apr 20, 2005

large, burning, flying rock in space.

Well, you wont find a large burning rock.  Comets are frozen balls of dirty ice.

on Apr 20, 2005
Well, you wont find a large burning rock. Comets are frozen balls of dirty ice.


My mistake. My point stands though, albeit with a little modification.

So then we spent 311 million dollars to see whats inside a frozen ball of dirty ice. I'll save them the trouble. Water.
on Apr 20, 2005

My mistake. My point stands though, albeit with a little modification.

And you point is valid.  Except.

We are so damn curious!  Sorry, I want to see if it is Evian or Perrier!