That was fun wasn't it Dave? Writing a 3500 word story about a deeply personal incident in your life, sending it off to strangers with an implied, "Gee Mister, would you print this? It's about really important things!" Yeah, that was fun wasn't it?
Ummm, HELL NO! Writing for publication is about like being a piano delivery guy.
Any english speaker's conversation is full of redundant words, regional idioms and metaphors not widely understood. That's fine, but effective writing requires an entirely different skillset than effective talking. Added to that, when we communicate verbally we're aided (or sometimes hampered) by eye contact, vocal signals, body language and yeah even odors. Most of that stuff doesn't even register in the conscious brain of the listener, but the data is recorded and is part of verbal communication. So being able to keep one's fishing buddies in stitches does not automatically render one the next Mark Twain.
Well thanks for sharing Dave! Now I have a harder question. Is it immoral to be a hospice volunteer? Consider this. A person qualifies for Hospice services by refusing any further life extending treatment. So they've decided to stop trying to live. Isn't that a passive form of suicide? Granted, one's motives could be noble, like they're bankrupting the family as odds against survival grow higher. Or the motives could be very human, like weariness of getting poked with needles and being carved up like a turkey every few months. I have sympathy with both motives.
But isn't the point of objective morality that an act is either right or wrong, and motive is irrelevant? So is passive suicide morally right? Nope, I don't think it is. And while each individual has freewill and so ownership of their moral choices, extend that to outsiders who aid them.
Formal participation in an organization that facilitates passive suicide. Doesn't that confer approval of the dying person's decision? I'm not convinced that objective morality permits a distinction between passive and active. Hospice volunteer, Dr. Kevorkian, receptionist at an abortion clinic.
Well you're not a hospice volunteer anymore, so you don't have to think about it. Oh, but you will won't you? That little weasel brain of yours gets ahold of something and it's like conjugal visit day at the Big House!
Friday, July 31, 2009
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
FMEA for I-phones
No, I'm not a bit surprised to learn the hottest selling app is one that gives info on convicted sex offenders living in the area.
In Failure Mode Effect Analysis, a bunch of people sit around in a room. Admittedly, at least half are really thinking about what they'll have for lunch, but what they're supposed to be thinking about? Some new product or process is about to be launched. In this phase you mostly brainstorm what's the worst that could happen, and how bad would it be?
By numerical rating, an outcome that'd be very unlikely but horrible if it happened can rise to the top of the list for attention.
People really don't need bald hillbillys to impose the structure on them; we do FMEA informally all the time in our lives. This very popular I-phone app demonstrates that.
About three things are working here. First, it's statistically very unlikely any one child will ever be scooped up by a stranger, tortured and killed. Second, to the parent who loses a child like that, it ain't really 1 in 179,000 really, is it? More along the lines of 100% from their perspective. Third, we parents realize the world we raise our kids in is vastly changed from the world where we grew up, and we've a lot more media now, hammering that point.
So yeah, FMEA happens inside the head. Maybe the media hypes what are really rare cases, but the horror of the cases has numerical weight too. One can argue about the percentages, but it's pretty clear some percent of our population have no shame, no inhibitions, and very little ability to disobey their inner demons.
One of the most chilling stories I ever heard about the very hard job of catching child molesters? Yeah Dave, I know the technical term is pederasty, now shut the hell up? A police run internet sting. A cop arrives at a park at night, spots the van described by the middle aged man who thinks he's waiting to have sex with an adolescent boy. Walks up and arrests his son's Little League coach.
I'm not the only person in America who read that story. Yeah, maybe it's 1 in 179,000, so how many kids do you have? It's FMEA, this hot selling I-phone app. It's a crazy, strange world in many ways. It's changed, this world, but the job of being a parent hasn't changed. We're supposed to protect them from all monsters, and get them to the age where they tell us we're wrong about everything. This is the circle of Life. (Cue Elton John song)
So sure, people do FMEA in their heads, and want to know if there are dangers to the kiddos living just down the street. Again, this is a substitute for community. There was a time when tech fixes weren't required. People knew who lived in their neighborhoods. Yeah, you can call it gossip, but everybody's biz was everybody's biz. We don't have that anymore. So we have I-phone apps.
In Failure Mode Effect Analysis, a bunch of people sit around in a room. Admittedly, at least half are really thinking about what they'll have for lunch, but what they're supposed to be thinking about? Some new product or process is about to be launched. In this phase you mostly brainstorm what's the worst that could happen, and how bad would it be?
By numerical rating, an outcome that'd be very unlikely but horrible if it happened can rise to the top of the list for attention.
People really don't need bald hillbillys to impose the structure on them; we do FMEA informally all the time in our lives. This very popular I-phone app demonstrates that.
About three things are working here. First, it's statistically very unlikely any one child will ever be scooped up by a stranger, tortured and killed. Second, to the parent who loses a child like that, it ain't really 1 in 179,000 really, is it? More along the lines of 100% from their perspective. Third, we parents realize the world we raise our kids in is vastly changed from the world where we grew up, and we've a lot more media now, hammering that point.
So yeah, FMEA happens inside the head. Maybe the media hypes what are really rare cases, but the horror of the cases has numerical weight too. One can argue about the percentages, but it's pretty clear some percent of our population have no shame, no inhibitions, and very little ability to disobey their inner demons.
One of the most chilling stories I ever heard about the very hard job of catching child molesters? Yeah Dave, I know the technical term is pederasty, now shut the hell up? A police run internet sting. A cop arrives at a park at night, spots the van described by the middle aged man who thinks he's waiting to have sex with an adolescent boy. Walks up and arrests his son's Little League coach.
I'm not the only person in America who read that story. Yeah, maybe it's 1 in 179,000, so how many kids do you have? It's FMEA, this hot selling I-phone app. It's a crazy, strange world in many ways. It's changed, this world, but the job of being a parent hasn't changed. We're supposed to protect them from all monsters, and get them to the age where they tell us we're wrong about everything. This is the circle of Life. (Cue Elton John song)
So sure, people do FMEA in their heads, and want to know if there are dangers to the kiddos living just down the street. Again, this is a substitute for community. There was a time when tech fixes weren't required. People knew who lived in their neighborhoods. Yeah, you can call it gossip, but everybody's biz was everybody's biz. We don't have that anymore. So we have I-phone apps.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Movie review: Hysterically historical
Hey! Somebody unsolicited brings you some book/movie that means a lot to them. You should check it out. Often, unexpected blessings hide in ambush with things like that. If there are such blessings in "Valkyrie" they couldn't sneak up on Stevie Wonder.
In execution it's a pretty fine movie. Cast is competent, period details are precise, and all the explosions are believeable. I just can't figure out why anybody wanted to make such a movie, no matter how expertly.
It's an old problem in movie making. Tell a historical story where the outcome is already known. Generally what one does is spin off side stories. Sure, the ship is gonna sink, but here's these people here. Keep the audience guessing about their fate. "Valkyrie" doesn't give us a young German officer throwing his lot in with the conspirators while his pregnant wife frets. Nor does it give us some middle aged Chemistry teacher building the bomb, knowing if he's caught it could mean death for his wife and kids too. What it does give us is Tom Cruise in nearly every scene.
A good way to have gone with this movie, while still obeying whatever contract clause mandated Tom Cruise in nearly every scene? Explain what turned him against Hitler. That'd have been a very good film. Cruise/Von Stauffenberg could be schlepping around with his conspiracy to kill Manson, I mean Hitler, while it kept jumping back to his journey from goosestepper to patriotic assassin.
Tough stuff, these movies where the outcome's already known. Demands a deft touch. That said, well? The movie is historically accurate. Much of the moviegoing public don't even know there were high ranking Germans who tried to kill Adolf during the closing days of the war. It's good that folks find out about such stuff.
In execution it's a pretty fine movie. Cast is competent, period details are precise, and all the explosions are believeable. I just can't figure out why anybody wanted to make such a movie, no matter how expertly.
It's an old problem in movie making. Tell a historical story where the outcome is already known. Generally what one does is spin off side stories. Sure, the ship is gonna sink, but here's these people here. Keep the audience guessing about their fate. "Valkyrie" doesn't give us a young German officer throwing his lot in with the conspirators while his pregnant wife frets. Nor does it give us some middle aged Chemistry teacher building the bomb, knowing if he's caught it could mean death for his wife and kids too. What it does give us is Tom Cruise in nearly every scene.
A good way to have gone with this movie, while still obeying whatever contract clause mandated Tom Cruise in nearly every scene? Explain what turned him against Hitler. That'd have been a very good film. Cruise/Von Stauffenberg could be schlepping around with his conspiracy to kill Manson, I mean Hitler, while it kept jumping back to his journey from goosestepper to patriotic assassin.
Tough stuff, these movies where the outcome's already known. Demands a deft touch. That said, well? The movie is historically accurate. Much of the moviegoing public don't even know there were high ranking Germans who tried to kill Adolf during the closing days of the war. It's good that folks find out about such stuff.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Good ol' Harvard
Everybody sure is having fun though, huh? Dozens of articles, and I imagine the TV talkers are going at it too. You can tell who each author voted for, by their take on the story. What's the important thing though Dave?
A black academic arrested for disturbing the peace in Cambridge, MA. Charges later dropped. Hmmmm, what's really important?
Is it important President Obama looked very un-presidential in commenting on it? Naw, not really.
Is it important that Harvard has a department devoted to African-American studies? Naw. It's hilarious, but not important.
Professor Gates, would you like to see your behavior copied in the very worst parts of Memphis? Cause that's what's really important. Many things that look fine to Harvard develop very badly in the real world, and your reaction to a policeman is one of them. If you're taken as an example, it's going to get some people killed.
In Memphis, where we have shootings every weekend, police arrive in a very tense situation. Adrenaline is high and things can escalate quickly. My advice to people at the crime scene is be cooperative.
No sir, you're mistaken. You are giving people advice about how they should behave at crime scenes. Your "private citizen" gambit just gets so far with me. I'd argue that a Harvard faculty member is always on the clock. With privilege comes responsibility, and you live a very privileged life sir. So you've never really been a "private citizen" in Cambridge, MA. Beyond that though, you're out on stage now and national spotlight has caught you in its glare.
It's morally incumbent on you now to feel the full responsibility. Your actions now will contribute in some way to defining cultural norms for those of your ethnicity. Here in the real world, we deal with lots of blowback that can be traced back to places like Harvard. For instance? Back in the 60's what did it really matter if a bunch of trust fund babies smoked grass? It matters because it helped define a cultural norm of self-medication. Now we have meth, crack and who knows what else?
So I say your behavior surrounding police officers responding to what they thought was a crime, well? I don't want that behavior copied in the worst neighborhoods of Memphis. It'll eventually lead to some people getting killed. Even if not, it'll make police work more difficult. You should act now, mindful of your moral responsibility.
Call a news conference and apologize for being un-cooperative with the police. Explain you were upset, frustrated, but you understand in retrospect the lads were just trying to do their job.
Professor, it doesn't matter if you feel entirely justified in your indignation. Maybe you were, I've no idea. I'm thinking of a Memphis crime scene, some Saturday night in the future. It could get bad if everybody wants to give the police a bunch of sass. Lots of things that look cool at Harvard, well they go very badly in the worst parts of Memphis.
A black academic arrested for disturbing the peace in Cambridge, MA. Charges later dropped. Hmmmm, what's really important?
Is it important President Obama looked very un-presidential in commenting on it? Naw, not really.
Is it important that Harvard has a department devoted to African-American studies? Naw. It's hilarious, but not important.
Professor Gates, would you like to see your behavior copied in the very worst parts of Memphis? Cause that's what's really important. Many things that look fine to Harvard develop very badly in the real world, and your reaction to a policeman is one of them. If you're taken as an example, it's going to get some people killed.
In Memphis, where we have shootings every weekend, police arrive in a very tense situation. Adrenaline is high and things can escalate quickly. My advice to people at the crime scene is be cooperative.
No sir, you're mistaken. You are giving people advice about how they should behave at crime scenes. Your "private citizen" gambit just gets so far with me. I'd argue that a Harvard faculty member is always on the clock. With privilege comes responsibility, and you live a very privileged life sir. So you've never really been a "private citizen" in Cambridge, MA. Beyond that though, you're out on stage now and national spotlight has caught you in its glare.
It's morally incumbent on you now to feel the full responsibility. Your actions now will contribute in some way to defining cultural norms for those of your ethnicity. Here in the real world, we deal with lots of blowback that can be traced back to places like Harvard. For instance? Back in the 60's what did it really matter if a bunch of trust fund babies smoked grass? It matters because it helped define a cultural norm of self-medication. Now we have meth, crack and who knows what else?
So I say your behavior surrounding police officers responding to what they thought was a crime, well? I don't want that behavior copied in the worst neighborhoods of Memphis. It'll eventually lead to some people getting killed. Even if not, it'll make police work more difficult. You should act now, mindful of your moral responsibility.
Call a news conference and apologize for being un-cooperative with the police. Explain you were upset, frustrated, but you understand in retrospect the lads were just trying to do their job.
Professor, it doesn't matter if you feel entirely justified in your indignation. Maybe you were, I've no idea. I'm thinking of a Memphis crime scene, some Saturday night in the future. It could get bad if everybody wants to give the police a bunch of sass. Lots of things that look cool at Harvard, well they go very badly in the worst parts of Memphis.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Again with the worms?
A skeptical reader has challenged my claim that worms under a farm may actually weigh more than the stuff up top.
First, I observe that skepticism is a more powerful tool for honest scientific inquiry than all the microscopes and telescopes ever constructed. God bless and keep you Charles Fort.
Second, the nerve of that guy! Ain't I after all, the never to be challenged owner of all information that isn't worth knowing? Doesn't bode well for our culture, somebody just wandering in and politely asking if something I said is really true. I fear for our country.
Third, it wasn't my claim at all really. I just quoted the Worm Digest. Still? One has a certain ethical responsibility for the accuracy of advocates they quote. (HEY? Fox news, CBS, NY Times? Did ya'll pick up on that?) So sure, I'll go for an independent inquiry of this worm thing. I don't mind digging into it.
Well, seems pretty simple. I need to know how much a worm weighs and how many are in an acre. OK, I'm gonna need tweezers, a bulldozer, and a set of bathroom scales. Wait Dave? Maybe there's an easier way? I'm just saying?
Darwin spent twenty years studying worms on his farm, and concluded fertile land could support 53,767 worms per acre. I so admire precision in the stupid. Not like he was gonna round off or anything, right? People at the Rothamsted Institute think Darwin was wrong. WHAT? Somebody says Mr. Darwin made careful observations but drew flawed conclusions? Who are these upstart blasphemers at this Rothamsted place?
They're privately endowed group of scientists who check each other's math. Been in biz at least 160 years. Their focus is to learn as much as possible about everything pertaining to agriculture.
Well, I guess that's OK. Don't seem to be aligned with some organized religion. So according to them, how incorrect was Darwin the Great, about worms I mean?
Only by 32 really. As in take the number he came up with and multiply it by 32. According to the latest research, a healthy acre of land might have up to 1.75M earthworms. Well, anybody can make a mistake, I guess.
A typical adult earthworm weighs .46 grams, according to National Geographic. That's about 973 worms per pound. So do that math thing David?
OK. Under a 400 acre farm, maybe 720K lbs. of earthworms thrive. That's more than the weight of two Boeing 747's. There's just a lot more going on around us and between us at any given time than any of us are capable of realizing. I sure would like to say more, but I'm seized with an unexplainable hankering for a delicious Colt 45. WORKS EVERY TIME! Why did I just say that?
First, I observe that skepticism is a more powerful tool for honest scientific inquiry than all the microscopes and telescopes ever constructed. God bless and keep you Charles Fort.
Second, the nerve of that guy! Ain't I after all, the never to be challenged owner of all information that isn't worth knowing? Doesn't bode well for our culture, somebody just wandering in and politely asking if something I said is really true. I fear for our country.
Third, it wasn't my claim at all really. I just quoted the Worm Digest. Still? One has a certain ethical responsibility for the accuracy of advocates they quote. (HEY? Fox news, CBS, NY Times? Did ya'll pick up on that?) So sure, I'll go for an independent inquiry of this worm thing. I don't mind digging into it.
Well, seems pretty simple. I need to know how much a worm weighs and how many are in an acre. OK, I'm gonna need tweezers, a bulldozer, and a set of bathroom scales. Wait Dave? Maybe there's an easier way? I'm just saying?
Darwin spent twenty years studying worms on his farm, and concluded fertile land could support 53,767 worms per acre. I so admire precision in the stupid. Not like he was gonna round off or anything, right? People at the Rothamsted Institute think Darwin was wrong. WHAT? Somebody says Mr. Darwin made careful observations but drew flawed conclusions? Who are these upstart blasphemers at this Rothamsted place?
They're privately endowed group of scientists who check each other's math. Been in biz at least 160 years. Their focus is to learn as much as possible about everything pertaining to agriculture.
Well, I guess that's OK. Don't seem to be aligned with some organized religion. So according to them, how incorrect was Darwin the Great, about worms I mean?
Only by 32 really. As in take the number he came up with and multiply it by 32. According to the latest research, a healthy acre of land might have up to 1.75M earthworms. Well, anybody can make a mistake, I guess.
A typical adult earthworm weighs .46 grams, according to National Geographic. That's about 973 worms per pound. So do that math thing David?
OK. Under a 400 acre farm, maybe 720K lbs. of earthworms thrive. That's more than the weight of two Boeing 747's. There's just a lot more going on around us and between us at any given time than any of us are capable of realizing. I sure would like to say more, but I'm seized with an unexplainable hankering for a delicious Colt 45. WORKS EVERY TIME! Why did I just say that?
Correct and dishonest
Went by faster than one of Madonna's boyfriends. "Economists predict this increase in minimum wage will mean an additional $5.5B in consumer spending."
It's good that news anchors don't understand the meaning of what they're reading. It could lead to career ending laugh line wrinkles otherwise.
So where actually is this $5.5 billion dollars right at this moment? Not that I don't trust you or anything, but can I see it?
Are there, all over this country, piles of cash stacked in storerooms at American businesses? Cause that's the only way the statement could be honest.
No Dave, you're over-simplifying again towards your evil Conservative ends. It's that business owners will have to accept a slightly lower profit margin, and the workers will benefit. Just a kinda government mandated profit sharing plan for low wage workers is all.
Well all right, cool. I'm just asking somebody to show me where the $5.5B comes from is all. Like I'm a business owner, and I'll just have to get by with the old yacht for another year. So money comes from my pocket, goes to the workers, I get that. But wasn't I already part of the consumer spending thing? If you take money I was going to spend and give it to somebody else to spend, how is new consumer spending added to our economy?
Now you're over-complicating things! Why don't you just tell me Mr. Smarty Pants, where you think this $5.5B is right now, since you seem to know everything, and don't want McDonald's workers to have decent lives?
OK. That $5.5B is right now in our pockets, and the pockets of McDonald's workers too. It's probably correct to say consumer spending is about to increase by that dollar figure. Also?
Economists say boost in minimum wage will cause $5.5B increase in cost of living. That'd be true too. What's going to happen is every product and service with a significant domestic minimum wage labor component, well prices are going up kids.
Business owners aren't really famous for apathy about slipping profit margins, oddly enough. In some market sectors they'll have to cut cost or close. Most of them will raise prices though.
Probably won't affect airline tickets, or the cost of a flatscreen TV. Likely will impact cost of daycare and groceries though. I'm still trying to figger which of these options are usually the end point for the spending dollar of an unwed mother working a drag job. Hmmm, beats me!
It will be at least a $5.5B increase in consumer spending. But that doesn't mean more camels will be purchased. Only means the price of camels just went up.
It's good that news anchors don't understand the meaning of what they're reading. It could lead to career ending laugh line wrinkles otherwise.
So where actually is this $5.5 billion dollars right at this moment? Not that I don't trust you or anything, but can I see it?
Are there, all over this country, piles of cash stacked in storerooms at American businesses? Cause that's the only way the statement could be honest.
No Dave, you're over-simplifying again towards your evil Conservative ends. It's that business owners will have to accept a slightly lower profit margin, and the workers will benefit. Just a kinda government mandated profit sharing plan for low wage workers is all.
Well all right, cool. I'm just asking somebody to show me where the $5.5B comes from is all. Like I'm a business owner, and I'll just have to get by with the old yacht for another year. So money comes from my pocket, goes to the workers, I get that. But wasn't I already part of the consumer spending thing? If you take money I was going to spend and give it to somebody else to spend, how is new consumer spending added to our economy?
Now you're over-complicating things! Why don't you just tell me Mr. Smarty Pants, where you think this $5.5B is right now, since you seem to know everything, and don't want McDonald's workers to have decent lives?
OK. That $5.5B is right now in our pockets, and the pockets of McDonald's workers too. It's probably correct to say consumer spending is about to increase by that dollar figure. Also?
Economists say boost in minimum wage will cause $5.5B increase in cost of living. That'd be true too. What's going to happen is every product and service with a significant domestic minimum wage labor component, well prices are going up kids.
Business owners aren't really famous for apathy about slipping profit margins, oddly enough. In some market sectors they'll have to cut cost or close. Most of them will raise prices though.
Probably won't affect airline tickets, or the cost of a flatscreen TV. Likely will impact cost of daycare and groceries though. I'm still trying to figger which of these options are usually the end point for the spending dollar of an unwed mother working a drag job. Hmmm, beats me!
It will be at least a $5.5B increase in consumer spending. But that doesn't mean more camels will be purchased. Only means the price of camels just went up.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Good morning Mr. Phelps
There's a special place in the heart for stuff that's unintentionally funny. So I'll always remember being a little kid watching American Bandstand that Saturday. Teenagers trying to dance to the "Mission Impossible" theme. Dunh dunh dunh dunh dunh dunh dunh dunh, doodle loo, doodle loo... now how on Earth is anybody supposed to dance to that? It was very amusing to watch.
"Mission Impossible" was a quite popular TV show and I really enjoyed it, but even as a child I found unintentional humor in the very implausiblity of the whole thing.
Neglecting the show always started with top-secret guy getting his top-secret info, i.e. photos and the tape recorder that self-destructs in thirty seconds (Wal-Mart now sells many appliances with a comparable service life) in places that didn't look like first place I'd choose to leave top-secret stuff?
"Good morning Mr. Phelps. Your mission, should you choose to accept it"...that always got me laughing. Even then I sensed there couldn't be a job in the world, not even in the US government where, "Naw, what else ya got?" was an acceptable answer. And that's just the first two minutes of the show. It got a LOT funnier after that!
The mission was always some third world guy either already doing the bidding of the evil Ruskies (who were never mentioned by name, but we knew) or about to be. Take the bastard down, in the name of all that's pure & sacred!
Mr. Phelps and his talented co-workers would approach the mission something like this usually? Make the bad guy think his dead grandfather is sending him messages about where is some fabulous buried treasure. He'll discredit himself, look like a total nut, and it's off to the salt mines for you buddy! Then his replacement will do exactly what he was gonna do for the evil Ruskies, I imagine.
I recall thinking as a kid, how odd! Couldn't we just send a lone sniper in, take the guy out from a quarter mile away? Certainly the killing would be blamed on a rival. Instead we get people crawling through ventilation shafts and Martin Landau peeling off plastic faces? Hmmm.
As an adult, I wonder were there missions that didn't go so well, and Mr. Phelps had to report to Nixon on?
"Well Mr. President, our plan was to get Pol Pot to believe extraterrestrials were communicating with him, telling him where was a fabulous buried treasure, but Martin's plastic face fell off and it was all downhill from there really."
"What is it with you freaks and this buried treasure crap? You're against me, you're all against me. Henry, put his name on the list, and I mean right now!"
dunh dunh dunh dunh doodle loo doodle loo...I still say it's an Impossible Mission, trying to dance to that tune.
"Mission Impossible" was a quite popular TV show and I really enjoyed it, but even as a child I found unintentional humor in the very implausiblity of the whole thing.
Neglecting the show always started with top-secret guy getting his top-secret info, i.e. photos and the tape recorder that self-destructs in thirty seconds (Wal-Mart now sells many appliances with a comparable service life) in places that didn't look like first place I'd choose to leave top-secret stuff?
"Good morning Mr. Phelps. Your mission, should you choose to accept it"...that always got me laughing. Even then I sensed there couldn't be a job in the world, not even in the US government where, "Naw, what else ya got?" was an acceptable answer. And that's just the first two minutes of the show. It got a LOT funnier after that!
The mission was always some third world guy either already doing the bidding of the evil Ruskies (who were never mentioned by name, but we knew) or about to be. Take the bastard down, in the name of all that's pure & sacred!
Mr. Phelps and his talented co-workers would approach the mission something like this usually? Make the bad guy think his dead grandfather is sending him messages about where is some fabulous buried treasure. He'll discredit himself, look like a total nut, and it's off to the salt mines for you buddy! Then his replacement will do exactly what he was gonna do for the evil Ruskies, I imagine.
I recall thinking as a kid, how odd! Couldn't we just send a lone sniper in, take the guy out from a quarter mile away? Certainly the killing would be blamed on a rival. Instead we get people crawling through ventilation shafts and Martin Landau peeling off plastic faces? Hmmm.
As an adult, I wonder were there missions that didn't go so well, and Mr. Phelps had to report to Nixon on?
"Well Mr. President, our plan was to get Pol Pot to believe extraterrestrials were communicating with him, telling him where was a fabulous buried treasure, but Martin's plastic face fell off and it was all downhill from there really."
"What is it with you freaks and this buried treasure crap? You're against me, you're all against me. Henry, put his name on the list, and I mean right now!"
dunh dunh dunh dunh doodle loo doodle loo...I still say it's an Impossible Mission, trying to dance to that tune.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)