a. Submit your guesses without looking them up. You can do that after.
b. The people have to have died within the last year. Halloween 2007 to Halloween 2008
27 October 2008
Graveyard Guess 2008
The rules are simple:
a. Submit your guesses without looking them up. You can do that after.
b. The people have to have died within the last year. Halloween 2007 to Halloween 2008
a. Submit your guesses without looking them up. You can do that after.
b. The people have to have died within the last year. Halloween 2007 to Halloween 2008
12 October 2008
No Windows... And No Doors...
Halloween approacheth.
For me, Halloween has so many applications. It is such a creative holiday.
Let's create a haunted house, path, trail, etc. Let's figure out the best way to make people feel uncomfortable. Scare them. What is scary?
+ Well, death is scary.
- Okay, so let's put it in a graveyard.
+ But those people have already died. What about making it in a dark place?
- Are there going to be chicks there?
+ I hope so. We have to have screams.
- How about having severed heads on the ground talking to people as they walk by?
+ Or, we could have arms holding candles in the hallway.
- What about having them walk through a certain section bare foot and there could be eyeballs on the ground?
+ Well, chainsaws usually scare people.
- Yeah, chainsaws are scary, but so is any loud sound. A loud air conditioner can be scary.
Then again, aren't haunted houses just representing the kind of places that young girls should not be going to? Yeah, my 16 year old daughter went with her "boyfriend" to this house where a few friends were supposed to be. The house has no electricity and supposedly someone died there. Also, an escaped mental patient is in the area. She should be fine though because she is with her "boyfriend" who has been a perfect gentleman and has no thoughts of sex or anything like that.
All we are doing with a haunted house is playing on our basic fears. We hate darkness. We hate death. We hate psychos. We hate clowns. We hate strobe lights. There! We covered it. We have our haunted house.
The Money Changers
My friend referred this video to me on youtube. It is called the Money Masters. It was in three sections of seven parts each and it was pretty cool, but they took it off youtube for some reason. It was obviously very conspiratorial and some of the history was a little bit of a stretch, but in one of the scenes, they mentioned the Rothchilds. And, I kept thinking: Where have I heard that name in relation to the wealthiest people in the world?
So I Married an Axe Murderer of course.
Anyway, the argument of the Money Masters is that the money changers have been using their influence over the years to make sure to have national banks, which are really private banks. There is no real control over them either. They are able to determine wealth and they keep everyone owing to them. And society has no chance whatsoever against them. Countries go to war and these people remain in power. Wars are fought for their own gain.
And, so I sit here and think: What good is this to me? Does this cause me to shun everything? I refuse to use their money. I refuse to go to war. I refuse to take any type of political stance. I refuse to work for them. I refuse to use their cars, their roads, their tvs, their microwaves. When does it end?
Maybe it is true. Maybe they control everything. I do not think it is very practical to be very concerned about it. It is interesting though. I like the idea of having information regarding these groups of people. History is a terribly important subject. And, it is so vital that as we study history we look at many angles, trying to seek out truth. From a historical perspective, this is very interesting stuff. These are the kinds of conspiracies that make history fun, but not necessarily very accurate.
So I Married an Axe Murderer of course.
Anyway, the argument of the Money Masters is that the money changers have been using their influence over the years to make sure to have national banks, which are really private banks. There is no real control over them either. They are able to determine wealth and they keep everyone owing to them. And society has no chance whatsoever against them. Countries go to war and these people remain in power. Wars are fought for their own gain.
And, so I sit here and think: What good is this to me? Does this cause me to shun everything? I refuse to use their money. I refuse to go to war. I refuse to take any type of political stance. I refuse to work for them. I refuse to use their cars, their roads, their tvs, their microwaves. When does it end?
Maybe it is true. Maybe they control everything. I do not think it is very practical to be very concerned about it. It is interesting though. I like the idea of having information regarding these groups of people. History is a terribly important subject. And, it is so vital that as we study history we look at many angles, trying to seek out truth. From a historical perspective, this is very interesting stuff. These are the kinds of conspiracies that make history fun, but not necessarily very accurate.
Some Thoughts on the Election
I feel weird talking politics on my blog. Partly because I do not know anything. And partly because most people who do know something still look like they know nothing. People throw out stuff that seems like a good point, but then they have no actual information to back it up. It just sounds like a good point.
One such point was the idea that large companies should pay higher taxes because of shared resources. The example my friend gave was roads. Since a company would have more vehicles using those roads and would be making more money from the use of those roads than the common man, they should have to pay more taxes. Some of the things left out of this argument were actual numbers. Are there taxes being applied to businesses who use these roads excessively? I know that my Grandfather, who had a trucking business, paid a ton of taxes in California. And, I know that he did not make very much money. Are the two related? I don't have the actual numbers though.
So, I do not understand how people can argue for points when they do not have facts. Speculation seems like the best they can do. And, of course, this brings us to the debates. I really do not understand the debate process. Why are we watching these things? I know what the candidate stands for. Is it all about the show? They do not seem to have their facts straight either. The Palin-Biden debate was interesting. She never answered any questions and Biden repeated a bunch of stuff. And then, some debate expert has to come along and say: It was a draw!
Isn't every debate a draw really?
When a person is being a huge jerk and gets angry and throws a tantrum, the winner is the other person, right? Person B expressed himself better. Person A had no composure. Person A had more facts, but apparently could not handle being referred to as someone who just doesn't get it. So, even though Person B resorted to name-calling, Person A is the one who deserves to lose.
Another funny thing happened recently. A McCain supporter railed against Obama and McCain came out in defense of Obama, saying that Obama would make a fine president. McCain is running for president, right? He does believe that he would make the best president, does he not? If McCain and Obama are really not much different, why is McCain in there? People have sunk millions of dollars into this candidate and he gets out there and tells his supporters that his competition will be a fine president? I understand that McCain wants to be fair and to give credit to Obama, but there would seem to be a lot at stake here. That does not sound like someone who thinks his ideas are all that great. That does not sound like someone who feels he has to be in there for the country to be where it needs to be. It does not sound like McCain is a leader.
I know that the candidates are doing their best to distance themselves from Bush. I hate that the country hates Bush so much. We elected him. We knew who he was after four years. It is not like we had no idea where he was coming from. We put him in office. Are we going to elect McCain and gripe about him for the next four years?
One such point was the idea that large companies should pay higher taxes because of shared resources. The example my friend gave was roads. Since a company would have more vehicles using those roads and would be making more money from the use of those roads than the common man, they should have to pay more taxes. Some of the things left out of this argument were actual numbers. Are there taxes being applied to businesses who use these roads excessively? I know that my Grandfather, who had a trucking business, paid a ton of taxes in California. And, I know that he did not make very much money. Are the two related? I don't have the actual numbers though.
So, I do not understand how people can argue for points when they do not have facts. Speculation seems like the best they can do. And, of course, this brings us to the debates. I really do not understand the debate process. Why are we watching these things? I know what the candidate stands for. Is it all about the show? They do not seem to have their facts straight either. The Palin-Biden debate was interesting. She never answered any questions and Biden repeated a bunch of stuff. And then, some debate expert has to come along and say: It was a draw!
Isn't every debate a draw really?
When a person is being a huge jerk and gets angry and throws a tantrum, the winner is the other person, right? Person B expressed himself better. Person A had no composure. Person A had more facts, but apparently could not handle being referred to as someone who just doesn't get it. So, even though Person B resorted to name-calling, Person A is the one who deserves to lose.
Another funny thing happened recently. A McCain supporter railed against Obama and McCain came out in defense of Obama, saying that Obama would make a fine president. McCain is running for president, right? He does believe that he would make the best president, does he not? If McCain and Obama are really not much different, why is McCain in there? People have sunk millions of dollars into this candidate and he gets out there and tells his supporters that his competition will be a fine president? I understand that McCain wants to be fair and to give credit to Obama, but there would seem to be a lot at stake here. That does not sound like someone who thinks his ideas are all that great. That does not sound like someone who feels he has to be in there for the country to be where it needs to be. It does not sound like McCain is a leader.
I know that the candidates are doing their best to distance themselves from Bush. I hate that the country hates Bush so much. We elected him. We knew who he was after four years. It is not like we had no idea where he was coming from. We put him in office. Are we going to elect McCain and gripe about him for the next four years?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)