Allow artists to draw paintings on graves' white surfaces. The deceased or their families can (pre)commission individual artists. Artists can also volunteer to draw interesting themes that reflect how people lived. As more people will visit cemeteries to appreciate the artwork, more tribute will be paid to those that passed away even from people outside the family circle. Cemeteries will become more lively spaces. I don't consider it an offensive idea to people who passed away.
http://www.thinkaloo.com
Showing posts with label bury. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bury. Show all posts
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Cemetery licence for NYSE
Cemeteries are good business because no one escapes death. Cemeteries experience booms during wars and recessions. The NYSE can make money if it uses its underground as cemetery for people who commit suicide after losing all their money. The concept is to reenact the old ritual of burying the dead in the field of battle.
When the bulls come back to make money, they can do so by stepping over real dead bodies which can act as a reminder to all that booms Are transient!
http://www.thinkaloo.com
When the bulls come back to make money, they can do so by stepping over real dead bodies which can act as a reminder to all that booms Are transient!
http://www.thinkaloo.com
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Toxic Asset ruminations...
Hmmm, what shall we do with the financial so-called Toxic Assets?
a) bury them?
b) send them to space?
c) re-cycle them?
d) derive them?
e) re-rederive them?
Well!
Ok, a few hints before you make your pick
Choices d and e are sarcastic (as if the phrase Toxic Asset isn't). They were added to bring the number of multiple choices to 5, so it really comes down to a, b and c...
What do we usually do with things toxic when we also happen to view them as assets?
Obviously and despite the trillion dollar bailouts, it seems we can't afford to send them to outer space, otherwise Obama would have put NASA in charge, not Geithner.
Option b gets eliminated. So b as it may, we are left with options a and c. Now we have a real di-lemma!
If something is toxic, is it an asset or waste?
That's a tough one and goes beyond mere semantics. It depends really. If the waste is human or animal, it still is toxic but can safely and productively be recycled. Shit happens all the time, but it's good for you. Human shit goes into the ground and cow farts up the sky where they eventually get aircycled or if they can escape earth's gravity they might economically dissolve their way into outer space (can cow or any farts really escape earth's gravity??)
But seriously now, if the waste Is nuclear we don't recycle it, we insulate it and bury it as deep as we can.
So, where does that leave us in terms of our beautifully aromatic current predicament?
If it's shit, it Is an Asset because it can be Recycled. But if it's Nuclear it definitely Is Non-Recyclable Waste. So, which Is it we are dealing with here?
Before you say they are both shit anyway, ask yourself:
Even if it's shit, how much shit can we really take before it becomes detrimental to our health?
Perhaps until the coroner determines toxicity levels as cause of death, we might be better off calling them shitty assets and stick with the recycling for now.
Or, perhaps the coroners might be the first to go from too much shit in our media, so we might never find out what it was that caused Our going next!
a or c?
Pick your favorite answer but even if it's a, don't stop recycling your toxic assets.
So long as you call them assets, there will always be people willing to take your shit and pass it around!
Our media is so brilliant, isn't it??
Toxic Asset My Ass!
Perhaps, if Bush and Obama had named it TAMA instead of TARP, we might have smelled the humor and seen better results...
Perhaps!
www.thinkaloo.com
a) bury them?
b) send them to space?
c) re-cycle them?
d) derive them?
e) re-rederive them?
Well!
Ok, a few hints before you make your pick
Choices d and e are sarcastic (as if the phrase Toxic Asset isn't). They were added to bring the number of multiple choices to 5, so it really comes down to a, b and c...
What do we usually do with things toxic when we also happen to view them as assets?
Obviously and despite the trillion dollar bailouts, it seems we can't afford to send them to outer space, otherwise Obama would have put NASA in charge, not Geithner.
Option b gets eliminated. So b as it may, we are left with options a and c. Now we have a real di-lemma!
If something is toxic, is it an asset or waste?
That's a tough one and goes beyond mere semantics. It depends really. If the waste is human or animal, it still is toxic but can safely and productively be recycled. Shit happens all the time, but it's good for you. Human shit goes into the ground and cow farts up the sky where they eventually get aircycled or if they can escape earth's gravity they might economically dissolve their way into outer space (can cow or any farts really escape earth's gravity??)
But seriously now, if the waste Is nuclear we don't recycle it, we insulate it and bury it as deep as we can.
So, where does that leave us in terms of our beautifully aromatic current predicament?
If it's shit, it Is an Asset because it can be Recycled. But if it's Nuclear it definitely Is Non-Recyclable Waste. So, which Is it we are dealing with here?
Before you say they are both shit anyway, ask yourself:
Even if it's shit, how much shit can we really take before it becomes detrimental to our health?
Perhaps until the coroner determines toxicity levels as cause of death, we might be better off calling them shitty assets and stick with the recycling for now.
Or, perhaps the coroners might be the first to go from too much shit in our media, so we might never find out what it was that caused Our going next!
a or c?
Pick your favorite answer but even if it's a, don't stop recycling your toxic assets.
So long as you call them assets, there will always be people willing to take your shit and pass it around!
Our media is so brilliant, isn't it??
Toxic Asset My Ass!
Perhaps, if Bush and Obama had named it TAMA instead of TARP, we might have smelled the humor and seen better results...
Perhaps!
www.thinkaloo.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
