Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Enhanced Interrogation Techniques
How did those three words when put together come to mean torture? Enhanced according to the dictionary means to increase or improve in value, the quality, desirability or attractiveness. Interrogation means to question formally and systematically Techniques means the systematic procedure by which a complex or scientific task is accomplished. Another meaning is the way in which the fundamentals, as of an artistic work, are handled. We can deduce form these definitions that enhanced interrogation techniques is a good thing. It means that a systematic procedure, possibly scientific or artistic, for questioning someone formally which been made more desirably, more attractive, and more valuable. This is all good, right?
The logic falls apart because it means torture. Torture means anguish of body or mind, the infliction of intense pain to punish, coerce, or offer sadistic pleasure. This a valid definition, but it does not match the definition of enhanced interrogation techniques.
The desirability and attractiveness of torture seems to be oxymoronic. Formality of torture is oxymoronic. Improvement in value, desirability or attractiveness is just plain moronic (no oxy required) to associate such qualities with torture
We can deduce there was a systematic procedure in place to punish, cause pain, or offer sadistic pleasure. Yet this is legal? As Americans, we should all be allowed to perform such acts if it is truly legal.
Let's quit the pretty talk and all agree that people were horribly violated, brought to the point of death, some crossed over, sexually abused, mentally and psychologically abused with their most significant phobias, beaten and Lord only knows what else. This is all legally responsible behavior because we are the United States of America under Bush and Cheney. Hey Bush and Cheney, we are not, nor never were united in this, okay? So by definition then I am to assume we are the States of America under you Administration.
Thanks for the scientific and artistic value, desirability, and attractiveness of the past Administration. We couldn't have gotten here without you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The logic falls apart because it means torture. Torture means anguish of body or mind, the infliction of intense pain to punish, coerce, or offer sadistic pleasure. This a valid definition, but it does not match the definition of enhanced interrogation techniques.
The desirability and attractiveness of torture seems to be oxymoronic. Formality of torture is oxymoronic. Improvement in value, desirability or attractiveness is just plain moronic (no oxy required) to associate such qualities with torture
We can deduce there was a systematic procedure in place to punish, cause pain, or offer sadistic pleasure. Yet this is legal? As Americans, we should all be allowed to perform such acts if it is truly legal.
Let's quit the pretty talk and all agree that people were horribly violated, brought to the point of death, some crossed over, sexually abused, mentally and psychologically abused with their most significant phobias, beaten and Lord only knows what else. This is all legally responsible behavior because we are the United States of America under Bush and Cheney. Hey Bush and Cheney, we are not, nor never were united in this, okay? So by definition then I am to assume we are the States of America under you Administration.
Thanks for the scientific and artistic value, desirability, and attractiveness of the past Administration. We couldn't have gotten here without you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Monday, May 11, 2009
Flammable and Inflammable

Consistent and inconsistent are exact opposites. Fallible and infallible are at each end of the spectrum as well, so why does flammable and inflammable mean the same thing. Of all words to switch the rules on, this should not be one of them. The mistake could be costly. "It said it was inflammable, who knew it would burn down my house? Imagine that." Inflammable sounds like something you should throw on a fire to stop it, not make it explode in flames. Will someone get out a message that the rule does not apply and inflammable does not mean what you think it does?
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Who the %*#@ is the Braille for at the drive thru ATMs?

Did you ever drive through the ATM machines and wonder about the Braille writing? Who is that for?
It’s for blind people is the obvious answer. Why are they driving through the drive thru? I’m in favor of handicapped people having equal access, but I do not believe blind people should be driving to the bank and going to the drive thrus to get to the ATMs. Signs always say "No Walk-ups" too, so that rules out that argument. But then those “No Walkup” signs are not in Braille so blind people would not know. So why is that sign not in Braille, too? Who is that Braille really for? If they put the ATM on the other side, they could use it as a passenger which would make it accessible. But they don’t. From the back seat, you can’t use it. The windows don’t go all the way down. It would definitely be too hard, especially if you were blind. It just doesn’t make any sense. You would have to be the driver. I wonder if any person ever used it. I sincerely hope not. This could be a case for the Supreme Court.
Until they start putting road signs in Braille, the blind should not be driving to the bank. That is something to really ponder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

