US soldier 'waterboarded' daughter, 4, because she couldn't recite alphabet
February 8th 2010 01:48
A SOLDIER allegedly waterboarded his four-year-old daughter because there is an unwritten law which has it that the rules of language are important to all people in the position to impose impositions on others. Now, I'm not one to try to pull the proverbial over your proverbial, but I swear to God. For one thing, it's hard to ascertain what kind of intelligence could be extracted from a four-year old. Far be it from me to question the aspirations of the military, but it seems to me that questions should be asked of this little infant. Terrible questions. Perhaps a test of aptitude is in order. I think for God's sake we should be very interested to know what kind of information the child has. It seems obvious that the pallid pupil must be protecting potentially perilious people from being exposed before they can perpetrate their hateful slanders on the name of democracy. In this way let it be established, between the author and the reader, that the inability to manage language at an atomic level (letters of the alphabet) should be handled in a way that makes it easy to remember.
For some reason, I have decided to start a new paragraph, which seems obvious to even the most illiterate pre-schoolers. To generalise from the particular in this particular instance seems to be generally acceptable. To protect the safety of those generally able to read I think we can both enter into an unwritten arrangement to strengthen the security and sanctity of the sacrosanct authority of the self-respecting author over the supposed reader. The nature of the unwritten arrangement might also entail a clause which states that at any time the author should be able to distance himself from any awareness of the arrangement, by pointing out some aspect of a difficult subject. To guarantee the effectiveness of the agreement, the reader should comply with all the boundaries inherent in the relationship. They should at all times respect the authority of the person who has control of the means of communication. In this instance, the author is the person capable of arranging accepted terms (words) into some kind of established order. Where the author (person) has sourced his words from should at all times be kept hidden from the reader so as to fortify the illusion the person(author) is in some sense an authority. The reader, in the strictest sense, should always be made to feel that in some way the arrangement of accepted terms (written piece) is important. The author who claims to be a reader is a popular ploy of the plainly fraudulent and should be met with the utmost popularity.
For no other reason than I've got a couple of kangaroos loose in my lunch-box, I thought we could do with a new paragraph - and what's more it relates to our subject at hand. A written piece should never stray far from its subject matter because in this way a reader is taught to narrow their mind down to a sharp point. A reader's mind should never be left with the impression that there are a myriad of possibilites because an author is at all times negligent in his duties if he thinks that an arrangement of terms should not close with a conclusion. It is the very nature of the agreement that an arrangement of terms should close with something that a reader can sign off on. It is for this reason that the author should find it necessary to torture an illiterate reader with whatever methods deemed appropriate to the cause of establishing the boundaries between the author and the reader. In such a case where an argument over the author's denial of the very existence of their authority arises, the author should at all times deny any knowledge of even the argument itself. To deflect attention away from the true nature of the mind of the author (obscure), the author should find it necessary to defer to some other author who has established at some other point a grip on the reader in such a way as to qualify themselves as authoritarian.
It is at this juncture that we might find it necessary to say there are some authors who find it profitable to establish the link between themselves and the reader and write long sentences that just seem to go on and on without recourse to punctuation. Let it be stated that such things are generally the efforts of children and the illiterate. In such a case where the credibility of the author is called into question, it is usual that the reader should be made to feel quite at home. In the case of the illiterate the home environment is often not dissimilar to something that words can't readily paint a pretty picture of. On the other hand, the reader who deliberately and knowingly refuses to sit at the negotiation table with the authorities is the true author of ignorance, because the terms of the arrangement have it that the author brings to the reader information - not vice versa. Ironically enough, the unwritten arrangement would be most profitable over the illterate because they can't read. But because they can't read they can't be readers. Such is the eternal predicament of the author as they endeavor to add their names to the long list of authoritarian rulers who have managed their subjects with the aid of convention. How about a photo? That should ensure a few more readers.
For some reason, I have decided to start a new paragraph, which seems obvious to even the most illiterate pre-schoolers. To generalise from the particular in this particular instance seems to be generally acceptable. To protect the safety of those generally able to read I think we can both enter into an unwritten arrangement to strengthen the security and sanctity of the sacrosanct authority of the self-respecting author over the supposed reader. The nature of the unwritten arrangement might also entail a clause which states that at any time the author should be able to distance himself from any awareness of the arrangement, by pointing out some aspect of a difficult subject. To guarantee the effectiveness of the agreement, the reader should comply with all the boundaries inherent in the relationship. They should at all times respect the authority of the person who has control of the means of communication. In this instance, the author is the person capable of arranging accepted terms (words) into some kind of established order. Where the author (person) has sourced his words from should at all times be kept hidden from the reader so as to fortify the illusion the person(author) is in some sense an authority. The reader, in the strictest sense, should always be made to feel that in some way the arrangement of accepted terms (written piece) is important. The author who claims to be a reader is a popular ploy of the plainly fraudulent and should be met with the utmost popularity.
For no other reason than I've got a couple of kangaroos loose in my lunch-box, I thought we could do with a new paragraph - and what's more it relates to our subject at hand. A written piece should never stray far from its subject matter because in this way a reader is taught to narrow their mind down to a sharp point. A reader's mind should never be left with the impression that there are a myriad of possibilites because an author is at all times negligent in his duties if he thinks that an arrangement of terms should not close with a conclusion. It is the very nature of the agreement that an arrangement of terms should close with something that a reader can sign off on. It is for this reason that the author should find it necessary to torture an illiterate reader with whatever methods deemed appropriate to the cause of establishing the boundaries between the author and the reader. In such a case where an argument over the author's denial of the very existence of their authority arises, the author should at all times deny any knowledge of even the argument itself. To deflect attention away from the true nature of the mind of the author (obscure), the author should find it necessary to defer to some other author who has established at some other point a grip on the reader in such a way as to qualify themselves as authoritarian.
It is at this juncture that we might find it necessary to say there are some authors who find it profitable to establish the link between themselves and the reader and write long sentences that just seem to go on and on without recourse to punctuation. Let it be stated that such things are generally the efforts of children and the illiterate. In such a case where the credibility of the author is called into question, it is usual that the reader should be made to feel quite at home. In the case of the illiterate the home environment is often not dissimilar to something that words can't readily paint a pretty picture of. On the other hand, the reader who deliberately and knowingly refuses to sit at the negotiation table with the authorities is the true author of ignorance, because the terms of the arrangement have it that the author brings to the reader information - not vice versa. Ironically enough, the unwritten arrangement would be most profitable over the illterate because they can't read. But because they can't read they can't be readers. Such is the eternal predicament of the author as they endeavor to add their names to the long list of authoritarian rulers who have managed their subjects with the aid of convention. How about a photo? That should ensure a few more readers.
| 24 |
| Vote |
Comment by Morgan Bell
Science News
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
You should talk about God more.
Or the Saints.
Molly Meldrum would.
Comment by Norm
Consumption Malfunction
Equal and Opposite
Arses and Elbows
Footy Power
It's not for me to talk about God. I'd rather believe it's heresy to say the Earth is round. The Earth is a flat.
In fact, God is the same as Country. They're both fictions that depend on where you stand. It's just bad Science. I mean, the way I read it, a Scientist saying Religion is bad, is like a Tennis Player saying Golf is a waste of time. As far as I can see, I think I might be a bit near-sighted.
This year, the Blues and Visy, in conjunction with Devine Homes, will be giving Australians a chance to own their own mobile home.