Not exactly bring him or her physically. Install touch screen monitors next to gym equipment that are wirelessly connected to the internet. Skype with your personal trainer to show you how to perform the exercises and encourage you to keep going. Good or famous instructors can charge you for their time. Or select from a free range of classes, tips and techniques made by other instructors.
http://www.thinkaloo.com
Showing posts with label technique. Show all posts
Showing posts with label technique. Show all posts
Monday, April 27, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Waterboarded 183 times? My Guinness!
What a colossal admission of failure for torture efficiency no matter how you look at it. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in a month? No, that's not inefficient. No, it's not a miracle that this guy survived to confess whatever he confessed at the end. No, it doesn't matter that the Central Inefficiency Agency discredits torture intelligence. 1-8-3 times?? Give Me a break!
I'm curious what else the recently declassified memos say. Did it ever occur to anyone that the subject might die before confessing anything? Could that be the reason why millions of uninsured Americans allege that prisoners in Guantanamo received better medical treatment in a month than they do in a lifetime? Since the allegation is not true as the terrorists captured do not number millions and the uninsured don't get treatment anyway, did we really need the CIA to give us reasons to believe it could be?
Ok, maybe after count 68 the torture was repeated to extract pleasure or revenge. 183-68=115 times, excluding 69 for a kit-kat that leaves us at 114 times that waterboarding could have been repeated for sadistic reasons. The US doesn't torture people. So true. That's because it likes to torture people??
Whichever way you look at it, 183 times in a month just waterboarding is sick and irrational. Dick Cheney argues that it was justified because valuable information was received. Waterboard me once and I'll buy that...But for all we know, Osama Bin Laden is still alive and not captured and the Taliban seem poised to take over Pakistan! Waterboard me twice...hello?
Fortunately, Obama felt compelled to explicitly ban the practice. Europeans can now, once again, contemplate the US in personal pronoun terms, even though we may never be able to pronounce it that way.
I am looking at the photos of the guy before and after water-boarding. He doesn't look at his best before the interrogation but look at the photo of him that gets published in the media after the interrogation. He's a sketch!
If Obama felt compelled to publish the secret memo showing how number-irrational the CIA was, then it makes sense why he had to ban torture altogether. Think of all the aspiring die-hard terrorists around the world receiving the news that it took the 9/11 mastermind 183 times of waterboarding to break him.
As if Osama-Bin-Laden was not enough of a hero icon to the die-hard Muslims now they get a true martyr to look up to. All it takes is one clever mullah to promise 1 extra virgin in heaven every time waterboarding doesn't break the martyr. 72 virgins in heaven for attempting to blow yourself up plus 183 if you martyr it out like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed did, that's 255 virgins, a nice big royal harem in heaven!!
Obama had no choice but to ban the practice otherwise thousands more would rush to sign up to break the record.
Honestly, I wish Obama had banned the practice without revealing the details. It makes the CIA look weak and unintelligent, it makes this guy appear as a martyr and it makes me sick to think that the practice was not legally considered torture at the time and now it is. But none of that upsets me more than the fact that it's not President McCain publishing the memos and discrediting the Republican Dick.
For all we know, Obama might have published the details because he might have been personally disgusted by it. For all we don't know, is that 183 is the official number...
What a Sick Dick, Cheney!
http://www.thinkaloo.com
I'm curious what else the recently declassified memos say. Did it ever occur to anyone that the subject might die before confessing anything? Could that be the reason why millions of uninsured Americans allege that prisoners in Guantanamo received better medical treatment in a month than they do in a lifetime? Since the allegation is not true as the terrorists captured do not number millions and the uninsured don't get treatment anyway, did we really need the CIA to give us reasons to believe it could be?
Ok, maybe after count 68 the torture was repeated to extract pleasure or revenge. 183-68=115 times, excluding 69 for a kit-kat that leaves us at 114 times that waterboarding could have been repeated for sadistic reasons. The US doesn't torture people. So true. That's because it likes to torture people??
Whichever way you look at it, 183 times in a month just waterboarding is sick and irrational. Dick Cheney argues that it was justified because valuable information was received. Waterboard me once and I'll buy that...But for all we know, Osama Bin Laden is still alive and not captured and the Taliban seem poised to take over Pakistan! Waterboard me twice...hello?
Fortunately, Obama felt compelled to explicitly ban the practice. Europeans can now, once again, contemplate the US in personal pronoun terms, even though we may never be able to pronounce it that way.
I am looking at the photos of the guy before and after water-boarding. He doesn't look at his best before the interrogation but look at the photo of him that gets published in the media after the interrogation. He's a sketch!
If Obama felt compelled to publish the secret memo showing how number-irrational the CIA was, then it makes sense why he had to ban torture altogether. Think of all the aspiring die-hard terrorists around the world receiving the news that it took the 9/11 mastermind 183 times of waterboarding to break him.
As if Osama-Bin-Laden was not enough of a hero icon to the die-hard Muslims now they get a true martyr to look up to. All it takes is one clever mullah to promise 1 extra virgin in heaven every time waterboarding doesn't break the martyr. 72 virgins in heaven for attempting to blow yourself up plus 183 if you martyr it out like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed did, that's 255 virgins, a nice big royal harem in heaven!!
Obama had no choice but to ban the practice otherwise thousands more would rush to sign up to break the record.
Honestly, I wish Obama had banned the practice without revealing the details. It makes the CIA look weak and unintelligent, it makes this guy appear as a martyr and it makes me sick to think that the practice was not legally considered torture at the time and now it is. But none of that upsets me more than the fact that it's not President McCain publishing the memos and discrediting the Republican Dick.
For all we know, Obama might have published the details because he might have been personally disgusted by it. For all we don't know, is that 183 is the official number...
What a Sick Dick, Cheney!
http://www.thinkaloo.com
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Am I socially responsible for posting this thought?
I just read on CNN about a new fingerprinting technique that enables scientists to detect fingerprints on spent bullets and shell casings, even when the print is wiped off. It works by detecting the minute corrosion of metal caused by sweat, which corrodes the metal in the shape of the fingerprint. The article concludes by saying that the technique won't work, if a person has just washed their hands or put on gloves before loading a gun. Is it socially responsible to report this kind of news?
What if, out of the millions of people that will read the article on CNN, a few might commit a crime in the future using a gun and what if they take all the necessary precautions to make sure their fingerprints don't get detected because they had read the article?
We can't blame freedom of speech, the media or the internet for how well or not well people plan and execute gun crimes. But since not all news or information ever gets reported, what purpose does reporting this technological advance serve? Would it have been more socially responsible if the media did not report about it?
What about me? What about my re-reporting this news here and spreading the story and informing more people about it? Am I also socially responsible? Should I have not posted this? What purpose does my thought warning about the danger of spreading information that could be used to a criminal's advantage serve?
My thought is powerless to prevent the potentially negative effect it itself predicts. I am under no illusion about that. The info is out there already and no one can take it down now. But still, by writing these lines, I am contributing to the fact that more people know about it now than if I hadn't written them.
What if some people reading my thought right now will end up killing someone in the future with a gun and what if they take all the precautions I mentioned here? What if they write to me to thank me for letting them know about it? What if they start leaving comments saying 'thank you' or something? What if YOU - reading my thoughts right now! - left me a comment saying 'thank you mister egghead for letting me know', will it be a joke? How sincerely or seriously should I take it?
I feel so guilty posting this but I can't help it. I want you to read my thoughts and realize that our media and I are both socially responsible for posting this. I want you to see what an egghead I am, so selfish and so vain-driven my mind is :)
http://www.thinkaloo.com
What if, out of the millions of people that will read the article on CNN, a few might commit a crime in the future using a gun and what if they take all the necessary precautions to make sure their fingerprints don't get detected because they had read the article?
We can't blame freedom of speech, the media or the internet for how well or not well people plan and execute gun crimes. But since not all news or information ever gets reported, what purpose does reporting this technological advance serve? Would it have been more socially responsible if the media did not report about it?
What about me? What about my re-reporting this news here and spreading the story and informing more people about it? Am I also socially responsible? Should I have not posted this? What purpose does my thought warning about the danger of spreading information that could be used to a criminal's advantage serve?
My thought is powerless to prevent the potentially negative effect it itself predicts. I am under no illusion about that. The info is out there already and no one can take it down now. But still, by writing these lines, I am contributing to the fact that more people know about it now than if I hadn't written them.
What if some people reading my thought right now will end up killing someone in the future with a gun and what if they take all the precautions I mentioned here? What if they write to me to thank me for letting them know about it? What if they start leaving comments saying 'thank you' or something? What if YOU - reading my thoughts right now! - left me a comment saying 'thank you mister egghead for letting me know', will it be a joke? How sincerely or seriously should I take it?
I feel so guilty posting this but I can't help it. I want you to read my thoughts and realize that our media and I are both socially responsible for posting this. I want you to see what an egghead I am, so selfish and so vain-driven my mind is :)
http://www.thinkaloo.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
