Write Stuff

	Dick Morris' book title has more literal truth than he might have suspected...
	Thought a pocket version of the Constitution useful? Try The Cassandra Page's pocket guide to the MSM.

h/t Ace and Instapundit

Posted by ProfShade at 04:12 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Sex Torture at Gitmo

Women Used to Interrogate Gitmo detainees AP...A draft manuscript obtained by The Associated Press is classified as secret pending a Pentagon review for a planned book that details ways the U.S. military used women as part of tougher physical and psychological interrogation tactics to get terrorist suspects to talk.

It's a revealing account of interrogations at the detention camp, where officials say they have halted some controversial techniques.

"I have really struggled with this because the detainees, their families and much of the world will think this is a religious war based on some of the techniques used, even though it is not the case," the author, former Army Sgt. Erik Saar, 29, told the AP.

Yeah. A real sex-for-jihad scandal we have brewing here.

One female civilian contractor used an outfit that included a miniskirt, thong underwear and a bra during late-night interrogations with prisoners, mostly Muslim men who consider it taboo to have close contact with women who aren't their wives.

Beginning in April 2003, "there hung a short skirt and thong underwear on the hook on the back of the door" of one interrogation team's office, Saar writes. "Later I learned that this outfit was used for interrogations by one of the female civilian contractors ... on a team which conducted interrogations in the middle of the night on Saudi men who were refusing to talk."

Some Guantanamo prisoners who have been released say they were tormented by "prostitutes."¹

Well, the only thing more breathless than this prose is the detainees after a lengthy session with the Gitmo Girls.

More here and here.

1. Sissies. Prostitutes torment me every stinking day of my miserable life, I tell you.

Posted by ProfShade at 02:53 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

LLP Exclusive: O'Reilly Meets SpongeBob in a Pineapple under the Sea

O'Reilly: First off, thanks for being here. Those wackos at that organization, those pinheads, never mind them. So you're gay? So what! But when did it start? When did you know?
SpongeBob: uh-heh, uh-heh...I started out as a contraceptive, uh-heh uh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh.
O'Reilly: A contraceptive sponge?
SpongeBob: uh-heh-heh-heh. Yep. I think that turned me. Hours and hours in there. Some tramp from the Lower East side. It was like being stuffed into a wet mitten that smelled like--
O'Reilly: Too much detail!
SpongeBob: After that I was somehow different. Uh-heh. I knew I was somehow changed forever.
O'Reilly: Understandable. But why are you promoting gay lifestyles? I mean, c'mon! You want every kid in America to just go gay?
SpongeBob: We had a meeting--
O'Reilly: We?
SpongeBob: uh-heh uh-heh gay aquatic lifeforms.
O'Reilly: You don't want to use that acronym, believe me.
SpongeBob: What?
O'Reilly: Never mind. Go on.
SpongeBob: ...and we haven't had a truly effective spokesfish since Flipper. Uh-heh.
O'Reilly: Flipper? Really? I would have guessed that whale you saw with Popeye every once in awhile. Didn't say much. But anyway, so you took the lead?
SpongeBob: I always do! uh-heh.
O'Reilly: Again, too much information.
SpongeBob: That's why I'm here! But we aren't telling kids to be gay. We're just targeting fish. And maybe a mollusk or two.
O'Reilly: Well, what's wrong with that? I'm sure I've had some grilled gay grouper in my life and never even knew about it. But all the best to you, Bob. Don't listen to your critics...they're just jealous. You're a stand-up kinda sponge. And we appreciate that.
SpongeBob: Can I out Nemo while I'm here? uh-heh-heh-heh-heh
O'Reilly: Uh...no. Not a good idea.
O'Reilly: Next up, and you're not gonna believe this, is Barbara Boxer sponsoring legislation that will force you to feed your children crack cocaine and fornicate on your front lawn with the cable repair guy while you're at work? Stick around.

cross posted at ProfShade

Posted by ProfShade at 08:13 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Writing from the heart

I teach writing. Yeah, that's about as exciting as changing motor oil on a lawn mower most days, but today was an exception. I love to show my students why writing-- good writing-- is an exercise in thought. So what better way than to have them cut their chops on a real, live writer. An article in the NYTimes argued we should leave Iraq because "the impending election may spark a civil war." I asked my students, my dear, dear, doe-eyed, blank-staring students why this wasn't a sufficient premise for an argument. Finally, a timid woman in the back replied, "It's a good enough argument."

As a society, have we forgotten that argument must be supported by logical premises? Yep. We have. 'Premise' to most means 'whatever that sit-com story line is.' Logic is a lost art. Supportable argument, well, the science majors get it anyway.

When I pointed out to the sullenly dumbfounded class that the writer's premise was a baseless, unproven assumption I received puzzled looks. Too many take what is printed as fact.

The same woman, less timidly then said, "But our being there is wrong."

"Can you back it up with argument, arguments with logical, supported premises?" I asked. I got a look I thought only my teenage son, denied the car keys on a Friday night was capable of delivering. Another voice chimed in, "In your heart. You know in your heart it's wrong."

Write with your heart to win your love. Write from your heart to stir emotions. Hell, write from your heart to get that damned job, if you must, but you can only track down, bag and nail the hide of truth to the door with cold, hard thought.

So to many students, you think with your heart, leave logic to the engineers and tune in the Simpson's if you need a premise.

Then I did a cruel, cruel thing. As their assignment for the week-end I sent them along a merry goose-chase. If they agreed with (they all did) Mr. Raspberry's premise, find a fact that supports it. Not another assumption. Not another heart-felt platitude.

And no cheating-- Bart Simpson will not be allowed as a primary source.

Posted by ProfShade at 04:12 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack