The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by bkw:

while i fully support "Women in the Military" -- in roles and positions they have fought for and qualified for -- female apache pilots must meet the same standards as male apache pilots, no? they're perfectly capable -- i still can't help but to question women in any capacity where physical strength matters.

not to say some women don't meet the same ruberics as -- or even surpass -- men, but it worries me that there's such a thing as "gender norming" in training.

i don't think a "blanket" exclusion of women is called for. i do think equivalent standards are.

but apparently women are being kept off the front lines ... why?

ealier MK had posted:

It's prompted by 20 years of watching the religious right infiltrate the media, government, and other social institutions all the while lying through their teeth about anyone, like me, say, or Erik, who disagrees with them.

that's interesting, because i'd argue that the religious right is less "mainstream" than it was twenty years ago.

As far as I can tell, it's the corporate right that's taking over the media and other institutions of power.

is it the right that's "taking over" these companies and institutions, or is it that these types of companies are fundamentally "right-wing" in and of themselves?

what does this have to say about the population of the right -- that the majority of these "old, rich, white guys" that run the companies and listen to talk radio are all conservatives, so naturally their spheres of influence are thusly informed?

what does this say about the population of the left, that they haven't achieved this level of influence? has the left tried? can it, without taking on the trappings or behaviours of the right?

there's that old joke about how "left" demonstrations draw thousands of people even on a weekday, and yet "right" demonstrations draw two young republicans -- because the republicans have jobs.

perhaps this is changing. there was a story a couple days ago about the "die in" -- one woman set herself down on the sidewalk, careful to keep her clothes clean. when a reporter asked if she expected to get arrested, the woman replied, "no, i have a job to get back to."

so it's interesting, to see a "career" person who also wishes to demonstrate (even if the effacy thereof is somewhat questionable).

but anyway. i'll stop here, since i'm probably going to get narfed anyway. :)

cheerios.

ah, so we get censored for questioning the accusations some other people post?

or censored for wondering what joexx wrote -- theresa has a wonderful laundry list of reasons why she decided to put his post in the blender. i'd've liked to have seen what he wrote to earn such condemnation, if only to avoid such behaviour on my part.

although the second half of the smurfed post, i had ruminated about the disconnect between how the "right" views the media bias, and how some of the "left" here view the media bias. maybe you're not allowed to say things like that. i have no idea.

oh well. this post will probably also be squelched -- hey, it's your blog, it's your moderators, and we're all here by your good graces.

i had heard good things about this place, and i was hoping for a decent forum with decent discussion -- but such is difficult when posts keep getting eviscerated.

but i guess i'm just not entertaining or pleasant enough.

i'd sincerely like to hear what was so objectionable about my two previous posts -- but i hardly expect it.

(Not one of you--not one--noticed that the first person in this thread to lose his vowels was a leftist.)

why should this matter? i object philosophically more to people's voices being taken away in an apparently subjective manner ("apparently" because all i have to go on is theresa's say-so).

cheerios.

fascinating. again, more anecdotal evidence that the majority of anti-war sentiment has nothing to do with the war, but everything to do with bush. just fascinating.

perhaps they're counting the brits killed in accidents. helicopters are killing our men in bunches.

also, one could argue that if not for the americans, the brits wouldn't be there -- so the blame for the ones that are killed in accidents can even be placed at the feet of the americans.

of course, using that logic, the americans wouldn't be there in the first place if saddam had just complied with the UN. but that argument is old and trite at this point, no?

Riley isn't more important because he's one of my tribe.

why not? is a member of your family more important to you than a member of mine? i certainly hope so.

there's nothing wrong with valuing one set over another set. not all sets are equal. terribly non-PC of me, i realize, but, i would argue, necessary.

-----

They are _all_ part of our tribe.

i'm sorry, but no, they're not. i'm most likely not a part of your tribe either.

someone who wants to kill me and my family is not part of my tribe.

others i would welcome in my home, and may earn a place in my tribe. some i would not welcome. discriminatory? perhaps. but again, i would argue, necessary in the interest of survival and prosperity.

but then, necessary only if such is important to you.

in the interests of fair-mindedness, the actual content from the article is :

Hey, if a campus crank can wish for personal calamity to befall U.S. forces in Iraq, why not fantasize about a volley of Kent State-style militia musketry rattled off in his general direction?

the author did not write:

we should string all liberals up against the wall and let the national guard have at it!

many of the posts here are disgusted at the post article's author's statement -- without considering the fact he made that statement in reaction to a fairly disgusting quote from Nicholas De Genova.

although arguably, that quote is being taken wildly out of context. there was another article i'd read somewhere where mr. genova clarifies his statement -- that he wasn't referring to the black hawk down incident specifically, but rather the situation in mogadishu where they kicked out the americans and opted for self-determination, instead of having a specific course of action imposed upon them by the americans (sort of like what we're doing now in iraq).

-----

I'd hate to believe the media think only of the American dead. Be nice if the history books reflect that:

blame it on the america-centric viewpoint of the authors, who are concerned with themselves and their own first and foremost -- which is (er, used to be) natural.

-----

Conservatives call for your death.

where, please, are you seeing this?

some of the later posts seem to refer to a coulter piece. i'm afraid i can't speak to this, as i don't pay any attention to her.

Remember -- the only thing that McViegh did wrong was choosing his target -- if he'd blown up the New York Time, then that would have been good.

wow, here i'd thought the only thing he did wrong was to murder people who had nothing to do with his political statement, in the interest of his political statement.

And they are slowly, but surely, putting the thought into America's mind that shooting those who don't belive as you do is acceptable.

there are plenty of right wing nuts that already believe this to be true. i've run into a number of leftists who also believe it. this thought is already here. guess what? so is racism, homophobia, antisemitism, classism, and all kinds of other -isms. its existence does not imply the existence of any kind of agenda by the Administration.

-----

It happened during Cliton's term. It's better to have a loss that discredits Clinton than a victory which supports him.

thank you for a thoughtful analysis of the conflict in mogadishu. i'd always thought the negative spin was a result of an effort to paint any kind of military action as "evil" and all members of our armed forces as "babykillers" etc. i'm not certain why the media would portray mogadishu as a failure to browbeat clinton, when it seemed to go out of the way at other times to treat him as their darling.

who benefits?

-----

And I'd love to hear how people ... could start some vehicle, some venue, built around the serious idea of civil discourse about the issues that divide Americans.

why not? easy -- it's not nearly sensational enough. not nearly inflammatory enough. not nearly entertaining enough. :)

-----

... the real war was between extremists of any stripe and normal people who wanted to lived normal lives.

Sounds like it's a universal battle. Me, I'm on the side of Normal Lives.

bravo, bravo.

Comment statistics for bkw on the Electrolite blog

Total: 7 comments. View all these comments on a single page.