We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Eastern Europeans know why we’re in Iraq Ivelina Konstantinova has made the transition from native of a small city in Bulgaria to US citizen and USAF Airman serving in the Middle East:
“I wanted to serve my country, continue my education, and travel,” said Senior Airman Konstantinova, a recreation services specialist assigned to the 379th Expeditionary Services Squadron here. “The military opened doors. And even though I may not be a natural citizen, I feel proud to serve America.”
With people like her out there, keep those “…huddled masses yearning to breathe free” coming!
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Sofia Sideshow is a fun blog.
As proud as she may be of being a US citizen, it’s not half as proud as we native-born citizens ought to be that she chose to become one. We are truly blessed that such people continue to make that choice.
Is this a spoof, or does the US air force really write drivel like this in its in-house bulletins?
In the photo we see how “Senior Airman Ivelina Konstantinova (center) helps Staff Sgt. Leandra Lee (left) and Airman 1st Class Ann Flaherty with flag-folding techniques during base honor guard practice” at the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar.
So that’s how a recently naturalised ex-Bulgarian chick serves her new country? As a ‘recreation services specialist’.
Jesus wept. No wonder Ivelina (for such is her name) states that “living in the (United) States means anything is possible”.
Such as the employment of gormless chicks in toy military jobs.
Ivelina goes on to say: “And now, to be fighting for a cause that involves the freedom of so many people, it makes me all the more proud to be an American.”
What fighting? Ivelina probably has a safer job than a Dallas office worker.
No, no – even parody couldn’t be better than this. Or is it just another troll designed to ensnare newbies like myself?
Apparently Mr Copeland prefers women who immigrate to the US, sign up for welfare and work for jihad over those who work, go to college and sign up for the Air Force.
Perhaps the job she was assigned was not the most important, but she did willingly sign up which puts her one up on many who don’t even do that.
Bullshit – I prefer women who get real jobs or raise a family, not women who exploit the affirmative action policy of the American Military. Women in the army just get in the way. They are worse than useless, except as nurses, office workers and providers of sexual services. That Bulgarian chick in all likelihood took the job because it was the best could get, and possibly because she has a better chance of finding a male partner. It has nothing to do with patriotism and everything to do with earning a living and finding a mate.
The book to read is Israeli military historian Martin van Crefeld’s ‘Men, Women and War’.
I’ll leave it up to the libertarian chicks to sort you out. I also presume you’d not say that to “KC”, the fighter pilot… (She told a quaking reporter it stands for “Killer Chick”.
You are welcome to your views. I do not share them.
KC is no doubt an exception — probably riddled with male hormones while a fetus, and no, I wouldn’t like to meet a freak of nature like KC in a dark alleyway. But basically, she is just window-dressing — a kind of mascot for the feministas and nothing more.
It’s not a question of views — it’s a question of facts. It is a FACT that 99% of women are not suitable for combat service. The other 1% of women are, of course, male.
Now go and read van Crefeld!
Ah, we have a card carrying misogynist here. It’s rare to see such passion nowadays…
The issue here is not whether women are suitable for combat service or not, the nature of combat changes and grows more complex, one day it may make sense to have women in combat. Who knows? The issue here is the attitude – Charles obviously sees the controversy about women in the army from the point of ‘women are only good for x, y, z and must be kept that way’. The generic experience in the military up to date only provides him with confirmation of his views.
What bothers me about such an approach is that it leaves no room for looking at the world with an open mind. Secondly, it completely eradicates and ignores the impact of the individual. Even if some women were unsuitable for combat service, the few individual women who might be, should not be thrown in the same bag. This is like saying that just because most Arab muslims could not handle a female boss and take orders from a woman, women should never be in executive positions in business. The analysis of the situation may be right, but the conclusion warped.
In fact, if Charles Copeland did not go hysterical over this, I might have agreed with him up to a point. There may be reasons why women should not be on the front line, but these are caused not by their inherent inability to cope with combat situations but by the way men and women interact under stress.
As far as fighter pilots or snipers are concerned, I don’t see why women could not be doing the jobs as well as men, some women better than some men and vice versa. What is truly abhorent to me is the complete disregard for the individual in Charles Copeland’s attitude. It is the last comment that shows that his views are generated by profound misogyny, rather than a true understanding of the issue.
Anyone who tells me that I, by my nature, cannot acquire certain skills is in for a rude awakening. I ride a motorbike and shoot guns, I run a business and do all sorts of things that for centuries people like Charles Copeland argued vehemently and ‘logically’ that women cannot, should not and never will do.
Charles must have missed the pics of KC, she is not some testosterone laden monster girl
Adriana Cronin is a troller’s dream come true. If only there were more gullible girlbloggers like her, what fun one could have! But never mind.
Adriana Cronin writes:
“I ride a motorbike and shoot guns, I run a business and do all sorts of things that for centuries people like Charles Copeland argued vehemently and ‘logically’ that women cannot, should not and never will do.“.
The issue of ‘women in combat’ has nothing to do with such pleasant and relaxing hobbies as riding bikes, bang-banging with pistols, or running the business a woman in all likelihood inherited from Daddy (though of course there are exceptions like Helena Rubenstein, Elisabeth Arden, etc.). The issue of ‘women in combat’ has also nothing to do with pressing buttons that let off cruise missiles from a safe distance. The issue has to with women being on the battlefront, with killing on the spot and with being killed.
For evolutionary reasons, men have specialised in killing (and being killed) in battle. This is a plain statement of fact, and has nothing to do with misogyny.
If I were a misogynist, I would be calling for women to be drafted for the front line — not explaining why such a policy would be genetic suicide.
Far from being a misogynist, I very much like women.
Except when they suffer from so much penis envy that they begin to behave like men.
The beauty of a libertarian society is the an MCP (see above) can believe whatever he wants and a female libertarian can simply just not care. Individuals will ultmately do whatever individuals are capable of. It’s only in socialist class-based thinking that it is more important to define a person by their ‘group’ than as a unique person.
But lets look at the military in particular. We have either of two cases:
1) Anarcho-libertarian society. There is no state military, only privately financed ones. In which case each private organization can define its own hiring policy as it sees fit. If its mix of policies tend to generate a superior force, say by not automatically disincluding 50% of all individuals, then it will tend to be a winner. Only performance matters on the field.
2) Minarchist libertarian society. There is a state military paid for by taxes. Anyone who pays has a say according the golden rule: “He/she who supplies the
gold makes the rules”. An military will reflect the desires of the majority of the voters. If those voters are 50% female, then they may (if they desire) require they either be allowed to join or not be forced to pay.
So Mr Copeland is left with several choices. If he is in society #1, he can simply join, hire or start the defense corporation that follows his particular view of women; if he is in society two then he’ll just have to convince enough people to go along with him. Given that 50% are in the group he is trying to talk into following his position, and that he is in a society where people are *free* individuals… he may have a very rough time of it.
His other option is, of course, force: take over the system and enforce his beliefs on others at gunpoint.
[excuse the break: I can only post up to 949 chars for some strange reason]
Charles Copland: …or running the business a woman in all likelihood inherited from Daddy […] Far from being a misogynist, I very much like women.
No sir, you are indeed a misogynist and what is more, you are no gentleman. Blogs being the informal things they are, we often tend to slide into close to the wind remarks but yours are really into the realm of unalloyed offensiveness. The business Adriana runs was not inherited from her Daddy, she set it up herself and convinced two serial entrepreneurs like myself and David Carr to throw in our lots with her on the sheer strength of her ideas.
You simply do not know what you are talking about. I would venture that your views on the reasonable parameters of half the world’s population are demonstrable nonsense resting on a framework of ill-informed prejudices. As Brian Micklethwait would say, you really should get out less.
Adriana Cronin is a troller’s dream come true. If only there were more gullible girlbloggers like her, what fun one could have! But never mind.
Charles Copeland: What on earth do you mean? Why do you think I am gullible? Because I comment under a female name? And why do you think I am a “girlblogger”? I blog on this blog under a male pseudonym, precisely to confound/avoid commenters like you. You know very little about my life and what I do and yet you make offensive comments about it.
As Perry says, you are indeed a misogynist and what is more, you are no gentleman and you really do not know what you are talking about.
Again, bullshit misinterpretations of my views. Of course I know Adriana Cronin isn’t a Daddy’s girl — but the fact remains that 99% of all ‘successful’ businesswomen – owners of large companies — are de facto heiresses. That was my point. Only a small percentage of women reach the top in the business community, for biological reasons, reinforced by socialisation. Ditto for the military.
Adriana Cronin begins by name-calling (I’m a misogynist who goes ‘hysterical’ and has ‘abhorrent’ opinions about women etc.). Then she gets upset when I make mince meat of her arguments in my reply. Suddenly it’s all personal and you cry all your way to the keyboard. Pathetic.
Why can’t you stick to the point? It is quite irrelevant whether I am a misogynist, homophobe, misanthropist or whatever else.
What matters is whether I get the facts straight, whether my reasoning is logical. Nothing else.
My initial argument was that Ivelina (remember, the ex-Bulgarian) claimed she was ‘fighting for her country’ when all she is doing is fooling round with flag-folding.
That’s basically how most so-called women military people ‘fight for their country’ — they dress up as soldiers and when the going gets rough they run for cover and stay away from the line of combat. There are some exceptions, but very few.
Besides, women in the military make it humiliating for men to choose an army career. No wonder armies in the West have such difficulties in finding intelligent and competent male recruits.
Men now prefer the private sector mercenary armies, which are expanding like mushrooms.
No women there, needless to say — since affirmative action for women does not apply in that domain.
The day there is a successful private sector mercenary army with more than 1% of women in combat posts, I’ll eat my helmet.
Oh yeah, and now the argumentum ad Hitlerum to finalise the debate. The only truly successful women entrepreneur in post war German was Beate Uhse, who set up the notorious sex-store chain.
She started her career as a Luftwaffe pilot under the Nazi regime. A ‘Killer Chick’ for Hitler?
Charles, it takes a woefully inadequate male failure to get a hardon from abusing and belittling women. Shame, someone took the littlle feller’s sense of power away. I had a son-in-law just like you. He was a complete waste of air. Try to be a real guy, if it isn’t too late.
Except when they suffer from so much penis envy that they begin to behave like men.
God forbid a woman chooses to behave as she wants, without asking you for approval. And God forbid she does so for motives that have nothing to do with what you might have between your wobbly legs.
I mean, if women want to serve, it can only be because of penis envy. Nothing mysoginistic about that line of reasoning.
Which, incidentally, is the subliminal part of that other line of reasoning used by the male hiearchy to justify keeping women out of combat positions. See, it’s not that they don’t want to go. They are forbidden to even try and apply for those jobs. A few have still managed to get there. By piloting attack helicopters, F-14s, B-52s and the like.
But I mean, a B-52 is such an obvious case of penis envy.
Just look at the shape of it…..
Charles, I have one question. Where do you come off? You seem to speak very generally without knowing the facts of which you are speaking. I am the “mate” you speak of. If you knew one thing about Ivelina, you would know her for the hard work that she does. It doesn’t matter that services was the only job she could get upon her initial enlistment, she simply wanted to serve. Since she has gotten in, doors have really opened up for her because she works hard at any job or simple task she is given no matter how unfavorable she may find it. Just to let you know, she is in charge of her Honor Guard flight because she is considered a perfectionist by her superiors. The fact that life was so much harder in Bulgaria makes our idea of perfection seem very easy to achieve. In my opinion, “Americans” like you have forgotten how much oppurtunity America really does offer, or are just too ignorant to realize that life could be hard somewhere other than what’s outside your front door. Also, serving in the armed forces means much more than being out on the field shooting guns and throwing grenades. If women got in the way in combat and were useless, then how about the countless nurses that have helped save lives during WWII and the Korean war? What is a real job to you?
You seem like a very bitter individual to me who speaks generalizations and needs to take time to research facts. Just for the record, this “chick” that you speak of was recognized for a reason. She learned to speak your language very fluently within three years and joined the Air Force shortly there after. After three years in the service, she is now one year away from her degree in business. She truly appreciates and loves the country that she has decided to live in and love. Perhaps if you knew her, this “chick” could teach you a thing or two about genuine patriotism. I hope this enlightens you.
Sincerely,
The “chick’s mate”