Wow, there's no poverty quite like poverty of the imagination, is there?

Your intellectual passion is evident. You're actually an unwittingly marvellous spokeswoman for your viewpoint.

Jesus. If your summary of 19th century European (or American) literature is "mostly about rich white folks", you should probably go slap every English teacher you ever had... then go buy some actual books from the period and read them.

A huge part of "privilege," as classically defined, includes exposure to other cultures, including foreign literature and the arts, and to the past, from antiquity through to the 19th century.

Help me out - where does "swole" show up in the article? I see it in the author's headline, but that's it. (And Anna B would be hard-pressed to cover a junior-high science fair without getting confused, so non-words are kinda par for the course.)

If you feel like click reading the actual article, you'll see it's heavily footnoted to peer-reviewed, academic journals... there's 80 citations given at bottom.

If I post up links to fifty workout articles for men that use a (far more) brutal, mocking tone for effect, can we agree that it's not an unusual mode of discourse in fitness/athletics?

Running intervals/sprints is the antithesis of low-intensity cardio, however — which is what the article argues against.

Well, any D1 college strength coach does that weekly — and a small but growing number of those are women, including K-State's program.

I'm eager to avoid junk science... which of the three pages of peer-reviewed journals cited in the article's footnotes should I be sure to avoid?

The author takes some extremely selective shots here. I count 80 peer-reviewed studies in the footnotes, most of them supporting concepts that the Jez readership (and most female trainers) would likely support.

Yup. "Who the fuck cares... etc." isn't even sensible advice for a stay-at-home blogger. For anyone in a corporate job, it's asinine.

Magnitude of past misdeeds plus fugitive status have always been two key factors. The assumption is anyone listed would a) kill to evade capture; and b) willingly commit other crimes as necessary... so it's mixed public safety/retribution story. Does it exactly map the FBI's internal priorities? Obviously not.

It makes plenty of "logical sense" if the FBI uses a "Ten Most Wanted" format for the terrorists list (as they do) - and if existing terrorists on that list are captured or killed (as happens).

BLA met the standard definitions of terrorism at the time (attacking civil order for revolutionary ends), and they and their colleagues in the Weathermen were referred to as suc

Point taken. One of the cheesy (or dangerous) things abt "terrorism" as a term is that it's constructed so that state actors are exempted, by definition.

Might be worth reading up on the BLA, its track record of violence/murder from 1970 onwards, and its revolutionary manifesto.

The Black Liberation Army.

Could I suggest you check out the BLA's death/violent-attack toll by the time of the turnpike incident? Or their specific platform calling for armed revolutionary violence?

Um, how do the Weathermen (called a "white fighting force" in their founding doc) not qualify?