<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A bad week for inalienable rights</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.meaplet.com/2009/03/09/a-bad-week-for-inalienable-rights/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.meaplet.com/2009/03/09/a-bad-week-for-inalienable-rights/</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress site</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Jun 2011 23:46:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: meaplet</title>
		<link>http://blog.meaplet.com/2009/03/09/a-bad-week-for-inalienable-rights/#comment-111</link>
		<dc:creator>meaplet</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:07:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.meaplet.com/?p=174#comment-111</guid>
		<description>Now don&#039;t get me wrong. I&#039;m strongly in favor of, say, Peter Vierek&#039;s New Conservatism from the 1950s. (Or John Adam&#039;s conservatism from the end of the 18th Century, but that&#039;s because it&#039;s in line with modern liberalism...)

Unfortunately, American conservatism seems to be in an unfortunate and primarily reactionary position. For example, did you hear that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;pageId=91103&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Chuck Norris wants to secede with Texas&lt;/a&gt;?

(While I&#039;m adding to the linkpile, there was a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/10/EDHQ16AQ58.DTL&amp;hw=Wolff&amp;sn=001&amp;sc=1000&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lovely op ed in the SF Chronicle this week&lt;/i&gt; on the topic of Strauss v. Horton and liberties</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Now don&#8217;t get me wrong. I&#8217;m strongly in favor of, say, Peter Vierek&#8217;s New Conservatism from the 1950s. (Or John Adam&#8217;s conservatism from the end of the 18th Century, but that&#8217;s because it&#8217;s in line with modern liberalism&#8230;)</p>
<p>Unfortunately, American conservatism seems to be in an unfortunate and primarily reactionary position. For example, did you hear that <a href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;pageId=91103" rel="nofollow">Chuck Norris wants to secede with Texas</a>?</p>
<p>(While I&#8217;m adding to the linkpile, there was a <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/10/EDHQ16AQ58.DTL&amp;hw=Wolff&amp;sn=001&amp;sc=1000" rel="nofollow">lovely op ed in the SF Chronicle this week on the topic of Strauss v. Horton and liberties</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marjorie</title>
		<link>http://blog.meaplet.com/2009/03/09/a-bad-week-for-inalienable-rights/#comment-110</link>
		<dc:creator>Marjorie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:42:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.meaplet.com/?p=174#comment-110</guid>
		<description>&quot;Inalienable&quot; means &quot;inalienable except by majority vote&quot;? Um, right.

I&#039;m not convinced conservatism is particularly concerned with any of these things. Then again, the only self-described conservative whose commentary I read on anything like a regular basis is Andrew Sullivan, whose philosophy is a little antique. He describes his conservatism as a skepticism about what government is able to accomplish. Ornery question-asker that I am, I always have a place in my heart for skepticism, at least when I&#039;m not getting starry-eyed about our president. But that&#039;s most definitely not where American conservatism is right now, and personally I haven&#039;t seen any evidence that it&#039;s doing better in other places.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Inalienable&#8221; means &#8220;inalienable except by majority vote&#8221;? Um, right.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not convinced conservatism is particularly concerned with any of these things. Then again, the only self-described conservative whose commentary I read on anything like a regular basis is Andrew Sullivan, whose philosophy is a little antique. He describes his conservatism as a skepticism about what government is able to accomplish. Ornery question-asker that I am, I always have a place in my heart for skepticism, at least when I&#8217;m not getting starry-eyed about our president. But that&#8217;s most definitely not where American conservatism is right now, and personally I haven&#8217;t seen any evidence that it&#8217;s doing better in other places.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

