<?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: 08.13.08 Afternoon</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.bostonsportsmedia.com/2008/08/081308-afternoon/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.bostonsportsmedia.com/2008/08/081308-afternoon</link>
	<description>Watching The New England Sports Media</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 19:41:44 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: DaveR</title>
		<link>http://www.bostonsportsmedia.com/2008/08/081308-afternoon/comment-page-1#comment-6189</link>
		<dc:creator>DaveR</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:57:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bostonsportsmedia.com/?p=3126#comment-6189</guid>
		<description>I enjoyed Easterbrook&#039;s analysis of the Supreme Court.  Mainly because it displayed a PROFOUND unintelligence with respect to how the US government is, and was intended by the founders to be, organized.  I&#039;d cut 99 out of 100 people slack on that issue, because it&#039;s not something the typical person cares about.  But this is a purportedly intelligent Brookings Fellow we&#039;re talking about -- one who lives in the DC area, even.  

I won&#039;t bore you with an extended poli sci lecture, but his &quot;why doesn&#039;t the SC just tell us what&#039;s okay&quot; argument is the exact unanswerable-despot-based lawmaking that the drafters of the Constitution were seeking to avoid (and that they had just finished fighting a revolution to break free from).  His argument is, and I use the word intentionally, idiotic.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I enjoyed Easterbrook&#8217;s analysis of the Supreme Court.  Mainly because it displayed a PROFOUND unintelligence with respect to how the US government is, and was intended by the founders to be, organized.  I&#8217;d cut 99 out of 100 people slack on that issue, because it&#8217;s not something the typical person cares about.  But this is a purportedly intelligent Brookings Fellow we&#8217;re talking about &#8212; one who lives in the DC area, even.  </p>
<p>I won&#8217;t bore you with an extended poli sci lecture, but his &#8220;why doesn&#8217;t the SC just tell us what&#8217;s okay&#8221; argument is the exact unanswerable-despot-based lawmaking that the drafters of the Constitution were seeking to avoid (and that they had just finished fighting a revolution to break free from).  His argument is, and I use the word intentionally, idiotic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jon</title>
		<link>http://www.bostonsportsmedia.com/2008/08/081308-afternoon/comment-page-1#comment-6187</link>
		<dc:creator>jon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:39:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bostonsportsmedia.com/?p=3126#comment-6187</guid>
		<description>Loved the comments for the Gammons Q&amp;A.  I&#039;m glad to see Teddy Sarandis has discovered an outlet to espouse his wild, laughable theories.

Go get &#039;em, Ghoul!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Loved the comments for the Gammons Q&amp;A.  I&#8217;m glad to see Teddy Sarandis has discovered an outlet to espouse his wild, laughable theories.</p>
<p>Go get &#8216;em, Ghoul!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
