<?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: Which side are you on?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.likelihoodofsuccess.com/2009/11/15/which-side-are-you-on-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.likelihoodofsuccess.com/2009/11/15/which-side-are-you-on-2/</link>
	<description>Ron Coleman’s pretty good blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 00:46:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Bob Miller</title>
		<link>http://www.likelihoodofsuccess.com/2009/11/15/which-side-are-you-on-2/comment-page-1/#comment-7313</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob Miller</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:03:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.likelihoodofsuccess.com/?p=3503#comment-7313</guid>
		<description>If their impoverishment and embarrassment of America are not enough in themselves to give the President and his ruling party a bad name, I doubt any trial will.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If their impoverishment and embarrassment of America are not enough in themselves to give the President and his ruling party a bad name, I doubt any trial will.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ron Coleman</title>
		<link>http://www.likelihoodofsuccess.com/2009/11/15/which-side-are-you-on-2/comment-page-1/#comment-7278</link>
		<dc:creator>Ron Coleman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 02:38:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.likelihoodofsuccess.com/?p=3503#comment-7278</guid>
		<description>Glenn, I should have acknowledged that.  Iraqpundit is indeed a known entity -- kind of.  While I understand, especially in his case, why he would want to remain anonymous, I don&#039;t really ever know who he is, or what his agenda his, or if he is the same &quot;he&quot; -- if a &quot;he&quot; -- he was in the past.  That&#039;s an occupational hazard of anonymous blogging which, in the case of Iraqpundit, is a damned stretch better than the alternative.

But this was a flabby post by Iraqpundit.  I get why you want to support his efforts and help him get his voice heard by linking, or perhaps amplify your own coming post with his bona fides, but it was flabby all the same.  

My point is this:  I think the right (including me) has to be honest here about when we&#039;re hoping for a bad thing because we believe, politically, it might be a good thing.  We certainly hate and hated it when the shoe was on the other foot, because, well, it&#039;s wrong -- very wrong.

At such junctures &quot;identity&quot; (right vs. left) becomes a central part of the inquiry... a hard thing to do when one of the players is anonymous.  So I don&#039;t know &lt;strong&gt;that&lt;/strong&gt; affects my analysis!

As for your Chicago point, well, as a former Chicago voter myself... I know when to shut up, ya know.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Glenn, I should have acknowledged that.  Iraqpundit is indeed a known entity &#8212; kind of.  While I understand, especially in his case, why he would want to remain anonymous, I don&#8217;t really ever know who he is, or what his agenda his, or if he is the same &#8220;he&#8221; &#8212; if a &#8220;he&#8221; &#8212; he was in the past.  That&#8217;s an occupational hazard of anonymous blogging which, in the case of Iraqpundit, is a damned stretch better than the alternative.</p>
<p>But this was a flabby post by Iraqpundit.  I get why you want to support his efforts and help him get his voice heard by linking, or perhaps amplify your own coming post with his bona fides, but it was flabby all the same.  </p>
<p>My point is this:  I think the right (including me) has to be honest here about when we&#8217;re hoping for a bad thing because we believe, politically, it might be a good thing.  We certainly hate and hated it when the shoe was on the other foot, because, well, it&#8217;s wrong &#8212; very wrong.</p>
<p>At such junctures &#8220;identity&#8221; (right vs. left) becomes a central part of the inquiry&#8230; a hard thing to do when one of the players is anonymous.  So I don&#8217;t know <strong>that</strong> affects my analysis!</p>
<p>As for your Chicago point, well, as a former Chicago voter myself&#8230; I know when to shut up, ya know.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Glenn Reynolds</title>
		<link>http://www.likelihoodofsuccess.com/2009/11/15/which-side-are-you-on-2/comment-page-1/#comment-7277</link>
		<dc:creator>Glenn Reynolds</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 02:25:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.likelihoodofsuccess.com/?p=3503#comment-7277</guid>
		<description>IraqPundit has been around for quite a while, and he&#039;s been personally vouched for to me by journalists I trust.  He&#039;s not just some random anonymous source, as you make him appear to be.

My own take -- I&#039;ve got a post on this schedule for first thing tomorrow morning, in fact -- is that when a Chicago politician does something that looks iffy, you should consider that the fix may be in.  Not sure which way that cuts under your analysis.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>IraqPundit has been around for quite a while, and he&#8217;s been personally vouched for to me by journalists I trust.  He&#8217;s not just some random anonymous source, as you make him appear to be.</p>
<p>My own take &#8212; I&#8217;ve got a post on this schedule for first thing tomorrow morning, in fact &#8212; is that when a Chicago politician does something that looks iffy, you should consider that the fix may be in.  Not sure which way that cuts under your analysis.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.438 seconds -->
