<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	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/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssModule"
>

<channel>
	<title>Seth in CA (for the summer) &#187; civil rights</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/sethinca/category/politics/issues/civil-rights/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/sethinca</link>
	<description>Computer science and California 26</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Jun 2007 14:38:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<creativeCommons:license>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/</creativeCommons:license>
		<item>
		<title>Wow</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/sethinca/2006/06/27/wow/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/sethinca/2006/06/27/wow/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jun 2006 06:57:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Seth Flaxman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[civil rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gay bashing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/sethinca/2006/06/27/wow/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
Faith in America has more ads here.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://pandagon.net/2006/06/27/powerful-ad-from-faith-in-america/"><img border="0" src="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/sethinca/files/2006/06/cross_gay.png" /></a></p>
<p>Faith in America has more <a href="http://www.faithinamerica.info/newSite/media.html">ads here.</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/sethinca/2006/06/27/wow/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<creativeCommons:license>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/</creativeCommons:license>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Modern GOP: Complex and Nuanced</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/sethinca/2006/05/30/the-modern-gop-complex-and-nuanced/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/sethinca/2006/05/30/the-modern-gop-complex-and-nuanced/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 May 2006 16:21:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Seth Flaxman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[David Dreier]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civil rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national security]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/sethinca/2006/05/30/the-modern-gop-complex-and-nuanced/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Politics sure is complicated:
But some worried that the constitutional victory for Hastert would be a public-relations problem for the rest of them. They fear that the nuances of constitutional principle will mean little to voters who conclude that the GOP, which aims to be the &#8220;law-and-order&#8221; party, is now on the wrong side of the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Politics sure is <a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2003025484_hastert29.html"><em>complicated:</em></a></p>
<blockquote><p>But some worried that the constitutional victory for Hastert would be a public-relations problem for the rest of them. They fear that the <strong>nuances </strong>of constitutional principle will mean little to voters who conclude that <strong>the GOP</strong>, which aims to be the &#8220;law-and-order&#8221; party, <strong>is now on the wrong side of the law</strong> by challenging law-enforcement officials pursuing a bribery investigation.</p>
<p><strong>&#8220;It&#8217;s a challenge&#8221;</strong> <span style="font-weight: bold">to explain to constituents</span>, said Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif. <strong>&#8220;People are painting this as members of Congress being above the law.&#8221;</strong></p></blockquote>
<p>They&#8217;re right of course. The nuances of constitutional principle sure are hard to comprehend: <a href="http://www.npr.org/news/specials/nsawiretap/legality.html">illegal surveillance of millions of Americans</a> and <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;ct=res&amp;cd=1&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.boston.com%2Fnews%2Fnation%2Fwashington%2Farticles%2F2006%2F04%2F30%2Fbush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws%2F&amp;ei=wHB8RPGJJYzyoQLg5KzxBA&amp;sig2=A3RKIbJeV5mz75fI4P_gFw">willful disregard for the law</a>? No problem. <span style="font-style: italic">Everyone</span> understands that they&#8217;re just spying on terrorists. Millions of them. But raiding a crooked Congressman&#8217;s office? Why, that violates the most sacred principles of our founding.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/sethinca/2006/05/30/the-modern-gop-complex-and-nuanced/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<creativeCommons:license>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/</creativeCommons:license>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
