<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why Does Our Timing Suck So Much?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/snarl/2008/05/16/why-does-our-timing-suck-so-much/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/snarl/2008/05/16/why-does-our-timing-suck-so-much/</link>
	<description>Snarl\'s Humble Webpage</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 30 Aug 2008 03:54:41 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: jeff</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/snarl/2008/05/16/why-does-our-timing-suck-so-much/#comment-84690</link>
		<dc:creator>jeff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 20:05:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/snarl/2008/05/16/why-does-our-timing-suck-so-much/#comment-84690</guid>
		<description>We have gay marriage?  When did we vote on that?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We have gay marriage?  When did we vote on that?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fred</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/snarl/2008/05/16/why-does-our-timing-suck-so-much/#comment-84683</link>
		<dc:creator>Fred</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 15:34:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/snarl/2008/05/16/why-does-our-timing-suck-so-much/#comment-84683</guid>
		<description>Take heart, Karl - call me Pollyanna, but it may not be so bad this time, to whit:

1.) The California Legislature has TWICE voted to approve marriage, but it got thrown to the courts.

2.) Arnie has said he won't oppose it (and, really, as he's a largely socially liberal Republican and a Kennedy by marriage, I rather doubt he, personally, has any problems with it at all, but he has to tread carefully with his whack-job constituents in Orange County, for example).

3.) Thus, all THREE branches of California's government, including the duly elected representatives of the people, are signed-on.

4.) A GREAT deal of fatigue over this issue has settled in even among the Religious Right - except, of course, the arsehole talking heads who make their living off of being divisive pricks (moral cousins of the people who convinced the Serbians they were 'special' and historically put-upon as Yugoslavia was coming apart....).  A lot of pretty darn conservative evangelicals are starting to say - 'it's the economy, stupid, and doing Christ-like things for our neighbors, not worrying about what other folks are doing in their own homes."

5.) More time has meant more younger voters on the rolls, who are in favor of this and don't get what all the fuss is about.

6.) McCain DOESN'T want to talk about this, and rather pointedly HASN'T talked about this, beyond the 'code' backhand about appointing strict-constructionist justices - and he cited Roberts, Alito, and Rehnquist in his speech, not Scalia or Thomas....hmmm....  So, the wing-nuts don't have direct access to power, at least yet.  Let's hope he doesn't, oh-so-stupidly, pick Romney for Veep...UGH!!!  But, even Romney kinda proved in his failure that it doesn't entirely fly...

Slow and steady, slow and steady: take a deep breath!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Take heart, Karl - call me Pollyanna, but it may not be so bad this time, to whit:</p>
<p>1.) The California Legislature has TWICE voted to approve marriage, but it got thrown to the courts.</p>
<p>2.) Arnie has said he won&#8217;t oppose it (and, really, as he&#8217;s a largely socially liberal Republican and a Kennedy by marriage, I rather doubt he, personally, has any problems with it at all, but he has to tread carefully with his whack-job constituents in Orange County, for example).</p>
<p>3.) Thus, all THREE branches of California&#8217;s government, including the duly elected representatives of the people, are signed-on.</p>
<p>4.) A GREAT deal of fatigue over this issue has settled in even among the Religious Right - except, of course, the arsehole talking heads who make their living off of being divisive pricks (moral cousins of the people who convinced the Serbians they were &#8217;special&#8217; and historically put-upon as Yugoslavia was coming apart&#8230;.).  A lot of pretty darn conservative evangelicals are starting to say - &#8216;it&#8217;s the economy, stupid, and doing Christ-like things for our neighbors, not worrying about what other folks are doing in their own homes.&#8221;</p>
<p>5.) More time has meant more younger voters on the rolls, who are in favor of this and don&#8217;t get what all the fuss is about.</p>
<p>6.) McCain DOESN&#8217;T want to talk about this, and rather pointedly HASN&#8217;T talked about this, beyond the &#8216;code&#8217; backhand about appointing strict-constructionist justices - and he cited Roberts, Alito, and Rehnquist in his speech, not Scalia or Thomas&#8230;.hmmm&#8230;.  So, the wing-nuts don&#8217;t have direct access to power, at least yet.  Let&#8217;s hope he doesn&#8217;t, oh-so-stupidly, pick Romney for Veep&#8230;UGH!!!  But, even Romney kinda proved in his failure that it doesn&#8217;t entirely fly&#8230;</p>
<p>Slow and steady, slow and steady: take a deep breath!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
