<?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 for The Princeton Tory</title>
	<atom:link href="http://theprincetontory.com/second/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://theprincetontory.com/second</link>
	<description>A journal of conservative and moderate thought</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Feb 2011 03:32:45 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on Mary Ann Glendon on Cicero and Burke on Politics as a Vocation by Chris Goodnow</title>
		<link>http://theprincetontory.com/second/mary-ann-glendon-on-cicero-and-burke-on-politics-as-a-vocation/comment-page-1/#comment-14841</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Goodnow</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Feb 2011 03:32:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theprincetontory.com/second/?p=137#comment-14841</guid>
		<description>Good summary of this afternoon&#039;s presentation, Sam. Interestingly, though, Professor Glendon never concretely defined when &quot;statesmanship&quot; transformed into an intolerable compromise of principles. That is probably the most difficult, and therefore the most important question. The Constitution is obviously a useful guide, but with the seemingly interminable number of interpretations, it appears as if any act can be misconstrued to be &quot;constitutional&quot;. Take the Japanese internment, for example.

I certainly don&#039;t have the answer, but it appears as if there is ample room for harmful ethical relativism. If anyone in the vast expanse of the Internet has an answer, I&#039;d sure be happy to hear it!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good summary of this afternoon&#8217;s presentation, Sam. Interestingly, though, Professor Glendon never concretely defined when &#8220;statesmanship&#8221; transformed into an intolerable compromise of principles. That is probably the most difficult, and therefore the most important question. The Constitution is obviously a useful guide, but with the seemingly interminable number of interpretations, it appears as if any act can be misconstrued to be &#8220;constitutional&#8221;. Take the Japanese internment, for example.</p>
<p>I certainly don&#8217;t have the answer, but it appears as if there is ample room for harmful ethical relativism. If anyone in the vast expanse of the Internet has an answer, I&#8217;d sure be happy to hear it!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Barack Obama Still Doesn&#8217;t Get It by Princeton Senior</title>
		<link>http://theprincetontory.com/second/barack-obama-still-doesnt-get-it/comment-page-1/#comment-14769</link>
		<dc:creator>Princeton Senior</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jan 2011 06:49:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theprincetontory.com/second/?p=131#comment-14769</guid>
		<description>“government shouldn’t pick winners and losers.&quot; Valid argument. So then back cap and trade. If you&#039;re upset about the administrative costs, then make it revenue neutral. That would address most of you points.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>“government shouldn’t pick winners and losers.&#8221; Valid argument. So then back cap and trade. If you&#8217;re upset about the administrative costs, then make it revenue neutral. That would address most of you points.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

