<?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: Us vs. Them</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/02/us-vs-them/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/02/us-vs-them/</link>
	<description>n. the principle of good order&#60;br /&#62;&#60;br /&#62; "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 20:15:32 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.3</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Larison</title>
		<link>http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/02/us-vs-them/comment-page-1/#comment-14715</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel Larison</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Oct 2008 19:23:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/02/us-vs-them/#comment-14715</guid>
		<description>Yes, but what is most remarkable is how those two responses (she&#039;s as good as/better than Obama; she&#039;s not some elitist scholar) contradict one another.  We&#039;re supposed to believe that Obama is an elitist who went to, gasp, Ivy League schools, but that at the same time he is less qualified than the person whom they defend by stressing how she&#039;s not some point-headed scholar who knows a lot about policy.  Her strength is that she&#039;s just like anybody else, but how dare anyone suggest that she&#039;s just like anybody else.  So, if I follow this silliness, she&#039;s more qualified than Obama because she knows less, and apparently we should be proud that she knows less.  

You can see the bizarre arguments this leads to: she&#039;s &quot;one of us,&quot; but she&#039;s supposed to be some kind of Russia expert via geography, because her own handlers are absolutely embarrassed by the entire exercise and feel the need to make excuses for the very thing that is supposed to make her &quot;one of us.&quot;  She&#039;s folksy, but she&#039;s less parochial than you snooty New Yorkers, but don&#039;t expect her to be able to talk about the rest of the world in any detail because...she&#039;s folksy!  Arggh!  According to her defenders, when you ask her to talk about Russia, don&#039;t expect any of that book learning expertise, but her exposure to the rest of the world--by her own admission--is through book learning.  It&#039;s completely insane.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, but what is most remarkable is how those two responses (she&#8217;s as good as/better than Obama; she&#8217;s not some elitist scholar) contradict one another.  We&#8217;re supposed to believe that Obama is an elitist who went to, gasp, Ivy League schools, but that at the same time he is less qualified than the person whom they defend by stressing how she&#8217;s not some point-headed scholar who knows a lot about policy.  Her strength is that she&#8217;s just like anybody else, but how dare anyone suggest that she&#8217;s just like anybody else.  So, if I follow this silliness, she&#8217;s more qualified than Obama because she knows less, and apparently we should be proud that she knows less.  </p>
<p>You can see the bizarre arguments this leads to: she&#8217;s &#8220;one of us,&#8221; but she&#8217;s supposed to be some kind of Russia expert via geography, because her own handlers are absolutely embarrassed by the entire exercise and feel the need to make excuses for the very thing that is supposed to make her &#8220;one of us.&#8221;  She&#8217;s folksy, but she&#8217;s less parochial than you snooty New Yorkers, but don&#8217;t expect her to be able to talk about the rest of the world in any detail because&#8230;she&#8217;s folksy!  Arggh!  According to her defenders, when you ask her to talk about Russia, don&#8217;t expect any of that book learning expertise, but her exposure to the rest of the world&#8211;by her own admission&#8211;is through book learning.  It&#8217;s completely insane.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Conservative Heritage Times &#187; Some articles for your consideration</title>
		<link>http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/02/us-vs-them/comment-page-1/#comment-14712</link>
		<dc:creator>Conservative Heritage Times &#187; Some articles for your consideration</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Oct 2008 18:58:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/02/us-vs-them/#comment-14712</guid>
		<description>[...] Daniel LarisonÂ talks about the expiring shelf-life of Us vs. Them politics. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Daniel LarisonÂ talks about the expiring shelf-life of Us vs. Them politics. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Sastre</title>
		<link>http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/02/us-vs-them/comment-page-1/#comment-14709</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Sastre</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Oct 2008 18:22:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/02/us-vs-them/#comment-14709</guid>
		<description>It certainly is depressing to find that the majority of the Palin defenders spin a variation of either &lt;i&gt;&quot;But &lt;b&gt;Obama&lt;/b&gt; doesn&#039;t know anything either!&quot;&lt;/i&gt; or &lt;i&gt;&quot;Only latte-quaffing eggheads would know that!&quot;&lt;/i&gt;. Lowering the bar to the level of &quot;It&#039;s not reasonable to be expected to know this stuff!&quot; is not very inspirational. I personally hope that Palin makes an utter fool of herself tonight and puts this lipsticked nonsense to rest; anything that works against the peculiarly American celebration of earthy ignorance and partisan celebrity, and antagonism towards coastal intellectuality, is fine by me. 

However, as Freddie points out in another thread, if Palin can pull through the debate even remotely within the vicinity of a satisfactory performance, it will doubtless spark a shrill, celebratory round of &quot;I &lt;i&gt;told&lt;/i&gt; you so&#039;s&quot; and renew the Red State&#039;s efforts to have Kathleen Parker banished to France.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It certainly is depressing to find that the majority of the Palin defenders spin a variation of either <i>&#8220;But <b>Obama</b> doesn&#8217;t know anything either!&#8221;</i> or <i>&#8220;Only latte-quaffing eggheads would know that!&#8221;</i>. Lowering the bar to the level of &#8220;It&#8217;s not reasonable to be expected to know this stuff!&#8221; is not very inspirational. I personally hope that Palin makes an utter fool of herself tonight and puts this lipsticked nonsense to rest; anything that works against the peculiarly American celebration of earthy ignorance and partisan celebrity, and antagonism towards coastal intellectuality, is fine by me. </p>
<p>However, as Freddie points out in another thread, if Palin can pull through the debate even remotely within the vicinity of a satisfactory performance, it will doubtless spark a shrill, celebratory round of &#8220;I <i>told</i> you so&#8217;s&#8221; and renew the Red State&#8217;s efforts to have Kathleen Parker banished to France.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
