<?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: Send in the Obama Clowns</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/send-in-the-obama-clowns/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/send-in-the-obama-clowns/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=send-in-the-obama-clowns</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 02:27:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: frodo</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/send-in-the-obama-clowns/comment-page-1/#comment-5260966</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[frodo]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Aug 2013 15:26:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=200522#comment-5260966</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[But it *is* pointless, or maybe better to say that it&#039;s the wrong question.  Media concentration diminishes the range and investigative zeal of the media--and what bias there is comes from that more than any particular party affiliation.   That&#039;s what&#039;s troubling.


The UCLA study has flaws because it makes assumptions that cannot be backed up with evidence--there&#039;s an extensive commentary on this that&#039;s easily found.  It&#039;s not the conclusions, but how they get there.  



And from my reading around at the Media Research Center, it appears that at least part of their criticism proceeds from some equally unexamined assumptions.



I&#039;m not arguing the same issue as you, I think.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But it *is* pointless, or maybe better to say that it&#8217;s the wrong question.  Media concentration diminishes the range and investigative zeal of the media&#8211;and what bias there is comes from that more than any particular party affiliation.   That&#8217;s what&#8217;s troubling.</p>
<p>The UCLA study has flaws because it makes assumptions that cannot be backed up with evidence&#8211;there&#8217;s an extensive commentary on this that&#8217;s easily found.  It&#8217;s not the conclusions, but how they get there.  </p>
<p>And from my reading around at the Media Research Center, it appears that at least part of their criticism proceeds from some equally unexamined assumptions.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not arguing the same issue as you, I think.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Turn</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/send-in-the-obama-clowns/comment-page-1/#comment-5260961</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Turn]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Aug 2013 15:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=200522#comment-5260961</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I only note Wiki is lefty in that they weren&#039;t willing to accept arguments that they didn&#039;t like.  Every organization leans one way or another..no one is truly unbiased.  So I would say that both left and right wing organizations can find the truth, but it seems that the left likes to hide it more than the right (the left doesn&#039;t like non-left opinions, whereas the right generally accepts non-right opinions, although not agreeing with them).  So, to discredit an organization because it is &quot;right wing&quot; is biased on your part, as there are plenty of truths to be found there, whether you like them or not.  UCLA study flawed?  How?  Because they come up with conclusions you don&#039;t like?  
Calling the issue of proving that there&#039;s liberal or conservative bias as pointless is pointless itself, as there IS a bias and you know it - and it leans left.  I gave you a number of examples (which you ignored) of left wing bias in the media.  You cannot give me any conservative bias from the mainstream media, can you? 
 I&#039;ve learned over the years that people want to stop arguing an issue (it is pointless) when they are losing the argument, because if they were winning it, they would continue to pound their side.  You don&#039;t see people winning a chess game resigning, it&#039;s the guy who&#039;s losing who will often resign rather than play it out.   I&#039;ll give you credit in not calling me names and being able to have a good discussion without that (as many who lose the arguments resort to the name-calling).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I only note Wiki is lefty in that they weren&#8217;t willing to accept arguments that they didn&#8217;t like.  Every organization leans one way or another..no one is truly unbiased.  So I would say that both left and right wing organizations can find the truth, but it seems that the left likes to hide it more than the right (the left doesn&#8217;t like non-left opinions, whereas the right generally accepts non-right opinions, although not agreeing with them).  So, to discredit an organization because it is &#8220;right wing&#8221; is biased on your part, as there are plenty of truths to be found there, whether you like them or not.  UCLA study flawed?  How?  Because they come up with conclusions you don&#8217;t like?<br />
Calling the issue of proving that there&#8217;s liberal or conservative bias as pointless is pointless itself, as there IS a bias and you know it &#8211; and it leans left.  I gave you a number of examples (which you ignored) of left wing bias in the media.  You cannot give me any conservative bias from the mainstream media, can you?<br />
 I&#8217;ve learned over the years that people want to stop arguing an issue (it is pointless) when they are losing the argument, because if they were winning it, they would continue to pound their side.  You don&#8217;t see people winning a chess game resigning, it&#8217;s the guy who&#8217;s losing who will often resign rather than play it out.   I&#8217;ll give you credit in not calling me names and being able to have a good discussion without that (as many who lose the arguments resort to the name-calling).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: frodo</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/send-in-the-obama-clowns/comment-page-1/#comment-5260957</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[frodo]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Aug 2013 15:04:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=200522#comment-5260957</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Rationalwiki is not the same as wikipedia--and it&#039;s not relevant anyway.  The data doesn&#039;t support any simple attribution of bias one way or another--the only bias I can see is (again) corporatist.

I am not especially interested in proving that there&#039;s liberal or conservative bias--that&#039;s pointless game.  

As a side note:  the UCLA study is flawed:  http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002724.html


And, it&#039;s ironic to cite a frankly conservative site like the Media Research Council&#039;s while at the same time alleging wiki is lefty.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rationalwiki is not the same as wikipedia&#8211;and it&#8217;s not relevant anyway.  The data doesn&#8217;t support any simple attribution of bias one way or another&#8211;the only bias I can see is (again) corporatist.</p>
<p>I am not especially interested in proving that there&#8217;s liberal or conservative bias&#8211;that&#8217;s pointless game.  </p>
<p>As a side note:  the UCLA study is flawed:  <a href="http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002724.html" rel="nofollow">http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002724.html</a></p>
<p>And, it&#8217;s ironic to cite a frankly conservative site like the Media Research Council&#8217;s while at the same time alleging wiki is lefty.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Debbie G</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/send-in-the-obama-clowns/comment-page-1/#comment-5260950</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Debbie G]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:36:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=200522#comment-5260950</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[No jokes about Obama being full of bull-you-know-what?  I&#039;m so disappointed in the commenters!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No jokes about Obama being full of bull-you-know-what?  I&#8217;m so disappointed in the commenters!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Ray</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/send-in-the-obama-clowns/comment-page-1/#comment-5260662</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Ray]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Aug 2013 21:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=200522#comment-5260662</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I figured the politicians would like the clown.  They&#039;ve had nothing but a circus going on in D.C. for several years now!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I figured the politicians would like the clown.  They&#8217;ve had nothing but a circus going on in D.C. for several years now!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Turn</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/send-in-the-obama-clowns/comment-page-1/#comment-5260644</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Turn]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Aug 2013 21:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=200522#comment-5260644</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Frodo

  Wiki leans left.  How do I know?  Years ago, I tried posting something that was politically incorrect (was something leftists would not like to hear), but not inaccurate.  They took it down pronto.  The first line of the first source, already leans left.  

Frodo.  There have been studies to see who the media votes for, what issues they believe in, etc.  And it always leans left by huge margins.  See this UCLA study:
 http://www.tldm.org/News8/MediaLeansLeft.htm
And another one regarding voting preferences of the media:
http://archive.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp
Again, I ask you to show me instances of Conservative bias, and so far, I have nothing to show for that request.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Frodo</p>
<p>  Wiki leans left.  How do I know?  Years ago, I tried posting something that was politically incorrect (was something leftists would not like to hear), but not inaccurate.  They took it down pronto.  The first line of the first source, already leans left.  </p>
<p>Frodo.  There have been studies to see who the media votes for, what issues they believe in, etc.  And it always leans left by huge margins.  See this UCLA study:<br />
 <a href="http://www.tldm.org/News8/MediaLeansLeft.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.tldm.org/News8/MediaLeansLeft.htm</a><br />
And another one regarding voting preferences of the media:<br />
<a href="http://archive.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp" rel="nofollow">http://archive.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp</a><br />
Again, I ask you to show me instances of Conservative bias, and so far, I have nothing to show for that request.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: frodo</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/send-in-the-obama-clowns/comment-page-1/#comment-5260627</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[frodo]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Aug 2013 20:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=200522#comment-5260627</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You won&#039;t like the material here, I&#039;d bet, but there&#039;s data that suggests reports of &quot;liberal bias&quot; are greatly exaggerated where they aren&#039;t just made of whole cloth:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Liberal_media

Note too that even the numbers about party affiliation carry less weight than many of the lamenters want to think.

And this:  http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Liberal_bias


As I say, corporate bias, but that&#039;s not necessary party-related (or even very effective as it seems awfully easy for you to recognize).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You won&#8217;t like the material here, I&#8217;d bet, but there&#8217;s data that suggests reports of &#8220;liberal bias&#8221; are greatly exaggerated where they aren&#8217;t just made of whole cloth:</p>
<p><a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Liberal_media" rel="nofollow">http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Liberal_media</a></p>
<p>Note too that even the numbers about party affiliation carry less weight than many of the lamenters want to think.</p>
<p>And this:  <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Liberal_bias" rel="nofollow">http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Liberal_bias</a></p>
<p>As I say, corporate bias, but that&#8217;s not necessary party-related (or even very effective as it seems awfully easy for you to recognize).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Turn</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/send-in-the-obama-clowns/comment-page-1/#comment-5260485</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Turn]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Aug 2013 14:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=200522#comment-5260485</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If Crowley was an outlier, then I would have expected the rest of the media to outright condemn her.  But, you and I know that didn&#039;t happen.  In fact, she was praised and lauded, certainly not condemned.  She did the heavy lifting that others didn&#039;t do or want to do.  Yes, the moderators accommodate the Democrat candidate way more than they do, if it all, the Republican candidate.  You recall that Romney&#039;s dog was an issue, but Obama&#039;s grades were not.  Which is more relevant to the President job?  You may say grades are not, but certainly one&#039;s dog isn&#039;t either, but which got more play in the media?  The dog.  Remember Mike Wallace coming up with dirt on George Bush before 2004 election (I believe) which was run quickly by the media, but later was found to be false.  However, when ACORN was busted, the media ran nothing about it, other than stories of whether it was right to bust them the way they did.  Kermit Gosnell story was called &quot;a local story&quot; and thus got scant media attention until well after the story had broken.  I could go on and on about liberal media bias.  But you haven&#039;t shown me any evidence to balance this out by giving me conservative media bias in the mainstream media.  If you can&#039;t do that, then it&#039;s obvious that the media is biased towards the left, and that is my position, until you can show me conservative bias (and not 1 or 2 stories, but many) that the mainstream media has shown.  I&#039;ll be waiting.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If Crowley was an outlier, then I would have expected the rest of the media to outright condemn her.  But, you and I know that didn&#8217;t happen.  In fact, she was praised and lauded, certainly not condemned.  She did the heavy lifting that others didn&#8217;t do or want to do.  Yes, the moderators accommodate the Democrat candidate way more than they do, if it all, the Republican candidate.  You recall that Romney&#8217;s dog was an issue, but Obama&#8217;s grades were not.  Which is more relevant to the President job?  You may say grades are not, but certainly one&#8217;s dog isn&#8217;t either, but which got more play in the media?  The dog.  Remember Mike Wallace coming up with dirt on George Bush before 2004 election (I believe) which was run quickly by the media, but later was found to be false.  However, when ACORN was busted, the media ran nothing about it, other than stories of whether it was right to bust them the way they did.  Kermit Gosnell story was called &#8220;a local story&#8221; and thus got scant media attention until well after the story had broken.  I could go on and on about liberal media bias.  But you haven&#8217;t shown me any evidence to balance this out by giving me conservative media bias in the mainstream media.  If you can&#8217;t do that, then it&#8217;s obvious that the media is biased towards the left, and that is my position, until you can show me conservative bias (and not 1 or 2 stories, but many) that the mainstream media has shown.  I&#8217;ll be waiting.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: frodo</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/send-in-the-obama-clowns/comment-page-1/#comment-5260468</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[frodo]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=200522#comment-5260468</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Candy Crowley &quot;evidence&quot; is an outlier--if anything, the problem with the debates is that the moderators are too accommodating to all the candidates.  There&#039;s a corporate bias in the media, a bias only intensified by consolidation.


I think that the media covers things that are easy and that will drive ratings--like this ridiculous clown story--and that the bias is driven by profits more than politics.


I note that you gloss over an entire network dedicated to one point of view that nonetheless pretends to &quot;objectivity.&quot;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Candy Crowley &#8220;evidence&#8221; is an outlier&#8211;if anything, the problem with the debates is that the moderators are too accommodating to all the candidates.  There&#8217;s a corporate bias in the media, a bias only intensified by consolidation.</p>
<p>I think that the media covers things that are easy and that will drive ratings&#8211;like this ridiculous clown story&#8211;and that the bias is driven by profits more than politics.</p>
<p>I note that you gloss over an entire network dedicated to one point of view that nonetheless pretends to &#8220;objectivity.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: frodo</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/send-in-the-obama-clowns/comment-page-1/#comment-5260469</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[frodo]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=200522#comment-5260469</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Corporate bias, absolutely.  That&#039;s something other than political.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Corporate bias, absolutely.  That&#8217;s something other than political.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fritz</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/send-in-the-obama-clowns/comment-page-1/#comment-5260382</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Fritz]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Aug 2013 05:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=200522#comment-5260382</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So what? Do you think that a corporation can&#039;t enjoy the fruits of socialism as well through promoting it? It&#039;s called crony capitalism. Many of the high rollers on Wall Street are guilty of sucking off the public teat through bailouts, special licenses, and contracts.The big broadcast networks also have something else to be concerned with, the FCC oversees broadcast license applications and renewals, they don&#039;t want to run too far afoul of the party in power.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So what? Do you think that a corporation can&#8217;t enjoy the fruits of socialism as well through promoting it? It&#8217;s called crony capitalism. Many of the high rollers on Wall Street are guilty of sucking off the public teat through bailouts, special licenses, and contracts.The big broadcast networks also have something else to be concerned with, the FCC oversees broadcast license applications and renewals, they don&#8217;t want to run too far afoul of the party in power.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Waiting</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/send-in-the-obama-clowns/comment-page-1/#comment-5260265</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Waiting]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Aug 2013 22:04:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=200522#comment-5260265</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As you might read, my first comment was not the original about the use of language on this thread. Although I did comment on the clown&#039;s job/occupation and the respect he deserves, I commented on this language/grammar topic because it was already being discussed. It was not meant as an argument.
Thank you for the invitation, nevertheless.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As you might read, my first comment was not the original about the use of language on this thread. Although I did comment on the clown&#8217;s job/occupation and the respect he deserves, I commented on this language/grammar topic because it was already being discussed. It was not meant as an argument.<br />
Thank you for the invitation, nevertheless.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: WhiteHunter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/send-in-the-obama-clowns/comment-page-1/#comment-5260254</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[WhiteHunter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Aug 2013 20:51:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=200522#comment-5260254</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Absolutely correct, Princeton. See, e.g., the role of The Fool in &quot;King Lear,&quot; and Lear&#039;s reaction to The Fool&#039;s comments, which no one else in the Court would have dared to make, even slyly, as The Fool did.
In medieval and Elizabethan times, monarchs often kept a Fool at court not just for entertainment, but also to speak the truth to them, sarcastically, with impunity. Just as victorious Roman generals returning home in a Triumph with prisoners, slaves, and gold had slaves whispering into their ears on the chariot, &quot;Remember, You are mortal!&quot; as a reminder not to be too proud, and not to over-reach in all the glory of victory.
It was a pagan tradition, of course; and perhaps it did little good. I don&#039;t think anything like that would fly today, as a new President is inaugurated and sworn in on the steps of The Capitol as the most powerful man on earth.
But what an interesting question for some daring reporter to ask our next President-elect, before he takes office: &quot;What do you think about the way the Romans did things?&quot;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Absolutely correct, Princeton. See, e.g., the role of The Fool in &#8220;King Lear,&#8221; and Lear&#8217;s reaction to The Fool&#8217;s comments, which no one else in the Court would have dared to make, even slyly, as The Fool did.<br />
In medieval and Elizabethan times, monarchs often kept a Fool at court not just for entertainment, but also to speak the truth to them, sarcastically, with impunity. Just as victorious Roman generals returning home in a Triumph with prisoners, slaves, and gold had slaves whispering into their ears on the chariot, &#8220;Remember, You are mortal!&#8221; as a reminder not to be too proud, and not to over-reach in all the glory of victory.<br />
It was a pagan tradition, of course; and perhaps it did little good. I don&#8217;t think anything like that would fly today, as a new President is inaugurated and sworn in on the steps of The Capitol as the most powerful man on earth.<br />
But what an interesting question for some daring reporter to ask our next President-elect, before he takes office: &#8220;What do you think about the way the Romans did things?&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: WhiteHunter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/send-in-the-obama-clowns/comment-page-1/#comment-5260244</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[WhiteHunter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Aug 2013 20:22:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=200522#comment-5260244</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[My good friend, Waiting, there&#039;s another site where we beat one another up, or more often just politely disagree and give advice about grammar, syntax, and usage: Grammar Geeks. It&#039;s through LinkedIn, and posts require real names. I&#039;m a member there, too, and always enjoy entering the lists against honorable adversaries.
Here, we talk only about opinions concerning the article we&#039;ve read on this page, arguments, and counterarguaments about it.
Sign up for that other site, too, and enjoy the very different type of learned but always polite combat!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My good friend, Waiting, there&#8217;s another site where we beat one another up, or more often just politely disagree and give advice about grammar, syntax, and usage: Grammar Geeks. It&#8217;s through LinkedIn, and posts require real names. I&#8217;m a member there, too, and always enjoy entering the lists against honorable adversaries.<br />
Here, we talk only about opinions concerning the article we&#8217;ve read on this page, arguments, and counterarguaments about it.<br />
Sign up for that other site, too, and enjoy the very different type of learned but always polite combat!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/send-in-the-obama-clowns/comment-page-1/#comment-5260245</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Aug 2013 20:22:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=200522#comment-5260245</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[To be fair, those interested in cultural diffusion, languages, or any number of related fields, may take a genuine interest in the origin of names without intending any left-handed editorializing thereby.  I&#039;d say that as long as the enquirer doesn&#039;t make it any more personal than &quot;from what language is your surname derived,&quot; I wouldn&#039;t look for an opportunity to be offended.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To be fair, those interested in cultural diffusion, languages, or any number of related fields, may take a genuine interest in the origin of names without intending any left-handed editorializing thereby.  I&#8217;d say that as long as the enquirer doesn&#8217;t make it any more personal than &#8220;from what language is your surname derived,&#8221; I wouldn&#8217;t look for an opportunity to be offended.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/send-in-the-obama-clowns/comment-page-1/#comment-5260239</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Aug 2013 20:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=200522#comment-5260239</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;I don&#039;t know when, or in which work, he said or wrote it.&quot;
 
The more interesting question to me is &quot;if.&quot;  I don&#039;t know this to &lt;i&gt;not&lt;/i&gt; be Voltaire, but I&#039;ve seen no attribution more specific than his name. All too often, internet surgeons attempt to improve their patients&#039; health by means of a name transplant.  &quot;The graveyards are full of indispensable men&quot; is a worthy thought, but what&#039;s even more interesting is the array of notables to whom it is attributed.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;I don&#8217;t know when, or in which work, he said or wrote it.&#8221;</p>
<p>The more interesting question to me is &#8220;if.&#8221;  I don&#8217;t know this to <i>not</i> be Voltaire, but I&#8217;ve seen no attribution more specific than his name. All too often, internet surgeons attempt to improve their patients&#8217; health by means of a name transplant.  &#8220;The graveyards are full of indispensable men&#8221; is a worthy thought, but what&#8217;s even more interesting is the array of notables to whom it is attributed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/send-in-the-obama-clowns/comment-page-1/#comment-5260235</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Aug 2013 20:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=200522#comment-5260235</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Wouldn&#039;t that be &quot;Jernome?&quot;  Though the translation ruins the joke.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wouldn&#8217;t that be &#8220;Jernome?&#8221;  Though the translation ruins the joke.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: WhiteHunter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/send-in-the-obama-clowns/comment-page-1/#comment-5260231</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[WhiteHunter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Aug 2013 19:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=200522#comment-5260231</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Oh dear, my good friend, Jerome (the English equivalent of your Latin screen name, as in that saint&#039;s translation of The Bible into Latin known to us in English today as The Vulgate). I think our friend Howard made a very good point, don&#039;t you?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh dear, my good friend, Jerome (the English equivalent of your Latin screen name, as in that saint&#8217;s translation of The Bible into Latin known to us in English today as The Vulgate). I think our friend Howard made a very good point, don&#8217;t you?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: WhiteHunter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/send-in-the-obama-clowns/comment-page-1/#comment-5260228</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[WhiteHunter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Aug 2013 19:39:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=200522#comment-5260228</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you insist, the original was probably something like: &quot;...qu&#039;on ne doit jamais ridiculiser.&quot; I don&#039;t know when, or in which work, he said or wrote it.
But let&#039;s not quibble! The great, wise Frenchman&#039;s tart wisdom (in this quip as in so many others of his) stands the test of time and should inform us today, no matter in the original or in translation!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you insist, the original was probably something like: &#8220;&#8230;qu&#8217;on ne doit jamais ridiculiser.&#8221; I don&#8217;t know when, or in which work, he said or wrote it.<br />
But let&#8217;s not quibble! The great, wise Frenchman&#8217;s tart wisdom (in this quip as in so many others of his) stands the test of time and should inform us today, no matter in the original or in translation!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: WhiteHunter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/send-in-the-obama-clowns/comment-page-1/#comment-5260223</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[WhiteHunter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Aug 2013 19:18:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=200522#comment-5260223</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thank you, Howard. You make an excellent point. In his case, that was completely accurate and made perfect sense. But why didn&#039;t he just refer to himself as a Christian? I&#039;m sure that was his most important characteristic.
I&#039;m a 4th generation U.S.-born citizen of entirely European ancestry (Polish, German, Irish, Danish); but my AKC-Registered dachshund has a far &quot;purer&quot; pedigree, bloodline, and traceable ancestry, over many generations, than I do, as I like to point out. Compared to her, I&#039;m a mongrel!
Finally tiring of being asked, &quot;Hmmnn, what nationality is your name?&quot; I asked a young colleague who very obviously looked &quot;Asian&quot; but had a very &quot;white bread&quot; English surname (he might have been adopted as an infant, but I had the good taste not to ask; it didn&#039;t matter) how he dealt with such annoying questions.
He laughed and said, &quot;I get asked that all the time: &#039;Hmnn. You don&#039;t LOOK British. What ARE you?&#039; You know what I tell them? I tell them, &#039;I&#039;m an American.&#039;&quot;
I wish we could all focus on what we are, what we believe, and how we behave, rather than on who came over when, on what boat, and from where and how.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you, Howard. You make an excellent point. In his case, that was completely accurate and made perfect sense. But why didn&#8217;t he just refer to himself as a Christian? I&#8217;m sure that was his most important characteristic.<br />
I&#8217;m a 4th generation U.S.-born citizen of entirely European ancestry (Polish, German, Irish, Danish); but my AKC-Registered dachshund has a far &#8220;purer&#8221; pedigree, bloodline, and traceable ancestry, over many generations, than I do, as I like to point out. Compared to her, I&#8217;m a mongrel!<br />
Finally tiring of being asked, &#8220;Hmmnn, what nationality is your name?&#8221; I asked a young colleague who very obviously looked &#8220;Asian&#8221; but had a very &#8220;white bread&#8221; English surname (he might have been adopted as an infant, but I had the good taste not to ask; it didn&#8217;t matter) how he dealt with such annoying questions.<br />
He laughed and said, &#8220;I get asked that all the time: &#8216;Hmnn. You don&#8217;t LOOK British. What ARE you?&#8217; You know what I tell them? I tell them, &#8216;I&#8217;m an American.&#8217;&#8221;<br />
I wish we could all focus on what we are, what we believe, and how we behave, rather than on who came over when, on what boat, and from where and how.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 778/841 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-30 21:33:09 by W3 Total Cache -->