<?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: Leave football alone!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://katiekieffer.com/2009/10/29/leave-football-alone/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://katiekieffer.com/2009/10/29/leave-football-alone/</link>
	<description>Presenting young professionals with choices through engagement in public policy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:32:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: aguy</title>
		<link>http://katiekieffer.com/2009/10/29/leave-football-alone/comment-page-1/#comment-45</link>
		<dc:creator>aguy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:47:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://katiekieffer.com/?p=437#comment-45</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;I would think that guy is a pretty effective Conservative president, not a socialist.&lt;/i&gt;

I really, really, really, really hope the GOP opposes Obama on this Patriot Act stuff. The Democrats long opposed Bush -- rightly -- for big government wiretapping, secret courts, etc. Republicans couldn&#039;t understand why they were questioning our leader. 

A conservative (I forget who) ominously warned back then, &quot;do we want all these powers in the president&#039;s hands? We should think of the &#039;Hillary&#039; rule -- if &#039;Hillary&#039; had the power to do these things, would we want her to?&quot;

I&#039;d emphatically answer &quot;no effing way.&quot; Not having access to the courts (when there&#039;s already courts for terrorists set up with secret, procedural safeguards), being spied on without warrant, etc -- these things are truly scary. Much, much more scary than Congress looking into the BCS or setting up Cash for Clunkers or getting a health care system that&#039;s been done successfully elsewhere.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>I would think that guy is a pretty effective Conservative president, not a socialist.</i></p>
<p>I really, really, really, really hope the GOP opposes Obama on this Patriot Act stuff. The Democrats long opposed Bush &#8212; rightly &#8212; for big government wiretapping, secret courts, etc. Republicans couldn&#8217;t understand why they were questioning our leader. </p>
<p>A conservative (I forget who) ominously warned back then, &#8220;do we want all these powers in the president&#8217;s hands? We should think of the &#8216;Hillary&#8217; rule &#8212; if &#8216;Hillary&#8217; had the power to do these things, would we want her to?&#8221;</p>
<p>I&#8217;d emphatically answer &#8220;no effing way.&#8221; Not having access to the courts (when there&#8217;s already courts for terrorists set up with secret, procedural safeguards), being spied on without warrant, etc &#8212; these things are truly scary. Much, much more scary than Congress looking into the BCS or setting up Cash for Clunkers or getting a health care system that&#8217;s been done successfully elsewhere.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: aguy</title>
		<link>http://katiekieffer.com/2009/10/29/leave-football-alone/comment-page-1/#comment-43</link>
		<dc:creator>aguy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:34:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://katiekieffer.com/?p=437#comment-43</guid>
		<description>Hey there Ryan-
This whole Czar thing is ridiculous. Sometimes, people are appointed by the Senate to do certain tasks. Sometimes, people are hired as advisors. Sometimes, the president needs to appoint people to head agencies. This Czar stuff covers the first two -- people with little authority or power.

Bush &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.isi.edu/dg-online/december01/cyber-security/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;had&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg_speeches_030925graham/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;these&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/conditions/07/02/tobias.aids/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;people.&lt;/a&gt; We didn&#039;t call them Czars, because the left didn&#039;t call Bush a socialist -- the Czar complaint wouldn&#039;t have stuck. Because there&#039;s a narrative of Obama-the-socialist out there, the Czar thing makes for a good political attack, but that doesn&#039;t mean it&#039;s true.

The BCS thing is bizarre, but it&#039;s important to note that the government basically tolerates all sorts of &lt;a href=&quot;http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=1290707&amp;type=story&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;weirdness for major league sports.&lt;/a&gt; That doesn&#039;t excuse their involvement in other ways, but it&#039;s not like sports are a free market by any means (drug regulation, etc) ..........

&lt;i&gt;Is Congress or Obama going to mandate the number of pitches a 12 year old can throw in a Little League game?&lt;/i&gt;

I was thinking driving home today: if I somehow went back in time and told 2005-me that we&#039;d soon have the worst recession since the great depression, but a president would help us get out of it by ....

- not breaking up the banks or regulating them as liberals wanted, but instead giving them money (that would be re-paid in months) helping them to get them back on their feet
- not focusing on re-structuring car industry as liberals wanted, but saving big car corporations with loans that would soon be re-paid (with a profit accruing to the government)
- pushing a stimulus that would focus on tax cuts rather than tons of government programs seen during the depression like the WPA, CCC, etc (except for one program, Cash for Clunkers)
- pushing for health care reform that would not be single payer or would have a robust public option as liberals wanted, but instead would focus on pitting private insurers against one another in a better market, containing costs, and by giving subsidies to those who cannot afford insurance to buy it on the private market rather than driving up costs for everyone else. And he&#039;d do this by making deals with big business like hospitals groups and Big Pharma. He&#039;d say we needed to do this not because people die without health care, but because the future deficits would increase and we need to control costs.

On top of that, this unnamed president would...
- keep and expand war powers and the Patriot Act 
- ignore gay rights / &quot;don&#039;t ask, don&#039;t tell&quot;
- leave climate change to the Senate
- have a conservative education guy, with whom he&#039;ll reportedly roll out a education plan based on conservative principles (charter schools, vouchers, etc) in 2010...

I would think that guy is a pretty effective Conservative president, not a socialist.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey there Ryan-<br />
This whole Czar thing is ridiculous. Sometimes, people are appointed by the Senate to do certain tasks. Sometimes, people are hired as advisors. Sometimes, the president needs to appoint people to head agencies. This Czar stuff covers the first two &#8212; people with little authority or power.</p>
<p>Bush <a href="http://www.isi.edu/dg-online/december01/cyber-security/" rel="nofollow">had</a> <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg_speeches_030925graham/" rel="nofollow">these</a> <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/conditions/07/02/tobias.aids/" rel="nofollow">people.</a> We didn&#8217;t call them Czars, because the left didn&#8217;t call Bush a socialist &#8212; the Czar complaint wouldn&#8217;t have stuck. Because there&#8217;s a narrative of Obama-the-socialist out there, the Czar thing makes for a good political attack, but that doesn&#8217;t mean it&#8217;s true.</p>
<p>The BCS thing is bizarre, but it&#8217;s important to note that the government basically tolerates all sorts of <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=1290707&amp;type=story" rel="nofollow">weirdness for major league sports.</a> That doesn&#8217;t excuse their involvement in other ways, but it&#8217;s not like sports are a free market by any means (drug regulation, etc) &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.</p>
<p><i>Is Congress or Obama going to mandate the number of pitches a 12 year old can throw in a Little League game?</i></p>
<p>I was thinking driving home today: if I somehow went back in time and told 2005-me that we&#8217;d soon have the worst recession since the great depression, but a president would help us get out of it by &#8230;.</p>
<p>- not breaking up the banks or regulating them as liberals wanted, but instead giving them money (that would be re-paid in months) helping them to get them back on their feet<br />
- not focusing on re-structuring car industry as liberals wanted, but saving big car corporations with loans that would soon be re-paid (with a profit accruing to the government)<br />
- pushing a stimulus that would focus on tax cuts rather than tons of government programs seen during the depression like the WPA, CCC, etc (except for one program, Cash for Clunkers)<br />
- pushing for health care reform that would not be single payer or would have a robust public option as liberals wanted, but instead would focus on pitting private insurers against one another in a better market, containing costs, and by giving subsidies to those who cannot afford insurance to buy it on the private market rather than driving up costs for everyone else. And he&#8217;d do this by making deals with big business like hospitals groups and Big Pharma. He&#8217;d say we needed to do this not because people die without health care, but because the future deficits would increase and we need to control costs.</p>
<p>On top of that, this unnamed president would&#8230;<br />
- keep and expand war powers and the Patriot Act<br />
- ignore gay rights / &#8220;don&#8217;t ask, don&#8217;t tell&#8221;<br />
- leave climate change to the Senate<br />
- have a conservative education guy, with whom he&#8217;ll reportedly roll out a education plan based on conservative principles (charter schools, vouchers, etc) in 2010&#8230;</p>
<p>I would think that guy is a pretty effective Conservative president, not a socialist.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ryan</title>
		<link>http://katiekieffer.com/2009/10/29/leave-football-alone/comment-page-1/#comment-39</link>
		<dc:creator>Ryan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 05:16:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://katiekieffer.com/?p=437#comment-39</guid>
		<description>aguy, are you taking issue with her use of the term &#039;czar&#039;? Maybe I&#039;m misunderstanding you, but are you saying that Obama doesnt call them czars and therefore we shouldnt? I have no idea what he calls them, but since thats how the media refers to them, we&#039;re kind of stuck. We cant really make up our own name for them and expect to be understood. 

Anyway, now for a comment about the real topic of this article. The government has ZERO business getting involved in the BCS, or MLB steroids. (Congress held &#039;hearings&#039; on steroid use in baseball this past summer if I&#039;m not mistaken. What a misuse of thier time and taxpayer money, they should all be kicked out for gross negligence) What&#039;s next? Is Congress or Obama going to mandate the number of pitches a 12 year old can throw in a Little League game? They have no business being involved in this stuff!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>aguy, are you taking issue with her use of the term &#8216;czar&#8217;? Maybe I&#8217;m misunderstanding you, but are you saying that Obama doesnt call them czars and therefore we shouldnt? I have no idea what he calls them, but since thats how the media refers to them, we&#8217;re kind of stuck. We cant really make up our own name for them and expect to be understood. </p>
<p>Anyway, now for a comment about the real topic of this article. The government has ZERO business getting involved in the BCS, or MLB steroids. (Congress held &#8216;hearings&#8217; on steroid use in baseball this past summer if I&#8217;m not mistaken. What a misuse of thier time and taxpayer money, they should all be kicked out for gross negligence) What&#8217;s next? Is Congress or Obama going to mandate the number of pitches a 12 year old can throw in a Little League game? They have no business being involved in this stuff!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: aguy</title>
		<link>http://katiekieffer.com/2009/10/29/leave-football-alone/comment-page-1/#comment-38</link>
		<dc:creator>aguy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:20:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://katiekieffer.com/?p=437#comment-38</guid>
		<description>The czars thing gets old, because it&#039;s merely made up by the media. Wanna get rid of secretaries with actual power? That&#039;s a valid point. Wanna get rid of random advisers by spooking people with a made-up czar title? That&#039;s just disingenuous. Besides, is calling them czars supposed to be a Soviet Russia knock? Because that whole dictatorship means that there&#039;s only one &quot;czar!&quot; It just all makes no sense.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The czars thing gets old, because it&#8217;s merely made up by the media. Wanna get rid of secretaries with actual power? That&#8217;s a valid point. Wanna get rid of random advisers by spooking people with a made-up czar title? That&#8217;s just disingenuous. Besides, is calling them czars supposed to be a Soviet Russia knock? Because that whole dictatorship means that there&#8217;s only one &#8220;czar!&#8221; It just all makes no sense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gill0137</title>
		<link>http://katiekieffer.com/2009/10/29/leave-football-alone/comment-page-1/#comment-30</link>
		<dc:creator>gill0137</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:34:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://katiekieffer.com/?p=437#comment-30</guid>
		<description>As a serious sports fan, I still have time constraints - and the post season organization of sports has a big say on where I spend my time.  I watch almost every NFL and many college football games - namely because every game matters.  I also love basketball, but I rarely watch a game till late February, because - who cares if NC State will get the 11th seed or go to the NIT?  (Luckily for us Gophers, we are almost always part of that NCAA Tourney Cannon Fodder or NIT champion discussion).

All I need is to watch highlights, see the conference tourney&#039;s, and I&#039;m ready to fill out my bracket.  The rest of the college basketball season?  Pointless.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As a serious sports fan, I still have time constraints &#8211; and the post season organization of sports has a big say on where I spend my time.  I watch almost every NFL and many college football games &#8211; namely because every game matters.  I also love basketball, but I rarely watch a game till late February, because &#8211; who cares if NC State will get the 11th seed or go to the NIT?  (Luckily for us Gophers, we are almost always part of that NCAA Tourney Cannon Fodder or NIT champion discussion).</p>
<p>All I need is to watch highlights, see the conference tourney&#8217;s, and I&#8217;m ready to fill out my bracket.  The rest of the college basketball season?  Pointless.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

