<?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: Morning Links</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.theagitator.com/2008/12/31/morning-links-126/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.theagitator.com/2008/12/31/morning-links-126/</link>
	<description>It rankles me when somebody tries to tell somebody what to do.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:28:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: PolyTick</title>
		<link>http://www.theagitator.com/2008/12/31/morning-links-126/comment-page-1/#comment-226804</link>
		<dc:creator>PolyTick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Jan 2009 20:42:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theagitator.com/?p=11585#comment-226804</guid>
		<description>&gt;&gt;&gt;Always cracks me up when someone says being gay is a choice.&lt;&lt;&lt;

Okay.,   #37 got screwed up in the edit and lost a line.

Of course it is a choice.  At least that leaves a person with dignity and responsibility for their life.  Better that than leave the door open for the do-gooders who would use government power to impose their version of a *CURE*.  That becomes a real possibility when someone puts themselves in the category of someone with a genetic anomaly or defect.  ( I can&#039;t help being an alcoholic...  I wasn&#039;t ME man, it was the drugs.  I couldn&#039;t help it.  )</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt;&gt;&gt;Always cracks me up when someone says being gay is a choice.&lt;&lt;&lt;</p>
<p>Okay.,   #37 got screwed up in the edit and lost a line.</p>
<p>Of course it is a choice.  At least that leaves a person with dignity and responsibility for their life.  Better that than leave the door open for the do-gooders who would use government power to impose their version of a *CURE*.  That becomes a real possibility when someone puts themselves in the category of someone with a genetic anomaly or defect.  ( I can&#8217;t help being an alcoholic&#8230;  I wasn&#8217;t ME man, it was the drugs.  I couldn&#8217;t help it.  )</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PolyTick</title>
		<link>http://www.theagitator.com/2008/12/31/morning-links-126/comment-page-1/#comment-226802</link>
		<dc:creator>PolyTick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Jan 2009 20:38:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theagitator.com/?p=11585#comment-226802</guid>
		<description>&gt;&gt;&gt;Always cracks me up when someone says being gay is a choice.&lt;&lt;&gt;&gt;So does that mean you find yourself attracted to men but just CHOOSE not to indulge yourself?&lt;&lt;&lt;

I have LOTS of temptations for sin.  Most of the time I DO choose not to indulge.  The times I can&#039;t prove that I share in the faults of humanity.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt;&gt;&gt;Always cracks me up when someone says being gay is a choice.&lt;&lt;&gt;&gt;So does that mean you find yourself attracted to men but just CHOOSE not to indulge yourself?&lt;&lt;&lt;</p>
<p>I have LOTS of temptations for sin.  Most of the time I DO choose not to indulge.  The times I can&#8217;t prove that I share in the faults of humanity.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PolyTick</title>
		<link>http://www.theagitator.com/2008/12/31/morning-links-126/comment-page-1/#comment-226797</link>
		<dc:creator>PolyTick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Jan 2009 20:25:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theagitator.com/?p=11585#comment-226797</guid>
		<description>&gt;&gt;&gt;Why you would want to ridicule any two adults for making the choice to live with a person who they are physically and emotionally attracted to escapes me.

For the same reason I ridicule those of the Hip-Hop crowd that wear their trousers down to their knees and people at the country club with those AWFUL clothes and that clown who drives past my house every night at 11:00 with his car stereo going THUMP THUMP THUMP.

Just because you have a right to do something doesn&#039;t mean it is a good thing to do or even a right thing to do.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt;&gt;&gt;Why you would want to ridicule any two adults for making the choice to live with a person who they are physically and emotionally attracted to escapes me.</p>
<p>For the same reason I ridicule those of the Hip-Hop crowd that wear their trousers down to their knees and people at the country club with those AWFUL clothes and that clown who drives past my house every night at 11:00 with his car stereo going THUMP THUMP THUMP.</p>
<p>Just because you have a right to do something doesn&#8217;t mean it is a good thing to do or even a right thing to do.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ktc2</title>
		<link>http://www.theagitator.com/2008/12/31/morning-links-126/comment-page-1/#comment-225703</link>
		<dc:creator>ktc2</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2009 13:02:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theagitator.com/?p=11585#comment-225703</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s been replaced by the testicle tax.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s been replaced by the testicle tax.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JJH2</title>
		<link>http://www.theagitator.com/2008/12/31/morning-links-126/comment-page-1/#comment-225517</link>
		<dc:creator>JJH2</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2009 04:55:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theagitator.com/?p=11585#comment-225517</guid>
		<description>For the record, the modernization of alimony statutes has _followed_ the modernization of divorce laws (the no fault divorce). Alimony obligations arose from the belief that marriage was permanent bond that obligated one spouse to forever support the other (until replaced by remarriage). Contrary to popular belief, alimony is a lot harder to get now than it used to be, and divorces resulting in alimony are the exception rather than the rule (I&#039;ve seen estimates as low as 15% of divorces resulting in alimony obligations). And again, whereas alimony used to be generally permanent, in most states it is now generally temporary, barring something like an ex-spouse&#039;s permanent disability.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For the record, the modernization of alimony statutes has _followed_ the modernization of divorce laws (the no fault divorce). Alimony obligations arose from the belief that marriage was permanent bond that obligated one spouse to forever support the other (until replaced by remarriage). Contrary to popular belief, alimony is a lot harder to get now than it used to be, and divorces resulting in alimony are the exception rather than the rule (I&#8217;ve seen estimates as low as 15% of divorces resulting in alimony obligations). And again, whereas alimony used to be generally permanent, in most states it is now generally temporary, barring something like an ex-spouse&#8217;s permanent disability.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gavin</title>
		<link>http://www.theagitator.com/2008/12/31/morning-links-126/comment-page-1/#comment-225490</link>
		<dc:creator>Gavin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2009 03:36:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theagitator.com/?p=11585#comment-225490</guid>
		<description>I think what PolyTick means by &quot;it is a choice&quot; is that he has CHOSEN not to tell his wife that he has a &quot;wide stance&quot; in the mens room.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think what PolyTick means by &#8220;it is a choice&#8221; is that he has CHOSEN not to tell his wife that he has a &#8220;wide stance&#8221; in the mens room.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason</title>
		<link>http://www.theagitator.com/2008/12/31/morning-links-126/comment-page-1/#comment-225472</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2009 02:59:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theagitator.com/?p=11585#comment-225472</guid>
		<description>&quot;Mini-uprising brewing at the RNC&quot;
Better late than never.
http://www.rightklik.net/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Mini-uprising brewing at the RNC&#8221;<br />
Better late than never.<br />
<a href="http://www.rightklik.net/" rel="nofollow">http://www.rightklik.net/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ktc2</title>
		<link>http://www.theagitator.com/2008/12/31/morning-links-126/comment-page-1/#comment-225182</link>
		<dc:creator>ktc2</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2009 13:51:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theagitator.com/?p=11585#comment-225182</guid>
		<description>Pretty much Stephen.

Now it&#039;s a case of she can get out of her obligations in the marriage, but he damn well will continue to support her or go to jail.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pretty much Stephen.</p>
<p>Now it&#8217;s a case of she can get out of her obligations in the marriage, but he damn well will continue to support her or go to jail.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen</title>
		<link>http://www.theagitator.com/2008/12/31/morning-links-126/comment-page-1/#comment-225180</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2009 13:30:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theagitator.com/?p=11585#comment-225180</guid>
		<description>&quot;Why such a longing for the days when one spouse could financially cripple another by tying up the parties’ joint assets?&quot;

Uh.... aren&#039;t we back there now with the genders reversed?

Still just as unfair.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Why such a longing for the days when one spouse could financially cripple another by tying up the parties’ joint assets?&#8221;</p>
<p>Uh&#8230;. aren&#8217;t we back there now with the genders reversed?</p>
<p>Still just as unfair.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Les</title>
		<link>http://www.theagitator.com/2008/12/31/morning-links-126/comment-page-1/#comment-225003</link>
		<dc:creator>Les</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2009 01:05:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theagitator.com/?p=11585#comment-225003</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;BTW I respect the right of homosexuals to their lifestyle decisions (and it IS a choice). I retain the right to ridicule them for it.&lt;/i&gt;

And we retain the right to ridicule bigots like yourself for &lt;i&gt;your&lt;/i&gt; choice to be so profoundly ignorant of what it feels like to grow up having feelings that can result in being ostracized from your friends and community, beaten up, or worse.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>BTW I respect the right of homosexuals to their lifestyle decisions (and it IS a choice). I retain the right to ridicule them for it.</i></p>
<p>And we retain the right to ridicule bigots like yourself for <i>your</i> choice to be so profoundly ignorant of what it feels like to grow up having feelings that can result in being ostracized from your friends and community, beaten up, or worse.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JJH2</title>
		<link>http://www.theagitator.com/2008/12/31/morning-links-126/comment-page-1/#comment-224976</link>
		<dc:creator>JJH2</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:31:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theagitator.com/?p=11585#comment-224976</guid>
		<description>#27

What bothers me is that anyone thinks the &quot;choice vs. not a choice&quot; debate actually means anything. It&#039;s okay to be gay for the same reason it&#039;s okay to be straight: it&#039;s an amazing human experience and one of life&#039;s many virtues to love and be loved in return. The burden is always on those who criticize an important and valuable personal human experience to explain what&#039;s wrong with it. And if the best you can do is dust off the questionable authority of a couple of books supposedly written by a big magical sky fairy... well, not so much.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#27</p>
<p>What bothers me is that anyone thinks the &#8220;choice vs. not a choice&#8221; debate actually means anything. It&#8217;s okay to be gay for the same reason it&#8217;s okay to be straight: it&#8217;s an amazing human experience and one of life&#8217;s many virtues to love and be loved in return. The burden is always on those who criticize an important and valuable personal human experience to explain what&#8217;s wrong with it. And if the best you can do is dust off the questionable authority of a couple of books supposedly written by a big magical sky fairy&#8230; well, not so much.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ktc2</title>
		<link>http://www.theagitator.com/2008/12/31/morning-links-126/comment-page-1/#comment-224973</link>
		<dc:creator>ktc2</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:24:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theagitator.com/?p=11585#comment-224973</guid>
		<description>Always cracks me up when someone says being gay is a choice.

So does that mean you find yourself attracted to men but just CHOOSE not to indulge yourself?

or

Does it mean you could CHOOSE to be attracted to men and not women at will?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Always cracks me up when someone says being gay is a choice.</p>
<p>So does that mean you find yourself attracted to men but just CHOOSE not to indulge yourself?</p>
<p>or</p>
<p>Does it mean you could CHOOSE to be attracted to men and not women at will?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JJH2</title>
		<link>http://www.theagitator.com/2008/12/31/morning-links-126/comment-page-1/#comment-224972</link>
		<dc:creator>JJH2</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:24:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theagitator.com/?p=11585#comment-224972</guid>
		<description>#26

I absolutely agree with you that the State shouldn&#039;t be licensing marriages of any kind. The State should not be offering benefits or penalties to people for their living arrangements. But I can hardly find the energy to heap any _special_ ridicule on those engaged in same-sex relationships who want governmental recognition for their relationships, simply because that position is shared by an enormous segment of the general (heterosexual) population. (And, I will note,  that they come off far better than hetero-supremacists who want the government to ONLY offer special benefits for their living arrangements, which is approximately half the people in the US, apparently). 

On the other hand, while I agree you have the perfect right  use offensive and derogatory terms to refer to homosexuals, it still makes you a vile cretin of a human being. Why you would want to ridicule any two adults for making the choice to live with a person who they are physically and emotionally attracted to escapes me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#26</p>
<p>I absolutely agree with you that the State shouldn&#8217;t be licensing marriages of any kind. The State should not be offering benefits or penalties to people for their living arrangements. But I can hardly find the energy to heap any _special_ ridicule on those engaged in same-sex relationships who want governmental recognition for their relationships, simply because that position is shared by an enormous segment of the general (heterosexual) population. (And, I will note,  that they come off far better than hetero-supremacists who want the government to ONLY offer special benefits for their living arrangements, which is approximately half the people in the US, apparently). </p>
<p>On the other hand, while I agree you have the perfect right  use offensive and derogatory terms to refer to homosexuals, it still makes you a vile cretin of a human being. Why you would want to ridicule any two adults for making the choice to live with a person who they are physically and emotionally attracted to escapes me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PolyTick</title>
		<link>http://www.theagitator.com/2008/12/31/morning-links-126/comment-page-1/#comment-224965</link>
		<dc:creator>PolyTick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2008 22:50:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theagitator.com/?p=11585#comment-224965</guid>
		<description>Re: JJH2 comment #24

My comment about no-fault divorce was really intended only as a response to Radley&#039;s blaming *Gay Marriage* for everything.

OTOH, I live in one of those &quot;progressive&quot; marital property states.  Ex-Spouses still manage to financially cripple each other.  Only now it is so easy to do that it is literally dangerous to get married.  Why homosexuals want to be a part of that is unfathonable.

Other than making sure children are decently cared for, the state should not be in the *marriage* business.    The state should not be licensing homosexual marriage for the same reason it should not be licensing *ANY* marriage.  

I&#039;m tired of the carpet munchers and fudge packers begging for government endorsement.  I don&#039;t expect or want them to endorse my decisions.  Why should I be forced to pay to endorse theirs?

BTW I respect the right of homosexuals to their lifestyle decisions (and it IS a choice).   I retain the right to ridicule them for it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re: JJH2 comment #24</p>
<p>My comment about no-fault divorce was really intended only as a response to Radley&#8217;s blaming *Gay Marriage* for everything.</p>
<p>OTOH, I live in one of those &#8220;progressive&#8221; marital property states.  Ex-Spouses still manage to financially cripple each other.  Only now it is so easy to do that it is literally dangerous to get married.  Why homosexuals want to be a part of that is unfathonable.</p>
<p>Other than making sure children are decently cared for, the state should not be in the *marriage* business.    The state should not be licensing homosexual marriage for the same reason it should not be licensing *ANY* marriage.  </p>
<p>I&#8217;m tired of the carpet munchers and fudge packers begging for government endorsement.  I don&#8217;t expect or want them to endorse my decisions.  Why should I be forced to pay to endorse theirs?</p>
<p>BTW I respect the right of homosexuals to their lifestyle decisions (and it IS a choice).   I retain the right to ridicule them for it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JJH2</title>
		<link>http://www.theagitator.com/2008/12/31/morning-links-126/comment-page-1/#comment-224924</link>
		<dc:creator>JJH2</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2008 21:18:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theagitator.com/?p=11585#comment-224924</guid>
		<description>You really have to wonder about the people who vilify &quot;No Fault Divorces.&quot; I find it hard to believe there are really people out there who think it would be a good thing for the government to prevent people who no longer want to be together from disentangling their assets and going their separate ways. Or people who want two spouses who hate each other to retain the power to make critical medical decisions about each other. Even before No Fault Divorces, it&#039;s not as if the government could simply force two people to live together (and even if it could, that would be a pretty vile and evil thing to do). Why such a longing for the days when one spouse could financially cripple another by tying up the parties&#039;  joint assets? Was economic blackmail really the foundation for the golden age?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You really have to wonder about the people who vilify &#8220;No Fault Divorces.&#8221; I find it hard to believe there are really people out there who think it would be a good thing for the government to prevent people who no longer want to be together from disentangling their assets and going their separate ways. Or people who want two spouses who hate each other to retain the power to make critical medical decisions about each other. Even before No Fault Divorces, it&#8217;s not as if the government could simply force two people to live together (and even if it could, that would be a pretty vile and evil thing to do). Why such a longing for the days when one spouse could financially cripple another by tying up the parties&#8217;  joint assets? Was economic blackmail really the foundation for the golden age?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Greg C</title>
		<link>http://www.theagitator.com/2008/12/31/morning-links-126/comment-page-1/#comment-224911</link>
		<dc:creator>Greg C</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:26:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theagitator.com/?p=11585#comment-224911</guid>
		<description>The lesbian-izing law is wrong/stupid, but if the ex-husband doesn&#039;t object and allows the children there, does it make any difference? What I mean is the judge can say &quot; Lesbian lady you lose custody of your kids.&quot; But Daddy can turn around and say &quot; Kids, Daddy is still going to let you stay with Mommy and Mommy&#039;s special friend.&quot; What is the judge going to do? Not allow the Dad to have custody either? Throw the kid into foster care? The law is fucked but I guess I&#039;m beyond the point of looking to the law for &quot;solutions&quot; and don&#039;t see much reason for a legal custody arrangement as long as people can sort things out themselves.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The lesbian-izing law is wrong/stupid, but if the ex-husband doesn&#8217;t object and allows the children there, does it make any difference? What I mean is the judge can say &#8221; Lesbian lady you lose custody of your kids.&#8221; But Daddy can turn around and say &#8221; Kids, Daddy is still going to let you stay with Mommy and Mommy&#8217;s special friend.&#8221; What is the judge going to do? Not allow the Dad to have custody either? Throw the kid into foster care? The law is fucked but I guess I&#8217;m beyond the point of looking to the law for &#8220;solutions&#8221; and don&#8217;t see much reason for a legal custody arrangement as long as people can sort things out themselves.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lee</title>
		<link>http://www.theagitator.com/2008/12/31/morning-links-126/comment-page-1/#comment-224907</link>
		<dc:creator>Lee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:09:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theagitator.com/?p=11585#comment-224907</guid>
		<description>I spent the summer of 1987 in the Soviet Union. Part of it in Moscow and part traveling around the country. The ladies are MUCH better dressed than they were back then and look a longer younger than the ones I remember.

I even have a great story about being chased by one of these ladies. But I&#039;m not sure of the statute of limitations so I&#039;ll keep it to myself.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I spent the summer of 1987 in the Soviet Union. Part of it in Moscow and part traveling around the country. The ladies are MUCH better dressed than they were back then and look a longer younger than the ones I remember.</p>
<p>I even have a great story about being chased by one of these ladies. But I&#8217;m not sure of the statute of limitations so I&#8217;ll keep it to myself.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Verdon</title>
		<link>http://www.theagitator.com/2008/12/31/morning-links-126/comment-page-1/#comment-224903</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Verdon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2008 19:40:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theagitator.com/?p=11585#comment-224903</guid>
		<description>Regarding these disasters like supervolcanoes, planet killing asteroids, etc. the people researching such things know exactly which side their bread is buttered on.  Scare the shit out of the public, and watch the reserach grants role in.  The scarrier the scenario the better.  We even see it with the global warming community:  mass extinction, rising ocean levels, famine, war, disaster on an unprecedented scale!  Listen to me, fund me...so I can go out and buy and expensive car, house, and get tenure for the rest of my life.

Meh.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Regarding these disasters like supervolcanoes, planet killing asteroids, etc. the people researching such things know exactly which side their bread is buttered on.  Scare the shit out of the public, and watch the reserach grants role in.  The scarrier the scenario the better.  We even see it with the global warming community:  mass extinction, rising ocean levels, famine, war, disaster on an unprecedented scale!  Listen to me, fund me&#8230;so I can go out and buy and expensive car, house, and get tenure for the rest of my life.</p>
<p>Meh.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mattocracy</title>
		<link>http://www.theagitator.com/2008/12/31/morning-links-126/comment-page-1/#comment-224900</link>
		<dc:creator>Mattocracy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2008 19:37:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theagitator.com/?p=11585#comment-224900</guid>
		<description>...I mean their art...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8230;I mean their art&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mattocracy</title>
		<link>http://www.theagitator.com/2008/12/31/morning-links-126/comment-page-1/#comment-224898</link>
		<dc:creator>Mattocracy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2008 19:37:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theagitator.com/?p=11585#comment-224898</guid>
		<description>Russians really depress me.  As does there art.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Russians really depress me.  As does there art.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

