not much new.  Didn't finish ANYTHING (unless we can count the 45 page Utah Law Review article on the 20th Amendment.)  Still plugging though with some ends in sight whereupon I can start some new stuff.

Most of my classes get my "fairness" lecture.  I really hate the phrase.  In the movie "Labrynth" the Goblin Kind, after listening to the young heroin whine "that's not fair" throughout the set up finally responds: "Makes me wonder about your basis for comparison"  I've alsways loved that.  I used it in raising "The Boy." He hated it but learned the lesson.

Sadly without a father in the picture the POTUS never learned this. As a libertarian I believe that there are dignities and rights which belong to each and every person. Therefore anything that is done, by the state or by individuals, which is injurious to those dignities or rights is fundamentally unfair. This is a natural rights conception of what fairness means. Laws must not only accomplish their desired aims, but they must do so in a way that does not trample upon the basic rights and dignities of all people. If a law aims to accomplish something good, is efficient at accomplishing that aim, but also tramples the rights of a small sub-group of individuals in the process, then it is an unfair law which should be repealed.

Over at Brietbart  they're asking

 

does Presidential Barack Obama understand the principles of fairness? Does he follow the natural rights or utilitarian understanding of fairness? The truth is, he seems to either not understand or fundamentally misunderstand what the term fairness really means, despite his love for trotting the word out in every major address of the American people.

President Obama's identification of what he thinks is “fair” shows us that that he does not have a philosophical underpinning for the word, via utilitarianism or natural rights. Instead, he is simply using the word to stoke the hearts and minds of beleaguered voters who feel wronged. Voters should feel wronged, they have every right to feel that way. But it is important to not only identify the source of unfairness, but to accurately resolve it. Barack Obama does not believe there are certain dignities and rights which cannot be negotiated—thus his targeting of the “rich” and his healthcare system's demands for purchased insurance. Neither does the President provide Bentham's “...greatest good for the greatest number.” He cannot be following the utilitarian understanding of justice either, since his policies result not in the greatest good for the greatest number, but rather in the greatest good for a very small number, while the masses suffer from them.

So if Obama is not really interested in establishing a more fair set of laws, then why does he use the word so much? The simple answer is obfuscation—he is using the term to his electoral benefit. When he asks the “wealthy” to “pay their fair share”, people should carefully consider what exactly he means by this. Fair is fair—but Obama either does not care what the word means, or does not care to know.

 

think the "New" Sparky should be doing male porn?

but I thought it would take longerthan this!

Obamacare Finds Its Cost Savings — Stop Paying Doctors

The Obama administration's argument for reducing reimbursements for providers who see Medicaid patients was made very succinctly in a California courtroom:

"There is no general mandate under Medicaid to reimburse providers for all or substantially all of their costs."

The administration makes its argument in a case challenging California's decision to reduce Medicaid reimbursements by 10 percent. Note that if you don't reimburse sellers of goods and services for "all or substantially all of their costs" you are presumptively asking them to lose money on the deal. Unsurprisingly to everybody except government officials, providers tend to stop providing under such circumstances, if only to avoid bankruptcy, or else because they're going through it.

The wheels are falling off MUCH faster than I thought, but then again, I didn't think the damned thing would pass to begin with!

what world history looks like to my students:

Justice Thomas is much reviled among the leftist cognoscenti.  I encounter it occasionally in lecture.  My first response is to direct folks to his concurring opinion in McDonald v Chicago.  My newest addition will be to cite the following

In a fascinating exchange recounted by the Atlantic, Justice Thomas tied editing and concise writing to the Court's duty to deliver the law in an accessible way:

What I tell my law clerks is that we write these so that they are accessible to regular people. That doesn't mean that there's no law in it. But there are simple ways to put important things in language that's accessible. As I say to them, the beauty, the genius is not to write a 5 cent idea in a ten dollar sentence. It's to put a ten dollar idea in a 5 cent sentence.

That's beauty. That's editing. That's writing.

The editing we do is for clarity and simplicity without losing meaning, and without adding things. You don't see a lot of double entendres, you don't see word play and cuteness. We're not there to win a literary award. We're there to write opinions that some busy person or somebody at their kitchen table can read and say, "I don't agree with a word he said, but I understand what he said."

Whatever may be said about Justice Thomas's ideology or jurisprudence, I cannot help but be struck by the eloquence and thoughtfulness of his approach.  Clarity in legal writing, particularly when you are a Supreme Court justice, serves an undeniable social good.

with all the Obama Sequester lunacy we've lost touch withe left wing hate ... temporarily forgotten, but not gone

Randi Rhodes: Republicans Are 'Meth Heads' Who Want to 'Tank Our Economy'

from DC:

 Day One, A.S., in what was once the capital city of a mighty empire. The Provisional Authority has set up Sequestervilles along the Mall, a labyrinth of clapboard and cardboard and canvas that will swallow you up if you aren’t careful.

from elsewhere around the country: “A few hours of fitful sleep, the sound of sirens and screams of the victims of the Barackolypse rending the night air… I saw their fires in the dark, savagery swiftly tearing away the thin veneer of civilization only government diversity programs provided.” - See more at: http://ricochet.com/#sthash.XbU7N6A7.dpuf

on the serious side:

Hope you're able to read this, what with the predicted apocalypse goin' on and all.  Here's a round up

Had lunch with a dear friend last week and we discussed, among other things, Danica Patrick taking the pole ... position at Daytona.  Shirley Muldowney was discussed but there was another name stuck in my head that I couldn't pull out.  Jay Nordlinger kicked it loose with this story:

Maybe someone could explain this to me: According to the AP account, James Franco, an actor, started the Daytona 500 in a peculiar way. He said, “Drivers . . . and Danica!!! . . . start your engines.” Danica is Danica Patrick, a female driver. But she’s a driver, right? So why “drivers and Danica”?

I admire the way the Indianapolis 500 handled it in 1977 -- a historic year. The traditional announcement is, “Gentlemen, start your engines.” But, in ’77, Janet Guthrie was among the drivers -- the first woman to race in the Indy 500. How to preserve the traditional announcement but include her?

The announcer said, “In company with the first lady ever to qualify at Indianapolis, gentlemen, start your engines.”