Been There, Done That

Here is the article I mentioned by the Princeton student about privilege.

We've already discussed this a bit, and the importance of the White House Correspondents Dinner is already overstated, but this problem (which I've noticed too) seems to reveal something about the presidency.  This is just a sampling, but I think for the most part it corroborates the article.

This person has some good points on how a marriage should work, though I'm not sure I can go with her to the point of adultery.  There are some people out there who have open marriages, and that's probably better than cheating (to the extent that the parties to the open marriage are genuinely okay with it), but it still doesn't seem right to me.

There's more evidence that fat is good for you.

This would be an ironic legacy of Obamacare.

Responses:

1. "Oh, I'm the progressive one around here" is responsible for so much mayhem in attempts at mutual understanding.

2. Take that, tiger moms everywhere!

3. Is that Alhambra?

4. I would go to pretty much all of those places right now.

5. I also would not read most of those.  I wonder whether the self-help book plays into the get-rich-quick impulse that many people have.

6. That's a good point.  The "First Amendment" argument isn't about the government but rather about the societal principle it represents.

7. Just wait until the primaries start.  If she runs, I'm curious to see how she's going to position herself politically.  In 2012, she seems to try to be the more moderate, more reasonable, and more seasoned alternative to Obama, but I guess it depends on who else runs.

8. I guess I don't have to watch now!

R2R:

1. There is no response to that.

R2R2R2R:

5. The quote you posted just above this (from my take on the Justice Thomas criticism) is apt here too.  Judges are supposed to follow the law, but the agency could have resolved this before the judge got involved.  I worry about situations where people in power abuse their power, even for good.  In my view, modern liberalism is essentially power abused for good.  The judge followed the law, and I would think that the law is right.  The problem was agency/prosecutorial discretion, and I think that the judge making an exception here to the clearly established law would be problematic from a legal perspective.  To be sure, the precedential value of such a decision would be nil, but I'm concerned with the perception of how the law does and should work.  I can't draw a substantive distinction between the judge who finds in favor of the defendant here and a judge who interprets a statute to favor a particular group, the language of the statute notwithstanding.

B