Hillary Clinton is under fire over a book about the Clinton Foundation donors and the Clintons speaking fees that hasn’t even come out yet. The author appears to be right of center and we see unfavorable things about the Clintons all the time. What’s different in this case is the play the book’s allegations are getting in the liberal press. The New York Times and the Washington Post among others have run highly damaging pieces on the money trail covered by the book and posing difficult questions for her campaign. These outlets would normally ignore or underplay a “conservative” authored book damaging to Democratic Party icons. What gives? Just good and fair journalism? Maybe, but what if this is part of a well thought out plan. We can almost see eyes rolling, another conspiracy theory. We normally would be right with you, but bear with us. Something else may be going on here.
We have to admit, we didn’t really follow all this photographers and bakers and gay wedding controversies as closely as we maybe should’ve. Silly us, we thought this was a personal service case or by extension personal servitude problem, but this somehow is bound up in religion and gay rights. When you get into an argument it may go off the rails if the wrong principles in invoked. A photographer refuses to render his personal photography service to a Gay wedding on religious grounds and loses under a state anti discrimination law. Take Gay and religious freedom out of the case entirely. A asks B to provide a good or service which requires a future meeting of the minds. B refuses by saying they are not a good fit. End of story. Professionals have done this forever. For whatever reason your heart isn’t in it and you can’t provide your best product or service you bow out. That protects both A & B from shoddy or worse outcome. Professionals have always had the right to not take on a client without providing any reason. “Just not a good fit” suffices. Judges most of whom were in private practice know this and should extend this logical choice to everyone.
Like most people, we took the News of the Justice Dept. on Ferguson Mo. to have two findings: I. The officer involved in the shooting that originally brought the Justice Dept.(DOJ) to town was totally exonerated and 2. The Town was a cesspool of racism. We took solace in some justice for the officer even as we realize his life is probably ruined and people in power were shown to be the owrst kind of raciists. After all even people on the right expressed their disapproval of the City Government and police Dept. We probably wouldn’t have ever questioned the second finding if we hadn’t finally read a Washington Post article we had saved, “The 12 Key Highlights from the DOJ’s Scathing Ferguson Report ” by Mark Berman and Wesley Lowery March 4. As we read, it became apparent that the key point of the Report,was that even though the Blacks made up only 67% of the town’s population they accounted for 93% of arrests makes an open and shut case of racism. It’s been a long time since any of us took statistics but the idea that you should always compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges and and you have to account for variables has stuck with us. The 67.4% figure came from the 2010 census but the crime figures are from 2012-14. You might think wouldn’t make a big difference but you would be wrong.