There he goes again: According to
But on the same day, he told another audience (at an event associated with their foundations), that he would probably stop accepting payment for his speeches if Clinton femme were elected president.
Let's get this straight, or rather crooked: Conflicts of interest are all right if your wife is only secretary of state and various foreign governments and corporations are eager to give her foundation(s) huge donations -- and her husband huge payments for just making a speech. But if she becomes president, you'll probably forgo all those speaking fees. Why? A fit of conscience? A politic decision? Or just a whim? Who knows?
It all fits into the same pattern, that is, no logical pattern at all. Earlier this year, the former president said he would go right on collecting those bountiful speaking fees while his wife ran for president. ("I gotta pay our bills.") Now he says he may stop taking the money if she's elected. What's the ethical difference, if any?
Beats me, as the way
Call him Mr.
But the president sees no problem with his Signature Achievement and continuing source of controversy and embarrassment. And if there is a problem, he says
Did I mention that Mr. Obama is a lawyer? And not only a lawyer but a professor of law. Which may be what it takes to so ignore the plain meaning of words, not to mention the separation of powers in our constitutional system.
Maybe the president is right about this case. Or maybe he's wrong. But some of us we would prefer to leave that judgment to, yes, the judges. Which is more than
His moment in the sun, or rather in the
IN TOPLESS BAR
The Artificial Black Woman: There's no telling by now many schools and libraries have banned
Never mind that the title character of the story is inanimate -- one of those lawn jockeys that used to be found in front yards and country estates -- but not even whitewashing their faces was enough to make them socially acceptable in this effete era. On the contrary, it made them stand out even more, like a confession that their original color had to be hidden.
But now, in these supposedly post-racial times, the president of an
Even better, why ask questions about race at all? As if somebody's "race" were anybody's business but his own. Granted, the collection of racial statistics may have some use in, say, determining how segregated or integrated or neither our schools or neighborhoods may be, but its usefulness diminishes daily as more and more school districts get out from under a court's jurisdiction and concentrate on educating their students regardless of race, color or ethnicity.
To sum up this latest little dust-up over race, whatever that term currently means, the lady in
Enough. Could we please stop this verbal merry-round long enough for some of us to get off? We're getting dizzy.