“Again, the only way a church can retain its religious character is if it can staff itself with those who share the same faith,” argued James Sensenbrenner, a Republican congressman close to the religious right. Fair enough. But does a Baptist charity need to exclude Jews from helping out in a homeless shelter, as Jerrold Nadler rightly asked? And does a Catholic charity have to exclude willing Methodists from mentoring youth? And how about gay Catholics or gay Baptists? The impulse behind the notion of the government removing obstacles from religious charities to get funding to help the needy is a good one. But, in a culture as diverse as this one, blurring politics and religion in this way is simply a recipe for further discord. We’ve already seen what difficulties even the Salvation Army will face finding a way to make all this work. More good institutions are going to go through the mire of controversy – a process that can only distract them from their real mission and tarnish the very reputations that help make them effective. These groups are not designed to be political lightning rods. But that’s exactly what president Bush’s ill-conceived, well-meant proposal will bring about. I hope the Senate puts some strong firewalls in the eventual bill to prevent my tax-dollars being used to fund groups that want to deny me my – and anyone else’s – civil rights. Or, better still, that this proposal meets the early death it richly deserves.
MAKES YOU APPRECIATE BABA WAWA: “She married Felix Frankfurter’s brilliant law clerk, Philip Graham, who took over running The Post, which her father purchased at a bankruptcy sale. Graham built the paper but became estranged from Kay. She had him committed to a mental hospital, and he was clearly intending divorce when she signed him out and took him for a weekend outing during which he was found shot. His death was ruled a suicide. Within 48 hours, she declared herself the publisher.” – editorial from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
DC POLICE HELL: A couple of emails from Washingtonians say more about this issue than I can:
“The investigatory skills [of the D.C. cops] aren’t the only things in need of serious improvement; their powers of simple observation could be better as well. On several occasions, I’ve watched the Metropolitan Police Department sit idly by as cars, within clear view of the MPD, have barreled through stoplights and well nigh killed people. And heaven help you if you’re the victim of a crime. Many of my friends have called the police after their cars have been broken into only to have the dispatcher refuse to send an officer out to the scene to investigate. But perhaps it is best that the MPD doesn’t visit the scene of a crime: on one occasion, a friend of mine had summoned the DC constabulary to his house after it had been burgled, and much of his wife’s jewelry stolen. Whatever jewelry was left by the burglars was stolen by two female police officers who responded to the call. So you’re pretty much damned if you call the MPD and damned if you don’t.”
“It was Sunday, March 18, 2001, approximately 5:45 p.m. I was walking up N Street in Dupont Circle towards 21st Street. I was on my usual visit to friends who live in a building on the corner. The car, a beat up Ford, backed into a driveway at the 2100 block of N blocking my path. The door opened, the passenger was holding a pistol which he pointed at me and said “Sir, if you run I will shoot you.” Well, long story short, I ran like hell and was able to get away. My friend watched the entire episode from his second floor apartment window and called 911. This all happened less than a block from The Newport where Chandra lived. The DC police arrived from the Second District. The officer told me that I had a 50/50 chance by running. However, no chance whatsoever if they forced me into the car and took me to an ATM. He said my body would more than likely never have been found.”
And what if, like Chandra, he’d left all his money at home?
The Dish 