At Random, Again: 3/12/06

The Pope Hates Kids:

Dan Savage on the Church's latest anti-gay move:

Catholic Charities 42-member board voted unanimously in December to consider gay households for adoptions. So it wasn’t lay Catholics who had a problem with gay couples adopting children, but the bishops—all conservatives, all appointed by Rome, all out of touch.

And all hurting children.

. . .

And, finally, the ultimate irony: This is the Catholic Church in freaking Boston, epicenter of the sex-abuse scandal. The same bishops who refused to protect children from rampaging pedophile priests are now “protecting” children from qualified, screened, and thoroughly vetted adoptive parents who happen to be gay.

I really can't think of anything to add to that.

Link from Andrew Sullivan.

A Wingnut History Lesson:

Two quotes from Pam's House Blend that seem to go together:

"Martin Luther King once said 'nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity,'"

And from Judge Roy Moore:

"Legally, we not only have a right, we have a sworn duty to acknowledge God. … The founders of this country said God gives us rights and secures them for you. That was the principle upon which this country was founded."

Seems like a good match. The problem with Moore's statement is that its simply not true. But then, deliberate misrepresentation (known to us common folks as "lying") is apparently not a sin in the new Christianist theology. I suppose if he really believes it, that makes it true.

How To Succeed in Business Without Really Trying:

From World O'Crap, a good take on why the Iraq war is costing so much:

While working on a $21 million contract to safeguard Iraq's new currency as it was being distributed, Custer Battles set up shell companies through which to bill items needed for the contract so they could "inflate costs and create a mark-up in excess of that normally permitted under a cost-plus contract."

. . .

"This is a smashing victory for U.S. taxpayers and these whistle-blowers, though the Bush administration did nothing to help," said Alan M. Grayson, the attorney for the plaintiffs, Robert Isakson and William Baldwin. Under the federal False Claims Act, citizens can sue on behalf of the government and the Justice Department can then decide whether to join the suit, which it did not in the Custer Battles case.

. . .

Grayson said yesterday that there are "dozens" of other fraud cases about contracts in Iraq that remain sealed because the [Justice] department has not decided whether to join them or not.

After the slaps on the wrist handed to Halliburton, I can't say I'm surprised.

Musgrave Follow-Up:

From Josh Marshall. I think Marshall has some good questions:

Three other points about the spokeswoman's statement strike me as suspicious. One is the inherently engaged nature of the response. She doesn't state policy; she spins.

Second, she can't be identified? Military spokepersons in some contexts won't give their names. But this context? I find that odd.

Third, and most important, the spokesperson ducks the principal issue: appearing in uniform. It's the essence of the issue. And she dodges it.

After a couple of news days like this, I may just go out and drink. Or go to the zoo, which is cheaper.