Column/Legend
1 - Prefix  - L-Life,  H-Homosexual Behavior/Perversion, R-Religion/Legal Persecution/ACLU, E-Education, M-Media Bias, O-Other
2-7 - Yr, Mo, Dy
8 - L -Letter to Editor, C-Commentary, O-Op-Ed, M-Metro

Hotlink Index of this weeks's family values related news:  [Life]   [Homosexual Behavior/Perversion]   [Religion/Religious Persecution]   [Education]   [Media]   [Other]

LIFE

HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR/PERVERSION
H041126L   The gay agenda and its discontents
H041128     Origin of homosexuality unresolved despite study

RELIGION/RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION
R041121     Air Force rejects biblical e-mail tags
R041122      MINNESOTA   Convicted rapist given custody of girl
R041124     God forbid
R041124C   Gratitude and prayer
R041124L   Salvation Army helping others
R041125     Rumsfeld supports Scouts meeting on military bases
R041125L   Lincoln's Thanksgiving Day proclamation
R041125M Ehrlich disputes limit on religion
R041126     GOP sees chance to pass faith initiatives
R041126E  Chief Justice Scalia
R041126L  A day of thanksgiving proclaimed in Charlestown
R041126L  Washington declares a day for giving
R041127    Gay issues slowly erode Episcopal membership
R041127L  God, the ACLU and Boy Scouts

EDUCATION
E041121E    FORUM: School board challenged
E041124M   'Storm brewing' on sex-ed course
E041126C   Sex-ed by the book
E041127      Millions allotted to sex education

MEDIA
M041124     Dan Rather to retire as CBS News anchorman
M041125     Bye-bye, Dan
M041126C  Rather than right
M041126E  'Values voters' and the tube

OTHER
O041121     Hillary's Senate record
O041122     ARKANSAS
O041124     Teen births decline, report shows
O041127L   Democrats must moderate

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

By Robert Redding Jr.
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. said yesterday that the state does not bar teachers from addressing the religious aspects of the Thanksgiving holiday, taking issue with a recent report by the Capital News Service.
    "It simply was a misreport," Mr. Ehrlich said during an interview on WTOP Radio. "That is not the case. ... It is not the policy of the state of Maryland."
    The Capital News Service article — which The Washington Times ran on its front page on Tuesday — reported that public-school systems across Maryland have avoided teaching students that the Pilgrims repeatedly thanked God during their Thanksgiving celebration.
    The article also quoted school administrators from several counties who said they do not include religious matter in their curriculums. None of the persons quoted said the state had directed the schools to exclude the teaching of religion.
    However, Mr. Ehrlich criticized the article, saying it reported that the state has set the local school districts' curriculums.
    "I have checked with my education folks [and] that is not accurate at all," the Republican governor said. "Obviously, curric- ulum issues are local in nature. Local school boards have a lot of input in curriculum issues."
    The article has received national attention because of prominent mentions on CNN and conservative radio talk shows.
    Steve Crane, the Capital News Service's Washington bureau director, said he stands by the story.
    "It's correct, if you read the story. It is about the balancing act public schools have to perform when they teach about a holiday like Thanksgiving," Mr. Crane said. "I understand there has been a lot of chatter about it from people. I can't help how people perceive it."
    The news service reported that teaching children that Pilgrims were Puritan is as far as many school administrators will go to include religious topics ingo to include religious topics in their classes.
    "We teach about Thanksgiving from a purely historical perspective, not from a religious perspective," Charles Ridgell, St. Mary's County Public Schools curriculum and instruction director, was quoted as saying in the report.
    On Tuesday, Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele said the curriculum concerns were misplaced.
    "I don't understand the fear our public-school system or our public system has of God," Mr. Steele said during a meeting with editors and reporters at The Washington Times. "I think it is very well-documented and very well-defined in our culture that we are people who readily accept all faith traditions and don't have a problem with that."
    Mr. Ehrlich agreed yesterday.
    "Nowhere in the constitution is it written that the state has to be hostile to religion," he said.
    "The objective facts, the historical facts, with respect to the teaching about Thanksgiving, necessarily brings God into the history lesson," he added. "The fact of it is, it is what this holiday is all about. So to pretend you can take God out of a history lesson concerning Thanksgiving is an embarrassment."
    The Capital News Service is operated by the Philip Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland. The organization, which consists of graduate and undergraduate students, provides reports for 14 daily newspapers and wire services.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

E041124M   'Storm brewing' on sex-ed course
 

By Jon Ward
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Opponents and supporters of the proposed changes to the sex-education curriculum in Montgomery County are waging a battle over whether to allow school officials to include the topic of homosexuality.
    Parents have begun campaigns to either encourage or stop the county from implementing the changes, which would, among other things, identify same-sex couples as a type of family. Opponents also started a move to recall the Montgomery County Board of Education, which voted Nov. 9 to test the new curriculum in six schools next spring.
    "There is a storm brewing over this," said Michelle Turner, a parent of four public-school students and a member of the citizens advisory committee that recommended the changes. Mrs. Turner was one of the committee members who opposed the changes.
    About 75 parents angry about the changes showed up at a meeting Monday night at Damascus High School, where for more than two hours they questioned school officials about the new curriculum.
    Meanwhile, parents who support the changes sent hundreds of e-mails to the school board members urging them to move forward with the new curriculum. Most of the e-mails came from parents and residents in the southern part of the county, where a homosexual state delegate has urged parents to express their opposition to "the fantasy world of the religious right."
    The new sex-education curriculum, which the school board will vote on for countywide implementation next summer, will teach eighth- and 10th-grade students that "sexual orientation is not a choice" and will list "same-sex parents" as one of nine types of families.
    It also states as "fact" that "sex play with friends of the same gender is not uncommon during early adolescence," and that a person's "gender identity" is "a person's internal sense of knowing whether he or she is male or female."
    David Fishback, who heads the citizens advisory committee that designed the new curriculum and made final recommendations to the school board, indicated that the "sex play" statement likely will be deleted after outraged parents demanded answers from him at the meeting at Damascus High School.
    At the meeting, parents complained that they had not known about the proposed changes in advance. They also denounced Mr. Fishback's 27-member committee, saying it had an agenda to promote homosexuality.
    "It's not that we hate gays. It's not that we're all right-wing nuts," said Jim Creegan, a father of three Damascus High students, before the meeting. "They're crossing over to promotion."
    Parents discussed organizing a schoolwide opt-out of the new curriculum if it is implemented next fall. Parental permission is required for students to take portions of the curriculum.
    "We should have the right curriculum. We shouldn't have to opt our kids out," said Linda Johnson, of Potomac, whose child will begin kindergarten next year.
    Yesterday, Mrs. Johnson said she asked a friend who works for first lady Laura Bush to bring the curriculum changes to Mrs. Bush's attention. "[Mrs. Bush] is supposed to care about education," she said.
    A mother of a seventh-grade student, who did not want to be identified, said she did not understand how the schools could teach that homosexuality is genetic when science has not conclusively proven it.
    "In Montgomery County, things can be recalled," the mother said. "Don't think we're sitting here going 'poor us.' "
    Some parents who attended the meeting came from other parts of the county. They found out about the meeting through a Web site that was created to recall the school board. Many parents have since shifted their focus from recalling the board to stopping the changes.
    After the meeting, Mr. Fishback said the opinions expressed at that meeting do not represent mainstream thinking in the county. "This meeting itself gives me no pause," he said.
    The school board had received about 200 e-mails over two days supporting the curriculum changes.
    Delegate Richard S. Madaleno Jr., Kensington Democrat, who is homosexual, last week wrote a letter, urging parents who supported the curriculum to contact the school board.
    One e-mail, sent by Amy Moore, a lesbian mother of six-month-old twin girls, urged the board not to "succumb to the pressure of a loud, vocal, unthinking, uncaring, hateful, bigoted, minority wrapped in a cloak of self-righteousness, shooting Scripture like bullets at anyone who doesn't agree with their subjective and highly unreasoned opinions."
    • Amy Doolittle contributed to this report.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O041127L   Democrats must moderate
    House Democrats don't seem to have gotten the message from Election Day that a majority of voters sent them ("House GOP changes rule that could remove DeLay," Nation, Thursday). Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr., Tennessee Democrat, wonders "what in our message are people not getting," and your article says he asserts that "Democrats are right on the issues, but must better grasp the motives of voters in the South and Midwest and alter their message accordingly."
    Echoing this line of thought, Rep. Albert R. Wynn, Maryland Democrat, agrees that Democrats must learn how to "frame our message in a way that has appeal to rural voters, Southern voters and voters that have concern with moral values."
    This sounds like something straight from a Democratic National Committee press release. The problem, Messrs. Ford and Wynn, is not something in your message, it is your message — high taxes, timidity on defense and "Hollyweird" social values.
    The Democrats have lost five of the past seven presidential elections. With that in mind, I submit that a majority of the American people over more than a generation has concluded that Democrats are wrong on the issues.
    Questioning our motives? This sounds like a Freudian attempt to discern the election results. Granted, Freud would probably dispense better political advice than the likes of Bob Shrum and Donna Brazile, but altering their message is not going to help Democrats when their message is inherently flawed.
    Putting a frame on a pig does not a beauty make. Until the Democratic Party substantially moderates its positions on key issues, most Americans will continue to flee it at the altar.
 
    ROBERT BRANTLEY
    Alexandria
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R041127L   God, the ACLU and Boy Scouts
    It's time someone reminded the American Civil Liberties Union that America's motto is "In God we trust." Notwithstanding any settlement between Department of Defense bureaucrats and ACLU attorneys, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld should speak out and strongly affirm the Pentagon's support for the Boy Scouts of America ("Rumsfeld asked to reconsider ban on Boy Scouts," Metropolitan, Sunday), a national institution that promotes integrity, patriotism, individual responsibility, and yes, belief in God.
    This battle is not a church-state issue, as the Boy Scouts do not seek to promote any particular church above another. It's not even about religion per se. Merriam-Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines religion as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." Secularism is a religion to its adherents. Which means activist secularist organizations such as the ACLU are not really anti-religion so much as they're anti-God. This explains their maniacal efforts to remove the Ten Commandments from the public square, remove God from the Pledge of Allegiance, banish His name from the public schoolrooms and destroy the Boy Scouts.
    Because most Americans are pro-God, the ACLU and its cohorts have been unable to fully impose their anti-God agenda via the electoral process. So they've sidestepped democracy and made substantial inroads by cleverly "forum shopping" for sympathetic judges in America's courtrooms.
    It is particularly distressing, after an election in which traditional God-based values played such a large role, to learn that the Defense Department is kowtowing to the ACLU's demand to cease supporting the Boy Scouts. The role of the parties is clear: The Boy Scouts contribute immeasurably to America's moral fiber, and the ACLU seeks to shred it.
    It is entirely appropriate that Mr. Rumsfeld, as a representative of the executive branch and a former Eagle Scout, step into the breach and exert some leadership. Reflecting the recent electoral mandate, he should affirmatively convey the Department of Defense's wholehearted support for great American institutions (including the Boy Scouts) that help strengthen our nation, and aggressively resist groups such as the ACLU that feverishly work to break it down.
 
    SAMUEL R. LEWIS
    Oak Hill
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M041126E   'Values voters' and the tube
 

By Diana West

It may be a time of thanksgiving, but my dissatisfaction runs deep. The New York Times — which, like a frightened squid, keeps squirting gushers of ink at Bush voters — now declares that television remains "far more likely to keep pumping from the deep well of murder, mayhem and sexual transgression than seek diversion along the straight and narrow path." And it's the Bush voters' own hypocritical fault.
    Of course, my first question is, that's it? It's really got to be one or the other? Stinky well or sterile path, it's never quite enough to make me flick on the TV just for fun. Which is why I haven't seen "C.S.I." or "Desperate Housewives." Or, for that matter, the old "Touched by an Angel," the second of the two kinds of show that represent the lonely poles of contemporary cultural possibility. That doesn't mean I don't feel as though I've seen them — I know character names, plot lines, how the "Housewives" creator was all washed up, and, of course, how a towel-clad star-housewife jumped Ron Artest, setting off the infamous Pistons-Pacers-Fans conduct-malfunction. Or something.
    But back to the Times' front-page efforts. By adding exit poll numbers to Nielsen ratings, the newspaper fancies it has come up with Something Quite Profound. "Many Who Voted for 'Values' Still Like Their Television Sin," the newspaper headlined, arguing that "the supposed cultural divide is more like a cultural mind meld." Why? Because "Housewives" and "C.S.I." are both blue- and red-state hits. This is supposed to mean something: namely, that "values voters" — that ill-defined and slim slice of polling data that, the debunked story goes,alonere-elected George W. Bush — are watching sex- and violence-drenched "entertainment," and that this is a paradox. Why, the newspaperwonders, would all those "values voters" become no-values viewers?
    It's a faulty premise. Not only does it depend on a zero-sum vision of free will and personality, but it also implies that pulling the lever for "traditional" marriage or against abortion eliminates curiosity, boredom, bad taste and maybe even sin from the human condition.
    Even more dubious is the evidence. "In the greater Atlanta market, reaching more than two million households, 'Desperate Housewives' is the top-rated show," the newspaper reported. "Nearly 58 percent of the voters in those counties voted for President Bush." I'm no statistician, but it would seem that the 42 percent of Atlanta-area voters who didn't go for W. could also have boosted the smut-in-suburbia hit to the top of the ratings. After all, presidential voters had only two main choices, while television viewers choose from among dozens of programs. I'd imagine the fraction of the viewership that puts a TV show in first place couldn't even begin to budge the electoral college. Even the 27.4 percent of the voters around Salt Lake City who, the New York Times noted, didn't vote for Mr. Bush could probably hand "Housewives" its local fourth-place rating.
    But give the Times' its pet theory; let's say Bush voters are "Housewives" fans. What then? That, of course, makes Bush voters frauds and hypocrites. And there's nothing that enlivens a dispirited non-Bush voter more than "evidence" in the "newspaper of record" that Bush voters, particularly "values voters," are frauds and hypocrites.
    But there's more. "On the CBS show 'Joan of Arcadia,' God is a recurring character," the New York Times reports. "But he is not pulling in the viewers, and that goes for almost all states." Gee, that's too bad. Maybe he — He — needs new representation. Meanwhile, God's floppola has convinced the networks that viewers aren't looking for values on the tube after all. Otherwise, as Viacom's Leslie Moonves told the newspaper, "I guess we'd be seeing 'Joan of Arcadia' doing better than 'C.S.I.'"
    I marvel at the puny mind that sees in all of literature and film only either-or; that is, two main plot lines: "Joan of Arcadia," a show that features a 16-year-old girl's encounters with God in different guises, and "C.S.I.," a show that features forensics technicians' encounters with different wounds. So much for the human experience.
    Which is why I'm leaving the set off this and firing up the DVD-player to screen "Counsellor-at-Law," a 1934 gem directed by William Wyler with John Barrymore as a Jewish lawyer who has married into high society, encountering anti-Semitism, adultery, snappy dialogue, despair and, come to think of it, renewal, along the way. God may be out, gore may be in, but the DVD player is on.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H041126L   The gay agenda and its discontents
 
    In the first sentence of his op-ed "New gay political strategies" James Driscoll illuminates the central tenet of homosexual politics. Rather than seeing the defeat of homosexual attempts to redefine marriage for what it is, an unequivocal rejection of an effort to transform a sacred institution, Mr. Driscoll wonders how "smarter strategies, tactics and timing ... will get better results."
    The homosexual movement has always been about deceit; its leaders have always wondered how to market a behavior that most Americans (the numbers indicate) find morally reprehensible.
    Paradoxically, homosexual careerists such as Mr. Driscoll claim affinity with Christian orthodoxy by implying that Jesus himself would support their agenda by virtue of His view of equality. Yet homosexuals ignore large parts of the Christian Bible that find certain behaviors, homosexual sex for one, listed as abhorrent.
    According to the Christian worldview, rights are not created by the omnipotent state and bestowed ad hoc on the politically powerful and protected group de jour. They derive from an omnipotent God, and it is the purpose and duty of the Constitution to protect them. In other words, there is no constitutional right to marriage; there is only a constitutional safeguard against encroachments on that God-ordained institution and inalienable right.
    The rejection of same-sex "marriage" through the ballot initiatives of myriad states represents an immutable attitude among the majority of Mr. Driscoll's countrymen. Artificial inequalities, such as denying the status of "marriage" to people of the same sex, are not equivalent to legitimate inequality concerns within the scope of civil rights and do not deserve the protection or promotion of the state. No amount of marketing will change that reality.
 
    SEAN MCKEON
    Brattleboro, Vt.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R041125L   Lincoln's Thanksgiving Day proclamation

    The year that is drawing toward its close has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever-watchful providence of almighty God.
    In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign states to invite and provoke their aggressions, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere, except in the theater of military conflict; while that theater has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union.
    Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defense have not arrested the plow, the shuttle, or the ship; the ax has enlarged the boarders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege, and the battle-field, and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom.
    No human counsel hath devised, nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the most high God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.
    It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American people. I do, therefore, invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next as a day of thanksgiving and praise to our benificent Father who dwelleth in the heavens. And I recommend to them that, while offering up the ascriptions justly due to him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners, or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the almighty hand to heal the wounds of the nation, and to restore it, as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes, to the full employment and peace, harmony, tranquility and union.
    In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand, and cause the seal of the United States to be affixed.
    Done at the city of Washington, this third day of October, in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty three, and of the independence of the United States the eighty-eighth.
 
    ABRAHAM LINCOLN
    1863
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R041126L   A day of thanksgiving proclaimed in Charlestown

    The Holy God having by a long and Continual Series of his Afflective dispensations in and by the present Warr with the Heathen Natives of this land, written and brought to pass bitter things against his own Covenant people in this wilderness, yet so that we evidently discern that in the midst of his judgments he hath remembered mercy, having remembered his Footstool in the day of his sore displeasure against us for our sins, with many singular Intimations of his Fatherly Compassion, and regard; reserving many of our Towns from Desolation Threatened, and attempted by the Enemy, and giving us especially of late with many of our Confedrates many signal Advantages against them, without such Disadvantage to ourselves as formerly we have been sensible of, if it be the Lord's mercy that we are not consumed, It certainly bespeaks our positive Thankfulness, when our Enemies are in any measure disappointed or destroyed; and fearing the Lord should take notice under so many Intimations of his returning mercy, we should be found an Insensible people, as not standing before Him with Thanksgiving, as well as lading him with our Complaints in the time of pressing Afflictions:
    The Council has thought meet to appoint and set apart the 29th day of this instant June, as a day of Solemn Thanksgiving and praise to god for such his Goodness and Favour, many Particulars of which mercy might be Instances, but we doubt not those who are sensible of God's Afflictions, have been as diligent to espy him returning to us; and that the Lord may behold us as a People offering Praise and thereby glorifying Him; the Council doth commend it to the Respective Ministers, Elders and people of this Jurisdiction; Solemnly and seriously keep the same Beseeching that being perswaded by the mercies of God we may all, even this whole people offer up our bodies and souls as a living and acceptable Service unto God by Jesus Christ.
 
    GOVERNING COUNCIL OF CHARLESTOWN, MASS.
    June 20, 1676
 
    This proclamation is reproduced here in the same language, syntax and spelling as the original.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R041126L   Washington declares a day for giving

    Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the provisions of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor, and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint committee requested me to "recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many single favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."
    Now therefore do I recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the Service of that great and glorious Being, who is the benificent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be. That we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks, for His kind care and protection of the People of this country previous to their becoming a Nation, for the single and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of His providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war, for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed, for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted, of the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have to acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge and in general for all the great and various favours which He hath been pleased to confer upon us.
    And also that we may then unite in most humble offering our prayers and supplications to the Great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions, to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually, to render our national government a blessing to all people, by constantly being a government of wise, just and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed, to protect and guide all Sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace and concord. To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us, and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.
 
    GEORGE WASHINGTON
    1789
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R041126E   Chief Justice Scalia
 

By Kevin Ring
 

 
    Like all Americans, I wish nothing short of a full and speedy recovery for Chief Justice William Rehnquist. He has served his country with distinction. Even if his seemingly iron will can turn back thyroid cancer, Justice Rehnquist is a likely candidate for retirement. And while one or two other departures from the Supreme Court are expected during President Bush's second term, only Justice Rehnquist's opens the chief's chair.
    The president will get lots of advice concerning whom he should choose to succeed Justice Rehnquist. This president should trust his instincts. He knows the individual who is the best person for the job and said as much during the 2000 campaign. That individual already serves on the court. He is Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.
    If rated on substance and competence, Justice Scalia is the obvious choice. Since his 1986 appointment to the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia has been the embodiment of everything Mr. Bush says he seeks in a judicial nominee. Justice Scalia has advanced a judicial philosophy that instructs judges to follow the text of the law, not their personal view of what the law should be. He has argued for adherence to the original understanding of the Constitution so that our nation's charter has a fixed meaning and not one that morphs from one fad to the next.
    At the same time, Justice Scalia has proven that he is not a knee-jerk political conservative. His consistently applied methodology has led him to cast votes that the left has cheered. For example, Justice Scalia voted to strike down a federal law to prohibit burning of the American flag on First Amendment grounds. He strongly dissented from a decision hailed by Republican supporters of tort reform that an individual has a constitutional right to avoid paying "excessive" punitive damage awards. Finally, Justice Scalia rejected Mr. Bush's claim that he had the unilateral authority to hold citizens he deemed "enemy combatants." Justice Scalia wrote: "The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive." The ACLU could not have asked for more.
    So, why not nominate Justice Scalia? Clearly some in the administration fear the likely bloodbath that would become of his confirmation hearings. But a major fight over the direction of the court is coming no matter who the president nominates. As Senate Democrats have shown by filibustering Mr. Bush's lower-court nominees, they are willing to resort to extreme measures. This reality simply confirms the need for Mr. Bush to send into that battle the brightest, most articulate defender of the conservative judicial philosophy.
    Those who fear that Justice Scalia's conservatism will be a liability must have slept through the recent election. Every Democrat outside of New England and the Left Coast should think twice before affixing the "extremist" label to a justice whose voting record will appear commonsensical to the citizens of Red State Nation. Is Sen. Ben Nelson, Democrat from Nebraska, going to oppose Justice Scalia's elevation because Justice Scalia defended Nebraska's perfectly constitutional law prohibiting live-birth abortions? Is Sen. Evan Bayh, Indiana Democrat, going to rally the Democratic Caucus against Justice Scalia because the justice opted not to establish the legal foundation for constitutionalized gay marriage? And is incoming Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat from Nevada, going to turn on the man he called "the very articulate, brilliant Supreme Court justice" because Justice Scalia believes the all racially discriminatory laws are unconstitutional,? If so, let the bloodbath begin.
    There will be 14 Democrats in the Senate next year that supported Justice Scalia's nomination to the high court in 1986. None of these Democrats can honestly argue 19 years after his original appointment that Justice Scalia is not qualified to serve as chief justice. His views are nearly identical to those of the man he would replace, a man known before his elevation to chief as "the Court's Mr. Right" and "the Lone Ranger" for his courageous dissenting opinions. Sound familiar? In short, a Scalia-for-Rehnquist swap will not alter the ideological makeup of the Court.
    Mr. Bush seems committed to tackling some enormous policy challenges in his second term, including Social Security and tax reform. These ambitious goals demonstrate that the president is thinking about his legacy. If he wants that legacy to include a Supreme Court comprised of judges who know the difference between interpreting and writing the law, he should begin if Chief Justice Rehnquist retires — by following his instincts and nominating Justice Scalia to serve as the nation's 17th Chief Justice.
 
    Kevin Ring, a former counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee's Constitution, Federalism, and Property Rights Subcommittee, is the editor of the newly released "Scalia Dissents: Writings of the Supreme Court's Wittiest, Most Outspoken Justice."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R041124L   Salvation Army helping others

    The Christmas season is known as a time of giving. Unfortunately, retailers have become more focused on making money and increasing those crucial profits ("Target forbids charity's kettles," Business, Nov. 10).
    The love of money is the root of all evil. Christmas is not about money. It is about family and friends, about strangers smiling to one another as they pass by. It is about loving our neighbors, giving to the less fortunate and meeting the basic community needs around us. Christmas serves to remind us how we are to be all year.
    Target will no longer let the Salvation Army bell ringers stand outside its stores to raise money to help the needy. It says it gives $2 million weekly to charity. That is commendable, but upon checking out the community pages at www.target.com, one discovers that Target's philanthropy includes education, the arts, family violence prevention, a children's hospital and organizations such as the American Red Cross and the United Way. Though these are all good causes, the specific needs that the Salvation Army meets, especially during the Christmas season, are dreadfully overlooked.
    Target's explanation about its weekly giving to charity would be like John and Jane Doe saying, "We volunteer with the PTA; we volunteer to help clean a city park. We are in a club that has adopted a highway. Our daughter volunteers at the hospital. We did the Angel Tree thing. We do enough. We don't need to drop some change in the Salvation Army bucket when we're Christmas shopping." But, as a rule, John and Jane Doe, in spite of all that they already do, still take the time to stop and drop some change, or even some paper currency, into the Salvation Army bucket when they have the opportunity. They even take the time to say, "You're welcome, and Merry Christmas to you" when the Salvation Army volunteer thanks them for whatever they gave.
    Christmas isn't just about giving; it's about meeting needs. The Salvation Army meets needs that go overlooked by other charities. This year, let us all be challenged to pass by the retailers that choose not to allow the Salvation Army bell ringers to stand outside their doors. Let us all be challenged to remember what Christmas is truly about, and let's give generously, not just during this time of the year but all year.
 
    MICHAEL STONE
    Longview, Wash.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M041126C   Rather than right
 

By Cal Thomas

Dan Rather, who has announced his "retirement" next March from the anchor desk he has held for 24 years, is a dinosaur. After the last old news anchor leaves (Peter Jennings will be the final one sitting), Mr. Rather, Tom Brokaw and Mr. Jennings will be fossils. There will not be their like again.
    Mr. Rather earned his stripes and paid his dues during a career that has spanned four decades at CBS and as a wire-service reporter before that. He is a man who loves his country. Recall his emotional breakdown on the "Late Show With David Letterman" following September 11, 2001. Mr. Rather said he would go and fight the terrorists if the president asked him. Some thought his performance strange, even grandstanding. I thought he meant it.
    While Mr. Rather is 73 and could have been expected to retire soon (his predecessor, Walter Cronkite, was forced out at 65), the controversy over faked National Guard documents purporting to show George W. Bush failed to fulfill his military obligations appeared to give CBS management the excuse it needed to make a change. Mr. Rather, who helped bring down Richard Nixon, was himself brought down by a gross inaccuracy and a stonewalling reminiscent of the president he tormented.
    It doesn't matter who replaces Mr. Rather. Everyone at that level of broadcast journalism has been ideologically vetted. No conservative is allowed to ascend to the top of major news organizations. If you disagree, try naming one.
    Despite plummeting ratings and numerous surveys showing many people believe the major networks are biased, even hostile, on things conservatives care about, network executives refuse to acknowledge it and continue presenting the news through the filter of their leftist ideological worldview.
    Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center and a frequent critic of Mr. Rather, observed: "Mr. Rather's bias is part of an institutional problem throughout the national 'news' media — identified by former longtime CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg — which is the arrogant notion that their point of view is always accurate and always relevant to any story in which they choose to inject it."
    More proof that nothing changes at the networks is the appointment of Jonathan Klein as president of CNN. Mr. Klein was CBS News executive vice president. He praised the "60 Minutes" producer, Mary Mapes, who received and vouched for the forged National Guard documents from a well-known Bush-hater. Mr. Klein called Miss Mapes "absolutely peerless... in the profession. She is a crack journalist."
    Mr. Klein also blasted Internet bloggers for exposing the forged documents and CBS' error in standing behind them. He stereotyped a blogger as "a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas writing what he thinks." The bloggers did a better job than CBS news anchors and producers, who sit around in their expensive suits telling us what they think. Mr. Klein carries his biases from CBS to CNN.
    The "60 Minutes" curmudgeon, Andy Rooney, has been making a bigger fool of himself lately by calling conservative Christians uneducated and ignorant. When the sports commentator Jimmy "the Greek" Snyder disparaged blacks in 1988, Dan Rather aired video of the remarks, which led to Mr. Snyde being fired by CBS management. That Mr. Rooney holds his job after stereotyping and disparaging Christians sends a message of bias, even bigotry, to a substantial audience CBS has mostly lost and obviously does not care if it wins it back.
    CBS' eye logo is an apt metaphor for what ails the network. "There is none so blind as they that won't see," said Jonathan Swift. Note he didn't say "can't see," but "won't see."
    CBS is not blind, but it deliberately closes its eyes to the institutional bias substantial numbers of Americans can see quite clearly. Unlike the era in which anchors dominated the national news stage, people now have choices. Growing numbers are choosing cable, especially Fox News Channel.
    If CBS continues in denial — and it will — its evening news ratings, in third place for several years, will suffer further decline. It didn't have to be this way for Dan Rather or for the once great CBS. He should have learned from Richard Nixon that cover-up and stonewalling can come back to haunt you.
 
    Cal Thomas is a nationally syndicated columnist. and hosts "After Hours" on Fox News Channel Saturdays at 11 p.m. ET.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

E041126C   Sex-ed by the book
 

By Melissa Pardue

For many students around the country, textbooks aren't exactly a source of excitement. But for many Texas parents, they're the source of a brewing controversy. And the debate it has touched off could have repercussions nationwide.
    The controversy concerns the updating of health textbooks — in particular, the chapters on sex education.
    The Texas board of education held two hearings to guide its decision earlier this month, when board members ruled to replace health textbooks now in circulation with updated texts, beginning in school year 2005.
    The stakes are high. Texas is the country's second-largest textbook buyer (after California), and publishing companies often market the books Texas adopts to the other 49 states.
    The updated texts are required to include information on abstinence as well as medically accurate information on sex education. That means they must provide facts on the ineffectiveness of condoms and other contraception measurers in preventing sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and pregnancy. The current textbooks omit that abstinence is the only 100-percent effective prevention of STDs and pregnancy.
    Nationwide, 10 scientific studies prove abstinence education reduces teen sexual activity and dramatically decreases out-of-wedlock childbearing.
    Texas has been a leader in updating curriculum guidelines to reflect the effectiveness of the abstinence message. State officials now require high-school health texts to "analyze the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of barrier protection and other contraceptive methods." On Nov. 5, the board of education determined that the four health texts under consideration must meet this and other requirements. They also required that marriage be defined as not just between two "people" but between a man and woman.
    Of course, certain contraception-promotion advocates (such as Planned Parenthood) claim the texts lack information about condoms. They say abstinence education is dangerous and could lead to more pregnancies and STDs.
    They also claim the new textbooks wouldn't include any information on contraception. But that's misleading. Such information would be in the teacher's manuals and in separate student supplements, so teachers could raise sensitive topics such as contraception when appropriate.
    The danger of early sexual activity is much greater than the supposed dangers of abstinence education. It leads to higher child and maternal poverty, elevates STD risks and often leaves teenage girls depressed, even suicidal. It also contributes to adult marital failure.
    Most sexually active teens say they wish they had waited until they were older before engaging in sexual activity. Nearly two-thirds of sexually active teens say they regret their initial sexual activity.
    Unfortunately, nearly all government-funded comprehensive sex-ed courses — many misleadingly called "abstinence-plus" programs — refer little, if at all, to abstinence. They may mention it briefly, but it's often presented as something (wink, wink) kids in the "real world" will ignore.
    Far worse, though, is what some of these comprehensive sex education programs do contain: Explicit demonstrations of contraceptive use — especially condoms — and direct encouragement to experiment sexually. Such programs provide little or no encouragement whatsoever for teens to delay sexual activity until they're older.
    A recent Zogby poll found 3 in 4 parents disapprove or strongly disapprove of "abstinence-plus" curricula. About the same number say they want their children to get an authentic abstinence education. An overwhelming 91 percent say they want their teens taught sex is best when linked to love, intimacy and commitment, most likely in a faithful marriage.
    In general, abstinence education curricula provide valuable character education, relationship education, marriage preparedness, refusal skills, action-and-consequence education, parent-teen communication skills, and factual information on STDs and the ineffectiveness of condoms.
    Contrary to the claims of abstinence critics, most schools with an abstinence curriculum still teach the basics about contraception, but they teach it in a different class in order not to undermine the abstinence message. The vast majority of parents strongly support this approach.
    The Texas health education guidelines are a welcome change from the messages of promiscuity and irresponsibility our teenagers have received for the last three decades.
    Many educators and state legislators have finally decided to provide what parents clearly say they want.
    Now that those voices have been heard, next year's students will learn true abstinence is the best policy.
 
    Melissa Pardue is a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R041124C   Gratitude and prayer
 

By Austin Bay

Prayer is a tough subject.
    Thanksgiving shouldn't be.
    The old saw that there are no atheists in a foxhole isn't quite true. I've known two or three. These men were fine, reliable soldiers. One fellow in particular had a distinct, visceral disdain for religious faith, but all were thankful when a patrol or convoy returned to base with no one killed or wounded. Instead of thanking God or even thanking goodness, they chalked it up as "a good mission."
    For me, a good mission was great, but merely noting the success was never quite good enough.
    I found I prayed a great deal in Iraq, usually at night when I was trying to go to sleep. Prayer, however, wasn't always a nighttime exercise. One afternoon in July, while walking down a sun-blistered street in Baghdad, I prayed a silent, open-eyed prayer. I prayed that there were no snipers in the buildings rising above both sides of the road. For sure, it was a prayer predicated on fear, but nonetheless sincere. That sunlit street had the feel of a Psalmist's shadowed Valley of Death. There were no bullets — it was a darn good mission.
    In nightly prayer, I thanked God for making it through another day. I thanked God for the men and women I served with. I prayed for my wife and children. I also prayed for the people of Iraq, particularly the children I'd see in the streets of Baghdad.
    I tried to pray for our enemies. I made the attempt, but didn't do a good job. Slicing off a hostage's head on camera combines snuff flick and pagan human sacrifice. Forgive me, but my ability to pray for such an enemy is inadequate.
    Yes, prayer, faith, moral action in the world — tough subjects.
    I wore a cross and a mezuzah on my dog tag chain. Bishop George Packard, the Episcopal bishop for the Armed Forces, gave me the St. George's cross when I visited him in his New York office last March. After he gave me the cross, he held my hand and offered an arresting prayer: He thanked God for giving me the opportunity to serve. He also prayed for safe passage and safe return.
    Two Texas neighbors gave me the mezuzah. Inside the mezuzah, on a miniature scroll, was the Hebrew "Traveler's Prayer" (tefillat haderech ).
    "May it be Your will, Eternal one, Beloved of our ancestors, to lead in peace and direct our steps in peace, to guide us in peace to support us in peace and to bring us to our destination in life. Deliver us from the hands of our enemy and lurking foe, and from robbers and wild beasts on the journey, and from all kinds of calamities that may come to and afflict the world, and bestow blessing upon all our actions. Grant me grace, kindness and mercy in Your eyes and in the eyes of all who behold us. ... Hear the voice of my prayer for You hear everyone's prayer. Blessed are You Lord, who hears prayer."
    The mezuzah has a screw cap. Sweat slipped through the grooves and ate out the edge of the prayer's paper, Unroll it today, and it is like time eating on papyrus.
    God hears everyone's prayer, the prayer declares. I believe that, but given the experience of war I do not quite understand why I believe that.
    In his prayer, Bishop Packard compared a military tour to a dangerous journey. The Traveler's Prayer also recognizes the danger and terror as it asks God to guide us in peace. What a terrible paradox, but what a necessary prayer — to ask for God's peaceful guidance in a world of war.
    It will be the greatest thanksgiving when all of our servicemen and women return, and all of us live in genuine peace.
     Austin Bay is a syndicated columnist.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H041128    Origin of homosexuality unresolved despite study
 

By Cheryl Wetzstein
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Even presidents don't have an answer to questions about the origin of homosexuality.
    And it's no wonder. Science doesn't have a clear answer either.
    During the third presidential debate, moderator and CBS News correspondent Bob Schieffer asked the candidates, "Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?"
    "You know, Bob, I don't know. I just don't know," said President Bush, who then urged tolerance, respect and dignity for homosexuals.
    "We're all God's children," answered Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee. Referring to Mary Cheney, the lesbian daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney, Mr. Kerry said, "She would tell you that she's being... who she was born as. I think if you talk to anybody, it's not choice."
    So what does science say?
    Is homosexuality inborn? Is it caused by outside influences? And, regardless of where it comes from, can it be changed? The answer to all three questions is: yes and no.
    If lawmakers, judges, educators and the public are frustrated by such answers, it's because they've been bombarded all year by supporters and opponents of same-sex "marriage," who have boiled research down to their favorite sound bites.
    "Decades of research all point to the fact that sexual orientation is not a choice and that a person's sexual orientation cannot be changed," say homosexual rights groups such as Human Rights Campaign, which are flanked by the nation's premier medical, mental-health and therapy professional groups.
    "There is no scientific research indicating a biological or genetic cause for homosexuality," counters the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). Homosexuals who want to "can grow into their heterosexual potential" through "psychological therapy, spirituality and ex-gay support groups," adds NARTH, which has allies in traditional-values and religious groups.
    Research supports both camps, but is far more vague, nuanced and unsettled than either lets on.
    Science has been searching for the origins of homosexuality since at least the 1930s, when early endocrinologists were hoping to find a glandular explanation for homosexuality. In the early 1990s, science seemed on the verge of finding a "gay gene" or, as Mr. Kerry referred to, some inborn, biological basis for homosexuality, akin to eye color or height.
    However, none of the "gay gene" studies have panned out. Even a 2000 study of nearly 5,000 Australian twins showed that, despite having identical genes, only 20 percent of male homosexuals and 24 percent of female homosexuals had a homosexual twin. To many researchers, these findings strengthen the argument that homosexuality stems more from outside influences than inborn genetics.
    What are scientists studying today?
    A short list might include the effects of hormones in the womb on a child's sexuality.
    Studies have shown that a significant number — as much as 15 percent — of homosexual men have older brothers.
    It's possible, said University of Toronto psychology professor Ray Blanchard and others, that hormonal changes which occur in a mother's immune system after having several male children might affect a later-born son and somehow predispose him to homosexuality.
    If the odds of homosexuality are roughly 3 percent for first-born sons, it might go "to 4 percent for the second [son] to 5 percent for the third," Mr. Blanchard told Psychology Today magazine.
    "Although it has been well established that older brothers increase the odds of homosexuality in men, the route by which this occurs has not been resolved," noted Northwestern University professor J. Michael Bailey and colleagues in their 10-year review of biological research on human sexual orientation, published in 2002 by the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality.
    Meanwhile, Cornell University psychology professor Daryl J. Bem has theorized that biologically inherited temperament, played out through life experiences, determine sexual attraction.
    His "Exotic Becomes Erotic" theory says that people become "erotically attached" to those "from whom they felt different during childhood."
    Most boys find girls to be different, novel or "exotic," as Mr. Bem calls it. In a typical heterosexual scenario, girls' exotic stimuli produces nonsexual physical arousal in boys. If a boy thinks he is with a potential sexual partner, the physical arousal he feels can become an erotic attraction.
    However, if a boy grows up feeling "different" from other boys — which might happen to a boy with a gentle or artistic temperament — he may come to view other boys as different, novel or "exotic." This may explain how men develop erotic attachments to other men, says Mr. Bem, who invites more research into his theory.
    Finally, given a renewed interest in bisexuality and transgenderism, as well as lesbianism, more questions are being raised about the changeability or "plasticity" of sexuality.
    "Lesbian women consistently report more heterosexual experiences than gay men do, and, after self-identifying as a lesbian, report some degree of opposite-sex attraction," Mr. Bailey and his colleagues wrote in their 2002 review. "The relationship between sexual plasticity and sexual orientation in women has yet to be explored."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

E041127   Millions allotted to sex education
 

By Cheryl Wetzstein
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

President Bush's re-election already has resulted in more funds for one of the election's pivotal "moral values" issues — abstinence education.
    Congress last weekend included more than $131 million for abstinence programs in its $388 billion spending bill.
    This represents an increase of $30 million for programs that teach middle- and high-school youths that sexual abstinence until marriage is the best choice.
    The new funding is far less than the $100 million Mr. Bush requested, but it marks a "record level of funding," said leaders of the National Abstinence Clearinghouse in Sioux Falls, S.D.
    Public debates about the merits of teaching abstinence-until-marriage versus abstinence-plus-contraception are likely to continue: A national evaluation of abstinence-until-marriage programs has been delayed, with a final report not expected until 2006, said a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
    The Bush administration has fueled this debate by steadily increasing federal funds for abstinence education, which has been outmatched for decades by funding for family planning, HIV/AIDS and other sex education that primarily teaches about birth control, condoms and disease prevention.
    "We have said that funding for abstinence education ... ought to be on at least equal footing with other [sex] education programs," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Nov. 17 at the nomination of White House domestic policy adviser Margaret Spellings as Department of Education secretary.
    "The president is an advocate of abstinence-education programs because he wants to focus on what works," Mr. McClellan said, noting that Mrs. Spellings supports abstinence-based education in schools.
    William Smith of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States challenged the idea that abstinence education has been "proven effective."
    "No sound study exists that shows that these programs have any long-term beneficial impact on young people's sexual behavior," Mr. Smith said. "The fact the president's nominee for the nation's top teacher supports these programs is particularly disturbing."
    When it comes to children's sexual behavior, the primary message the nation should give is abstinence until marriage, said Wade F. Horn, HHS assistant secretary for children and families.
    "We don't need a study, if I remember my biology correctly, to show us that those people who are sexually abstinent have a zero chance of becoming pregnant or getting someone pregnant or contracting a sexually transmitted disease," said Mr. Horn.
    Meanwhile, opponents of abstinence-only education continue to warn against pouring money into unproven programs. Advocates for Youth (AFY), for instance, recently released a 10-state study saying that after five years and $45.5 million in federal funding, abstinence programs have resulted in "few short-term benefits and no lasting positive impact."
    In Maryland, for instance, the state's abstinence-education program looked at data from 1998 to 2002 from pilot programs involving 400 students.
    In pre- and post-test surveys about abstinence, there was "no significant change" in the percentage of students who said they would stick to a decision not to have sex, according to the AFY report.
    The AFY report was "biased" because it included programs that "do not follow the federal definition of abstinence education, and therefore should have never been funded," said Leslee J. Unruh, president of the National Abstinence Clearinghouse.
    •This article is based in part on wire-service reports.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R041127   Gay issues slowly erode Episcopal membership
 

By Julia Duin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Episcopalians aren't making a mass exodus from their church, but dioceses across the country are doing a slow bleed as members realize that a much-anticipated report released six weeks ago has no teeth and that the denomination's ordination of a homosexual bishop will go unpunished.
    The Windsor Report, which sought to resolve the Anglican Communion's crisis over authority and homosexuality, criticizes same-sex blessings in U.S. and Canadian churches and the ordination last year of Bishop V. Gene Robinson.
     But the report also reprimands Third World bishops who have crossed diocesean lines to help marooned conservative parishes.
    Within a few days of the report's release Oct. 18 in London, two Episcopal parishes in Washington state joined the Anglican Diocese of Recife, Brazil.
    Other Episcopalians have departed for the Anglican Mission in America, a breakaway group allied with the Anglican bishop of Rwanda. This makes it part of the 70 million-member worldwide Anglican Communion, bypassing the communion's U.S. affiliate, the 2.3 million-member Episcopal Church.
    The Anglican Mission in America (AMIA), based in Pawleys Island, S.C., has created 22 congregations since January. Ten of them include Episcopal clergy who have fled the denomination, along with a "substantial" number of Episcopal congregants, according to AMIA Executive Director Tim Smith.
    "We're busy," Mr. Smith said. "Phone calls, letters, e-mails, personal visits."
     In its almost five-year history, AMIA has consecrated five new bishops and amassed 72 churches encompassing 15,000 members. Colorado has the most congregations at 12, followed by Florida with nine.
    AMIA spokesman Jay Greener says Episcopalians seem to be "in shock."
    "There was an expectation there'd be more in that report," Mr. Greener said. "People are saying they can't take it anymore."
    Other Episcopalians await a showdown at the February meeting of the world's Anglican archbishops in Ulster, Northern Ireland, where they are expected to debate the merits of the Windsor Report.
    A conference of 250 African Anglican bishops, which met Oct. 25-Nov. 1 in Nigeria, called on the U.S. Episcopal Church to "repent" for consecrating Bishop Robinson, a divorced man living with a male lover. It also said the Anglican Church of Canada should do likewise for allowing same-sex "marriages" on church property.
    Both sides acknowledge that that scenario is unlikely. The Episcopal Church, which on Oct. 1 started an evangelistic Web site, www.comeandgrow.org, and this week premiered a Thanksgiving telecast from the Washington Cathedral on CNN airport channels, seems determined to weather the crisis.
    And the Anglican Diocese of Niagara voted 213-106 two weeks ago to approve same-sex blessings in its churches although its bishop, the Rt. Rev. Ralph Spence, negated the vote by withholding his consent.
    The Rev. Martyn Minns, rector of Truro Episcopal Church in Fairfax, who was in Lagos for the October meeting, said the Africans will not back down.
    "People like [Ugandan Bishop] Henry Orombi and [Nigerian Archbishop] Peter Akinola are resolute," he said, in defying the Windsor Report. "In a way, Akinola is a moderate compared with some of those in his House of Bishops."
    Truro Episcopal Church, which has lost 50 families over the 15-month-long crisis among Episcopalians, is active in the Anglican Communion Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes. Crucial to the network is the aid of Third World bishops who are offering oversight to dissenting Episcopal congregations in liberal dioceses.
    The Diocese of Maryland is one. In Catonsville, the Rev. Steven R. Randall, pastor of the new Emmaus Anglican Church, was the first Episcopal priest in the country to leave the denomination after Bishop Robinson's consecration was approved.
    Now meeting in the gym of Bishop Cummins Memorial Church in Catonsville, Emmaus is looking for an 8,000-square-foot space for the 120 to 130 believers from five counties who attend Sunday services.
    Three-quarters of Mr. Randall's former congregation at St. Timothy's Episcopal Church left after the Robinson vote; half of whom joined Emmaus. The others scattered, mostly to nondenominational churches.
    "I'm pretty much ignored" by other Episcopal priests, even conservative ones, Mr. Randall said. "It's awkward for them. My leaving weakens the position of those who are staying.
    "But you can't plant churches and preach the Gospel of God when you are getting continually sidelined by the false gospel of the Episcopal Church. I'm not losing sleep over this now."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L041126   Liberals vow to fight Gonzales nomination
 

By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

A coalition of liberal groups is vowing to challenge the nomination of White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales as U.S. attorney general over his role in policies governing the treatment of detainees in Iraq and in the war on terrorism.
    Led by the People for the American Way, which helped organize more than 200 groups to oppose the 2000 nomination of Attorney General John Ashcroft, the coalition is expected to push Senate Judiciary Committee members to question Mr. Gonzales on the development of policies that led to abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the rights and treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
    "Alberto Gonzales' role in the development of policies that ultimately led to the Abu Ghraib prison scandals in Iraq is deeply troubling. Few images have done more to scar our nation's image at home and abroad than the terrible pictures of prisoners being abused in Iraq," People For the American Way President Ralph G. Neas said.
    "There are many questions that must still be answered regarding the rights and treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. We expect senators to question him closely on these matters," Mr. Neas said.
    Several Judiciary Committee members, both Republicans and Democrats, have announced their support for Mr. Gonzales, and his confirmation is expected.
    But coalition members who blocked several of President Bush's judicial nominations will challenge Mr. Gonzales to gauge how much influence they will have over the confirmation process in the next Congress.
    Mr. Bush nominated Mr. Gonzales on Nov. 10 to the post, which would make him the administration's most prominent Hispanic. The president said his "sharp intellect and sound judgment" helped shape the war on terrorism while "protecting the rights of all Americans."
    If confirmed, Mr. Gonzales, 49, would become the first Hispanic to hold the country's top law-enforcement position.
    The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which opposed Mr. Ashcroft's nomination, said it was taking "no official position" on the Gonzales nomination, but has called for a full and thorough Senate confirmation process that scrutinizes his positions on key civil liberties and human rights issues.
    The ACLU said "particular attention" also should be devoted to exploring Mr. Gonzales' role in enforcing the USA Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay detentions and the designation of U.S. citizens as enemy combatants.
    In a January 2002 legal opinion, the White House counsel's office said Mr. Bush, as commander in chief, was not restricted by prohibitions on torture of prisoners as defined by U.S. law and under international treaties such as the Geneva Conventions — owing to the president's "complete authority over the conduct of war."
    "The war against terrorism is a new kind of war, a new paradigm that renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions," the memo said.
    The Washington-based Center for American Progress said Mr. Gonzales "contributed to a climate that placed U.S. soldiers at risk and brought the American system of justice into disrepute ... by condoning the use of torture, seeking to evade U.S. obligations under the Geneva Conventions and disregarding the constitutional rights of detainees."
    The center, headed by Clinton administration official John Podesta, said the Senate should insist on "a full accounting of his role in these critical decisions."
    The National Lawyers Guild also has accused Mr. Gonzales of being "unfit to serve as the head of the Justice Department" and called on Democrats to filibuster if necessary to block the nomination.
    Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican, has said he would like to have confirmation hearings for Mr. Gonzales next month, but no date has been set.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R041126   GOP sees chance to pass faith initiatives
 

By Amy Fagan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

With Minority Leader Tom Daschle leaving the Senate and Republican gains in both chambers of Congress, supporters of President Bush's faith-based initiative hope to quickly pass into law next year legislation providing tax incentives for donations to faith-based and other charities.
    "We plan to move it as one of the first things," said Sen. Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania Republican and sponsor of the measure.
    Mr. Santorum's narrow, stripped-down version of the president's proposal passed the House and Senate this session, but the Senate was unable to move it to conference.
    Mr. Bush's broader proposal passed the House in 2001, but stalled in the Senate because it expanded so-called charitable choice to an array of government programs. Charitable choice applies to some federal grant programs and allows faith-based groups to receive federal funds while maintaining their religious nature, including hiring only people of their same faith.
    Some House conservatives now want to return to the broader bill.
    "We want to come back to it," said Rep. Mike Pence, Indiana Republican and incoming chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee. "We've got a new Senate and a conservative mandate from millions of voters who said 'yes' to traditional values."
    Mr. Pence sees an "untapped reservoir" of support for Mr. Bush's original plan among House Republicans.
    Mr. Santorum, however, said he is focused on getting his narrower measure into law.
    House and Senate Republican aides agreed that the plan is to pass the narrow charitable-giving bill and then try to expand charitable choice, although strategy discussions in the next few months could revive momentum for a broad measure.
    "We'll have to evaluate ... whether the support and votes are there," said a House Republican aide.
    Mr. Santorum's bill and the similar House version would allow taxpayers to deduct charitable contributions even if they don't itemize. The measures also would provide incentives for farmers, restaurants and businesses to donate food for the hungry; allow tax-free donations from individual retirement accounts to charities; and expand government-matched savings accounts for low-income workers.
    Supporters will try for quick passage in the next Congress. In the 108th Congress, the Senate was unable to overcome Democratic objections and initiate the House-Senate conference to produce a final version. Republicans blamed Mr. Daschle, the South Dakota Democrat who was defeated on Election Day.
    Sen. Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, will be the new minority leader. He said Friday that he likes the bill and denied that Democrats have been the roadblock.
    "We tried to work with the majority to get that through; there's no reason it's not law," he said.
    Mr. Reid said he couldn't comment on how Democrats would react to a faith-based bill that is broader than Mr. Santorum's. "We'll have to look at what they give us, specifically," he said.
    But Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island and other Democrats will try to limit charitable choice and make sure faith-based groups are not allowed to proselytize with federal dollars.
    Mr. Bush's initiative aims to improve the government's attitude toward faith-based groups that want to use federal funds. Critics say it blurs the line between church and state.
    Since his broad proposal stalled in Congress, Mr. Bush has established faith-based offices in 10 agencies, created a technical assistance fund for small social-service charities and issued an executive order prompting agencies to discourage discrimination against faith-based groups when distributing federal funds.
    "We'll build on the successful model of the first term by continuing to do what we can through executive order," said White House spokesman Trent Duffy.
    He said supporters of the faith-based initiative now will try to shift the debate from church versus state to helping the needy.
    "That's what this has always been about, and that's what this will continue to be about," Mr. Duffy said. "The president made it very clear we don't want to fund religion. But at the same time, you shouldn't have to take down the Star of David or the cross to obtain federal funds to help the needy."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R041125   Rumsfeld supports Scouts meeting on military bases
 

By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has entered the fray over the Defense Department's relationship with the Boy Scouts of America, endorsing in a letter to the House speaker continued support of Scout troops who meet on military bases.
    At least three conservative Republican lawmakers have sent letters to Mr. Rumsfeld protesting a Bush administration partial legal settlement of a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union's Illinois chapter. The Justice Department, representing the Pentagon, agreed to warn military commanders not to officially sponsor Scout units.
    The ACLU contends the government sponsorship violates religious freedoms since the Boy Scouts require members to pledge allegiance to God.
    Irate over what they consider caving in to the liberal ACLU, the lawmakers want Mr. Rumsfeld to overturn the settlement.
    "Without a shot being fired, Department of Defense lawyers apparently abandoned the Boy Scouts, threw up their hands and surrendered to the ACLU's latest radical attack on the cherished heritage and values of this nation," wrote Rep. J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Republican, in a letter to Mr. Rumsfeld.
    The secretary responded to lawmakers in a Nov. 19 letter to House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican. Mr. Rumsfeld, an Eagle Scout, said he supported a House resolution that promises continued military support.
    "The Department of Defense takes great pride in its longstanding and rich tradition of support to the Boy Scouts of America," said the letter, a copy of which was obtained yesterday by The Washington Times. "Accordingly, the Department of Defense supports the proposed concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the Department of Defense should continue to exercise its statutory authority to support the activities of the Boy Scouts of America, in particular the periodic national and world Boy Scout Jamborees."
    The pledge to support jamborees is important because the ACLU's 1999 lawsuit, in which the partial settlement was reached Nov. 15, also wants the federal court to ban the Pentagon from spending taxpayer money on Scout events. The Justice Department is fighting that demand. A ruling is pending.
    The Pentagon spends about $2 million to support jamborees, including one at Fort A.P. Hill, an Army base in Virginia, which attracts about 40,000 troop members every four years.
    Mr. Hayworth and other lawmakers have asked Mr. Rumsfeld to work to overturn the Justice Department settlement. But Mr. Rumsfeld made no such pledge in his letter to the House speaker. Previously, a spokesman had said the defense secretary was unaware of the pending settlement.
    The military has maintained a long-standing relationship with Boy Scouts, an organization chartered by the federal government. The partial settlement will end military bases' official sponsorship of about 400 units. Boy Scouts spokesman Bob Bork says those troops are finding new sponsors, which include the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars.
    The American Legion also weighed in on the ACLU court victory. National Commander Thomas P. Cadmus sent a letter to Mr. Rumsfeld asking him to "stand up for scouts."
    "For certain, outrage over this and other actions taken against the Boy Scouts of America in recent times is, today, reverberating through the ranks of the American Legion," Mr. Cadmus wrote. "On behalf of the 2.7 million men and women of the Legion, I am asking you to hold the line of assault on the Scouts. Stand up to the ACLU."
    The ACLU's counterargument is that the Pentagon should not be sponsoring an organization that requires an oath to God.
    "If our Constitution promise of religious liberty is to be a reality, the government should not be administering religious oaths or discriminating based upon religious beliefs," said Adam Schwartz of the ACLU of Illinois. "This agreement removes the Pentagon from direct sponsorship of Scout troops that engage in religious discrimination."
    Scout officials say they can live with the partial settlement but worry the ACLU will convince the federal courts to sever all taxpayer support for Scout activities.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M041125   Bye-bye, Dan

    "CBS anchor Dan Rather's discharge under less than honorable circumstances is the icing on the 2004 election cake for a lot of Republicans who see him as the icon of liberal media bias," the New York Post's Deborah Orin writes.
    "It's also a dramatic sign of the Internet-fueled revolution that means the old 'mainstream media,' such as CBS and the New York Times, can no longer set the terms of political debate as it did just a few years ago. CBS tried, but failed, to dismiss challenges to Democrat John Kerry's Vietnam War service from the anti-Kerry Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The Internet helped the group make its case," Miss Orin said.
    "Now Rather is going out in ignominy because of his '60 Minutes' report using fabricated memos from a discredited source to question President Bush's National Guard service."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R041124   God forbid

    In recent days, a Republican congresswoman has blasted the Pentagon's "shortsighted" decision to curtail its support of the Boy Scouts of America.
    Now, Chris Connelly, chief of staff to Rep. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, tells Inside the Beltway the congresswoman could introduce a bill as early as today related to the Pentagon's decision.
    Earlier, Mrs. Davis sent a letter to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld asking that the Pentagon reconsider its decision to curtail official support for the Scouts. As of press time yesterday, she had not received a sufficient reply.
    The Pentagon — which has enjoyed a long relationship with scouting and has enlisted many a Boy Scout in its ranks — curtailed its official support after being targeted by an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit. The ACLU complained that the Boy Scouts require their members to believe in God.
    "The Department of Defense should not be manipulated by an extreme group bent on pursuing a political agenda," says Mrs. Davis, who notes that over the last 30 years the Pentagon has hosted Scouts on its installations, provided equipment, transportation and other services for both national and international events, such as the Boy Scout Jamboree.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O041124   Teen births decline, report shows
 

By Cheryl Wetzstein
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

A new federal report on birth statistics shows a "thrilling" 12-year decline in teen births — and a "very alarming" jump in the portion of births that occur out of wedlock.
    The report, "Births: Preliminary Data For 2003," released yesterday shows "two competing trends," said Wade F. Horn, assistant secretary for children and families at the Department of Health and Human Services.
    "The report shows that we are doing a much better job at convincing young people that it's not a good idea to have, or father, a child while you're a teenager," said Mr. Horn, referring to the 3 percent drop in teen births from 2002 to 2003.
    At the same time, he said, the rise in giving birth to children out of wedlock to 34.6 percent shows "that we still need to do a better job at helping them understand that there are advantages, both to waiting until you're older to become a parent and waiting until you're married."
    Other highlights from the new birth report, released by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), are a marked 6 percent increase in births by Caesarean-section delivery and increases in births among older mothers.
    In 2003, for the first time, births to women ages 40 or older topped 100,000 in a single year, said a spokesman for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which oversees the NCHS.
    The latest 3 percent drop in teen births is "a real decline" and "simply thrilling," said Sarah Brown, director of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy.
    Teen birthrates have fallen 33 percent since their 1991 peak, and this represents "a very profound change in America," she said.
    To Heritage Foundation analyst Robert Rector, the more important — and "very alarming" — number is the portion of unwed births, which has risen from 33.5 percent in 2001 to 34.6 percent in 2003.
    When it comes to child poverty and other family problems, he said, "it does not matter very much at all" whether a woman is 18 or 20, when she has a child out of wedlock. "What matters is whether she's married at the time at birth."
    The unwed-birth data, however, didn't worry Marshall Miller, a co-founder of the Alternatives to Marriage Project in Albany, N.Y., a group for unmarried persons.
    "If you just read numbers on a paper, you don't necessarily know" why people decide to have a child or marry or not, Mr. Marshall said.
    "I think hand-wringing about births to unmarried parents, as opposed to looking at what's going on in their lives, misses the point," he said, adding that many of unwed births are to older, single career women who have chosen to have a child, long-term cohabiting couples and same-sex couples who can't "marry."
    Other highlights of the NCHS report:
    •The number of U.S. births rose by less than 1 percent, to 4.1 million.
    •The number of unwed births rose from 1,365,966 in 2002 to 1,415,804 in 2003.
    •The teen birthrate of 41.7 births per 1,000 teens in 2003 marks a 33 percent decline in teen birthrates since 1991.
    •The youngest group of mothers, ages 10 to 14, had 6,665 births in 2003 — the fewest in 45 years.
    •Women in their late 20s remain the most likely to have babies (115.7 births per 1,000 women ages 25 to 29).
    •The highest portion of unwed births was in the District of Columbia (53.5 percent of births unwed), followed by New Mexico (48.4 percent of births unwed). Utah had the lowest amount of unwed births (17.2 percent of births unwed).
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M041124   Dan Rather to retire as CBS News anchorman
 

By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Dan Rather announced yesterday that he would step down as anchorman of "The CBS Evening News" on March 9, after nearly a quarter-century on the job.
    Mr. Rather will continue working full time for "60 Minutes" as an investigative reporter. CBS is preparing the findings of its investigation of Mr. Rather's report that President Bush compromised his National Guard service three decades ago, which was based on forged documents and broadcast in the weeks before the presidential election.
    Critics accused Mr. Rather of trying to manipulate the election, demanded that he resign and that a federal investigation be organized.
    CBS aired Mr. Rather's bombshell on "60 Minutes" on Sept. 8. The story was questioned at once by Internet bloggers, and the controversy soon was taken up by newspapers and other TV networks.
    He apologized later that month. Sumner Redstone, president of CBS' parent company, Viacom, acknowledged that the network "had been damaged by the report" and appointed a two-man panel to review internal decisions that had cleared the way for Mr. Rather's story.
    The findings are expected to be made public after Thanksgiving.
    "I have been lucky and blessed over these years to have what is, to me, the best job in the world," Mr. Rather, 73, said. "I have always said that I'd know when the time was right to step away from the anchor chair."
    He said discussions had been held since summer about when it would be "appropriate" for him to leave.
    "I have always been and remain a 'hard news' investigative reporter at heart. I now look forward to pouring my heart into that kind of reporting full time," Mr. Rather said.
    NBC anchorman Tom Brokaw earlier announced that he will resign effective Dec. 1.
    Mr. Brokaw said yesterday that he and Mr. Rather can "sit like two old fogies every morning in Central Park and talk about the world."
     CNN called the events "the end of an era," and the Associated Press said, "The triumvirate of Rather, Brokaw and ABC's Peter Jennings has ruled network news for more than two decades."
    Some Rather critics insisted yesterday that his leaving CBS was not a retirement, but a firing.
    "Today's announcement ratifies that there was a scandal at CBS, but Dan Rather is not really resigning, he's being reassigned," said Tim Graham of the Media Research Center. "But all of this should not distract the public from asking what went wrong. This resignation sounds like propaganda from a publicist to me. CBS is trying to get out of a mess, trying to take the scent off the investigation of their own wrongdoing."
    CBS has not said who would succeed Mr. Rather, although correspondents John Roberts and Scott Pelley are thought by network insiders to have an edge.
    "Dan's dedication to his craft and his remarkable skills as a reporter are legendary," said CBS News President Andrew Heyward. "He has symbolized 'The CBS Evening News' for nearly a quarter-century."
    Mr. Rather's longevity "is a singular achievement in broadcast journalism," said CBS Chairman Les Moonves, who called the anchorman "an eyewitness to the most important events for more than 40 years."
    Mr. Rather, who broke into journalism in Texas as a reporter for the Associated Press and later worked for United Press International and other news outlets, has worked for CBS for more than 40 years, taking over the anchorman position from Walter Cronkite in 1981.
    He has occasionally made news himself. He walked off the set in 1987 after a sports event pre-empted his coverage. In 2002, Mr. Rather broadcast excerpts from journalist Daniel Pearl's videotaped execution by Islamist terrorists, over the objections of the White House and the State Department.
    Both were disappointed by Mr. Rather's three-hour interview with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in 2003 after journalists were cautioned not to be manipulated by media-savvy terrorists.
    The most recent Nielsen ratings numbers put "The CBS Evening News" third among the big three broadcast networks, typically watched by 5.4 percent of U.S. households, or 7.5 million viewers. NBC led with 7.6 percent, and ABC had 6.8 percent.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R041121   Air Force rejects biblical e-mail tags

    AIR FORCE ACADEMY, Colo. — Air Force Academy officials are cracking down on some staffers who put Bible verses at the bottom of their academy e-mails.
    "None of this [Bible or personal signature notes] is appropriate, and it says this in Air Force instructions," Lt. Col. Laurent Fox said Thursday.
    Academy officials sent a memo to everyone at the school on Sept. 15, explaining the policy for using government e-mail. Earlier this week, academy superintendent Lt. Gen. John W. Rosa said the school would bolster its religious-tolerance training after a survey showed evidence of harassment or pressure toward cadets based on their beliefs.
    He said that about half the cadets who responded to the annual survey reported hearing religious slurs, comments or jokes and that some cadets felt ostracized because they weren't religious.

Vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

E041121E   FORUM: School board challenged

Montgomery County, Md., is a blue county.The county went 66-33 for Sen. John Kerry in the recent election. So when the Montgomery County School Board rubber-stamped a set of committee recommendations expanding sexual education to include condom demonstrations and left-of-center views on homosexuality, I suspect board members foresaw little parental resistance.
    Surprise. After two years of stonewalling efforts of parents to register their views, the school board may end up facing voters in a recall effort. Rumor has it the school board thinks the whole thing will blow over. However, a glance at the Web site Recallmontgomeryschoolboard.com provides evidence the parents are serious. Given such strong reaction on values, the board may need to glean some lessons of the last election.
    Maryland is hardly a fly-over state, but there are rural and mainstream folk in Montgomery County who are plenty incensed at the kinds of changes envisioned for sex education. For instance, in a newly approved film, "Hope is Not a Method," a teen girl is shown skillfully placing a condom over a cucumber. However, this is not an episode of "Veggie Tales Gone Wild." Students are also treated to a discussion of the virtues of fruit-flavored condoms. In the new curriculum, students are told homosexual experimentation may be normal.
    Some parents are not amused. According to articles in both The Washington Post and The Washington Times, school board meetings have been peppered with protesting parents. According to a Jon Ward article in The Times (Nov. 11, page B1), Tim Simpson, pastor and parent of a high-school student, said school officials "have definitely stepped over the line in assuming the majority of parents in this county accept this."
    For their part, school-board members seem perplexed and annoyed at such spasms of moral outrage. According to The Times, Patricia O'Neill, board vice president huffed: "There are plenty of opportunities for people who choose to be informed to participate on the committee." The committee she speaks of is the Citizens' Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human Development. This panel has met periodically during the last two years at the direction of the school board to improve the school's health education. The recommendations at issue are largely this panel's work.
    Given the controversy generated by the Citizen's Advisory Committee, the school board should not be surprised parents are upset now. Throughout its two years of working on the sexuality materials, the committee refused to include any professional resources promoting abstinence only or presenting a balanced view of homosexuality.
    Parents did go to those meetings and complain. Three members resigned in protest. Letters to the editor were published. For a previous column, I called the school district's health education coordinator, Russ Henke, and asked why the committee excluded peer-reviewed research that provided diverse views on sexual orientation. He said the school board would be able to reverse any recommendations it felt inappropriate. Apparently, the school board has no interest in doing so.
    This is a brewing controversy worth watching. Democrats' postelection ruminating has included ruing the perception they are out-of-touch with mainstream American "values voters." Many Democrats, including Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman have suggested the party moderate its social issues positions.
    Will this blue county shift toward the moral center on sexuality education? The school board seems puzzled by the concern of mainstream parents. Parents seem to feel the board's actions are examples of more cultural erosion in their own back yard.
    The school board could just wait this out and hope the parents go away. Or they could learn some lessons from current events.
 
    WARREN THROCKMORTON
    Associate professor of psychology
    College counseling director
    Grove City College, Pa.
Vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O041121   Hillary's Senate record

Our friends at the National Review spotted this post-election howler in an Associated Press dispatch: "For 2008, the presumptive leading presidential candidates are New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a Northeastern centrist . . ." Recalling Mrs. Clinton's pre-senatorial work for Marian Wright Edelman's radical Children's Defense Fund and Robert Treuhaft's "revolutionary" and Black Panther law firm, the National Review understandably responded to this evolving new line on Hillary by exclaiming, "Whoa, whoa, whoa!"
    The Washington Times editorial page would like to add its two-cents' worth by reviewing Mrs. Clinton's first years in the Senate and comparing her voting record to the record of liberalism's unquestioned standard-bearer, Teddy Kennedy, who would be proud to say that he has never been mistaken for a "Northeastern centrist." What do you know? The unquestionably liberal voting records of these two Northeasterners are virtually indistinguishable.
    • The Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), the self-styled premier liberal organization that issues annual congressional voting ratings by tallying the votes cast on its 20 most important issues, has given Mrs. Clinton scores (ADA cleverly calls them "liberal quotients") of 95 percent for each of her first three years. Mr. Kennedy's ADA ratings have been 100 percent (2001 and 2002) and 95 percent (2003).
    • If the ADA guards the liberal flame in Congress, the American Conservative Union (ACU) performs the same function for conservatives. Mrs. Clinton's average ACU rating (2001-2003) of 11 is not much different from Mr. Kennedy's 5 for the same period.
    • The Big Labor bosses love New York's junior senator..................

     nual congressional voting ratings by tallying the votes cast on its 20 most important issues, has given Mrs. Clinton scores (ADA cleverly calls them "liberal quotients") of 95 percent for each of her first three years. Mr. Kennedy's ADA ratings have been 100 percent (2001 and 2002) and 95 percent (2003).
    • If the ADA guards the liberal flame in Congress, the American Conservative Union (ACU) performs the same function for conservatives. Mrs. Clinton's average ACU rating (2001-2003) of 11 is not much different from Mr. Kennedy's 5 for the same period.
    • The Big Labor bosses love New York's junior senator as much as they worship Massachusetts' senior senator. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, which is feverishly working to protect the gold-plated, unaffordable, bankruptcy-inducing pensions and early-retirement privileges of public workers, has given Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Kennedy 100 percent ratings for 2001, 2002 and 2003. Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton's lifetime rating of 93 percent from the AFL-CIO is precisely the same as Mr. Kennedy's.
    • For the 2001-2003 period, Mrs. Clinton compiled an average rating of 88.3 from the League of Conservation Voters. That was 2 points higher than Mr. Kennedy's three-year average.
    • Neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Kennedy did much for taxpayers during 2001-2003. She has compiled an average annual rating of 14 percent from the National Taxpayers Union; Mr. Kennedy's is 13 percent. Meanwhile, the National Tax Limitation Committee gave both senators a zero rating for the 107th Congress (2001-2002).
    • The one score the Christian Coalition has given to each of them since Mrs. Clinton arrived in the Senate is zero. That shouldn't be much of a surprise, considering that each of their annual ratings (2001-2003) from the National Right to Life Committee has been zero, while each has earned 100 percent marks from NARAL Pro-Choice America over the same period. Each also received identical scores from the American Civil Liberties Union for the 107th Congress.
    • Each year the nonpartisan National Journal ranks each senator on three separate liberal/conservative continuums according to dozens of votes cast on economic, social and foreign-policy issues. In 2002, not a single U.S. senator was considered more liberal than Mrs. Clinton on economic and social matters. Last year no senator surpassed her liberal ranking on social issues, while she voted more liberally on economic matters than 90 percent of her colleagues. Her composite liberal score last year was higher than Mr. Kennedy's. A "Northeastern centrist"? Compared to Mrs. Clinton's 2003 composite liberal score of 88.8, Maine Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins received composite liberal scores of 50.5 and 50.8, respectively, establishing their unquestioned "Northeastern centrist" credentials. Mrs. Clinton isn't even in the centrist ballpark.
    • Each year the authoritative Congressional Quarterly (CQ) selects 10 to 15 "key votes." Since arriving in the U.S. Senate in 2001, Mrs. Clinton cast the same votes as Mr. Kennedy on CQ-selected "key" issues in nine out of 10 cases (2001), 12 out of 13 instances (2002) and 13 out of 14 votes (2003).
    Having witnessed what has happened to comparably liberal Northeastern politicians who have sought the presidency over the past quarter century, including Massachusetts liberals like Mr. Kennedy (1980), Michael Dukakis (1988) and John Kerry (2004), Mrs. Clinton will surely seek to adopt the "centrist" image over the next few years. To this end, she will undoubtedly be helped by her liberal media friends, who, like Hillary, understand how deadly the liberal moniker is to a politician nationwide. In the interest of truth, The Washington Times editorial page will occasionally take a close look at her positions in order to confirm beyond any freshly arising doubt just how entrenched her liberalism truly is. Today, we have seen that interest groups across the political spectrum consider her virtually indistinguishable from Teddy Kennedy, the widely proclaimed — and unabashed — lion of Senate liberalism.

  vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O041122       ARKANSAS   Anti-porn law ruled unconstitutional

    LITTLE ROCK — A federal judge said a 2003 Arkansas law intended to shield minors from pornographic material in stores and libraries violates the U.S. Constitution.
    The law required books, magazines and videos containing material "harmful to minors" to be kept separate from other displayed material. The judge said the law restricted access and display of non-obscene material.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R041122   MINNESOTA   Convicted rapist given custody of girl

    HASTINGS — A man convicted of raping a teenage girl in 1994 has been charged with sexually assaulting a 9-year-old girl after a judge gave him custody of her last month.
    Justin P. Farnsworth, 31, was charged with three counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct involving the daughter of his ex-girlfriend.
    The ex-girlfriend, who lived three hours away, agreed last month that Mr. Farnsworth could keep the 9-year-old as well as the couple's two younger daughters, court records show. The three girls had lived with him for more than a year.
    There is no indication that the younger girls were abused, Hastings Sgt. Jim Rgnonti told the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv