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
L050613L     Ban human cloning
L050614E     Benchmarks for future nominees

HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR/PERVERSION
H050614      Blacks nearly half of HIV cases
H050615      NEW JERSEY   Court upholds marriage law
H050617      Bishops to join protest of bill
H050617E    Blessed public-health curse

RELIGION/RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION
R050611L    Stop the madness
R050613      Church, state mix easily in Texas
R050613      Public's view of high court lower now
R050613      Senate Democrats develop new filibuster strategy
R050614L    Curb judicial activism
R050614      Dean's true colors
R050615      Bishop meeting to avoid gay issue
R050615      No. 6 and counting
R050616      A lack of deference
R050618      McCarrick ponders end of 'kind' ministry

EDUCATION
E050611L   Rethinking sex-ed programs
E050612C   Forum: Perils of valueless teachings
E050613      Preschool loosens parent-child bonds
E050615      CALIFORNIA   Principal asks to pass failing pupils
E050615Md Sex-ed in the margin
E050616      Shortage of teachers forces global search

MEDIA
M050617      House to cut public broadcasting funds

OTHER
O050611Md Democrats berate Steele, not Dean's stance
O050612Va  Virginia's offensive sex-offender rolls
O050613       Subdivision would ban sex offenders
O050613Va  Turnout the key in 'forgotten' Virginia polling
O050614       Study: Virginity vows linked to lower STD rates
O050614Md Steele eyeing bid for Senate
O050614Va Voters set to pick nominees for Virginia's top 3 offices
O050615      Austria targets child pornography
O050617      Weyrich fears 'cordial' ties between GOP and the Right
O050618C   Teen abstinence success

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

O050611Md   Md. Democrats berate Steele, not Dean's stance

By S.A. Miller
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
June 11, 2005

The Maryland Democratic Party is calling for an apology from Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele for endorsing a book by an author who accuses Democrats of exploiting blacks but is declining to seek an apology from national party Chairman Howard Dean for describing Republicans as a 'white Christian party.'
    'I don't think there is a double standard,' said Derek Walker, spokesman for the state Democratic Party.
    Maryland Democratic Party Chairman Terry Lierman, who has initiated a petition drive for Mr. Steele's apology, was unavailable for comment yesterday.
    But former state party Chairman Isiah Leggett yesterday said Mr. Dean's comments warrant an apology as much as Mr. Steele's book endorsement.
    'Those comments [by Mr. Dean] are over the top and should be retracted. They were overly broad and missed the mark," Mr. Leggett said.
    He stressed that both Mr. Steele and Mr. Dean should apologize, not their respective parties.
    Mr. Lierman this week began circulating a letter asking fellow Democrats to sign a petition calling on Mr. Steele, a Republican, to apologize for praising the book "Back to Basics for the Republican Party" by Michael Zak.
    The book celebrates the Republican Party's anti-slavery founders and urges Republicans to challenge Democratic entitlement to the black vote.
    In his letter, Mr. Lierman's cites excerpts from the book and from speeches by Mr. Zak.
    For example, "Mastery over blacks has always been Democratic Policy. Before it was cotton. Now it is misery." And "Democrats are socialists and we should call them socialists. It's to the Democrats' advantage children grow up poor and uneducated."
    About 600 people signed on to the petition in the first 24 hours, according to the party.
    Mr. Lierman criticized Mr. Steele for being quoted on an Internet site promoting the book as being "phenomenal," "outstanding" and "my favorite book."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050611L   Stop the madness
    Regarding Wednesday's editorial "Intolerance in the Bible Belt": I do not see the point behind harassing innocent 10-year-olds for reading the Bible during recess — a time during which children are free to do as they please. In a time when we should be encouraging our youth to be reading — something, anything — we are discouraging a child from reading what he believes in. Since when did we, in the United States, have a ban on what we can read?
    Last year, when I was still a naive high school senior, we had a student who stood in the middle of our cafeteria and read aloud out of the Bible. Some referred to him as the "preacher dude." Some even went as far as to shout, "The devil is my god" in front of him. Why?
    Have we become such an ignorant and intolerant society that we will ridicule someone for doing what he feels is right? I used to eat in front of my schoolmate so I could hear what message he was professing. I always found some moral in his messages, always something that made my day better, always something that made me a better person.
    Listening to my schoolmate's messages did not hurt or kill me. They encouraged me to help others. I thought his messages were magnificent. I do not see the problem with anyone expressing his or her opinions at school. That is saying something, considering that I am a Hindu.
    Another piece of advice: If you don't want to listen, sit somewhere else.

    FALAK D. SHAH
    Gainesville, Fla.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

E050611L   Rethinking sex-ed programs
    In your June 2 editorial "A clean slate for Montgomery sex-ed," you said the Montgomery County Board of Education "surprised" opponents of its inane sex-ed curriculum by "dropping the curriculum and dissolving the committee that created it."
    It was a surprise, but the board must be congratulated for finally getting some common sense and trashing its sex-ed program, which would have misled students and encouraged high-risk sex.
    If the school board's priority is the well-being of the students, it will work to provide a factual education on sexual matters. To help students, the board will use the knowledge and experience of experts to construct a program that fully informs teens of the dangers to themselves and society of teen sex.
    Instead of encouraging sexual activity by teaching students how to use condoms, the school board should consult experts such as Dr. Ruth M. Jacobs, past chairman of the department of internal medicine at Shady Grove Hospital, who wrote of the shortcomings of condoms in the Times' May 8 Forum item, "Due warning in a 'risky world.' " She said studies have shown that condoms offer "no protection for human papilloma virus transmission and possibly 0-50 percent protection for other sexually transmitted diseases. The studies show 87 percent protection for HIV with vaginal sex."
    The school board must see that students understand that condoms won't protect them from pregnancy, as shown by information from the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy that teens can't manage a contraception program.
    The school board also should present social and psychological pathologies associated with premarital sex, e.g. single-parent families and two-thirds of sexually active girls under 20 regretting their decision to become sexually active (Seventeen, July 2005).
    The Montgomery County Board of Education has the opportunity to help county students and, by its example, students throughout the country. Let's hope school board members step up to the challenge. Unfortunately, the president of the school board, Patricia O'Neill, was quoted in the Sunday article "Montgomery parents seek more say on sex education" (Metropolitan) as saying, "We're no less committed to moving forward on the issue of sexual variations," indicating that she and the board are still promoting an ideological agenda, not the health and well-being of the students.

    JOHN NAUGHTON
    Silver Spring
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050617   Bishops to join protest of bill

June 17, 2005

MADRID (AP) -- The archbishop of Madrid and other senior Roman Catholics plan to attend a rally protesting a bill to establish same-sex "marriage," church officials said yesterday.
    It will be the their first display of anti-government activism in more than 20 years.
    Catholic policy in Spain is for the church not to call protest rallies against the government and generally not to take part in such demonstrations, said Manuel Bru, a spokesman for Cardinal Antonio Maria Rouco, who is archbishop of Madrid.
    But Cardinal Rouco and at least 15 bishops plan to attend tomorrow's rally in Madrid by a lay Catholic group called the Spanish Forum for the Family, Mr. Bru said.
    Mr. Bru insisted the church leaders are not opposing the socialist government as much as its intention to establish same-sex "marriage" and give homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual ones, including the right to adopt children.
    "Like any other citizen, the bishops are exercising their right to express publicly their disagreement with a legislative measure," Mr. Bru said.
    The case is not unprecedented, he said. In 1983, bishops took part in a street rally when a previous socialist government legalized abortion, albeit in a limited number of cases.
    Mr. Bru said he did not know whether the church's senior leader in Spain, the president of the Spanish Bishops Conference, Bishop Ricardo Blazquez, would attend. The conference has endorsed the demonstration, however.
    The bishops' decision drew criticism from Beatriz Gimeno, president of the Spanish Federation of Lesbians, Gays, Transsexuals and Bisexuals.
    "It's an image taken straight out of 30 years ago. It represents very few citizens and is a return to a national Catholicism of Spain's extreme right," Miss Gimeno said.
    The federation plans to read a statement in defense of homosexual rights before tomorrow evening's demonstration, although Miss Gimeno said it was not intended to be seen as "a counter-rally."
    The same-sex "marriage" bill is expected to become law in a matter of weeks. It has been passed by the lower chamber of parliament and will be up for a vote next week in the Senate.
    The conservative opposition Popular Party also has endorsed tomorrow's demonstration.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

E050612C   Forum: Perils of valueless teachings

June 12, 2005

After years of being excluded from their children's education, parents in Montgomery County, Md., formed Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum and won the battle to have their views respected on sex education. Why were the views of parents ever held in disrespect and why was the force of a federal lawsuit needed to a basic right, control over the education of one's children?
    I wonder if it has occurred to anyone, parents or real educators, that maybe the best sex-ed curriculum is none at all? Many of today's parents were not alive then, but before sex-ed came into the classroom, a short passage from the Psalms was read in the daily opening exercises of public schools on Maryland. When the word of God became unwelcome, the vacuum created soon filled with what today has become tantamount to pornography disguised as "health education."
    Casual promiscuity, AIDS, rampant sex-transmitted diseases, teen-age abortion, teen-age suicide, in-your-face promotion of homosexuality and the mocking of Judeo-Christian principles were heretofore virtually unknown. A comparison of the statistics before and after would make a shocking case in favor of the removal of sex education from schools to its rightful place in the home, where it can be put in proper perspective.
    You might say, yes, but today's children live in a decadent culture. Ask yourself which came first, and were those responsible for today's culture (publishers, rock musicians, pornographers, promoters of homosexuality, clothing manufacturers, media people, judges, etc) not the product of their sex education? Children grow up and take their place in society acting on what they have been taught. Which came first, the teaching of sex as a recreational activity or the very profitable promoting of it, the chicken or the egg? A reasonable person could assume the former.
    Today's children are encouraged to question their "sexual identity" and to experiment with various "lifestyles." Sex, degraded to a recreation activity, is virtually mandated; abstinence is ridiculed. Kindergarten children are read stories about same-sex "marriage" and fourth-graders are taught contraception. Judeo-Christian principles are mocked. The safest way to present pornography to children is in the schools.
    The health of a generation (or two) has been undermined both with at least 23 varieties of sexually transmitted diseases and the loss of self-respect through promiscuity. The overwhelming number of STD cases are in the under-25 age group.
    If the sex-ed curriculum does not reflect the truth about the social and personal consequences of promiscuous behavior, about the need for students to respect their bodies and souls, there should be no curriculum at all and sex-ed should become exclusively a home-school subject.
    Sooner or later, everyone sits down to a banquet of consequences and the proof is in the pudding. The outcome of "outcome-based education" is this: a pornographic society made possible by allowing the corruption of innocent children.
    The alarm bell has finally been rung by parents, one lawyer, and one reasonable judge. Through their monumental determined efforts, they have given real hope for major change.

    ELIZABETH WARD NOTTRODT
    Baltimore, Md.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050618C   Teen abstinence success

By Melissa Pardue
June 18, 2005

Experienced parents will tell you that if you can get your kids through the teen years, they likely will be just fine as adults. That's because teens face many of the temptations adults do but without the experience to appreciate the consequences of their decisions.
    But what if we could somehow transfer some of that experience to teens? What if we could equip them with the information, courage and responsibility they need to say no to sex, smoking, drinking and drug abuse?
    It's a question that's received a fair amount of study, and we've begun to find some approaches that work. One is to take on the issue directly with teens through what are known as abstinence-education programs. Among the most effective of these, according to a recent study by Dr. Robert Lerner published in the Institute for Youth Development's peer-reviewed journal Adolescent & Family Health, is the Best Friends program.
    Dr. Lerner's study found students in Best Friends are:
    • Six-and-a-half times more likely to remain sexually abstinent.
    • Nearly twice as likely to abstain from drinking alcohol.
    • Eight times more likely to abstain from drug use.
    • More than twice as likely to refrain from smoking.
    Looked at another way, girls who took part in Best Friends had:
    c? A 52 percent reduced likelihood they would smoke.
    • A 90 percent reduced likelihood they would use drugs.
    • A 60 percent reduced likelihood they would drink alcohol.
• An 80 percent reduced likelihood they would have sex.
    One would think such numbers would cause lawmakers to rethink how government deals with destructive teen behavior. One would be wrong.
    Despite overwhelming evidence kids are receptive to an abstinence-only approach and that increased abstinence-only education are largely responsible for a drop of 8 percentage points (from 54 percent to 46 percent) since 1991 in high-schoolers who have had sex, the government continues spending $12 on "safe sex" and contraception promotion for every $1 it spends on abstinence.
    This doesn't stop groups such as the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) and Advocates for Youth from trying to eliminate abstinence programs and replace them with "comprehensive" sex education. These "comprehensive" programs are often misleadingly labeled "abstinence-plus" and falsely claim to forge a middle ground between abstinence and "safe sex" education. In reality, these programs are virtually all "plus" and no abstinence.
    Analysis of "comprehensive" sex-ed programs reveals these curricula contain little if any meaningful abstinence information. On average, these curricula devote about 4 percent of their content to abstinence and the rest to such enlightening activities as "condom races," in which teams of teens race to see who can get a condom on a cucumber the fastest.
    They explore "alternatives" to intercourse, such as sensual feeding, showering together and other activities that seem highly unlikely to discourage kids from having sex.
    In fact, out of 942 total pages of curriculum text reviewed from nine different "comprehensive" sex-ed curricula, not a single sentence was found urging teens to abstain from sexual activity until they graduated from high school. The overwhelming focus of these curricula (28 percent of content) is devoted to promoting contraception among teens.
    Sadly, these programs have friends in high places. Opponents in Congress continue trying to introduce legislation to abolish federal abstinence education assistance. A proposal by Sen. Max Baucus, Montana Democrat, would take federal funds devoted to teaching abstinence and turn them over to state public health bureaucracies to spend as they wish.
    Given the fact such bureaucracies, through the encouragement of federal funding, have been wedded to the "safe sex" approach for decades and fiercely oppose teaching abstinence, such a proposal would effectively abolish federal abstinence-education programs. Meanwhile, federal support for "safe sex" and contraception promotion would continue, unchecked.
    Opponents of abstinence education will keep trying to eliminate it from America's schools. But they have a tough pitch to make: Parents overwhelmingly support the abstinence message. Students want to hear it. The evidence of abstinence programs' effectiveness is increasing. And the Best Friends program provides one more argument for abstinence education.

    Melissa Pardue is a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050612Va   Virginia's offensive sex-offender rolls

June 12, 2005

If you don't want your weekend ruined, read no further. Virginia's sex-offender registry cannot account for nearly 250 known offenders -- that's rapists, molesters and pedophiles. Of these, 113 were listed with a jail address but were not in that jail, while 128 offenders with a state Department of Corrections address are not in the state prison system, according to the Virginia State Crime Commission's Sex Offender Task Force. So, where are they?
    "They're not in any incarcerated population, and we don't know where they are," said Kimberly Hamilton, executive director of the Crime Commission, which formed the task force. At least she's honest. Take, for instance, John M. Williams. The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports that Williams, a twice-convicted rapist, is supposed to be at the Staunton Correctional Center, according to the state's sex-offender registry. The prison was closed in 2003.
    The Task Force met in Richmond last week to discuss some of its preliminary findings, which include:
    • Of the Virginia sex offenders listed, 716 held in prisons and jails had inaccurate address records on the registry.
    • Of those on the registry and listed in local jails, 258 were not there. Among those, 145 were actually in state prisons.
    • The registry list 213 sex offenders as not being held but are actually in local jails.
    This is unconscionable mismanagement. States track sex offenders because of all criminals, they are notoriously more likely to commit another sex crime on the weakest among us -- namely, women and children. Once they have served their time, sex offenders are released back into the community, where, depending on the severity of their crime, they must consistently update the state's registry. In Virginia, the task force found, that obligation is far too lenient. For instance, sex offenders must update the registry within 10 days of changing their address. Delegate Bob McDonnell, Virginia Beach Republican and the commission's co-chair, thinks this is far too much time. We agree. The task force review shows that more than 500 offenders were not in compliance with the registration requirements as of May 20.
    Registration requirements are also inadequate and depend too much on an offender's good faith. For instance, an offender can list a family member's home as his address, but live elsewhere. Another absurdity includes the ban on an offender loitering within 100 yards of a school. But the offender is free to work or live on school grounds -- such as a university. Virginia is adding nearly 1,200 new offenders to the registry every year, but has only 10 employees monitoring the system.
    The task force is looking to reform many of these problems, but reform will cost money. Gov. Mark Warner, who is considered presidential material in some quarters of the state, and the General Assembly should spare no expense in fixing the problems -- and with all deliberate speed.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050613L   Ban human cloning
    In "Romney overridden" ("Inside Politics," Nation, June 1), the author states: "The new Massachusettslawbans cloning that results in a baby, but that practice is already prohibited under federal law." This is incorrect, as no such federal ban exists.
    Further, to ban "cloning that results in a baby" is practically impossible. Once cloning is completed, a new human being exists. If it is implanted in a womb, it will eventually "result in a baby." The only way to prevent that would be to require abortions of such implanted human embryos.
    In order to ban "cloning that results in a baby," all cloning must be banned.
    Federal law does not do this. It should.

    WILLIAM L. SAUNDERS JR.
    Senior fellow and director
    Center for Human Life and Bioethics, Family Research Council
    Washington
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050614L   Curb judicial activism
    Nat Hentoff's eloquent defense of the judiciary ("Boundless fury at the judiciary," Op-Ed, June 6) never addressed the real point: How do you get the court to rule on the basis of the law rather than on the basis of what it thinks the law should be?
    We have had rulings on the basis of a "vapor of a 'penumbra.'?" We've had rulings on the basis of its being just too ironic that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would actually mean what it says (that there shall be no discrimination for or against on the basis of race).
    We've had the "equal protection of the laws" portion of the 14th Amendment suspended for 25 years. We've seen political expression by individuals within 60 days of an election be deemed a criminal act in a law (McCain-Feingold) that was upheld by the Supreme Court.
    We also have seen laws of foreign countries used to determine the intent of our Constitution. None of this is consistent with the Constitution, nor is it consistent with a judge's oath to protect and defend the Constitution.
    Some people think legislating from the bench is a mark of progress: rule by the elites. In fact, it's a major step backward into the primitive past: rule by a council of elders.
    It's a regression from the rule of law to the rule of men (and women), with the law serving merely as a guideline. The court wrongly arrogated for itself a legislative authority in the era of Chief Justice Earl Warren. Now it's time to restore the framers' intent and limit the courts to interpreting existing law.

    VICTOR CHOLEWICKI
    Washington
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050614E   Benchmarks for future nominees

By Tod Lindberg
June 14, 2005

It is beginning to dawn on Democrats that the compromise in the Senate that averted the "nuclear option" over judges was not the victory they thought it was. Republicans, meanwhile, are beginning to come to termswithwhatit means to get not half a loaf, but I'd say three-quarters to seven-eighths, rather than the whole.
    Thespectacleof long-blocked appeals court nominees finally getting confirmed to the bench has opened eyes on both sides. For Democrats, it's important to recognize just how vested party hard-liners had become on the unacceptability of the likes of Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen and William Pryor.
    Judge Brown's confirmation was blocked for two years. Judge Owen was one of George W. Bush's first appeals court nominees in 2001. Judge Pryor, another 2003 nominee, received a recess appointment last year; had he not been confirmed, he would have had to leave the bench this year.
    It is no small matter to organize opposition to a judicial nominee. Elaborate dossiers of previous opinions and writings have to be assembled, reviewed and distilled; talking points generated; senators recruited to the opposition; news conferences organized; activists mobilized. In certain respects, one has to be impressed by the effort that the Alliance for Justice, NARAL, People for the American Way, et al. have put on. (I say this not with approval, but entirely from the perspective of a connoisseur of Washington tradecraft.) So many nominees so effectively called into question and kept off the bench for so long — no small achievement.
    The problem is the psychological blow that comes when one of them — or three of them! — at last makes it through. One has, after all, talked oneself into the proposition that these characters are unfit for the federal bench, grossly out of the mainstream, extremist in their views of the Constitution, etc. Yet one has failed, at the end of the day, to stop them — with who knows what dire consequences. There is a term for this state of affairs: defeat.
    And that's what's going on as these three judges (plus two others who had been blocked in a Michigan tit-for-tat pertaining to blocked Clinton administration nominees) take their seats on the appellate bench. Moreover, the White House appears to be about ready to put forward another batch of nominees. The Senate deal, from the Republican point of view, is only good as long as all but "extraordinary" nominees are clearing the process. Of course, there are other means besides the filibuster to derail judicial nominations: delays in the Judiciary Committee, holds, etc. I wonder, though, if the deal in the Senate doesn't also call into question methods of delay beyond the use of the filibuster.
    There is also the problem of the benchmark set by the confirmation of Judges Owen, Brown and Pryor. This has three aspects, none of which is favorable to the Democratic hard-line position. First, these three have been thoroughly caricatured as extreme. Yet they have gone through. Their cases are thus not "extraordinary" for purposes of justifying indefinite delay of their consideration by the Senate as a whole — or so at least seven Democrats have said.
    But this suggests that future nominees will have to be portrayed as even more "extreme" than these three in order to qualify as "extraordinary." This, in turn, suggests that Mr. Bush has pretty much carte blanche to appoint solidly conservative judges, so long as they are qualified. Oh, of course, one or two might get bounced into limbo, perhaps for cause, perhaps at random. But most will get through.
    Would anyone be so cynical as to suggest that a president might put forward a couple edgy names in the expectation that they will be deemed "extraordinary" — thus clearing the decks for all others?
    The second benchmark is that Judges Owen, Brown, Pryor and any and all others that go through hereafter under the terms of the deal would seemtobeverymuch "supremable" in the event of a high court vacancy. Once they have made it through the appellate round, it would be difficult to tag them with the "extraordinary" label. The effort to block by filibuster someone whom you had previously agreed should not be blocked by filibuster would be very risky politically, especially with the stakes as high as they are for Supreme Court nominations. Doing so might even, when push came to shove as a SupremeCourtvacancy dragged on, legitimate the Republican's use of a "surgical" nuclear option described not as doing away with the filibuster for judicial nominees in general but as ending an illegitimate filibuster of this Supreme Court nominee in particular.
    The third benchmark pertains to the case of Judge Pryor: His recess appointment did not bar him from eventual confirmation. The Senate weakened its institutional hand vis-a-vis the White House by letting a recess appointment become permanent.
    Democrats are better than Republicans at sending out press releases congratulating themselves on glorious victory. But this was not a press-release contest.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

E050615Md   Sex-ed in the margin
    As former chairman of the Montgomery County Board of Education's Citizens Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human Development, I agree with this statement in your June 2 editorial "A clean slate for Montgomery sex-ed": "The point of a sex-ed curriculum is to teach facts about sex, not to propagate dubious theories."
    The proposed revised curriculum that was originally to be piloted last month said relatively little about homosexuality, providing definitions from the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association and simply making the accurate statements that "[a]ll major professional mental health organizations affirm that homosexuality is not a mental disorder" and that "[m]ost experts in the field have concluded that sexual orientation is not a choice." (The text of the pilot versions of the curriculum may be found on the Resources page of Teachthefacts.org.)
    The "dubious theories" are those propagated by groups that cling to the long-since-rejected ideas that all homosexuals are diseased and can be "cured" of the disease. Indeed, it was the clinical experience of mainstream medical and mental health professionals in the 1940s, '50s and '60s that led them to reject the notion that homosexuality is a disease.
    The Citizens Advisory Committee examined the statements from the mainstream professional associations, as well as materials presented by committee members who were advocates of the idea that all homosexuality is diseased, and concluded that the mainstream professional approach should be followed. Contrary to your editorial, these recommendations did not come from some purported "education establishment." Rather, they were from the mainstream medical and mental health professionals.
    As Superintendent Jerry D. Weast stated in November when the Board of Education unanimously voted to pilot the revisions, these are revisions the school system should have made years ago. Why did he make that statement? Because for too long the silence in the health-education curriculum unit on sexuality gave tacit approval to the idea that there was something "sick" about not being heterosexual. For too long, students who happened to be homosexual and children from same-sex-parent families were made to feel marginalized. Because that was wrong and hurtful, the board was wise to act in November.
    One more point is essential to this discussion: Montgomery County parents never have been required to have their children take the portion of the health classes on human sexuality. If families objected, they could have their children study alternative materials. This way, the school system has been able to accommodate the concerns of parents who may have religious or other objections to the material without giving a small minority veto power over the entire curriculum.

    DAVID S. FISHBACK
    Olney
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050617E   Blessed public-health curse

By Deborah Simmons
June 17, 2005

It has been 23 years since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officially identified the insidious disease Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, or AIDS. The year was 1982, and there were an estimated 1,300 cases of HIV/AIDS reported in the United States. This week we learned that more than 1 million people in this country are HIV infected. Some people in the homosexual community said nearly a decade agothatthe HIV/AIDS epidemichad been arrested. We now know that was not true.
    Indeed, while noted journalists like Andrew Sullivan posited that the HIV/AIDS epidemic was a public-health crisis no more, reality rested elsewhere. The unvarnished truth was that the face of AIDS apparentlyhad changed from the image of homosexual white men and black junkies shooting up dope in ghetto back alleys to images and behaviors that are as multifaceted and complex as the very medical cocktails available to treat the disease.
    Americans now know they were suckered. While gay white men might have "protected" themselves by using condoms, they also ratcheted up their push for federal, state and local policies that allowed them to hide "sexual preferences" and practices in the name of privacy and civil rights.
    The liberals' advocacy for needle-exchange programs is but one example. The push for condom availability for teens is another, as well as the shouts against what the new pope, Pope Benedict the XVI, rightly calls "pseudo matrimony"— that is, "same-sex marriage." And one of the most untenable issues of them all: allowing public schools to teach children in the name of education that when it comes to sexuality and sex itself, anything — and everything — goes.
    Activists surely don't want any alarms sounded about what the politically correct term "MSM,"the so-called down-low practice of bisexual men keeping their devilish proclivities on the hush-hush, and they certainly don't want us to focus on pedophilia.
    The barebacked ride to socio-political freedoms has made for a short trip.
    According to statistics released just this week by the CDC, women, black Americans and Hispanics are leaving indelible impressions on HIV/AIDS. In fact, the tally for U.S. HIV cases has now surpassed the 1 million mark. "An estimated 1,039,000 to 1,185,000 Americans were living with HIV at the end of 2003, up from between 850,000 and 950,000 in 2002," The Washington Times reported on Tuesday. "The jump reflects the role of medicines that have allowed people infected with the virus to live longer."
    Here are the facts that color the picture: "Forty-seven percent were black, a disproportionate figure considering that blacks make up about 13 percent of the U.S. population. Whites accounted for 34 percent of the HIV-positive population and Hispanics 17 percent."
    Alarming, to be sure. What's more is this fact: Of the "men who have sex with men" (the MSM who often keep their women partners in the dark), researchers discovered that "67 percent of the black men in the group did not know they were infected before participating in the study, more than three times the percentage of whites who were unaware," The Times reported.
    Now, we should no more peep inside the bedrooms of adults than look into the habits of patrons of public libraries (as the misguided Patriot Act permits). But adult American voters do need to wake up to the stark realization of the discolorations and distortions that are pushing public policies and tax dollars into the darker corners of immorality.
    I'm hardly advocating anti-gay activism or bashing homosexuals. It just seems to me that if Americans can get the Senate to "apologize" for the lynchings that proliferated in the South and accept Bill Clinton's "apology"for slavery, then Americans can come to terms with what's right and what's wrong and get America's moral house in order.
    The CDC has painted a blatantly clear picture of the high public-health stakes for future generations:The possibility that the HIV-positive population would shift to reflect a higher proportion of infections among blacks, women and heterosexuals.
    The huge blessings from the scientific community mean that people with HIV and AIDS are living longer. Both our tax dollars and our private donations brought about those changes. But Andrew Sullivan was wrong. HIV/AIDS remains an American public-health epidemic.
    The real face of the crisis has been unmasked. Its name is Behavior.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

E050613   Preschool loosens parent-child bonds

June 13, 2005

Everyone agrees that children should receive the best education possible to prepare the next generation for life. There is less agreement, however, about the most effective way to provide that education and when to start the formal process. Across the United States, the compulsory age to begin school varies from 5 to 8.
    Parents in states with a higher starting age have more flexibility in determining whether their children are truly ready for formal education. The Home School Legal Defense Association believes parents are in the best position to judge their children's readiness. There has, however, been a push to lower the compulsory attendance age or mandate preschool. In 2002, a bill was defeated in the D.C. Council that would have made preschool mandatory for all children as young as 3 years old.
    The theory advanced by mandatory-preschool advocates is that children need to be exposed to formal education early or they will fall behind and become societal burdens. Is this true? Does forcing 3-year-olds into formal education improve their educational attainment?
    Contrary to what we hear when states push to get children in school earlier, research suggests that preschool children suffer from various aliments when they are exposed to early formal education. This is not the fault of teachers but the simple reality that preschoolers' minds are not ready to master the skills they need for structured education. It's just too soon.
    For example, psychologist and professor of child development David Elkind discovered in his 2001 study "Much Too Early" that the capacity to manipulate symbols mentally is developed around age 5 or 6. This makes it possible for children to attain a level of achievement in math or reading, for instance, that is not possible for preschool children. Furthermore, a report by the Southwest Policy Institute says, "Contrary to common belief, early institutional schooling can harm children emotionally, intellectually and socially."
    Children are dependent on their parents for their care. If a child is deprived of the parental bond early in life, his or her natural development is disrupted.
    It is impossible to predict the exact long-term outcomes of severing the bond between parent and child, but the experience of Czechoslovakia under Soviet oppression gives some insight.
    Clinical psychologist David A. Scott reported in a talk called "Day Care and Democracy in Eastern Europe" that "[i]nstitutionalized children ... suffered developmental retardation and deprivation. In comparison with children raised in families, the institutionalized children suffered heightened emotional disorders, fear, tension, behavioral disorders."
    Recent media reports stemming from a Yale University study have shown that preschoolers are being expelled from their school programs in ever-increasing numbers. In response, many commentators have used the Yale study as an excuse to ask for more money. However, could it be that many children are responding negatively because they are separated from their parents and not ready for this heightened social interaction?
    In the drive to ensure that our children receive the best education, we are in danger of overinstitutionalizing them. A child will develop naturally if the parents give the child what he or she needs most in the formative years -- plenty of love and attention. In this way, the brain can develop freely, and when the child is ready, he or she can begin formal schooling.
    The best early-childhood education is in the home. Children's educational, emotional and psychological needs can be provided by their parents in a safe home environment where the children can pursue their own interests without distractions. Then home education could become the natural outworking of the preschool years.
    As the debate over mandatory preschool continues, it's time to take a closer look at the dangers of preschool. Evidence shows that young children are better off at home. Spending vast sums of money to force children into preschool could harm large numbers of children who would carry the scars of their preschool experience into their later school years. This is not in the best interest of children.
    Educating the next generation is crucial. We cannot afford to experiment with new systems, especially when the evidence shows that there are problems with the new methods. Additionally, all efforts should be made to try to make the current schools successful before bringing even younger children into the school environment. Supporting what we know works and allowing parents to freely choose is the wisest course of action for a child's early education.

    Michael Smith is the president of the Home School Legal Defense Association. He may be contacted at 540/338-5600, or send e-mail to media@hslda.org.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050613Va   Turnout the key in 'forgotten' Virginia polling

By Christina Bellantoni
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
June 13, 2005

Candidates in tomorrow's Virginia primaries spent the weekend shaking hands and stumping for every last vote.
    At the Celebrate Fairfax festival this weekend, many voters were surprised to find an election just days away, though there were plenty of campaign workers -- or, in some cases, the candidates themselves -- willing to bring the uninformed up to date.
    "I've seen the campaign signs up, but I didn't know what was going on, honestly," said Garrett Hutsko of Fairfax County near Fort Belvoir. "I hadn't given it any thought and I didn't even know there was an election. I usually vote in November." Mr. Hutsko, a 57-year-old federal government employee, said he tends to vote Republican.
    Virginians do not register by party, and voters will need to choose a party ballot when they go to the polls tomorrow to pick the candidates for the Nov. 8 general election.
    Republican gubernatorial candidates Jerry W. Kilgore and George B. Fitch walked the crowd Saturday, with Kilgore volunteers handing out lots of stickers for their candidate.
    Mr. Kilgore, the former attorney general, met voters while surrounded with volunteers who wore the orange shirts that have become the campaign trademark.
    Mr. Fitch, the mayor of Warrenton, was not as welcome with the Republicans backing Mr. Kilgore.
    "I think he's standing on a corner somewhere by himself," one Republican volunteer said when asked if she had seen Mr. Fitch at the GOP booth.
    The most competitive statewide races tomorrow are for the lieutenant governor nominations. Both Republicans and Democrats will choose candidates for the No. 2 spot.
    Volunteers for Leslie L. Byrne, a former state lawmaker and congresswoman, asked festival attendees to vote for the Democrat. Mrs. Byrne, from Fairfax, was campaigning elsewhere in the state.
    "Everywhere is everybody's territory in this race," said Byrne campaign manager Joe Shafer, who was working the crowd. "You've got to go everywhere and fight for every vote."
    Delegate J. Chapman Petersen of Fairfax City, another Democratic candidate for lieutenant governor, also was not in attendance at the festival. He was flying around the state to visit each region before the primary, stopping in Wise County, Danville, Roanoke and Norfolk. On Friday, he spent the day meeting voters at two Northern Virginia Metro stations.
Candidate Sean T. Connaughton, Triangle Republican, walked the crowd and met voters. Mr. Connaughton, chairman of the Prince William Board of County Supervisors, was trailed by volunteers, some family members and someone wearing an elephant costume.
    "You've got to be there Tuesday -- it's my November," he told supporters Saturday. "Make sure to tell everybody."
    Volunteers for his opponent, Sen. William T. Bolling, Hanover Republican, were on hand at the festival.
    Some political insiders believe that Mr. Connaughton would help the Republican ticket in November because he is from Northern Virginia, the largest voting bloc in the state.
    Residents attending the festival could vote absentee at the Fairfax County Government Center where it was being held. Many campaign staffers encouraged attendees to do so.
    "What election?" was the reaction from many.
    Judith Bull of Fairfax said she would vote tomorrow, even though she was not familiar with the candidates in her district. "It's important to vote because it determines a lot of people's futures," she said.
    Michael Hon, a government contractor who considers himself a Democrat, said he is quite aware of the election and criticized growing voter apathy.
    "There needs to be more effort to get the vote out," said Mr. Hon, 30, of Centreville. "People should try to pay more attention to the primary."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

E050616   Shortage of teachers forces global search

By Amy Doolittle
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
June 16, 2005

Local school officials say they are looking abroad for educators to deal with a short supply of U.S. teachers and to engage in cultural exchanges with other countries.
    Public school officials in Loudoun County -- the fastest-growing county in Virginia -- have hired 55 teachers from 14 different countries, including Costa Rica and Mexico. In Washington County, Md., school officials plan to employ as many as 10 foreign teachers next fall.
    Meanwhile, Fairfax County is using educators primarily from Japan as foreign-language and culture-immersion teachers. Prince George's County and the District are hiring teachers from the Philippines, Spain, Nigeria, Turkey and countries in South America to fill shortages in various curriculums, officials said.
    The foreign-teaching hires meet a critical need while providing a "cultural-exchange opportunity," said Wayde Byard, spokesman for Loudoun County public schools.
    "This is not [foreign workers] taking U.S. teachers' jobs," Mr. Byard said. "Between us and Fairfax [County], we'll take every graduate the 38 accredited education colleges in Virginia produce -- so we recruit worldwide."
    Loudoun County currently employs 3,578 teachers and will hire 800 new ones over the summer. Mr. Byard said the hires will cover the teacher-attrition rate and fill 225 positions created for the district's five new schools, which will open in the fall.
    Patricia Abernethy, deputy schools superintendent in Washington County, said school officials turned to overseas educators only after failing to recruit enough homegrown teachers.
    "We have advertised in newspapers and online, and we are not able to find sufficient teachers for our needs," said Miss Abernethy, whose school system employs about 1,500 teachers a year and has about 100 vacancies. "If we could find teachers in our country, we would do it."
    School officials have attributed the teacher shortage to such factors as an aging and retiring teacher population, an inability to retain teachers who are dissatisfied with pay and classroom discipline, and an increasing student enrollment.
    In addition, colleges and universities are not producing enough teachers to meet state needs. For example, Maryland public schools needed to hire 5,900 teachers in 2003, when state colleges graduated about 2,300, officials said.
    Stepping into the breach is the Visiting International Faculty Program. Based in Chapel Hill, N.C., VIF has provided foreign teachers for 33 school districts in Virginia, including Arlington, Loudoun, Prince William and Spotsylvania counties.
    Nationally, VIF has provided U.S. schools with 1,800 teachers from 52 different countries, with Colombia producing the most teachers (237) and Jamaica offering the second most (128).
 VIF applicants must be fluent in English, hold a degree equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree, be a certified teacher in their home country, have at least three years of teaching experience, pass a background check and have at least two years of driving experience, program spokesman Ned Glasock said.
    The foreign teachers are paid on the same salary schedule as their American counterparts. In addition, VIF teachers are given visas that allow them to stay in the country no more than three years. They do not apply for or receive green cards.
    Officials in Washington County have reluctantly turned to VIF to fill its teaching vacancies.
    "That was the sole purpose -- filling positions that were vacant that we couldn't fill with U.S. teachers. We just didn't have any other choice," said Paul Bailey, president of the Washington County Board of Education.
    Importing teachers saves school systems in Social Security payments and benefits, which the VIF provides.
    Wayne Ridenour, a member of the Washington County school board and a former teacher, had reservations about hiring VIF teachers.
    "I'm afraid that because it is a little cheaper and easier, we're going to have it as a crutch later. I want to bring our own teachers -- bring them, keep them," he said. "I'm very concerned that this will become a crutch."
    Founded in 1989, VIF does not currently send U.S. teachers overseas, but has done so in the past.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050614Md   Steele eyeing bid for Senate

By S.A. Miller
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
June 16, 2005

Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele yesterday announced the formation of an exploratory committee for his run for the U.S. Senate.
    "This is an opportunity to really go out and make a difference that is important for Maryland families and is important for our communities," Mr. Steele, a Republican, said in a conference call with reporters.
    He said the effort would last several months and focus on listening to Marylanders, identifying priorities and gauging support for his candidacy.
    However, the lieutenant governor expressed confidence he could raise enough money for a campaign and win the support of crossover voters, who would be essential for a Republican seeking victory in a state with nearly twice as many registered Democrats.
    "That [ability to fundraise] is one more sign of Maryland's growing strength of becoming a full-blown, two-party system, and I think that is healthy," he said.
    Mr. Steele's announcementenergized state and national Republican Party leaders who have pressured him to run since U.S. Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes in March declared his pending retirement.
    "Our phones are ringing off the hook," said Audra Miller, spokeswoman for the Maryland Republican Party. "[Mr. Steele] is receiving a lot of support. ... We are extremely encouraged, and we will do all we can to encourage him to enter the race."
    Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.'s election as governor with Mr. Steele as lieutenant governor in 2002 made the two men the first Republicans to hold those offices in Maryland in more than 30 years. The state has not had a Republican senator since 1987.
    Ehrlich spokeswoman Shareese N. DeLeaver said the governor "fully supports" Mr. Steele's deliberations about a Senate run. The governor also thinks Mr. Steele could win the race, she said.
    "Given the [political] climate in Maryland, it is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity," Miss DeLeaver said.
    Mr. Steele, the first black elected to statewide office in Maryland, achieved national prominence after his prime-time speech at the 2004 Republican National Convention.
    His political rise, from a post on the Prince George's County Republican Central Committee to lieutenant governor, took less than 10 years. Mr. Steele said he did not plan his political trajectory but seized the opportunities presented to him.
    "I certainly never thought that I would be lieutenant governor of the state of Maryland, but the opportunity presented itself," he said. "Now, a new opportunity has presented itself, and I am ready to stand up and meet that challenge. ..."
    Mr. Steele is not expected to face a primary challenger if he enters the race.
    Democrats who have announced their candidacies are U.S. Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin, socialist activist A. Robert Kaufman and Kweisi Mfume, former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
 vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050613   Subdivision would ban sex offenders

June 13, 2005

LUBBOCK, Texas (AP) -- The sales pitch for this planned subdivision goes beyond the usual vision of attractive homes and amenities -- homeowners will be required to pass criminal background checks and no convicted sex offenders will be allowed.
    It's a concept that might prove right for the times, said first-time developer Clayton Isom, one of three partners in a company creating Milwaukee Ridge on the outskirts of this West Texas city.
    The idea was inspired, Mr. Isom said, by the killings of two Florida girls -- 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford and 13-year-old Sarah Lunde -- in which registered sex offenders were accused.
    "It makes me sick at my stomach every time I hear one of these stories about these innocent girls," said Mr. Isom, a graduate student in business administration at Texas Tech University.
    Mr. Isom and his two partners in I&S Investments, all in their early 20s, own a 213-acre parcel and plan to subdivide it for 665 houses. Relatives and other investors are backing the trio. Homes will be priced from $100,000 to $150,000.
    Builders agreeing to the development's terms will run background checks on home buyers and any juveniles expected to live in the homes. They could be penalized if they even unknowingly sell to a convicted sex offender.
    Residents will face penalties if they allow a convicted sex offender to live in their homes and will be responsible for checking the backgrounds of potential buyers if they sell. Mr. Isom's company promises to buy a home back for 85 percent of the lesser of the appraised or market value if builders sell to an offender or if an owner or a resident is convicted of a sex offense.
    A homeowner's association will be the developers' eyes and ears.
    There have been no recent reports of high-profile sex-offender crimes in Lubbock, but the city has 413 registered offenders, ranking it 16th in the state, which has 46,000 registered sex offenders.
    The subdivision's ban appears to be legal, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Sex offenders are not a protected class under the Fair Housing Act, HUD spokesman Jerry Brown said.
    The ban could give residents a false sense of security since it can't keep offenders from living near the subdivision, said Katherine Stark, a board member of the National Fair Housing Alliance. "They're a block away," she said.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050613   Church, state mix easily in Texas

June 13, 2005

DALLAS (AP) -- Even for Texas, the scene was remarkable: The governor, flanked by an out-of-state televangelist and religious leaders, signing legislation in a church school gymnasium amid shouts of "amen" like one would hear at a revival.
    It wasn't just the blunt blend of church and state that made the gathering in Fort Worth unusual. Advance publicity also attracted about 300 angry protesters -- unheard of for the routine business of ceremonial bill signings.
    Now some wonder whether Gov. Rick Perry overplayed his hand last week in using the playbook of old friend George W. Bush and political whiz Karl Rove -- mobilizing evangelicals for last year's presidential race.
    "Governor Perry and his people are just not as good as Bush and Rove," Southern Methodist University political scientist Cal Jillson said. "Governor Perry knows the steps, but he's got no rhythm."
    Mr. Perry's appeal came as he awaited possible Republican primary challenges from U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn in 2006. But Mr. Jillson said the ex-Democrat risks overdoing his mix of political issues and religious themes.
    It's a gamble the governor seems willing to take. Last month, he spoke to about 500 pastors in Austin at a meeting of the Texas Restoration Project, which plans to register 300,000 new "values voters" in Texas and elect candidates who reflect their conservative views.
    In the private meeting, Mr. Perry championed promotion of spiritual values on the public square.
    "One of the great myths of our time is that you can't legislate morality," the governor told the ministers, according to a transcript provided to the Associated Press by his campaign.
    "If you can't legislate morality, then you can neither lock criminals up, nor let them go free. If you can't legislate morality, you can neither recognize gay marriage, nor prohibit it. If you can't legislate morality, you can neither allow for prayer in school, nor prevent it," he said. "It is a ridiculous notion to say you can't legislate morality. I say you can't not legislate morality."
    Ohio televangelist Rod Parsley and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council in Washington were among the religious conservatives who shared the stage with Mr. Perry at the Fort Worth bill signing.
    Objections to Mr. Perry's using a church school as a backdrop to a bill signing preceded his visit, with critics mostly focusing on the First Amendment's ban on the establishment of religion.
    "This is one of the most outrageous misuses of a house of worship for political gain that I've ever seen," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of the Washington-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
    Mr. Perry shrugged off the complaints.
    "We could have signed it in a lot of different locations," Mr. Perry said on Fox News.
    "We could have signed it in a Wal-Mart parking lot, and those who are against people of faith being involved in the electoral process would still have been very much against" the measures, which limited late-term abortions and put a state-constitutional amendment against homosexual "marriage" on the November 2006 ballot.
    vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050613   Senate Democrats develop new filibuster strategy

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
June 13, 2005

Senate Democrats are in the early stages of several filibusters against executive nominees that they hope will be more effective than those they have abandoned in recent weeks against President Bush's judicial appointments.
    The new filibusters are not based publicly on ideologies -- as with several of the nominees to the federal bench -- but on demands for additional information from the administration.
    Already stalled under that strategy is John R. Bolton, Mr. Bush's pick to be ambassador to the United Nations.
    Also, Democrats led by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts stopped a federal appeals court nominee last week by demanding that more of his unpublished legal opinions be provided to them.
    Mr. Bush nominated U.S. District Judge Terrence W. Boyle of North Carolina more than four years ago to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond. Judge Boyle had a hearing more than three months ago and has been scheduled numerous times for a Senate Judiciary Committee vote.
    Last week, however, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee demanded that Judge Boyle's nomination wait another week and that the Bush administration produce more of his unpublished opinions. Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, reluctantly agreed.
    "Senator Kennedy was very upset with the failure of the unpublished opinions to be unearthed, or at least some of them," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat.
    Mr. Schumer was asked whether Democrats would filibuster Judge Boyle if Republicans don't produce additional unpublished opinions.
    "We'll have to see what happens," he said. "First, we want to see if there's a good-faith effort to get them. It is hard to get unpublished opinions.
    "Second, when we get them, if there's no smoking gun it's not going to matter," Mr. Schumer said. "If we think there really is a smoking gun -- that we need more time to go forward -- so be it."
    The strategy is similar to the one used against Mr. Bolton.
    When Mr. Bolton was nominated, many Democrats announced their opposition because of his harsh statements about the United Nations.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050614   Blacks nearly half of HIV cases

June 14, 2005

From combined dispatches
    Blacks account for nearly half of the more than 1 million Americans with HIV, according to federal data released yesterday that suggests the battle lines of the nation's AIDS epidemic are marked as much by race as by sexual preference.
    ?The HIV epidemic, initially most prominent among white gay men, has expanded to affect a wide range of populations, with African-Americans now most severely impacted,? Dr. Ron Valdiserri, deputy director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's HIV, sexually transmitted disease and tuberculosis prevention programs, said yesterday.
    An estimated 1,039,000 to 1,185,000 Americans were living with HIV at the end of 2003, up from between 850,000 and 950,000 in 2002, the CDC said at the 2005 National HIV Prevention Conference in Atlanta. The jump reflects the role of medicines that have allowed people infected with the virus to live longer, officials said.
    Forty-seven percent were black, a disproportionate figure considering that blacks make up about 13 percent of the U.S. population. Whites accounted for 34 percent of the HIV-positive population and Hispanics 17 percent.
    Homosexual and bisexual men made up 45 percent of the total.
    In a separate analysis of 1,767 men who have sex with men, researchers also discovered that 67 percent of the black men in the group did not know they were infected before participating in the study, more than three times the percentage of whites who were unaware.
    Dr. Valdiserri said providing homosexual and bisexual black men and other high-risk subgroups with testing and prevention services was a key step to halting the spread of HIV.
    AIDS, which destroys the immune system and leaves victims vulnerable to opportunistic infections and cancers, has killed about a half-million Americans and at least 22 million persons worldwide since 1981.
    Health experts have been warning of a possible resurgence of the epidemic, which eased in the early 1990s after the development of anti-retroviral drugs targeting the disease.
    Since the late 1990s, when U.S. deaths from AIDS stabilized at 16,000 per year and new HIV infections stabilized at 40,000 per year, the disease has shown signs of a comeback among homosexual and bisexual men and intravenous-drug users.
    The CDC, however, said it was possible that the makeup of the HIV-positive population would shift in coming years to reflect a higher proportion of infections among blacks, women and people infected by high-risk heterosexual contact.
    Estimating the number of Americans with HIV has always been a difficult task for health officials, but this year's figures are thought to be the most accurate , thanks to wider case reporting.
    Previous estimates -- as high as 1.5 million people -- from the 1980s were later determined to be too high. For example, the CDC estimated in 1986 that between 1 million and 1.5 million people had HIV. In 1987, that was revised to 945,000 to 1.4 million and was refined in 1990 to 800,000 to 1.2 million.
    vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050614   Study: Virginity vows linked to lower STD rates

By Cheryl Wetzstein
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
June 14, 2005

Teens who take virginity pledges have lower sexual-disease rates and are less likely to engage in sex than are nonpledgers, contrary to research published earlier this year, researchers say in reports scheduled for release today at a federal welfare conference.
    Taking a virginity pledge is "strongly associated" with lower rates of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) -- teen pledgers are 25 percent less likely to have STDs as young adults than nonpledging peers, Heritage Foundation researchers Robert Rector and Kirk A. Johnson said in their reports.
    In addition, when pledgers and nonpledgers are compared on oral and anal sexual activity, data show that the pledgers are significantly less likely to engage in such practices, the Heritage researchers said. This remains true even when sexually active pledgers are compared with sexually active nonpledgers.
    The Heritage papers contradict a study by sociology professors Peter Bearman of Columbia University and Hannah Bruckner of Yale University published in April in the Journal of Adolescent Health.
    The Bearman study said virginity pledgers were "overrepresented" in a category of teens who engage in anal and oral sex, but not vaginal sex. It also said there were "no significant differences" in STD infection rates between pledgers and nonpledgers, and therefore virginity pledges "may not be the optimal approach" for preventing STDs.
    Mr. Rector and Mr. Johnson re-examined the same data in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. They said the Bearman study's conclusions on oral and anal sexual activity are "inaccurate" because it refers only to "very tiny" subgroups of pledgers, not pledgers as a whole.
    As for STD rates, the Bearman study, which was based on one STD measure, said the pledgers' STD rate "does not differ" from that of nonpledgers. However, the Heritage researchers said, when STD rates were analyzed in five ways, pledgers had significantly lower STD rates in four areas and had a rate that was almost significantly lower in the fifth area.
    The Heritage researchers concluded that the Bearman study, which was interpreted widely to mean that virginity programs are harmful to youth, amounts to "disinformation" and "junk science."
    Mr. Bearman yesterday said it was "offensive" to conclude that his study misled the public. He reaffirmed the validity of his research approaches and suggested that Heritage research "would have difficulty" getting published in a peer-review journal.
    Debra Hauser of Advocates for Youth, a group that supports comprehensive sex education, said there are problems with virginity pledges and "it's unfortunate that Rector and Johnson are unwilling to look at" those issues.
    The Heritage papers are slated to be presented today at a welfare conference held by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050615   NEW JERSEY  Court upholds marriage law
    NEWARK -- A state appeals court yesterday ruled that New Jersey's marriage laws are constitutional and same-sex "marriage" cannot be allowed without a change in the law.
    The 2-1 decision, written by Appellate Judge Stephen Skillman, affirms a lower court ruling that also found no constitutional basis for same-sex "marriage."
    Appellate Judge Donald G. Collester Jr. dissented, which virtually assures the case filed by seven homosexual couples seeking to "marry" will be heard by the state Supreme Court.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

E050615   CALIFORNIA   Principal asks to pass failing pupils
    SANTA ANA -- A high school principal asked teachers to reconsider the grades of failing seniors to help the school meet federal requirements under No Child Left Behind.
    Saddleback High School Principal Esther Jones sent teachers a memo last week asking them to reconsider the grades of 98 students, saying, "Please review your records for these students and determine if they would merit a grade of 'D' instead of a failure."
    School Board President Audrey Yamagata-Noji said she needed to find out more about Miss Jones, the incident and her leadership of the school before determining whether discipline was necessary. Miss Jones did not return calls for comment.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050613   Public's view of high court lower now

June 16, 2005

ASSOCIATED PRESS
    The public's image of the Supreme Court has eroded over the past few years, with just more than half of those in a new poll saying they have a favorable view of the high court.
    With major changes expected as aging justices leave the bench, 57 percent of people had a favorable view of the court in the poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.
    Only Justice Clarence Thomas, who is 56, is under the age of 65. Nominations of new justices are likely in the coming months and years.
    For more than a decade, at least seven in 10 people had a favorable view of the high court. In January 2001, just after the court ruled that President Bush was the winner of the 2000 election, 68 percent had a favorable view.
    Democrats grew more negative about the court after the 2000 decision on the election, and 51 percent of Democrats now have a positive view. But conservative Republicans have been growing more negative in their views of the court, the poll found. Favorable opinions of the court have dropped by 20 points among conservative Republicans and white evangelical Christians since January 2001.
    "The court is taking criticism from both sides of the political spectrum," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center. "Liberals lost regard for the court in 2001 following the 2000 election ruling, and the court has lost favor with conservative Republicans, possibly because of their discontent about some big social issues they are focused on."
    Conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats are most likely to say the selection of the next Supreme Court justice is very important to them personally. The overall number of people who feel that way is up to 47 percent, compared with 38 percent in March.
    The public is evenly split on whether they want President Bush to select a nominee who will move the court in a more conservative or more liberal direction.
    One issue that is certain to be central in coming battles over the court's makeup is the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that made abortion legal. Almost two-thirds oppose "completely overturning" that decision.
    Opponents of the decision to make abortion legal appear to be more passionate about the selection of the next justice than those who support Roe v. Wade. Six in 10 opponents of the decision to make abortion legal said the selection of the next justice is very important to them personally, while just four in 10 supporters of that decision felt that way.
    The poll of 1,464 adults was taken June 8-12 and has a margin of sampling error of 3 percentage points.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050617   Weyrich fears 'cordial' ties between GOP and the Right

By Ralph Z. Hallow
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
June 17, 2005

When Paul M. Weyrich came to Washington 40 years ago, the conservative movement was largely a playpen for right-wing intellectuals.
    He helped bring it structure, discipline and, gradually, dominance over the Republican Party, which has been winning elections ever since.
    Mr. Weyrich, the founder and chairman of the Free Congress Foundation, said conservatism, though built on ideas, is not an ideology.
    "It's anti-ideology, a way of looking at the world, a way of life," he explained.
    What's more, "conservatism gets off course when it becomes an ideology," he said, shifting his weight in the wheelchair that has been getting him around town since a fall in 2001 exacerbated a 1996 spinal injury.
    He doesn't complain. Not about that. What rankles him is the tendency of some conservatives to make the movement a mirror image of the left."When conservatism becomes an ideology, then, like the liberal ideology, reality has to fit into the ideology," he said. "So you can't have any deviation from the ideology. Orthodoxy demands that you take this position, and that has never been the hallmark of conservatism."
    Mr. Weyrich said he is happy that the Republican Party has shed its country-club elitism and finally come to define itself as America's conservative party. But the relationship has become too close for comfort.
    "Right now the conservative movement has an all-too-cordial relationship with the Republican Party that has prevented many conservatives from speaking out, for example, about the absolutely out-of-control spending that occurred in the last Congress," he said.
    Mr. Weyrich has exercised considerable influence over the years. He helped build support for President Reagan's sweeping tax cuts by bringing religious conservative leaders together with Jack Kemp, a New York congressman at the time and the prime exponent of those proposed cuts.
    "When Jack Kemp came up with supply-side economic theme in the 1970s, the religious right had no idea what this meant or how it fit in with anything they cared about," Mr. Weyrich said. "So Kemp came over and briefed our whole assemblage at the time and convinced the leaders of the religious right to support his tax-cut bill, and that gave it an extra push it wouldn't have had except for that meeting."
    Mr. Weyrich devoted much of his time in his early years in Washington tutoring religious leaders and activists in the ways of practical politics. He told the Rev. Jerry Falwell there was in America a "moral majority" -- unaware of their potential power but waiting to be organized. Mr. Falwell liked the phrase and adopted it for his movement.
    "My role was basically as coach to the various groups that are now called religious right -- to get them to the point where they could function politically and then to put them into a coalition where they could work together," he said.

One of Mr. Weyrich's most public shows of force came right after the first President Bush took office in 1989, when Mr. Weyrich testified against former Republican Sen. John Tower of Texas, who was nominated for defense secretary. Mr. Weyrich raised questions about Mr. Tower's moral character and personal life and dealt the nomination a fatal blow. Mr. Bush then tapped a relatively unknown Republican from Wyoming -- Rep. Dick Cheney -- to head the Pentagon.
    That was in 1989, 23 years after Mr. Weyrich had first come to Washington as press secretary to a senator.
    "I remember, around 1971, there was a major battle on land use under way in the House, with the vote a few days off," he said. "I heard conservatives were meeting in the Longworth Building, So I went and for 45 minutes listened as differing intellectuals argued arcane ideas about the government role with land.
    "Finally I said, 'Excuse me. Does anyone here have a head count?' One of the intellectuals said, 'Head count?' I said, 'You know, a list of House members for and against land use and who has yet to announce a position.' The meeting chairman said, 'Why would we want that?' I said, 'So we can win the vote by knowing where to direct our efforts.'
    "The fellow, whose name I have long since forgotten, said, 'We don't know what you are talking about. Now don't interrupt us further. We have yet to settle on what we believe about the issue.'?"
    That kind of attitude, Mr. Weyrich said, meant conservatives "always got killed in the political process."
    He said, "One day I was privileged to attend a strategy meeting run by the Civil Rights Coalition, and for the first time in my life I saw how they operate."
    He and another young conservative congressional aide, Edwin J. Feulner, set out to form a similar network on the right. They persuaded businessman Joe Coors to donate the seed money to start up the Heritage Foundation in 1973.
    When Heritage's financial backers didn't want it to get into social issues, Mr. Weyrich left and formed the Free Congress Foundation, Free Congress Political Action Committee and Coalitions for America. Mr. Weyrich then formed three influential strategy groups to cover all the bases in Washington.
    Meeting separately once a week for off-the-record sessions, the Kingston Group devoted its firepower to economic issues, the Stanton Group did the heavy lifting on defense-foreign policy and the Library Court (now called the Family Forum) strategized over social issues. They brought together lawmakers, Hill aides, interest-group representatives -- and, when a Republican held the Oval Office, White House officials -- to exchange ideas and map strategies.
    To round out what Hillary Rodham Clinton would eventually label the "vast right-wing conspiracy," Mr. Weyrich helped organize the House Republican Study Committee and the Senate Republican Steering Committee.
    He also helped found the American Legislative Exchange Council, to develop conservative policies at the state level, and formed the Council for National Policy, which aims to bring together enough legislators, donors and activists to achieve critical mass.
    Despite the achievements of conservatism, Mr. Weyrich worries about the future of the movement in several areas, including foreign policy. "We do not presume to build an American empire," he said. "We do not presume ... that because we have the power we should use it all over the world, whether countries want it or not."
    Such a path, he suggested, could lead to "what George Orwell, in his book '1984,' called 'a permanent war for a permanent peace.' "
    vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M050617   House to cut public broadcasting funds

By Chris Baker
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
June 17, 2005

House lawmakers voted last night to slash funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting by 25 percent next year, although they agreed earlier in the evening to reverse a panel's plan to strip the organization of all federal funding by 2008.
    The House Appropriations Committee approved a bill that would cut funding for the corporation by 25 percent, or $100 million. The CPB is the congressionally chartered organization that channels funding to the Public Broadcasting Service, National Public Radio and individual public radio and TV stations.
    The money is used to help underwrite popular children's programs such as "Sesame Street" and "Arthur," and it would help public broadcasters prepare for technology upgrades required by the Federal Communications Commission.
    The reductions that the committee were considering far exceed the cuts President Bush recommended in the budget he submitted to legislators earlier this year.
    Even if the full House approves the committee's plan to cut the CPB's budget by 25 percent, the money could be restored by the Senate, which historically has been more protective of federal contributions to public TV and radio.
    The funding cut comes amid a new debate over liberal bias in public broadcasting, a charge led by Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, chairman of the corporation's board of directors.
    PBS "is the most valuable resource we have for getting decent, quality programming to children," said Rep. David R. Obey, Wisconsin Democrat, during the Appropriations Committee's meeting yesterday afternoon.
    The committee adopted an amendment from Mr. Obey, the panel's ranking member, that essentially reversed plans approved last week by its labor, health and human services, education and related agencies subcommittee that would strip the corporation of all federal funding within two years.
    Funding for public broadcasting has traditionally been a divisive issue in Congress. Conservatives have argued for years about a liberal bias in public broadcasting programming, although proponents of PBS and NPR cite polls that indicate public broadcasting is one of the government's most popular programs.
    When Republicans attempted to eliminate federal funding to the CPB 10 years ago, Rep. Nita M. Lowey, New York Democrat, brought puppets of "Sesame Street" characters to suggest that the popular PBS children's program was at stake.
    At yesterday's Appropriations Committee meeting, Ms. Lowey trotted out toy versions of Bert and Ernie again.
    "I wake up to NPR ... my grandchildren watch 'Sesame Street.' I don't know of any house that doesn't appreciate the importance of public broadcasting," she said.
    Rep. Ralph Regula, Ohio Republican and chairman of the subcommittee that recommended stripping all federal funding for the corporation, defended the plan.
    "As far as your puppets are concerned, they get one half of 1 percent of this money, so they are not in jeopardy. You can relax," Mr. Regula said.
    The CPB's funding accounts for about 10 percent of PBS' budget and 1 percent of NPR's, according to the broadcasters. PBS officials have said the cuts the House lawmakers are considering would threaten educational children's programs.
    Mr. Tomlinson has said public broadcasting needs to be more balanced. The CPB's inspector general is investigating Mr. Tomlinson's efforts, which include $15,000 in payments to two Republican lobbyists last year that were not disclosed to the corporation's board, according to a report in yesterday's New York Times.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050618   McCarrick ponders end of 'kind' ministry

By Julia Duin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
June 18, 2005

CHICAGO -- Less than one month from the age of mandatory retirement for Catholic bishops, Washington Cardinal Theodore McCarrick said he hopes to leave a legacy of kindness after his 28 years as a bishop in New York, Metuchen and Newark, N.J., and Washington.
    "Every priest needs to be kind," he said. "Every bishop needs to be kind... If I try to be kind, that's the most important thing. Get the bad people made good, get the good people made better. That's my legacy."
    The cardinal must send a retirement letter to Pope Benedict XVI on July 7, his 75th birthday. Whether the pope immediately accepts the letter depends on the importance of the diocese, whether the current bishop is crucial to unfinished business there, the health of the current bishop and whether the pope may have someone else lined up for the job.
    "I am energetic enough [to stay]," the cardinal said, "but I have a lot of things I could do in retirement. I want to get myself ready to go home [to heaven], you know? [Retirement] would give me more time to do that."
    It would also give him more time to go fishing, he said, especially in New Jersey, where he lived for 23 years. However, John Paul II, near the end of his reign, extended several cardinals' terms well past retirement age. Benedict XVI could follow suit.
     "If he wants me to continue, I'm open to that, too," the cardinal said. "Whatever. I'm easy, I really am. I learned years ago you always do what the Lord tells you to do. ... Whatever the Lord tells me through the Holy Father, I am open to whatever he wants."
    He is especially proud, he added, of his "sons;" 12 priests he personally ordained as bishops who were with the cardinal at the semi-annual meeting of U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) at the Fairmont Hotel here.
    "Two of them did really well today," he said, referring to two bishops who were elected to head committees or spoke during floor debate.
    U.S. bishops at the meeting yesterday voted for some changes to their 2002 Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, then voted to implement the revised version for five years. They also decided to retain a one-strike policy in the charter that ousts priests and deacons from office for a single act of sexual abuse against a minor.
    Retired Metuchen Bishop Edward T. Hughes protested, saying many priests are "anxious and uncertain" about the one-strike rule, "believing an accusation is tantamount to being judged guilty."
    "I am not suggesting all our priests are angry," he added, "but they are concerned about their own future and ministry."
    Bishops also agreed to spend up to $1.5 million from a $20 million endowment fund to partly fund a massive study on the causes of priestly sexual abuse. The USCCB hopes to raise the remainder of the cost of the study, slated to cost between $3 million and $5 million, from private foundations.
    When some of the bishops expressed concern about the cost of the study, a lineup of bishops reminded the body the USCCB had promised in 2002 the study would be funded somehow, no matter the cost.
    One reason, said Boston Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley, is the findings will show that priests are not any more liable to abuse children than are other men in the general population. "We have a terrible image of the priesthood," he said, "that somehow priests have a greater propensity to pedophilia. I don't believe that."
    Bishops also inserted a new clause yesterday into their 84-page "Program of Priestly Formation" on requirements for men entering the priesthood to say they must have abstained from sex for at least two years. Earlier versions had no set time of abstinence.
    Also, the bishops made their ad hoc committee for sexual abuse permanent, thus changing its name to the Standing Committee for the Protection of Children and Young People. A USCCB standing committee carries more weight than an ad hoc committee.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050614Va   Voters set to pick nominees for Virginia's top 3 offices

By Christina Bellantoni
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
June 14, 2005

Virginia Republicans will go to the polls today to select their nominees for governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general, as Democrats will choose a running mate for their gubernatorial nominee Lt. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine.
    In some districts, voters also will choose their party's nominees for House of Delegates.
    Today's primary is the first in decades that both parties have held on the same day, and voters must pick a party ballot. Voters in Virginia do not register by party.
    Turnout is expected to drop to a record low, in part because former Attorney General Jerry W. Kilgore is considered to be the overwhelming favorite to win the Republican nomination for governor.
    Mr. Kilgore faces Warrenton Mayor George B. Fitch, who has raised less than $200,000 and has little name recognition beyond being known as the founder of the Jamaican bobsled team, which competed in the 1988 Winter Olympics.
    The winner will face Mr. Kaine and Sen. H. Russell Potts Jr., a Winchester Republican who is running as an independent, in the Nov. 8 general election.
    Republicans also will choose between Sen. William T. Bolling and Prince William Board of County Supervisors Chairman Sean T. Connaughton for lieutenant governor.
    Mr. Bolling, Hanover Republican, is anti-tax and one of the most conservative legislators in the state. Mr. Connaughton is considered a centrist and has been endorsed by many local leaders and incumbents. The winner will face one of four Democrats seeking the nomination.
    That contest is between Delegates J. Chapman Petersen of Fairfax and Viola O. Baskerville of Richmond, state Sen. Phillip P. Puckett of Tazewell County and former state senator and U.S. Rep. Leslie L. Byrne of Fairfax.
    The lieutenant governor serves as president of the Senate and succeeds the governor in case of emergency or resignation. It is a part-time position.
    Delegate Robert F. McDonnell of Virginia Beach and Richmond lawyer Steve Baril are running for attorney general. Each Republican has won endorsements from key state leaders and promises to be tough on crime and defend conservative values.
    The winner of today's primary will face Sen. R. Creigh Deeds, Bath County Democrat, in November.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050615   Austria targets child pornography

By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
June 15, 2005

Austrian law-enforcement authorities, working on information provided by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, have served search warrants at 120 locations during the past few days targeting 96 suspected child-pornography violators.
    Investigators seized computers, disks and other documents in an ongoing ICE undercover investigation known as Operation Predator.
    ICE spokeswoman Jamie Zuieback said Austria's Federal Bureau of Criminal Investigations -- the Austrian Bundeskriminalamt (BKA) -- is working in conjunction with local Austrian police agencies to pursue leads provided by ICE's attache in Vienna.
    BKA's enforcement action, she said, grew out of an ongoing ICE investigation of the Internet billing company RegPay in Minsk, Belarus. It was targeted in 2003 and charged in January 2004 with money laundering, as well as providing credit card billing services for 50 child pornography Web sites worldwide and operating child-porn Web sites.
    The president and technical administrator of RegPay pleaded guilty in March in federal court in Newark, N.J., to operating an international child-pornography and money-laundering ring. Yahor Zalatarou, 26, and Aliaksandr Boika, 30, both of Minsk, brought to nine the number of guilty pleas in the government's case against the firm and its associates.
    Zalatarou pleaded guilty to conspiracy to transport and ship via computer visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Boika pleaded guilty to conspiracy to advertise child pornography. Both pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering.
    Alexei Buchnev, another Belarusian and RegPay official named in a superseding indictment, pleaded guilty in February to conspiracy to transport and ship by computer visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
    Ms. Zuieback said RegPay ran a global Internet pornography business with thousands of paid memberships to dozens of Web sites featuring children. She said the company earned millions of dollars by processing credit card fees for more than 50 other Web sites.
    The company officials also admitted to conspiring in a money-laundering scheme with a Fort Lauderdale, Fla., credit card billing service, Connections USA Inc., to receive the RegPay membership fees. Connections USA and two of its officers, Eugene Valentine and Keith Czarnecki, pleaded guilty to money-laundering charges.
    Ms. Zuieback said that having dismantled the leadership of the Belarusian enterprise, ICE agents in domestic offices and 52 attache offices worldwide turned their focus to those who purchased child-porn subscriptions from the Minsk sites in the United States and overseas.
    More than 1,200 people, she said, have been arrested worldwide in the investigation, including 235 in the United States.
    ?Operation Predator draws on ICE's unique investigative and enforcement authorities to safeguard children from foreign national pedophiles, human traffickers, international sex tourists and individuals who trade in child pornography,? Ms. Zuieback said, noting that the agency has arrested more than 5,800 people in the United States since 2003.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050614   Dean's true colors
    'Christians in Vermont aren't surprised Howard Dean wields the word 'Christian' as a curse not a compliment,' George Neumayr writes in the American Spectator Online (www.spectator.org).
    'They have long chuckled over the mainstream media's lazy acceptance of Dean's self-description as a moderate willing to make overtures to the religious. That's not the Howard Dean they recall,' Mr. Neumayr says.
    'On a Vermont radio talk show, Dean once referred to pro-lifers in the state as common criminals whom he didn't care to meet, and would demonize conservative Christians as 'haters' while choking on his own hate.'
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050615   Bishop meeting to avoid gay issue

By Julia Duin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
June 15, 2005

U.S. Catholic bishops will sidestep the issue of whether homosexual men should become priests at their semiannual meeting, which begins tomorrow, despite the Vatican's concern about the role of homosexuals in the church's massive sex-abuse scandal.
    In the latest edition of an 84-page document on priestly training, only one sentence deals with homosexuality.
    "With regard to the admission of candidates with same-sex experiences and/or inclinations, the guidelines provided by the Holy See must be followed," says the document "Program of Priestly Formation."
    The program is expected to be approved by the bishops in their Chicago meetings, scheduled to end Saturday. It then would be forwarded to Rome for final approval.
    However, the Vatican, which is said to be preparing to crack down on homosexuality in seminaries, has never issued official guidelines, canon laws or papal pronouncements on whether Catholic seminaries should remain open to homosexual men. Only a Feb. 2, 1961, Vatican directive to canon law speaks directly to the matter.
    "Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty," reads the directive, which is advisory rather than a binding law.
    But the "guidelines" mentioned in the document, now in its fifth edition, refer to rules that might be set forth by the Vatican, said Bill Ryan, spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).
    "I know that sounds a little vague," he added.
    A USCCB investigation revealed in 2004 that 81 percent of 10,667 priestly sexual-abuse cases involved boys, with the largest share of those victims being 11 or older. Estimates of the percentage of men studying for the priesthood who have homosexual attractions range from 25 percent to more than 50 percent.
     "There are persons in the Vatican who have decided we should exclude homosexual men from seminaries in the United States," said Catholic University professor Dean Hoge, an adviser to the document.
    "But the idea of excluding men with a homosexual orientation is impossible. If you ask a man and he refuses to answer, what are you going to do? The general feeling is that if a man is chaste, celibate, responsible and relates well, we don't care if he has a same-sex attraction or not. That's my view," he said.
    Not all heterosexual priests are chaste either, he added, "but nobody talks about that.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050615   No. 6 and counting
    The Senate yesterday confirmed one of its former lawyers, Thomas B. Griffith, to sit on the U.S. Appeals Court, the sixth judge it has elevated to the federal appellate court in the last month.
    With a 73-24 vote, Judge Griffith became the newest member of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, taking a seat the Bush administration intended for lawyer Miguel Estrada, who dropped out in 2003 after being blocked by a Democratic filibuster.
    President Bush replaced him with Judge Griffith last year, who earned his stripes by serving as the chamber's general counsel during President Clinton's impeachment. He later became Brigham Young University's general counsel.
    Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican, called Judge Griffith "hard-working, fair-minded and honest." Democrats — naturally — have opposed him, though Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada offered to bring his nomination up for a vote during the chamber's deadlock over whether to ban the judicial filibuster.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050616   A lack of deference
    "In the minds of many liberal Democrats, Hispanics and African Americans must seem to come in only two varieties: deferential or defective," syndicated columnist Ruben Navarrette Jr. writes.
    "And according to one angry caller — who was, from the sound of it, perfectly at home in a blue state — I fall into the second category. 'I think you're deluded,' he said, 'and maybe insane.'
    "I'm just guessing, but something tells me the caller would probably say the same thing about Janice Rogers Brown, who two years ago was nominated by President Bush to fill a vacancy on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Last week, Brown was finally confirmed, but not before Senate Democrats and their accomplices in left-leaning advocacy groups such as People for the American Way did their best to try to paint this black conservative and California Supreme Court associate justice as an 'extremist' whose views are outside the mainstream.
    "Translation: Brown doesn't defer to liberals. So she must be defective."
    The columnist also noted what he called liberal Democrats' "lukewarm reaction" to Alberto R. Gonzales as the nation's first Hispanic attorney general, and the case of Miguel Estrada, whose nomination to a federal appeals court "was unfairly derailed by rank racial politics."
    Mr. Navarette added: "I don't see why liberals won't say what they really mean. It's obvious that what concerns them is not that these nominees aren't real minorities, but rather that they aren't their kind of minority. You know, the kind that asks for permission before they speak and makes sure that what they say falls in line with the views of their liberal benefactors."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv