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
L050515L    Biotech growth and stem-cell research
L050519      Poll on stem-cell research spurs ire
L050521      Bush vows first veto for stem-cell bill

HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR/PERVERSION
H050514      Gay 'marriage' ruling energizes foes
H050516      Gay 'marriage' to mark 1st anniversary
H050518      Gay couples mark 'marriage' anniversary in Boston
H050520      GEORGIA   Atlanta United Way withholds Scout cash
H050521Md Ehrlich vetoes bills for gay-couple rights

RELIGION/RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION
R0505019   WASHINGTON   Christian vanity plate gets state OK
R050514     GOP decries 'stunt' by Reid
R050514     U.S. archbishop new Vatican enforcer
R050515E   Time to vote on Justice Owen
R050516     Checks and balances
R050516     GOP senators hopeful on non-'nuclear' options
R050516C  Why theocracy can't happen here
R050517C  A tipoff judicial ruling
R050517E  Harry Reid, below the belt
R050517E  Let's make a deal
R050518    Liberal hysteria
R050518    Losing respect
R050518    Nuclear option
R050518C  How filibusters drain quality
R050519   'Hour of decision' on judicial picks
R050519    Measure targets Pledge challenges
R050519    Memos reveal strategy behind judge filibusters
R050519    Nominees head to Senate
R050519C  A unique case of obstruction
R050519C  The Senate's 'Dirty Harry'
R050519E  Confirm Justice Brown
R050519E  No Republican compromise
R050520     Deadlock on judicial picks spurs 'nuclear option' vote on Tuesday
R050520     Justice Owen's past cases drawing senators' attention
R050520     Short list begins for Supreme Court
R050521E   Nominees deserve better
R050521     Bush praises pope at prayer meeting
R050521     Republicans start countdown to 'nuclear option'

EDUCATION
E050516       Defining science, Kansas style
E050517       College ad to protest Bush visit
E050517       Study hits college classes for principals
E050517Md Tug of war over sex education in schools
E050517Va  Sex-ed battles inspire Fairfax
E050519Va  Diocese rejects sex-ed leaflets
E050520L    Sex-ed battle rages on

MEDIA
M050516     Newsweek apologizes for Koran article
M050517     Newsweek retracts article on U.S. disrespect of Koran
M050517C  Know thine enemy
M050518     Newsweek's error
M050518     Tomlinson hits back
M050518E   Mainstream-media bombshell
M050519     Biased to the left
M050519L   Newsweek's blunders send troubling message
M050520   ' Irrelevant question'
M050520C  Credibility chasm
M050521C  Accessories in reckless race
M050521C  Newsweek meets 21st century war

OTHER
O050514     Dobson seen as champion by the conservative culture
O050517     Parties split on nation's morals
O050517L   Resorting to name-calling
O050519     Child exploitation

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 

R050519   Nominees head to Senate
 

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

With all attempts at compromise dead, the Senate will take up two of President Bush's filibustered judicial nominations today and begin a historic showdown between the parties over the Senate's role in confirming federal judges.
    Republicans, led by Majority Leader Bill Frist, spent yesterday accusing Democrats of using "unprecedented" tactics to block nominees who have majority support in the Senate. They said the minority party is shirking its constitutional responsibility to provide "advice and consent" on judicial nominees by preventing final votes on them.
    Democrats, led by Minority Leader Harry Reid, argued that by filibustering the nominees -- whom they describe as conservative judicial activists far outside the mainstream -- the Senate is officially registering its refusal to give consent.
    "Well, it appears that we really have reached a moment of truth in the United States Senate this week," said Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat who said he'd still like to find a compromise.
    "The announcement by Senator Frist and Senator Reid [Monday] afternoon that their discussions over avoiding the so-called nuclear option have failed present us now with this moment of truth and a challenge for every member of the United States Senate," he said.
    During the day, Republicans on both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue met with the two nominees who will be debated on the Senate floor in the next two weeks.
    Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit more than four years ago, and California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit nearly two years ago.
    Both have been approved twice by the Senate Judiciary Committee in party-line votes.
    While Justices Owen and Brown met privately with Mr. Bush in the White House yesterday, spokesman Scott McClellan said the issue is a simple constitutional principle.
    "The role of the president is to appoint qualified individuals to the bench. The role of the Senate is to provide their advice and consent," he said. "It's not to provide advice and block. And what we have seen is that Senate Democrats are taking this to an unprecedented level, something we have not seen in ... 214 years."
    Also invoking history, Senate Minority Whip Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, said filibustering 10 of Mr. Bush's nominees is his party's "sacred responsibility."
    "This is not the first time in our nation's history that a president of the United States wants more power," he said, noting the "checks and balances" that were established between the executive and legislative branches. "It's a natural thing in government, and the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution understood it."
    After Mr. Frist brings the nomination of Justice Owen to the Senate floor today, senators on both sides of the aisle will debate the nominations of both Justice Owen and Justice Brown. Republicans have said the two are qualified nominees whom most Americans will find appealing.
    Near the end of the week, Mr. Frist will file for "cloture," his notice that he will move in coming days to close the debate on Justice Owen.
    "Absent resolution of this, I think everything could come to a head by early next week," a senior Frist aide said yesterday.
    Both sides have said that any hope of compromise has evaporated.
    Although most polls show majority opposition to the "nuclear option," the rare parliamentary procedure through which the Senate will ban filibusters of judicial nominees, they also show majority opposition to the Democratic filibusters.
    In a poll conducted by Mr. Reid's home state Las Vegas Tribune-Review, 51 percent of responding Nevadans said they opposed the filibusters while 42 percent said they supported them.
    Mr. Reid said yesterday that "we feel good," but "we certainly are not about to declare victory."
    "It's going to take some Republicans of good will to be courageous and break from their leadership," he said.
    •Joseph Curl contributed to this report.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050520   Short list begins for Supreme Court
 

By Joseph Curl
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Preparations are already well under way within the White House to fill an expected vacancy on the Supreme Court, with at least one conservative legal organization having submitted its recommendations on who should sit on the nation's top court.
    The White House is keeping mum about the early preparations — several top administration officials will not even acknowledge that preliminary work has begun, despite the serious health issues that kept Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, 80, off the bench for much of this year.
    But others with close White House connections say a short list is well into development.
    "There's a normal process that the White House has definitely been pursuing for at least six months where they are soliciting views and recommendations," said Samuel B. Casey, executive director of the Christian Legal Society (CLS). "We have submitted our views."
    Said one top Republican official with close ties to the White House: "The same four or five or six names keep coming up. I'm sure they have a short list already."
    Top administration and White House officials — including Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, Solicitor General Theodore Olson and White House Counsel Harriet Miers, President Bush's longtime adviser and former personal lawyer — are involved in the early process, according to several sources close to the White House.
    Having seen President Reagan's ill-fated nomination of Robert H. Bork to the top court — which dragged on for months and allowed opposition to mobilize against him — the Bush administration is not uttering a word about who may be considered.
    "They're very careful at the White House, so I don't know whose views besides ours that they're soliciting," Mr. Casey said.
    The Christian Legal Society, he said, has "made it known to the White House who we believe are our top three most qualified candidates consistent with the president's stated views that he is looking for judges who faithfully interpret the law, not legislate from the bench."
    Judge Michael W. McConnell on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is top of the list for CLS, a 42-year-old, 3,400-member nonprofit group that says its mission is "to do justice with the love of God."
    Second is Judge Edith Hollan Jones, who practiced law in Texas and now sits on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. The third candidate is Samuel Alito, a 3rd U.S. Circuit judge from Philadelphia.
    The solicitation of potential names for the Supreme Court comes as the Republican-controlled Senate is locked in contentious debate over the "nuclear option," which would ban filibusters of judicial nominees and let Republicans approve a Bush pick with a simple majority vote.
    Many Supreme Court observers say the current battle will be dwarfed by what happens should Justice Rehnquist announce his retirement at the end of June, when the court finishes its session.
    The last nomination by a Republican president was Justice Clarence Thomas. Liberals trying to defeat him announced public searches for anyone who could remember discussing abortion with him and delayed his confirmation with nationally televised hearings on Anita Hill's decade-old charges of sexual harassment.
    Not since 1823 has the nation gone 10 years without a vacancy on the Supreme Court — the last appointment to the high court was 11 years ago.
    Actuarial tables alone suggest that Mr. Bush would be able to name at least two new justices, and perhaps as many as four.
    Justice Rehnquist, 80, suffers from thyroid cancer. Justices John Paul Stevens, 85, Sandra Day O'Connor, 75, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 72, also have been treated for cancer. Only Justice Thomas is younger than 65.
    Some court analysts see Judge McConnell, 50, as a prime candidate for the Supreme Court. He is a former law professor who was confirmed easily by the Senate in 2001 for his Circuit Court position. He stated during his confirmation hearings that while he sees flaws in Roe v. Wade, it is settled law.
    David Schultz, a professor in Minnesota's Hamline University law school and author of a new book "Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court," also sees Judge McConnell as a front-runner.
    "He's probably the most confirmable of the names I've heard," Mr. Schultz said. "He doesn't have a lightning-bolt record. ... McConnell doesn't really have that smoking-gun decision."
    There are several others mentioned often as candidates for the high court, including:
    •J. Michael Luttig of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, considered one of the most conservative judges on the federal bench.
    •J. Harvie Wilkinson III, also on the 4th Circuit, who is considered more moderate than Judge Luttig but could be opposed by liberals over his opposition of affirmative action.
    •Emilio Garza of the 5th Circuit, who would give Mr. Bush the chance to name the first Hispanic justice, but whose conservative views on abortion could prompt liberal outcry.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050520   Deadlock on judicial picks spurs 'nuclear option' vote on Tuesday
 

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist last night scheduled the "nuclear option" vote for Tuesday, an expected announcement that came shortly after a bipartisan group of senators failed yet again to reach a last-minute compromise on judicial nominees.
    "We've made a tremendous amount of progress in the last few days," said Sen. Mark Pryor, Arkansas Democrat, who is among those still negotiating. "We don't have a deal at the moment but we're still very hopeful."
    But observers on both sides of the aisle doubt a compromise can be reached.
    Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said earlier this week that Republican leaders won't yield on their demand that all judicial nominees get final up-or-down votes on the Senate floor.
    Sen. Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican who is not among those still negotiating, said Democrats will never promise not to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee.
    "There's nothing going to come out of it," Mr. Coburn said of the current talks. "But they are the deal makers and let them work it all they want."
    Republicans, meanwhile, picked up an important new vote in Sen. Gordon H. Smith, Oregon Republican. Mr. Smith had long resisted agreeing to vote for the "nuclear option," but said on the Senate floor yesterday that he is an "unqualified supporter" of the effort.
    Mr. Frist said last night he will file a "cloture motion" today, which would end debate on the nomination of Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, who was picked more than four years ago for a spot on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.
    That cloture vote will require 60 votes for passage and occur Tuesday. If a compromise is not reached before then and Democrats maintain their filibuster by denying cloture, Mr. Frist will then employ the "nuclear option," which will ban filibusters of judicial nominations.
    At some point after Justice Owen's nomination is dealt with, Mr. Frist will formally take up on the floor the nomination of California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, who is nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
    Democrats, led by members of the Congressional Black Caucus yesterday, have accused Justice Brown, who is black, of being "outside the mainstream."
    "We are particularly disturbed at what she has said on the bench," said D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Democrat. "Twenty years after the Supreme Court ruled that derogatory remarks in the workplace -- ethnic slurs, if you will -- are not protected by federal law, in dissent, Justice Brown opined that the First Amendment should protect derogatory remarks."
    To rebut such charges, Mr. Frist's office dug up some old voting statistics from the liberal enclave of San Francisco County, where Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, got 83 percent of the vote in the 2004 presidential race.
    Titled "Justice Janice Brown Out of the Mainstream?" the e-mail said, "In 1998, the last time Janice Rogers Brown was on the California ballot, Brown received 79 percent of the vote in San Francisco County."
    Mr. Frist also held a photo opportunity outside the Capitol yesterday with a group of black ministers in support of Justice Brown's nomination.
    "Why are they afraid to put a black woman on the court?" asked Bishop Harry Jackson, lead pastor at the 3,000-member Hope Christian Church in Maryland.
    He called Justice Brown "a legal hero for black America [and] a legal hero for all America."
    Also yesterday, Mr. Kerry entered the fray over judges and lambasted Republicans for threatening to set the new precedent.
    "Feeling the flush of victory in an election that was close, controlling two branches of government, now suddenly, elected officials, people who serve here at the grace of that Constitution for a brief period of time at the sufferance of the people who vote for us, those people are choosing to serve the moment," he said. "Not serve history, not to serve precedent, not to serve common sense, not to serve even the real interests of the American people."
    Sen. Richard M. Burr, North Carolina Republican, took exception to the defenses of the filibuster made by Mr. Kerry along with Democratic Sens. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey.
    "This afternoon, Senator Kerry claimed that it is dangerous for the Senate to limit filibusters on judicial nominees," said Mr. Burr, noting that Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Lautenberg joined Mr. Kerry in that defense. "But on January 5, 1995 ... all three of those senators voted to change the Senate rules to eliminate all filibusters, to eliminate all filibusters on nominations, motions, legislation -- everything."
    If the Democrats who supported that 1995 measure had prevailed, Mr. Burr said, "we'd have had up-or-down votes on these judicial candidates."

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050520   Justice Owen's past cases drawing senators' attention
 

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Amid the rhetoric about 'unprecedented filibusters' and 'greedy power grabs' during the Senate debate over President Bush's judicial nominations this week, pointed charges have emerged regarding court cases on which the nominees ruled.
    Democrats say Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen -- nominated more than four years ago to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit -- is hostile to women's rights and cozy with corporate interests.
    'I believe it is pretty clear that Justice Owen does not protect victims' rights,' said Sen. Patty Murray, Washington Democrat. She cited Read v. Scott Fetzer Co., a 1998 Texas case.
    'Justice Owen ruled that a rape victim -- a rape victim -- could not collect civil damages against a vacuum cleaner company that employed an in-home dealer who raped her while he was demonstrating the company's product even though the company had failed to check his references,' Mrs. Murray said.
    Had the company checked, Mrs. Murray said, it would have found that he had harassed women previously and had been charged with inappropriate sexual conduct with a child.
    But Republicans, led by the office of Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, said Mrs. Murray had got her facts wrong. According to Mr. Cornyn's office, Justice Owen argued to dismiss liability only for the manufacturer of the vacuum cleaner, not the independent distributor who hired the salesman.
    'The dissenting opinion made expressly clear that '[n]o one questions that [the company that hired the rapist] is liable,' ' said an e-mail sent from Mr. Cornyn's office shortly after Mrs. Murray's speech.
    Democratic Whip Richard J. Durbin of Illinois cited several cases in which he said Justice Owen was scolded for her dissents by her colleagues.
    'She has often been guilty of ignoring plain law, distorting legislative history and engaging in extreme judicial activism,' he said.
    'Justice Owen has favored manufacturers over consumers, large corporations over individual employees, insurance companies over claimants and judge-made law over jury verdicts,' he said.
    One of the cases Mr. Durbin cited is Montgomery Independent School District v. Davis, in which a teacher was found to have been 'wrongly fired.'
    The 2000 case 'involved the authority of a local school board to dismiss a poorly performing and abusive teacher,' according to Mr. Cornyn's office. 'She also regularly insulted parents and lied to them about their children.'
    Another case often cited by Democrats is Texas Farmers Insurance Co. v. Murphy, in which Justice Owen sided with an insurance company that had denied payment to a couple whose house was torched.
    Mr. Cornyn's office said the house in the 1999 case had been torched by the man who was co-insured by the company.
    'Justice Owen ruled simply that neither an arsonist nor his spouse should benefit from his crime by recovering insurance proceeds,' according to the e-mail.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050519   'Hour of decision' on judicial picks
 

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The Senate began debate on two of President Bush's filibustered judicial nominations yesterday as a team of senators from both sides of the aisle strived for a last-ditch compromise to avert a "nuclear option" showdown.
    "The hour of decision has come for our nation's Senate," said Minority Leader Harry Reid, who earlier this week said he and Majority Leader Bill Frist had given up on official leadership negotiations. "In the debate that has begun, the Republican majority that holds the reins of power will have to make a choice."
    But even before Mr. Frist could call to the floor the nomination of Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, the Senate got mired in partisan discord. Mr. Reid and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, wanted Mr. Frist to call up another Bush nominee instead.
    At 9:47 a.m., the presiding officer ordered a close to the quarreling and called up Justice Owen -- thus beginning the debate that appears increasingly likely to end in the deployment of the so-called nuclear option.
    In addition to Justice Owen, senators also discussed the nomination of California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, although her nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was not officially called to the floor.
    Republicans portrayed the nominees as highly accomplished, well-qualified jurists who were retained on their respective courts with higher vote margins than any other justices running in those elections.
    "Janice Rogers Brown can get 76 percent of the vote in California, and Priscilla Owen can get 84 percent of the vote in Texas, but neither can get a vote to be confirmed in the Senate," said Mr. Frist, answering Democratic arguments that the nominees are "out of the mainstream."
    "Are 76 percent of Californians and 84 percent of Texans out of the mainstream?" he wondered. "Denying Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen a vote is what's out of the mainstream."
    Democrats portrayed Justices Owen and Brown as hostile to abortion and to worker rights, sympathetic to corporate interests and "anti-woman."
    Dozens of female Democrat lawmakers, including Sens. Barbara Boxer of California and Patty Murray of Washington, denounced the nominations of Justices Owen and Brown at a press conference inside the Capitol.
    "When Americans think of a scary person in a black robe, they should be thinking of Darth Vader, not Republicans' choices for judges," Mr. Reid told supporters yesterday. "But what the Republican leadership is attempting to do is to pack the courts with judges far out of the mainstream of American values."
    While debate continued on the Senate floor throughout yesterday, Mr. Reid forced all committees to cancel their meetings.
    The move served as a precursor to Democratic promises earlier this year to "shut down" all nonessential Senate business if Republicans carry out their plans to ban filibusters on judicial nominations.
    "Despite any differences over the judges, the American people want their government to continue working on issues important to them," Frist spokesman Bob Stevenson said. "They want the Senate to do its job."
    Although official negotiations between Mr. Frist and Mr. Reid have broken down, a group of senators bent on compromise spent yesterday shuttling among offices for private meetings.
    In one meeting yesterday, 11 senators gathered in the office of Sen. John W. Warner, Virginia Republican, for about an hour.
    Other Republican negotiators were Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mike DeWine of Ohio, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Democratic negotiators were Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Ken Salazar of Colorado, Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.
    Negotiators gave positive signals during the day.
    "We continue to make progress, and we continue to be optimistic," Mr. Nelson said after walking out of Mr. Warner's office. "We wouldn't continue to do it if we didn't have some expectation of achieving an agreement."
    For a deal to be struck, aides close to the negotiations say that either Democrats will have to stop filibustering nominees or Republicans will have to vote against individual nominees.
    Mr. Graham said that although he would consider a deal that doesn't guarantee votes for all the filibustered nominees, he would not oppose any of the nominees.
    "No," he said. "I'm not going to agree to vote 'no' on somebody just to get a deal."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050519   Poll on stem-cell research spurs ire
 

By Amy Fagan and Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Centrist Republicans apologized yesterday for polling in pro-life House Republicans' districts in an effort to boost support to expand the president's policy on embryonic stem-cell research, a proposal expected to come up for a vote next week.
    Some Republicans were angry and said they were not warned that their districts would be surveyed on the sensitive issue by the Winston Group, a Republican polling firm. The subject was raised in a House Republican conference meeting yesterday morning, and a few members called another conference meeting later in the day to discuss it further.
    A group of centrist Republicans -- led by Delaware Rep. Michael N. Castle -- won a commitment earlier this year from House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert to vote on legislation that would expand Mr. Bush's 2001 policy, which limited federal research funding to a group of available embryonic stem-cell lines.
    "We haven't changed course," Mr. Hastert, Illinois Republican, said as he left the late-afternoon meeting, explaining that although he doesn't support Mr. Castle's effort, "there needs to be a debate on it."
    Mr. Castle has a bill that he and several members say is headed to a vote next week. It would allow researchers to use embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics that otherwise would be discarded.
    But a survey commissioned by Mr. Castle and his allies on the issue polled in 13 Republican districts, including those of Arizona Rep. Rick Renzi and House Majority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri. The results were used to urge support for the bill, and some members said the poll distorted the issue.
    Mr. Castle apologized to colleagues yesterday afternoon. "In retrospect, I wish [the poll] wasn't done," he said.
    Meanwhile, pro-life Republicans such as House Majority Leader Tom DeLay oppose Mr. Castle's bill and are working to bring to the floor next week a measure that would support research into adult stem cells and core blood stem cells instead of embryonic stem cells.
    "Both of those ... we're working on, and would hope to vote on them as soon as we get them ready," Mr. DeLay said of Mr. Castle's bill and the conservative bill. "We're hoping they'll be ready by next week, but there's still some work that needs to be done."
    Many conservatives argue that expanding embryonic stem-cell research is wrong, because embryos are destroyed in the process. They say other less-controversial forms of research, such as adult stem-cell research, have more promise of medical breakthroughs.
    Rep. Dave Weldon, Florida Republican, said Mr. Castle and his allies tried hard to drum up support for their bill because they know that even if it passes the House, Mr. Bush will veto it and there aren't enough votes to override that veto.
    Mr. Weldon is still working to kill the Castle bill, and has been meeting with about 60 undecided members. The uproar over the poll may help his effort, because it has brought many undecided members up to speed on the complex issue and "some of them are coming our way," he said..
    vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M050520   'Irrelevant question'
    "NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams trumpeted Wednesday night how 'a brand new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll' shows 'that by a margin of 56 to 34, Americans want the Senate to weigh in on the president's judicial nominees rather than giving them blanket approval' — as if that's at issue," the Media Research Center's Brent Baker writes at www.mediaresearch.org.
    "In fact, no one is calling for 'blanket approval' since, if the filibusters against judicial nominees were eliminated, those now blocked would still have to earn the backing of the majority of senators, just like every other judge the Senate has ever approved," Mr. Baker said.
    "On Thursday's 'Today,' Matt Lauer highlighted for Tim Russert the same irrelevant question, but then Lauer cryptically referred to how the public was 'evenly split pretty much on the whole filibuster issue.' "
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050519   Child exploitation
    Rep. Katherine Harris, Florida Republican, today hosts a Capitol Hill "Summit on Pornography," which will focus on obscenity enforcement and violence against women and children.
    Mrs. Harris tells Inside the Beltway that one of her concerns surrounds child victims of pornography — for which she partly blames the press.
    "They label it 'child prostitution.' There is no such thing," she says. "A child, unlike an adult, does not decide to become a prostitute. It is 'child exploitation.' "
    The summit begins at 9 a.m. in Room 2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building with a presentation by Rep. Joe Pitts, Pennsylvania Republican, about the dangers of pornography on the Internet.
    "Too many studies have linked pornography with horrific crimes against women and children for responsible lawmakers to remain silent," Mrs. Harris says.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M050519   Biased to the left
    "The Newsweek magazine story falsely reporting desecration of the Koran by American military interrogators in Guantanamo, Cuba, where terror suspects are being held, is the fourth major false report printed or aired by a highly respected arm of the Anglo-American journalistic establishment in the past year," Dick Morris writes in the Hill newspaper.
    "Each of those inaccurate stories has roiled the political waters and threatened to inflict colossal damage on either President Bush or British Prime Minister Tony Blair and on American and British efforts to defeat terrorists and the regime of Saddam Hussein," Mr. Morris said.
    "It is high time that the American people got the point: The organs of establishment journalism are slanted and biased toward the left and disregard the standards of fair and accurate reporting, with impunity, when an election is on the line."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050520   GEORGIA   Atlanta United Way withholds Scout cash
    ATLANTA -- Directors of Atlanta's United Way voted yesterday to withhold money for area Boy Scouts until an investigation is complete into whether the group inflated black membership numbers.
    The United Way of Metropolitan Atlanta's board of directors unanimously approved a plan that would give Boy Scouts of America-Atlanta Area Council about $1.5 million for 2005. But the allocation, the same as the group received for the year ending July 1, will be withheld until the board sees an audit being conducted by the Scouts.
    Joe Beasley, regional director of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, said in October that the 13-county Boy Scouts council was reporting 10,000 black participants when as few as 500 were actively involved.
    Those numbers are used to help determine United Way funding.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R0505019   WASHINGTON   Christian vanity plate gets state OK
    OLYMPIA -- Vanity may be a sin, but a Christian message on vanity license plates is OK with the state of Washington.
    The Department of Licensing on Tuesday dismissed a complaint against a vanity plate imprinted with "JOHN316."
    "The plate is not offensive under our rules and was never in danger of being canceled," Licensing Department Director Liz Luce said.
    The plate refers to the verse in the New Testament that says, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050519   Memos reveal strategy behind judge filibusters
 

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The "nuclear" showdown that is expected to begin unfolding in the Senate today has its origins in closed-door discussions more than three years ago between key Senate Democrats and outside interest groups as they huddled to plot strategies for blocking President Bush's judicial nominees.
    In a Nov. 7, 2001, internal memo to Sen. Richard J. Durbin, who is now the minority whip, an aide described a meeting that the Illinois Democrat had missed between groups opposed to Mr. Bush's nominees and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat and member of the Judiciary Committee.
    "Based on input from the groups, I would place the appellate nominees in the categories below," the staffer wrote, listing 19 nominees as "good," "bad" or "ugly."
    Four of the 10 nominees who Democrats have since filibustered were deemed either "bad" or "ugly." None of those deemed "good" by the outside groups was filibustered.
    Among those listed as "ugly" was Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, whose nomination will be brought to the floor today by Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican.
    The internal Democratic memos, downloaded from Democratic computer servers in the Judiciary Committee by Republican staffers, offer a unique look into the early stages of the filibuster campaign, when Democrats were clearly doubtful that they could succeed in blocking any of the nominees.
    In the 14 memos obtained in November 2003 by the Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times, Democratic staffers outlined the concerns held by outside groups about Justice Owen's "hostile" position toward abortion and her "pro-business" attitude.
    In a June 4, 2002, memo to Mr. Kennedy, staffers advised him that Justice Owen would be "our next big fight."
    "We agree that she is the right choice -- she has a bad record on labor, personal injury and choice issues, and a broad range of national and local Texas groups are ready to oppose her," the aides wrote.
    Another nominee discussed often in the memos is Miguel Estrada, a Washington lawyer who became the first filibustered nominee and who withdrew his nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit after waiting two years for a final vote.
    In the 2001 memo to Mr. Durbin, the staffer explained the concerns that the outside groups had about Mr. Estrada.
    "They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous because he had a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment," the aide wrote.
    The memos also reveal the close relationship between Democrats and the outside groups.
    In a June 21, 2002, memo to Democrats Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Durbin, Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York and Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington, a staffer urged delaying a hearing for Mr. Estrada to "give the groups time to complete their research and the committee time to collect additional information."
    One nominee who wasn't filibustered was Judge Timothy Tymkovich, who now sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. But Democrats opposed moving him until all the groups had given their approval.
    "[I]t appears that the groups are willing to let Tymkovich go through (the core of the coalition made that decision last night, but they are checking with the gay rights groups)," staffers wrote Mr. Kennedy in a June 12, 2002, memo.
    But even as late at early 2003, Democrats appeared concerned that they would not succeed in mounting a full-scale filibuster against their first target.
    In a January 2003 meeting between Democrats on the Judiciary Committee and Democratic leaders in the Senate, Democrats agreed to attempt a filibuster against Mr. Estrada.
    "All in attendance agreed to attempt to filibuster the nomination of Miguel Estrada, if they have the votes to defeat cloture," the judiciary aides wrote. "They also agreed that, if they do not have the votes to defeat cloture, a contested loss would be worse than no contest."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050519   Measure targets Pledge challenges
 

By Stephen Dinan and Amy Fagan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Two members of the U.S. House reintroduced a bill yesterday to prevent federal courts from outlawing recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, but said their focus will be on trying to make the Senate pass the bill.
    The House passed two bills last year to prevent the courts from hearing challenges to key social issues -- the Pledge and the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which set the federal definition of marriage -- but neither of the measures received a vote in the Senate.
    "We know we've already gotten things pretty well along in the House. We know where we are votewise there, and we obviously need to work the Senate," said Rep. Todd Akin, Missouri Republican and chief sponsor of this year's Pledge bill.
    The bill would prevent any federal-level court, from the district level to the Supreme Court, from hearing a challenge to reciting the Pledge. The bill would leave decisions to the state courts.
    "We're simply saying to the federal judiciary, we're limiting their jurisdiction, saying that you don't have authority to hear any claim that the recitation of the Pledge is in violation of the First Amendment," Mr. Akin said.
    He said Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, will spearhead this year's effort. Mr. Kyl said yesterday that his focus has been elsewhere and that he didn't know what the prospects were for a Senate bill.
    In 2003, Republican Sens. Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and Jim Talent of Missouri introduced a bill that would have removed lower federal courts' jurisdiction, but would not have affected the Supreme Court's ability to hear such cases.
    The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2002 that recitation of the Pledge in public schools violated the Constitution's First Amendment. The Supreme Court struck the case down without ruling on the Pledge issue, finding instead that the parent who sued had no standing.
    But lawmakers want to head off future rulings, and last year, the House passed a version of the bill, 247-173.
    House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat, said that the proposal is part of a larger abuse of power by Republicans, and that he hopes the Senate will block action again. "This is a continuing of the ends justifies the means," he said.
    Mr. Hoyer said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, in a recent speech, talked about ensuring a proper balance with the courts. "Apparently, the proper balance is Congress telling the courts what to do," Mr. Hoyer said.
    Opponents also have argued that Congress is overstepping its bounds by restricting courts' jurisdiction, and said it is a novel approach at best.
    But another sponsor of the bill, Rep. Mike McIntyre, North Carolina Democrat, said the Constitution is clear on that issue. "It's very much permitted, and in fact I'd say it's been an overlooked approach in the past," he said. "So many people don't realize it's there, but it goes right back to the way the Constitution itself was written."
    "The appellate court should not, and will not under this law, get away with removing Him from our most sacred vow, the Pledge of Allegiance," he said.
    vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050518   Gay couples mark 'marriage' anniversary in Boston

BOSTON (AP) - Alexander Westerhoff and Thomas Lang celebrated the first anniversary of their "marriage" yesterday by holding a sign on the Statehouse steps reading: "Thank you Massachusetts for one year of equality."
    A year after Massachusetts became the first U.S. state to recognize same-sex "marriages," Mr. Westerhoff said fears have subsided that lawmakers will nullify their union. "I'm very hopeful," he said. "The more time passes, the more people understand that we just want to be equal."
    Last May 17, couples lined up in city and town halls across the state to apply for marriage licenses. Since then, some 6,200 of them have been handed out to same-sex couples.
    Couples marked the anniversary with celebrations like the one at the Statehouse, where hundreds gathered for a group photo, firing rainbow streamers into the air that unfurled slowly onto the crowd. A reception was held nearby with Mayor Tom Menino and an evening party was scheduled at a downtown Boston hotel.
    Judy Sclarsky, 45, said the last year has ushered in new rights and protections for same-sex couples. "It's a huge anniversary. We're going to celebrate this day forever. I'm going to keep coming down to these steps every May 17. It's an emancipation day for gays and lesbians," she said.
    The anniversary also brought protests from opponents of the law. Some seek to oust the judges who in November 2003 declared the state's marriage laws unconstitutional.
    "The effect of this perceived law has been the forced normalization of homosexuality on the people of Massachusetts, and harsh intimidation against those who don't go along," activist Brian Camenker said.
    Lawmakers compromised last year on a state constitutional amendment that would outlaw same-sex "marriage" but permit civil unions. The measure needs a round of approval by the Legislature this year to make it onto the ballot in 2006.
    Republican Gov. Mitt Romney says the amendment's fate is in lawmakers' hands. "I can encourage them in one way or the other, but the people who listen to me in the legislature are a relatively small group," he said yesterday.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M050518   Newsweek's error
    "Let's do a thought experiment about the worst example of journalistic malfeasance in recent years -- and considering the competition from Jayson Blair and Dan Rather, that's saying a lot," New York Post columnist John Podhoretz writes.
    "Let's say that the item that Newsweek magazine disavowed on Sunday and retracted [Monday] -- the item by Michael Isikoff and John Barry that said an American interrogator of terrorists housed at Guantanamo Bay had flushed the Koran down the toilet -- was actually true. It wasn't. But let's say it was.
    "Would factual accuracy have justified publishing the item in Newsweek or anywhere else?" Mr. Podhoretz asked.
    "That publication led to the furtherance of the notion, extraordinarily dangerous to Americans abroad, that our government is in the habit of desecrating the Muslim Holy Book -- and to scores of people getting killed and hundreds getting injured in riots that extended from Afghanistan to Gaza.
    "The answer seems obvious now, doesn't it?
    "Newsweek ran an incendiary item about an American official desecrating the Koran, and this incendiary item did what incendiary items are supposed to do. It blew up.
    "Only it didn't blow up the target it was intended to blow up. The intended target was in Washington. We'd have to know the identity of Newsweek's supposedly 'good and credible' source to know precisely whom the source was trying to injure (and you can bet that, no matter what evil nonsense this supposedly 'good' source was peddling, Newsweek will protect his name
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050518   Liberal hysteria
    "To Democrats, Janice Rogers Brown is the scariest nominee to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the history of the republic," Peter Kirsanow writes at National Review Online (www.nationalreview.com).
    "Since her nomination nearly two years ago, she has been the subject of the most vitriolic and persistent attacks ever leveled against a nominee to the federal bench other than Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas," said Mr. Kirsanow, who is a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
    "The black sharecropper's daughter, born in segregated Alabama, has been excoriated as a closet member of the Ku Klux Klan who, at least according to the Senate minority leader, would like nothing better than to return America to 'Civil War days.'
    "Left-leaning political cartoonists depict her as an Aunt Jemima on steroids, complete with exaggerated physical features typically found only in the racist literature distributed by hate groups. She's been called insensitive to the rights of minorities, the plight of the poor, and the difficulties of the disabled. Her opponents warn that she is 'the far right's dream judge' and that 'she embodies Clarence Thomas's ideological extremism and Antonin Scalia's abrasiveness and right-wing activism.'
    "And her opponents are plentiful, a who's who of left-wing advocacy groups: Planned Parenthood, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, NAACP, NOW, People for the American Way, National Abortion Federation, Feminist Majority, and the American Association of University Women, just to name a few.
    "What's driving the hysteria? Three things: demographics, abortion (more specifically, the doctrinal approach that produced Roe v. Wade), and impending Supreme Court vacancies.
    "As Professor Steven Calabresi of Northwestern University Law School has noted, Democrats are determined 'not to allow any more conservative African-Americans, Hispanics, women or Catholics to be groomed for nomination to the High Court with court of appeals appointments.'"
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M050518   Tomlinson hits back
    Kenneth Tomlinson, who chairs the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's board of directors, has accused former public-television host Bill Moyers of smearing his name.
    Mr. Tomlinson demanded that the former LBJ White House press secretary issue a retraction.
    Mr. Tomlinson, who has criticized PBS programming for liberal bias, singled out Mr. Moyers as one of the worst offenders. Mr. Moyers struck back in a speech Sunday, suggesting that Mr. Tomlinson might have been part of an effort during the Reagan administration to put left-wingers on a government "blacklist" concerning who should be sent on lecture trips by the now-defunct U.S. Information Agency.
    Mr. Tomlinson, who saw Mr. Moyers' speech on C-SPAN II, sent out a stinging letter to Mr. Moyers yesterday, saying, "Bill, you can't make this stuff up. No one has ever linked me to any form of blacklist incident. In fact, I was known at the Voice of America for protecting the institution from State Department attempts to interfere with its journalism."
    Mr. Tomlinson added: "You may want to issue an apology before we meet to discuss public broadcasting. But you most certainly must issue a correction."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050518   Nuclear option
    "Barring a surprise last-minute deal, this week Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist will ask for a ruling from the chair -- Vice President Dick Cheney presiding -- that ending debate on a judicial nominee requires a vote of a simple majority of 51 senators, not a supermajority of 60. The nuclear option -- a k a the 'constitutional option' -- will have been detonated. Judicial filibusters, R.I.P.," the Wall Street Journal says.
    " ... It's a shame it has come to this. But at this point, it would be worse if Republicans let a willful minority deny the president's nominees a vote on the Senate floor," the newspaper said in an editorial Monday.
    " ... The audacity of the Democrats' radicalism is illustrated by the breadth of their claims against the nominees. It isn't just one nominee they object to; it's 10, and counting. It isn't just abortion they're worried about, but the entire range of constitutional law....
    "They are going to such bitter lengths, we suspect, precisely because they view the courts as their last hold on federal power."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050518   Losing respect
    Six congressmen, all former judges, are warning Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Arlen Specter that the sovereignty of the United States is being seriously undermined when U.S. courts permit "foreign sentiments to creep into rulings and opinions."
    "As you know, there have been several controversial decisions from the Supreme Court where justices have cited foreign courts and sentiments in their opinions," the members wrote in recent days to Mr. Specter. "These irresponsible allowances erode our distinct political identity and the philosophical traditions upon which United States law is founded."
    The congressmen, all Republicans, are Reps. Ted Poe, Louie Gohmert, John Carter and Ralph M. Hall, all of Texas; Robert B. Aderholt of Alabama; and John J. "Jimmy" Duncan Jr. of Tennessee.
    "As former judges," they write, "we all took oaths to uphold the Constitution. If a judge cannot cite the Constitution, United States law or United States judicial precedent in order to justify a ruling or opinion, it is highly inappropriate to selectively cite foreign constitutions, foreign laws or foreign judicial precedents.
    "By doing so, judges effectively disenfranchise the United States and begin to lose respect in the eyes of its people."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

E050517   College ad to protest Bush visit
 

By Julia Duin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

One-third of the professors at an evangelical Christian college in Grand Rapids, Mich., are taking out a large ad in a local newspaper Saturday to protest President Bush's commencement speech.
    "As Christians, we are called to be peacemakers and to initiate war only as a last resort," the ad will say. "We believe your administration has launched an unjust and unjustified war in Iraq."
    The 130 signatories, which include 20 staff members, work at Calvin College. Founded in 1876 as a school for pastors of the Christian Reformed Church, it now is one of the nation's flagship schools for a Christian liberal-arts education.
    "No single political position should be identified with God's will," says the ad, which also chastises the president for "actions that favor the wealthy of our society and burden the poor."
    Christians are to be characterized by love and gentleness, it adds, but "we believe that your administration has fostered intolerance and divisiveness and has often failed to listen to those with whom it disagrees."
    Moreover, says the letter, set to run in the Grand Rapids Press, the Bush administration's environmental policies "have harmed creation," and it asks the president "to re-examine your policies in light of our God-given duty to pursue justice with mercy."
    Although Calvin College President Gaylen Byker called the Bush visit "an extraordinary opportunity," the Chimes, the college newspaper, urged the 900 graduates to wear armbands protesting the visit. The publication pointed out that the president had been looking for a speech venue in Michigan, a state he failed to carry in 2000 and 2004.
    After U.S. Rep. Vernon J. Ehlers, a Republican whose district includes Grand Rapids, got an offer from presidential adviser Karl Rove, the college sidelined its previously scheduled commencement speaker, Yale University professor Nick Wolterstorff, in favor of the chief executive.
    "Some think we should be honored to have the president here," religion professor David Crump said. "We're excited by the opportunity to show people that evangelical Christianity is represented by a much broader spectrum of opinion than is depicted by the religious right and the media."
    In a 2001 poll, 25 percent of Calvin's faculty described themselves as politically liberal, according to the college. Forty-five percent considered themselves centrist, and 28 percent said they were political conservatives.
    In 2003, the evangelical weekly World ran an expose on Calvin, scolding it for having ?drifted away from Scripture" on "theology-rooted issues such as origins, feminist theology and homosexuality."
    Calvin officials contested the characterization, saying the college is trying to set an example for its 4,186 students.
    "We are a serious theological and intellectual school, and we try to have our students informed by thoughtful reflection about the concerns," said history professor Randall Jelks, who is rounding up signatures for the ad.
    "We are not Lynchburg," he said, referring to the more conservative Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell. "We are not right wing; we're not left wing. We think our faith trumps political ideology."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

E050517   Study hits college classes for principals
 

By George Archibald
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Most graduate education colleges do not teach prospective school principals the skills and knowledge necessary to lead and manage faculties, a new study shows.
    The findings come as state and federal governments are demanding greater accountability for learning achievement under the No Child Left Behind Act.
    The study also found that in graduate education course lessons dealing with school "norms and values," almost two-thirds of the time is spent indoctrinating prospective principals with "left-leaning" ideological views relating to social justice, race, ethnicity and social change.
    "Indeed, the principal's critical role in the No Child Left Behind era may just be taken for granted," according to the study by Frederick M. Hess and Andrew P. Kelly of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). "There is growing evidence to suggest that the revolution in school organization, management and curricular affairs may have left principals behind."
    The AEI study was reported in the current issue of Education Next, a journal of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University in California. It looked at 210 course syllabuses covering almost 2,500 weeks of study for graduate principal-preparation programs at 31 education colleges.
    The study sought to find out what kind of preparation future principals receive in light of the school accountability standards of No Child Left Behind.
    "We were interested in seeing how much emphasis programs placed on assessment and accountability within the core curriculum," the authors wrote.
    The study focused on time spent on the general topic of "managing for results" — evaluation of teachers and classroom practices, organization, improved performance of teachers and students, data management and accountability.
    Just one-sixth of course time included such lessons, according to the study.
    By comparison, the study found that almost twice as many class sessions were devoted to "operational issues" such as school law, finance and facilities management.
    "We expected to find that many of the lessons on managing for results would be spent teaching principals to leverage accountability systems to help improve instruction and drive student achievement," the authors said.
    "Instead, only 13 percent of the course weeks spent on managing for results actually attempted to link school management to standards-based accountability systems, state assessments or the demands of No Child Left Behind.
    "Unless the topic was being smuggled in elsewhere in the course, only about 50 of 2,424 course weeks, or 2 percent of all instruction, addressed accountability as a management issue," according to the study.
    Meanwhile, about two-thirds of all school superintendents report that raising student achievement is the biggest part of a principal's evaluation, the authors said .
    Yet principal-preparation programs "are leaving some of the most important management thinkers off their reading lists," as well as topics covering accountability, teacher termination and research, they said.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050517   Parties split on nation's morals
 

By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The moral state of the nation is subject to interpretation among political parties, according to a Gallup poll released yesterday.
    Overall, 77 percent of Americans think the country's moral values are on the decline -- a figure that has risen 10 points in three years. There is a partisan gap, however. The number stands at 82 percent among Republican respondents and 72 percent among Democrats.
    Democrats are more optimistic about American morality. The poll found that 18 percent of Democrats felt the moral climate was improving, compared with 14 percent of Republicans. Overall, 16 percent of respondents said the nation's moral climate was improving.
    Meanwhile, the estate of marriage stands sacrosanct in America, Gallup found.
    According to the survey, the biggest no-no of all remains the illicit affair: 93 percent of Americans find romantic dalliances between married men and women morally unacceptable.
    Support for the death penalty is on the rise and at "its highest point to date," said Joseph Carroll of Gallup. About 70 percent of Americans think the death penalty is morally acceptable. The figure has risen steadily since 2001, when it stood at 63 percent.
    The nation's judgment on abortion is in flux. A slim majority of Americans do not support abortion -- with 51 percent calling it morally wrong, 40 percent accepting it and 8 percent saying their opinion "depends on the situation."
    Four years ago, 45 percent called abortion wrong, 42 percent accepted it and 11 percent felt the judgment hinged on the situation.
    A majority felt "homosexual relations" were unacceptable, with 52 percent of the respondents disapproving.
    More public tolerance was shown for other behaviors and their attendant outcomes. The poll found 66 percent accepted divorce, 58 percent accepted sex between unmarried men and women, and 54 percent did not have a problem with children born out of wedlock -- a figure that has risen 11 points in the past three years.
    But the public draws a definitive line elsewhere: 92 percent disapproved of polygamy, 87 percent said human cloning was wrong, and 82 percent could not support suicide.
    Doctor-assisted suicide, however, drew a more complicated answer. The poll found that 49 percent felt the practice was morally acceptable and 46 were opposed to it. Four percent, however, said their opinion depended on the circumstances.
    Meanwhile, two-thirds could accept gambling, medical testing on animals and the use of animal fur in clothing.
    Six out of 10 deemed the use of stem cells derived from human embryos acceptable -- up eight points from 52 percent in the past three years.
    The poll of 1,005 adults was conducted May 2 to 5 and has a margin of error of three percentage points.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M050517   Newsweek retracts article on U.S. disrespect of Koran
 

By Bill Sammon
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Newsweek magazine, reacting to intense pressure from the Bush administration, yesterday retracted its story that U.S. interrogators desecrated the Koran -- a claim that sparked at least 16 riot-related deaths.
    "Based on what we know now, we are retracting our original story that an internal military investigation had uncovered [Koran] abuse at Guantanamo Bay," Newsweek Editor Mark Whitaker said late yesterday.
    The White House called the retraction a good first step, but expressed doubt that it would undo the considerable damage that has been inflicted on U.S. credibility throughout the Muslim world.
    "This report has had serious consequences," said White House press secretary Scott McClellan. "It has caused damage to the image of the United States abroad. People have lost their lives."
    Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher added: "It's appalling, really, that an article that was unfounded to begin with has caused so much harm, including loss of life."
    Asked whether Newsweek reporters Michael Isikoff and John Barry should be fired, Mr. Boucher said: "I'd leave that to the magazine itself."
    He emphasized that the reporters "put something with considerable consequences in the magazine when there have been no real sourcing and corroboration of it."
    Citing anonymous "sources," Newsweek reported in its May 9 issue that the Koran was desecrated by interrogators questioning Muslim terrorism suspects at the U.S Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
    "Interrogators, in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a [Koran] down a toilet," the magazine said.
    That sparked outrage in the Islamic world and widespread rioting in Afghanistan that news reports say killed at least 16 persons and injured more than 100 others.
    But Newsweek now says it had only one source, an anonymous official who has since expressed doubt about the claim. That prompted Mr. Whitaker to tell readers in yesterday's edition: "We regret that we got any part of our story wrong."
    That was not good enough for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who reminded reporters yesterday that "people lost their lives -- people are dead."
    Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Newsweek cannot "retract the damage they have done to this nation or those that were viciously attacked by those false allegations." He added that the magazine "hid behind anonymous sources, which by their own admission do not withstand scrutiny."
    Other Pentagon officials said the only person who had desecrated the Koran at Guantanamo Bay was a detainee who ripped pages from the Muslim holy book and used them to plug a toilet as a way to protest his detention. The American base in Cuba holds hundreds of fighters captured by U.S. forces who ousted the ruling Taliban from Afghanistan in 2001.
    "Despite our review of the situation, we can't find anything to substantiate the allegations that appeared in Newsweek magazine," said Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "We've looked at, I think, something like, reviewed 25,000 documents, and there's no indication that anything like that happened."
    Some in Congress reacted angrily yesterday.
    "Newsweek's behavior is not merely unfortunate," Rep. Bob Ney, Ohio Republican, said on the House floor. "It is criminal."
    Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media, a conservative watchdog group, said yesterday on Fox News Channel: "Newsweek has blood on its hands."
    In addition to the riots in Afghanistan, angry demonstrations were staged in Pakistan, Indonesia and the Gaza Strip.
    Mr. McClellan said America's image abroad was not the only casualty of the magazine's report.
    "It has certainly caused damage to the credibility of the media," he said. "And Newsweek itself."
    vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050516   Gay 'marriage' to mark 1st anniversary
 

By Cheryl Wetzstein
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

As same-sex "marriage" advocates prepare to celebrate tomorrow's one-year anniversary in Massachusetts, traditional-values groups are decrying recent decisions in Nebraska and California that reject traditional marriage amendments.
    Tomorrow marks the anniversary of the nation's first legally issued "marriage" licenses to homosexual couples.
    Traditional-values groups tried to stop the "marriages" with a wave of lawsuits, but the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's landmark Goodridge v. Massachusetts Department of Public Health decision, which legalized homosexual "marriage," remained in effect.
    As the clock struck midnight last May 17, clerks in Cambridge, Mass., issued the state's first same-sex "marriage" licenses. Within a week, nearly 2,000 same-sex couples, led by the plaintiffs in the Goodridge case, held "marriage" ceremonies and celebrations.
    As of Dec. 31, 5,994 same-sex couples had "married," the Massachusetts Department of Public Health said. Of these, 2,123 were male couples and 3,871 were female couples.
    This week's celebrations include a giant anniversary photo shoot, scheduled for tomorrow on the Massachusetts Statehouse steps, as well as parties and religious ceremonies, said Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the law firm that won the Goodridge case.
    Elsewhere, same-sex "marriage" advocates and traditional-values groups are clashing over judicial and legislative decisions.
    On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon struck down Nebraska's constitutional marriage amendment.
    The law, passed by 70 percent of voters in 2000, said: "Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in Nebraska. The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska."
    Plaintiffs represented by Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said the law blocked their rights to free association and political participation.
    "The amendment just addressed gay people -- not straight folks -- and it took everything off the table," said James Essex, a lawyer with the ACLU's Lesbian & Gay Rights Project in New York.
    Judge Bataillon agreed, saying the law reflected "animus" against homosexual couples and interfered with their "expressive and intimate associational rights."
    Traditional-values groups called the decision "judicial activism." Judge Bataillon's ruling "ironically" tries to protect political participation rights by denying them to Nebraska voters, said William Duncan of the Marriage Law Foundation in Provo, Utah.
    Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning said the ruling by Judge Bataillon, who was appointed by President Clinton in 1997, will be appealed.
    Also last week, California lawmakers in both chambers rejected proposed constitutional amendments to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
    Randy Thomasson of the Campaign for Children and Families pledged to start a petition drive to put such an amendment on the 2006 ballot.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050516   GOP senators hopeful on non-'nuclear' options
 

By Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Key Republican senators yesterday signaled that the so-called "nuclear option" might not be needed after all to get an up-or-down vote on President Bush's judicial nominees.
    Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, says he hopes to have support from the 60 senators needed to call for a floor vote on two nominations this week, which would make changing the Senate rules unnecessary. But he added that the nuclear option, which requires only 51 votes, would be used if he could not get 60 votes.
    Meanwhile yesterday, Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, said that "compromise is in the air."
    Mr. McConnell, whose whip post puts him in charge of knowing how senators will vote, said some Democrats have told him that they want to avoid a showdown that would the end the filibuster.
    "I haven't given up on the possibility that we might have 60 votes, including some Democrats who've been whispering in our ears that they believe that this ought to be defused, and that we ought to get back to the way we handled it under President Clinton," Mr. McConnell told "Fox News Sunday."
    Mr. McConnell was alluding to a 2000 showdown, defused by Sen. Trent Lott, Mississippi Republican, and then-Sen. Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat. The then-Senate party leaders agreed that some of Mr. Clinton's judicial picks could get a full floor vote, but encouraged members to vote on the merits of each nominee, Mr. McConnell said.
    Under the "nuclear option," Republicans would eliminate the procedural vote called cloture, which requires 60 votes to end debate and move to a vote on the merits of a nominee.
    Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, were to have continued compromise discussions last night.
    The Senate this week will begin debate on the appointments of two federal appeals court judges whom Democrats blocked during the last Congress -- Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen and California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown.
    Mr. McCain, a critic of the nuclear option, told ABC's "This Week" he thinks that an agreement will be reached without changing the filibuster rule.
    "I believe that, as reasonable people -- as we have in the past in the Senate -- we should sit down together and work this out," he said.
    Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the Democratic whip, told Fox that he also wants a compromise to avoid killing the filibuster rule, which he says protects minority rights in the Senate. Mr. Durbin also says he has enough votes for Democrats to prevail.
    Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, said he was not aware of any pending compromise.
    "You're not going to jump for a compromise when you're talking about changing [more than 200] years of history," Mr. Kennedy said of the filibuster rule on CBS' "Face the Nation." "That basically would undermine some core commitments to the Constitution. I don't think it's a wise idea."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M050516   Newsweek apologizes for Koran article

NEW YORK (AP) -- Newsweek magazine has apologized for errors in an article charging that interrogators at the detention center at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, desecrated the Koran, saying it would re-examine the accusations, which sparked outrage and deadly protests in Afghanistan.
    Fifteen persons died and scores were injured in violence between protesters and security forces, prompting U.S. promises to investigate the accusations.
    "We regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst," Newsweek Editor Mark Whitaker wrote in a note to readers.
    In an issue dated May 9, the magazine reported that U.S. military investigators had found evidence that interrogators placed copies of Islam's holy book in washrooms and had flushed one down the toilet to get inmates to talk.
    Mr. Whitaker wrote that the magazine's information came from "a knowledgeable U.S. government source," and before publishing the item, writers Michael Isikoff and John Barry sought comment from two Defense Department officials. One declined to respond, and the other challenged another part of the story, but did not dispute the Koran charge, Mr. Whitaker said.
    But on Friday, a top Pentagon spokesman told the magazine that a review of the military's investigation concluded "it was never meant to look into charges of [Koran] desecration." The spokesman also said the Pentagon had investigated other desecration charges by detainees and found them "not credible."
    Also, Mr. Whitaker added, the magazine's original source later said he could not be sure he read about the reported Koran incident in the report they cited, and that it might have been in another document.
    "Top administration officials have promised to continue looking into the charges, and so will we," Mr. Whitaker wrote.
    Following the report, demonstrations spread across Afghanistan, and Islamic leaders gathered to pass a resolution calling for anyone found to have abused the Koran to be punished. Many of the 520 inmates at Guantanamo are Muslims arrested during the U.S.-led war against the Taliban and its al Qaeda allies in Afghanistan.
    National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley said in an interview for CNN's "Late Edition" that the accusations were being investigated "vigorously."
    "If it turns out to be true, obviously, we will take action against those responsible," he said.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

E050516   Defining science, Kansas style

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) -- The Kansas school board's hearings on evolution weren't limited to how the theory should be taught in public schools. The board is considering redefining science itself.
    Advocates of "intelligent design" are pushing the board to reject a definition limiting science to natural explanations for what's observed in the world.
    Instead, they want to define it as "a systematic method of continuing investigation," without specifying what kind of answer is being sought. The definition would appear in the introduction to the state's science standards.
    The proposed definition has outraged many scientists, who are frustrated that students could be discussing supernatural explanations for natural phenomena in their science classes.
    "It's a completely unscientific way of looking at the world," said Keith Miller, a Kansas State University geologist.
    The conservative state Board of Education plans to consider the proposed changes by August. It is expected to approve at least part of a proposal from advocates of intelligent design, which holds that the natural world is so complex and well-ordered that an intelligent cause is the best way to explain it.
    State and national science groups boycotted last week's public hearings, claiming they were rigged against evolution.
    Stephen Meyer, a senior fellow at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which supports intelligent design, said changing the schools' definition of science would avoid freezing out questions about how life arose and developed on Earth.
    The current definition is "not innocuous," Mr. Meyer said. "It's not neutral. It's actually taking sides."
    Last year, the board asked a committee of educators to draft recommendations for updating the standards, then accepted two rival proposals.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050516   Checks and balances
    "The misinformation being spread about the current abuse of the filibuster to block U.S. judicial nominations is awesome. Given the importance of the fight, however, it is not surprising," the Manchester (N.H.) Union Leader said yesterday in an editorial.
    "The idea that the Senate Democrats are merely employing the 'checks and balances' built into our system of government is hogwash and insulting to the intelligence of the American people," the newspaper said.
    "It is our three distinct branches of government -- executive, legislative and judicial -- that hold each other in check and balance. What the Democratic Party is doing is to misuse the filibuster rule so that a minority in the Senate can frustrate that branch from its constitutional duty of providing 'advice and consent' to the president on appointments.
    "How can the Senate advise the president if it cannot even be allowed to vote on his nominations?"
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050514   GOP decries 'stunt' by Reid
 

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Republicans charged yesterday that Minority Leader Harry Reid was wrong to mention on the Senate floor "a problem" he said is in a Bush nominee's "confidential report from the FBI" as grounds for keeping him off the federal bench.
    "He shouldn't be pulling this kind of stunt," said Sen. George Allen, Virginia Republican. "It is not civil, it is unfair, it is hitting below the belt, and it does ultimately show how desperate the democratic leadership is in the United State Senate."
    As Mr. Reid's comment from Thursday ricocheted around the Internet yesterday, liberal bloggers rushed to his defense and a conservative group interested in judicial nominations filed a formal ethics complaint against Mr. Reid.
    Mr. Allen, meanwhile, said the comments would "be examined" but declined to speculate further.
    The imbroglio began Thursday when Mr. Reid said Michigan Appeals Court Judge Henry Saad, nominated by President Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, would be filibustered under any circumstances.
    "All you need to do is have a member go upstairs and look at his confidential report from the FBI, and I think we would all agree that there is a problem there," Mr. Reid said, referring to the FBI file generated from the routine background investigations all judicial nominees must go through.
    Colleagues of Judge Saad, as well as Republicans on Capitol Hill, were outraged and accused Mr. Reid of violating Senate rules to smear the nominee.
    Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, said he hoped the Mr. Reid's remarks "were unintended," adding, "I believe comments with regard to FBI files should not be talked about on the floor of the United States Senate."
    The Center for Individual Freedom, a conservative group that monitors judicial nominations, filed a formal ethics complaint yesterday against Mr. Reid, contending that he violated a Senate rule, "which protects the secrecy of confidential Senate business and proceedings, including privileged access to FBI background information."
    Reid spokesman Jim Manley dismissed the complaint as part of "desperate partisan attacks designed to distract Americans from the upcoming debate on the Senate floor over judicial nominees."
    Reid defenders said yesterday that the Democratic leader had done nothing wrong, especially because questions about Judge Saad's file already had been raised during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last year. Several newspapers, including The Washington Times, reported that the committee met behind closed doors to discuss questions raised during the background investigation. However, no details about the file were obtained or reported even though part of that private hearing was inadvertently put on the Internet.
    Republicans said it was irrelevant that the file had previously come up, saying Mr. Reid went further and characterized the contents as being bad enough to keep Judge Saad off the bench. Especially odious to Republicans is that Judge Saad -- since he's still under consideration for the federal bench -- is unable to respond to the attack.
    "Whether it is a violation [of Senate ethics rules], it is absolutely wrong," Mr. Allen said. "And Senator Reid knows it's wrong if he just thinks for three seconds how unfair -- what a below the belt punch this really is."
    Mr. Frist's office also announced yesterday that the Senate would take up the nominations of Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen and California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown on Wednesday. Justice Owen, nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, and Justice Brown, nominated to the U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit, are among 10 Bush nominees that have been filibustered.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050514   U.S. archbishop new Vatican enforcer
 

By Julia Duin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The Vatican announced yesterday that San Francisco Archbishop William J. Levada is the new head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the policy-enforcing arm of the papacy that Pope Benedict XVI headed for 24 years.
    It also said the process for making Pope John Paul II a saint would be speeded up by waiving the normal waiting period of five years after the candidate's death. The document authorizing the first step in that process, known as beatification, was signed Monday.
    The selection of Archbishop Levada, 68, to head the CDF is the first significant appointment to be made by the new pope.
    "Pope Benedict XVI has chosen one of the most outstanding bishops in the United States to serve as his close collaborator," said Washington Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, adding the archbishop is "an eminent theologian and as a shepherd of keen pastoral sensitivity."
    Archbishop Levada's selection places Americans in two of the top three positions in the Vatican's chief doctrinal arm. The third-ranking CDF cleric is the undersecretary, the Rev. J. Augustine DiNoia, who taught for years at the Dominican House of Studies in the District before recently moving to Rome.
    "The pope is picking his own man," said Wade Hughan, a San Francisco accountant and a retired member of the board of regents of the Cathedral of St. Mary in San Francisco. "This position is something [the former Cardinal Joseph] Ratzinger is passionately interested in.
     "He's picked someone who is comfortable in dealing in nuanced situations, who has first-hand experience in dealing with the American church and who is very Roman, too."
    Archbishop Levada was on staff for the CDF from 1976 to 1982. The present pope took over the CDF in 1981.
    The Rev. Thomas Weinandy, the executive director for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' doctrinal committee, called the archbishop "a very personable and even outgoing person."
    "I've grown to admire and trust him immensely," Father Weinandy said of the archbishop, who has chaired the committee since 2003. "He's a good listener. When I speak to him, he always wants to make sure I say what I really think, even when I disagree with him."
    The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests issued a statement criticizing the choice, calling it "an insensitive and unwise decision."
    "Regarding [sexual] abuse in the San Francisco archdiocese, Levada has been slow to act, harsh to victims and committed to secrecy," said Dan McNevin, SNAP Bay Area spokesman.
    "He has allowed credibly accused priests to remain in ministry even while facing pending civil molestation lawsuits. His lawyer has negotiated deals with local district attorneys that help keep abuse cases quiet."
    Archbishop Levada, who headed the Archdiocese of Portland, Ore., for nine years before being assigned to the San Francisco archdiocese in 1995, also has been blamed for doing little to prevent the 2004 bankruptcy of the Portland archdiocese because of priest sex-abuse claims.
    Although Archbishop Levada was on the editorial committee for the massive "Catechism of the Catholic Church," and wrote its glossary, his only published work is a doctoral thesis written 40 years ago. It was on whether the Catholic Church was infallible in matters of morals -- such as abortion and euthanasia -- as it claims to be in terms of doctrine, such as the Trinity and the sacraments.
    "Surprisingly, his answer to that matter was no," Mr. Hughan said. "He is not the towering intellect Ratzinger was -- but who is? He's also very intellectually honest. He does consult with people and he's not someone to rush to judgment, which is very important in that office."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050514   Gay 'marriage' ruling energizes foes
 

By Amy Fagan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Supporters of a constitutional marriage amendment are using a federal judge's ruling Thursday calling Nebraska's same-sex "marriage" ban unconstitutional to re-energize the issue on Capitol Hill and build support for their federal proposal.
    "This unfortunate act of judicial activism makes it very clear that marriage is at risk in the federal courts and Congress must pass, and the people of this country must ratify, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as being between one man and one woman," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. He urged supporters to call Nebraska's two senators to demand a Senate vote.
    "It proves the need for our marriage protection amendment," said Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage, the driving force behind the amendment. "It will continue to increase our momentum."
    The Nebraska amendment -- which voters passed with 70 percent in 2000 -- prohibited not only same-sex "marriage," but domestic partnerships and civil unions as well.
    In his ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Bataillon said the amendment "goes far beyond merely defining marriage as between a man a woman" and would prevent same-sex couples from even petitioning the state government for any benefits.
    "Plaintiffs are denied access to the legislative process that is afforded to all citizens of the state of Nebraska," he wrote.
    Opponents noted that the Nebraska amendment was overturned not because of the marriage issue, but because it was too broad.
    "The Nebraska Constitution went much further than any state constitutional amendment has gone," said Chris Anders, a legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, which was one of the plaintiffs in the case. Mr. Anders said the decision recognized "a narrow but important right" not to be "completely shut out of the political process."
    Seth Kilbourn, director of the Human Rights Campaign's marriage project, said proponents of the federal marriage amendment will "use every single thing they can to scare people," but the same-sex "marriage" issue remains a state issue.
    The federal constitutional marriage amendment -- which would define marriage as the union of a man and a woman -- failed in both chambers last year. In the House, it fell well short of the two-thirds vote required to approve a constitutional amendment (227-186) and when the Senate considered a similar amendment in July, it was unable to muster the 60 votes to cut off debate and force a final vote.
    House and Senate Republican leaders have promised to bring it up again during this congressional session.
    Mr. Anders said votes have not changed much, and even proponents of the measure admit it doesn't yet have the votes to pass.
    But proponents continue to work toward its passage. Sen. Sam Brownback, Kansas Republican, is holding a hearing on the issue Thursday in his Senate Judiciary constitution subcommittee.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050514   Dobson seen as champion by the conservative culture
 

By Colleen Slevin
ASSOCIATED PRESS

COLORADO SPRINGS -- To millions of conservative Christians, James Dobson and his Focus on the Family ministry have emerged as a life preserver in American culture, fending off assaults from popular culture and liberals.
    ?He's trustworthy, he's intelligent, he's well respected,? said the Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals representing more than 43,000 congregations. ?If people would do what Jim Dobson suggests, they would live a better life.?
    Yet Mr. Dobson has become a lightning rod for criticism by weighing in on major political issues, from stem-cell research and abortion to tax credits for families. Last month, Sen. Ken Salazar, Colorado Democrat, called him the ?Antichrist? and said he was trying to ?hijack Christianity? by backing President Bush's federal appeals court nominees.
    Mr. Salazar, a Roman Catholic, later backed off the Antichrist comment, but stood by his assertion that Mr. Dobson's ministry has become an arm of the Republican Party.
    Mr. Dobson, who insists his organization backs only issues, not parties or candidates, isn't about to back down. He says the strong rhetoric and emotions are no surprise at a time when there is fierce debate over the actions of the nation's federal courts, which he describes as a ?liberal stronghold.?
    ?The federal judiciary more and more is making the great moral decisions of our time,? Mr. Dobson said during a 75-minute interview. He cited rulings involving abortion, the Pledge of Allegiance and the definition of marriage.
    ?This Supreme Court has co-opted for itself many of the issues that the American people ought to be making through their elected representatives,? he said. ?The decisions that are coming down from the Supreme Court have profound implications for the family and for conservative concepts of morality.?
    These are heady times for Mr. Dobson, who turned 69 last month and still puts in 12-hour days at the ministry he founded in 1977. The child psychologist reaches an estimated 220 million people in 160 countries through his radio broadcasts and his organization responds to about 10,000 telephone calls, letters and e-mail messages each day requesting books, recordings and advice on everything from marital strife to eating disorders. The group says its average listener is a mother of two in her 20s to 40s.
    Organization officials like to say that 95 percent of what they do is about ministry and outreach. But it is the policy work -- which accounts for the rest of the $150 million annual budget -- that is drawing so much attention.
    Focus on the Family launched a public policy arm a year ago: Some say its emergence and last November's decision by voters in 11 states to outlaw homosexual ?marriage? was no fluke.
    ?One would be foolish to minimize [Mr. Dobson's] impact,? Mr. Haggard said.
    Mr. Dobson has met with President Bush more than once, though not at the ministry itself. Asked about the relationship between Focus on the Family and the White House, Focus officials said they participate in occasional conference calls.
    ?It's not President Bush,? said Tom Minnery, the group's vice president of public policy. ?It's not even Karl Rove. It's lower-level people.?
    Mr. Dobson himself offers restrained praise: He said Mr. Bush has always made the right decisions on issues such as stem-cell research, homosexual ?marriage? and lower taxes, but wishes the president would speak more often and more directly to issues conservative Christians hold dear.
    ?I think he has kept his campaign promises,? he said. ?Has he articulated them the way a lot of us would want him to? No. But I think that's not in his nature.?
    Mr. Dobson was in Washington last week for meetings he would not detail, though the battle over Mr. Bush's judicial nominees figured to be a prime topic. Like others, Mr. Dobson believes the fight will come to a head over a conservative Supreme Court nominee.
    He ridiculed a March ruling that outlawed the death penalty for juvenile criminals in which Justice Anthony Kennedy acknowledged ?overwhelming? international opinion against the practice. Mr. Dobson said that sort of shift by the court amounts to ?grounds for impeachment.?
    He also noted a growing divide between secular and religious America.
    The nation ?is polarized, no question about that, and I wish it were not that way,? he said. ?But we've been in a culture war for a long time and it has become more intense in recent years. That's what people are seeing and sensing and feeling. There is so much at stake now.?
    He sees it as a battle for ?the hearts and minds of the nation? between traditional values and liberals who believe in bigger government, abortion rights ?and some of the more radical perspectives of the feminist movement.?
    ?The people of the left would say we're extremist,? he said. ?The truth of the matter is there is a tremendous population out there of people who care about their children, they care about their families, they care about their children's schools, they care about morality.
    ?They are right now very, very concerned about the intrusion of popular culture into their families, especially into the lives of their children.?
    Mr. Dobson, a member of the Church of the Nazarene, said his organization exists not to create an empire but for those who are frustrated with the culture's direction. He said it's that, rather than his political clout, that most people stop him on the street to talk about.
    ?What they typically say is, you helped me raise my kids,? he said. ?Most of them say, you were there when we were going through a really tough time. And some of them cry and some of them hug me. That is the essence of Focus on the Family.?
    vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M050521C   Accessories in reckless race
 

By Thomas Sowell

It was perhaps appropriate that Dan Rather received the prestigious Peabody award in journalism at the same time Newsweek magazine finally backed away from its false story about Americans flushing the Koran down the toilet at the Guantanamo prison.
    At least Mr. Rather's forged documents didn't get anybody killed, as the phony Newsweek story did. What is even more revealing -- and appalling -- about the mainstream media is they are now circling the wagons around Newsweek, to protect it from criticism, just as they circled the wagons around Mr. Rather last year, and now give him an award this year to put the frosting on the cake.
    If the forged documents at CBS and the phony story at Newsweek were just isolated mistakes, that would be one thing. But media liberals made themselves accessories after the fact, by defending such indefensible misconduct.
    In a sense, that is good. It makes it easier for the public to see the forged documents and fake story were not just odd things that happened to a couple of people but were symptomatic of a mindset among many others who sprang to their defense.
    Someone referred to the story about George Bush's National Guard service as "too good to check." It fit their vision so well, and scored a point they wanted to score against Mr. Bush, that it hardly seemed worthwhile to check the facts.
    That is almost certainly what happened with the story about Americans flushing the Koran down the toilet at the Guantanamo prison. It seems unlikely Newsweek simply made up the story out of whole cloth. But, once the editors heard it, it was "too good to check."
    All this goes back to a more fundamental problem with the mainstream media. Too many journalists see their work as an opportunity to promote their own pet political notions, rather than a responsibility to inform the public and let readers and viewers decide for themselves.
    It is not a question of "fairness" to any side but of honesty.
    Columnists and editorial writers offer opinions, but reporters are expected to report facts. However, that distinction is increasingly blurred, with Page One of the New York Times often providing classic examples of editorials disguised as news.
    What happened to Dan Rather last year and to Newsweek this year is the disguise fell off when the "news" they tried to sell turned out to be fake and all that was left exposed was their animosity toward the Bush administration.
    The Peabody award to Dan Rather drives home the point that the mainstream media have learned nothing and thumb their noses at critics -- and ultimately at readers and viewers who look for enlightenment, rather than spin.
    Abraham Lincoln said you can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. The steady erosion of the audience that watches CBS, ABC and NBC television news, and the declining circulation of leading newspapers, all indicate more and more people are unwilling to be fooled.
    The swift rise of talk radio, Fox News and the bloggers all illustrate a growing disillusionment with the mainstream media that once had a monopoly and abused it.
    A reader recently suggested this formula: Monopoly plus discretion minus accountability equals corruption. That kind of corruption can be found not only in the mainstream media but also in two of our most important institutions, the public schools and the federal courts.
    Both the schools and the courts flatter themselves that their job is to change society. So do many in the media. But what qualifies these people to be world-changers? They are usually poorly informed about science, uninformed about history and misinformed about economics.
    And who elected them to change the world while pretending to be doing something else and betraying their trust?

    Thomas Sowell is a nationally syndicated columnist.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M050521C   Newsweek meets 21st century war
 

By Austin Bay

It was classic "media gotcha," using the "Vietnam and Watergate" storyline of "United States bad, Third World good" -- but the phony story led to riots, deaths and an embarrassing retraction.
    I refer, of course, to Newsweek's "Koran flushing" story in the May 1 issue.
    The sin of greed creeps into every scandal, and it lurks behind this tragic incident. Newsweek wants "market share," and hot stories grab readers.
    But profit generated by a frantic "me first" quest isn't the only motive. The "Vietnam-Watergate" press template is also involved. "Vietnam-Watergate" is a tired and phony game. For three decades it's been the spine of the New York-Washington-Los Angeles media axis.
    Its rules are simple and cynical. Presume the U.S. government is lying -- particularly when the president is a Republican. Presume the worst about the U.S. military -- even when the president is a Democrat. Add multicultural icing -- allegations by "Third World victims" get revered status, while U.S. statements are met with arrogant contempt. (Yes, it's the myth of the Noble Savage recast.)
    Wake up. There's a war going on -- a global war. American lives and liberty are at stake, but Newsweek and its clan are still trying to "Get Nixon."
    Ne