Programs in Bridgeport

The Connecticut Post: describes a day-long prgram in one of Bridgeport's public high schools:

"Back-to-back presentations included talks by students from Newtown High School's elective sociology class — that features a study unit on gender and sexual orientation — discussions by gay and lesbian adults about their work and social experiences, ice-breaker games, and film clips centering on how family and friends react to someone revealing they are homosexual. 'We basically tried to pick clips that the kids can identify with at some point,' said Cynthia Kosc-St.Onge, a special education history teacher who advises Bassick's Gay-Straight Alliance along with Kris Burns, teen health social worker for the school.

The conference also featured a performance by 20-year-old Geo Creed Wyeth (stage name: 'Tha Novice'), a transgender dancer, musician and writer who just completed his sophomore year at Yale University.

Also, Central High School's student peer-education drama group, Profiles, acted a scene titled 'GayWorld.' It was about a homophobic young woman who learns about discrimination when she suddenly finds herself in an all-gay environment."

The amount of social propaganda in the public schools is increasing dramatically, and it only goes one way: advocates for traditional marriage can't get a hearing in Bridgeport. I bet this "homophobic young woman" was portrayed as a conservative Christian.

Travel on Special Interest's Dime

AP: Lawmakers Belatedly Disclose Trips:

"Scrutiny of Majority Leader Tom DeLay's travel has led to the belated disclosure of at least 198 previously unreported special interest trips by House members and their aides, including eight years of travel by the second-ranking Democrat, an Associated Press review has found."

Surprise, surprise. In one of my previous posts, I linked to a site listing all privately-funded congressional travel. I noted that Delay was well down the list, and that the top 20 travelers were all Democrats. It turns out even this amount of travel was understated. Both Republicans and Democrats are scrambling to clean up their travel reporting, but still have not fully succeeded in complying with the rules.

Why are the Democrats are trying to single Delay out on this one? I don't get it.

Reid's Version of Comity

How many times do you try to pet a dog with a history of biting, Senator McCain?

Yahoo! News:

"But whatever elation the negotiators felt, the Senate's Democratic leader did not share it.

In the privacy of his Capitol office last Monday night, Sen. Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev., asked for commitments from six Democrats fresh from the talks. Would they pledge to support filibusters against Brett Kavanaugh and William Haynes, two nominees not specifically covered by the pact with Republicans?

Some of the Democrats agreed. At least one, Sen. Ben Nelson (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska, declined.

Details of Reid's attempt to kill the two nominations within minutes of the agreement, as well as other events during this tumultuous time, were obtained by The Associated Press in interviews with senators and aides in both parties."

New York Times:

"Dr. Frist was told by Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, his Democratic counterpart, on Wednesday that enough Democrats would join Republicans to invoke 'cloture,' allowing a final vote on Mr. Bolton.

The aide, who would speak only without being identified when discussing conversations between the two leaders, also said Dr. Frist had intervened with the administration to try to get an intelligence briefing that would satisfy opponents of the nomination."

McCain needs to quit negotiating on behalf of the Republicans!

Abortion Statistics

The Alan Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion research organization, reports statistics regarding abortion in the United States, including the reasons women give for their abortions. About 90% of over 1.3 million abortions each year are ascribed solely to convenience -- that is, it would be financially and/or emotionally inconvenent to have a baby. The health, either of the woman or child, is only at issue in at most 6% of the cases.

According to the Institute, rape and/or incest is the reason for abortion in 10,000--15,000 cases each year. This number is clearly questionable. Even allowing for gross underreporting of rape and incest cases, this would mean that 1 out of every 6 rapes would result in pregnancy, which violates medical probability. At most 200-500 pregnancies each year could be the result of rape. The Institute's statistics are based on abortion-seekers self-report. If these numbers aren't just manufactured, then women may be hiding their real reasons for seeking an abortion. However, even if these statisitcs are accurate, rape and incest are clearly not the reason abortion is legal in this country. To cite rape and incest in debates on abortion is disingenuous.

1.2 million unborn are killed each year for convenience . . . according to the abortion advocates' own statistics. An Overview of Abortion in the United States

Now, what does this have to do with my posts on judicial nominees? I do strongly believe that results-oriented judicial philosophy is wrong. I do not want "judicial activists" of any stripe. But, that is not true of the Democrats. Ultimately, blocking Bush's judicial nominees comes down to this one thing: preservation of abortion for convenience.

Blubbering Voinovich

What's with Voinovich? He blubbers on the Senate floor because the Bolton nomination is SO IMPORTANT, but he didn't care enough about it to actually show up for the confirmation hearings or meet with Bolton privately when that opportunity was given him. When did it become so critical for him?

Bench Memos

Matthew Franck sees it the way I do.

Bench Memos on National Review Online: "There is another blow here, and it wounds more deeply. All the talk about preserving the traditions of the Senate in this agreement has it exactly backwards. The Democrats already broke with those traditions, and this deal endorses the new order of the ages, albeit under 'extraordinary circumstances' that remain to be defined. In the long history of the filibuster since John C. Calhoun, while its practical use and intent has often been simply to obstruct, the only defense any senator has ever made of it in public is not that it is a weapon of mass obstruction, but that it is a delaying tactic, a defense against hasty majorities, an invitation to full and leisurely debate on the floor before decisions are made. Even in recent weeks this has been the refrain of the Democrats.

McCain's Sanctimonious Seven (sorry, I left out Chafee in an earlier reference to the Six) have been snookered by that old vulture Robert Byrd into a new understanding of the filibuster — that it may be legitimately used, and legitimately defended, as a form of absolute obstructionism by a party that has the votes to prevent cloture. Not the principle of measured deliberation, but the principle of minority rule — an essentially anti-republican principle — has been enshrined in this agreement. Once again in his long career, it is Byrd who has changed the rules, and without seeming to have done so."

Sold Down the River by McCain, et. al.

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date, rendered to the Senate by Majority Leader Frist and Democratic Leader Reid. This memorandum confirms an understanding among the signatories, based upon mutual trust and confidence, related to pending and future judicial nominations in the 109th Congress.

This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President and to be acted upon by the Senate's Judiciary Committee.

We have agreed to the following:

Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations

A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit).

B. Status of Other Nominees. Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit).

Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations

A. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.


B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.

We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word "Advice" speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President's power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.

Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.

We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators seek to uphold.

Notes:

1) McCain, et. al. gave up much more than they got. They agree to oppose a rules change, but permit the Democrats to filibuster judicial nominees except under "extraordinary circumstances." That, of course, will be any Supreme Court nominee Bush puts forward, unless he abandons his principles.

2) The agreement implicitly chastises Bush for not consulting with Democrats on nominees, insinuating that he is the one who abandoned tradition. It remains silent on the outrageous practice of the Democrats with regard to judicial nominees, beginning with Bork, continuing with Clarence Thomas, and culminating in their systematic blocks. Especially egregious is their practice of propagating outrageous smears.

3) Reid's slimeball character assassination of Saad worked. He has been rewarded for his McCarthyism.

4) This self-appointed group of Republicans defer to Byrd: a man who has changed the rules four times in the past. These fools were taken in.

Preemptive Shutdown

Even though at this stage the Senate is simply following the regular order in debating a judicial nominee, the Democrats have shut down all committee meetings.

Today's newspapers have all labeled Frist's actions extreme; at best they might concede there is fault on both sides for escalation of partisanship in the Senate. But, who is taking the extreme action here?

Demagoguing the filibuster debate

Excellent op/ed by Charles Fried in the Boston Globe today

Demagoguing the filibuster debate: "The Constitution does not say one word about filibusters, but it does state that ''each house may determine the rules of its proceedings.' Does it speak by implication? In the case of impeachments ''no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members' of the Senate. Either house may expel a member for disorderly behavior but only with the concurrence of two-thirds of the members of that house. Treaties must be ratified by two-thirds of the senators present. The president's veto may be overridden by two-thirds of each house. And to propose amendments to the Constitution, two thirds of both houses are necessary. It is therefore a fair inference that, unless another voting rule is prescribed, in all other cases only a simple majority is required. And no other rule is prescribed for the voting on each house's rules. To say that in a democracy majority rule is at least the default rule is hardly wild speculation."

With Disrespect

My Dad used to tell me you could get away with saying anything if you just prefaced your remarks with "Respectfully ..." He was joking, of course! But the White House press corps take this seriously. Correspondents from ABC News and the New York Times engaged in an egregiously disrespectful exchange with Scott McClellan:

TERRY MORAN: With respect, who made you the editor of Newsweek? Do you think it's appropriate for you, at that podium, speaking with the authority of the President of the United States, to tell an American magazine what they should print?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not telling them. I'm saying that we would encourage them to help --

TERRY MORAN: You're pressuring them.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm saying that we would encourage them --

TERRY MORAN: It's not pressure?

ELISABETH BUMILLER: Are you asking them to write a story about how great the American military is; is that what you're saying here?

MR. McCLELLAN: Elisabeth, let me finish my sentence. Our military --

ELISABETH BUMILLER: You've already said what you're -- I know what -- how it ends.

This does not capture the snide arrogance of this exchange.

This is how the mainstream media react when one of their own is found out to have been so enamored of an anti-Bush story as to run with it without corroboration from anyone other than a single anonymous source. They expose their animus even more fully, betraying the mindset that makes this kind of mistake possible.

Republican Overreach

"But the clincher is the current imbroglio over federal judges. Democrats brazenly overturn two centuries of Senate precedent on judicial nominations — then they have the gall to threaten to shut down the institution if they don't get their way. That's Republican overreach? "

When Democrats overreach - The Washington Times: Editorials/OP-ED - May 19, 2005:

Negotiation 101

Today's Washington Post story, Gloves Off As Senators Start Debate On Judges:

"The 'six and six' proposal, as it is called, would obligate Democratic signatories to forswear backing a filibuster against future judicial nominees except in extraordinary circumstances. In return, the six GOP signers would agree to vote against efforts to ban judicial filibusters, the aides said."

This is exactly what I'm afraid of. These accomodationist Republican Senators should not negotiate for the party. They obviously don't know how!

1. The Democrats reserve for themselves the option of filibustering in "extraordinary circumstances," but the Republicans abandon the nuclear option altogether. They ought at least to reserve the nuclear option for "extraordinary circumstances," too.

2. The Republicans have allowed the Democrats to open their negotiations from an outrageously illegitimate starting point, and thay have met them more than half way. They concede more than they get in return. They accept de facto the legitimacy of party-line, systematic, sore-loser blocking of nominees based on judicial philosophy rather than competence.

3. The Democrats define their own illegitimate terms, leaving the agreement open-ended. Note that the phrase used is no longer "extreme" because the Democrats have labeled every Bush nominee an extremist. Every time Bush nominates someone consistent with his policies and philosophy, it is "extreme" in their eyes. They have so cheapened that word that even these appeasement Republicans recognize it no longer has weight. So, the Democrats concede a change of terminology, but unilaterally define for themselves what is an "extraordinary circumstance." Does anyone doubt that a Bush nomination for Supreme Court will automatically constitute an "extraordinary circumstance?"

4. The Republicans demonstrate no familiarity with the track record of their opponents. Know your opponent is the first rule of negotiating. Joe Lieberman tried to do away with all filibusters in 1995 with the Lieberman-Harkin act. Robert Byrd is the architect of this strategy, having set the precedent for changing Senate Rules. How can anyone believe these men are negotiating in good faith?

These moderate Republicans are not keeping faith with over 63 million Americans who voted for Bush.

Filibusters: More Position Switching

More evidence to support my view that a compromise with the Democrats would be foolish. In 1997, one of their legal apologists, Erwin Chemerinsky (Duke), argued in a Stanford Law Review article that the filibuster rule was unconstitutional. Yesterday, he wrote in the L.A. Times that limiting the filibuster for judicial nominees is a "cynical exercise of raw power." Is there any doubt that these thinkers will switch back to their previous position when convenient for them, and provide scholarly justification for doing so?

Patterico’s Pontifications on Filibuster:

"In his L.A. Times op-ed, Chemerinsky decries Republican efforts to change the filibuster rule for judicial nominations. He argues that the Senate should follow its “long-established rules for changing Senate procedure” — and that any attempt to change those rules would not be based on constitutional principle:

The GOP plan to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominations would do lasting damage to the Senate. Not only do the Republicans hope to do it without following the long-established rules for changing Senate procedure but, if they’re successful, they would eliminate a key check, guaranteeing their party’s absolute control over Supreme Court appointments.

. . . .

The major problem with the nuclear option is that it is a cynical exercise of raw power and not based on constitutional principle or precedent.

This is stunning hypocrisy, in light of Chemerinsky’s law review article, in which Chemerinsky explicitly encouraged the Senate to embrace a version of the “nuclear option.” The article urged the Senate to change Rule XXII, the rule requiring a two-thirds vote to change the rules for ending filibusters. Chemerinsky argued that Rule XXII is unconstitutional."

Nuke It, Already

Wow! Here's an endorsement of the "nuclear option" from an unexpected source, the L.A. Times:

Nuke It, Already: "We don't share these activists' enthusiasm for the White House judicial nominees triggering the current showdown. But we do believe that nominees are entitled to a vote on the floor of the Senate. The filibuster, an arcane if venerable parliamentary tactic that empowers a minority of 41 senators to block a vote, goes above and beyond those checks on majority power legitimately written into the Constitution. "

NYT: Advocating Frustration of Democracy

Senator Frist Approaches the Brink

Of all the hollow arguments Senate Republicans have made in their attempt to scrap the opposition's right to have a say on President Bush's judicial nominees, the one that's most hypocritical insists that history is on their side in demanding a "simple up-or-down vote" on the Senate floor. Republicans and Democrats have used a variety of tactics, from filibuster threats to stealthy committee inaction on individual nominations, in blocking hundreds of presidential appointments across history, including about one in five Supreme Court nominees. This is all part of the Senate's time-honored deliberative role and of its protection of minority rights, which Republican leaders would now desecrate in overreaching from their majority perch.

Republican majorities blocked more than 60 judicial candidates during the Clinton administration by denying them committee hearings through the use of anonymous "blue slip" holds by individual lawmakers and a variety of other tactics just as effective, if less visible, than the filibuster. The majority leader, Bill Frist, who is zealously planning to smash the Senate rules, took part himself in a filibuster of a Clinton appeals court nominee.

Questions:

1. What did the NYT say about the Democrats previous move, in 1995, to do away with all filibusters, including legislative? What did they say when Republicans used the filibuster? "... the filibuster has become the tool of the sore loser, . . . an archaic rule that frustrates democracy and serves no useful purpose." New York Times editorial 1-1-95, "Time to Retire the Filibuster." The NYT will certainly change its stance yet again if the Democrats are ever in power again.

As I've said, I hope these moderate Republicans remember what the Democrats tried to do in the past, egged on by the MSM, and aren't fooled into thinking they will respect so-called "time honored tradition" in the future.

2. If both Republicans and Democrats have used a variety of tactics to block presidential appointments in the past, many of them, such as the "blue slip," just as effective as the filibuster, then why are the Democrats going berserk about the filibuster? Why don't they just use their other "just as effective" tactics?

Obviously these other tactics are not as effective. The Democrats cannot actually win a majority or persuade the majority through rational argument and influence; they want to reserve for themselves the ability to block what they cannot accomplish otherwise. This is an admission of bankruptcy.

3. What deliberative role is the New York Times talking about? Harry Reid has already declared that the Democrats will not accept 100 hours of debate, or "any" amount of debate on nominees. Debate and deliberation are obviously not their goal. The Democrats are trying to block all public deliberation. All we've seen, and will see, on the Democrat's side is McCarthyite character assassination.

4. Is the NYT really so undiscerning as to not understand the difference between a filibuster threat by a few Senators, including Frist in the Paez case, and a systematic, party-enforced, actual, indefinite filibuster triggered entirely by opposition to judicial philosophy --- and probably religious belief?

The New York Times compounds their hypocrisy by accusing others of it.

In September the New York Times is going to start charging people $49 to read their editorial pages on-line. Whose idea was that?

Sex and Montgomery County

Another very well-written article in the Weekly Standard, this time on the sex-ed curriculum in Montgomery County, Sex and the County:

An advisory committee was put together in November 2002 to recommend a new program of 'health education' dealing with 'sexual variation.' The program, when it was finally written, reflected the liberal orthodoxy of the education establishment. With the claim to teach in an authoritative way about health and sex, the program put forth a series of 'myths' to be corrected with 'facts.' But the myths were not all mythical, nor the facts all factual. And the authors could not restrain themselves from pronouncing on the moral dimness of people holding opposing views, including the theological backwardness of those religions that continue to honor the tradition of Jewish and Christian teaching on these matters.

(I forget whether this requires a subscription -- some of their articles do; others don't.)

One of the most alarming aspects of this controversy is the poor quality of theological reasoning this advisory committee endorsed. For example, the teacher resource materials argues for moral equivalence of heterosexuality and homosexuality in the Bible by pointing out that there are many heterosexual practices the Bible condemns as abominations: rape, incest, etc. The obvious reply to this is that the Bible never condemns heterosexuality per se, but it does homosexuality.

The Scariest Nominee

Excellent story at National Review Online, Peter Kirsanow on Janice Rogers Brown:

To Democrats, Janice Rogers Brown is the scariest nominee to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the history of the republic. 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.

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. ...

... 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.'

Democrats are afraid of diluting their appeal to their base. The more conservative African-American, Hispanics, women, and Catholics there are, the less credible the Democrats' claim to exclusively represent their political and economic interests.

NARAL and Mud Slinger Reid Finding Dirt Together

A story by Robert Novak on RealClearPolitics.com: Probing Judges

He[Mike Rice] and Craig Varoga, a former aide to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, are partners in a California political consulting firm. Their May 5 petition requested financial information on 30 appellate judges in all but one of the country's judicial circuits, including nine widely mentioned Supreme Court possibilities. Varoga & Rice's client: NARAL Pro-Choice America.

One of the appellate judges who learned that his financial records were sought by a Democratic political consulting firm told a friend that he felt violated by this political intrusion. He did not know that the firm's client was NARAL.

The abortion advocacy group surely was not asking the judges' views on abortion. Nancy Keenan, who has been NARAL's president some five months, told this column her organization is concerned about "out of touch theological activists" becoming judges. Why seek financial information from them? She said the disclosure information might help identify the "character" of judicial nominees.

How can anyone really claim these judicial nominees aren't being targeted for their religious beliefs? Reid's front organization, funded by NARAL, is clearly looking for financial information to disguise a religious test of judicial nominees.

Fineman: Ready to Blow

Politics: Ready to Blow - Newsweek National News - MSNBC.com

Newsweek's Howard Fineman likes to portray himself as politically neutral. However, isn't it suspicious that he hangs the outcome of the coming filibuster showdown on a few Republican moderates? Not once does he contemplate the suggestion that the Democrats, who have violated over 200 years of Senate tradition, moderate their stance. There is not a single allusion to a "Democratic moderate" in his article, despite the heading of his article: "a few moderates hope for middle ground." Never in the history of the Senate -- with the exception of Fortas, who had ethical problems, and who opposed by both parties -- have judicial nominees been filibustered. This is the historically extremist position.

I do not believe any compromise is in order because a compromise legitimates an extremist negotiation starting point. By far the most desirable solution, one that everyone looking at the long term would agree on, would be no change to the Senate rules so long as the Democrats restore Senate tradition and quit filibustering judicial nominees. They would have to acknowledge that they have abused Senate rules and violated Senate tradition. They would also have to offer some guarantee that they would not violate their agreement.

However, the Democrats cannot offer any credible guarantee. And so, reluctantly, Senate Republicans must write honorable tradition into the Senate rules. The tradition has been not to filibuster judicial nominees, the change to Senate rules will only apply to this situation. Sen. Frist's proposal does not apply to the legislative filibuster.

Why can't the Democrats offer a credible guarantee?

The Democrats have a history of trying to destroy the filibuster when in power. The argument that someday Republicans will be in the minority and will need the protections of the filibuster assumes too much. If the Democrats ever do get back into power again, what will stop them from changing the Senate rules in their favor? The memory of Republican restraint? I doubt it!

Sen. Robert Byrd led the creation of precedents in 1977, 1979, 1980, and 1987 to stop filibusters. In 1995, nine current Democratic senators sought to put an end to all filibusters, even legislative, a step much more radical than anything contemplated here. Senators Bingaman, Boxer, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Lieberman, and Sarbanes have already displayed a readiness to bend their principles as politically expedient. They have betrayed a willingness to take extreme positions in the past. What credible guarantee can they offer that they will not do it again?

It is far more reasonable to think they will change the Senate rules in their favor as soon as they get the chance than to think they will respond in kind to a "moderate" concession.

Also, the Democrats are led by a man who does not respect existing Senate rules with respect to confidential files, illegally characterizes these FBI files, and ignores a memorandum of understanding with the White House on treatment of nominees. What guarantee can there be that this man will suddenly learn integrity and keep his word?

No. For these reasons I support Frist's action and hope he presses on with it:

1) It codifies what was the Senate tradition until Democratic extremists highjacked the process.
2) A compromise would legitimate an illegitimate negotiation starting point.
3) The Democrats are much more likely to change the rules themselves in the future than to respect a concession today. Fineman couldn't find a single Democratic moderate.
4) The Democratic leader won't adhere to any agreement anyway.

Diplomatic (I Hate Republicans and Everything They Stand For) Dean Does it Again

Boston.com: Dean rips DeLay at convention:

"Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Party, said yesterday that the US House majority leader, Tom DeLay, ''ought to go back to Houston where he can serve his jail sentence,' referring to allegations of unethical conduct against the Republican leader."

With models of civility like Dean around, I can really see why people think it's the Republicans who have lost the art of civil discourse,

How did this man get this job? He was the governor of a tiny little state with a population of about 630,000 people. The mayor of a large city has greater responsibility. He, obviously, didn't even have to learn any self-control to do the job.

Is there a web site anywhere keeping track of Dean's stupid statements?

Reid's Self-Defense

At Center of Senate Showdown, a Boxer Takes On a Surgeon - New York Times:

"On Friday night, the Justice Department sent a letter to Mr. Reid, Dr. Frist and other senators expressing concerns about his disclosure of the F.B.I. report. Jim Manley, a spokesman for Mr. Reid, called the letter a 'ridiculous partisan attack,' noting that the existence of the report had been public for nearly a year."

How stupid does Reid think we are? There is a confidential FBI file on every nominee. Everyone knows that.

He didn't violate Senate rules by disclosing the mere existence of a file, he characterized its contents. He claimed that there was a "problem" dcumented in the file bad enough to disqualify Saad. But, since access to these files is severely restricted, and those who do have legitimate access (not Reid) are prohibited from divulging anything included in the file, his McCarthyite accusation cannot be answered.

This man has no shame! His previous defense was that Sen. Patrick Leahy also disclosed confidential information. Well that's good. That's the new I-had-an-accomplice defense. We both did it, therefore, neither of us is guilty.

Was Reid really a boxer or just a mud slinger?

More Leahy Hypocrisy

Time to vote on Justice Owen:

"Immediately, Democratic Sens. Charles Schumer and Patrick Leahy, (Mr. Leahy would become chairman of the Judiciary Committee when Democrats gained majority power in the Senate three months later) wrote to President Bush, stating: 'We firmly believe that ending the long-established practice of ABA review would dilute the quality of the federal bench. The process of judicial selection needs more information about the competence and integrity of potential nominees, not less.'

Senate Democrats resuscitated the ABA's role, with Mr. Leahy stating that he regarded the group's evaluation as 'the gold standard' for evaluating judges. Shortly after the nomination of Justice Owen, the ABA unanimously gave her its highest rating of 'well-qualified.'

But in September 2002, when committee Democrats finally got around to voting on the Owen nomination, it was rejected on a 10-9 party-line vote. Justice Owen thus became the first nominee in history who received a unanimous, 'well-qualified' rating by the 'gold-standard' ABA to be denied a floor vote by the Judiciary Committee. Having been endorsed by Georgia Democratic Sen. Zell Miller, she would almost certainly have won confirmation on the Senate floor. "

Editorial from the Washington Times.

90th Anniversary of Genocide in Armenia

This is one of the most shameful events in human history, and in American policy. It is too little known.

A promising start? - The Washington Times: Commentary - May 15, 2005:

"Also, we witness the dangerous temptation of modern-day Turkish officials to present the extermination of the Ottoman Empire's Armenian population as a result of World War I. We want to remind all that it was the exact hope, argument and calculation of the perpetrators that the massacres and deportations of Armenians would pass unnoticed under the cover of World War I. Neither war nor anything else can explain or justify the murder of 1.5 million innocent Armenian children, women, and men in the Ottoman Turkey. "

Its history can be found in A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide

WaPo Story on Montgomery County Sex-Ed Curriculum

This is an interesting story given the lengthy exchange I had with a commenter on the Montgomery County Public School sex-ed curriculum. Anonymous assured me that the judge disposing of this case had been confused and that all the clearly anti-Baptist, theologically revisionist material cited in the judges opinion was always just teacher resource material, never intended to be used in the classroom. This story supports Anonymous's contention. Committee Reassesses Sex-Ed Decisions:

"Rather, the program was undone by a packet of teacher resource materials that few on the committee thought would draw notice or objections and that students would not likely see.

But members of two groups that opposed changes in the course ... saw big problems with the supporting materials. They feared that the viewpoints expressed in the pieces -- articles that in some cases singled out religious denominations less tolerant of homosexuality, such as Baptists -- inevitably would slip into the classroom. A federal judge agreed.

'The Court does not understand why it is necessary, in attempting to achieve the goals of advocating tolerance and providing health-related information, Defendants must offer up their opinion on such controversial topics as whether homosexuality is a sin, whether AIDS is God's judgment on homosexuality and whether churches that condemn homosexuality are on theologically solid ground,' wrote Judge Alexander Williams Jr. in granting the groups' request for a temporary restraining order to prevent school officials from launching the new curriculum in six schools.

Montgomery County school officials, citing ongoing litigation, have declined to discuss anything related to the sex education curriculum, including the process by which the committee selected the teacher resource materials.

But members of the Citizens' Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human Development have offered their accounts.

Fishback said committee members had not anticipated problems with the resource materials because the documents were for teacher reference and were not likely to be distributed to students.

In January 2004, committee members approved the teacher resource materials for eighth grade on a vote of 13 to 1, with five abstentions. That May, teacher resource materials for 10th grade were recommended on a vote of 10 to 4, with three abstentions."

However, this still raises several questions:

1) Why did the committee think it so important to propagate such vehemently anti-conservative-Christian propaganda among teachers? Even if the resources were meant only for the teachers, it is extremely one-sided, it spreads theological revisionism of the worst kind, slurs the Baptist denomination and endorses other gay-friendly denominations by name, and bases fact/myth comparisons on gay and lesbian advocacy materials. According to this story, the committee voted explicity on the teacher resource material. Apparently this is the material the committee wanted the teachers to use. My Anonymous commenter suggested that it was to expose teachers to materials on this very complex subject, but, again if that were the goal wouldn't the committee have included materials that disputed these anti-Christian claims?

2) What would teachers draw on for actual in-classroom use if not the teacher resource material overwhelmingly endorsed by the committee -- especially when the teacher resource material was clearly selected to achieve the explicit instructional objectives of the curriculum? Among the teacher resource materials was a link to lesson plans. They included handout materials and suggested discussion starters. The supposedly more innocuous curriculum itself is merely an outline. It is not credible to think the teacher charged with examining the influence of religious beliefs on generalizations and stereotypes of homosexuals would not make use of the teacher resources addressing these very issues. It is not credible to think that the teacher charged with examining myths versus facts about homosexuality would ignore the myths versus facts handouts included among the teacher resource materials.

3) What research did this committee do to select these teacher resource materials? They seemed quick to reject ex-gay material as unscientific, yet endorsed as authoritative blatantly one-sided propaganda. For example, their resource material cites without question John Boswell's self-justifying historically revisionist arguments about homosexuality within the Catholic church.

I think the judge got it right. This committee endorsed propaganda for teachers who would, in turn, take it into the classroom.

Doubting Rationalist

Interesting story on Philip Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial, in the Style section of the Washington Post, today: Doubting Rationalist

Justice Dept. Enters Court Nominee Fight

The AP's headline betrays their usual bias, as though the Department of Justice has no real business making sure Senators keep confidential FBI files confidential. But, it still points out just how serious Reid's mud-slinging is.

Justice Dept. Enters Court Nominee Fight - Yahoo! News: "WASHINGTON - The Justice Department is edging into the Senate controversy over judicial nominees, writing key lawmakers after Democratic Leader Harry Reid publicly referred to an FBI file on one of President Bush's controversial appointees.

'The letter expressed concern about recent remarks on the floor of the Senate which alluded to an FBI background investigation file provided by the Department of Justice to the Senate Judiciary Committee on a confidential basis in connection with a judicial nomination,' a department official said Friday night."

It Is About Religious Belief

From today's Washington Post:

It Is About Religious Belief: "Well, I agree with the president that some Democratic senators have targeted the judicial philosophy of the nominees. But that judicial philosophy has been scrutinized and scorned in several cases precisely because of the nominee's belief system or faith -- not because of his or her record. After all, it was Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) -- not the Family Research Council -- who launched an inquiry into one key nominee's 'deeply held personal beliefs.' Schumer didn't challenge the nominee's 'deeply held judicial philosophy,' but rather his beliefs.


And what were those personal beliefs? In the case of former Alabama attorney general William Pryor, as with other filibustered nominees, it appears that it was the nominee's personal views on abortion, homosexuality and other matters on which Catholic and evangelical churches have clear positions that are contrary to those of liberal Democrats and their allies. "

Standing Rules of the Senate

U.S. Senate: Standing Rules of the Senate:

Section 29 Executive Sessions 5. Any Senator, officer, or employee of the Senate who shall disclose the secret or confidential business or proceedings of the Senate, including the business and proceedings of the committees, subcommittees, and offices of the Senate, shall be liable, if a Senator, to suffer expulsion from the body; and if an officer or employee, to dismissal from the service of the Senate, and to punishment for contempt.

Why is Harry Reid exempt from this?

His defense seems to be that Sen. Patrick Leahy previously made the same sort of statement, even referring to an email contained in the file. This is no defense. The only difference is that Leahy, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, had legitimate access to the file. Both divulged the contents of this confidential file in violation of Senate Rules. Harry Reid's defense is that he's following Leahy's unconscionable smear. Is this a new defense, "I have an accomplice?"

The Washington Post said today that there still might be place for a compromise agreement after debate on Priscilla Owen's nomination begins on the floor. Given this recent performance, why would anyone be foolish enough to trust Reid, et. al. to keep an agreement?

Senate Republicans to Open Filibuster War Next Week

It's about time!

Senate Republicans to Open Filibuster War Next Week - New York Times

Bench Memos on National Review Online

Bench Memos: "People forget this, but two of the original eleven were judges originally nominated by President Clinton: Roger Gregory and Barrington Parker. In the case of Judge Gregory, it was the first time in history that a president had re-nominated a failed circuit-court nominee originally nominated by his predecessor from the other political party. This was unprecedented and highly significant, and it was intended to send a message. It was an olive branch. The president highlighted it in his speech that day, asking the Senate to move beyond the bitterness of the past in the judicial wars and to start afresh in a spirit of cooperation and good faith.

The Democrats took the olive branch the president extended and slapped him in the face with it. They immediately held hearings for, and confirmed, the two Democrats among the nominees and then held up the rest, refusing even to hold hearings for a long time on most of them. They then complained incessantly (and, for the most part, falsely) about not having been adequately consulted by the White House with regard to these nominations. And they executed the play suggested by Professor Tribe, Marcia Greenberger, and others at a Democratic strategy session on how to block Bush judicial nominations — a session held before the president had even taken office — when they scheduled hearings under Senator Schumer to try to legitimize the notion that judicial nominations could be blocked on ideological, rather than competence grounds.

This sent the strongest possible message to those of us in the White House that there was no interest at all in cooperation or good faith from the Democratic side"

Byron York on Harry Reid & Judges

Byron York has a story that sheds light on what may be in Saad's file. Sen. Patrick Leahy hinted at it in 2004. Leahy, of course, is among the slimiest of them all. I still remember when Leahy accused Bork of greed when Bork was taking almost every speaking engagement he could to pay for treatments for his severely ill wife. Byron York on Harry Reid & Judges on National Review Online

Nuclear? No, Restoration

Great editorial by Charles Krauthammer today:Nuclear? No, Restoration

Democrats are calling Frist's maneuver an assault on the very essence of the Senate, a body distinguished by its insistence on tradition, custom and unwritten rules.

This claim is a comical inversion of the facts. One of the great traditions, customs and unwritten rules of the Senate is that you do not filibuster judicial nominees. You certainly do not filibuster judicial nominees who would otherwise win an up-or-down vote. And you surely do not filibuster judicial nominees in a systematic campaign to deny a president and a majority of the Senate their choice of judges. That is historically unprecedented.

The Democrats have unilaterally shattered one of the longest-running traditions in parliamentary history worldwide. They are not to be rewarded with a deal. They must either stop or be stopped by a simple change of Senate procedure that would do nothing more than take a 200-year-old unwritten rule and make it written.

What are we waiting for, Senator Frist?

Question of the Day

Just to repeat from my post below:

If Sen. Reid will illegally characterize the contents of confidential FBI files, violate Senate rules, and ignore the Senate's memorandum of understanding with the White House in order to trash a nominee's character with vague McCarthyite accusations, why would Frist believe he will adhere to any so-called compromise agreement they might work out? Hasn't he proved dramatically that he would not respect any agreement?

Reid's Latest

Reid cites FBI file on judicial pick:

"Minority Leader Harry Reid strayed from his prepared remarks on the Senate floor yesterday and promised to continue opposing one of President Bush's judicial nominees based on 'a problem' he said is in the nominee's 'confidential report from the FBI.'
Those highly confidential reports are filed on all judicial nominees, and severe sanctions apply to anyone who discloses their contents. Less clear is whether a senator could face sanctions for characterizing the content of such files.
'Henry Saad would have been filibustered anyway,' Mr. Reid said on the floor yesterday, about the Michigan Appeals Court judge who is nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.
'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 continued.
Republican staff members and supporters of Mr. Bush's nominees were outraged.
'Can you think of a better way to trash someone's reputation?' "

Let's recap:

Access to FBI confidential files on nominees is restricted to senators on the Judiciary Committee and senators from the nominee's home state. Reid is neither. So either he is lying about having looked at the file, or he has violated Senate rules and the Memorandum of Understanding the Senate has with the White House.

If he is lying, which is likely, then he has engaged in deliberate character assassination with the knowledge that no one can respond without violating the confidentiality of the file. Even Saad himself is not allowed to know what's in the file. So, neither he nor anyone else can defend him from Reid's sneaky charge.

Whether he is lying or not, the Senate ought to take at face value Reid's admission of violating Senate rules, illegally divulging confidential information, and trashing the Memorandum of Understanding with the White House.

Senator Frist had better recognize that a bloc led by this senator will not respect any so-called compromise agreement they make. It's time to quit talking Senator Frist and go nuclear!

Agents and Ambassadors

From an editorial in today's Wall Street Journal, subscription required WSJ.com - Agents and Ambassadors:

"Which brings us back to Mr. Bolton. In its wisdom, the Foreign Relations Committee could not bring itself to endorse the nominee: Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski, whose state is within range of North Korean missiles, complained the nominee had made 'inflammatory' comments about that nation. And Ohio Republican George Voinovich described Mr. Bolton as 'the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be.'

The same could be said about Mr. Voinovich, who didn't bother to show up to the initial hearings for Mr. Bolton. But leave that aside. Given what we have learned from the Senate subcommittee about the U.N., to say nothing of Paul Volcker's independent inquiry, just what qualities does a U.N. Ambassador need?

Here's a thought: The Oil for Food scandal is not just the product of Saddam's manipulations, or of the corruptibility of a few officials. Rather, it is what happens when America's diplomats choose to 'be diplomatic,' to speak softly, to defer to the U.N. consensus.

Mr. Voinovich may think we need more of the same. But we are reminded of the words of another Senator, who also knew something about the U.N. 'It is time that the American spokesman came to be feared in international forums for the truths he might tell.' That was Pat Moynihan, writing in Commentary in 1975, and John Bolton is his heir."

There are many of us who have been newly engaged in the political process because of Bush's foreign policy. Voters turned out in unprecedented numbers to declare their support for Bush, and to repudiate the "global test" thinking of Kerry and his fellow-multilateralists. We do not believe the U.S. ought to defer to a corrupt U.N. And, if the U.N. is going to mean anything it must be reformed.

Anyone who watched these Bolton hearings immediately realized this wasn't about Bolton. The Democrats voiced all the same talking points against Bolton they did against Bush. They're upset with his policies. Even Colin Powell's qualms about Bolton clearly reduces to a policy dispute. For a man like Biden, who admittedly smiles while ruinning the careers of his opponents spreading unfounded lies about them, to smear Bolton for being passionate and "hotheaded" is wild inversion.

Now, Voinovich is mouthing the Democrats' talking points against Bush foreign policy and its representative. Remember: this is a man who didn't even bother to show up for the hearings!

CBS Lies Again

So, CBS lied again. Here's Ken Starr's public email about CBS's claim that he is opposing the Republican's constitutional option on filibusters:

"In the piece that I have now seen, and which I gather is being lavishly quoted, CBS employed two snippets. The 'radical departure' snippet was specifically addressed -- although this is not evidenced whatever from the clip -- to the practice of invoking judicial philosopy as a grounds for voting against a qualified nominee of integrity and experience. I said in sharp language that that practice was wrong. I contrasted the current practice . . . with what occurred during Ruth Ginsburg's nomination process, as numerous Republicans voted (rightly) to confirm a former ACLU staff lawyer. They disagreed with her positions as a lawyer, but they voted (again, rightly) to confirm her. Why? Because elections, like ideas, have consequences. . . . In the interview, I did indeed suggest, and have suggested elsewhere, that caution and prudence be exercised (Burkean that I am) in shifting/modifying rules (that's the second snippet), but I likewise made clear that the 'filibuster' represents an entirely new use (and misuse) of a venerable tradition. . . .

"[O]ur friends are way off base in assuming that the CBS snippets, as used, represent (a) my views, or (b) what I in fact said."

MCPS

Update:

The Volokh Conspiracy has a post on the Montgomery County Public School sex-ed class.

HughHewitt.com

Great line from Hugh Hewitt yesterday on Charles Schumer's silliness

HughHewitt.com:

"At what point does Old Media bother to tell the country that Senator Schumer has the credibility of a carnival barker on this issue, but lacks the manners of that profession?"

Law and Behavioral Biology

I just downloaded this article from the Columbia Law Review. I don't know yet what it contains, but the abstract is interesting. This is the most urgent area of research for anyone interested in theology: the implications of recent developments in the biological basis of behavior.

SSRN-Law and Behavioral Biology by Owen Jones, Timothy Goldsmith: "Society uses law to encourage people to behave differently than they would behave in the absence of law. This fundamental purpose makes law highly dependent on sound understandings of the multiple causes of human behavior. The better those understandings, the better law can achieve social goals with legal tools. In this Article, Professors Jones and Goldsmith argue that many long held understandings about where behavior comes from are rapidly obsolescing as a consequence of developments in the various fields constituting behavioral biology. By helping to refine law's understandings of behavior's causes, they argue, behavioral biology can help to improve law's effectiveness and efficiency.

Part I examines how and why law and behavioral biology are connected. Part II provides an introduction to key concepts in behavioral biology. Part III identifies, explores, and illustrates a wide variety of contexts in which behavioral biology can be useful to law. Part IV addresses concerns that sometimes arise when considering biological influences on human behavior."

Phil Bredesen Blogging Governor, State of Tennessee

Phil Bredesen Governor, State of Tennessee, has started a blog.

This will be worth monitoring, for several reasons:

1) Gov. Bredesen will probably be a Democratic candidate for President in 2008. In my opinion a very good one. It should be interesting to watch what position he takes on issues during the next couple years.

2) Bredesen has had to take the lead in dealing with many fiscal issues facing other governors. He inherited a terrible mess with Tennessee's state Medicaid program, TennCare. On paper, TennCare's mission is admirable and urgent. And, Bredesen is able to make the tough decisions. He knows what he needs to do. But his hands have been tied, especially in dealing with pharmacy costs. TennCare is a noble experiment that ran into too many advocacy groups to succeed. The Medicaid issue has become urgent in many states. As structured today, it is a fiscal albatross.

The posturing of the New York Times, has been predictable. They've already run several stories about Bush's "$10 billion cut in Medicaid spending." This is irresponsible nonsense. Bush has proposed a $2.5 billion reduction in the automatic annual increase of $30 billion per year for four years. So, he's proposing a cut from an automatic 15% increase to a 13.75% increase. (Of course, Bush's proposal affects the federal side of the Medicaid program. The problems are more acute in the states.)

3) Bredesen is a moderate who appeals to red-state-types and blue-state-types, partially because he is a very effective communicator. He seems to be wildly popular in Tennessee. (I'm judging on the basis of a couple very brief visits.) I expect he'll bring that to his blog.

Connecticut Papers Reporting on Church Decisions

I do not have standing within the Catholic Church nor within the Episcopalian Church. I am not a member of either. Therefore, I avoid commenting on these churches internal decisions re: governance. However, Connecticut papers feel no such qualms, and, I am free to comment on their reporting.

The Hartford Courant's story, Under Fire, Jesuit Editor Leaving, celebrates the independence of the editor of the Jesuit weekly magazine, lamenting the newly oppressive imposition of hierarchical authority.

At the same time, the Waterbury Republican-American, carried an article about six Episcopalian priests who are facing a crisis of conscience because of their Bishop's stance on gay marriage. They, of course, are not called independent, intellectually vigorous thinkers. Instead they are rebels being influenced by out-of-state rabble-rousers.

Again, I have no standing within either of these two churches, but the juxtaposition of these two stories is striking. Why do these papers, who have less standing than I do -- I, at least, am now a seminarian -- feel so free to add their evaluative commentary to straight new reporting?

A setback for Rockville's sexperts

The Washington Times has an editorial today on the Montgomery County Public School sex-ed program. It cites many of the same portions of the judge's memorandum I did, but also includes a comment about the appeal to Kinsey's science. The Washington Times: Editorials - May 09, 2005

Edward Feser's article in the March issue of City Journal exposes the flaws in Kinsey's science, a task more necessary because of Hollywood's recent depictions of him.

Notoriously, he derived his “sexual histories” largely from persons on the fringes of society—prison inmates and the denizens of gay bars, the latter being in the 1940s and fifties much farther outside the mainstream of American life than they are now.

Then there’s Kinsey’s strange fascination with pedophiles, with the horrific data on the frequency of orgasms in infants and children he derived from interviewing child molesters blandly recorded in his volumes alongside the more ordinary perversions. One particularly monstrous pedophile, a man who had sexual relations with various of his family members and molested hundreds of children, kept regular contact with Kinsey and his associates. They assured him that they wouldn’t turn him in to the authorities, despite the fact that he continued to molest children throughout the time of their correspondence. Kinsey justified such aiding and abetting of criminality in the name of “science,” of course.
...
All of this would be bad enough if Kinsey’s work merely sought to convey some unusual facts and figures. But of course, Kinsey took that work, and his admirers still take it, to have far greater significance. In their view, it amounts to nothing less than a refutation of traditional sexual morality. Kinsey had shown—or so he claimed—that adulterers, homosexuals, and pederasts were as common as rain. How could anyone ever again regard such behavior as abnormal?

One of my previous commenters says the judge was confused: the Revised Curriculum provides these references for teacher use only. However, even if that is true one has to wonder about the quality of this curriculum. The references it cites were entirely one-sided and includes appeals to junk science such as Kinsey's.

More on the Bible in Public Schools

Excerpts from the judge's memorandum on the proposed sex education curriculum in the Montgomery County Public Schools.

Beginning with one of the judge's concluding statements about the Plaintiff's first ammendment rights.

In this case, Defendants open up the classroom to the subject of homosexuality, and specifically, the moral rightness of the homosexual lifestyle. However, the Revised Curriculum presents only one view on the subject — that homosexuality is a natural and morally correct lifestyle — to the exclusion of other perspectives. Indeed, the Revised Curriculum advises teachers that the information concerning homosexuality is to be presented to students as facts and that “no additional information, interpretation or examples are to be provided by the teacher.” As such, the Court is deeply concerned that the Revised Curriculum violates Plaintiffs’ free speech rights under the First Amendment, and believes that Plaintiffs’ free speech allegations merit future and further investigation.

With regard to the encroachment of religion in the schools:

The Court is extremely troubled by the willingness of Defendants to venture —or perhaps more correctly bound — into the crossroads of controversy where religion, morality, and homosexuality converge. The Court does not understand why it is necessary, in attempting to achieve the goals of advocating tolerance and providing health-related information, Defendants must offer up their opinion on such controversial topics as whether homosexuality is a sin, whether AIDS is God’s judgment on homosexuals, and whether churches that condemn homosexuality are on theologically solid ground. As such, the Court is highly skeptical that the Revised Curriculum is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest, and finds that Plaintiffs’ Establishment Clause claim certainly merits future and further investigation.

On propagating anti-Baptist sentiment in the name of "tolerance":

The Revised Curriculum notes that “Fundamentalists are more likely to have negative attitudes about gay people than those with other religious views.” The Revised Curriculum also notes that fundamentalists and evangelicals are more likely than other religions to have negative attitudes about gay people. The Revised Curriculum contrasts this view with view of “more tolerant religious backgrounds.”

The Revised Curriculum also paints certain Christian sects, notably Baptists,which are opposed to homosexuality, as unenlightened and Biblically misguided:

Religion has often been misused to justify hatred and oppression. Less than half a century ago, Baptist churches (among others) in this country defended racial segregation on the basis that it was condoned by the Bible. Early Christians were not hostile to homosexuals. Intolerance became the dominant attitude only after the Twelfth Century.

The Revised Curriculum plainly portrays Baptist churches as wrongly expressing the same intolerance attitude towards homosexuals today as they did towards African Americans during segregation. The Revised Curriculum states that this attitude towards homosexuality is based on generalized arguments that most modern day people reject: “Today, many people no longer tolerate generalizations about homosexuality as pathology or sin.”

The Revised Curriculum also implies that the Baptist Church’s position on homosexuality is theologically flawed. The materials state that theologians and Biblical scholars agree that “Jesus said absolutely nothing at all about homosexuality.” The materials also note that many seemingly innocuous activities were deemed abominations by the Bible, such as “wearing clothing made from more than one kind of fiber, and earing [sic] shellfish, like shrimp and lobster,” inviting the reader to draw the conclusion that not all activities that were banned in the Bible are still morally objectionable today. The Court would again note that the strength Defendants’ substantive theological arguments are irrelevant — it is their exclusive nature that the Court finds troubling.

Most disturbingly, the Revised Curriculum juxtaposes this portrait of an intolerant and Biblically misguided Baptist Church against other, preferred Churches, which are more friendly towards the homosexual lifestyle. The Revised Curriculum states:

Fortunately, many within organized religions are beginning to address the homophobia of the church. The Nation Council of Churches of Christ, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the Unitarian Universalist Association, the Society of Friends (Quakers), and the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches support full civil rights for gay men and lesbians, as they do for everyone else. (emphasis added).

The Bible in Public Schools

The sex-ed program which would have taught students how to put a condom on a cucumber has been put on hold. The Washington Post's slant on this is that parents in the county were blind-sided by conservative groups. Their headline Montgomery Blindsided Over Sex-Ed would indicate they endorse the program. It's too bad those blasted conservatives had to get in here and mix things up again! The New York Times, of course, cites this as yet another example of the encroachment of religion into the public arena, a move toward American theocracy.

But let's look at what was being taught. The following is a quote from the Myths vs. Facts portion of the curriculum.

The Bible contains six passages which condemn homosexual behavior. The Bible also contains numerous passages condemning heterosexual behavior. Theologians and Biblical scholars continue to differ on many Biblical interpretations. They agree on one thing, however. Jesus said absolutely nothing at all about homosexuality.

Among the many things deemed an abomination are adultery, incest, wearing clothing made from more than one kind of fiber, and eating shellfish, like shrimp and lobster.

Religion has often been misused to justify hatred and oppression. Less than a half a century ago, Baptist churches (among others) in this country defended racial segregation on the basis that it was condoned by the Bible. Early Christians were not hostile to homosexuals. Intolerance became the dominant attitude only after the Twelfth Century.

Today, many people no longer tolerate generalizations about homosexuality as pathology or sin. Few would condemn heterosexuality as immoral--despite the high incidence of rape, incest, child abuse, adultery, family violence, promiscuity, and venereal disease among heterosexuals. Fortunately, many within organized religions are beginning to address the homophobia of the church.

So, apparently it is permissible to talk about the Bible in public schools, but only if advocating revisionist interpretations justifying homosexuality and only if you also slam Baptists in the process. Note that this curriculum was approved by the school board.

The judge's memorandum on the case can be found here . It has more interesting Myths and Facts.

Fishing Biden Catches a Shoe

Smearing Joe Biden's fishing expedition is going bad on him. He can't catch any more damaging information on Bolton at the State Department, and is threatening to delay the vote further until he does catch something. In the meantime, here's what he did catch, (a story buried at the very bottom of the WaPo article):

Biden Hints at Delaying Bolton Vote:

"Meanwhile, Margaret Thatcher, who gained a reputation for outspokenness as Britain's prime minister, endorsed Bolton's nomination, largely for his 'capacity for straight-talking rather than peddling half-truths.'

In a letter made available Thursday by Bolton's office, Thatcher said she wrote to tell her longtime friend 'how strongly I support your nomination.'

Bolton also was endorsed by former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, who told a reporter, 'John Bolton is eminently qualified. He's one of the smartest guys in Washington.'

Armitage is close to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who did not sign a letter sent last month to Lugar by all other former living Republican secretaries of state backing Bolton."

Armitage was reputed to be behind many of the State Department complaints about Bolton. This should have been the lede of the story.

Congressional Travel: Goodbye Ethics Truce (part II)

Here's a useful page for anyone who wants real, primary source information about Congressional travel: Political Money Line Tom DeLay ranks 119th on this list. The New York Times story made it seem as though DeLay was the only one with an ethical problem. A real investigation would probably find many more in line ahead of him.

House Bought

I previously reported that we finally sold our house. We are downscaling, using the proceeds from our house to pay for our sons' college and to finance a career change for me. This has not been without its challenges (see my previous entry, God's Presence Better than a Beautiful Home.) We've finally made it to the next step in our move. Last weekend, we spent one day house hunting and bought one. We move in June.

I am finishing up my first semester as a seminary student. Right now, it's just a grind. Hebrew is impossible! No one over the age of 40 has the capacity to learn this language! I do well enough on the quizzes, but only because I cram immediately before. I retain this stuff for less than 24 hours. One course is almost the equivalent of a full-time job.

The course in Hermeneutics has been good. The topic is inherently interesting; it is also relevant. I have amassed a substantial library on the topic, including E.D. Hirsch's books, Gadamer's Truth and Method, Fish's Is There a Text in This Class?, and many others. I would also put my leisure-time reading on Constitutional jurisprudence in this category.

The course on Philosophy has been a mixed bag. My undergraduate degree was in Philosophy. I took many graduate-level courses, as well. Much of the course has been boring review. However, some of our reading has been very refreshing. I have never, for example, considered Aquinas's proofs for the existence of God to have much value, but we studied the version originally developed by Arabic scholars in the late middle ages, embraced by Saint Bonaventure, and updated by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland. Their arguments against actual infinities -- Aquinas's inifinite regress -- are very compelling.

This time next week I will have my first semester behind me.

Christian Morality and Public Law--Five Theses

Al Mohler's got a great series going on Christian Morality and Public Law. Today's essay, the third and last in the series, is especially good.

Mohler's first thesis:

First, a liberal democracy must allow all participants in the debate to speak and argue from whatever worldview or convictions they possess. A liberal democracy should say yes to the entry of all citizens into the public conversation. Those citizens will come from many different backgrounds, and they will represent many different worldviews, some more religious and some less, some more secular and some less, some more Christian and some less. But all should be allowed equal access to the conversation. This is a principle that lies at the very heart of a deliberative democracy. Each citizen must be allowed to speak from his deepest convictions, and to identify those convictions without fear of prejudice or of being eliminated from the public debate.

One of the abuses evident in Connecticut during these recent debates on gay marriage has been the disenfranchsement of religion: the de facto disqualification of religiously-informed opinion. Many Connecticut legislators heaped ridicule on the arguments made by religious people, not because of the content of their arguments, but because they were made by religious people.

As I've written before, the supreme irony was legislators' use of Jefferson's famous Letter to the Danbury Baptists, where he interpreted the Federal Constitution to mean there is a "wall of separation between church and state."

The Connecticut state legislature had passed laws essentially establishing Congregationalism as the state church. Congregational churches were supported by a state tax. Citizens who wished to divert their contribution to other churches, as did the Danbury Baptists, had to file for exceptions. These were difficult to obtain in some communities.

The Baptists complained that the Connecticut legislature effectively treated religious freedom as a grant of the state. The free exercise of religion was simply a concession. They appealed to Jefferson to affirm religious freedom as an inalienable right, recognized, not bestowed, by the state and, therefore, inviolable. Jefferson's statement was meant to keep the state from curtailing religious freedom. The wall was meant to keep the state from trampling on the rights of Baptists. The wall protects Baptists from the state (not the other way around.)

The Baptists were free to practice their religion. There were no restrictions on attending their churches, no restrictions on their worship practices, no restrictions on their beliefs. Their grievance was about access to state resources (in this case, tax money), and the preferential treatment by the state of one religious body over another.

Connecticut's disregard for Baptists, and Catholics, and other conservative religious groups, has not changed, nor has the Connecticut legislature's view of the free exercise of religion as a mere "tolerant" concession of the state. When they repeated the Courant's propaganda differentiating civil rights and religion, "This is a civil rights issue not a religious issue," they basically asserted that homosexual sodomy is a right, religion is something else, outside the domain of rights entirely.

Perhaps those Connecticut legislators who spoke so disparagingly of religion and the value of religious opinion, and who asserted their right to impose an alternate, irreligious view of morality on Connecticut's citizens ought to take another look at history. They are on the wrong side, yet again.

End to Ethics Truce

The ethics truce is off! We are going to see much more of this sort of thing, Lobbyist Paid for Lawmakers Travel. When the Democrats tried to nail Delay for having his family on the payroll they had to back down because it turns out many of them did, too. Now it turns out that unlike Delay's stiuation where a couple of his aides travelled on Abramoff's nickle, a couple Democratic congressmen benefitted directly themselves. They are pleading ignorance, but that's Delay's claim as well.

It looks like we're reverting back to the days of continual charges, counter charges, and investigations.

Update:

Pelosi's ethics stance hypocritical: " In an ABC interview Sunday, Mrs. Pelosi dismissed questions about travel by Democrats, telling interviewer George Stephanopoulos: 'Do not fall into a Republican trap of equating technicalities on reporting, timing of reporting with not upholding an ethical standard of the House.'

Republicans see a double standard.

'What is a 'technicality' for her requires a full-scale investigation for others,' said National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Carl Forti. "