NATIONAL & WORLD DIGEST May 16, 2007

**IF YOU CAN'T ACCESS THE FULL ARTICLE, CONTACT US AT rays.list@comcast.net and we'll be happy to send the full article.


=

Forwarded from Victoria Lavin
Daily Queer News
dailyqueernews@yahoo.com

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2444199220070515

United States fails to rally allies over Wolfowitz
Tue May 15, 2007 5:54PM EDT
By Lesley Wroughton

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States on Tuesday failed to rally supportamong key allies for a strategy aimed at saving Paul Wolfowitz's job asWorld Bank president, which has been jeopardized by a pay and promotioncontroversy involving his companion.

The U.S. administration found support only from Japan in a conference callof officials from Group of Seven industrial countries for a plan to separateconsideration of Wolfowitz's ethics violations in the deal for his companionfrom whether he could continue credibly as head of the bank.

"The United States wanted to test the waters," a European board officialtold Reuters. "Japan was aligned with the United States, but others,including Canada, were against," the source added.

A G7 source said it was clear that most participants in the call wanted aquick resolution to what has been a protracted and messy battle over whetherWolfowitz should stay on, step down or be fired over the high-payingpromotion for his companion, Shaha Riza, a long-time bank Middle Eastexpert.



=

The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/education/16education.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

May 16, 2007
On Education

A School Frees Low-Income Boys From the Pressures of the Streets
By JOSEPH BERGER
Where are the boys?

Like many educators, Brother Brian Carty was tossing around that question adecade ago with George Jackson, a former student and onetime president ofMotown Records. De La Salle Academy, the coeducational middle school BrotherBrian started in 1984 on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, was steering itspoor and working-class students, most of them black and Latino, into thenation's finest high schools, but the pool of boys applying to the schoolkept dwindling.

Something was telling boys that being school-smart meant being a wimp or aloser.

"They're being pressured to dumb down," was how Brother Brian saw it.

So he and Mr. Jackson came up with an idea - to found a school, one just fortalented boys, that would feed their curiosity in an atmosphere free ofgirls, whose presence might be distracting and stoke their maleone-upmanship. As important, the school would emphasize civility andcollaboration as a way of defusing the pernicious Darwinism of the streets.It would show that academic savvy needs to be enhanced by emotional savvy.



=

The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/us/16gay.html?pagewanted=print

May 16, 2007
Some Gay New Yorkers Gain in Ruling on Marriages
By PAM BELLUCK

BOSTON, May 15 - A little-noticed resolution to a case involving same-sexcouples from New York will allow dozens of them to be considered legallymarried in Massachusetts, and apparently in their home state as well.

The matter, resolved in a Boston courtroom last week, had its roots in a2004 decision by Mitt Romney, then the governor. Soon after Massachusettslegalized same-sex marriage by court order in May of that year, Mr. Romney,invoking a 1913 law, proclaimed that same-sex couples from out of statecould not marry here unless they intended to move to Massachusetts or theirhome state did not prohibit their marriage.

Out-of-state couples challenged the decision, but Judge Thomas E. Connollyof the Suffolk County Superior Court here ruled last year that Rhode Islandwas the only state that did not explicitly bar same-sex couples frommarrying.

In his ruling, Judge Connolly noted that in New York, where one of theplaintiff couples lived, the Court of Appeals, that state's highest judicialbody, had ruled that same-sex marriage was not allowed.

But lawyers for the plaintiffs saw an opening. The New York decision hadbeen issued on July 6, 2006, more than two years after same-sex marriagebecame legal in Massachusetts. What about those New York couples who hadmarried in Massachusetts before July 2006?



=

The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/us/16jerry.html?pagewanted=print

May 16, 2007
Falwell's Legacy in the Pulpit and Politics
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN

At his death yesterday, the Rev. Jerry Falwell, the founding father and longthe public face of the religious right, left behind a university, amegachurch and a movement that are likely to carry on his legacy.

Mr. Falwell was best known to the public as a reliably combative televisionguest, who spouted off on everything from the Clintons to Sept. 11 to thechildren's television show "Teletubbies," which he saw as a gay conspiracy.But out of the limelight, Mr. Falwell was busy building institutions andgrooming leaders - including his two sons, who will succeed him in two keypositions.

In 1971, eight years before he founded the Moral Majority, Mr. Falwellfounded Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va. He said his goal was to prepareyoung conservative Christians to enter politics, law, the news media andother professions, and to bring their conservative Christian outlook totheir work. The strategy is bearing fruit, said William Martin, the authorof "With God on Our Side," an early account of the rise of the religiousright.

"They are consciously training people to take leading roles in society,"said Mr. Martin, senior fellow for religion and public policy at the JamesA. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University. "I live in asmall town in Texas, and when people run for office they list their Libertycredentials. It's widely recognized as a certification of someone who isreliably conservative, both religiously and politically."

The university has become a pilgrimage site for Republican candidates likeSenator John McCain and Mitt Romney, who delivered commencement addresseslast year and this year, respectively. It now has an enrollment of nearly10,000 students.



=

The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/us/16roomates.html?pagewanted=print

May 16, 2007
Web Site Is Held Liable for Some User Postings
By ADAM LIPTAK

A Web site that matches roommates may be liable for what its users say abouttheir preferences, a fractured three-judge panel of the federal appealscourt in San Francisco ruled yesterday.

The suit was brought by two California fair housing groups that objected topostings on the matching service, Roommate.com. The groups said the siteviolated the Fair Housing Act by allowing and encouraging its users to postnotices expressing preferences for roommates based on sex, race, religionand sexual orientation.

The ruling knocked down the main defense of the site. In 1996, Congressgranted immunity to Internet service providers for transmitting unlawfulmaterials supplied by others. Most courts have interpreted the scope of thatimmunity broadly.

Though their rationales varied, all three judges in the decision yesterdayagreed that the site could be held liable for soliciting information fromusers through a series of menus about themselves and their preferredroommates and for posting and distributing profiles created from the menus.The choices on the menus included gender, sexual orientation and whetherchildren were involved.

Because Roomate.com created the menus, the court ruled, it cannot claimimmunity under the 1996 law, the Communications Decency Act.



=

The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/us/politics/16repubs.html?pagewanted=print

May 16, 2007
G.O.P. Hopefuls Differ on Response to Terror Attack
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and MARC SANTORA

The scenario presented to the 10 Republican presidential candidates waschilling: Three American shopping malls had been bombed, producing scores ofcasualties. Terrorists with detailed Fknowledge of another imminent anddeadlier attack had been captured and taken to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

The question: How far can the authorities go in interrogating the terroriststo get information to avert a fourth attack?

The answers exposed clear differences among the three leading candidates ina debate last night that amounted to the first direct engagement of theRepublican presidential campaign and showed them all maneuvering toemphasize their credentials on national security and as reliableconservatives.

Senator John McCain of Arizona, a prisoner of war in Vietnam, said he wouldnot resort to torture because the United States would lose more in worldopinion than it would gain in information.

"When I was in Vietnam, one of the things that sustained us, as we went -underwent torture ourselves - is the knowledge that if we had our positionsreversed and we were the captors, we would not impose that kind of treatmenton them," Mr. McCain said. "It's not about the terrorists, it's about us.
It's
about what kind of country we are."



=

The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-So-Gay.html?pagewanted=print

May 16, 2007
Judge Rules in 'That's So Gay' Case
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 3:13 a.m. ET

SANTA ROSA, Calif. (AP) -- A judge ruled Tuesday that a high school studentwho sued after being disciplined and then mercilessly teased for using thephrase ''That's so gay'' is not entitled to monetary damages.

Sonoma County Superior Court Judge Elaine Rushing said she sympathized with18-year-old Rebekah Rice for the ridicule she experienced at Maria CarrilloHigh School. But, the judge said, Rice's lawyers failed to prove that schooladministrators had violated any state laws or singled the girl out forpunishment.

''All of us have probably felt at some time that we were unfairly punishedby a callous teacher, or picked on and teased by boorish and uncaringbullies,'' the judge wrote in a 20-page ruling. ''Unfortunately, this ispart of what teenagers endure in becoming adults.''

The law ''is simply too crude and imprecise an instrument to satisfactorilysoothe deeply hurt feelings,'' Rushing said.

The case filed by Rice and her parents in 2003 brought widespread attentionto a three-word phrase that some teenagers use to mean ''stupid'' or''uncool,'' but has come under attack as an insensitive insult to gaypeople.



=

The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/washington/16nsa.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

May 16, 2007
President Intervened in Dispute Over Eavesdropping
By DAVID JOHNSTON

WASHINGTON, May 15 - President Bush intervened in March 2004 to avert acrisis over the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping programafter Attorney General John Ashcroft, Director Robert S. Mueller III of theF.B.I. and other senior Justice Department aides all threatened to resign, aformer deputy attorney general testified Tuesday.

Mr. Bush quelled the revolt over the program's legality by allowing it tocontinue without Justice Department approval, also directing departmentofficials to take the necessary steps to bring it into compliance with thelaw, according to Congressional testimony by the former deputy attorneygeneral, James B. Comey.

Although a conflict over the program had been disclosed in The New YorkTimes, Mr. Comey provided a fuller account of the 48-hour drama, including,for the first time, Mr. Bush's role, the threatened resignations and a raceas Mr. Comey hurried to Mr. Ashcroft's hospital sickbed to intercept WhiteHouse officials, who were pushing for approval of the N.S.A. program.

Describing the events as "the most difficult of my professional career," Mr.Comey appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee as part of its inquiryinto the dismissal of federal prosecutors and the role of Attorney GeneralAlberto R. Gonzales. Several lawmakers wanted to examine Mr. Gonzales'sactions in the N.S.A. matter, when he was White House counsel, and citedthem to buttress their case that he should resign.

Mr. Comey, the former No. 2 official in the Justice Department, said thecrisis began when he refused to sign a presidential order reauthorizing theprogram, which allowed monitoring of international telephone calls ande-mail of people inside the United States who were suspected of havingterrorist ties. He said he made his decision after the department's Officeof Legal Counsel, based on an extensive review, concluded that the programdid not comply with the law. At the time, Mr. Comey was acting attorneygeneral because Mr. Ashcroft had been hospitalized for emergency gallbladder surgery.



=

The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051501872_pf.html

Missionaries in Northern Virginia

By Michael Gerson
Wednesday, May 16, 2007; A15

An epoch-dividing event recently took place in the religion that brought usB.C. and A.D. Too bad hardly anyone noticed.

For years, a dispute has boiled between the American Episcopal Church andthe worldwide Anglican Communion it belongs to, with many in the globalsouth convinced that Episcopalians are following their liberalism intoheresy. This month, Archbishop Peter Akinola, shepherd of 18 million ferventNigerian Anglicans, reached the end of his patience and installed amissionary bishop to America. The installation ceremony included boisteroushymns and Africans dressed in bright robes dancing before the altar -- anAnglican worship style more common in Kampala, Uganda, than in Woodbridge.

The American presiding bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, condemned thispoaching of souls on her turf as a violation of the "ancient customs of thechurch." To which the archbishop replied, in essence: Since when have youAmerican liberals given a fig about the ancient customs of the church?

Such conflicts used to be decided in the Church of England by the kingputting someone in the Tower of London. That does not appear to be an optionin this case.

The media, as is their habit, reported this story as another front in theAmerican culture war: conservative Anglicans seeking refuge in the arms oflike-minded African opponents of homosexual marriage. Those debates onsexuality are real enough -- but this explanation is far too narrow.



=

The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/14/AR2007051401213_pf.html

Rudy Tests the Pro-Lifers
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007; A15

Watch what happens when Republicans can no longer evade the abortion issue.

After trying to have it all ways and looking silly in the process, RudyGiuliani finally came out and restated his support for a woman's right tochoose.

If he sticks with his decision, Giuliani will end the free ride his partyhas enjoyed on an issue that's supposed to be about morality but has moreoften been used cynically to harvest votes.

Giuliani will also test the seriousness of those who claim that abortion isthe decisive issue in the political choices they make.

Will conservative Catholic bishops and intellectuals, along with evangelicalpreachers and political entrepreneurs, be as tough on Giuliani as they wereon John Kerry in the 2004 presidential campaign? If they are not, how willthey defend themselves against charges of partisan or ideological hypocrisy?



=

The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/opinion/16wed2.html?pagewanted=print

May 16, 2007
Editorial
End of the Affair

It is tempting to look at the dissolution of the ill-starred union ofDaimler-Benz and Chrysler and chalk it up to an irreconcilable clash ofcultures and question the very tenability of trans-Atlantic mergers. Butthat would be the wrong lesson.

Not only can such a linkage work, Daimler has succeeded with one before. In1981 the German concern bought Freightliner - which builds heavy-dutycommercial vehicles - and today Daimler, with the help of Freightliner, isthe world's largest truck manufacturer. Automobile mergers can alsotranscend the divide between luxury vehicles and more functional ones. BMWhas been successful with Mini, while Volkswagen has done well with
Lamborghini and Bentley.

Daimler spent $36 billion to buy Chrysler and sunk tens of billions moreinto its North American subsidiary in less than a decade. Yet the privateequity firm Cerberus Capital Management had to shell out only $7.4 billionto take it off Daimler's hands.

How does an American manufacturing icon get so cheap so fast?

An overreliance on large gas guzzlers certainly hurt. And the Mercedes-Benzelites never embraced the mass-market Chrysler sufficiently to trulyintegrate it. Still, those problems might have been solved. What seemedintractable was the tremendous drag of Chrysler's legacy costs. The pensionand health-care commitments for employees and retirees come to a whopping$18 billion.



=

The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/14/AR2007051401233_pf.html

A Question Of Race Vs. Class
Affirmative Action For the Obama Girls?

By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, May 15, 2007; A15

Barack Obama doesn't think anyone should cut his two daughters any slackwhen they apply to college -- not because of their race, at least. In theunlikely event that the Obama family goes broke, then maybe.

In an interview broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week," Obama waded into thecentral issue of the affirmative action debate: race vs. class. Perhapstypically, Obama's remarks were more Socratic than declarative. He didn'treally answer the question, he rephrased it. Maybe the way he posed it,though, will lead to a discussion that's long overdue.

George Stephanopoulos asked Obama whether his daughters should be able tobenefit from affirmative action when the time comes for them to go tocollege. The girls "should probably be treated by any admissions officer asfolks who are pretty advantaged," Obama said.

Stephanopoulos was driving at the question of whether race-based affirmativeaction programs are still needed. Another way to frame the issue is whetherrace or class is the more important factor in our society. Are minoritieswho are raised in middle-class or wealthy homes still held back by racism?Or should we now focus on socioeconomic status as the principal barrierkeeping people from reaching their potential?

Obama's answer, basically, was yes. To both questions.



=

The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051502037_pf.html

Customs Breaks Privacy Laws in Data Collection, GAO Says

By Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 16, 2007; A02

The Department of Homeland Security is breaking privacy laws by failing totell the public all the ways it uses personal information to targetpassengers boarding flights entering or leaving the United States, accordingto a draft government report.

The Government Accountability Office, in a report to be released tomorrow,says DHS's Customs and Border Protection agency has never publicly disclosedall the sources of data such as name, credit card number and travel historythat it uses to detect passengers who may pose a security risk.

"CBP's current disclosures do not fully inform the public about all of itssystems for prescreening aviation passenger information, nor do they explainhow CBP combines data in the prescreening process, as required by law," thereport says. "As a result, passengers are not assured that their privacy isprotected during the international prescreening process."

DHS officials say the agency is complying with privacy laws. The GAO'sposition on the issue "is incorrect and without merit," Steven J.Pecinovsky, a DHS liaison officer, wrote in a letter to the GAO. "CBP hascollected the same type of identity information, method of travel and tripdetails for all its history and that of its predecessor agencies, theImmigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. Border Patrol and theUnited States Customs Service," he wrote.

But the GAO says Customs has failed to fully describe its methods to thepublic. The lack of disclosure has become an issue as U.S. and Europeanofficials renegotiate an agreement, due to expire in July, to share airpassenger data. European officials are concerned that the data they alreadyshare are not adequately protected by the U.S. government.



=

The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051500935_pf.html

Terrorism Suspect Alleges 'Mental Torture'

By Eric Rich
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 16, 2007; A02

A suspected terrorist who once lived in Maryland told a military tribunalthat he was "mentally tortured" at the U.S. detention facility at GuantanamoBay, Cuba, and was driven to twice attempt suicide by chewing through hisown arteries, according to a transcript of a hearing released yesterday bythe Pentagon.

Majid Khan, 27, one of 14 "high-value" suspects held for years by the CIA atsecret foreign prisons before their transfer to Guantanamo Bay, also said helost 30 pounds in 27 days during a hunger strike, according to thetranscript. In a statement redacted in places by government censors, hecomplained of mistreatment that ranged from having his beard forcibly shavedand spending weeks without sunlight to the poor quality of the camp's weeklynewsletter, it says.

"I swear to God this place in some sense worst than CIA jails," Khan isquoted as telling the Combatant Status Review Tribunal on April 15 as itconsidered whether to designate him an enemy combatant.

Cmdr. J.D. Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman, said yesterday that Khan has been"treated humanely" in the custody of the Defense Department.

According to the transcript, Khan, who graduated from public high school insuburban Baltimore in 1999, denied being a terrorist and twice volunteeredto submit to a polygraph test. He told the tribunal that he helped the FBItake an illegal Pakistani immigrant into custody in 2002 -- a claim an FBIspokesman declined to comment on yesterday.



=

The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/opinion/16wed1.html?pagewanted=print

May 16, 2007
Editorial
The Unkept Promise on Voting

Congress has done a terrible job of regulating electronic voting: It allowedA.T.M.-style voting machines to proliferate without requiring them toproduce a paper trail that can be audited to ensure that the results areaccurate. That has meant wasted time and money for the states, confusion forvoters, and questionable election results. Fortunately, the nation'sdelinquent lawmakers have a chance to set things right - through a billintroduced by Representative Rush Holt, Democrat of New Jersey, that wouldfinally impose a paper trail requirement. There are some details that needfine-tuning, but Congress should move quickly to pass it.

After the 2000 election debacle, Congress gave the states large grants toreplace faulty voting machines, including the kind that produced hangingchads. But in too many cases, states and localities rushed to buy electronicvoting machines that do not produce paper records. Voters have to trust thenumbers they spit out on election night, but the numbers cannot beindependently verified, and that is unacceptable.

Aside from intentional vote theft - which is not hard to do on paperlesselectronic voting machines - glitches are all too common in these machines.A disturbing one that keeps occurring is "vote flipping," in which machinesrecord a vote for one candidate as a vote for his or her opponent.

While Congress looked the other way, many states responded to popular demandand imposed their own paper trail requirements. More than half, includingsuch large ones as California, New York and Ohio, have adopted this criticalreform. But some still have not, which means that a presidential electioncould be decided by votes cast on paperless electronic voting machines.

Mr. Holt's bill would require a voter-verified paper ballot in all federalelections, which means that every vote must be recorded on a piece of paperthat the voter can examine to ensure that it was properly recorded. It wouldalso require that a suitable percentage of the paper ballots be audited toverify the tallies produced by the machines. The bill allocates $1 billionfor the upgrades, and has other important reforms, including tougherrequirements for the testing labs that certify voting machines, which havebeen rife with conflicts of interest.



=

The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/opinion/16tracy.html?pagewanted=print

May 16, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
Sometimes in War, You Can Put a Price on Life
By JON TRACY
Washington

LAST week the United States military compensated the families of 19 Afghanskilled when a Marine Special Operations unit opened fire on a civilian crowdin March; the marines involved face charges for unlawful use of force. Whatdid the Afghans receive? Just $2,000 for each fatality, while the 50 peoplewounded in the same shooting got nothing but an apology from a Marinecolonel.

Such cases are vivid reminders of what happens when soldiers at war runamok. As with the massacre of 24 Iraqi civilians at Haditha in 2005 and therape and murder of a teenager and the killing of her family in Mahmudiya,Iraq, last year, prosecuting the soldiers is only the first step towardjustic. Legitimate compensation and a real show of contrition must also beoffered. In fact, there is a law authorizing such payments - the ForeignClaims Act - but the military continually fails to do the right thing.

The Foreign Claims Act was enacted in 1942 as the United States prepared toenter World War II. The first paragraph of the statute specifies that thepurpose is to "promote and maintain friendly relations" with foreigncivilians "through the prompt settlement of meritorious claims."

From its inception, the act was intended to win the hearts and minds of thelocal population, a valuable tool in the military's arsenal. Yes, manyterrible things happen to civilians in war, and many are not the directfault of combatants. But criminal acts should never be treated as justanother part of the business of war, and the act gives a method for theUnited States to accept financial and moral responsibility for atrocitiescommitted by American troops.

It seemed that the Pentagon might be taking a step toward accountabilitythis spring when it released documentation of civilian casualties in Iraqand Afghanistan (albeit only after the American Civil Liberties Union fileda Freedom of Information Act request). But as I examined the documents, myinitial optimism again gave way to disappointment. The records - includinghundreds of claims filed by families for the death and injury of lovedones - prove that the military's current policy is a failure.



=

The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051502207_pf.html

Clinton, Obama to Back Vote to Cut Off Funding for Troops in Iraq

By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 16, 2007; A04

Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) announcedyesterday that they will support a symbolic vote to cut off funding forcombat troops in Iraq within a year, an important shift for both Democraticpresidential candidates as the war debate on Capitol Hill intensifies.

The funding vote is expected in the Senate today, as one of four test voteson Iraq that Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) had scheduled inadvance of final talks with the House and the Bush administration over a$124 billion war-spending bill.

In the House last week, 169 Democrats and two Republicans voted to withdrawtroops from Iraq within nine months -- a surprisingly large number thatunderscores the growing determination among Democrats to legislate an end tothe war.

For Clinton, the shift reflects the particular pressure on Democraticpresidential candidates. She voted to authorize the war in 2002, and hasresisted calls to specify a U.S. withdrawal date. But she has grownincreasingly critical of the war and, two weeks ago, called for revokingPresident Bush's authority to continue the conflict past October without anew vote from Congress.

None of today's four Senate votes is officially part of the war-spendingdebate. Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) agreed toattach the measures to an unrelated water-resources bill, in an effort toallow lawmakers to express their views on Iraq while clearing a path forfinal spending negotiations to begin later this week.



=

The New York Times

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/opinion/16friedman.html

May 16, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Failing by Example
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

If you want to know why we are losing in Iraq, go back and read this storythat ran on the front page of The Times on Saturday. It began like this:

"Two years ago, Robin C. Ashton, a seasoned criminal prosecutor at theDepartment of Justice, learned from her boss that a promised promotion wasno longer hers. 'You have a Monica problem,' Ms. Ashton was told. Referringto Monica M. Goodling, a 31-year-old, relatively inexperienced lawyer whohad only recently arrived in the office, the boss added, 'She believes you'rea Democrat and doesn't feel you can be trusted.' Ms. Ashton's ouster - sheleft for another Justice Department post two weeks later - was a criticalearly step in a plan that would later culminate in the ouster of nine UnitedStates attorneys last year.

"Ms. Goodling would soon be quizzing applicants for civil service jobs atJustice Department headquarters with questions that several United Statesattorneys said were inappropriate, like who was their favorite president andSupreme Court justice. One department official said an applicant was evenasked, 'Have you ever cheated on your wife?' Ms. Goodling also moved toblock the hiring of prosecutors with résumés that suggested they might beDemocrats, even though they were seeking posts that were supposed to benonpartisan."

What does this have to do with Iraq? A lot.



=

The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051501308.html?hpid=topnews

Republicans Debate Their Conservative Bona Fides
Divisions on Display In Second Face-Off
By Michael D. Shear

Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 16, 2007; A01

COLUMBIA, S.C., May 15 -- The leading Republican presidential candidatesparried accusations from their rivals that they have strayed too far fromtheir party's conservative philosophies on abortion, taxes and immigrationin a debate that featured some of the most direct exchanges of the 2008battle for the GOP nomination.

The debate included sharp jabs as the candidates pledged tax cuts and allbut one reaffirmed their support for the war in Iraq. The contenders alsofurther exposed their party's divisions over social issues, includingabortion and stem cell research, on a day when the Rev. Jerry Falwell'sdeath cast a shadow over the campaign.

The entire group appeared more relaxed and at ease than they were in theirfirst meeting in Simi Valley, Calif., two weeks ago. And some of the mostmemorable moments were the lighter ones, as when former Arkansas governorMike Huckabee joked that the Congress had "spent money like John Edwards ata beauty shop," an allusion to reports that the Democratic candidate hadpaid $400 for a haircut.

But the Republican candidates, who have to date reserved their toughestrhetoric for Democrats, engaged one another directly in ways they had not inthe earlier debate or on the stump.

The most aggressive was former Virginia governor James S. Gilmore III, whoaccused Sen. John McCain of Arizona, former New York mayor Rudolph W.Giuliani, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and Huckabee of notbeing true conservatives.



=

The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051502426.html?hpid=topnews

For New Generation of Evangelicals, Falwell Was Old News
By Hanna Rosin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 16, 2007; A06

In January 2005, Time magazine published a cover story on the 25 mostinfluential evangelicals in America. Jerry Falwell did not make the list.

Neither did Pat Robertson and Bob Jones III. These leaders live on in thepublic imagination because they embody a certain flamboyant style, andbecause culture war is more interesting than consensus.

In reality, they represent a small fraction of evangelicals, and a fractionthat is dying out. Some great figures die at the prime of their movement,such as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi. Others, such asMikhail Gorbachev, live on for years after their movement has morphed intosomething completely different, and it takes their deaths to make us realizehow much things have changed. That is likely to be the case with Falwell.

"Evangelicals will think of him as part of the family, an elder relative whothey might not agree with who died," says John Schmalzbauer, a professor ofreligious studies at Missouri State University who studies the recentmainstreaming of the religious right.



=

The New York Times

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/opinion/16friedman.html

May 16, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Failing by Example
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

If you want to know why we are losing in Iraq, go back and read this storythat ran on the front page of The Times on Saturday. It began like this:"Two years ago, Robin C. Ashton, a seasoned criminal prosecutor at theDepartment of Justice, learned from her boss that a promised promotion wasno longer hers. 'You have a Monica problem,' Ms. Ashton was told. Referringto Monica M. Goodling, a 31-year-old, relatively inexperienced lawyer whohad only recently arrived in the office, the boss added, 'She believes you'rea Democrat and doesn't feel you can be trusted.' Ms. Ashton's ouster - sheleft for another Justice Department post two weeks later - was a criticalearly step in a plan that would later culminate in the ouster of nine UnitedStates attorneys last year.

"Ms. Goodling would soon be quizzing applicants for civil service jobs atJustice Department headquarters with questions that several United Statesattorneys said were inappropriate, like who was their favorite president andSupreme Court justice. One department official said an applicant was evenasked, 'Have you ever cheated on your wife?' Ms. Goodling also moved toblock the hiring of prosecutors with résumés that suggested they might beDemocrats, even though they were seeking posts that were supposed to benonpartisan."

What does this have to do with Iraq? A lot.



=

The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051501308.html?hpid=topnews

Republicans Debate Their Conservative Bona Fides
Divisions on Display In Second Face-Off

By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 16, 2007; A01

COLUMBIA, S.C., May 15 -- The leading Republican presidential candidatesparried accusations from their rivals that they have strayed too far fromtheir party's conservative philosophies on abortion, taxes and immigrationin a debate that featured some of the most direct exchanges of the 2008battle for the GOP nomination.

The debate included sharp jabs as the candidates pledged tax cuts and allbut one reaffirmed their support for the war in Iraq. The contenders alsofurther exposed their party's divisions over social issues, includingabortion and stem cell research, on a day when the Rev. Jerry Falwell'sdeath cast a shadow over the campaign.

The entire group appeared more relaxed and at ease than they were in theirfirst meeting in Simi Valley, Calif., two weeks ago. And some of the mostmemorable moments were the lighter ones, as when former Arkansas governorMike Huckabee joked that the Congress had "spent money like John Edwards ata beauty shop," an allusion to reports that the Democratic candidate hadpaid $400 for a haircut.

But the Republican candidates, who have to date reserved their toughestrhetoric for Democrats, engaged one another directly in ways they had not inthe earlier debate or on the stump.

The most aggressive was former Virginia governor James S. Gilmore III, whoaccused Sen. John McCain of Arizona, former New York mayor Rudolph W.Giuliani, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and Huckabee of notbeing true conservatives.



=

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051502426.html?hpid=topnews

For New Generation of Evangelicals, Falwell Was Old News

By Hanna Rosin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 16, 2007; A06

In January 2005, Time magazine published a cover story on the 25 mostinfluential evangelicals in America. Jerry Falwell did not make the list.

Neither did Pat Robertson and Bob Jones III. These leaders live on in thepublic imagination because they embody a certain flamboyant style, andbecause culture war is more interesting than consensus.

In reality, they represent a small fraction of evangelicals, and a fractionthat is dying out. Some great figures die at the prime of their movement,such as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi. Others, such asMikhail Gorbachev, live on for years after their movement has morphed intosomething completely different, and it takes their deaths to make us realizehow much things have changed. That is likely to be the case with Falwell.

"Evangelicals will think of him as part of the family, an elder relative whothey might not agree with who died," says John Schmalzbauer, a professor ofreligious studies at Missouri State University who studies the recentmainstreaming of the religious right.


=


[Send your comments about articles to Rays.List@Comcast.net]
#####