Only 7% of journalists say they're Republicans.

Here's story out of the Washington Post pointing out that only 7% of journalists identify themselves as Republicans while 28% as Democrats.  50% identify themselves as Independents.

Of course, journalists will argue they're still objective whatever their personal views. However, worldview, how a person sees the world, impacts what they perceive happening in the world.  Here journalists I suspect are overwhelmingly liberal whatever their political affiliation, even if they view themselves as Independents. 

Bill Clinton, DOMA and Cynicism

Here's an insightful take on Bill Clinton and his now opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which he signed into law while president.  DOMA simply said marriage for purposes of federal law is one man and one woman and a state can't be forced to recognize a same sex union if they don't want to.  Now he says DOMA is discriminatory and unconstitutional. As Paul Mirengoff asks, then why did Clinton sign it into law.

In a Washington Post op-ed, Bill Clinton argues that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which he signed into law, is unconstitutional. This raises an obvious question: Why did Clinton sign an unconstitutional piece of legislation into law?

As slick as he is, Clinton can’t provide an answer. He does explain why he signed DOMA in 1996:

[At that time] in no state in the union was same-sex marriage recognized, much less available as a legal right, but some were moving in that direction. Washington, as a result, was swirling with all manner of possible responses, some quite draconian. As a bipartisan group of former senators stated in their March 1 amicus brief to the Supreme Court, many supporters of the bill known as DOMA believed that its passage “would defuse a movement to enact a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which would have ended the debate for a generation or more.” It was under these circumstances that DOMA came to my desk, opposed by only 81 of the 535 members of Congress.

Clinton appears to be saying that he signed DOMA to head-off a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. But that’s no excuse for signing unconstitutional legislation. After all, Clinton took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Unfortunately, oaths have never had much meaning for Clinton.

Clinton also says “I know now that the law is discriminatory.” But he also must know that not all “discriminatory” laws are unconstitutional.

Moreover, DOMA’s potential for “discrimination” was apparent when Clinton signed it. At that time, as he acknowledges, some states were moving towards legalizing same-sex marriage. DOMA meant that same-sex couples who married in these states would not have certain federal benefits available to other married couples. Yet Clinton signed DOMA into law.

I wonder what Bill Clinton hoped to accomplish through an op-ed in which he admits to another act of cynicism and lawlessness. Does he think that one or more of the five Supreme Court Justices who may be inclined to uphold DOMA will be moved by this op-ed to switch on the issue?

I doubt it. More likely, the judge Clinton has in mind is History. That arbiter already has him pegged as lawless cynic anyway. So why not try to explain away his endorsement of DOMA, and get on what he assumes eventually will be the prevailing side by hopping abroad the gay marriage express before it arrives at the station?

This reminds me of a cartoon of Clinton, probably when he was president, showing a band marching down one fork in a road while Clinton, formerly ahead of the band, goes down the other fork.  He turns around and sees they're going in another direction.  So he runs across country to get in front of the band.  

The new elites in America. Out of touch with people they govern and influence.

Here's an interesting article by Charles Murray from the Washington Post last month which talks about the new elites and how out of touch they are with the average American. It shows up not only in the politics but also their lifestyles and values.

We know, for one thing, that the New Elite clusters in a comparatively small number of cities and in selected neighborhoods in those cities. This concentration isn't limited to the elite neighborhoods of Washington, New York, Boston, Los Angeles, Silicon Valley and San Francisco. It extends to university cities with ancillary high-tech jobs, such as Austin and the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill triangle.

With geographical clustering goes cultural clustering. Get into a conversation about television with members of the New Elite, and they can probably talk about a few trendy shows -- "Mad Men" now, "The Sopranos" a few years ago. But they haven't any idea who replaced Bob Barker on "The Price Is Right." They know who Oprah is, but they've never watched one of her shows from beginning to end.

Talk to them about sports, and you may get an animated discussion of yoga, pilates, skiing or mountain biking, but they are unlikely to know who Jimmie Johnson is (the really famous Jimmie Johnson, not the former Dallas Cowboys coach), and the acronym MMA means nothing to them.

They can talk about books endlessly, but they've never read a "Left Behind" novel (65 million copies sold) or a Harlequin romance (part of a genre with a core readership of 29 million Americans).

They take interesting vacations and can tell you all about a great backpacking spot in the Sierra Nevada or an exquisite B&B overlooking Boothbay Harbor, but they wouldn't be caught dead in an RV or on a cruise ship (unless it was a small one going to the Galapagos). They have never heard of Branson, Mo.

There are so many quintessentially American things that few members of the New Elite have experienced. They probably haven't ever attended a meeting of a
Kiwanis Club or Rotary Club, or lived for at least a year in a small town (college doesn't count) or in an urban neighborhood in which most of their neighbors did not have college degrees (gentrifying neighborhoods don't count). They are unlikely to have spent at least a year with a family income less than twice the poverty line (graduate school doesn't count) or to have a close friend who is an evangelical Christian. They are unlikely to have even visited a factory floor, let alone worked on one.

Taken individually, members of the New Elite are isolated from mainstream America as a result of lifestyle choices that are nobody's business but their own. But add them all up, and they mean that the New Elite lives in a world that doesn't intersect with mainstream America in many important ways. When the tea party says the New Elite doesn't get America, there is some truth in the accusation.

Part of the isolation is political. In that Harvard survey I mentioned, 72 percent of Harvard seniors said their beliefs were to the left of the nation as a whole, compared with 10 percent who said theirs were to the right of it. The political preferences of academics and journalists among the New Elite also conform to the suspicions of the tea party.

But the politics of the New Elite are not the main point. When it comes to the schools where they were educated, the degrees they hold, the Zip codes where they reside and the television shows they watch, I doubt if there is much to differentiate the staff of the conservative Weekly Standard from that of the liberal New Republic, or the scholars at the American Enterprise Institute from those of the Brookings Institution, or Republican senators from Democratic ones.

The bubble that encases the New Elite crosses ideological lines and includes far too many of the people who have influence, great or small, on the course of the nation. They are not defective in their patriotism or lacking a generous spirit toward their fellow citizens. They are merely isolated and ignorant. The members of the New Elite may love America, but, increasingly, they are not of it.

I saw this last summer when a CNN producer talked with me about the Minnesota Family Council's views and their connection to religion and what not. I could tell I was someone she hadn't encountered very often or at all.

Is 2010 election shaping up to be a 1994 election or worse?

Here's an interesting story in the Washington Post comparing the upcoming 2010 election to the 1994 election in which the Republicans gained 50 or so seats in the US House and took control of the US Senate.

It's of course speculative but nonetheless interestintg.

Is it deja vu all over again for Democrats?

Some neutral observers and senior strategists within the party have begun to believe that the national political environment is not only similar to what they saw in 1994 -- when Democrats lost control of the House and Senate -- but could in fact be worse by Election Day.

They look at generic ballots and presidential approval numbers.

A quick look at the broadest atmospheric indicators designed to measure which way the national winds are blowing -- the generic ballot and presidential approval -- affirms the sense that the political environment looks every bit as gloomy for Democrats today as it did 16 years ago.

"President Obama's job [approval] number is likely to be as bad or worse than [Bill] Clinton's when November rolls around, the Democratic generic-ballot advantage of plus 12 to plus 15 in 2006 and 2008 is now completely gone, and conservatives are energized like 1994," said Stu Rothenberg, an independent political analyst and editor of the Rothenberg Political Report, a well-read campaign tip sheet.

The generic ballot -- would you vote for an unnamed Democrat or an unnamed Republican? -- is either similar or worse for Democrats (depending on which poll you look at) than it was in 1994.

In an August 1994 Washington Post-ABC News poll, 49 percent of respondents said they would vote for the Democrat while 42 percent said they would back the Republican. Last month, 47 percent said they would support the Republican while 46 percent chose the Democrat.

The results were strikingly similar in several other national surveys. In an August 1994 Gallup poll, 46 percent said they would vote for the Democrat and an equal 46 percent said they would support the Republican. The most recent Gallup data give Republicans an edge of 50 percent to 43 percent over Democrats. A CNN/Opinion Research poll shows that in August 1994, Republicans had a generic-ballot lead of 46 percent to 44 percent, a margin similar to the numbers in CNN data, 48 percent to 45 percent, this month.

Presidential approval numbers paint a slightly more optimistic picture for Democrats. In mid-August 1994, Clinton's approval rating in Gallup polling stood at 39 percent; Obama is at 44 percent approval in Gallup's most recent weekly tracking poll. (By Election Day or slightly before it in 1994, Clinton's approval numbers had bumped back up to 46 percent.) In the Post-ABC survey, a similar trend is borne out: Clinton was at 44 percent approval in August 1994, and Obama is at 50 percent this month.

Combine the similarities between 1994 and 2010 on the generic ballot and presidential approval with a clear intensity gap between the Republican base (fired up to vote) and the Democratic base (less so), and Democratic strategists are worried that they are watching history repeat itself.

Voter turnout was critical.

"Our losses occurred because Republican turnout was massive," said one senior party strategist deeply involved in the 1994 campaign. "The right was motivated in 1994, and while it would have seemed impossible to me then, it feels like the Republicans are much more motivated to participate in this election" than they were then.

Although few savvy Democratic strategists debate the difficulty of the national political environment, they do note that there are two important differences between the 1994 election and this one.

Couple of unpredictable variables. Republican brand and democrats understand what they're up against. (Though from President Obama's actions and statements on a wide range of topics, I don't know that he knows how to respond differently than he has.)

The first is the relative weakness of the Republican brand. In 1994, Republicans had been out of power in the House for four decades, and most voters had a limited sense of what a GOP House would be like. In 2010, the American public has fired Republicans -- in the House, Senate and White House -- twice in the past four years. And, in a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal survey, the GOP had its lowest favorability ratings ever. (We repeat: ever.)

Second, Democrats understand the building frustration and desire for change in a way that the party simply didn't get 16 years ago. "The one advantage Democrats have is early-warning radar that we are facing a tough environment, and many of our incumbents have geared up their campaigns much earlier than in 1994," said Fred Yang, a leading Democratic pollster. "The possible wave may be too big for any campaign, but we're going to be ready this time and run harder and more aggressive campaigns."

Yang's last point is the central question on which the comparison between 1994 and 2010 rests: Can well-run and well-funded campaigns by Democratic incumbents save them from being dragged out to sea politically? Democrats think so, Republicans hope not.

And then of course there's the economy which is substantially worse than in 1994.

Charlie Cook, a political handicapper and editor of the Cook Political Report, acknowledged that every election has "its own set of unique characteristics and dynamics" but added that Democrats shouldn't take too much comfort in that. "Is 2010 the same as 1994? No, it isn't," he said. "But that doesn't mean that the outcome can't be roughly comparable."

Cook also noted that the state of the economy, which may have mitigated Democratic losses in 1994 with an unemployment rate of 5.6 percent, almost certainly will exacerbate them this year, as unemployment now stands at 9.5 percent.

Study shows abstinence education works. Washington Post describes it as a "landmark study".

A study demonstrates that common sense still works. Abstinence education actually works according to a study by a University of Pennsylvania professor. A Washington Post story titled, "Study finds focus on abstinence in sex-ed classes can delay sexual activity" says the study is a "landmark study"."

It's pretty significant if the Washington Post is describing an abstinence study as landmark.

Sex education classes that focus on encouraging children to remain abstinent can convince a significant proportion to delay sexual activity, researchers reported Monday in a landmark study that could have major implications for the nation's embattled efforts to protect young people against unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.

In the first carefully designed study to evaluate the controversial approach to sex ed, researchers found that only about a third of 6th and 7th graders who went through sessions focused on abstinence started having sex in the next two years. In contrast, nearly half of students who got other classes, including those that included information about contraception, became sexually active.

"I think we've written off abstinence-only education without looking closely at the nature of the evidence," said John B. Jemmott III, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, who led the federally funded study. "Our study shows this could be one approach that could be used."

The research, published in the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, comes amid intense debate over how to reduce sexual activity, pregnancies, births and sexually transmitted diseases among children and teenagers. After declining for more than a decade, births, pregnancies and STDs among U.S. teens have begun increasing again.

Others are describing it as a game changer.

"This new study is game-changing," said Sarah Brown, who leads the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. "For the first time, there is strong evidence that an abstinence-only intervention can help very young teens delay sex and reduce their recent sexual activity as well."

The new study is the first to evaluate an abstinence program using a carefully "controlled" design that compared it directly to alternative strategies -- considered the highest level of scientific evidence.

"This takes away the main pillar of opposition to abstinence education," said Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation who wrote the criteria for federal funding of abstinence programs. "I've always known that abstinence programs have gotten a bad rap."

It looks like some traditional opponents of abstinence are playing a bit of the spin game.

Even long-time critics of the approach praised the new study, saying it provided strong evidence that such programs can work and may deserve taxpayer support.

"One of the things that's exciting about this study is that it says we have a new tool to add to our repertoire," said Monica Rodriguez, vice president for education and training at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States.

While others are attacking the study.

Several critics of abstinence-only approach argued that the curriculum tested was not representative of most abstinence programs. It did not take on a moralistic tone as many abstinence programs do. Most notably, the sessions encouraged children to delay sex until they are ready, not necessarily until they were married, did not portray sex outside of marriage as never appropriate or disparage condoms.

"There is no data in this study to support the 'abstain-until marriage' programs, which research proved ineffective during the Bush administration," said James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth.

But abstinence supporters disputed that, saying that the new program was essentially the same as other good abstinence programs.

"The take-home message is that we need a variety of interventions to address an epidemic like HIV, sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy," Jemmott said. "There are populations that really want an abstinence intervention. They are against telling children about condoms. This study suggests abstinence programs can be part of the mix of programs that we offer."

I think what condom proponents fear, and rightfully so, is the success of a true abstinence education curricula. Certainly that's what most parents want and establishing it's success will draw people away from the condom approach. Facts are the facts. Sex is intended for the marriage relationship. It's the healthiest and happiest approach to take. The devastating, rotten fruit of the sexual revolution are increasingly evident for all to see.

Obama's health care proposal is only more of status quo and will only make matters worse.

Washington Post economics' columnist Robert Samuelson did a story on Obama's health care plan now in Congress, "Obama's Health Care Will Make it Worse."

Samuelson says Obama isn't doing what he said he would -- change the status.

Obama took a pass. He simply claims that his plan will do things it won't. What he's offering is an enlarged version of the status quo that, as he says, is already unsustainable.

Samuelson adds:

...open-ended reimbursement by government and private insurance has ballooned health spending despite repeated pledges to "contain" costs. For example, health payments for individuals rose from less than 1 percent of federal spending in 1965 to 23 percent in 2008.

Obama would perpetuate this system. No president has spoken more forcefully about the need to control costs. Failure, he's argued, would expand federal budget deficits, raise out-of-pocket health costs and squeeze take-home pay (more compensation would go to insurance). All true. But Obama's program would do little to reduce costs and would increase spending by expanding subsidized insurance. The House legislation would cut the uninsured by 37 million by 2018, estimates the Congressional Budget Office. The uninsured get care now; with insurance they'd get more.

"You'd be adding a third medical entitlement on top of Medicare and Medicaid," says James Capretta, a top official at the Office of Management and Budget from 2001 to 2004.

What would a debate over controlling health care costs really look like?

For starters, we wouldn't be arguing about how to "pay for" the $1 trillion or so of costs over a decade of Obama's "reform." Congress wouldn't create new benefits until it had disciplined the old. We'd be debating how to trim the $10 trillion, as estimated by CBO, that Medicare and Medicaid will spend over the next decade, without impairing Americans' health. We'd use Medicare as a vehicle of change. Accounting for more than one-fifth of all health spending, its costs per beneficiary, now about $12,000, rose at a dizzying average annual rate of 8.5 percent a year from 1970 to 2007. (True, that's lower than private insurers' rate at 9.7 percent. But the gap may partly reflect cost-shifting to private payers. When Medicare restrains reimbursement rates, hospitals and doctors raise charges to private insurers.)

Medicare is so big that shifts in its practices spread to the rest of the delivery system. But changing Medicare, and through it one-sixth of the U.S. economy, requires more than a few demonstration projects of "comparative outcomes" research or economic incentives. What's needed is a fundamental restructuring. Fee-for-service medicine -- Medicare's dominant form of payment -- is outmoded. The more doctors and hospitals do, the more they get paid. This promotes fragmentation and the overuse of services.

We should move toward coordinated care networks that take responsibility for their members' medical needs in return for fixed annual payments (called "capitation"). One approach is through vouchers; Medicare recipients would receive a fixed amount and shop for networks with the lowest cost and highest quality. Alternatively, government could shift its reimbursement of hospitals and doctors to "capitation" payments. Limited dollars would, in theory, force improvements in efficiency and effective care.

We're not having this debate. To engage it would require genuine presidential leadership, because, admittedly, these proposals would be hugely controversial. Medicare recipients -- present and future -- would feel threatened. Existing doctor-patient relationships might be disrupted. Spending limits would inspire fears of short-changed care. Hospitals, doctors and device manufacturers would object.

I think the answer, and Samuelson only mentions it in passing and indirectly, is restoring market forces to the health care system, e.g. vouchers for one. Government will have to stop offering everybody something for nothing. More government control and regulation will only make matters worse, e.g. rationing, less access to medical care for those with serious conditions, reduced quality of care, etc.

Endorse homosexuality or lose your religious liberties.

I've always thought the biggest threat to religious liberties in the United States is the aggressive homosexual movement. They intend force people to accept or endorse homosexual behavior or else lose their businesses, churches, and/or free speech.

A recent Washington Post article gives a number of examples of homosexuality trumping religious freedom.

Faith organizations and individuals who view homosexuality as sinful and refuse to provide services to gay people are losing a growing number of legal battles that they say are costing them their religious freedom.

The lawsuits have resulted from states and communities that have banned discrimination based on sexual orientation. Those laws have created a clash between the right to be free from discrimination and the right to freedom of religion, religious groups said, with faith losing. They point to what they say are ominous recent examples:

-- A Christian photographer was forced by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission to pay $6,637 in attorney's costs after she refused to photograph a gay couple's commitment ceremony.

-- A psychologist in Georgia was fired after she declined for religious reasons to counsel a lesbian about her relationship.

-- Christian fertility doctors in California who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient were barred by the state Supreme Court from invoking their religious beliefs in refusing treatment.

-- A Christian student group was not recognized at a University of California law school because it denies membership to anyone practicing sex outside of traditional marriage.

"It really is all about religious liberty for us," said Scott Hoffman, chief administrative officer of a New Jersey Methodist group, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which lost a property tax exemption after it declined to allow its beachside pavilion to be used for a same-sex union ceremony. "The protection to not be forced to do something that is against deeply held religious principles."

And let's be clear; this is about behavior not the individual. When persons identify themselves as gays and lesbians they are by definition identifying themselves by what they do -- same sex sexual behavior. It's not an immutable trait one can observe. It's a behavior which is demonstrably unhealthy.

Certainly, people who identify with homosexuality should have the same first amendment and legal protections under the law. But not special protections based on their behavior. And that's what they are now demanding of society and individuals.

Unable to walk the talk on abortion.

I came across a commentary by Chuck Colson on a recent Washington Post Magazine story about a pro-abortion medical student, Lesley Wojick.

The Post article chronicles her experiences as a medical student and the interplay of her pro-abortion views and her actual experiences assisting doctors perform abortions.

The article reveals her post-modern thinking on truth (We really can't know it.) and the reality of actually seeing an abortion and her belief she couldn't go through with being an abortionist.

Her mindset -- what's true for you maybe not be true for someone else -- is classic moral relativism; morality is like having a preference for vanilla or chocolate ice cream. And we can't really know what's true is postmodernism.

At the lunchtime discussion, Lesley was surrounded by people opposed to abortion. A pediatrician from Johns Hopkins was discussing her practice of refusing to prescribe birth control pills to adolescents because she is morally opposed to it.

Hearing the doctor made Lesley wince. She herself had spent many hours teaching teens about contraceptives. She had won an Albert Schweitzer fellowship to develop a health education program at Mountain Manor, a residential treatment facility for teens in Baltimore, that addressed sexually transmitted diseases, contraception, abortion and adoption. She'd shown the girls at Mountain Manor how to use a condom and urged them to carry condoms with them.

She couldn't imagine refusing to prescribe birth control pills to girls who were sexually active. "Just keep your mouth shut," Lesley said she told herself. "Don't say anything." She knew she wasn't going to change minds.

But later, before she left, she did ask the doctor one question: "How do you advise patients without appearing judgmental?"

The answer -- that appearing judgmental wasn't the doctor's concern, only doing what she felt was right for patients -- made Lesley realize that "there are people who wholeheartedly believe they are doing their patients good" by not mentioning abortion or prescribing birth control pills. She found that problematic. "You can't assume what is right for you is right for the patient," she decided.

This led her to ask herself another question: When is it appropriate to interject our judgment, and when isn't it? Nobody really knows, she concluded. Not Medical Students for Choice, not the Catholic students, not the medical school. But they were important questions to explore, she told Litty later. Litty agreed.

If we can't know the truth, then how can we say the holocaust was wrong and evil? Or was Stalin's murder of millions wrong if done for the greater "good" of the state? This is why postmodernism and moral relativism are so dangerous to a society and culture.

Another abortion patient she encountered highlights the person who will cavalierly destroy unborn life within her if that life is viewed as an obstacle to getting what she wants in life.

A third patient, a 23-year-old college student wearing red high heels, had become pregnant because the patch she used as birth control kept falling off. She didn't realize she was pregnant at first. Now she needed a second-term abortion. Lesley was struck by how resolute the young woman was. She was earning a degree, and said she couldn't care for a child if she wanted to achieve her goal. She was scheduled for the procedure for the following morning.

Lesley decides she doesn't want to be an abortionist, because she didn't want to be "[v]acuuming out a uterus and counting the parts of the fetus," but she's still glad she did it.

As for obstetrics, the once-perfect mix of medical, surgical and preventive care for women, Lesley hadn't loved very much about it. Even as she'd shadowed the abortion doctor, Lesley knew in her heart that this would not be the right place for her to make a difference. It was a big disappointment, she said. "I really thought I'd love it."

The things she cared about -- taking care of women, seeing them through the process -- hadn't happened. It was the nurse practitioner who cared for the patient. Vacuuming out a uterus and counting the parts of the fetus did not seem like a desirable way to spend her work days. It took a unique person to do that on a daily basis, she said.

Lesley still believed passionately in abortion rights and was proud of what she'd accomplished at Maryland with her activism. She didn't want to let people down. Even so, she had to follow her heart. Somebody else -- maybe Laura Merkel, the new chapter president of Medical Students for Choice -- would become an abortion provider. But it wouldn't be her.

One can see her shutting off her conscience but not completely. Though she's still "proud" of her pro-abortion activism, she doesn't want to perform them.

I think as more and more people understand the reality of abortion the tide will begin to turn in society as a whole. In a sense that's what happened, to a small degree, with Lesley; she can't see her walking the talk and become an abortionist. She did, in some respects, take a step back in her embrace of abortion.

Washington Post Tells the Truth about ‘Safe Sex’ -- Then Ignores It
A guest columnist exposes PC ideologues jeopardizing an effective morality-based AIDS prevention program in Uganda, while a house editorial calls for more of the failed condom approach here.

http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2008/20080702145450.aspx

Also at Townhall: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RobertKnight/2008/07/02/post_tells_the_truth_on_safe_sex_--_then_ignores_it

By Robert Knight
Culture and Media Institute
July 2, 2008

“We understand that casual sex is dear to you, but staying alive is dear to us.”

The Washington Post provided a rare service on Monday, shining light on an unfolding scandal of deadly political correctness in Uganda.

The quote above is from “Let My People Go, AIDS Profiteers,” an op-ed column in the Post by the Rev. Sam L. Ruteikara, co-chair of Uganda’s National AIDS-Prevention Committee.

Ruteikara details how Uganda’s successful ABC campaign (Abstinence, Be Faithful, Condoms as a last resort) recorded huge advances in reducing infections from 1991 through 2002, but was subverted by an AIDS establishment that dislikes Uganda’s emphasis on marriage and faithfulness.

HIV rates plunged from 21 percent in 1991 to 6 percent in 2002 in Uganda during the stricken nation’s campaign to restore traditional morality. Meanwhile, as Western nations dropped more than 2 billion condoms on Africa, other nations suffered an unabated epidemic. Uganda stuck out as the grand exception.

While the media largely ignored this singular success story, AIDS bureaucrats, furious at this living rebuke to their condom-based campaigns, worked to bring Uganda into the “safe-sex” fold.

In March 2007, Washington Post writer Craig Timberg in “Uganda’s Early Gains Against HIV Eroding” described how the initial, “fear”-based approach, which yielded impressive results in the early ’90s, gave way to the more typical condom-based approach in Uganda. He quotes Sam Okware, “a top Ugandan health official who designed early, frightening anti-AIDS campaigns. ‘It has adapted too much to international guidelines instead of sticking to our own methods, which were very controversial at first but which worked.’”

In his June 30 column, Ruteikara relates, “I have seen the process sabotaged. Repeatedly, our 25-member prevention committee put faithfulness and abstinence into the National Strategic Plan that guides how PEPFAR [President’s Emergency Plan for HIV-AIDS Relief] money for our country will be spent. Repeatedly, foreign advisers erased our recommendations. When the document draft was published, fidelity and abstinence were missing.”

It gets worse: “And somehow, a suspicious statistic attacking marriage appeared. The plan states that the HIV infection rate among married couples is 42 percent, twice as high as the rate among prostitutes. …in fact, the 2004-05 Ugandan HIV/AIDS Sero-Behaviorial Survey found that HIV prevalence among married couples is only 6.3 percent…. As fidelity and abstinence have been subverted, Uganda’s HIV rates have begun to tick back up.”
Now, shouldn’t this be a major news story? Billions of dollars, not to mention millions of lives, are at stake, and someone is committing outright fraud?

But you’ll search in vain for a media story about this. In fact, directly opposite the column, over on the editorial page, a Post editorial peddles the same old “safe-sex” medicine to young, homosexual men in America.

In “A Persistent Scourge: HIV-AIDS continues to ensnare young gay men,” the Post sounds the alarm with recent CDC stats showing a 12 percent rise in HIV infections among 13-to-24-year-old males, and between 2001 and 2006, a 22 percent increase among black men who have sex with men. The Post says these grim stats are “a reminder that the work of keeping people HIV-negative and getting those who are HIV-positive into treatment is never done.”
The editorial then lists “a variety of efforts” to stem the tide: “condom giveaways, in-clinic counseling and needle exchange programs,” to making “voluntary testing in emergency rooms and storefront clinics.”

The editorial concludes by advocating “continuous education. An informed populace is the best defense against this ferocious epidemic.”

Okay. Then why continue to promote failed approaches from the “safe-sex” lobby, whose hostility to teaching traditional sexual morality and whose dependence on condoms has doomed countless souls to a future full of handfuls of daily, anti-HIV drugs and premature death? The “safe-sex” approach has also doomed millions of women to a lifetime with incurable STDs such as human papillomavirus, against which condoms provide virtually no protection.

And what about that spike in HIV among young men who have homosexual sex? Could it have something to do with the fact that the media, pop culture and educational establishments are openly promoting homosexuality and that more kids are experimenting—with deadly consequences? The stat for “young gay men” begins with 13-year-olds. Think about that for a moment. But we are not supposed to be concerned about the aggressive gay movement that has persuaded the larger media culture to embrace homosexuality and to condemn anyone alarmed by the trend as “hateful” or “bigoted.”

If an informed populace is the best defense, then why aren’t the media, including the Washington Post, telling kids the truth about the huge number of consequences from homosexual behavior and promiscuous sex? Why is gay sex, in the absence of conclusive genetic science, being presented as a biological imperative, and a benign one at that?
Rev. Ruteikara has it right: the people promoting the “safe-sex” agenda in the face of massive evidence that it doesn’t work must be more interested in preserving casual sex than in saving lives.

How else to explain it?

Robert Knight is director of the Culture and Media Institute, a division of the Media Research Center.

"How Would Jesus Vote?" Liberalism and privatization of faith

The title "How Would Jesus Vote?" isn't from a Washington Post article written by a conservative, Christian evangelical, but a self identified liberal evangelical.

The story is a justification, without giving any basis, for why a self identified evangelical can vote for a candidate with whom they fundamentally disagree with on the great moral and social issues of the day like abortion and homosexual marriage.

I think the fundamental question, which the author doesn't address, is how should one's faith implicate how and for whom one votes? What issues are of paramount importance and which aren't? And if the paramount issues aren't paramount in your thinking has a person in effect privatized or neutered the implications of his or her faith?

It also points out how the postmodern mindset, e.g. truth is privatized or relativized has infected so many Christians. To simply say, I'm an evangelical (or whatever) and I can vote for whomever I want, doesn't cut it.

For instance, is abortion on the same moral plane as a low income program? Is homosexual marriage on the same level as an early childhood education program?

The author Amy Sullivan seems by implication to say yes. But is that a morally defensible position? I think not.

Is not protecting human life of more importance than funding a specific welfare program? I think it is for a number of reasons. First, the protection of human life is fundamental. A welfare program in the US is not dealing with a life or death issue. We don't have people starving on the streets. Second, might that government program in fact be counterproductive, e.g. discouraging work and personal responsibility; what we saw with welfare programs until welfare reforms of the 1990s. Thus this program may actually do more harm than good.

Sullivan seems to be saying, my faith justifies me voting for candidates who diametrically oppose my deepest moral convictions but that's OK.

I frankly don't believe that's morally justified or OK.

The tenor of the article is "Accept me into your political club and I'll keep quiet about my moral beliefs. Just don't reject me." In essence, she's placed politics and acceptance ahead of truth and what's right.

This is shown by her example of the governor of Colorado. We'll vote for you for governor as long as you don't act on your pro-life views.

That same fall, an antiabortion Catholic Democrat, Bill Ritter, won the Colorado governorship after convincing his party's activists and donors that a pro-life politician need not be actively anti-choice.

Where is the salt and light in this politician's moral convictions and religious beliefs? There is none. His religious faith has no public significance or consequences for an important moral position he holds. Yet the Bible is very clear about the connection between one's faith and actions. You don't believe what you say you believe if you're unwilling to act on them.

Star Tribune's circulation for last six months continues to plunge

The circulation of major newspapers continues to decline. For the six month time period ending September 2007, the 538 daily newspapers nationwide witnessed a 2.5% drop in newspaper circulation. Of the top 25 newspapers only 4 experienced gains in circulation. For 638 newspapers with Sunday editions, the average drop was 3.5%.

In the case of the Star Tribune, the situation was much worse. It's daily circulation declined 6.5% to 335,443 and Sunday circulation was down 4.3% to 570,443. The Pioneer Press' circulation was flat, up .1% for both dailies and Sunday - 184,474 and 245,930 respectively.

I'm sure the overall circulation is down because of the advent of Internet and the increase of other media sources. I wonder how much of it is due to the overwhelming liberal bias which has characterized the mainstream media. If that's an important factor, then it's understandable that the Star Tribune's decline was even greater because it has certainly been one of the more liberal newspapers in the country.

Along those lines, the two most prominent liberal newspapers nationally - NY Times and Washington Post - saw their circulations drop more than the national average. The New York Times daily circulation dropped 4.51% to 1,03,828 and Washington Post saw a drop of 3.2% to 635,087. Their Sunday circulation declines were also greater than the national average.