New Bear? Awhile back, Mark Byron invited folks to update the Reagan "Bear-in-the-Woods" ad. I seem to recall I did it with a snake (but can't find the link). Now it appears that the Bush campaign has done it's own version. With wolves.

Yankees Win ACLS. The Red Sox pulled off one of the most amazing series comebacks ever last night -- my whole family was rooting for them (exception, my Dad). Nevertheless, using the logic of those still walking around maintaining that Al Gore was the winner of the last election ("he won the popular vote"), the Yankees were the true winners. See for yourself:

Score for each game:

Game 1 -- Yankees 10 - Red Sox 07
Game 2 -- Yankees 03 - Red Sox 01
Game 3 -- Yankees 19 - Red Sox 08
Game 4 -- Yankees 04 - Red Sox 06
Game 5 -- Yankees 04 - Red Sox 05
Game 6 -- Yankees 02 - Red Sox 04
Game 7 -- Yankees 03 - Red Sox 10

Totals: -- Yankees: 45 - Red Sox 41

Ironies. George Neumayr of the American Spectator has an interesting essay today, which begins:

The presidential race is full of religious ironies, pitting a Protestant
who quotes the Pope against a Catholic who rejects the Pope. The Protestant --
campaigning on opposition to abortion and homosexual marriage -- will likely get
the Catholic vote. The Catholic -- campaigning on embryo-destruction,
partial-birth abortion, and the alternative lifestyles of pagan antiquity --
will get the mainline Protestant vote.

In one more irony and historical marker of clerical decadence, the Catholic candidate will receive a higher percentage of support from the Catholic episcopate than the Catholic laity -- the very episcopate Kerry has made a point of saying that he will ignore on matters of morality.

The remainder of the essay is dedicated to showing the divide between the RC episcopacy and the laity and should be read and considered. Nevertheless, this is an interesting and succint distillation of the ironies present in the current contest for the White House.

Windsor Report. The Windsor Report is scheduled to be released tomorrow and may be found here. Intelligent commentary on this report may be found at TitusOneNine, Andrew Carey, CANN, Chris Johnson, and the AAC blog. Comments by the revisionists may be found here, here, and here.

No matter what the report actually says, there will be no winners or losers; we are all losers, all sinners. The report should be measured, not merely short term, but long term, by the fruit it produces. This is a time of brokeness; we in the Episcopal Church have been incredibly arrogant and are greatly in need of repentance.

Preference v. Orientation. In response to the question in the debate regarding whether homosexuality is a choice or is biologically pre-determined, President Bush admitted he didn't know whereas Senator Kerry said "I think if you talk to anybody, [homosexuality is] not choice." In the ensuing controversy regarding the Democrats efforts to drag the sexuality of one of the candidate's children into the spotlight, Liz Edwards made the following statement: ''It indicates a certain degree of shame with respect to her daughter's sexual preferences. . ." (emphasis added)

Note that last statement -- this is a term of art in the "sexuality wars." It indicates that Liz Edwards disagees with Kerry -- she sees homosexuality as a "choice" a "preference" whereas he sees it as an "orientation" -- something predetermined.

In truth, as I noted below, there isn't a clear answer, therefore Bush's answer seems to be the most honest. Some research seems to indicate a "gay gene" whereas other research with respect to identical twins indicates no biological predispostion.

I do think it interesting that there has been no attention to the disparity between Kerry and Liz -- I wonder where John Edwards come out?

Also, I think Kerry's much ballyhooed commitment to valueless science is undermined by his prejudice on this issue. Does this mean that research on whether homosexuality is a choice or preference will continue to be suppressed?