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?

Thomas articles. As I noted below, the WaPo ran a series of articles on Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court of the United States: The main article was titled "Clarence Thomas: The Style of a Justice; Enigmatic on the Bench, Influential in the Halls -- Image as an Uncompromising Jurist Belies His Engaging Demeanor as a Mentor." These are the additional articles from the paper: "Thomas's Across-the-Aisle Aid Puzzles Even the Beneficiaries; Clinton Judicial Nominee Surprised by Support;" "Yale Law Lacks Portrait -- And Thomas's Goodwill; Jurist Won't Permit Picture in Protest, Some Say;" and "Thomas v. Blackmun: Late Jurist's Papers Puncture Colleague's Portrait of a Genteel Court." They also posted a photo gallery via this link.

The Monday article was titled "Clarence Thomas: The Record of a Justice; Jurist Embraces Image as a Hard-Line Holdout." The following additional articles also appeared: "Culling the Reputable, Reliable, Right-Leaning; For 'Family' of Clerks, Thomas Weighs Politics, Loyalty and, Sometimes, Hard-Luck History;" "In Sharp Divide on Judicial Partisanship, Thomas Is Exhibit A;" and "Jurist Mum Come Oral Arguments; Reticence on Bench Perplexes Observers" with three related graphics : "Patterns of Jurisprudence;" "A Justice's Private File;" and "Clarence Thomas Weighs In." (More about the graphics later).

Plus there was this article in the CSM.

Debate 2004.3 I saw this as a clear Bush win. Who was it on Kerry's team who pushed for more debates than one? -- this person should be looking for a job. Dubya clearly got better with each debate, while Kerry slowly unwinds (or maybe becomes extremely tiring, I can't be sure). (transcript) Some notes:

• Bob Schieffer comes in a close second to Jim Lehrer as the worst debate anchor.
• I thought the Pres handled the flu vaccine question well -- I think he should've made a more obvious link to the problems with importation of pharmaceuticals regarding one of Kerry's contentions, but not a big deal. Kerry, however, failed to answer the question; but it did lead to the best line of the night...
• ...which was " a plan is not a litany of complaints, and a plan is not to lay out programs that you can't pay for."
• On the other hand, Bush ducked the jobs question and turned it into an education standards question.
• Which lead Kerry to one of his many errors, claiming Pell grants were cut. As even the pro-Kerry AP noted, Kerry "later altered the accusation when the president pointed out accurately that about 1 million more students are getting the aid than when he took office. Kerry then said Bush has not raised the maximum Pell grant as much as promised."
• On the nature v. nurture v. "choice" issue of homosexuality, Bush acknowledged he didn't know, whereas Kerry came down firmly on the "nature" side -- it's the way "God had made them." More on this later, I'm sure.
• But first, what's with the repeated emphasis on Cheney's gay daughter -- is this something their polling tells them will keep people from voting for Bush? And the way Kerry paused and uttered "lesbian" -- I thought that was pretty contemptuous (and weird -- I don't doubt that he's the more gay-friendly candidate)
• This was an important statement from the President: "I do know that we have a choice to make in America and that is to treat people with tolerance and respect and dignity. It's important that we do that."
• Kerry once again equates abortion with a sacrament -- that's a longer subject.
• Kerry correctly pointed out that Bush did not answer the question as to whether he would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned; Kerry is firmly behind it and will only appoint judges who agree with it. This, however, led to something akin to Kerry's "global test" revelation in the first debate, which is the claim that...
• Full quote: "I'm not going to appoint a judge to the Court who's going to undo a constitutional right, whether it's the First Amendment, or the Fifth Amendment, or some other right that's given under our courts today — under the Constitution. And I believe that the right of choice is a constitutional right."
• The above is a true revelation and is worthy of much more ink (or pixels)
• Kerry got off the third best line of the debate: "You don't measure it by a percentage increase. Mr. President, you measure it by whether you're getting the job done." This probably would be the second best line, if he had defined "it." (But little words like "it" and "is" are problems for Democratic lawyers).
• So the second best line goes to Bush: "The best way to take the pressure off our troops is to succeed in Iraq."
• Speaking of best lines, if you could distill this, it would be in the running: "In 1990, there was a vast coalition put together to run Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. The international community, the international world said this is the right thing to do, but when it came time to authorize the use of force on the Senate floor, my opponent voted against the use of force. Apparently you can't pass any test under his vision of the world."
• When Kerry said: "I served on the Small Business Committee for a long time..." I couldn't help but think "Yeah, but did you attend any meetings? Did you actually do anything?" I bet many others, not all Bush partisans, had that reaction.
• Nevertheless, I think Bush missed a big opportunity by failing to note the disparity of education between poor urban minority children and other non-minority children and that Kerry and his Klan stand in the way of vouchers and related assistance for minority children.
• I loved Bush's answer to the "strong women" question. Heck, I even like Kerry's answer -- it was the first time I actually saw any humanity in the guy with respect to his opening notes about having " married up." Nevertheless, when he got to the warning his mother gave him from her hospital bed, I had to wonder if he should be admitting on national television that his mother was warning him that he needed to have integrity.

In any event, it was the last debate for us this election year, and the last debate for Dubya forever.

The NFL really sucks. Yeah, I know, not an intelligent comment, but it does.

Kerry's Abortion (con't'd). Here's a good essay in Human Events. Excerpt:

Grant Kerry, too, his false premise (presumably based on the atrocious
Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade) that abortion really is a "constitutional
right." Would Kerry consistently apply the same logic to taxpayer funding of
other constitutional rights--including those, which unlike the "right" to
abortion, are expressly guaranteed in the Bill of Rights?

Fat chance.

The Second Amendment guarantees "the right of the people to keep and bear
arms." Thus strict application of the Kerry Doctrine--taxpayers must subsidize
poor people in doing "whatever the constitution affords them if they can't
afford it otherwise"--would mean the government must buy poor people guns.

Kerry's Abortion. In response to this question from Sarah Degenhart in the second debate, Senator Kerry came out in favor of taxpayer support of abortions:

Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person?

Kerry first gives his twisted response about abortion being a sacrament:

But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for
someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that.

He then posts abortion as a "constitution right" (I think it must be Amendment nine and three-quarters, the ones muggles like me can't see, but some Justices, Senators, and professors can see). From there he gives his unqualified support to forcing those "who believed abortion is murder" to support murder:

And that means . . . making certain that you don't deny a poor person
the right to be able to have whatever the constitution affords them if they
can't afford it otherwise.

This is very frightening. Even if you favor abortion, do you really think we should create a vast entitlement program to fund this?

BTW, it appears that Degenhart is a teacher at a Catholic school. I imagine she, like many Catholics and others who have grave moral concerns about America's extreme abortion practice and is looking for Kerry to show a little moderation on this issue. Being a wholly owned subsidiary of Big Abortion, he want's to throw tax monies at them.

Post-Modern? The WaPo runs a 'fake but accurate' headline, as noted by Rod M. in the comments to this post below.

The WaPo has two part article on Clarence Thomas running today and tomorrow. I haven't read them yet -- I can't imagine they would be at all favorable. I can't think of a single person, even including GWB, who has been so demonized by the MSM. Nevertheless, I find his opinions to be very thoughtful and thought-provoking.

Rather Back in Afghanistan? The Professor (Instapundit) had a picture posted the other day of people voting in Afghanistan -- looking at it, I could swear the guy on the left end looked like Dan Rather. What do you think?



It wouldn't surprise me -- he's been there before -- I wonder how he got voter registration papers? Oh, right.

Another Babe for Bush:

New Book. I should have a new book coming out: How to Lose Weight like a Porn Star by Leonardo DaVinci as told to Michael Moore (who refused to listen).

Speaking of books, I loved Danny Dunn, mentioned by the Professor today.

Last, in the weighty book category, read this review of the Nobel's Lit Prize by Charlotte Allen

Knight for a Rook? The release of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) report looks to the WaPo to be substantially undermining Bush: "U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on Weapons" subhead: "Report on Iraq Contradicts Bush Administration Claims." Also reported on the front page, albeit minimized is Hussein Used Oil to Dilute Sanctions, subhead: Report Says He Gave Valuable Vouchers to Those Who Helped Iraq.

Does this hurt Bush? Yes, without question.

However, the better question is Whether this hurts Kerry more than it does Bush? The answer to that is also yes.

Both Bush and Kerry have admitted to relying on intelligence related to the weapons in question in authorizing war. Was this intel wrong? Possibly -- we do know that he had had those weapons and had used them against his own people. There was not a full scale review after the first Gulf War -- if you want to blame anyone, you can blame Bush41, Powell, and Cheney.

Nevertheless, don't forget that what the UN resolutions did was to put the burden on Hussein to account for his WMD, and the equipment used to make them, and to destroy them in a verifiable manner. Hussein refused to do so.

What separates Kerry from Bush is the issue of appeasing Old Europe. Bush tried diplomacy and tried to build a coalition involving France and Germany. We now know for certain that this was impossible because France and Germany were part of the Battalion of the Bribed. Bribed by Hussein.

By continuing to embrace the Battalion of the Bribed, Kerry loses more than Bush does.

Bush is hurt -- in the chess game, he loses a knight; however, Kerry loses a rook.

Ex-Raiders in the news:

• Todd Marinovich is serving 90 days in the pokey for possession of a controlled substance (meth), resisting arrest and the unauthorized possession of hypodermic needles. It is not known whether he will be serving time in the Warren Wells wing of the jail.
• Former Oakland Raiders kicker Cole Ford is being sought in a drive-by shooting last month at the home of entertainers Siegfried & Roy, police said Wednesday. For the record, he missed -- sounds like Ford alright.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Following up on my note yesterday regarding John Edwards' claim: "Under the law of this country for the last 200 years, no state has been required to recognize another state's marriage." John Edwards is so wrong on this it would be laughable, if not so serious.

Let's lay aside all the "little" cases such as Franzen v E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 146 F.2d 837 (3d Cir. 1944) (a non-commonlaw marriage state recognizing a common-law marriage), In re May's Estate, 114 N.E.2d 4 (N.Y.1953) (validating uncle-niece marriage), and McDonald v. McDonald, 58 P.2d 163 (Cal. 1936) (recognizing an "underage" marriage performed outside the state), and go straight to the biggie. In Loving v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a Virginia couple who were married in D.C., in violation of a Virginia state statute forbidding inter-racial marriages, and then returned to Virginia. The Lovings were convicted of violating Virginia's antimiscegenation statutes and received a suspended sentence (see the case for details -- in esscence they were exiled from Virginia for 25 years).

One of the provisions of the antimiscegenation statutes was section 20-57, which automatically voided all marriages between "a white person and a colored person" without any judicial proceeding.

The unanimous court overturned the conviction holding that these antimiscegenation statutes violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In short, the Commonwealth of Virginia, which had by law declared the Lovings marriage void was forced to recognize their marriage. (Quite properly, I might add -- the Commonwealth was wrong, wrong, wrong.)

I believe John Edwards, who "earned a law degree with honors in 1977 from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill" knows better.

Must Reading. For me, a daily stop at GetReligion is required -- I strongly recommend it. Especially noteworthy is this piece by Douglas LeBlanc on the torn friendship of Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria and ECUSA Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold.

More here. (from Titusonenine, which is also must reading.)

Unfinished business. I forgot -- Truro's rector is a candidate for the bishopric of the Rio Grande Diocese in Texas/NM.

Most Overrated. Andrew Sullivan continues to be the most overrated blogger around.