In an article about a pair of recent United Methodist Church Judicial Council decisions about homosexuals in the pulpit and as members, the N.Y. Times seems a little confused over church polity and politics, apparently thinking the latter determines the former:

Some Methodists had voiced concerns that the debate over gay men and women could rupture their church, the country's third-largest denomination, and cause conservatives to leave. The rulings will most likely assuage conservatives, church experts said. But the experts also said they did not expect those who want the inclusion of gay men and lesbians in the ministry to back down, even if chances of a reversal in church policy remain remote.

One decision defrocked a lesbian minister, the other reinstated a minister that refused to allow a gay man to become a member, although he had been welcomed to worship at the church. The latter decision, especially, seems to not take a very strong stance on homosexuality per se, but instead allows individual pastors discretion.

Only in the last paragraph is the actual underlying issue -- the one which was effectively localized to individual pastors in the recent decisions -- addressed:

At the heart of the disputes, several clerics said, is a profound conflict among Methodists over the nature of homosexuality. "Is it something you can't control," Mr. Phillips [a Methodist minister and associate professor of the practice of Christian worship at Duke University Divinity School] said, "or something sinful and that should be repented of?"

Not everything is a political issue.

Tom DeLay has been indicted. Nothing substantive to say about it at the moment. But reactions at law school today were generally ecstatic. I heard many people denigrating the life and educational experience of "The Exterminator". One criticism was that he was "only" a high school graduate (though, according to this Wikipedia article, he has a bachelor's in biology). It was suggested to me that there should be a rule requiring higher education in order to run for Congress and perhaps even to vote - it was said that only a lack of education could explain why people would ever vote for people like DeLay. Were these peers of mine, then, admitting that their political views are generally instilled only after years of exposure to them after high school as young adults? And, if so, what does that say about the validity of those views?

I've long thought that Condoleeza Rice is the Republican Party's best choice for a 2008 candidate, for both substantive and less-substantive reasons. And this Althouse post shows that I must not be the only one (just over 30% of Iowa Republicans polled agree).

Although I generally believe that predictions of both candidates and appointees are pretty fruitless, as some degree of a dark horse seems to win out so often, I also believe 2008 is shaping up to be a bit different. Hillary Clinton's presidential aspirations are both shockingly transparent and extraordinarily popular, such that she could easily get the DNC nomination. So, in addition to her substantive merit, what better candidate than Rice to run against? (I've also long believed that the first woman to get the Democratic or Republican nomination will almost undoubtedly win.)