In a bubble

President Bush has been accused of ignoring the news and listening only to a small group of close advisors. There ought to be more candid debate and discussion. Eliot Cohen, writing at Opinion Journal, had this to say:

"Political leaders, except those of the very first order, can and do become detached from the realities of the world around them. Surrounded by sympathizers and sycophants, subjected to a ceaseless torrent of criticism, consumed by an unending stream of work, deprived, for the most part, of the spontaneity of unstructured debate, the danger is not that they will say things that they do not believe. It is, rather, that they will come to believe things because they have said them, and to act accordingly."

Perhaps it isn't always enough just to want to be a truthful politician.

Jim Lacey on al Qaeda on National Review Online
I've always thought it funny when I read in history books about people overestimating their enemies--ten-foot-tall man-eating Germans, or whatever. But I never really thought that we could possibly be doing that with al Qaeda, until I read this article. I don't know if Jim Lacey is right, but it is a thought-provoking read all the same.

SI.com - Writers - Swift: Despite judging error, Hamm's gold shows no tarnish - Monday August 23, 2004 6:55AM: "So why not a second gold medal? Why not accommodate the upset Koreans and send everyone home happy? Well for one thing, you can make a pretty good case that, if you're going to go to the videotape, Yang shouldn't have won. Yes, the videotape of the parallel bars showed the judges erred by assigning a 9.9 start value. But it showed something else, too. In the course of his routine, Yang had four holds on the bar, when the rules allow for a maximum of three. The deduction for that mistake? Two-tenths of a point."

Good point. (No pun intended.)

Hadley Arkes on Stem-Cell Research on National Review Online
Wow. Finally a little information on stem cells that I could understand. Awesome article.

Democrats peddle their own unique truth

A well written piece on John Kerry and Cambodia, with a little more information about the actual situation at the time in Cambodia, and the exterme unlikelyhood that John Kerry was there.

The Daily Herald: Your town. Your neighbors. Your Newspaper. - 0718 midwives:
(This was in the Utah County Daily Herald last month.)

"Although she has attended to 450 home births, her experiences delivering her own two children, Taylor, 7, and Sawyer, 5, were anything but comforting.

Complications during labor forced Smith to deliver both boys in the hospital via Cesarean section.

'I will always mourn those experiences. I'll always grieve the fact that they were C-sections and not vaginal births. I'll always be affected by the question of, 'Is there something wrong with my body?' '

She compares having a C-section to being awarded a gold medal as an Olympic athlete without participating in the event.

'I have my two gold medals and didn't get to compete,' she said. 'It will always be that way.'"

Wow. I feel really sorry for this woman--not because she had to have hospital birth, but that she "will always mourn those experiences"--the births of her sons. I hope that she doesn't think that makes or breaks her as a mother. Because that is really sad. I really don't think it matters how the child came into your life--home birth, hospital birth, adoption, marriage--it's how you raise you child.

New York Daily News - Ideas & Opinions - Zev Chafets: Kerry's Cambodia question
An interesting proposition: Kerry has said that he was in Cambodia in Christmas 1968. His commanding officers and other gentlemen (Swiftboat Veterans for Truth) who served beside Kerry have said that he was most definitely never in Cambodia, at Christmas or otherwise. Zev Chafets believes that whichever side turns out to be telling the truth will "win" this particular battle--i.e., who can you trust in recalling what happened in Vietnam?

Now, I have no earthly idea how easy it would be to find out the truth. Chafets seems to think it won't be too hard. So, let's play out both senairos. First, Kerry is telling the truth. He was in Cambodia on a top secret CIA mission (I think it was a CIA mission he claims). Then the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth are at best misguided and at worst despictable liars out to smear a man they disagree with. Then I would considered them no better than Michael Moore.

Second, the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth are telling, well, the truth. Kerry never was in Cambodia. Then he has used the fact that he did serve in Vietnam to political advantage, disregarding truth for exaggeration and lies when it will give him attention, votes, publicity, respect, whatever. (Incidentally, this wouldn't be the first time (if the second senairo is true) that he has done this. It can be argued that this is the exact same thing he did when he testified before the Senate right after he came home from Vietnam thirty some-odd years ago.) Then I would consider him a man that at best has a tenuous hold on the truth and at worst a flat-out liar who would do anything to gain political advantage. Not exactly someone I want leading the country.

(Disclaimer: It should be known (if it isn't already) that I will not be voting for Kerry, anyway. I don't agree with him on far too many subjects, abortion and gay marriage being two of the most prominent. But I would like to think that he is a good man, that if he wins he'll be a good president. However this Swiftboat Veterans for Truth hoopla plays out will have a large bearing on my opinion of the man.)

Victor Davis Hanson on Bush and Kerry on National Review Online: "B"Here is an article about the world situation from National Review that I'd like to be able to refer to again in the future.

The $100 Terrorist Insurance Plan - A better way to screen airline passengers. By Steven E.�Landsburg
An intriguing idea that will never happen. I'm sure there are problems with it. But I actually kind of like it.

California's SUV Ban - The Golden State has outlawed big SUVs on many of its roads but doesn't seem to know it. By Andy�Bowers

I have my own issues with huge, gas-guzzling SUVs (except when you are using them on dirt roads for the sake of geology!). I thought this was very interesting, especially since Brad and I have talked about the road damage large vehicles do.

Now, I'm not saying I'll never have a SUV (although it's doubtful). But if that day ever comes, I hope I'll still believe that an extra tax to help pay for the damage is fair. Because, you know, it is.

The New York Times > Science > By Accident, Utah Is Proving an Ideal Genetic Laboratory (free subscription required)

This is a very fascinating article on studying Utahns' DNA--because we tend to stay put, tend to stay married, and tend to love researching our genealogy. Pretty cool.

Firehouse Rot - John Kerry's cheapest shot. By Christopher�Hitchens

An interesting, and rather telling article. If sanctions are bad, and war to remove a dictator is bad, than what can we do? Nothing? If that is the case, so much for the compassion of the Left.

Yahoo! News - Media Upset With DNC Restroom Facilities
The New York Times > Washington > Campaign 2004 > The News Media: Network Anchors Hold Fast to Their Dwindling 15 Minutes
Honestly, the media is starting to remind me of a whining six-year-old about the conventions.

First Presidency Issues Statement on Marriage

Well, can't say that this is unexpected. I support a constitutional amendment to preserve marriage, but I have to admit to being skeptical of success in that arena. We'll see what happens, now that the Church has chosen to speak out at this time.

Boston.com / News / Politics / Presidential candidates / It's time to quiz Kerry

So, yeah. I sure don't understand Kerry's position on abortion at all. He says that he believes in his heart that life begins at conception, and yet he can't "legislate it on a Protestant, on a Jew, or an atheist who doesn't share it." Isn't that the point of laws? To legislate what we believe is right? As a society, we believe that murder is wrong, and we have laws against it. Laws are there to legislate morality--the public moral values--and it is our responsibility to vote our conscience on this subject.

An entirely different situation would be if you were elected to a position and were required to uphold the laws the public and courts had already determined. Then I think it would be your moral duty to follow the law, even if you worked to change it in the meantime. But that is not what we're talking about here. This just shows that, in this issue at least, John Kerry is either confused or a hypocrite.