Would you please stop. Just stop it.

You are confusing people like jill with facts.

All you are going to accomplish is to make her grumpy.

So just stop it.

Thanks.

Learn more by searching the names.

Nothing wrong with the Stowerses approach–only it has not been publicized, in favor of presenting the initiative as a sort of people’s groundswell movement.

Like Mr. Fox’s ad, the campaign–seemingly–has been needlessly manipulative.

They hope, but at least 10-15 years away.

The private money would be there if there were a possibility.

Now, adult stem cells, well, they’re a definite success story.

Via Bros. Judd, A TIME article from 7/17/06:

…At a recent conference of researchers from around the world, a team from Kyoto University in Japan reported success in taking a skin cell, exposing it to four key growth factors and turning it into an embryo-like entity that produced stem cells–all without using an egg. The Kyoto group has submitted its work for publication, after which it will be open to the scrutiny of the scientific community. If successful, it could turn stem-cell science from a tedious, finicky process into a relatively straightforward chemistry project….

True. And this would seem to make the goal of objective journalism nothing but a smokescreen, and one presumably that should be abandoned as soon as possible.

However, people are generally not equally partisan about all issues. Or rather, a given person is capable of being relatively non-partisan on some issue. Sometimes, they can be so close to non-partisan that other humans can’t tell the difference. Perhaps I’m neglecting possibilities, but I think this happens when a person has extensively studied an issue but not accepted any of the competing answers. Such people often make good moderators, but this is generally by accident. Non-partisanship is not a goal of human nature. Presumably, someone studying an issue hard is trying to arrive at some conclusions. To decide is to become a partisan–even if only to join the camp of cheddar cheese lovers and reject the Harvati heretics.

When a certain identified group of people, on a regular basis, display their lockstep ignorance, shallowness, and total lack of self-awareness–then one has to believe that their resulting lockstep partisanship is not related to the idea expressed in the previous paragraph. The only way to even approach the press ideal of objective reporting is to assume partisanship, then ruthlessly cull it where possible, avoid a particular news beat where not at all possible, and otherwise honestly admit it. Such a high standard would seem to require a great deal of introspection, as well as a mechanism for correcting failure.

(I wonder how many other thugocrats the press has made that deal with?)

No, I haven’t forgotten. Or forgiven.

Captain Hate -
My agenda is to discuss this as a non-partisan issue but I understand that is not what RLS’s post is about. Thank you for writing back (”snarky”? ah well). Also, thank you for the comment on the dog pics on my blog

I wonder if the word “backfire” applies.

There’s lots on this at “The Corner” –several later entries above this one.