Daras: The Deputy Fuhrer is an authority on the genetics of racial purity. How do you classify this one?

Melakon: [regarding Spock] Hm. Very difficult. Note the sinister eyes… and the malformed ears. Definitely an inferior race.

Star Trek Patterns of Force 1968

“You shall not act dishonestly in rendering judgment. Show neither partiality to the weak nor deference to the mighty, but judge your fellow men justly.

Leviticus 19:15


Our programming does not permit us to acknowledge that any creature is superior to the Daleks

Doctor Who: Genesis of the Daleks 1975

Picking up from where I left off, when looking at some of the stories that I didn’t bother to write about in the last few days I find there is a common thread.

From the calls for death of Climate “deniers” to NRA members to the “not to be taken seriously” assassination list of earth first including Brandon Darby there is a single basic connection.

It is the idea that the people who are thus targeted or critiqued are not worthy of the same courtesy and standards of behavior that those making said declarations would hold for themselves.

Thus any critique particularly public critique of Professor Erik Loomas is beyond the pale but Professor Loomas’ connecting Sarah Palin with the Giffords shooting calling for the hunting down of Dick Morris to be skinned like a pig declaring for the world to see we need the heads on sticks of those who disagree is perfectly acceptable no matter what language he may employ or colorful metaphors used.

Now while members of the tea party, the conservative blogosphere and Republicans around the nation might object to this as a double standard,   we obviously are forgetting that this type of thinking from our democrat friends concerning Republicans is simply an extension of  science:

Scientists have found that people with conservative views have brains with larger amygdalas, almond shaped areas in the centre of the brain often associated with anxiety and emotions.

On the otherhand, they have a smaller anterior cingulate, an area at the front of the brain associated with courage and looking on the bright side of life.

It’s the very same principle that another Democrat echoed describing republican opponents on another critical matter:

All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity

Being fanatics with a species of insanity,  we don’t understand why someone like Brandon Darby, who had the audacity to believe that bombing the GOP convention might not be the appropriate response to political disagreement, is clearly unworthy of standards of society, let alone the consideration   for his acts that an Erik Loomas should expect.

And we of the right like Darby, being unworthy of the consideration for the standards or support of society due to our mental impairment, dare I say mental inferiority why stop there?  After all, if conservatism is a form of irrational insanity that as some say, has “blood on their hands“,  what rights do conservatives have that should be respected by he left and the media culture that support them, particularly if these opinions lead to the violent death of women and children?

If such insanity could somehow be restrained, then the enlightened could solve problems from the economy to gun violence unrestrained.  There is a precedent.  In fact there’s a whole Supreme Court ruling, one of the most famous rulings in American jurisprudence, made by some of the most educated and elite democrats of their time that can be looked to for guidance:

We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word “citizens” in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.

I don’t see a single line in the constitution protecting the rights of the insane fanatics.  Do you?

I know some might object to Democrats being connected these opinions of their party.  Their resentment to some degree is proper, after all the left goes after the right irregardless of race.  So what is the actual driver here?  Well that’s for tomorrow.

Update: Stacy McCain notes something at Occupy Rebellion that is relevant:

Andrew Breitbart was a career criminal who made it his mission to destroy people & their families. . . .
NO ONE linked to Breitbart has the right to ever claim their “victims” of anything. NO ONE linked to Breitbart has the right to ever “grieve” for anyone they know who died.

Stacy is stuck by this:

What is striking — and, in a weird ironic way, a tribute to Breitbart’s greatness — is how this obsessive hatred has persisted even after Breitbart’s death, so that now Rauhauser, “Occupy Rebellion” and others (most of them involved with the “Weiner Truther” cult) have transferred their “heroic hatred” to Breitbart’s associates.

Stacy Stacy Stacy, you just don’t get it. It’s not obsessive hatred, Breitbart obviously doesn’t have the right to be mourned because what he did and thought was obviously, as Dr. Stephens would diagnose, due to his insanity and any of us who wish to follow his example deserve no better.

There was, and still is a misunderstanding concerning what indulgences in the Catholic Church are. The best example I can give Civil vs criminal. The forgiveness of Christ means no criminal charges, an indulgence means no civil charges either.

There is however apparently a new indulgence now being offered today, an indulgence that is more impressive and more powerful in our modern society than any Plenary indulgence that prayer and fasting can bring. It’s an indulgence that can turn violence into legit protest, racism into innocent remarks and even overrides the famous words: “If it bleeds it leads”.

It’s the letter “D” and the liberal belief it represents

When one gives lip service to liberalism one is granted the ultimate indulgence

With that letter D next to your name, remarks that would disqualify you from office that would tar you as a racist become innocent.

With the letter D next to your name, you can skip the NAACP convention without judgement.

With the letter D next to your name sexual harassment suits become unnewsworthy and scandals that slay secret service agents and hundreds of innocents can be ignored.

With the letter D next to your name gas prices, unemployment and particularly black unemployment won’t will have no political consequences nor will the media find it worthy of note.

With the letter D you can vote for a tax one session then declare just as it is coming into effect that it’s a job killer that should be stopped yet you won’t be questioned.

And if you service the causes supported by the Letter D the power is even greater.

With the D before your name You can keep the poor in poverty in the cities yet you are considered their defender.

With the D upon you, shootings can take place within the minority community and nobody will march on your town.

With the D no amount of damage from a Hurricane nor tardiness of aid or bureaucratic problems can place blame upon you.

If you serve the D your violent movement and your motives are washed clean, no matter how many incidents of violence you commit.

With that Mystic Letter D, you can beat people on camera, call Black Men “Nigger” and destroy their business property and the media will say they had it coming, assuming they say anything at all.

You can even allow a successful attack on 9/11 and the death of American and with the letter D before your name no blame will fall upon you.

All from the power of the letter D and the indulgences granted by the media who are rewarded from above with fame, status and when high enough on the chain a well funded and a comfortable time for the rest you their days…

…but unlike the true indulgences of the church which come into play at that very time, after that, you’re on your own.

Legal Insurrection doesn’t get it:

The mainstream media is silent about the union violence in general because it does not fit their narrative, and the racist conduct of the union members is off limits. “Progressives” are spreading conspiracy theories that this all was staged.

This is covered by the indulgence, nothing to see here.

Lee Stranahan doesn’t get it either interview not withstanding:

Stacy Misses it too:

NBC/Universal, CBS/Viacom, ABC/Disney, CNN/Time-Warner — the highly profitable conglomerates that run Big Media are seldom called out by the lefties that rant deliriously against “Wall Street.” And whatever the idealism of their employees, there is something quaintly naive in the notion that the goal of Viacom is to tell the truth.

It has nothing to do with profit they support the left thus they are covered by the media indulgence.

Once you have made the World an end, and faith a means, you have almost won your man, and it makes very little difference what kind of worldly end he is pursuing. Provided that meetings, pamphlets, policies, movements, causes, and crusades, matter more to him than prayers and sacraments and charity, he is ours

C. S. Lewis Screwtape #7

Only today I have found a passage in a Christian writer where he recommends his own version of Christianity on the ground that “only such a faith can outlast the death of old cultures and the birth of new civilisations”. You see the little rift? “Believe this, not because it is true, but for some other reason.” That’s the game,

Screwtape #9

When reading about the trials of Liberal Christianity elaborated on at HotAir and the New York Times one harkens back to one of my very first posts back in January 2009 titled Why Believe or No? the Nitty Gritty of Christianity was laid out plainly:

Many people give many different reasons why they are Christian in general and or Catholic in particular. I maintain there is only one valid reason, and that reason should trump any and all others:

Because it’s true.

This should and must be the primary reason for being a Christian. No other trumps it. Christianity and the Church is either true or false, there is no middle ground here. If it is true then non belief doesn’t matter. The penalties and benefits are real and will have to be dealt with at some time in the future. Its like not believing in the wind. It doesn’t matter if you believe it it or not it is a reality to deal with.

Conversely if Christ is not the son of God then Christianity is just another Elks club that meets on Sunday. This is why liberal “modernized” Christianity has no meaning and can’t attract members. There are plenty of groups out there for various liberal causes that do not require a liturgy even one bastardized and watered down to avoid offense. If your cause is some other agenda than Christ and the Gospel then the need to attend a “Church” becomes superfluous.

So one might wonder why keep the denomination going? The answer comes from the British TV Series Yes Minister:

James Hacker: Humphrey, what’s a Modernist in the Church of England?

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Ah, well, the word “Modernist” is code for non-believer.

James Hacker: You mean an atheist?

Sir Humphrey Appleby: No, Prime Minister. An atheist clergyman couldn’t continue to draw his stipend. So, when they stop believing in God, they call themselves “Modernists”.

And not only is the stipend gone but you are much more likely to get coverage for your statement if you are the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church then the head of yet another liberal NGO decrying any attempt to declare any practice (other than the promulgation of Orthodox Christianity) a sin.

So this will go on until all that is left is a small office with a person calling themselves a Bishop with little or no flock sustained in the public eye only the leftist media’s desire that such a voice exist.

If you are a believing and faithful Christian in General or Catholic in particular and this post is a source of Schadenfreude, be wary…

Update: Via Glenn Walter Russell Mead talks about the decline in the moral authority of the Episcopal Church but doesn’t come out and say the reason. To have moral authority, one must believe in morality.

Update 2: meant to say “trials” vs “trails” corrected
——————-

Update: The DaTechGuy Fundraiser is in progress, our goal is $3000 and any help is appreciated. For details click here for the progress check the thermometer to the right and to kick in hit DaTipJar”.





When via (Weasel Zippers) I saw this at the Obama campaign site:

All I could think of was this quote:

“If any one comes to me without hating his father 7 and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.  Obama Luke 14:26

And this from Abe Lincoln who in addition to being tough on vampires, had a different view of the Presidencyemphasis mine

One black man, overcome by emotion, dropped to his knees, prompting the president to conduct a curbside colloquium on the meaning of emancipation. “Don’t kneel to me,” said the president. “That is not right. You must kneel to God only, and thank Him for the liberty you will enjoy hereafter.”

Talk about liberalism is a religion! Who wants to make book how soon this goes down? I don’t think it lasts past Monday.

Via Glenn we see the two generation rule in action:

When American cities embraced the high cost, high regulation statist model two generations or so ago, they were often the richest and most dynamic places in the country. Increasingly “progressive” policies, with higher wages for unionized teachers, bigger bureaucracies enforcing tighter regulations, more “planning” by qualified technocrats and more government services and benefits to improve the quality of residents’ lives were supposed to take the American city into a new golden age.

It’s hard to think of many social experiments that have more disastrously failed. Now many of these once flourishing cities are hollowed out shells, while around them suburbs and increasingly exurbs flourish away from the deadening influence of urbanist politics. None of this affects the hold of progressive and urbanist ideology on true believers; if anything, they believe even more passionately in the cause.

Yet on Morning Joe this morning the talk was all about the comeback of Detroit as if the Bankruptcy issue just didn’t exist.

As Greece is teaching us, reality tends to catch up with you and as Mark Steyn explains the idea that the social and fiscal issues are not connected doesn’t wash:

As almost all those fashionable split-the-difference fiscally conservative/socially liberal governors from George Pataki to California’s pathetically terminated Terminator eventually discover, their social liberalism comes with a hell of a price tag. Ask the Greeks how easy it is for insolvent nations to wean the populace off unaffordable nanny-state lollipops: When even casual sex requires a state welfare program, you’re pretty much done for.

Modern liberalism, for all it’s self-righteousness is all about conformity to it’s totalitarian nature/religion, and if you don’t confirm, watch out.

There is a basic principle that needs to be said aloud concerning the Susan G. Komen business.

For Roman Catholics and Believing Protestants Abortion is an intrinsic evil. It is impossible for a person who opposes abortion to give to a private organization funding it without sin. So one might understand their reluctance to donate to Susan G. Komen over money spent on Abortion. They would be more likely to instead give directly to other charities that might do good work without dollars going to the number one Abortion provider.

Now the people on the other side claim that this is all about Woman’s Health. That it is politicizing women health and that women will suffer if planned parenthood doesn’t have this money.

How?

Susan G. Komen is giving grants to organizations who do work to prevent breast cancer. Presumably as they are grants that are applied for, more than one organization that does this work is applying for them. I may have joked about applying for a grant but I’m not getting one, you’re not getting one and Pizza Hut or Taco Bell aren’t getting one.

Yet for our friends on the left that didn’t matter. From Joe Biden to Andrea Mitchell to liberal groups all over they not only attacked Komen but they threatened their cooperate sponsors, if they continued to fund Komen.

Not because a single dollar less would be spent on breast cancer, not because Komen had not done good work for its existence,not because there would actually be a compromise of women’s health, but because some of those funds were not going to be funneled to Planned Parenthood.

I have often said Abortion is a sacrament to the left, apparently not only is Planned Parenthood is their church but is also their cult and like any cult if you try to leave you must be destroyed no matter how many women with breast cancer you might help.

It is axiomatic that Comedy central is an organ of the left in both its approach and its opinions, but every now and again it finds a situation so ironic, so simply incredible that no amount of political agreement or sympathy can override the comedy gold it produces.

There is a lot of commentary on the right concerning this:

Legal Insurrection:

This is from the “you can’t make this stuff up” files

The Mental Recession

The hypocrisy is mind-numbing, especially if the Daily Show has to point out something as being uncivil towards the Tea Party.


The Conservatory:

Beyond obtuse. Far, far beyond.

Moe Lane:

Nobody’s this clueless. Nobody.

Ace of spades:

1) Did she not know this was John Oliver from The Daily Show, and was she not aware of the kinds of things that typically happen during Daily Show interviews? 2) Was this a case of intentional hypocrisy on her part for rhetorical gain? Or was she acting out of complete ignorance?

Hotair:

…people like Harrop and the DNC’s current talking-points robot typically don’t do what they do because they’re blind to their own demagoguery, I think. To believe that is to let them off the hook for the cynical choice they’ve consciously made to smear their opponents for political advantage. There’s plenty of paranoia involved, no doubt, but it’s all in service to an agenda. If Harrop was genuinely this myopic, you could almost forgive her for it. Almost.


Small dead Animals
:

Ms. Harrop claims she was in on the joke. Many think she was not.

And finally Robert Stacy McCain:

What creeps me out about X or a Froma is the matter-of-fact, calmly fanatic certainty with which they will tell you that Tea Partiers are terrorists and the U.S. is turing into a cauldron of sadistic carnal abuse. I told X words to the effect: “It would be interesting to see how you show statistically that humanity is any more depraved now than ever.”

This is the same kind of unquestioning regurgitation that fuels global warming hysteria.

I think it’s much more simple, and can best be explained by a quote a 1956 episode of The Adventures of Robin Hood titled The Scientist. Robin and his band are protecting Albertus of Oxford from Prince John who wants him to build a horrific weapon. Friar Tuck asks if other scientists have considered the theory behind the device and Albertus answers thus:

There was Claudius of Paris for one. He thought it too frightful to use, except against the infidel. Then there was Al-Dalim the great Arabian. He wrote ‘it was too frightful to use, except against Christians.’

To Froma Harrop and people like her, liberalism IS their religion. Conservatives in general and the Tea Party in particular are their devils thus the rules of civilized behavior not only do not apply but simply holding liberal beliefs grant automatic absolution for any line that might be crossed.

So it doesn’t matter if she knew what Comedy Central was doing or understood the cause in which it was done, it was all in the cause of defeating evil conservatives and isn’t that what it’s all about in the end?

Here is the episode, the exchange that leads to the clip is at 8:33

“I, the LORD, am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. You shall not have other gods besides me.

Exodus 20:2-3

Let him begin by treating the Patriotism or the Pacifism as a part of his religion. Then let him, under the influence of partisan spirit, come to regard it as the most important part. Then quietly and gradually nurse him on to the stage at which the religion becomes merely part of the “cause”… Once you have made the World an end, and faith a means, you have almost won your man, and it makes very little difference what kind of worldly end he is pursuing. Provided that meetings, pamphlets, policies, movements, causes, and crusades, matter more to him than prayers and sacraments and charity, he is ours

C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters VII (Glasgow: Collins, 1942

You must choose, but choose wisely

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade 1989

As I have said in the past. I am not the least bit Jewish and can not claim the knowledge of Jewish thought that a man like Rabbi Joshua Hammerman can, but after reading his tirade on Tim Tebow I must conclude he has some real problems and they don’t involve football.

Tebow’s sanctimonious God-talk has led even pious peers like Kurt Warner to suggest that he cool it. Joseph could have used the same coaching.

If Tebow wins the Super Bowl, against all odds, it will buoy his faithful, and emboldened faithful can do insane things, like burning mosques, bashing gays and indiscriminately banishing immigrants. While America has become more inclusive since Jerry Falwell’s first political forays, a Tebow triumph could set those efforts back considerably.

I’m not bothered by this talk as Dwayne Lester is:

For some reason, this Rabbi (yeah, you read that right) thinks that all it will take is a Christian winning the Super Bowl for fellow Christians to turn into frothing, violent hate machines of destruction, and of course, our targets would be Mosques and gays. Oh, and those danged foreigners!

Rabbi Joshua Hammerman somehow believes the moral equivalency nonsense regarding Christians and Muslims. You see, if the Muslims will riot over a cartoon of Mohammed, then surely those football fueled fundies will go into a frenzy over one of their own beating all the odds and winning the Lombardi Trophy.

that standard liberal stupidity isn’t his problem nor is his lame attempt to make the game a “Christian vs Jews” issue:

While the Patriots are adored by their fans (myself included), to many nationwide they are regarded as the Sons of Darkness, with their perfectly coiffed Hollywood quarterback and their brilliant – one might say diabolical – hoodie-clad coach. And, oh yes, the most identifiably Jewish owner in sports.

As a fellow pats fan I assure you a last in the league defense,  so full of injuries in the secondary that they might allow Tebow to shine in all four quarters is a bigger problem than how Robert Kraft religion might affect how this game is seen.  But as I said football is not his problem.  His real problem is this: emphasis mine

Unlike some other blue-staters, I do not fear people of faith. I fear people of certainty. The worldwide struggle going on right now is not between good and evil, but between certainty and doubt. It cuts across denominational lines: Progressive and Modern Orthodox Jews lie on one side of the divide, joining mainline Christians and moderate Muslims; and those on the other side are also Jews, Christians and Muslims; the people of certainty.

Certainty is a problem? Really? You are a rabbi, your religion is based on eyewitness account of the deliverance of the Jews from Egypt.  A certainty.   The primary commandment of your faith is the worship of God. The certainty of the existence of God should be job #1 as a rabbi yet from this article you seem more committed to global warming than the primary law of your religion?

Yes Rabbi you do have a problem, you apparently have more faith and belief in your liberalism than your Judaism.

Rather than praying for the Patriots you might want to pray on this instead,  but beware, you will find that the religion of liberalism is much harder on their apostates than Judaism is.

Update: Shades of trigs crew stuff first the nastiest paragraph disappears then the whole column goes down the memory hold

In my post earlier today I talked about the shock of finding out about the crash and burn of a leading embryonic stem cell research company almost three weeks after the fact. I questioned why it got so little play:

the idea that a whole branch of scientific inquiry; A branch that the left promoted in print and broadcast news. A branch that was highly funded by taxpayer grants, A branch that leading celebrates used to paint Religious conservatives as heartless and anti-science. A branch that was touted culturally in film and media was as reliable as a “ONE OWNER” sign on a used car I’d say that was not only a story, but I’d call that a front page at the top of the broadcast story. Apparently the left would not.

So lets see how the Huffington Post, a leading organ of the left, did decide to report this story when it happened:

It was a roomful of giants: 66 of the world’s best stem cell research scientists and technicians. They had succeeded in the initial stage of the world’s first human embryonic stem cell trials. These were safety trials for GRNOPC1, a stem cell product which might ease previously-incurable spinal cord injury paralysis — they should have been lauded as heroes — instead they were losing their jobs.

It would be different if their experiment had failed. But they had done everything right, played by the rules all the way: and in so far as they had been allowed to go, they had triumphed.

Hold on a sec, they succeeded yet they were going out of business? That doesn’t make sense. Let’s read further:

By FDA requirements, the first trial for any new drug or therapy must be safety. Could the cells be injected into a newly-paralyzed person without doing them harm? Opponents of the research had always maintained that the stem cells would cause cancer.

Didn’t happen. There was no harm done to any of the patients.

That’s a triumph? “The research didn’t give the test subject cancer and didn’t do them any harm.” Are we judging under the “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger?” standard? Give me millions of tax dollars to feed test subjects sugar pills and I’ll wager I get the same triumphal lack of cancers in my patients too!

The second step would have been to inject significantly larger quantities of cells into other newly-injured patients, perhaps five times as much, to see if there was a positive effect. The cells injected would be increased from roughly two million cells to as much as ten million — a couple teaspoonsful, small in quantity but potentially huge in impact.

So the previous test did not produce any positive results (although its been reported the actual results weren’t released) and you want more funding to boost the dosage to see if a larger dose does? Simple question: How is it any less likely the larger dose might produce the harm the smaller dose did not as it is that the larger dose would produce benefits that the smaller dose did not?

But this next step, as well as the final one to try a much larger group of patients, will not take place with Geron.

Why were the trials stopped, if they were going well? The immediate answer is financial. To take a new therapy or medicine to market is incredibly costly. The price was just too high for Geron, a small company, though it always fought above its weight class.

But political harassment is part of the picture as well: the hate-filled propaganda the Religious Right and their allies in the Republican party had spewed at supporters of the research

So lets get this straight, the company financial failure is all about political harassment. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that after millions of taxpayer dollars over the years its initial tests produced the same results in test subjects that feeding them a Tomato a day would produce?

as well as actual political attacks, laws proposed to fine scientists, even jail them for research.

Yup, in the same sentence he accuses Republicans of both “hate filled propaganda” and wanting to jail scientists. Irony is apparently not his strong suit.

There was also favoritism shown the “less controversial” adult stem cell research, funded lavishly compared to the embryonic variety. In 2008, for example, human adult stem cell research received $297 million in federal funds — embryonic, only $88 million. Even now, under a far more progressive Administration, adult stem cell research receives nearly triple the funding ($341 million compared to $125 million) of embryonic.

Yeah, I’m sure Solyndra and Evergreen Solar would have kept their doors open if only we gave them more tax payer money too.

Now I feel sorry for the author Don C. Reed. He has an emotional investment in this as legislation that favored the company in California was named after his paralyzed son that he hoped would be aided by this research. So given that emotional connection lets add a few rational observations:

  • If these tests were so successful why not release the results? That’s what happens in (non-climate) science, data is released and studied by other scientists
  • The whole idea of medical research is to produce positive results, if Geron’s research produced positive results beyond “not causing cancer” I suspect we would have heard about them, particularly in this puff piece.
  • The potential market for successful treatments for spinal injuries etc is massive yet the company could not produce private funding. That speaks volumes, public funding involves betting the “house’s” (read other people’s) money, private funding does not. There is a reason why, for example Evergreen Solar and Solyndra both only avoided bankruptcy when financed by taxpayers.
  •  Mr. Reed put “less controversial” in scare quotes when referring to adult stem cell treatments, yet adult stemcells have produced actual breakthroughs:

The Japanese biologist Shinya Yamanaka found in 2007 that adult cells could be reprogrammed to an embryonic state with surprising ease. This technology “may eventually eclipse the embryonic stem cell lines for therapeutic as well as diagnostics applications,” Dr. Kriegstein said. For researchers, reprogramming an adult cell can be much more convenient, and there have never been any restrictions on working with adult stem cells.

For therapy, far off as that is, treating patients with their own cells would avoid the problem of immune rejection.

and not just theoretical, adult stem cells are curing blindness in Australia:

Researchers in Australia have come up with an outwardly simple but incredibly ingenious way of curing blindness caused by corneal damage: Take everyday contact lenses, already used by millions (including me), and infuse them with a patient’s own stem cells. After wearing them for about 2 weeks, test subjects reported a seemingly miraculous restoration of sight.

Aiding angina patients in Chicago:

New research published online today in Circulation Research found that injections of adult patients’ own CD34+ stem cells reduced reports of angina episodes and improved exercise tolerance time in patients with chronic, severe refractory angina (severe chest discomfort that did not respond to other therapeutic options).

The phase II prospective, double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial was conducted at 26 centers in the United States, and is part of a long-term collaboration between researchers at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and Baxter International Inc. The objective of the trial was to determine whether delivery of autologous (meaning one’s own) CD34+ stem cells directly into multiple targeted sites in the heart might reduce the frequency of angina episodes in patients suffering from chronic severe refractory angina, under the hypothesis that CD34+ stem cells may be involved in the creation of new blood vessels and increase tissue perfusion.

and were actually used in surgery on a current presidential candidate.

Texas Gov. and possible GOP presidential contender Rick Perry got everybody talking about stem cells again when he announced that he received an injection of his own stem cells during spinal fusion surgery

You would think that actual results like this rather than deserving scare quotes are not only worthy of funding but would be a cause for celebration.

You would be wrong, apparently to our friends on the left this stopped being about science years ago.

The truth is embryonic stem cell research was oversold and it appears researches knew what they were selling:

Members of Congress and advocates for fighting diseases have long spoken of human embryonic stem cell research as if it were a sure avenue to quick cures for intractable afflictions. Scientists have not publicly objected to such high-flown hopes, which have helped fuel new sources of grant money like the $3 billion initiative in California for stem cell research.

In private, however, many researchers have projected much more modest goals for embryonic stem cells. Their chief interest is to derive embryonic stem cell lines from patients with specific diseases, and by tracking the cells in the test tube to develop basic knowledge about how the disease develops.

Those two paragraphs from that Instapundit link are quoted from that right wing propaganda machine known as the New York Times. It was written in 2009 more than 5 years after Ron Reagan took the stage and the Democratic Convention describing embryonic stem cell research as

what may be the greatest medical breakthrough in our, or in any, lifetime

…and a lot of injured people and their families (including I suspect Mr. Reed who is understandably looking for any card to help his paralyzed son) were taken for a ride in the cause of financial gain for favored companies and political gain for the left.

I think the deception and use of these people in this way was obscene. And I think the attempt of those in print, television and social media to hide their own part in selling this snake oil while declaring their opponents “anti-science” is a story and a crime that I refuse to let them bury.

I don’t expect to see any media apologies or mea culpas over this, after all this became part of the abortion wars and abortion is one of the sacraments in the religion of liberalism but the facts on the ground and the continuing success in adult stem cell therapies will speak for themselves even if the media remains silent.

But don’t worry, it will not be so many years (4 years 53 days according to Rush Limbaugh’s Al Gore’s doomsday clock) when we will see this entire charade played out again as our friends in the print, television and social media will once again have nothing to say on the subject that they cling to with only less sacramental furor. The lesser sacrament of global warming. In fact considering recent news from Canada we might not have to wait at all.

Continue reading “The left and the science of denial”

There is a moment in the video that POWIP put up of Ed Schultz playing the voice of sanity (yes you read that right) that really says it all.

“If we let the other side take scalps, the right-wing is choosing our leaders for us.”

This is why she had no problem falsely attacking Andrew Breitbart, this is why she couldn’t name a left-wing extremest when asked by the Morning Joe crowd. This is why Amanda Marcotte can bemoan the loss of a congressman’s privacy when he sends a picture of his bulging penis to 40,000 people this issue and be taken seriously.

And if you think she was funny look at the comments in the piece like this gem:

The image is a tad blurry the text says:

i have been a member of handgun control inc. and have supported the brady laws. i do not own any sort of fire arm. that said, it would be a great comfort if somebody would shoot andrew breitbart in the face. james o’keefe too. it would give me great satisfaction to see this happen.

Someone explain to me how this train of thought is different from the fatwa against Molly Norris?

UPDATE wrong link above fixed

This is the modern left, this is the logical conclusion to the path the left choose when the democratic congress stood behind Al Gore after impeachment as he declared bill Clinton “One of our greatest presidents.”

As I said about the blogger at Cannonfire and about Charles Johnson, this is no longer politics, this is a religion, I think it is nearing the point where it might even be considered a cult. I’d have to ask Little Miss Attila for her opinion on that one.

Update: Ask of Little Miss Attila and you shall receive

To understand this, we might point to a milder version of the same thing, wherein a bit of “tribalism” creeps in, and one starts to think of politics as a kind of sport. Not a bad thing in and of itself, but it’s insidious, because instead of concentrating on arguments and pursuing the truth, one begins to frame everything in terms of whether it advances the team.

Not on whether it’s right–but on whether it gets that football closer to the goal posts. It’s a dangerous intellectual shortcut to take.

Well, the true believer has that same frailty, only he/she is no longer oversimplifying politics into a large-scale game of football–he or she has begun to frame it as a small-scale approach to theology.

Definatey worth a peek.