Oh, look. Another jackass

Well, I seem to have made another friend.

I went wandering on the Dark Side again this week, and found a guy who felt he knew what he was talking about. So I kicked him.

Here's what he wrote:

Obama Reverses Himself On Embryonic Stem cells..After Two Days!

President Obama, in a highly publicized bit of political theater signed an executive order last Monday, March 9th reversing a 2001 executive order that President Bush had signed that allowed federal funds for research involving embryonic stem cell lines that was already in progress using embryos that had already been destroyed, but denying federal funding for new research that required the killing of any additional embryos.

Since the current occupant of the White House is an avid fan of abortion, even to the point of mandating that babies who survive an abortion be allowed to die of neglect, this was hardly a shocker.

But then, a mere two days later came the old switcheroo, buried in the 465-page omnibus appropriations bill that Obama signed Wednesday.

Known as the Dickey-Wicker amendment, it's been part of the annual funding for the Department of Health and Human Services for over a decade, and explicitly prohibits funding for "(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death."

It not only prohibits the government from providing tax dollars to support research that kills or risks injury to human embryos, it specifically mandates an all-inclusive definition of “human embryo” that encompasses any human life even if created in a laboratory through cloning, in vitro fertilization or any other technology.

Sooo..what is President Barry Zero up to?

I see three possibilities: one, he simply didn't realize that the Dickey-Wicker Amendment was part of what he was signing; two, this was a window to allow well-connected `friends of Obama' to dump some stock they held (or short it) in companies specializing in embryonic stem cell research at a profit after it was artificially pumped up by the highly publicized White House announcement and make a tidy profit; or three he's planning an attack on Dickey-Wicker in Congress.

As a matter of fact, there's nothing to stop the any two of these from being true.

For the record, embryonic stem cell research has been almost entirely a waste of time, although a great deal of significant and valuable discoveries have been made using ADULT stem cells. The embryonic stem cells tend to mutate quickly and be unstable, which is why this research has mainly been a means to funnel government grants and taxpayer funds at certain scientists and companies specializing in the area. In states like California, New Jersey, Illinois, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts and New York, the treasure trove runs into the billions.It's almost as lucrative as global warming.

So, in the spirit of Truth, Justice and the American Way, I felt that I should set him straight.

Well, I guess it's good to see that you have managed to be completely ignorant on the subject that you are expounding on. I suppose that's a good thing.

The Dickey-Wicker amendment has been in every budget since 1996, and has no effect on stem-cell research.

To start with, Dickey-Wicker banned funding only on reseach conducted on embryos themselves. While this includes the process of creating stem cell lines for further research (since the stem cells are taken out of an unused, non-implanted IVF embryo), but it does not prohibit the use of stem cells themselves, only the embryos they were taken from.

See, what you remain blithely ignorant of is the fact that a stem-cell "line" is a continuously-maintained collection of cells in laboratory flasks, which are transfered to new flasks as they divide and grow. One of the unique properties of stem cells is that they can be grown permanently in this way, unlike most other body tissues.

The line is created by taking stem cells out of an embryo, but that only has to be done once for each new line; after that, it's just the individual cells themselves that are grown - they do not form embryos, and could not be implanted to create a pregnancy, while they are growing in the culture medium. "Stem-cell research" uses these separated cells, not developing embryos.

Dickey-Wicker has always been interpreted as permitting funding for stem-cell research, but not for the creation of new lines of cells. Scientists accommodated this by using private funding to generate cell lines, and federal funding for research on the cells. Bush not only banned that, but imposed restrictions on the usage of existing cell lines that choked off vast amounts of ongoing research.

We'll ignore your potentially libelous statements regarding allowing "well-connected 'friends of Obama' to dump some stock they held (or short it) in companies specializing in embryonic stem cell research at a profit" - see, research companies aren't set up, and their stock made public, overnight. But we can tell that you aren't a fan of Barack Obama, so we'll assume that God will judge you for your lies, and we won't.

Instead, let's look at the following fascinating paragraph:

For the record, embryonic stem cell research has been almost entirely a waste of time, although a great deal of significant and valuable discoveries have been made using ADULT stem cells. The embryonic stem cells tend to mutate quickly and be unstable, which is why this research has mainly been a means to funnel government grants and taxpayer funds at certain scientists and companies specializing in the area."

Wow. I didn't know that you could be that wrong, that many times, in only 50 words.

Let's see - "embryonic stem cell research has been almost entirely a waste of time" - gee, I dunno, since Bush banned research except in 22 lines (many of which are played out, and sometimes contaminated), do you think that might have had an effect on the amount of research that's been done successfully?

(On the other hand, three days after Obama was sworn in, On January 23, 2009, phase I clinical trials for transplantation of an embryonic-derived cell population into spinal cord-injured individuals received FDA approval, making it the world's first human-embryonic-stem-cell human trial. The results of initial experiments suggest an improvement in locomotor recovery in spinal cord injuries after a 7-day delayed transplantation of human embryonic stem cells that were pushed towards an oligodendrocytic lineage. So, despite the anti-science attitudes of the former Bush White House, science marches on.)

"The embryonic stem cells tend to mutate quickly and be unstable" - well, no, not so much. Look at my description above, regarding stem cell lines. The fact that they don't mutate and become unstable is the very reason that the research is viable, you moron.

So, let's see. You have no idea about the federal budget process, and you don't know anything about stem-cell research that you don't read in biased pamphlets cranked out by medical Luddites. But here you are, expounding on both subjects, as if you had a clue (which, clearly, you don't).

Keep up the good work, OK?

Despite the fact that he moderates his board, that comment made it through. Followed by a response.

Fascinating.

First of all, the failures involved with embryonic stem cells have been pretty well documented.

Try here, here, here, here... as a matter of fact, when you google 'failure of embryonic stem cell research' you get about 350,000 hits.

The link you provided is an article of yet another experiment, which might succeed..or fail like the others have. On the other hand, the use of ADULT stem cells has a fairly good track record of success.

And obviously the scientist quoted in the article hated Bush and loves Obama..because the money tap has been turned back on!

We have a saying here in Joshua's Army...don't BS the blog.It never works.

Likewise, your expounding on Dickey-Wicker, which clearly disallows the use of federal funds for the destruction of embryos. Click on the link in the article, read it carefully and take notes.

As for the possibilities of why the Chosen One reversed himself undercover, I think my three possibilites are perfectly valid based on common sense and the way this administration has conducted itself so far. Hey, it's the Chicago way..on a national level.

Oh, and look up the definition of libel sometime. Unfortunately, your legal knowledge is apparently on a par with your scientific knowledge.

Based on a quick look at your profile, your blog and your comment, we know a couple of things..you hate Christians and the Bible, are an Obamabot, suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome (admittedly, not my favorite president, but I never got foaming-at-the-mouth about it), are retired and so bored that your self-confessed hobby is trolling blogs you deem to be 'Christian' and 'Right wing.'

Seems pathetic to me, especially if this is the best you can do.

I suggest you find another blog to troll for your enjoyment. Joshuapundit might actually challenge your deeply held beliefs and I have a feeling that might be uncomfortable for you.

And if you wish to be taken seriously , I'd suggest you avoid the name calling and bitchery in the future. It just makes you look like an idiot without any class whatsoever. And who wants that, eh?

Oh, and one last thing BTW..in spite of the fact we disagree and your attempt to troll the board is pretty rank, thanks for your service to our beloved Republic.
( I assume your telling the truth about that)

We're all able to mouth off because guys like you were willing to pick up the rifle, and I respect that, if nothing else.It's why I spent the time and electrons responding to you that I did.

Regards,
Rob

But see, the problem is that Rob is intellectually dishonest. Because if he doesn't have an answer, he suppresses the question. I put in a followup, and he refused to let it see daylight.

Obviously, I should have kept a copy. But I think I can recreate it. (To be honest, the response I gave him was, while terse, relatively polite. If he thinks he can shut me up, the gloves are off. Not that the condition of my hands really matters at this point, but still. It's the principle of the thing.)

Rob,

Gee, where do I start?

Well, first of all, most of the links you gave for "stem cell failures" lead to "lifenews.com," which lists their mission statement as "LifeNews.com is an independent news agency specifically devoted to reporting news that affects the pro-life community... The topics covered by LifeNews.com include abortion, assisted suicide and euthanasia, bioethics issues such as human cloning and stem cell research, campaigns and elections, and legal and legislative issues."

Got enough agenda there, Butch?

You know, it's strange. Among the issues mentioned there, I don't see "death penalty." Isn't death... like, the antithesis of life? You'd think they'd be there on the front lines opposing it, wouldn't you? Odd.

as a matter of fact, when you google 'failure of embryonic stem cell research' you get about 350,000 hits.

Yeah, and you google any three unrelated words, you end up with hundreds of thousands of hits. Try "cheese gun swan" - 524,000 hits. With something as controversial as stem cell research, I'm surprised you only got 350,000 results.

On top of which, since George Bush banned federal funding of anything involving embryonic stem cells in 2001, and the research only got started in 1998, I think we can all see why there have been limited successes with it, if we're honest with it. Can't we?

We have a saying here in Joshua's Army...don't BS the blog.It never works.

Why would that be, Rob? Because like attracts like? Because it would be like calling the ocean "damp"?

Likewise, your expounding on Dickey-Wicker, which clearly disallows the use of federal funds for the destruction of embryos. Click on the link in the article, read it carefully and take notes.

Well, I could suggest that you do the same yourself. Or perhaps, do a little research yourself. Or would that be asking too much?

In January of 1999, Harriet Rabb, the top lawyer at the Department of Health and Human Services, released a legal opinion that would set the course for Clinton Administration policy. Federal funds, obviously, could not be used to derive stem cell lines (because derivation involves embryo destruction). However, she concluded that because human embryonic stem cells "are not a human embryo within the statutory definition," the Dickey-Wicker Amendment does not apply to them.

But reality isn't your strong point, is it, Rob?

Oh, and look up the definition of libel sometime. Unfortunately, your legal knowledge is apparently on a par with your scientific knowledge.

Golly, gee. How about Stanford University? Would their definition be good enough for you?

Libel involves the publishing of a falsehood that harms someone.

Slander is the same doctrine applied to the spoken word. Collectively, they are referred to as defamation. Both fall under the jurisdiction of individual states, which usually require the falsehood to be intentional.

So there we go. You're also ignorant on the law and/or the English language. Any other subjects you want to expound on?

Based on a quick look at your profile, your blog and your comment, we know a couple of things

Oh, this ought to be good...

you hate Christians and the Bible

Uh, no. Obviously, I've read the Bible several times. It's hypocrites that get under my skin. As you, personally, should be able to tell...

(you) are an Obamabot

No, sorry. He's doing a good job, and God knows he's infinitely better than his predecessor, but I don't agree with everything he does. For example, why (in the words of Nancy Pelosi) is "impeachment... off the table"?

(you) suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome (admittedly, not my favorite president, but I never got foaming-at-the-mouth about it)

OK, one time I tried to talk about him while I was brushing my teeth, but that hardly qualifies, does it?

I wouldn't call it "foaming at the mouth," but when an intellectually untalented man consistently lies to the American people, destroys the economy, takes us to war for no reason, and supports the torture of prisoners (among dozens of other charges), what's to like about the man?

Speaking of “Bush Derangement Syndrome,” though, let’s look at a few of your statements (just in this webpage – no need to mine the rest of your blog. That would be too easy):

“since the current occupant of the White House is an avid fan of abortion…”

“Sooo..what is President Barry Zero up to?”

“…this was a window to allow well-connected `friends of Obama' to dump some stock they held (or short it) in companies specializing in embryonic stem cell research at a profit after it was artificially pumped up by the highly publicized White House announcement and make a tidy profit…”

“…the Chosen One…”

“…Obamabot…”

I wonder. Has the phrase “Obama Derangement Syndrome” been taken yet?

(Actually, yes it has. It even appears in a National Review article, so I’ll presume you’ve seen the term. Apparently, though, you’re blind to the warning signs…)

are retired and so bored that your self-confessed hobby is trolling blogs you deem to be 'Christian' and 'Right wing.'

Ah, no. If you'd actually been reading, you'd have noticed that my current hobby is Fallout 3. (Incidentally, the Experimental MIRV? Not worth the weight to carry it. And why do Mini Nukes not weigh anything? I mean, I understand that ammo is weight-free. But nuclear weapons?)

Joshuapundit might actually challenge your deeply held beliefs and I have a feeling that might be uncomfortable for you.

You certainly haven't managed that so far.

And if you wish to be taken seriously , I'd suggest you avoid the name calling and bitchery in the future. It just makes you look like an idiot without any class whatsoever. And who wants that, eh?

Well, in the words of that great philosopher Popeye T. Sailor, "I yam what I yam."

On the other hand, if you want to be taken seriously, perhaps you could make an effort to get at least one fact right. You know, just for the heck of it.

So, greetings from the fact-based community. As ever, I remain, the

Nameless Cynic

See? It's important to make new friends.

Update: (3/21/09) I seem to be banned from his blog. He got all cranky with me, called me a "libtard," and now he doesn't return my calls, he never writes, and we haven't been palling around in the lunchroom like we used to.

I'm so hurt that he would leave me like this. I don't know how I'll get through the day.