We're anti ILLEGAL, ILLEGAL, let me say it again just in case... ILLEGAL immigration.

But that fails to explain the gigantic hue and cry against all attempts to further legalize immigration. You, personally, may indeed feel that way, but the bulk of the anti-immigration fervor in the U.S. has quite thoroughly proven itself to not care whether said immigration is legal or not.

I looked around at the journal's site, and I couldn't find the actual study in question. The articles only link to the journal, and don't identify the specific study at all. I'm beginning to wonder if the whole thing isn't entirely apocryphal.

I'm curious if there's any significant difference between an embryonic stem cell and a zygote. Even if there is, I strongly suspect the anti-science religious nuts will make that connection before too long and do their damnedest to ban this, too.

That folks are making science decisions on the basis of absurdities in political policy.

Acquiring donor stem cells from their own recipient solves so many problems (well, mostly just immune system rejection, but that's huge) that people would be working on it regardless of the political climate.

Support the troops - wear a yellow ribbon and then screw them over as much as possible! That is the Republican way. After all, they're just poor folk to the right wing.

Why are we taking seriously that small group of nuts opposed to embryonic stem cell research?

Because they have a lot of power, including, for example, the President of the United States and a substantial portion of Congress. They can't be ignored.

This is not a liberal or conservative issue; it's a human rights issue.

Okay, but the U.S. Republican party is solidly against human rights in general.

...you may wish to look at what Glenn Sacks has been discussing...

Stop spamming about your blog, Glenn.

One poster says the Fundys will oppose this new reasearch. Sorry, but can you cite one conservative religionist who publicly opposes the use of adult-derived stem cells in research?

Sorry, but do you know the difference between future tense and past tense?

Anonymous, enough with the Glenn Sacks references already.

I never heard of that loser until you posted about him twice. -- DurianJoe

Twice? More like twice a day, every day. Spam spam spam...

I think Hillary called her vote for the Iraq war a vote for "diplomacy", as well.

You're not making any sense at all. The problem with abstinence-only education isn't the abstinence, it's the only. It's a deliberate failure to educate. The link to unprotected sex has nothing to do with actually pushing a message, successfully or otherwise.

I'm getting a bit sick of this notion that if you criticize someone who advocates a green lifestyle for not practicing that lifestyle in significant ways, you are either a self-righteous enviornmentalist or a right-wing contrarian.

Strawman argument. That notion doesn't really exist. What DOES exist is a large number of well-paid "right wing contrarions" as you call them who go about leveling any and every charge they can think of. Their goal is to recruit some people (like you) who might think their nonsense sounds reasonable.

It's impossible to be completely green, and yes, people should be given some slack. These charges are ridiculous - some guests flew out for his wedding? Give me a break. Guests fly out for EVERY wedding - more when you're rich and influential.

There's nothing these accusers won't stoop to. For a little while, there was a huge hubbub about how much gas Gore's escort used going to the premier of his movie. It turned out, he walked.

Then, there was the big accusation about how much he spent on energy for his house. Not how much energy he USED, though that was the non-too-subtle implication, but how much he SPENT on it. The reason he's spending so much money on energy is because he insists on green sources and carbon offsets...

And on and on and on. Paper-thin allegations churned out at an industrial scale.

I think we can hope that the internet is so chock full of nonsense that people can gain a healthy sense of skepticism with even a relatively small dosage.

It's like what they found about people growing up with siblings versus people growing up as only children: people who had siblings instinctively understand the relationship (or lack thereof) between truth and what people say, presumably because their siblings lied about them (and vice-versa) a great deal.

The mob boss denies all culpability for the murders committed in his name.

Heart disease is the No. 1 killer of men and women in America, not the No. 1 killer of women. - Parson Jim

Wow, so, you're wrong even according to yourself.

And more important, how can I find someone that bossy to boss me around, too?

Come right here to the comments section! I'm sure you'll have plenty of instructions, so many in fact that you won't possibly be able to follow them all. That's the point, right?

...Please?

I'm a secular humanist who wants to have lots of babies. Now if I can just find a willing partner...

Perhaps all counseling is fraudulent. Just because a counselor was married doesn't mean they were in my marriage. I think it's more fraudulent to arrogantly suppose that your marriage is all that much like mine.

You're a counselor because you're trained to be a counselor. That education and training IS your qualification, not your own experiences which can never be quite the same.

It's striking to me how certain the author seems to be of his conclusions, many of which could not be described as empirically verified.

With $55,000,000 coming from 7,000,000 people we're looking at an average donation of about $78. I like that. Plutocracy, yes, but populist plutocracy nonetheless.

700,000 people, not 7,000,000, but the $78 is about right.