"Raising the Bar" on Stem Cells

It was fun while it lasted.

Last week, the news broke: embryonic stem cells, without destroying the embryo! The research, the cures, but not the ethical dilemma!

Just imagine: in twenty years (or so), emotional reunions between those healed by embryonic stem cells and the real live children who were those embryos. Now that’s an Oprah moment!

This week, well, not so fast. Turns out the news might have been…premature. Turns out we can’t experiment on embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo.

At least, nobody’s proven that we can. Not yet. Last week’s news stories were based on a press release, which gave a very different impression than the full report on which it was based.

Maybe one day someone will succeed in making stem cell lines from an early embryo that survives, but (chief scientist Robert) Lanza didn't. ACT (Advanced Cell Technology) and the media--in their desire to boost popular support for embryonic stem cell research--simply took a leap of faith and portrayed an experiment showing that something might be possible as if the feat had already been accomplished.

So: they made a claim, the media believed it, and the rest of us followed. Myself included. For a little while.

Disappointing. Like getting the best birthday present ever just to have it break five minutes later. But also hopeful: maybe this is possible, and not all that far away.

If nothing else, it added some new wrinkles to the embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) debate. For example, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel took President Bush to task for not bursting with joy and streamers and fireworks over the news:

Unfortunately, the White House offered little reason to believe it would budge and, even more disappointing, suggested that the president hopes procedures could be developed that wouldn't require embryos to be used at all.

Why that’s “disappointing,” well, I'm not sure. That would be better – embryos are human beings, after all. There’s little intellectually to separate taking spare parts from an embryo and taking them from Grandma.

Blogger Seth Zlotoch had a similar reaction:

Upon hearing of the discovery, President Bush suggested that he still wouldn't be willing to lift restrictions on federal funding unless no embryos were used in the process, which is different from his previous expectation that the research simply not destroy embryos.

So, in other words, Bush will only support embryonic stem cell research that doesn't involve embryos. Yeah, you read that right.

By the way, Seth, Miss Pronouncer called. She needs to ask you something.

I can’t account for every one of the President’s statements on the subject – maybe his position did rest solely on destruction of the embryo.

But all opposition to ESCR does not. Destruction of the embryos was always the biggest and the most immediate objection. It was never the only one.

In fact, the very existence of “spare” embryos is problematic. Difficult. We’re creating embryos that may never mature past the embryonic stage. There may eventually be nothing to do with them but destroy them.

Also, this new (almost) development lends more urgency to the fear that we’ll begin creating embryos for the sole purpose of creating stem cells. That we’ll begin creating human beings for the purpose of scientific experimentation and, eventually, spare parts.

Perhaps ESCR opponents grew to depend too much on the “destruction of human life” argument, so now it looks like we’re “raising the bar.” It was, I’ll repeat, the most important and immediate argument, but not the only one.

I’ll also make clear: if we can, at some point, extract cells from human embryos without harming the embryo itself, that will be fantastic news. Many of us will have to take a closer look at our positions because of it.

I trust that’s true of ESCR supporters, as well, should adult or umbilical cord stem cells begin showing rapid advances.

But we are still talking about creating and using human beings for scientific purposes. That’s something that should never be taken lightly, if it’s done at all.

And it would be better if we didn’t have to.

To Care, Or Not To Care

Note: due to circumstances entirely within our control, today's column will be indefinitely postponed (or at least until Tuesday). In its place, we offer this column from March 19, which, given the recent controversy over illegal immigration in Arcadia, Wisconsin, we feel is entirely appropriate.

Why can’t we all just speak English?

The US Senate asked that question yesterday, when they took preliminary votes on a measure to make English the “official language” of the United States.

The measure, approved by a 63-34 vote, directs the government to "preserve and enhance" the role of English, without altering current laws that require some government documents and services to be provided in other languages.

"We're free to say what we want, speak what we want, but it is our national language," Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said of the amendment, proposed by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.).

But Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, went so far as to say the Inhofe amendment was racist.

…Later Thursday, the Senate approved a weaker amendment declaring English the "common and unifying" language of the nation, on a 58-39 vote.

Maybe one of these will make it into the final immigration bill, maybe not. That’s not clear. What is clear, at least to me, is that Americans have to start looking at what we’ve got in common, and the English language would be a good place to start.

Diversity makes America great. That, at least, is the multi-cultural credo. Respect diversity. Encourage it. Tolerance. Make allowances for the differences of others, even when it costs you.

I scoff, but there is some truth in there. Just like there’s some truth to another annoying axiom: moderation is the key.

We wouldn’t be nearly so wealthy, proud, successful, powerful, if we were all inclined to be artists. It’s our diversity of talents, abilities, interests, aptitudes that helps make this country great.

On the other hand, there’s such a thing as being too diverse. Like it or not, differences separate us from one another. Similarities bring us together.

Look at it like this: a successful negotiation focuses first on where the sides agree. That’s a building block. It encourages dialog. Empathy. Understanding. This is the basis of friendship. It shows separate groups that they have something in common.

Or this: a friend is introducing you at a party. What does he say, as he does so? Things that will interest the people you meet. If your hobby is rebuilding old cars, he’ll mention that to people with similar hobbies. It gives you something in common. You’re more likely to hit it off.

The rich educated lawyer and the poor janitor who dropped out of high school might never say a word to one another until one of them mentions the ball game last night. And then it’s no longer two people from completely different backgrounds: it’s two fans talking about their favorite team.

That’s not to say they’re going to invite each other over for long weekends, but it’s something. A connection. Something they have in common, despite all their differences.

Back to “official English.” Just another example of typical American jingoism, xenophobia, if not outright racism? More evidence that we’re afraid of anything that differs from us? We can’t leave it alone, can we? If you don’t look, talk, dress, sound, think like we do, then there must be something wrong with you.

Such arguments are, themselves, an ironic form of jingoism. The whole “tolerance and diversity” ethic is. We must all believe that difference is good, and more difference is better.

Therein lies the problem: being different is no longer just a fact about you or me. No longer just another characteristic. It’s a virtue all in itself.

We don’t want to assimilate everyone to the point that we’re all completely alike. Even if we could do it, we can’t do it.

That’s the First Amendment. Say what you want, when you want. This includes speaking in another language, other than English. We have the right to do that. We have the right to never learn English, if that’s what we want.

We have the right to associate with whomever we like, and to not associate with whomever we don’t like. If we want to associate only with people who look, talk, dress, act exactly like us and no one else, that’s our right. Nobody can tell us not to.

We’ve elevated “diversity” to the point that we prefer difference, segregation, Balkanization, alienation from one another.

If every society contains the roots of its own destruction, this may be the root of ours.

It’s not what makes us different that makes for peace and harmony. It’s what we have in common. We should be emphasizing, encouraging, celebrating that.

Getting the point across

Marketing. The object: attract the greatest number of people.

That’s true whether you’re selling shoelaces or running for office. A certain number of people will be for/against you, no matter what. Winning the rest of them over means: good marketing.

But sometimes, the best way to add is by subtraction. Winning not by bringing people in, but by pushing them away. By making them mad.

Exhibit 1: The mayor of Arcadia, a city of 2,400 located smack between La Crosse and Eau Claire (western Wisconsin, for you non-Wisconsin types), wrote a column recently calling for a 5-point proposal on handling illegal immigrants.

The plan has some new and unusual twists, but we won’t go into the details here – read them yourself.

Response to the Mayor’s plan has been, shall we say, predictable. He’s anti-immigrant (not anti-illegal immigrant, but anti-immigrant), divisive, confrontational, and counter-productive. I’m sure the word “racist” will work its way in there somewhere, if it hasn’t already.

Because he wants to enforce the law, and encourage a tight-knit – not ethnically fractured – community. There’s been a backlash against him, there’ll be a counter-backlash for him.

This could have been deliberate. The Mayor could have purposely provoked the no-such-thing-as-illegal crowd, in order to increase his support among enforce-the-law, God-and-country types.

I doubt it. Not from a small-town mayor. But still. Coulda been.

Exhibit 2: The National Socialist Movement – real live neo-Nazis – will rally in Madison on Saturday. The “largest Nazi Party operating in the United States of America today,” according to their website, “inspired by our Fuhrer Adolf Hitler.”

Based in Minneapolis, of all places.

They’re entirely open about their racism. Whites only. Members of any other race (like homosexuals – hey, that’s what it says) don’t get to be citizens.

Not just equal rights for whites, mind you. Not just opposition to racial quotas and set-asides. Not just thinking that immigrants have more of an obligation to learn English than we have to make sure they understand what’s going on. No, this is full-fledged White Power you’re either Aryan or you’re outtahere racism (plus affordable health care!).

And their website, like their members, are bathed in Nazi symbolism, circa 1930s Germany.

From the Wisconsin State Journal:

One reason for the Aug. 26 rally is to clear up misperceptions about the group's politics, said Kris Johnson, the group's Wisconsin leader.

"People that come to our rallies and listen to what we have to say are going to be pleasantly surprised at how much they agree with," said Johnson, who lives in Green Bay.

Uh-huh. You want to make a reasonable and thoughtful play for the support of your fellow Americans (white, non-Jewish, heterosexual Americans, anyway) while carrying some of history’s most hated symbols, and with reverence for one of history’s most hated figures.

It may be spitting in the ocean to point that little flaw out, but, well, there it is. This is a marketing disaster…unless they’re purposely trying to provoke an angry reaction, and more media exposure.

They do have members. Somebody’s listening to them.

Exhibit 3: Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager.

As the state’s AG, it’s Lautenschlager’s duty to write an “official explanation” of any statewide referendum. Case in point: the marriage amendment. Should marriage be marriage, not marriage-lite, and consist of one man and one woman? It’s on the ballot in November.

Here’s part of Lautenschlager’s explanation:

"Whether any particular type of domestic relationship, partnership or agreement between unmarried persons would be prohibited by this amendment would be left to further legislative or judicial determination."

That right there is an outright fabrication. Untrue, and Lautenschlager, I think, knows it.

The amendment cements the definition of marriage that even opponents say is already Wisconsin law: one man, one woman. It “prohibits” exactly nothing that isn’t already prohibited.

So why write that? Because she’s a Democrat, up for re-election and facing a very serious primary challenge. By offending the amendment’s supporters, she solidifies her image among the amendment’s opponents – the people who were most likely to vote for her or her opponent in the first place.

And the more she’s attacked for it, the bigger a hero she’ll be.

Addition by subtraction. Attraction by repulsion. Political marketing 101.

Saying what they don't mean

Should the United States “immediately begin a phased, orderly withdrawal of its troops from Iraq?”

I dislike that question. I distrust it, for at least three reasons. One, it doesn’t mean anything. Two, it assumes I’m expert enough to know. Three, the people who wrote it really mean something else.

Next month, the Sauk County Board will consider putting that question on the county-wide November ballot. Deja-vu – it was on Baraboo’s ballot last April.

So here’s another question: what’s a “phased” withdrawal? We pull out the troops a little at a time. Or a lot at a time. Over time. How much time? How many troops?

Dunno.

And that’s the point. The people who want this referendum – the people who put a similar question on ballots across the state last April – want the troops out. Out of Iraq. Out of the Middle East. Out. Now.

These are the people who believe that Bush Lied (at Dick Cheney’s command, probably) to increase gas prices, pad his oil buddies’ profits, and speed Halliburton along their path to global domination.

If they had their way, the ballot question wouldn’t use words like “phased.” It would simply, directly call for the troops to come home. It would call the war a mistake based on lies. End the occupation as quickly as possible! By the end of the year, if not sooner!

And it would call for Bush’s impeachment. “Should Congress immediately begin impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush?” Maybe Dick Cheney, too.

That’s what they really want. When they say things like “immediate phased pullout,” they’re softening themselves, because they know the voters won’t go where they wish they could lead.

They know they would lose.

Most people won’t vote for an immediate pullout. Most people won’t vote for a solid deadline. Most people understand that if Bush Lied, then so did hundreds of people at the UN. That the world is better off with Saddam out of power. That we have real, long-term security interests in the Middle East.

Most people will vote no, if they get a chance to vote on what Bush-haters really want.

What’s that you say? I can’t possibly know how “most people” will vote? I have no idea how widespread anti-war sentiment really is?

Prove it. Put a real, specific, anti-war referendum on the ballot. Call for immediate withdrawal. Set a specific deadline.

I dare you.

They won’t take the dare, because they don’t have to. For their purposes, the wording doesn’t matter. It doesn’t have to be exact. All it has to do is pass.

If it passes, then it undermines the war effort. It’s a black eye for the Bush administration, a victory for the anti-Bush Left, and credibility for anti-war activists and politicians.

If it fails, then the opposite is true. They can’t risk that. So the authors use slippery words. Hazy, imprecise phrases.

Like I said back in January:

…the question doesn’t commit me to anything. Sure, “immediate” is a pretty plain word, but “phased?” What if I favor an immediate Phase 1, and then a year before Phase 2? Another year for Phase 3?

It’s weaselly, waffley, indefinite. It leaves an escape hatch, if events turn against a withdrawal.

…Personally, I like the idea of a phased – and occasionally negative – withdrawal. Draw down a little bit over the next month, then stand still for a while. Then reduce our troop strength by half, and then bang! Suddenly send another couple of divisions!

…That’ll keep the terrorists guessing. Not to mention Iran.

Even voters who are inclined to support the war can be worn down. Even the staunchest hawk can wonder whether we haven’t been over there long enough by now.

This question was written for those people. To give them a chance to vote yes because, well, why not? There’s a loophole, if we need it!

But to the Sauk County Board, I say this: if you want the question on the ballot, fine. Put the question on the ballot.

But write a question that means something. A question that’s clear. Unambiguous. Accurate.

A question that describes what its supporters really want.

Earn My Trust (if you want it).

Trust is an issue. Whether we like it or not.

The Baraboo School District – or one of its administrators, anyway – doesn’t like it, and doesn’t want to earn it, before reaping the benefits.

"I think it's wrong to come up with a policy that says how we're going to use the taxpayers' dollars when we don't even have the eggs in the basket," District Administrator Lance Alwin said, adding, "By the time we can earn and show trust, our children will be suffering another $1 million budget cut at the end of next year."

What a very odd thing to say. We don’t have time to earn your trust, but give us the money anyway. Maybe we’ll try to earn your trust later. Maybe not. Doesn’t matter. Hand it over.

Especially odd, that he said this at an informational meeting. A meeting the district hopes will build trust, and help pass the 5-year, $7.5 million referendum the district wants.

Four months ago, an identical referendum failed by 66 votes out of 6,000 cast. Trust was an issue. Many voters didn’t believe the district. Many didn’t believe in the district leadership.

That’s why the School Board is holding these meetings: to be more communicative to the voters. To build understanding and trust.

They believe this will win the referendum for them. They may be right. But not if they don’t tell us why they want the money.

When my kids ask me for money, I want to know why. First. I don’t pay for a bag of groceries unless I know what’s inside it. I test drive a car before I’ll think about buying.

First, they earn my trust. Then I give them the money. Not the other way around.

Mr. Alwin seems to think differently. In a way, he might be right. If they haven’t earned our trust since April, when we voted down the last referendum, or since February, when they approved that referendum, they probably don’t have time to earn our it now.

Still, the School Board should ignore him, and continue trying. Believe it or not, there are ways they could even earn my trust, and my vote. For example:

1. Buy health insurance from the lowest bidder.

We don’t bid out health insurance now: Baraboo, like 70% of the districts in Wisconsin, is insured by WEA Trust – the union-owned health insurance company. In Kenosha, that fact led to layoffs when the local union wouldn’t approve a change.

The school district must insist on this. Negotiate the terms of the insurance, then let the district find the best price for that product.

Or, better, offer Health Savings Accounts. Save money, insure all your teachers, and help them pad their retirements.

2. Tell me how much you need.

Give me the number. Dollars per student. Dollars per special education student. Explain those numbers.

More importantly, tell me what growth rate you’ll need. By the district’s own reckoning, spending per student has grown about 5% a year over the past few years. Why isn’t that enough, and how much will be?

3. Make learning the priority.

I know, they’ll say learning is already the priority, but I’m not so sure. The debates, since April’s referendum failed, have been about peripherals. Extracurriculars. Restoring those, instead of bringing class sizes down.

4. Get serious about mandates.

We all complain about mandates – unfunded or underfunded, but required by the state and/or the feds. Fine. Tell us what they are – name a few, that Baraboo would stop doing if they weren’t mandated. Tell us how much that will save. Fight for it.

I know what will go first: testing. I believe in testing – I think it helps increase standards and performance. No matter. If the district will get serious, I’ll compromise, and trust parents to ensure their kids are learning, and learning well.

The district can’t, in all likelihood, show concrete results for any of those before the September referendum. Still, even preliminary steps – announcing plans, forming committees, publicizing answers to some of those questions – might help.

Help earn my trust. That is, if they’re interested. If not, well, never mind.

But: no trust, no vote. No money. That’s how it works.

Enjoying Nature

We do love to Enjoy Nature. Many of us do, anyway. I do. My family does.

The wife and I just spent a few days doing just that. Roughing it, out in the wild, because that’s how we like to camp.

Of course, “roughing it” isn’t my description of what we did. To me, it was a very tame, safe, comfortable camping trip.

It was AAA Wisconsin* that called it “roughing it.”

See, when we go camping, we sleep in a tent. We don’t own an RV. Earlier this year, when my wife called AAA for some info on our big family vacation, the person on the other end of the phone asked if we were roughing it.

No, my wife said. We’re sleeping in a tent.

Yes, the other person said. That’s roughing it.

Water, bathrooms with flush toilets, showers, pre-prepared campsites with paved roads leading to, from, and all around. Electricity, telephones, a van full of food and dry clothes. A laundromat.

And bug repellant, because Enjoying Nature does not include bugs.

Roughing it isn’t what it used to be.

Which is just as well. I’m a real wuss when it comes to camping. I must have a shower, and coffee (brewed in a camp pot on a portable gas stove), and an air mattress with a battery-powered pump.

Enjoying Nature means driving to an established state park (that’s where we keep Nature) and hiking along an established and well-marked trail, where we can see things like eagles, and blue herons, and river snakes, and some really fantastic scenery when the trees weren’t in the way.

How am I supposed to Enjoy Nature with all these damn trees in my way?**

It’s not exactly what I picture in my head, when I imagine myself camping. In my head, I’m backpacking through rough terrain that may never have seen a human foot before. No roads. No showers. Only what we bring with us. If we don’t catch any fish, we don’t eat. If the fire goes out, the wolves come into camp.

But that’s Surviving Nature. An entirely different thing from Enjoying Nature. I – and I daresay most of you – have little or no ability to Survive Nature, should that necessity ever rear its ugly, ravenous, razor-toothed head.

Nature wants to kill us. Not just us – everything. Nobody gets a free pass, whether it’s human, animal, insect, vegetable, etc. It isn’t just the wild animals – it’s accidents, injuries, exposure to the weather. Lack of food and water. Disease, if you can live long enough to die from it.

Living things – us included – adapt to survive. One might say God gave His creations the gift of competition, to ensure they would stay healthy and vital.

We humans had very little going for us in our early years, except for brains. They led us to tools, to fire, to organization. Which, in turn, led us to dominate the planet, as much as anyone can.

That’s why today, we have the paved roads and marked campsites, and the water and electric hookups and showers and trails. Not just to increase public support for more Parks funding. It’s so we can Enjoy Nature, without having to Survive Nature. The surviving has already been done for us.

The very things our success in Surviving Nature has allowed us to create have, in turn, taken from us – most of us – the knowledge we needed to Survive Nature in the first place.

Ironic. And disappointing to the rugged He-Man who lives inside me. But…well, have you ever tried sleeping on gravel?

Not fun.

* An amazing amount of service, for the cost of an annual membership. Thus ends the commercial portion of today's column.

** Actual comment overheard by my wife while hiking along a secluded trail.

When Business is Bad for Business

We’ve got a crisis on our hands. A real one. One that will, if unchecked, cause dismay across the Badger state. Sadness. Despair.

The first shockwaves will be felt this November. A greater one in December. Further into the future…well, who knows where this could lead?

Pro football, as we know it, may become a thing of the past.

In a nutshell: the NFL has its own cable channel, called the NFL Network. NFL Network is going to broadcast (do they still say broadcast?) eight regular season games this year, including one Thanksgiving Day game and the Packers-Vikings game on December 21.

A rivalry game. A game that could have serious playoff implications. A game that could be, if he retires, Brett Favre’s last at Lambeau Field.

And we won’t see it. It won’t be on TV, because Charter Communications – southern Wisconsin’s cable company – doesn’t have the NFL Network. Charter and the NFL disagree over whether or not Charter can charge its customers for the channel. Charter says yes, the NFL says no.

Now, believe it or not, the NFL Network is launching a public relations campaign aimed at forcing cable companies to carry their channel.

"Don't let Charter ruin your football season," the ads state. "You'll miss NFL games. Call and demand NFL Network now."

The league is running the ads in markets where it hasn't reached carriage deals with the cable companies serving those markets…

NFL Network spokesman Seth Palansky said the league hopes Charter will "wise up" when customers start calling.

The NFL wants Charter to be the bad guy. The guy whose greed is costing us important football games on TV.

The NFL is insulting my intelligence.

Why, do you suppose, the NFL created their own cable channel? Just for something to do? Of course not. They’re doing it to make money.

Hey, the NFL owns the NFL. They own all those games. And just look at how much Fox and CBS and the other networks are willing to pay to televise the NFL. Why? Because advertisers pay big!

So the NFL stands to make a lot of money, if they move games onto their own channel. Don’t get me wrong – I’m all for it. God bless them and their capitalist ways.

But not Charter. Not if the NFL has their way.

"Charter wants to charge its customers more for our channel and we're opposed to that," he (Palansky) said. "We think they're charging enough as it is. And so we refuse to make a deal with them that has charges being passed along to customers."

Does Charter get the channel without cost? Is the NFL Network offering it to them for free? If so, then Palansky has a point. But I doubt it.

"It's easier for them to charge their cable customer more. They're trying to prey on NFL fans' passion and think they can charge more and make more money.”

And the NFL isn’t?

“We're saying no (to Charter). We've always made our games available to a wide audience and that should continue."

Yes, that should continue. You should bend over backwards to make sure it does.

Despite what the NFL would have us believe, there are no bad guys in this. Charter wants to make money. So does the NFL. The NFL owns the league. Charter owns the cable infrastructure. Both are trying to make money.

Here’s the difference, which the NFL is banking on: nobody likes the cable company. Rates are always rising, and you never get all the channels you want. It’s frustrating. Annoying. And it costs us something every single month.

Everybody loves the NFL. They figure (I surmise) that will play in their favor, and any negative feelings this conflict creates toward them will be short-lived, easy to overcome.

Maybe so. But. The NFL has developed itself around the game, and around the fan. It’s always been about the bottom line – football is a business, after all – but focusing on the game has been good for business.

Now, it seems to me, business is taking precedence over keeping the fan and the game together. Keeping the customer away from the product – that’s bad for business.

Oh, and…not to ruin your evening, but there’s a Big Ten channel, too.

Media Bias in Baraboo, Wisconsin

I don’t often point the “media bias” finger. I think it’s overused, and too often misused.

I’m using it now. Except, I’m not sure the problem is bias, per se. It may simply be ignorance. Ignorance about conservatives, what conservatives think, and why they think that way.

The Baraboo News Republic published an editorial Saturday (not online, but reproduced here), entitled “Bush throws the baby out with the bathwater.” It’s about Bush’s veto of expanded federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Ever read any Democrat talking points on the issue? Remember that John Edwards “people will rise from their wheelchairs and walk” speech from the 2004 campaign? Have you seen the new Jim Doyle for Governor ad?

If so, then you’ve read this BNR editorial. It’s the exact same thing.

Stem cells: good. Embryonic stem cells: better. Wondering if it’s ethical to conduct scientific research on human embryos: bad. Not just bad, but ignorant. Stupid. Invalid.

Don’t you know, embryonic stem cells will cure some of our worst diseases, if only the Radical Religious Right will join us in the 21st century and stop twisting the President’s arm!

That’s what the BNR sees. A bunch of knuckle-dragging superstitious nutcases standing in the way of scientific benevolence.

I see something else. An editorial board standing in the way of an honest debate. Their opening paragraph:

While George W. Bush has made some missteps in his presidency, last week may have been his biggest when he used his first presidential veto to block funding for stem cell research.

What they mean is: block additional federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Important words. Important information. Without them, the opening sentence is, at best, misleading.

Yes, they clarify in the next paragraph. But why wait? Why not be accurate in the first paragraph? If nothing else, it would prevent them from appearing to parrot the exact same deliberately misleading rhetoric that partisan Democrats and liberal pundits use.

Because that is how this looks.

Moving on, here’s how the BNR describes opposition to embryonic stem cell research:

Opponents of embryonic stem cell research object to the destruction of embryonic cells and say research on adult stem cells is more advanced and more deserving of funding.

That’s it. No discussion. No explanation of why those objections are wrong. They’re simply dismissed. Don’t bother us with your petty opinions while we’re trying to criticize the President! Away, smelly beggar, lest you spoil our tea. I wave my hand haughtily at you. Your arguments are invalid. Worthless. Unwelcome, even on the bottom of my shoe.

There’s more:

…the president has apparently ignored the most pragmatic and promising science in favor of arbitrary deadlines and sentimentality.

Bush has clearly allowed himself to be swayed by the extreme right, who value religion over science.

Ignore, if you can, that they call it “the most pragmatic and promising science.” Who told them that?

Understand, instead, that if you oppose the use of human embryos – and their destruction – for scientific research, you’re a religious nutcase, trying to impose your God on the rest of society.

Is that really the case? Of course not.

Newsflash: there’s a lot of debate on this issue, even within conservative circles. Many of us who oppose embryonic stem cell research understand and appreciate the other side’s arguments. Those embryos may – repeat may – end up destroyed, anyway, and the medical payoffs could – repeat could – be huge.

The idea of destroying human embryos, however, gives us pause.

Why doesn’t it give supporters pause? Do they not acknowledge it? Does it not, at least, make them think? Even if they’ve decided that the (theoretical) payoff is worth it?

No. Not according to the BNR. You either agree with us unreservedly, or you’re a Bible-thumping bigot.

I think I know why they think that way. The BNR editorial board doesn’t understand conservatism, because they don’t know any conservatives. Consider this paragraph:

Even conservative Republicans like Sen. Orrin Hatch and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger were appalled by Bush’s veto.

Arnold Schwarzenegger? A conservative Republican? Please. He’s nothing of the kind. A moderate, at best. Liberal, even, on social issues.

Someone who follows politics with a conservative viewpoint could have told them that. And therein, I think, lies the problem. The editorial board at the BNR doesn’t understand conservatism, doesn’t take conservatism seriously, because they don’t know any conservatives.

And it’s easy to marginalize people you don’t know, and never have.