>Every time I note someone else’s editorial or grammatical mistakes, I (later, of course) find that I’ve made some glaring mistake of my own in that comment. I’ll try to avoid that here, but read closely, just in case.
Nevertheless, . . .
If you could identify with anyone called a “mouth breathing Pentecostal,” don’t read the first (which I believe is
a rant from authored by Art Caplan) concerning the ensoulment of cloned humans (my previous discussion is here) unless you can brush off the insult. (However, perhaps someone who does read it could tell me how the editors and pseudoeditors (e&p) could believe that Ben Franklin “wouldn’t have allowed a column as dumb as Answer Fella to exist in the first place.”)
In my own snide, petty manner, I’m copying the slip up of the e&p before they repair it further:
Well, listening was
New RepublicNational Review Senior Analyst Ramesh Ponnuru, and you can watch what Berger and Moreno do to his analysis of their piece on the CAP site linked above. No point quoting it, I’m just not capable of typing even one more time either the work by or the critique of the New Republic/Weekly Standard on stem cells.
Note the strike-out on the first “New Republic,” but, as yet, none at the second.
I’ve asked the e&p to explain the difference between their own “progressive” (read: “prochoice, pro-embryo destruction, and – with rare exceptions – non-believers) editorial relationships and the conservatives’ (read: “prolife and believers – again, with rare exceptions – in a Creator”) relationship with like-minded publications.
In contrast to the frequent and incestuous association of the “progressives” with the very organizations they’re supposed to be reviewing, of course.