However. Despite his protestations that he offers "merely" a comedy show, and that he is a "clearly labeled snake oil salesman," I do wonder at what point people enter into a position of responsibility with regard to the truth of things. John Stewart has many people on his show. For example Brian Williams gets on there repeatedly. And yet I doubt Brian Williams will EVER get the kind of treatment Kramer got, even though he most definitely should. Stewart here is taking advantage of a cultural mood that gives him room to roast someone. And yet it is quite clear that MANY of his guests could be critiqued in a similar fashion. Why does he not do this?

The argument offered is that he merely runs a comedy show and therefore is not under any obligation to offer substantive interviews. If he chooses to he can, but he is under no requirement moral or otherwise to be a journalist. He's a comedian. One sees a similar defense from others. Limbaugh is merely an "entertainer" and therefore should get a pass to do whatever he might like. Kramer even offers a lame version of this defense for cable: "we have to fill 17 hours of live air." Bloggers do this to: "I'm just a blogger, I don't have to meet the same standards as journalists." And so on. It's the "I have not claimed any high ground and therefore have no obligation to meet a consistent standard."

On Wednesday, only two days after he lifted President Bush's executive order banning federal funding of stem cell research that requires the destruction of human embryos, President Barack Obama signed a law that explicitly bans federal funding of any "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death."

The provision was buried in the 465-page omnibus appropriations bill that Obama signed Wednesday.  Known as the Dickey-Wicker amendment, it has been included in the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services every fiscal year since 1996.

I don't know much about CNS News Service (except that I pass the building on my way into work), but the actual provision sure enough, says:

Link

SEC. 509. (a) None of the funds made available in this  Act may be used 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 greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.204(b) and section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)).

(b) For purposes of this section, the term "human
embryo or embryos" includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of this Act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or
more human gametes or human diploid cells.

The story goes on to say:

Close observers on both sides of the embryonic stem cell issue were well aware of the Dickey-Wicker amendment, and understood that it would pose a legal obstacle to federal funding of embryo-killing research even if President Obama issued an executive order reversing President Bush's administrative policy denying federal funding to that research.

Rep. Diana DeGette (D.-Colo.) sponsored the House version of a bill--vetoed by President Bush--that would have legalized federal funding of stem cell research that destroys so-called "spare" human embryos taken from in vitro fertilization clinics.  On Monday, she told The New York Times she had already approached what she called "several pro-life Democrats" about the possibility of repealing Dickey-Wicker.

"Dickey-Wicker is 13 years old now, and I think we need to review these policies,'' The Times quoted DeGette as saying. "I've already talked to several pro-life Democrats about Dickey-Wicker, and they seemed open to the concept of reversing the policy if we could show that it was necessary to foster this research."

Rep. Mike Castle (R.-Del.), who co-sponsored Rep. DeGette's bill, similarly stated this week that Dickey-Wicker should be revisited.

"Certainly, the Dickey-Wicker amendment . . . is something we need to look at," Castle told Congressional Quarterly Today on Monday. "That was passed in 1996, before we realized the full potential of embryonic stem cell research. Some researchers are telling us now that that needs to be reversed."