Real World Event Discussions

Rush Limbaugh, Michael J. Fox and Parkinson's Disease

POSTED BY: misbehaven
UPDATED: Saturday, November 18, 2006 01:39
VIEWED: 26984
PAGE 7 of 19

SOUPCATCHER

Saturday, October 28, 2006 1:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza
I don't find that surprising at all. It's a contentious issue, and what politician is actually going to tell what they think if they don't have to? I'm pretty conservative and I'm on the fence on this one, and I suspect a lot of people are. Why risk pissing off your base by taking a stance they may not like in hopes of luring fence sitters like me. Vice versa, why risk losing fence sitters by making your right wing cowtowing so evident?

It may be a contentious issue but I think a lot of the noise against fully embracing embryonic stem cell research comes from a small segment of the population. Polls have consistently shown that a majority of Americans support easing or eliminating federal funding restrictions on embryonic stem cell research (sometimes this goes as high as seventy percent). This number is going up pretty much every year. When Bush vetoed the bill, he acted against the interests of a majority of Americans and for the interests of a small group. Now the majority is not always right. But the majority is the majority.

It's one thing for a Senator to refrain from publically stating his or her stance on an issue. But when you actually sign on to co-sponsor legislation that's a bold statement in and of itself (It's interesting that the bill that Talent co-sponsored would have had zero impact - everything it addressed was already legal and being funded - and was purely a publicity stunt). And when you vote against legislation, which Talent did with a bill that would have had a profound impact, then you're also making a statement. What Michael J. Fox is doing with his ad is calling attention to that No vote (and doing it in other congressional races). Nothing wrong with that in my book.

As far as the second claim in the ad (re: criminalizing things) I still have no clue about that.

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
I disagree, I happened to be listening on the way to work and he specifically addressed the ads content as well as questioning Fox's behavior. He was most vociferous on the very same thing you and I can seem to find any support for. Fox's claim that Talent would like to criminalize the research, but he more or less spoke to each point you brought up. He basically even had the same thing to say as you on the first two points. They are kind of hard to find fault with.

Well then we need to read the transcript of that portion. Because here's the transcript of the clip I've seen:

Quote:
Rush Limbaugh talking (via clip shown on Olbermann's show):
In this commercial, he is exaggerating the effects of this disease. He is moving all around, and shaking and it’s purely an act. This is the only time I have ever seen Michael J. Fox portray any symptoms of the disease he had.
...
He can control himself enough to stay in the frame of the picture. And he can control himself enough to keep his eyes right on the lens, the teleprompter. But his head and shoulders are moving all over the place.
...
This is really shameless, folks. This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn’t take his medication or he’s acting...

Now this isn't the entirety of his remarks, the ... show where they cut the video. But it seems pretty obvious to me what Rush Limbaugh is doing. This is further reinforced when you watch the clip and see the gestures he is making, in real time (not sped up as Limbaugh claims).

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
My uncle had Parkinsons, and passed when I was a bit younger. He had the tell tale tremors, but I don't think his condition was ever as bad as Fox's obviously is. You make a compelling arguement, and I don't think many would disagree. It assumes, however, that there is no research going on right now because of roadblocks in the way of researchers. The fact is that research is currently legal and ongoing. I'm not a very religious guy, but I think there are some compelling secular arguements for not going down that slippery slope if we don't have to. There are alternative, and think we shoul

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

RUE

Saturday, October 28, 2006 2:06 AM

Hey Soup,

Well, I appreciated the transcription.

RUE

Saturday, October 28, 2006 2:15 AM

"The Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative was developed in response to repeated attempts by some Missouri politicians to pass state legislation that would ban and criminalize stem cell research involving Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) – and prohibit Missouri patients from having access to future SCNT stem cell cures that are federally-approved for use in the United States."

Fox is fighting Missouri's attempts to criminalize any kind of stem cell therapy or work at the Federal level. He supports Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill, running against Republican Sen. James M. Talent. While I haven't looked it up, it's entirely possible that Talent supported Missouri's attempt to criminalize any kind of stem cell therapy or work.
----------

And I'm not going to spend more time looking into this, but Razza, you should look up if there are other STATES besides Missouri actively working on criminalizing stem cell research, and if those efforts are being supported by US congressmen.

SOUPCATCHER

Saturday, October 28, 2006 2:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"The Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative was developed in response to repeated attempts by some Missouri politicians to pass state legislation that would ban and criminalize stem cell research involving Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) – and prohibit Missouri patients from having access to future SCNT stem cell cures that are federally-approved for use in the United States."

Fox is fighting Missouri's attempts to criminalize any kind of stem cell therapy or work at the Federal level. He supports Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill, running against Republican Sen. James M. Talent. While I haven't looked it up, it's entirely possible that Talent supported Missouri's attempt to criminalize any kind of stem cell therapy or work.
----------

And I'm not going to spend more time looking into this, but Razza, you should look up if there are other STATES besides Missouri actively working on criminalizing stem cell research, and if those efforts are being supported by US congressmen.

Ah. Thanks, Rue. That makes more sense. I haven't paid any attention to Missouri before this so that part of the ad just wasn't working for me.

RAZZA

Saturday, October 28, 2006 2:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
THIS IS WHAT RUSH SAID:
He is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act. . . . This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting.

Rush said Fox was SHAMELESS. That was purely a personal attack that had NOTHING to do with the issues. So I'm not quite ready to get past Rush.

"It may be a little inappropriate and rude, but hardly an act deserving of such gaping condemnation." REALLY! Rush said Fox was 'exaggerating the effects of the disease.' It was highly ignorant. It was cruel to anyone who has Parkinson's and is facing certain - and gruesome - death. It belittled the agony of families who have to deal with suffering members.

Those symptoms are inevitable. They are as frightening, debilitating and painful as they look.

So why do you stick up for Rush's ignorance and cruelty, and take Fox to task for his ad?

Well, if you can't get past Limbaugh at least you finally got past insulting and personally attacking me. Not sure how your actions are any different, and at least Limbaugh has issued some apologies. Don't worry I'm not interested in getting one from you or Chrisisall.

I don't defend Rush's "ignorance and cruelty" as you characterize it, but I do defend his right to question Fox's position on the issue of stem cell research. As I said before, Fox opened the door for Limbaugh's speculation about his behavior with his own words, why do you choose to ignore that?

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative was developed in response to repeated attempts by some Missouri politicians to pass state legislation that would ban and criminalize stem cell research involving Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) – and prohibit Missouri patients from having access to future SCNT stem cell cures that are federally-approved for use in the United States."

And the Bill's wording leaves open the possibility of using Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (the process used to clone Dolly the Sheep) for cloning human genes. You could probably persuade me that unfettered stem cell research is a good thing if you hadn't resorted to personal attacks, but I'd have to draw the line at human cloning like the vast majority of americans. Clean up the wording of the bill and there is not problem.

-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."

---Napoleon Bonaparte

RUE

Saturday, October 28, 2006 2:44 AM

You really should change your sign-off to "Keep the shiny side up."

RUE

Saturday, October 28, 2006 3:07 AM

dbl

RUE

Saturday, October 28, 2006 3:10 AM

Razza,

Perhaps you didn't read Fox's quote. Or you read it and didn't understand it. It says:

"I had made a deliberate choice to appear before the subcommittee without medication. It seemed to me that this occasion demanded that my testimony about the effects of the disease, and the urgency we as a community were feeling, be seen as well as heard. For people who had never observed me in this kind of shape, the transformation must have been startling."

To simplify it so you can understand, I'll draw an analogy. As I get older, my hair turns grey. To mask the appearance I color my hair. It doesn't change that fact that I'm getting older and, biochemically, my hair is grey and will always be grey. It just makes it look different temporarily.

That's what medication does for Parkinson's. It temporarily masks the symptoms. The disease, and its effects, are still there, ready to come back when the medication wears off. Progressing as time goes on until no medication can mask the symptoms at all.

RUE

Saturday, October 28, 2006 3:11 AM

Hey SoupCatcher,

I was looking for something else and ran across this post on a blog:

"I saw something on television last night, part of the ad session that is not used a lot, where he explains that he is not a political person, but that his cause is advocating for Parkinson's. He is doing this as a way to get through to Missourians about the need for stem cell research BECAUSE Missouri has an initiative on the ballot to out law stem cell research. McCaskill, as flawed as she can be, is definitely against the initiative."

SOUPCATCHER

Saturday, October 28, 2006 3:38 AM

Thanks, Rue. As always, your ability to track down online information that adds to the discussion is greatly appreciated (at least by me).