[TETENAL]

Was Michael J. Fox enacting or exaggerating the effects of his disease for political reasons?

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/1...michael-j-fox/

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/1...t-of-limbaugh/

If not, do you think it's correct to exploit one's personal fate for a political gain?

[Mithras]

Yeah, I'm surprised this hasn't come up here already. Fox's interview with what's-her-name was thoughtful, articulate, and moving.

[stupendousman]

A. Stem cell research is already legal in MS.

B. Fox has already admitted to using his illness for dramatic effect to get sympathy.

C. Fox falsely implied that the other guy didn't want a cure for things like Parkinson's.

I think given the facts, Limbaugh hit the nail on the head. Either sit on the porch with the little dogs and don't play politics, or if you're going to sling mud and exagerate to try to score points, you're fair game.

[Nicko]

For a more balenced perspective

Brain Disease
The psychosis of Rush Limbaugh.
By William Saletan
Posted Friday, Oct. 27, 2006, at 7:49 PM ET

I once had a friend who listened to Rush Limbaugh three hours a day. He was a Republican operative. He sat in my apartment, wearing headphones, while I worked. He swore that if I put on the headphones for 10 minutes, I'd be hooked. So I put them on.

Inside the headphones was another world. Everyone in this world thought the same way, except liberals, and they were only cartoon characters, to be defeated as though in a video game. In the real world, my friend was unemployed and had been staying with me, rent-free, for two months. But inside the headphones, he could laugh about welfare bums instead of pounding the pavement.

I thought about that this week when Limbaugh went after his latest target: Michael J. Fox. Fox, who has Parkinson's disease, has been appearing in ads for candidates who support government-funded embryonic stem-cell research. The ads promote this research as a potential cure for Parkinson's and other ailments.

On Monday, Limbaugh played one of the ads for his audience. "In this commercial, he is exaggerating the effects of the disease," Limbaugh said of Fox. "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 of the symptoms of the disease he has. ... This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting, one of the two."

Where had Limbaugh seen Fox? "I've seen him on Boston Legal, I've seen him on a number of stand-up appearances," said Limbaugh. He pointed to Fox's autobiography. Fox "admits in the book that before a Senate subcommittee … he did not take his medication, for the purposes of having the ravages and the horrors of Parkinson's disease illustrated, which was what he has done in the commercials," Limbaugh charged.

In the book, Fox tells the story of his life in the real world—the world his body inhabited, as opposed to the make-believe world Limbaugh saw on television. Fox describes how, during "the years I spent promoting the fiction that none of this was actually happening to me," he learned "to titrate medication so that it kicked in before an appearance or performance … I did everything I could to make sure the audience didn't know I was sick. This, as much as anything, had, by 1998, become my 'acting.' " When he came out of the Parkinson's closet, Fox recalls, he chose "to appear before the subcommittee without medication. It seemed to me that this occasion demanded that my testimony about the effects of the disease … be seen as well as heard."

Here we have two completely different notions of reality. Fox's job was to portray characters in movies and on television. For him, Parkinson's was an invasion of the fake world by the real one. The medication, designed to hide this from the audience, became part of the fiction. In going off his meds, he was dropping the act.

Limbaugh's life story has gone the other way. His job was to explain politics, a branch of nonfiction. But for him, the fake world has overtaken the real one. He thinks reality is what's on Boston Legal. Anything that doesn't match this must be "acting." If you go off your meds on purpose, you're not revealing your symptoms. You're "portraying" them.

Radio, television, and the Internet greased Limbaugh's descent into fantasy. Years ago, a profile described him "holed up in his New York apartment with Chinese take-out and a stack of rented movies." In another profile, he "complained that he has virtually no social life." Click the video links on his Web site, and you can peer into his world. He sits in a soundproof studio. He never has to go outside.

In Limbaugh's world, "there never was a surplus" under President Clinton. AIDS "hasn't made that jump to the heterosexual community," and cutting food stamps is harmless because recipients "aren't using them." Two years ago, Limbaugh said the minimum wage was $6 or $7 an hour. Last year, he said gas was $1.29 a gallon.

Limbaugh has particular trouble distinguishing reality from entertainment. The abuse at Abu Ghraib "looks just like anything you'd see Madonna or Britney Spears do on stage," he told his listeners. Last month, he defended ABC's 9/11 movie against the document on which it purported to rely: "The 9-11 Commission report, for example, says, well, some of these things didn't happen the way they were portrayed in the movie. How do they know that?"

Last year, Limbaugh, who used a tailbone defect to get out of the Vietnam draft, accused a Democratic candidate of having served in Iraq "to pad the resume." He charged several veterans—including former Sen. Max Cleland, who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam—with trying "to hide their liberalism behind a military uniform … pretending to be something that they are not." When war is just another television show, a uniform is just another costume. Liberalism is real; losing your limbs is a pretense.

Which brings us back to stem cells. Limbaugh says Fox's ads dangle a prospect of imminent cures "that is not reality." He's right. But the ads convey another reality: a man dying of a disease that might be cured more quickly if the government dropped its restrictions on research funding. Limbaugh dismisses this as a "script" being followed by Fox's "PR people" and "the entertainment media." Script? Entertainment? This is life and death.

I have another friend. He has Parkinson's. I've seen him on good days and bad days. That's how I know Fox isn't faking it. My friend doesn't see the destruction of embryos as a dangerous price to pay for stem-cell research. I do. But if you worry about the embryos, you had bloody well better look into the eyes of the people dying of these diseases. You had better ask yourself whether slowing research that might save them is an acceptable price for your principles.

If you can't—if all you can see is "acting"—then you need more help than they do. Fox's disease can only take your body. Limbaugh's can take your soul.

A version of this article also appears in the Outlook section of the Sunday Washington Post.
William Saletan is Slate's national correspondent and author of Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War.

Article URL: The psychosis of Rush Limbaugh. - By William Saletan - Slate Magazine

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

If not, do you think it's correct to exploit one's personal fate for a political gain?

That's a pretty loaded way of asking the question. What political gain could MJ Fox obtain?

[Spliffdaddy]

More than we ever could. But it doesn't seem to stop us from trying.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

More than we ever could. But it doesn't seem to stop us from trying.

So what are you saying? You think that MJ Fox is better than you? Or that he has the courage to stand up for what he believes in?

[besson3c]

It's too bad many people seem to have formed in their head that stem cell research is either good or bad, when what is being debated is *embryonic* stem cell research, which is a very specific form.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's too bad many people seem to have formed in their head that stem cell research is either good or bad, when what is being debated is *embryonic* stem cell research, which is a very specific form.

You're right ofcourse. But what I find interesting is that this isn't what is being argued... the notion that somehow MJ Fox is 'faking' his disease is the issue. Add to this the cynical truth that Rove and his gang know this, is this not a failure of democracy? Even a little?

However, I don't see MJ Fox controversy lasting more than another 24-36 hours. I think the new non-issue of the moment are those books that Webb guy wrote about Vietnam.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

You're right ofcourse. But what I find interesting is that this isn't what is being argued... the notion that somehow MJ Fox is 'faking' his disease is the issue. Add to this the cynical truth that Rove and his gang know this, is this not a failure of democracy? Even a little?

However, I don't see MJ Fox controversy lasting more than another 24-36 hours. I think the new non-issue of the moment are those books that Webb guy wrote about Vietnam.

I guess this is sort of similar to the 9/11 widows allegedly trying to cash in politically on the failures of our intelligence in wanting investigations that Abe was freaking out about?


I miss Abe already...

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's too bad many people seem to have formed in their head that stem cell research is either good or bad, when what is being debated is *embryonic* stem cell research, which is a very specific form.

I agree.

The thing is, MJF is only helping to further confuse the issue with his inferences that a guy who supported the current laws allowing stem cell research is actually opposed to SCR...while purposely not taking his medication in order to milk sympathy for his politically partisan cause.

The word "shameless" comes to mind.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I agree.

The thing is, MJF is only helping to further confuse the issue with his inferences that a guy who supported the current laws allowing stem cell research is actually opposed to SCR...while purposely not taking his medication in order to milk sympathy for his politically partisan cause.

The word "shameless" comes to mind.

I don't know enough about MJF and this issue, nor do I really care to delve into MJF's motives really, to be honest...

It's a shame that when somebody stands up and tries to get attention on some sort of issue, people immediately try to tarnish the person who is saying something and this becomes an overwhelming distraction from what is actually being said.

Focus on the message, who cares about the messenger? This goes in regards to Bill Cosby as well, as well as some other celebrity-type figures that would come to mind if I gave it more thought.

It's also a shame that only celebrities seem capable of drawing attention to things, but I guess that's a whole other argument.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I agree.

The thing is, MJF is only helping to further confuse the issue with his inferences that a guy who supported the current laws allowing stem cell research is actually opposed to SCR...while purposely not taking his medication in order to milk sympathy for his politically partisan cause.

The word "shameless" comes to mind.

Except that what you said is not factually true - he did take his medication, the tremors are a side effect of the medication. And current policy is preventing advances in ESCR in the US compared to the policy that MJF wants.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Yeah, that's weird. The symptom of the disease is that you _can't_ move. The drug allows you to move, and since it's not a very good drug (think of it like raising the volume on a radio tuned to the wrong station, rather than being able to tune it to the right station), it induces additional involuntary movement in the form of resting tremor. So it's pretty weird that anyone could get away with an accusation that doesn't make any sense from the outset. Until you realise that no one in this debate cares about the facts that is.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Except that what you said is not factually true - he did take his medication, the tremors are a side effect of the medication.

He's already gone on record as saying that in the past he has not taken his medication in order for the "side effects" we saw (like when he testified before congress) to be present.

And current policy is preventing advances in ESCR in the US compared to the policy that MJF wants.

BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT HE SAID. THAT is what's the point.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's a shame that when somebody stands up and tries to get attention on some sort of issue, people immediately try to tarnish the person who is saying something and this becomes an overwhelming distraction from what is actually being said.

It normally only happens when the person doing it is being disingenuous, as MJF was in the commercial whose motive is clearly partisan. He's supported liberal causes and candidates for years and now there's a way he can USE his disability to help in a partisan way and is doing so. I'd believe otherwise if he had been honest about the issue itself and not done everything he could to
paint the other guy as simply not wanting a cure

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

He's already gone on record as saying that in the past he has not taken his medication in order for the "side effects" we saw (like when he testified before congress) to be present.

I don't know about that, but it wasn't the case in this instance, and it isn't a "partisan political cause" as you claim.

BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT HE SAID. THAT is what's the point.

Fox in the ad said Talent opposes expansion of stem cell research. That is absolutely true. Now what is YOUR point?

[Spliffdaddy]

I thought Talent said he opposed federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

After a bit of research, it appears I'm right.

So, Michael J Fox told 2 blantant lies about Talent. That's indisputable.

TALENT: I am a strong supporter of stem cell research. I'm strongly opposed to human cloning. In the Senate, I have already supported more than $2.2 billion for adult, umbilical and other types of stem cell research that does not involve the cloning or destruction of human embryos.

TALENT: Earlier this year I delivered a speech on the Senate floor in opposition to human cloning and in support of stem cell alternatives that will allow us to get exactly the stem cells we want to relieve human suffering without creating, destroying, or cloning a human embryo. I said during that speech that it appears that the very advances of science that have caused the ethical dilemmas in this area of stem cell research are now providing a solution. The alternatives seek a genuine way forward that all Americans can wholeheartedly endorse. Some of these methods even offer the possibility of obtaining superior stem cells with potential scientific and medical advantages over those that could be obtained by destroying embryos.

In the Senate, I have voted enthusiastically for the alternatives and a prohibition against fetus farms. I voted against the measure to use tax dollars to fund research that requires the destruction of embryos. The federal government has never funded such research before, and that is not a line I wish to cross — especially since it is possible to fund every type of stem cell research without cloning or destroying human embryos.

Full Text of Interview >> News-Leader.com | Elections - U.S. Senate

[King Bob On The Cob]

I'm always going to say that synthetics are going to be a much more promising field than stem cell research.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

I thought Talent said he opposed federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

After a bit of research, it appears I'm right.

So, Michael J Fox told 2 blantant lies about Talent. That's indisputable.

TALENT: I am a strong supporter of stem cell research. I'm strongly opposed to human cloning. In the Senate, I have already supported more than $2.2 billion for adult, umbilical and other types of stem cell research that does not involve the cloning or destruction of human embryos.

TALENT: Earlier this year I delivered a speech on the Senate floor in opposition to human cloning and in support of stem cell alternatives that will allow us to get exactly the stem cells we want to relieve human suffering without creating, destroying, or cloning a human embryo. I said during that speech that it appears that the very advances of science that have caused the ethical dilemmas in this area of stem cell research are now providing a solution. The alternatives seek a genuine way forward that all Americans can wholeheartedly endorse. Some of these methods even offer the possibility of obtaining superior stem cells with potential scientific and medical advantages over those that could be obtained by destroying embryos.

In the Senate, I have voted enthusiastically for the alternatives and a prohibition against fetus farms. I voted against the measure to use tax dollars to fund research that requires the destruction of embryos. The federal government has never funded such research before, and that is not a line I wish to cross — especially since it is possible to fund every type of stem cell research without cloning or destroying human embryos.

Full Text of Interview >> News-Leader.com | Elections - U.S. Senate

Maybe you interpret differently than the rest of the media, but that excerpt fully supports Fox. If you don't agree with Fox's POV atleast be honest about it, no need to twist the truth to your liking.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I don't know about that, but it wasn't the case in this instance, and it isn't a "partisan political cause" as you claim. Fox in the ad said Talent opposes expansion of stem cell research. That is absolutely true. Now what is YOUR point?

Exactly what I said.

A. Fox has admitted in a book that he uses his "side effects" for dramatic political gain. Now, when called on it in this instance, apparently he denies doing it. I know what he's already admitted to, and I've seen other commercials (you know...things that are filmed that can be done in multiple takes to avoid performances that aren't up to par) where he talks normally. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to put two and two together in this case.

B. Fox doesn't JUST say that talent opposes expansion of stem cell research, and even simply stating it in those terms leaves people who don't understand the issue the false inference that Talent opposes expanding REGULAR stem cell research totally instead of just opposing using new human embryos for experimentation. He goes as far as to accuse Talent of wanting "to criminalize the science that gives us a chance for hope." "Criminalizing the science"? Maybe he wants to burn books as well? A totally disingenuous partisan swipe. No two ways about it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

B. Fox doesn't JUST say that talent opposes expansion of stem cell research, and even simply stating it in those terms leaves people who don't understand the issue the false inference that Talent opposes expanding REGULAR stem cell research totally instead of just opposing using new human embryos for experimentation. He goes as far as to accuse Talent of wanting "to criminalize the science that gives us a chance for hope." "Criminalizing the science"? Maybe he wants to burn books as well? A totally disingenuous partisan swipe. No two ways about it.

I think what takes this into the realm of exploitation is the suggestion that one side is fighting for hope and the other is not. One side wants to help the afflicted, the other side does not.

In Fox's defense, I've visited his site MJF foundation and there's certainly no partisan quackery littered throughout. I was pleased to see that. However, according to his own site under the side-effects of the medication;

Another limitation of levodopa is the development of dyskinesias, a debilitating side effect of the medicine that affects about 80 percent of people with Parkinson’s. These uncontrollable movements, which can be described as lurching, dance-like, or wavy, result most frequently after five to 10 years of treatment with levodopa, and are distinct from the rhythmic tremor commonly associated with Parkinson's disease. They are often exacerbated by stressful situations. While the dose of levodopa can be reduced in order to lessen these drug-induced movements, this may lead to the reappearance of tremor, slowness, and stiffness. If dyskinesias are severe, surgical treatment may be considered.

When accused by Rush as having potentially not taken the medication to dramatize the condition, Fox stated on Oprah that he had ironically taken "too much" medication. Given what Fox himself has stated about his non-use of medication to dramatize the condition in the past, you have to wonder if in this case he misused the medication for the same reason in the ad. I can understand Fox's motivations and there's likely little he wouldn't do to help Parkinson's research funding, but it seems nothing short of exploitation this time. I'm not sure this is the "hope" they're looking for.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

When accused by Rush as having potentially not taken the medication to dramatize the condition, Fox stated on Oprah that he had ironically taken "too much" medication. Given what Fox himself has stated about his non-use of medication to dramatize the condition in the past, you have to wonder if in this case he misused the medication for the same reason in the ad. I can understand Fox's motivations and there's likely little he wouldn't do to help Parkinson's research funding, but it seems nothing short of exploitation this time. I'm not sure this is the "hope" they're looking for.

The shaking is a side-effect from taking the medication. If fox didn't take the medication he wouldn't be able to move at all. So what about this is exploitation? It's obvious Rush tried to appeal to his audience's ignorance towards the disease. Rush didn't address Fox's argument on an intellectual level, rather he appealed to an irrational emotional response of intolerance. Rational people can obviously see through the ruse, while others fall for the circus act that Rush presents. Rush is an entertainer, he isn't seriously addressing any of these issues.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Exactly what I said.

A. Fox has admitted in a book that he uses his "side effects" for dramatic political gain. Now, when called on it in this instance, apparently he denies doing it. I know what he's already admitted to, and I've seen other commercials (you know...things that are filmed that can be done in multiple takes to avoid performances that aren't up to par) where he talks normally. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to put two and two together in this case.

Limbaugh said it was all an act and flailed his arms around mocking Fox. Have you seen the video of it? It was disgusting, and you're defending it.

B. Fox doesn't JUST say that talent opposes expansion of stem cell research, and even simply stating it in those terms leaves people who don't understand the issue the false inference that Talent opposes expanding REGULAR stem cell research totally instead of just opposing using new human embryos for experimentation. He goes as far as to accuse Talent of wanting "to criminalize the science that gives us a chance for hope." "Criminalizing the science"? Maybe he wants to burn books as well? A totally disingenuous partisan swipe. No two ways about it.

Nothing in the ad was factually incorrect, and nothing was partisan. Fox also campaigned for Republican Arlen Specter. Our current law severely limits research, and if a few more people like Talent were out of the senate, Bush's veto could be overridden and this research could be greatly expanded.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

When accused by Rush as having potentially not taken the medication to dramatize the condition, Fox stated on Oprah that he had ironically taken "too much" medication.

By which he meant that he's been on it for years. And that's what's caused him to have such severe side effects from it. And that's exactly why it's important that we find an alternative treatment, because the current treatment is almost as bad as the disease itself.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

By which he meant that he's been on it for years. And that's what's caused him to have such severe side effects from it. And that's exactly why it's important that we find an alternative treatment, because the current treatment is almost as bad as the disease itself.

Uh oh, you're falling into the trap of actually discussing the real issue!

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Uh oh, you're falling into the trap of actually discussing the real issue!

Whoops, sorry about that.

...

Rush Limbaugh is a fat piece of lying conservative ****!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

The shaking is a side-effect from taking the medication. If fox didn't take the medication he wouldn't be able to move at all.

According to the link I provided, the dosage can be decreased to lessen the exaggerated nature of its side-effects.

So what about this is exploitation?

The suggestion that one side seeks to criminalize hope, while the other side provides it.

It's obvious Rush tried to appeal to his audience's ignorance towards the disease. Rush didn't address Fox's argument on an intellectual level, rather he appealed to an irrational emotional response of intolerance.

What do you mean by Intolerance? I think it has more to do with the fact that Fox did not address Fox's argument on an intellectual level in the ad, appealing only to an irrational degree of emotional partisanship.

Rational people can obviously see through the ruse, while others fall for the circus act that Rush presents. Rush is an entertainer, he isn't seriously addressing any of these issues.

As a rational person, you would realize Rush is more than an entertainer, he's a political commentator who entertains. It would not make sense for a political commentator to critique a medical agenda in and of itself, but he may certainly offer his view on political agendas. You would expect nothing less from Rush. Intolerant or not, this ad is not running in my State, but I've seen it at least three times now because of Rush. I don't think that's so bad.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Whoops, sorry about that.

...

Rush Limbaugh is a fat piece of lying conservative ****!

I can't tell what you find most reprehensible. Conservatism, obesity, lying, or ****?

I like Rush Limbaugh. I also happen to like Lionel. Why? They're both entertaining and well... I might be a little more tolerant in general.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Limbaugh said it was all an act and flailed his arms around mocking Fox. Have you seen the video of it? It was disgusting, and you're defending it.

I'm not defending Limbaugh's "mocking", I'm defending Limbaugh's point: that this was a dishonest partisan attack using Fox's problem to play on the emotions of viewers.

Nothing in the ad was factually incorrect, and nothing was partisan.

Something can be deliberately misleading AND factually correct. This was the case here, and since it was used to promote one political candidate over another, it was partisan.

[hey!_Zeus]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

He's already gone on record as saying that in the past he has not taken his medication in order for the "side effects" we saw (like when he testified before congress) to be present.

I'd advise you to learn more about Parkinson's before flapping your lippy lips.

Heh, I first read your name as stupidman, I really did! Then I realized my mistake. Just sayin'.

I don't really think that. I just think you're ignorant.

LIMBAUGH CALLS CHRISTOPHER REEVE FAKER

Hollywood — Rush Limbaugh has accused Christopher Reeve of exaggerating his paralysis and death in recent TV ads for Democratic candidates who support stem cell research. “These Hollywood liberals will go to any length — even rolling around in a wheel chair they don’t need and faking their death — to get Democrats elected,” Limbaugh said on his radio show Wednesday.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

As a rational person, you would realize Rush is more than an entertainer, he's a political commentator who entertains. It would not make sense for a political commentator to critique a medical agenda in and of itself, but he may certainly offer his view on political agendas. You would expect nothing less from Rush. Intolerant or not, this ad is not running in my State, but I've seen it at least three times now because of Rush. I don't think that's so bad.

Ok so you like listening to Rush, thats fine. I like watching the Daily Show. However, I would be an idiot if I used an example from the daily show when discussing a serious issue.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Ok so you like listening to Rush, thats fine. I like watching the Daily Show. However, I would be an idiot if I used an example from the daily show when discussing a serious issue.

You don't think satirical political commentary is useful in bringing serious political issues to light? I disagree.

There was an example of this locally last month. The Northeast section of my town is particularly troubled with crime and poverty. In an effort to assuage these conditions, those district leaders have been airing a "Discover Northeast _______ " campaign. Unfortunately, this year there have been exponentially more unresolved shootings and deaths in this part of town than ever before and some other officials believe the efforts of improvement there have been misdirected and severely mishandled. A local radio host ran a parody of the "discover" campaign which unleashed a shxx-storm of controversy. More attention has been given to that part of town now than at any other point since I've been here. They now have the attention of the entire city and more eyes and expectations are upon them to do something about it. Ultimitely, I see it as a good thing.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm not defending Limbaugh's "mocking", I'm defending Limbaugh's point: that this was a dishonest partisan attack using Fox's problem to play on the emotions of viewers.



Something can be deliberately misleading AND factually correct. This was the case here, and since it was used to promote one political candidate over another, it was partisan.

How is it 'dishonest' to show the symptoms of a disease when trying to argue in favor of avenues of research that might speed it's cure? Yes, seeing someone who's ravaged both by Parkinson's and by the extreme side effects of it's medication will affect the viewers emotionally. So what? Is it wrong to feel? Is it wrong to make decisions based on feelings? Is it wrong to try and cure a disease solely because it affects you emotionally to see someone afflicted by it?

I don't understand what the problem here is.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hey!_Zeus 

I'd advise you to learn more about Parkinson's before flapping your lippy lips.

Heh, I first read your name as stupidman, I really did! Then I realized my mistake. Just sayin'.

I don't really think that. I just think you're ignorant. ;

When I first read this post, I thought it was going to be a thoughtful rebutal. I really did! Then I realized all it contained was mindless name calling.

Just sayin'; :lol

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

How is it 'dishonest' to show the symptoms of a disease when trying to argue in favor of avenues of research that might speed it's cure?

That single part isn't "dishonest". That would be better known as "manipulative". As a whole though, the effort was dishonest.

Yes, seeing someone who's ravaged both by Parkinson's and by the extreme side effects of it's medication will affect the viewers emotionally. So what? Is it wrong to feel? Is it wrong to make decisions based on feelings? Is it wrong to try and cure a disease solely because it affects you emotionally to see someone afflicted by it?

I don't understand what the problem here is.

So you also don't have a problem with anti-abortion commercials showing late term babies with their brains sucked out? Sure, it will elicit a strong emotional response...but, "so what? Is it wrong to feel?"



The point is that Fox clearly made a special effort he wouldn't otherwise, to use his condition to manipulate people to act on a dishonest and misleading claim. That makes him fair game.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The point is that Fox clearly made a special effort he wouldn't otherwise, to use his condition to manipulate people to act on a dishonest and misleading claim. That makes him fair game.

Well, Fox didn't manipulate his condition, he presented it honestly. Rush even back tracked on his initial claim and invented a new one against Fox. Sure Fox is fair game, but he's a person of integrity, where as Rush is a bottom feeder with no soul. It's good to see though that most people could easily distinguish the two.

[BRussell]

Haha, I love the conservative notion of "fair game." What it means to a conservative is that you can lie about them. Fox believes in medical research and so campaigns for politicians of both parties who want to expand medical research? Fair game for conservatives to mock him and falsely accuse him of "acting" and falsely accuse him of being partisan.

The families of those who died on 9/11 push for our government to improve security? They're fair game, and so conservatives falsely say they "enjoyed their husbands' deaths."

John Kerry was a war hero in Vietnam and runs for president? He's therefore fair game and so conservatives falsely accuse him of faking his heroism to fraudulently obtain medals, to the point where they were handing out purple heart band aids at the Republican convention.

The basic problem here is the view that politics is just mindless, irrelevant partisanship, and therefore truth doesn't matter. But it's not irrelevant; we're talking about things like wars, medical progress, economic consequences, etc., that are very real. Fox's ad was completely appropriate and completely truthful. The attacks against him have not been.

The fact is, Republicans and conservatives have much more responsibility than Democrats or liberals for the current tone of politics that has the most influential and popular conservative waving his arms mocking a guy with Parkinson's disease, and average conservatives defending it. It's the same phenomenon that has the Republican party making a planned strategic effort to vastly outdo Democrats on nasty personal negativity in their political campaigns.

No, that doesn't fit into the balanced view that it's always both sides. But the truth isn't always balanced.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Well, Fox didn't manipulate his condition, he presented it honestly.

Stopping taking your medication when you normally do, in order to give the impression that you always appear a certain way is most certainly manipulative, and when you do it in order to sell a misleading claim, it's part of a dishonest effort. You can dance around the details all you want, you still get the same conclusion.

[zerroeffect]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So you also don't have a problem with anti-abortion commercials showing late term babies with their brains sucked out? Sure, it will elicit a strong emotional response...but, "so what? Is it wrong to feel?"

Completely invalid argument. One is a man who can't control his movements due to a debilitating disease, not while the other is just plain gross and a-typical (as far as I know - are late-term abortions legal?). Anyway, rated G vs rated R. Get it?

As for MJF manipulating the viewers, how is this any different than anyone else on tv or the radio or any public forum for that matter (Limbaugh included)? You are constantly influenced by other people and, even if you say you aren't, are constantly trying to persuade others with your beliefs. It's a vicious cycle.

The difference with this issue is that MJF is doing this for a good cause. People see embryonic stem cell research as ethically wrong, yet the death penalty is still in use and we are fighting some war in a far off oil land where young men and women are dying for their country (for our "leaders", who are ordinary people with personal agendas).

I can honestly say that I had no idea Parkinson's disease caused a person to "stop" moving. I didn't realize that it was the medicine causing the shaking. I have learned something new here and this discussion (argument) about MJF has piqued my interest in finding out more about this disease. His commercial worked for me (in a round about way).

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Haha, I love the conservative notion of "fair game." What it means to a conservative is that you can lie about them.

I'm fairly moderate (most conservatives I know think I'm too liberal, and most liberals think I'm too conservative depending on the issue), and MY definition is that you can tell the ugly truth about them without fear that it can be rightly claimed that you are "picking on" someone.

Fair game for conservatives to mock him and falsely accuse him of "acting" and falsely accuse him of being partisan.

He's accused himself of taking special effort to manipulate people and I've already outlined how his actions were partisan. You can keep rephrasing your defense of his dishonest actions all you want but it won't change the truth.

Fox's ad was completely appropriate and completely truthful. The attacks against him have not been.

It's been outlined how it was inappropriate and dishonest regardless if you can claim "technically" he didn't say anything untrue. The best liars always seem to have an ability to mislead while still being able to say that they technically never lied (it's the same thing Limbaugh uses when he's exagerating a point). It's the "it depends on what the definition of 'is" is" defense. That might be your criteria for determining honesty. It's not mine.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by zerroeffect 

As for MJF manipulating the viewers, how is this any different than anyone else on tv or the radio or any public forum for that matter (Limbaugh included)? You are constantly influenced by other people and, even if you say you aren't, are constantly trying to persuade others with your beliefs. It's a vicious cycle.

I don't disagree. My point is that MJF is no better than anyone else (like Limbaugh) and if it's okay for Limbaugh to be criticized for misleading or exagerating, then it's fair for MJF to get some as well.

The difference with this issue is that MJF is doing this for a good cause.

Limbaugh would tell you the same thing. You can agree or disagree, but dishonesty for a "good cause" is still dishonesty regardless if it's Limbaugh or MJF.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's been outlined how it was inappropriate and dishonest regardless if you can claim "technically" he didn't say anything untrue. The best liars always seem to have an ability to mislead while still being able to say that they technically never lied (it's the same thing Limbaugh uses when he's exagerating a point). It's the "it depends on what the definition of 'is" is" defense. That might be your criteria for determining honesty. It's not mine.

The only flaw in your argument is that the ONLY person accusing Fox of being dishonest is Rush.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

The only flaw in your argument is that the ONLY person accusing Fox of being dishonest is Rush.

What am I? Chopped liver?

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

What am I? Chopped liver?

Basically

Go out and find some third party experts who agree with Rush's crazy ramblings and you might be on to something. The only thing Rush cares about is Rush and his advertisers who pay his salary, I'm sure he could care less about Fox.

Infact Rush is probably more familiar with the symptoms of overdosing on drugs than most people.

[zerroeffect]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I don't disagree. My point is that MJF is no better than anyone else (like Limbaugh) and if it's okay for Limbaugh to be criticized for misleading or exagerating, then it's fair for MJF to get some as well.



Limbaugh would tell you the same thing. You can agree or disagree, but dishonesty for a "good cause" is still dishonesty regardless if it's Limbaugh or MJF.

Well, you can argue that, but what is Limbaugh's cause? Is it to point out that MJF's argument for stem cell research is invalid? It seemed like his mockery and manipulation of the tv spot was a personal attack on Fox and his morals and ethics. How a person like that can do such a thing is what is so puzzling to me.

Your right, dishonesty is what is, no matter to what cause it is applied. Someone calling someone dishonest without first gathering the facts and taking time to assess the issue from all sides is earing on the side of mean and heartless, though. Rush being someone with cochlear implants should be able to see what advancing medical technology can do.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm fairly moderate (most conservatives I know think I'm too liberal, and most liberals think I'm too conservative depending on the issue), and MY definition is that you can tell the ugly truth about them without fear that it can be rightly claimed that you are "picking on" someone.



He's accused himself of taking special effort to manipulate people and I've already outlined how his actions were partisan. You can keep rephrasing your defense of his dishonest actions all you want but it won't change the truth.



It's been outlined how it was inappropriate and dishonest regardless if you can claim "technically" he didn't say anything untrue. The best liars always seem to have an ability to mislead while still being able to say that they technically never lied (it's the same thing Limbaugh uses when he's exagerating a point). It's the "it depends on what the definition of 'is" is" defense. That might be your criteria for determining honesty. It's not mine.

The ad wasn't just technically truthful, it was truthful, period. Talent was one of the small minority in the Senate (about 30 I believe) who opposed the legislation in question. If Talent and a few others like him are defeated, there's a very good chance that Bush's veto could be overridden and this research would be very significantly enhanced. You complain about the tone of the ad. But the fact is, if you opposed the bill before the senate as Talent did, there will be less research and therefore less hope for cures. I don't see how that's not factually true.

On the other hand, Limbaugh's statements were factually incorrect. Fox was not acting. Just because there are two sides doesn't mean the two sides are equally valid or equally deceptive.

[BlueSky]

Something from Slate which I found funny.

Limbaugh's continued refusal to drop the matter as more commentators become aware of his stunningly boorish remarks has inevitably led some of these commentators to conclude that Limbaugh is mentally defective. Who but an absolute moron would attack a Parkinson's sufferer for displaying impaired muscle function?

It's a classic trap, right out of the right-wing playbook.

You think Rush Limbaugh is dumb enough to lay into a person for exhibiting symptoms of a debilitating disease? Come on. Nobody's that dumb. You think Rush doesn't know that over time the medications that a person takes for Parkinson's can reduce motor control rather than increase it? Oh, please. You just have to read the papers to know that when he sets his mind to it, Limbaugh can navigate his way around the PDR very adeptly, thank you very much.

Take it from me. Rush Limbaugh wants you to think he's a dumbass, a pea-brain, an absolute yutz. It's a con job. Don't fall for it.

"Rush Limbaugh Fakes Stupidity" You may think he's dumb as a chair, but it's all an act.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Basically

Go out and find some third party experts who agree with Rush's crazy ramblings and you might be on to something.

I've heard a lot of people criticize Fox for the dishonest campaign that is being waged. It's not just me and Limbaugh.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by zerroeffect 

Well, you can argue that, but what is Limbaugh's cause? Is it to point out that MJF's argument for stem cell research is invalid?

I would guess to point out that Fox is either a partisan pawn trying to do harm to a conservative position, or a clueless dupe..

Someone calling someone dishonest without first gathering the facts and taking time to assess the issue from all sides is earing on the side of mean and heartless, though. Rush being someone with cochlear implants should be able to see what advancing medical technology can do.

The question isn't whether people want medical procedures advanced. That's the false dichotomy that is being raised. Talent wants the hope for a cure for Parkinson's as much as anyone else. The misleading inference that he doesn't and that is what is dishonest.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

The ad wasn't just technically truthful, it was truthful, period.

Again, you're missing the point that the ad was worded specifically to confuse the issue between regular stem cell research and embryonic research. One most people don't have a problem with...including Talent. The other is a controversial issue where reasonable people can disagree. There's a reason why Fox never mentioned the difference and that's precisely because it would make his dishonest attempts to mislead harder to sell. Instead of explaining that Talent opposes using new human life for experiments which may NEVER result in a cure, he simply says that Talent wants to "outlaw science" that would "give hope". It wasn't put in such simple terms in order to inform - it was done in order to confuse and mislead. According to Fox, Talent isn't opposed to a controversial subset of an already established science - he's wanting to outlaw hope. THAT is not a "truthful" way to present the situation.