Talent on Loan from God?
I wasn't going to comment on the Rush Limbaugh witch hunting that is the rage in liberal circles this week because some of the best and brightest of the conservative bloggers have it all covered. But then my brother called. This is my oldest brother, who reads my blog but never comments ;-) And after he made a passing reference to Rush, I couldn't resist.
You see it was my brother who introduced me to Rush Limbaugh. It was in the early days of the {cough} "Excellence in broadcasting" network and while I absolutely adored spending afternoons with my brother, I hated being a captive audience for this self-important blowhard on the radio. My brother was a fan. I was anything but. It wasn't that I disagreed with Rush - the obnoxious egotism of his on-air persona was just so off-putting.
Age and experience have given me the ability to sift through the fluff and see the value of Rush's work. These days, if I get through with school in time to catch the last half hour of his radio show, I consider it a real treat. And so here goes... my short analysis of the Limbaugh-Fox affair.
To sum up: Rush quoted MJF, who acknowledged that he plays up symptoms of his disease for effect. These were Fox's own words. A fact that the MSM is ignoring. Rush speculated that Fox had done the same thing for the filming of the political ad at the center of this contraversy. The MSM and Fox have reacted as if Limbaugh pushed a senile old lady off a cliff and are trying to use this latest row as leverage in getting Limbaugh off the air. He has been publicly excoriated by political moderates such as Whoopi Goldberg and Barbara Walters. [yeah - that was sarcasm]
Here's my simple but accurate analysis: If the Democrats and media/hollywood types had any evidence whatsoever that EMBRYONIC stem cells could be used for cures, they'd be holding it up like a smoking gun. Unfortunately, they have none. In fact, the use of EMBRYONIC stem cells has yielded, as yet, no results except for giving some of the human test subjects tumors.
Fox has every right to make a comercial and exploit his illness for political gain. Appealing to emotions is a time tested advertising tactic. But his words and ideas, as is the case with everything we sell on t.v., are subject to fraud alerts. Rush was well within reasonable limits to be skeptical of Fox.
Fox accuses Talent (R-MO) and other GOPers in other states of outlawing stem cell research. Not true. They don't want EMBRYONIC stem cell research on new lines. Anyone who bothered watching Bush when he first outlined his (and his party's) position on this issue, already knows this. Existing EMBRYONIC lines are fair game as are ADULT stem cells, the only stem cells that have as yet yielded any positive results.
This only leaves two options for explaining Fox's posiion: he is being purposefully deceptive or he is woefully uneducated. It is deceptive to blur the lines between adult and EMBRYONIC stem cell research. It is deceptive to claim future results based on a relatively new area of discovery. Fox's claims are the medical equivalent of a rain dance and Rush is well within the bounds to call him on it.
I would say shame on Fox and his apologists but the DNC is expert at making people believe that the GOP is a party without compassion - and they've never shown any remorse for selling that lie before.
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are comments to this post, your eventual comment might trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/10/26 @ 06:11 PM — (Reply)
Don't worry Barry, Edwards says you'll walk again.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/10/26 @ 10:02 PM — (Reply)
It's also deceptive to refute potential based on the lack of present-day successes. The first successful extraction of embryonic stem cells only occured in 1998. Eight years is a short time, but scientists are united in acknowledging the potential. That is no guarantee that anything useful will be developed, of course.
I agree that MJF's recent conversion to the cause of stem-cell research is self-serving. So was Christopher Reeve's. Or Nancy Reagan (though her push was on behalf of her husband).
It's more than slightly disingenuous for celebrities to take up, as a "cause," an affliction they, or someone they love, suffer from. Jerry Lewis never suffered from MD as far as I know, and Lance Armstrong's push for cancer research only came about after his successful battle. It makes me wonder- if MJF had his Parkinson's cured by some chemical intervention, would he drop his push for stem cell research?
So yeah, I'm not all up in arms about what Rush said, and the media's hoopla over this, is merely trying to look sympathetic. Rush has a point. Not a significant one, and mostly just a brash, distasteful one- but he's a brash and distasteful person. But still, he has a point.
Personality aside, the deception you accuse MJF legitimately of is, however only a partial deception. Existing embryonic lines are still to be allowed, you're correct. But whether or not there is enough material within the existing lines, or enough differentiation to develop strong research is open to debate. Lines have, and will, die off, and with no new lines being developed, embryonic research could potentially die under the GOP's restrictions. You had to know that.
And the issue of adult stem cells is irrelevant, and you ought to have known that, because adult stem cells do not have the same potential as embryonic. Indeed, adult stem cells are a quite different thing from embryonic.
So, I'm reluctant to say that MJF's accusations are any more fraudulent than your counter-accusations. He may be guilty of over-simplifying a complex matter, and doing so in the direction of his own agenda... but then how many of us aren't guilty of that on a daily basis??
Perhaps someday soon, the ethical issues can be avoided. There is recent research that suggests embryonic stem cells there might be a technique to harvest stem cells without impairing the development of the embryo. And there is an effort into researching why adult stem cells behave differently than embryonic.
Comment by Michael— 2006/10/27 @ 05:23 AM — (Reply)
Michael, the fact is that we really don't know the potential at all. Thus the contraversy. You are right, there is a difference. MJF failed to note it and is selling a political cause that is wholly unverified.
This would provide a solution, to be sure. However, let's not forget the truth of this issue. Harvesting embryonic cells is not illegal as Fox suggested. He implied that the GOP would outlaw it. What has been stopped is the expenditure of tax payer dollars to that end. Huge difference. This ad at its core plays right into the stereotypes of tax and spend liberalism. We'll never find a cure if out government doesn't fund the research...
But ask the DNC to support tax incentives for the R&D departments of private organizations instead of giving them outright grants and you get an outburst fit for the British parliment.
Comment by Cate— 2006/10/27 @ 06:10 AM — (Reply)
The fear is that pro-abortionists will turn abortion into a noble practice by saying "and yes, Loretta, your 'tissue' will save lives..." Not to mention the paying for embryos that will be inevitable. We pay participants for all kinds of medical research and experiments already so this is not even much of a slippery slope - it's an inevitability.
Comment by Cate— 2006/10/27 @ 07:02 AM — (Reply)
Well, neither of us are in Missouri, so we couldn't vote on the amendment that is at the whole center of this bruhaha... but one of the provisions of the amendment is that no purchase or sale of blastocytes or eggs could occur. That any obtained must be solely obtained through voluntary, informed donation. So, at least in principle, your concern about paying for embryos is directly addressed.
And you're correct- harvesting isn't illegal, nor would this amendment make it legal. Instead, this amendment would prevent Missouri legislators from declaring it illegal out of pressure from the pro-life sector. Basically, all this amendment says is "If the federal government says it's legal, Missouri may not prevent its citizens from it."
Hardly a controversial stand, is it?
But we really aren't talking about the amendment, I suppose. We were talking about MJF's deceptive ad. Here's the full text:
Compare that to Rush's allegations:
Entirely misleading?? No. Gross oversimplification? Sure. But reasonable in the world of Willie Horton ads? Absolutely. Does anyone doubt that on the issue of stem cell research, Talent takes a more conservative approach then his challenger?? To complain about this ad, when "Defeatocrats" is being spewed out of the press room of the White House is utter baloney.
Good lord- this is hardly the most vicious attack ad. Check out this one that the RNC is paying for in Tennessee:
But golly, we wouldn't want to be accused of misrepresenting the facts now, would we??
Comment by Michael— 2006/10/27 @ 11:15 AM — (Reply)
While I think the racial overtones the NAACP have added are completely fabricated, the add is tasteless. I thought the funniest bit of that whole ad scandal was that Ford bothered responding "I like girls"... ROTFLMBO He's a single man - can you fault him?
This ad was a non-issue.
Comment by Cate— 2006/10/27 @ 11:33 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/10/27 @ 02:09 PM — (Reply)
Fox the jackass should stick with his own kind and stop lying to honest Americans.
Personally, I've watched reruns of the Back to the Future films for the last time. When Fox appears as a guest in Boston Legal I am going to fast forward my Tivo and skip the jackass. Fox has joined the Hollywood political lying demlibs who know nothing in reality but nonetheless are convinced they know more than the rest of us and believe it is their duty to "help" to rest of us. How they could help me is climbing to the top of a giant sequioa and jumping.
"They say all politics is local, but it's not always the case," Fox says in the ad, his shoulders jerking and his body swaying uncontrollably. "What you do matters to millions of Americans, Americans like me." Is he saying their are millions of liars like him among Americans? I don't think he is giving himself enough credit.
After the ads began airing, nationally syndicated conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh said Fox was allowing his illness to be exploited and accused him of acting in the ad or not taking his medication in order to shake so much.
"All I'm saying is I've never seen him the way he appears in this commercial for Claire McCaskill," Limbaugh said on his syndicated radio show. "I will apologize to Michael J. Fox, if I am wrong in characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act."
The Parkinson's Action Network, said Fox was so astounded by the criticism leveled by Limbaugh that his first reaction was to ask, "He said what?" Notice Fox's reaction was never to admit he was caught red handed or to even try to deny his lying.
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/10/27 @ 11:24 AM — (Reply)
Fox the jackass should stick with his own kind and stop lying to honest Americans.
Personally, I've watched reruns of the Back to the Future films for the last time. When Fox appears as a guest in Boston Legal I am going to fast forward my Tivo and skip the jackass. Fox has joined the Hollywood political lying demlibs who know nothing in reality but nonetheless are convinced they know more than the rest of us and believe it is their duty to "help" to rest of us. How they could help me is climbing to the top of a giant sequioa and jumping.
"They say all politics is local, but it's not always the case," Fox says in the ad, his shoulders jerking and his body swaying uncontrollably. "What you do matters to millions of Americans, Americans like me." Is he saying their are millions of liars like him among Americans? I don't think he is giving himself enough credit.
After the ads began airing, nationally syndicated conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh said Fox was allowing his illness to be exploited and accused him of acting in the ad or not taking his medication in order to shake so much.
"All I'm saying is I've never seen him the way he appears in this commercial for Claire McCaskill," Limbaugh said on his syndicated radio show. "I will apologize to Michael J. Fox, if I am wrong in characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act."
The Parkinson's Action Network, said Fox was so astounded by the criticism leveled by Limbaugh that his first reaction was to ask, "He said what?" Notice Fox's reaction was never to admit he was caught red handed or to even try to deny his lying.
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/10/27 @ 11:25 AM — (Reply)
Oh, and don't forget that lying b*st*rd, Christopher Reeves, too, Barry! I'll bet he faked his paralysm, just to try and earn a few extra bucks for his liberal agenda.
Honestly, for someone who has a picture of one of America's most distinguished statesmen as his avatar, you're acting like a petulant child, Barry.
"I will bigly, hugely admit that I was wrong," -- Rush Limbaugh
Comment by Michael— 2006/10/27 @ 11:37 AM — (Reply)
You are right on the whole ad business. They all tend to be over the top and many are deceptive. I think what makes the Fox ad so frustrating is that the actor is selling the idea the Talent and the GOP doesn't care about him.
How would you feel if the DNC ran an ad with a black hoodlum from south LA saying "The GOP is da man and he's holdin' you down dawg." Would that be okay? There's a sympathetic victim who speaks with authority to a certain facet of the population and nevermind if his words are actually accurate...
We've got idiots in this country accusing Bush of blowing the NOLA levees and liberal moviemakers giving them air time. Who cares about the truth anymore anyway...
Comment by Cate— 2006/10/27 @ 11:48 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/10/27 @ 02:06 PM — (Reply)
Barry G,
Of COURSE it was an advertisement! Did you not see the "I'm Claire McCaskill, and I approve this message" at the end of it? Didn't you at least LOOK at the ad before getting your panties all in a bundle? The whole stinking point of the 30 second spot was to pitch for a vote for one candidate over the other.
I'm sorry if you find the boxing out quotes to be irritating. I started that following the model of EB and Cate, who are more apt to engage in dialogue than monologue. Your opinions are usually little more than pitiful insults, so I haven't had much cause in the past to quote your words. Regretably, I made the mistake of actually taking your bait in this thread, and I apologize. Not to you, but to Cate, whose board this is, for any added dissention I may have caused.
Cate, you nailed it when you said "Who cares about the truth anymore anyway... ".
Comment by Michael— 2006/10/29 @ 07:23 AM — (Reply)
Your cheapshots haven't gone unnoticed nor has your holier than thou attitude. Reminding you that Fox was doing an ad when you were elevating Fox to sage status seems ok to me. BTW if you think so much of yourself that anything you have to say would affect me, I suppose my response would be to get a life.
You don't seem to like the concept of being called on statements you make. Unless you know something I don't, other than the attitude, your opinions and statements have no superiority.
You and I disagree on Fox. Big deal. You think he walks on water and I think he is a fraud. The truth probably lies somewhere in between.
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/10/29 @ 07:57 AM — (Reply)
Barry,
The only one you're disagreeing with is yourself. If you'd bother to read my notes, rather than getting your ire up in order to spew venom out, you'd see that I concur with the opinion that MJF's ad is misleading and deceptive. What I disagree with is a) that the ad presents itself as a scientific discourse, b) that the ad is in any way atypical of most any other political ad that is out there. It is an oversimplification, but not all that horrid in the grand scheme of things.
I've also agreed that Fox pitching for stem-cell research is self-serving. Hardly the first time that a celebrity has come down with a disease and then become a spokesperson, though. Christopher Reeve and Nancy Reagan didn't say a word about stem cell research (or to be explicit, embryonic stem cell research) until they had personal stake in the outcome. Does that discredit their testimony? I'm not sure, myself. But if you want to blast Fox for politicizing his ailment, I suppose you're vindicated. I don't believe that I've said otherwise, either.
What I have taken exception to, is your assertion that MJF is a lying b*st*rd. Are you going to say that his convulsions were merely an act (which Rush did implicitly suggest), or that MJF doesn't actually suffer from Parkinson's? You've pointed out that he has admitted to backing off on medication. Conceeded. You've pointed out that he hasn't yet denied backing off prior to making of this ad. I haven't paid close enough attention to decide, and I don't much care anyway. What I think is irrefutable is that he does suffer from Parkinson's, and that the tremors are a part of that disease. If his message is the effects of Parkinson's, then backing off on his medication, and demonstrating physically, those tremors... that could be part of that message. It's somewhat suspect, I'll admit, but it's not lying.
As for the question of putting Reeve into the discusssion, yes- I admit that was a distraction from the issue, and more of an emotional response to your tirade. You are an angry person, with frequently hostile posts, and I really ought to have suppressed my response for it was irrelevant to the whole MJF question.
So, to sum up:
MJF ad - agree that it's deceptive. Point out that it's not presented as a scientific treatise, but rather as a political ad. As a political ad, it is an oversimplification, but there is a truth, of sorts, that Talent's position on stem cell research is, in general, more conservative than McCaskill's. So, I'm not leaping to defend the ad, but calling it an 'attack ad filled with disinformation' is, IMHO, an overstatement on Rush's part. There are worse offending ads out there, on both sides of the political aisle.
MJF tremors- Could he be playing up the effects of the disease for emotional effect by intentionally backing off his medication? Sure. But do I think he's faking the tremors? I doubt it. And since in this case, the disease is part of the message, I don't feel that showing the tremors is all that deceptive, though I will agree that it's emotionally charged. Again, hardly the first emotionally charged political ad, nor the last. Just not a big deal in my opinion.
superiority - In general, I try to be respectful here, because I recognize that my political opinion is definitely in the minority. I have mocked you personally, Barry, from time to time, and I apologize for the disrespect that implies. You were a regular here in Cate's board before I ever showed up, and so by extension, I am obliged to accord you respect. I don't pretend that my opinions are, in any way, superior to anyone else's here, or I wouldn't bother posting. I could just as easily go find some liberal blog and join the chorus there. But the reason I've posted here at all is my interest in engaging in dialogue with different opinions from my own. A dialogue founded, I hope, on respect, even when there is disagreement. To quote your icon, "To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable."
being called on statements I make- Part of the reason I boxquote is to directly address statements that others make. Since you find that to be irritating, I can't always be sure just what you are attempting to call me out on. I hope I've addressed your contentions here, addressing where I think we agree, and where we might differ, but if there are other realms I've missed, I'm all ears.
Take care
Comment by Michael— 2006/10/29 @ 09:27 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/10/29 @ 10:47 AM — (Reply)
To quote a forgetable b-movie... "If you boys are finished washing the floors down with testosterone..." I'm waving a white flag. Your comments and personalities are welcome here, both of you.
Let's move on to a different thread, shall we? How about this one or even this one. And play nice - no one wants to have to share the sandbox with Albert
Comment by Cate— 2006/10/29 @ 09:55 AM — (Reply)