Rush Limbaugh is a Jerk

[pegkerr]

Here is Michael J. Fox's ad on stem cell research, which is very powerful.

[Error: unknown template video]

 

Rush Limbaugh mocked him, saying that he was faking it. He was speedily informed by Parkinsons experts that he was dead wrong, and was forced to apologize. Then he attacked Michael J. Fox with a different critique: "Michael J. Fox is allowing his illness to be exploited and in the process is shilling for a Democratic politician." Good lord, but that man is a waste of oxygen. (Limbaugh, not Fox. Obviously.)

Comments

[loup_noir]

Limbaugh is such a...grrr... idiot. I made my car repair place turn him off.

[aome.livejournal.com]

I saw mention of the "faking it" claims in today's paper, but didn't know where to find the ad, so thank you for sharing. Sorry, that looks too much like real involuntary movement (particularly his speech, which he's clearly struggling with) to me. Now, I also saw accusations that, in order to make this ad, Fox must've gone off his medication - maybe that's so (or maybe the meds don't keep him tremor-free anymore), but it doesn't change the power of the message any. This is what Parkinson's does to people.

[dreamingcrow.livejournal.com]

Actually, the meds cause some of the tremors, but keep him able to move and talk. There's been some serious analysis of this and expert testimony in the media about it over the last couple of days. Attacking someone like Michael J. Fox is apparently even more of a no-no than I figured it would be.

[sundancekid.livejournal.com]

Last week, Keith Olbermann named Rush the worst person in the world (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/) over this -- as he points out, Rush should be the last person to talk about other people being "off the medication." *rolls eyes at Rush Limbaugh*

[cpolk.livejournal.com]

and he didn't even follow it up with the bit about him being a dang furriner stealing honest american jobs?

Tut, tut.

[nmalfoy.livejournal.com]

Whoa. I had heard Fox had gotten bad, but I had no idea. But yet he keeps going and he'll always be the bee's knees for me. And Rush says he's FAKING it? yeah, let's trust the man who's strung out on OxyContin, shall me? How DARE he?

Allowing his illness to be exploited? I didn't see a gun to Michael J. Fox's head forcing him to do that video. It took a lot of guts to do that and all I can say is bravo to Michael--he got dealt a shitty hand but he's doing what he can to maybe keep it from happening to someone else.

[weaselmom.livejournal.com]

I've tried (and failed) so many times to put myself in the mindset of somebody such as Rush and to understand how and why he says these outrageous things. Imagine yourself as a celebrity, not just a nameless yawper on Teh Intarweb. People listen to you and follow what you say (sometimes fanatically). You look at MJF, at how Parkinsons manifests itself in his body, and you say...these things that Rush says. How does somebody get to the point where saying this seems like a good idea? Do you really believe what you say? Or is being outrageous and controversial *for its own sake* the motivation here, and you've cleverly calculated that saying this thing will spark outrage and controversy, and so you say it?

If you want to really hurt yourself, try this with Ann Coulter.

[dustybinx.livejournal.com]

/unpopular opinion ahead/

Did you listen to Rush's commentary? He said that Fox is blurring the lines of truth here. Just because the federal government does not support embryonic stem cell research does not mean it cannot go on - just with private funding. Also, some medical researchers do not believe that embryonic stem cells are as effective as adult stem cells. Yes, Rush comes on pretty darn strong, but, I find that he does provide back up for what he says.

/unpopular opinion off/

[joelrosenberg.livejournal.com]

It's actually even less restrictive than that -- there is federal funding for some embryonic stem cell research; it's just limited to a few established lines of stem cells. The ban is on federal funding for research using new lines of stem cells; there's no ban on private funding, or on state funding. It's just a refusal to whip out the Federal checkbook in a limited way.

Reasonable people can think that's a bad idea, I hope. I would hope that the folks who are advocating for less restrictive federal funding of embryonic stem cell research would at least make an effort to get the facts right, before going into the histrionics.

But to equate an honest disagreement about federal funding for research using new lines of embryonic stems cells with a lack of a desire to see Parkinson's patients get well is, well, flagrantly intellectually dishonest.

And, actually, if Fox is in favor of more extensive federal funding for more embryonic stem cell research, he can rest assured that his federal government is doing just that. Of course, his federal government isn't in the US . . .

As to Michael J. Fox "faking it,", well, he kind of did, at one time. When he testified in front of Congress he deliberately chose not to take his meds ahead of time, so that his trembling and twitching would be worse than they would normally be, for dramatic effect; it was a nice Hollywood touch.

[diatryma.livejournal.com]

The problem with denying federal funding is that many buildings are paid for with it-- so in order to use state money, scientists have to build new facilities, buy new equipment, keep all of it separate from existing money... and that's difficult. Denying federal funding also restricts federal oversight and could cause some patent issues-- I don't trust a pharmaceutical company to use the knowledge as well as the squabbling scientific community as a whole. And if the research is done privately, the knowledge may not be spread around as much for fear of being scooped and losing a lucrative patent.

Most of these views come from an old bio professor, who is, I will admit, curmudgeonly and All-Knowing. But I'm a big fan of public funding for science, not least because that's paying my rent.

[joelrosenberg.livejournal.com]

Sure; we all find good reasons for what pays our own mortgages. But there's finite federal bucks available for science, and a huge amount of the apportionment has more to do with politics than science -- what's the multiple of what's spent on diabetes research that's spent on AIDS research? -- and I doubt that anybody's shocked, shocked that it's going on.

That said, I'm not sure why federal money spent on an expansion of lines of embryonic stem cell research needs to be US federal money spent on an expansion of lines of embryonic stem cell research, or why it shouldn't.

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

An interview with Fox after the controversy over Limbaugh's remarks. Fox says he was on his meds when the commercial was aired.

Also, he has campaigned for at least one Republican (Specter) in the past.

Sure.

[joelrosenberg.livejournal.com]

But, given that Fox has deliberately gone of his meds for dramatic effect -- that's from Fox himself; it's not speculation -- it wasn't, IMHO, unreasonable for anybody to speculate that he might have done it again. Somebody more responsible than Limbaugh would have checked to see if he'd done it again before accusing him of doing it again, sure, but speculating? Clearly reasonable.

Unfortunately, though, it looks like his disease is progressing. My uncle got a remarkable treatment for it that basically removed all the trembling -- and Fox might be eligible for it (or he might not), as he is a Canadian citizen.

And, yup, he's campaigned for another candidate from another party; I'm not sure what the point of that would be, but, sure, he's done that.

Re: Sure.

[dustybinx.livejournal.com]

But, given that Fox has deliberately gone of his meds for dramatic effect -- that's from Fox himself; it's not speculation

And I still maintain that because Rush is so *in-your-face* with his commentary, he is frequently quoted out of context. Sadly, I don't think there is any such thing as straight forward reporting of just plain facts.

Re: Sure.

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

And, yup, he's campaigned for another candidate from another party; I'm not sure what the point of that would be, but, sure, he's done that.

The point is that part of Limbaugh's slam was that he was "letting himself be used by the Democrats."

I assume that the Republicans didn't complain when he supported Specter.

Re: Sure.

[joelrosenberg.livejournal.com]

I don't think that makes that point. That he's campaigned for a Republican in the past isn't a defense to the claim that he's letting himself be used by the Democrats in the present. The specific claims that he makes in his ad and the facts that he leaves out makes it clear that he has signed onto the Democratic position -- that the prohibition on federal funding for additional lines of stem cell research means that the Republicans don't want people with Parkinson's to get well.

That's a pretty demagogic position, isn't it?

I'm generally thought to be pro-Republican. Does the fact that I first voted for a Republican more than twenty years after I'd been solidly voting for Democrats make that untrue?

[kk1raven.livejournal.com]

You might want to note that Specter isn't exactly a "good" Republican by current party standards.

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

Also, Fox has duel American-Canadian citizenship. So yeah, his federal government is the U.S.

[joelrosenberg.livejournal.com]

Nah. If he's been naturalized, he's renounced his Canadian citizenship; if so, he's no longer a Canadian citizen. Are you saying that he's been naturalized? (I happen to have dual citizenship -- both from birth, not through naturalization; so do my daughters -- so I've had to become fairly conversant on those issues.)