I'm surprised I didn't see a topic about this already. If I missed it, let me know.
I've always considered Rush Limbaugh a harmless goof. He says some off-the-wall things, but that's how he makes his living, so I've always kind of let it slide.
Today I saw an article that made me radically rethink my position on Rush. I didn't think it could possibly be as bad as the headline made it sound. Stories like this are usually quotes taken out of context or misinterpretations of mostly harmless statements. Then I read what he said.
(comments concerning Michael J. Fox's appearance in Democratic campaign ads)
quote: The bombastic Mr Limbaugh, however, exploded in scornful outrage on air, claiming he had never seen Mr Fox in such a state. "This means either he didn't take his medication or he was acting," said the radio host, who has a weekly audience of more than 10 million. The actor's behaviour was "really shameless," he added.
I'm trying to wrap my head around any possible way those quotes could have been made in a context that makes them any less offensive, and I can't come up with one. Has anyone heard of this? Am I getting an article with some heavy liberal spin? I can't believe that even someone like Rush would stoop to that level, but I can't think of any other way to interpret this.
I mean, it's fine to debate a person on the issues, no matter what they're suffering from. But personal attacks against someone with advanced Parkinson's, especially attacks that display such crass, willful and pernicious ignorance about his situation, make me sick to my stomach.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Take a look at the video. Rush mocked Fox's condition by shaking around in his chair in front of his radio microphone.
I tried to find it on YouTube to no avail, but perhaps someone has better searching skills than I.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
From what I've seen, this isn't the first time Rush has crossed the line.
Back in the early 90's, follwing the first gulf war. At the time women in the military were fighting both for the chance to serve in combat situation and were fighting against serious sexual harassment within the military. Rush made a bunch of comments about how if women wanted to serve in combat situations where they might get raped by the enemy, they should have no objection to being raped by their fellow service men. Which I found deeply offensive at every level.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That just isn't nice... I've disliked him since his comments about Hiroshima and Nagasagi
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's Rush Limbaugh, are you really surprised?
A drug addict calls a Parkinson's sufferer a faker and we're surprised? The man isn't firing on all cylinders, just let him be.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: From what I've seen, this isn't the first time Rush has crossed the line.
Very, very seconded. I have found so many actions and/or pronouncements of his reprehensible that I lost count a decade ago -- and the last time I listened to his show was when I had a roommate who loved him (and thus I had little choice). That was in 1991-2.
The man (and I use the term loosely) blithely ignores the line all the time.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
I just found a clip of part of what Rush said this morning. I found something interesting.
He cites emails his listeners have supposedly sent him saying that they've seen interviews with Fox admitting to stopping his meds before he does appearances like this.
Now, if you have a show that's broadcast nationally and is making this kind of money, aren't you supposed to have a research staff? And if you have such a staff, why are you citing the emails from your listeners talking about these interviews instead of finding the gorram interviews yourself? Even for editorial journalism, how can this be considered responsible? I was on the radio in junior college, and we were held to higher standards than that.
I mean, the fact that he didn't run his ideas past a doctor (which any radio show that size should have on the payroll) before saying that Fox is faking is bad enough. But how can someone make accusations like that based upon easily disprovable heresay and have his job the next morning? I'd expect a 15-year-old working for the high school paper to get fired for less. The fact that Rush isn't making his living in the subway dancing for nickels just astounds me.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
He's not a journalist; he's an entertainer. Who's going to fire him, when he brings in the bucks?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Sad but true.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I think if he were dancing in the subway, he'd be more likely to be pelted to a pulp with nickels than anything else.
It's like a stoning, but not.
-pH
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:"This means either he didn't take his medication or he was acting,"
Not that it's in any way surprising that Mssr. Limbaugh is running his mouth off bombastically over a subject that he's profoundly ignorant about (re: Pinatubo, etc etc etc etc), but the shaking is -- surprise -- often largely a side effect of the medication itself.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
My grandfather has Parkinson's, it mostly effects his hands.
He takes a dozen or so different medications for different problems, but even with the Parkinson's medication, his hands still shake violently enough that his writing looks like it was written by a four year old during an earthquake, and he can't eat any food liable to fall apart.
Rush Limbaugh sickens me.
Posted by B34N (Member # 9597) on :
Yeah his comment about the Fox were just downright idiotic and blatant! He should submit a fomal apology to Fox!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:But how can someone make accusations like that based upon easily disprovable heresay and have his job the next morning?
It's political talk radio. Hearsay, accusation, oversimplification, and academic dishonesty are all par for the course.
Rush doesn't have to be right about most things. The vast majority of his listeners are essentially adherents who are listening to radio to agree with him and know what to be outraged about next. There's a lot of critical suspension. As long as he serves up the outrage -- suppositional as it may be -- he's doing right by the talk radio playbook.
Talk Radio remains one of the easiest ways to be reliably misinformed. Well, for politics, anyway. Sports radio is actually helpfully informative.
Posted by Zemra (Member # 5706) on :
I am surprised that Rush Limbaugh is not fired. Michael J Fox has been suffering from Parkinson's disease (PD) for about 15 years. He should be at a very advanced stage of PD and unfortunately the medications that are available today are only good for about 2-3 years and then they stop working. Once medication stoped working patient has to start another medication and they just hope that it works. Patients taking medications regularly might still have the problems that Michael J. Fox was having in the interview. This is a very horrible disease to have and it is not something to laugh about or imitate. Rush Limbaugh is a horrible man and he should be fired. If you don't agree with a certain view that is fine, you can argue and make your point, but to do such personal attacks it is unthinkable, disgusting and low. Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:He cites emails his listeners have supposedly sent him saying that they've seen interviews with Fox admitting to stopping his meds before he does appearances like this.
It's not hearsay. Michael J. Fox himself, in his own words on TV, has stated that he's done this on numerous occasions, including when he testified in front of Congress for stem cell research.
Frankly, I admire and respect him beyond belief for doing that, for how he's handled his adversity and for everything else he's done and trying to do for the greater good. Most people would try to cover up their condition and try to live the best life they can; he puts himself through hell in order to make what he's dealing with all the more apparent in the hopes that it can make a diffence.
Posted by Silent E (Member # 8840) on :
Whenever I begin to think Rush has gone too far, I switch over to Michael Savage for a few minutes (I can't take more than about four). After that, Rush seems quite levelheaded and kind.
In actual fact, I much prefer listening to Michael Medved.
Posted by striplingrz (Member # 9770) on :
Rush is pitifully sad, and has been since he got a radio show and became famous badmouthing one man. I've tried to think of another example in history where one man became so famous by badmouthing another. No other example fits the bill.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Strange news: The media has been widely reporting that Limbaugh has apologized, when he hasn't actually done so.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Heh, he didn't. He sort of implied that his previous words may have been harsh and/or incorrect, but then went on to justify everything he said by saying McCaskill and/or Fox were exploiting/being exploited. Basically, Fox may have been honest in his message, but being there at all was wrong.
I don't know where drug addict Limbaugh gets the temerity to accuse a disease victim seeking a cure of exploitation.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Silent E: Whenever I begin to think Rush has gone too far, I switch over to Michael Savage for a few minutes (I can't take more than about four). After that, Rush seems quite levelheaded and kind.
I used to listen to Savage sometimes biking between classes, a few years ago. Actually it was kind of fun, because it was like listening to an alien talk about life on Earth- the guy is playing from a totally different deck of cards.
For instance, he mentioned once on his show that he has several apartments, rooms, and homes, and that for safety and privacy reasons, he never sleeps in the same place on consecutive nights. Also, he rarely does his show from the same studio twice in a row. He is just a really "off" kind of person.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
It is worth noting that most of the comments made here, and the way it was covered, is exactly how Rush Limbaugh said things would be covered. Only one small clip being played, no discussion of the bill in question, no discussion of the lies in the ad, just the standard "Rush is mean" lines. Just to show that Fox did indeed say this and since no one here seems to want to do any research, here you go.... Michael J Fox's website "Snippets of my testimony were featured on several of the nightly news broadcasts. One line in particular from my prepared statement got a lot of play: "In my forties, I can expect challenges most people wouldn't face until their seventies and eighties, if ever. But with your help, if we all do everything we can to eradicate this disease, when I'm in my fifties I'll be dancing at my children's weddings." 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. " That is the statement in a decent context so you can see why he did it. So taken in context, we can see why he did what he did. So let's just take a typical soundbite chop up of it and reduce it to one line "I had made a deliberate choice to appear before the subcommittee without medication. " I could go on to rant about this and twist into something politcal about Democrats and the Media, but I won't mostly because people already know (even though you don't) what I would say. And yes I do know that many people are going to pounce on me for attacking Fox, which I have not done, and that's OK. This is an emotional issue and people don't seem to listen anymore. They go into conversations already having heard what the other person is saying...before they even say it. [edited because I typed 'said' instead of 'did']
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
"Rush Limbaugh crosses the line.
In other news, the sun rises yet again. More at eleven."
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Fox's ad was just that: an ad. It's meant to ADVERTISE a message.
Would we complain if another actor without parkinson's, portraying someone who DID have the disease, was the one on the air? (I wouldn't, anyway)
Fox was doing what actors do-- conveying a message. Nothing more.
Rush is an idiot.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
What I'd like to know is whether Rush helps or hurts conservatives, in terms of getting or scaring away votes...
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
"Would we complain if another actor without parkinson's, portraying someone who DID have the disease, was the one on the air? (I wouldn't, anyway)"
Would you complain if the ad was false and misleading?
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
Please Tresopax, Don't give Rush more credit than he deserves. I think the man believes he has more influence than he actually does. At least, that's what I hope.
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
What was misleading about the message DarkKnight?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Would you complain if the ad was false and misleading?
Was the ad false and misleading? Fox was stumping for funding for fetal stem-cell research (or for a candidate who supports funding for fetal stem-cell research); did he put forth information that was false or misleading?
Or did he use tools to demonstrate the urgency that he feels about this subject? I see no ethical problem at all with Fox's reasoning.
Really, Rush was complaining because the ad was effective, not because it contained false or misleading information.
I suppose a better argument, if you wanted to argue the points made in the ad, would be to note that there are a number of promising ADULT stem-cell research opportunities, and that fetal stem-cell research isn't needed. But Rush, as an entertainer and GOP-gopher, has to focus on attacking a person instead of discussing issues.
Typical politicking.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: I suppose a better argument, if you wanted to argue the points made in the ad, would be to note that there are a number of promising ADULT stem-cell research opportunities, and that fetal stem-cell research isn't needed. But Rush, as an entertainer and GOP-gopher, has to focus on attacking a person instead of discussing issues.
Rush did not focus on attacking a person. You have only seen the 'clip' so that is what you believe to have happened. Which is reinforcing what I said earlier about how this is being protrayed. He spent at least 45 minutes of his show discussing what was wrong with ad, like how Talent is not against stem cell research, how the admendment is a more of a cloning admendment than a research admendment, he talked at length about what research is working, what kind of stem cells are showing results now. Here's a transcript from his show yesterday: "They could have heard what I said, but they don't listen. They simply get their reports from the AP or whoever, but if they listen to this program, there's no way they could report on it the way they have -- well, take that back. Yes, there is an action line to every story in the media. I am a story to the media, and thus I have an action line. The action line is, I personify -- I'm the poster boy -- for all of the negative stereotypes that they have created about conservatism, and anything they think fits that action line, moves it forward, they are happy to report, but what did you hear me discuss yesterday? You heard the discussion about stem cells versus embryonic stem cells, versus the controversy over federal funding. You heard about the Missouri deception, the Chicago deception, the Minneapolis, Minnesota deception, and the Maryland deception that the Democrats are engaged in here using the actor Michael J. Fox. You heard about promising cures that don't exist in the stem cell research area. You heard about research in other areas to cure Parkinson's or to reduce its effects that is working, involving gene therapy, involving the insertion of a virus in the brain. You heard about that. By the way, that research is being funded by the Michael J. Fox Foundation. You heard all of that. You heard about which cures the smart money is investing in and not. You heard a number of things." So that is just a list of all the things discussed by him. I know you don't care, I know it won't matter because Rush is Evil. He just has to be! That is all that matters. You heard the clip you wanted to hear so Rush=Mean. He did note all of your points and more but he is Rush Limbaugh and is therefore Wrong and Mean. Why no outrage for Jon Stewart and all the mean things he says? Isn't he the same thing as Rush Limbaugh? No? Is that because you don't hear the constant drum beat of 'Jon Stewart is Mean'? How much would you like to bet that if Jon Stewart was a Conservative he would not be treated the same way as he is now? Again, I know many people won't read posts like this one, or do any research to see what all of what Rush said simply because they have the clip that will reinforce their world views and nothing else matters.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
And then he critisized Fox for being an effective actor, and tried to discredit the Democrats because they ran an effective ad.
Like I said-- Limbaugh is an idiot.
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
Jon Stewart is a comedian. He never uses his desk as a pulpit. He doesn't champion causes from his job. He makes fun of news. His program is not for or against a school of thought.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I hope you are OK with any and all Republican ads especially if they are effective...no matter if they are true or not, they only need to be effective. And like I said, you didn't read my post or any of it points, won't think about them, no mention of anything else except your belief that Limbaugh is an idiot. Odd how you are sooo against Limbaugh saying mean things yet you won't hesitate to say mean things about him
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:He never uses his desk as a pulpit. He doesn't champion causes from his job.
Err... based on the evidence, I'm going to have to disagree with you there.
But he IS funny, and he's a great interviewer.
We'll have to see how well he covers the Dems when they take a House or two in November.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
"Jon Stewart is a comedian. He never uses his desk as a pulpit. He doesn't champion causes from his job. He makes fun of news. His program is not for or against a school of thought. " Have you seen his show? It's a half hour of mostly cheap shots against Bush and Republicans. I'm not sure how you can say his show in not politcal in it's very nature?
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
I read your posts. I listen to Limbaugh. I was listening when he talked about the Fox ad. I find the majority of what he says to be spiteful crude rhetoric. I am not against him saying mean things, I am against him saying false things. I am one of the foolish ones who listen just to get angry. I know, it's a sickness.
If the ad is untrue, and you can prove this with a link and facts to back it up, I'd like to read it. I am OK with an ad as long as it's truthful.
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
I didn't say his show wasn't political. It doesn't sign off with "Vote Democrat", or "Vote Republican". It makes fun of the days news, paying particular attention to politics. The republicans are in the news? The republicans will be the butt of the jokes. Democrats in the news? Democrats will be the butt of the jokes.
His show doesn't have a political agenda.
Posted by Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy (Member # 9384) on :
John Stewart is going to become a lot more conservative in the coming months.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
The Daily Show and the Colbert Report both openly mock Republicans and the president...and both openly mock Democrats...
The point is that all the news is rediculas, all the politicians are jokes.
*plink plink*
My two cents.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
DK: Are you really surprised that, after all Rush spent his time on, the media is only focusing on the personal attack? Do you really think it's unjust?
What if I got a radio show when Condie Rice made a run for president? Say I spent an entire show making well reasoned and documented critiques of her history and qualifications, then at the very end I slipped in something about how electing Ms Rice would turn the White House into a second-rate minstrel show. What would you expect the media to report on? Would anything I had said before or after that have made that any less offensive?
There's something to be said about context, but 100 reasonable and fair statements can't make up for one vicious, unjust personal attack.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Well put, Baron.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Baron: I'm not surprised at all. That is exactly what I knew would happen. This is what typically happens to right-wing talking heads.
If you had a left-wing radio show and made scathing personal attacks against Condi Rice there would be nothing reported about the personal attacks, only the substance of what you were saying in your well reasoned and documented critiques of her history.
If you had a right-wing radio show and made scathing personal attacks against Condi Rice there would be nothing reported except short clips containing the scathing personal attacks and how mean you are. Then probably a short rebuttal from a Democrat saying that you are a typical, mean, evil Conservative and should be taken off the air....and Ms Rice would turn the White house into a second-rate minstrel show because she is a Republican too. Don't believe me? Think I'm wrong? How much prime time news was devoted to some one like Al Franken and the personal attacks he has launched against Bush, Cheney, Condi, or any Republican? Or is that completely different because he is an entertainer hosting a talk radio show?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It's the liberal conspiracy! Run, run!
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Rivka, that's actually another good point. I never said liberal conspiracy nor do I believe there is a liberal conspiracy. If that is your effort to disprove my point, I'm not sure how it fits? Do you think that I was wrong? Is Al Franken treated the same way in the press as Rush Limbaugh? I do believe that the majority of the media is made up of Democrats or left leaning people (much like I believe many business leaders are right leaning people). Why? Simply because people who are left leaning are typically drawn to that field of work, just as right leaning people are drawn to different areas. Educators tend to be more liberal than conservative as well. So there is no vast left or right wing conspiracy at work. There is a left bias because most reporters tend to be left leaning and see things through that prism.
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
Dark Knight. If it is about the issues and not a personal attack on Fox, where is the ad false? Please explain the bigger picture regarding this issue.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Some comments by someone in the trenches.
By trenches, I mean someone who has been innundated by the whole Stem Cell Amendment debate that Mr. Fox and Mr. Limbaugh took differents sides on.
The medical industry, and all of the support and health groups in the State of Missouri have been asking for Missourians to support an amendment to our state constitution that would insure that:
1) Cloning, especially as a form of conception, would not be legal in the state, but nucleic cell transfer (which may or may not be defined as cloning) can be used for research purposes.
2) Fees can be paid for the procurement of fetal tissues for such research.
3) Any treatments or cures derived from fetal stem cel research will be available to the citizens of Missouri.
Those for the amendment produce calm placid commercials saying that this ammendment will offer hope for future citizens.
Those opposed to the ammendment claim the following:
1) Nucleic Cell Transfer is Cloning, so we are permanately putting into law that Missouri clones people.
2) Since people are paying for this fetal tissue, this is equivelant for selling human beings--slavery.
3) Such payments will insure warehouses, company farms, of poor repeatedly impregnated women who are forced to deliver thier unborn children--via converyor belts and robotic precision--to the ravenous monsterous baal-esque medical industry.
4) Since no limits are placed on the number of embryotic stem cells available, the medical industry will hungrilly devour millions of our unborn children.
Those who are pro-ammendment are calm and respectful.
Those who are anti-ammendment are loud and fear mongering.
Micheal J. Foxes' ad is another that is calm, reflective, and offers hope.
Rush Limbaugh's response is loud, fear-mongering, and then it gets personal.
I have yet to find a mis-fact in the pro-ammendment arguments. I find many in the anti. Rush Limbaugh's has one major one that seems to be missed.
He claims that since Fox was off his medication, his illness is faked for the commercial. The truth is that his illness is real. The medication is the mask that he wears to cover it. If he were to just sit there and be perfectly normal looking, that would be fake.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Ben I have already pointed some out but here is some items lifted from the anti-Rush media news stories. USA Today HEADLINE: Limbaugh says actor Fox exaggerating his disease as stem cell issue churns From the article: "In the McCaskill spot (claireonline.com), which aired during Game 1 of baseball's World Series on Saturday, Fox says McCaskill, the state auditor, "shares my hope for cures" while her opponent, Republican Sen. Jim Talent, wants to "criminalize" expanded research. Talent spokesman Rich Chrismer called the ad "false" and says Talent supports "stem cell research that doesn't involve cloning or destroying a human embryo." Cloning? Hmmm, that might something worth furthur investigation. What is that bill really about? Does Talent really want to criminalize expanded research? Doesn't matter, we all know that Rush is Mean.
CBS News HEADLINE: Fox Responds To Limbaugh Accusation Actor Responds To Claim He Was Off His Meds In Political Ad: 'My Pills Are Working Really Well' (I did show earlier with a link showing the Fox himself stated that he did go off his meds for the Senate hearing, scroll up in this thread to find it) From the article: "Unfortunately, Senator Jim Talent opposes expanding stem cell research," Fox says in the 30-second spot. "Senator Talent even wanted to criminalize the science that gives us a chance for hope." ""Senator Talent supports medical research including stem cell research that doesn't involve cloning or destroying a human embryo," said Talent spokesman Rich Chrismer. Earlier this year, Talent withdrew his support for a Senate bill that would ban all embryonic stem cell research and impose a million-dollar fine and jail sentence on violators. But he opposes the Missouri ballot initiative, claiming it would "make cloning human life at the earliest stage a constitutional right." Supporters of the state referendum deny that assertion, noting the language of the proposed constitutional amendment explicitly bans human cloning." I even put in the paragraph rebutting Talent's claim of the cloning part of the proposed constitutional amendment. Did any reporter actually investigate this proposed constitutional amendment and see what it is really all about? Or did they just stick with Rush is Mean with some filler material containing She(D) Said - He(R) Said - They(D) Said Against What He(R) Said?
Don't you think it is even slightly odd that no one seems to be really looking into the proposed state constitutional amendment? Does it really ban human cloning? What does "somatic cell nuclear transfer" mean? How much have you heard about the ad that is the counter to the Fox ad? [edited because I wanted to move the second link down and make it look slightly better]
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:I never said liberal conspiracy nor do I believe there is a liberal conspiracy.
No, you're right. You never did mention the words 'liberal conspiracy.' I guess you couldn't've been talking about that.
By the way, I'm thinking of a fruit. It's long and skinny, greenish-yellow, and it grows on trees. I don't have to say what it is -- I just described it perfectly. Course, I could be talking about a plantain, but that's just picking a nit.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: No, you're right. You never did mention the words 'liberal conspiracy.' I guess you couldn't've been talking about that.
You took a small clip of my post and made it represent something that I specifically stated it was not? You didn't read the rest of it, just jumped ahead with the answer because you already know what the rest of the post was about so no sense in reading or thinking about it.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
You misrepresented your own post, then attempted to redefine the phrase 'liberal conspiracy' to not include what you were calling it, which was a left-leaning bias.
It's the same thing. I can tell you learned much from your master, Rush.
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
Fox's involuntary actions, medicated or not, cannot be called false.
As for the proposed bill, I need to educate myself further before I can state something as I truthfully know very little about it. I will do some research later tonight.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: You misrepresented your own post, then attempted to redefine the phrase 'liberal conspiracy' to not include what you were calling it, which was a left-leaning bias.
It's the same thing. I can tell you learned much from your master, Rush.
So it is your belief that the majority of the media is not left leaning?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
PS:
quote:""Senator Talent supports medical research including stem cell research that doesn't involve cloning or destroying a human embryo,"
That's like saying you approve of eating as long as it doesn't include food.
Well, close, since the amenment and the topic of Fox's comments were about fetal stem cell research. Apparently Senator Talent & Staff feel its ok to leave out that part since its what all politicians do.
I guess its more like:
"Joe hates radishes."
Joe responds. "I do not. I love bananas with all my heart."
Posted by c.t.t.n. (Member # 9509) on :
what about stem cells from the patient's own bone marrow?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Or possibly that he is simply against cloning and destroying a human embryo and NOT against using all the other types of stem cells?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:
So it is your belief that the majority of the media is not left leaning?
The entertainment media may be liberal - left is different. The news media is not. Since almost all of it (PBS would be a notable exception) is run by corporations who are trying to make money for shareholders, of course it doesn't lean left.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The entertainment media may be liberal - left is different. The news media is not. Since almost all of it (PBS would be a notable exception) is run by corporations who are trying to make money for shareholders, of course it doesn't lean left.
The entertainment media and the news media have much corporate ownership in common. Further, it's not as if left leaning people don't appreciate making money from their stocks.
Exhibit 1: Ted Turner. Unequestionably liberal. Unquestionable a shareholder of a large news organization (at one time).
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
CTTN & DK, what does bone marrow stem cells have to do with a debate that specifically is about fetal cells?
The honest response for him to have made would have been, "I believe that their are better avenues for a cures and treatments." Not, "Wrong, I am all for it, but I'm not." which is what he says. It is misleading.
Dag--yes, liberals and leftists don't mind making money on their stock, but the non-hypocritical ones won't make it on stock if it harms others or takes advantage of the disadvantaged. Liberals are, for example, willing to make less money on their stocks if it means paying all employees a living wage. Conservatives are more about allowing the market to determine what the employees can earn, and if they need to work multiple-jobs in order to afford their rent, they should do so no matter what it does to the family dynamic.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
I think this is another example of the news media being sensationalism-leaning more than left or right leaning. As DK said, the news outlets are focusing on what Rush said about Michael J Fox and very little about the actual issue or the bill or the candidate's views on such.
I'm sure there are some reporters who jump on it because they don't like Rush Limbaugh, but I think most of the coverage is because "Look how offensive this is!" gets better ratings than a calm and rational discussion of the issues.
--Enigmatic
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I caught a news report on this last night that I've just got to share. They touched on the whole thing and mentioned that Michael J. Fox (kinda weird how you really can't say Michael Fox there) was supporting stem cell research. Then, to counter this, they mentioned that other celebrities like some football guy, some baseball guy, and the main female lead from the execrable Everybody Loves Raymond were in another commerical opposing stem cell research. And that was it. They didn't say anything about the issues, what the message of the commerical was, showed any part of the commerical, or anything. Just mentioned that some other celebrities were in it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag--yes, liberals and leftists don't mind making money on their stock, but the non-hypocritical ones won't make it on stock if it harms others or takes advantage of the disadvantaged. Liberals are, for example, willing to make less money on their stocks if it means paying all employees a living wage. Conservatives are more about allowing the market to determine what the employees can earn, and if they need to work multiple-jobs in order to afford their rent, they should do so no matter what it does to the family dynamic.
And if this affects the content of the news media, how come it doesn't affect the content of the entertainment media.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Rush did not focus on attacking a person.
Either by technical or pragmatic definition, he was quite assuredly attacking a person!
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:So it is your belief that the majority of the media is not left leaning?
Not only did I not say this, I didn't even imply it. And if I had said it, it still wouldn't have any bearing on this particular disagreement.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Squick said:
quote:kinda weird how you really can't say Michael Fox there
That's actually fairly easy to explain. They probably want to avoid confusion with syndicated columnist Michael W. Fox.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:The entertainment media may be liberal - left is different. The news media is not. Since almost all of it (PBS would be a notable exception) is run by corporations who are trying to make money for shareholders, of course it doesn't lean left.
The entertainment media and the news media have much corporate ownership in common. Further, it's not as if left leaning people don't appreciate making money from their stocks.
Exhibit 1: Ted Turner. Unequestionably liberal. Unquestionable a shareholder of a large news organization (at one time).
As I said - left is different than liberal. Left being socialist. People can't get too far left without threatening their profits.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
For every Rush there's a Michael Moore, for every Ann Coulter there's a..Michael Moore, I guess.
I think some parts of the media lean this way and that. And I have to wonder where the media as a whole was for the first couple years of the Iraq war. I think a lot of the time the media just tells us what we want to hear, rather than upsetting us with information we'd rather remain ignorant about.
Still, why even bother about which way the media leans? Fact of the matter is, there is ALWAYS someone out there who is going to report news the way you want to hear it, regardless of your political affiliation. CNN/MSNBC is for the liberals, Fox is for the conservatives, print media falls somewhere in the middle, but maybe on average leans liberal, and radio is overwhelmingly conservative. It's all out there if you want to hear it. Trying to fog an issue by blaming the media seems like a weak excuse for not being able to argue issues themselves.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I think it is also important to note that the ad was not for stem cell research. The ad was for the election of Claire McCaskill(D) and the defeat of Jim Talent(R). This was a partisan ad. If Michael J. Fox had created an ad calling for the state Congress to approve the Embyonic Stem Cell Admendment, had he asked for Democrats and Republicans to work together to approve this important and potentially life saving research then there would be no controversy. He could urge all legislators to approve this important admendment, and urge voters to call their state Congress representatives and voice their support for the admendment. He didn't do that. He appeared in a partisan politcal ad for Claire McCaskill against Jim Talent so almost by default his message is "Elect Claire McCaskill".
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
quote:Squick said:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- kinda weird how you really can't say Michael Fox there --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's actually fairly easy to explain. They probably want to avoid confusion with syndicated columnist Michael W. Fox.
Actually, it's a Screen Actor's Guild requirement. All SAG members *must* have a unique name.
Michael Fox was in the SAG a loooooong time before Michael J. Fox was.
Posted by striplingrz (Member # 9770) on :
DarkKnight said: "He appeared in a partisan politcal ad for Claire McCaskill against Jim Talent so almost by default his message is "Elect Claire McCaskill"."
Come on, of course he did. So what? Your statement should read "Elect Clair McCaskill because she will try to back legislation in favor of stem cell research...". You back anybody running for political office because you think they will do the things you want or believe in. That doesn't give Rush an excuse for saying what he did.
And this whole liberal media thing has always been simply stupid in my opinion. The only people I (and I emphasize I) hear saying that is the conservative talk show hosts. And it gets really old. I guess thats why FOX is so in your face conservative!
Its easy to forget that half this country isn't of the "Republican" persuasion.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Fox also campaigned for Arlen Spector, who is also for more stem cell research and is Republican.
I stil have no idea why anyone listens to Rush. Or Al Franken, or Ann Coulter, or Michael Moore, or (fill in bombastic commentator of your choice). I've never listened to either one and have no need to let someone else use distorted language to choose my outrages for me. It depresses the hell out of me that so many people do.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I think Michael J. Fox is well known enough, well liked enough, to not need to attach himself to any politicians, Democrat or Republican. Or at least that is my personal feeling. He is 'bigger' than any politician and has more pull with a much larger audience. Lance Armstrong has done it, and he has many people who are not fans of his. I think Michael J. Fox's message could be even bigger than the LiveStrong message simply because he is more well known and is just so very likeable.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
A blogger has pointed out that Rush also nicknamed Attorney General Reno "Shakes Reno" because of her tremors from Parkinson's, a nickname that lives on in right-wing blogs.
Rush has no shame or decency.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: Rush has no shame or decency.
Heck, I'm a member of the radical right-wing conspiracy, and I know that. I stopped listening to Rush years ago.
Although, as a member of the RRWC, I also know that some people still worship the ground he walks on, and listens to him religiously. His fan base is pretty large, and is obviously very forgiving.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:His fan base is pretty large, and is obviously very forgiving.
I don't know if forgiving would be the right word. It's not like they get upset by most of the really awful things he does. Rather, they celebrate him for it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dk, I don't understand your point. Michael J. Fox has established himself independent of any politicians. His work and his foundation are far from limited to politicians and the like. In this particular instance, he's endorsing a candidate who supports his major issue against one who doesn't. It's not like he's tied himself to any specific politician or for that matter political party. He's trying to support people who supports his interests.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Well, I don't believe they celebrated his drug addiction... at least, I didn't notice that in our weekly meetings.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You think a painkiller addiction is one of the really awful things he did, that demonstrated a lack of shame or decency? I think we must have very different ways of viewing the world.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
We probably do, but you pointed out that they celebrate his lack of shame and decency. The drug addiction, though, was criminal. A failing. And I wonder if it even affected his numbers.
I'm not trying to defend the guy, Squick.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Rush: "Don't make fun of me or attack me for my addiction to pain killers. An addiction is like an illness."
Fox: "Like Parkinsons?"
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
smitty, Maybe we are talking about different things. To me, the painkiller addiction is kind of small potatoes.
The thing that people should dislike him for is the many really awful things (like this) that he does that display a lack of shame or decency. However, it is precisely those things that his audience loves him for. It's not like they are saying "Oh Rush, you shouldn't be saying that, but we forgive you." It's more like "Yeah Rush! Tell it like it is!"
edit for spelling
[ October 27, 2006, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Yup, talking past each other. I'm saying they forgive him for the criminal faults. They don't feel he needs forgiveness for his giant character faults.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
If anybody cares to hear/see Fox's response to Limbaugh.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Thanks, Nathan.
Michael J. Fox is awesome. And I mean that in a very literal sense. And it has nothing to do with his political views (which I mostly but not entirely agree with). It has to do with his grace and dignity.
Something Rush knows nothing about.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Great responses from Fox.
And my God, has he not AGED at ALL in the last decade?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
A very classy guy.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
Wow. Thanks for posting that. Very nice.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
That is really interesting. If he doesn't take his medicine his body locks up, before it locks up the convulsions are very violent.
That sounds ALOT like the disease they were dealing with in Awakenings with Robin Williams and Robert DeNiro (great movie based on a true story by the way)
It was the same deal, they started having convulsions that got more and more violent and then one day they just froze like a statue.
Spoilers
The drug L-Dopa reversed those convulsions to the point they could "wake up." And actually live their lives. It killed me to watch the drug start to wear off and no longer have any effect, and to watch the patients bravely go back into their catatonic state.
End Spoilers...
Its a powerful movie. I really admire Michael J Fox, you may disagree with him, but I don't think you can accuse him of not being a very genuine person.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
A less classy, but funny, response: what would the world be like if more people were like Rush? Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: That is really interesting. If he doesn't take his medicine his body locks up, before it locks up the convulsions are very violent.
That sounds ALOT like the disease they were dealing with in Awakenings with Robin Williams and Robert DeNiro (great movie based on a true story by the way)
I listened to an audio of Rush's show that day. I don't know if it was the whole segment on this issue, but it sounded like it was.
At any rate, he did make some points about clarifying the GOP candidate's stance on stem cell research, but he had some very nasty things to say about Michael J. Fox, and he displayed a colossal ignorance of Parkinson's disease.
My usual response to Rush Limbaugh is to observe that his fans seem to be more off-the-wall than he is. This time I'm not so sure.
I'm really finding it hard to imagine that anyone is willing to defend him on this one. He's clearly wrong and the only mitigating thing about it is that his diatribe against Michael J. Fox was not the only thing he was talking about at the time.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: My usual response to Rush Limbaugh is to observe that his fans seem to be more off-the-wall than he is.
I'm not sure if this implies you have worse experiences with Dittoheads than I do, or I have more experience with Rush than you do.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
It's just that every time I ever listened to his show, he would say something outrageous, then open the phone lines and the people who would call in (whom I believe to be fairly representative of his fans in general) would say stuff that was even more outrageous and less well-thought-out. And they'd all pretend that they got the idea from Rush.
"Ditto Rush, I totally agree that we should kick all the Demoncrats out of the country!"
That sort of thing.
I know a few Rush fans personally and, while seemingly of average intelligence, if you ever get THEM talking about stuff Rush has said, they too take it one step further than Rush himself and say things that are even less supportable or intelligent.
I'm not saying Rush is actually smart or that he isn't obnoxious. He's just much much smarter and less obnoxious than his fans tend to me, ime.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
That interview with Fox is one of the classiest things I have ever said.
Also, anyone doubting his story about his meds, the effect stress has on his condition, or his symptoms should shut the hell up. He is being far more candid then most people are, and is dead on.
I should know, my family has a severe history of Parkinson's, and both my Grandma and my Grandpa died of complications from it.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: That interview with Fox is one of the classiest things I have ever said.
Kwea's secret identity revealed!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: That interview with Fox is one of the classiest things I have ever said.
Kwea's secret identity revealed!
You heard it here first folks! Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: That interview with Fox is one of the classiest things I have ever said.
Kwea's secret identity revealed!
Oh my goodness!
He's Katie Couric! Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
LOL Funny what a typo can change the meaning to, isn't it?
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)