Michael J Fox has done several ads for progressive candidates. In deference to my good friend, Theron, I will say that the stem cell research debate has oversimplified a very complex issue. But then again, that is what politics has become these days. Whether it is border security -- if you don't support building a fence and you don't support border security; the war against terrorists -- if you don't support a bill which basically destroys habeas corpus then you are for the terrorists.
So, Michael J. Fox has a very moving commercial which Rush Limbaugh takes it upon himself to comment on. "He is exaggerating the effects of the disease," Limbaugh told listeners yesterday. "He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act. … This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn’t take his medication or he’s acting." Many blogs have commented on Rush and his ignorant declaration.
Interestingly, this issue, this subject, has become national news. The national news is not whether stem cell research needs to be done or funded by the federal governement. The national news is of course about whether Rush Limbaugh was way off base or not. Today's Washington Post has an article. In the article there's the following quote, "Anyone who knows the disease well would regard his movement as classic severe Parkinson's disease," said Elaine Richman, a neuroscientist in Baltimore who co-wrote "Parkinson's Disease and the Family." "Any other interpretation is misinformed."
I would really like to spend more time on the issues and less time on he said, she said.
OK, I'll be a bit more specific, I guess. Rush was 1000% wrong in his comments about Parkinson's disease. The above comment was the quick-hit, yuk-laden first blush response that I had at the time I heard of his statements. I was ready to back off and concede that he might have some factual gripe with Fox's ad, but then I found a different focus of my beef with Limbaugh's comments that irks me equally, if not more so. And I'm mad because it's the same crap that we (public and press) fall for constantly from these guys. It's the changing of the subject. It doesn't matter what Fox looks like. That's not the topic. The topic is the relative merits of the two candidates' positions on legislation regarding stem cell research. It doesn't matter that Fox's appearance might elicit an emotional response any more than whether Limbaugh's appearance and history elicit an equally emotional response. I personally can't stand the guy, so my first response to him was the one that came out above, with its references to his drug history. But his criticism of Fox's appearance and whether or not it was real or faked is nothing more than a criticism of the style with which the opponent has made a point. It's really in the same category as a beef with the background music, or the tone of the voice-over. It happens to have been a very crude, personally insulting and factless criticism of the style, which unfortunately, or intentionally has derailed the whole point of the discussion in the first place. The bottom line about Parkinson's disease is that it is a horrible disease and people who have it eventually deteriorate to a point that they look and act different from others. And we don't have a cure. And people die. A person who has advanced Parkinson's disease and does a commercial will probably be noticeably different. To make a big deal about pointing that out is, in my mind, what gets him bonus points towards being 1000% wrong. He may have some legitimate criticism over content and as a political commentator, that is fully fair game. But today, the majority of people are now talking about "that buffoon Limbaugh", rather than about Jim Talent's position on stem-cell research. And that's what's 1000% wrong.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like