| |||||||||
| From | Message | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
kingofpawns 26-Oct-06, 14:15 |
 Rush Limbaugh Fakes StupidityBy Timothy Noah Posted Wednesday, Oct. 25, 2006, at 6:29 PM ET Many people have concluded, from Rush Limbaugh's recent disparaging comments about Michael J. Fox and Parkinson's disease, that Limbaugh must be an utter fool. But of course that's exactly what Rush wants you to think. Does the man's capacity for manipulation know no bounds? Limbaugh's tirade was in response to a TV ad Fox appeared in for Claire McCaskill, Missouri's Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate. Fox also appeared in a similar ad for Sen. Ben Cardin, D.-Md. Here is what Limbaugh said: Now, this is Michael J. Fox. He's got Parkinson's disease. And in this commercial, he is exaggerating the effects of the disease. 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. I know he's got it and he's raising money for it, but when I've seen him in public, I've never seen him betray any of the symptoms. But this commercial, he—he's just all over the place. He can barely control himself. He can control himself enough to stay in the frame of the picture, and he can control himself enough to keep his eyes right on the lens, the teleprompter. But his head and shoulders are moving all over the place, and he is acting like his disease is deteriorating because Jim Talent opposes research that would help him, Michael J. Fox, get cured. Limbaugh later retreated to the position that Fox didn't fake the symptoms, but rather that he refrained deliberately from taking his medication, something Fox apparently did seven years ago to demonstrate the effects of the disease while testifying before Congress. It's certainly possible that Fox once again skipped or delayed taking his meds to achieve the same goal (though Fox's public response to Limbaugh suggests not; during a public appearance for yet another political candidate, Fox appeared steadier and said, "My pills are working really well right now"). The obvious retort to Limbaugh is: So what? Whether Fox takes his meds or doesn't take his meds is nobody's business but Fox's, and there would be nothing counterfeit about Fox filming an ad unmedicated. He's been known to twitch, OK? 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. Ever since the resignation of Richard Nixon, a very smart man who got caught abusing his executive power, the GOP has deliberately avoided nominating conspicuously intelligent people for president. Gerald Ford was smarter than he looked, but he was unable to dispel his buffoonish image. Ronald Reagan was famously checked out and ill-informed. George H.W. Bush, though clearly smarter than Dubya, is not exactly imposing in the brains department, and he's demonstrated almost as much difficulty as his son in formulating a coherent sentence. And George W. Bush? Let's just say the guy is either mentally lazy, not very bright, or some combination of these two. I've never felt it necessary to refine that diagnosis; the term I favor is "functionally dumb." Two things must be said about my assertions in the previous paragraph. One is that they are all unmistakably true. The other is that whenever a liberal repeats any one of them out loud, that liberal—and contemporary liberalism generally—come under attack, along with the Democratic party, the New York Times, Harvard, the AFL-CIO, the Council on Foreign Relations, the three major TV networks, and the Sierra Club. If a liberal is deciding whom to hire to answer phones and return papers neatly to a metal filing cabinet, it's considered legitimate for that liberal to formulate a judgment as to the candidates' intelligence. If a liberal is deciding whom to vote for in a presidential election, it is not. Merely to raise the issue is seen as conclusive evidence that one is snobbish and effete, and that the subject of one's skeptical inquiry is an authentic man of the people. Nobody knows this better than Rush Limbaugh, who has said so many idiotic things on his radio show over the years that Al Franken, a famous liberal comedian/talk-radio host, walked right into the trap by penning a book titled Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot. Which of course made Limbaugh an even bigger hero to the dittohead faithful. I'm not saying Limbaugh isn't a little bit stupid. I'll give him that. But give me a break. On the subject of Fox's Parkinson's, he's just all over the place making one asinine comment after another! He can barely control himself! But you'll notice Rush can still cut to a commercial when his engineer tells him to. I'm telling you: Limbaugh's moronic blowhard routine is purely an act. Limbaugh is exaggerating his stupidity to advance political ends, and I find that despicable. 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. |
||||||||
|
sorry also, a hypocrite. |
||||||||
|
was he needed to do to get his message across, including not taking his meds or faking it, but it's still bad form to make the accusation), the liberals loves to parade out "victims" for political messages thinking these people are somehow beyoung reproach or criticism because they are victims. Some guy, any guy, bobbing and twitching around asking for you support embryonic stem cell research, really isn't an argument from logic or reason, but rather from emotion. Furthermore, there is no exciting, breakthrough, on-the-horizon "cures" for ANYTHING in stem cell research. I've worked with this stuff some and even though embryonic stem cells theoretically are more totipotent, more has actually been done with adult stem cells. The guys at Nebraska working on creating new retina cells are using adult because embryonic just won't work. The whole embryonic thing is just another issue to divide this country and heres that thing: IT'S NOT IMPORTANT! We need to be paying closer attention to the fascist state that is being created under our very noses! May God! I most certainly do pray for the future of this country. |
||||||||
|
jeff... |
||||||||
|
A Rush of blood to the head |
||||||||
|
crackers i do not really care what he says either. i still think he is a laughable oaf. |
||||||||
|
bobbynox 26-Oct-06, 15:40 |
Deleted by bobbynox on 23-Jan-07, 09:05.
|
||||||||
|
Bnox https://members.premiereinteractive.com/store/ |
||||||||
|
I don't like Rush The business with parkinsons...he just doesn't have any class, that's all. |
||||||||
|
jeff.. |
||||||||
|
kementari 27-Oct-06, 10:52 |
jdh and twitching around asking for you support embryonic stem cell research, really isn't an argument from logic or reason, but rather from emotion. Formal Logic 101 again here, class: we'll use a different link atheism.about.com" target="_blank">-> atheism.about.com this time. An Appeal to Emotion is a fallacy when (and ONLY when) the emotion evoked is not relevant to the point being made. Example 1: I hate politicians, they make me feel icky. If I always vote against the incumbent, then I'm doing something good, because I'm kicking those icky politicians to the curb. (Doesn't address the fact that voting only solves the problem when presented with a non-icky candidate.) Example 2: I love puppies. I saw a car commercial that showed me a picture of a happy family taking their puppy to the park and teaching it to play frisbee, and then the dog had his head out the window on the way home. If I buy a new car, my family will feel just like that every day. (Doesn't address the fact that the new car is out of my budget and will not walk the dog at 5:00 in the morning in December.) When the United Way comes to your work to encourage you to donate from your paycheck, and they show you videos with pictures of real live poor people in your community, this is not an Appeal to Emotion. It's a reason to give. When Michael J. Fox comes on TV and shows you what it's like to suffer from Parkinson's, it's not an Appeal to Emotion. It's a reason to support aggressive research to find a cure. And by the way, everyone, think pink this month. (October is breast cancer awareness month. If you have women in your life who matter to you, and who you are close to, consider talking to them about it briefly. Early detection saves lives. That's not an Emotional Appeal either, it's just the truth.) |
||||||||
|
kementari 27-Oct-06, 11:03 |
pawntificator Bullseye. I used to be a dittohead long ago (not so very, really.) When I was a teenager, I worked for an architect who truly was about as republican as they come. I was his only employee, working out of his basement. Do I need to mention that there was a bit of a mentor relationship going on there? I followed his politics, and they were conveniently in opposition to those of my parents, as well. Bonus points, as far as I was concerned. Rush IS entertaining. And smart... exceptionally, even. But he's also extremely isolated from the real world, and his fame and wealth have made it much easier for him to bury himself. (He was a lot more entertaining in the early-mid-nineties, when his years of rejection heaped upon rejection weren't so far in his past, IMNCO.*) Smart people can do and say some awfully stupid things when they have bad information about the world around them. In Rush's world, every poor child lives on the street, and he's fine with that. He doesn't have to drive through those areas on his morning commute, and he doesn't have to worry about whether or not those kids live close enough to his kids that they might try to mug his kids on their way to school. *In My Necessarily Correct Opinion*... another one stolen from CM, I'm afraid. |
||||||||
|
kem an accusation of "fallacy" merely that the affects of a horrible condition are not an actual logical *argument*. You may argue that they represent a legitimate reason, but it is not a formal logical argument and it does appeal to the emotion. |
||||||||
|
kementari 27-Oct-06, 12:04 |
jdh Sorry you find the logic lessons annoying. Personally, I liked learning where the flaws in my thinking were when they were pointed out to me clearly and concisely like that, but I've always been an odd duck. It stings, but it's the good kind of sting-- it remins me of the pain in your muscles when you hit the gym again for the first time after a long absence. You stated that it isn't an argument from logic ***or reason***, and you used the words emotional appeal. Did I miss something, or does this basically mean that you felt the commercial was out of line and didn't do much to support the argument (i.e., it wasn't a logical or rational position to take because of the emotional element?) I assume that this is what you were saying (whether or not you want to come out and say that the spot relied on a fallacious appeal to emotion, this position certainly implies that you feel that way), and if it is, I disagree strongly. Showing some guy, any guy, in distress is a reminder that we cannot forget about these people, and that we have an obligation as mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, to make every possible effort to do the humanitarian thing and help them. That guy could be us. It's easy to close our eyes to the problem unless somebody forces us to look. It's even easier to pretend that we could never solve the problem, and just have to live (and die) with it. Unless, of course, somebody compels us to think about solutions. Suffering is compelling. Long-winded speeches about ethics and pros vs. cons... not so very much in a 15 second spot. Showing the problem is exactly the way to focus on the need to find a solution. |
||||||||
|
kem argument for stem cell research to treat parkinson's can be made without showing symptoms, and the symptoms *specifically* are irrelevant outside of the fact that they are debilitating with can be stated without the hyperbole of actually showing them. I do not disagree that showing symptoms makes a stronger statement, but it is stronger because of the emotion evoked from actually seeing the symptoms. This is not fallacious, per se, as you've pointed out, but just showing bobbing and twitching is not an argument. Maybe we are talking past each other? Perhaps you should not assume motivations and implications when I make statements. I generally mean exactly what I say, not any more or any less. It might cause less miscommunication between us if you did not assume things about my statements as a default. I don't know. I do wish we could communicate better because I think we could easily wax philosophical back and forth on many different things and it would be enjoyable if we could find each other's default. Maybe you see what I mean? I meant no offense with "annoying" - it was meant to be a friendly jab, but you lose a lot of the nonverbal communication with text only communication. I really do appreciate your formal logic skills. |
||||||||
|
kementari 27-Oct-06, 14:11 |
Cool. I like to present these things in an approachable way. When I first started studying it (my mommy told me it would be a good idea... right around the time that I was a republican and listening to Rush Limbaugh all day long, as I recall *grin*), I couldn't get anything to stick at all. What I've learned over the years has been through the patient explanations of others and a dilligent study of sites that made my head hurt when I first started looking at them. I didn't take offense, and I do think our posts are missing each other here. It probably stems from the word "argument". << I don't think showing symptoms is a argument from logic or reason - it's just that: showing symptoms. >> Josh, I live and breathe sales in my day to day life, and I'm darned good at it. May I gently point out that every single attempt to communicate something that requires explanation and seeks to change a point of view or make a decision of any sort is, in one form or another, a sales pitch or an argument? You're either selling your idea, and trying to pursuade others to give it the same value and priority that you do, or you're in the process of selling yourself on what those values and priorities should be. *EVERYTHING*, from whether or not you hit the snooze button in the morning to convincing the kids what they will or will not be walking out of the house wearing, is a sales job or an appeal of some kind or another. An argument, if you will. Some are more convincing than others. More often then not, the ones that aren't convincing fail because of a fallacy tucked into that argument somewhere. Either that or they aren't convincing because of a fallacy that contradicts the argument which has been accepted as a rational argument and objectively "true" by the person you're talking to. Or a lack of comprehension or desire to comprehend on the part of the person you're talking to. Those can be frustrating conversations, certainly. The hidden argument (and make no mistake, there's a sales pitch going on there) in showing the symptoms of a disease that could possibly be cured if the medical community were not handicapped by the abortion debate is that the people who stand to benifit from this are suffering right now, and the decision to hold back on research that could help them is cruel and unusual punishment. It's compelling, IMO. It wouldn't have gotten Rush so worked up if it wasn't. << I do not disagree that showing symptoms makes a stronger statement, but it is stronger because of the emotion evoked from actually seeing the symptoms. >> Precisely. A stronger argument (or statement, if you prefer) is always more likely to succeed in getting your point accross, assuming your audience is still listening. << This is not fallacious, per se, as you've pointed out, but just showing bobbing and twitching is not an argument. >> I think you're underestimating the sophistication of packaging an idea for a television audience. << I do wish we could communicate better because I think we could easily wax philosophical back and forth on many different things and it would be enjoyable if we could find each other's default. Maybe you see what I mean? >> I do. Finding each other's default online generally involves a fair amount of back and forth. The long posts that you so despise are a big part of that process, unfortunately. Even more unfortunately, life often doesn't allow us the luxury to take that time. I can't wait for retirement. |
||||||||
|
alexwilson 27-Oct-06, 14:34 |
His statements are heartless, mean and cruel. In addition, they have nothing to do with the subject matter being discussed which is proposed Missouri Amendment 2, so they are also irrelevant. He doesn't deserve his audience, even if they share his heartlessness, meaness and cruelty. |
||||||||
|
comercial for the first time. The comments were "off the cuff" and if you've heard the whole original you'll see he was asking really more asking a question with teh statement - that is he faking his symptoms or did he maipulate his medication for effect? Asking the question is in bad taste for sure, but wasn't completely inappropriate - it is known that MJ Fox manipulated his meds for effect when he testified before congress a few years back. I wouldn'y put it past MJ Fox to do a manipulation like this if he has been known to have done it before, but making the accusation was bad form. The interesting thing about Amd 2 in Missoora' in that it's not so much a embryonic stem cell research issue as it is a cloning issue. Why the folks of Missouri would want a stem cell cloning amendment in their state constitution is beyound me. The real progress has been made with adult stem cells, so I'm always suspicious when the embryonic stuff is pushed so hard - it's political and it's a silly issue to get everyone all wrapped up in when so many other issues are of importance. Much to Rush's chargrin, I'm sure, is that the ubstantive points of the issue are lost due to his comments and the commentry on those comments. I pray for the future of this country . . . |
||||||||
|
kingofpawns 27-Oct-06, 18:58 |
jdh71... skipping it. With his advanced stages of Parkinson's disease, he will freeze up and not shake if he does not take it. Second, no real progress has been made with adult stem cells. It's possible that is some cases they may be of theraputic value in the distant future. Embryonic stems cells hold vastly greater potential. stemcells.nih.gov" target="_blank">-> stemcells.nih.gov |
||||||||
|
KOP manipulation of his medication. i'm a doctor, and while I'm not a neurologist, PD is drilled into us in school because it is easy to test on, so I know this, but thanks for the info . . . anyway . . . No real progress with adult stem cells? I then wonder why the boys at Nebraska have made retina cells with adult stem cells? No progress indeed . . . hmmmmm embryonic stem cells while theoretically having more totipotent poltential and therefore you could argue "greater potential" have been a real failure as far as doing . . . well . . . anything really. the body was beautifully and wonderully created and embryogenesis is a vast complex process - to think that we, mere humans, will be able to reproduce and manipulate the same process and further for use as medical treatment is probably near the hieght of hubris. "interesting" link, but what is this grammer school? You have to take a very rigorous cell biology course in order to get the MD. I could be insulted, but perhaps you forgot my education? |
||||||||
|
alexwilson 28-Oct-06, 05:33 |
I know that your source of information about Missouri Amendment 2 is Limbaugh by the way you discuss the issue. I live within spitting distance from Missouri and I am tracking the issue with interest. The issue is not about the "right to clone" which is forbidden by United States Law. Limbaugh is attempting to mislead you by falsely framing the issues that way. If you were to listen to him, the controversy would appear to be non-sensical, like you believe it to be. The issue is that Missouri Law currently prevents anyone in Missouri from seeking medical treatment that is developed from somatic DNA transfer from embryonic stem cells. Missouri Law even makes it illegal for anyone to travel from Missouri to seek treatment derived from somatic DNA transfer from embryonic stem cells. Amendment 2 seeks to change Missouri Law to permit patients to seek cures for their diseases by somatic DNA transfer form embryonic stem cells. Opponents call that technique "cloning." They could call it "genocide," "murder," "racism," "poopy" or whatever they want to call it because that is just a label they have stuck on it. The fact is that medical science is exploring the technique of somatic DNA transfer from embryonic stem cells because they show promise in curing disease. Limbaugh gets his bread and butter from the religious right who don't want nuthin' done to no embryos (except to flush them down the toilet). He is trying to confuse, muddle and screw up a pathway for medical science and he isn't above attacking anyone like Michael Fox on any level who stands in his way. |
||||||||
|
alexwilson that is developed from somatic DNA transfer from embryonic stem cells.*** Treatments such as? . . . <crickets chirping> ***Amendment 2 seeks to change Missouri Law to permit patients to seek cures for their diseases by somatic DNA transfer form embryonic stem cells.*** These cures are? . . . <crickets chirping> ***The fact is that medical science is exploring the technique of somatic DNA transfer from embryonic stem cells because they show promise in curing disease.*** What promises are you refering to? . . . <crickets chirping> I'm not a Rush fan. I do catch parts his show in the car maybe once a week while driving - I like talk radio and there's nothing else on I care to listen to during his time slot here. I used to think Rush was bought and sold with some of the crazy stuff he says, but I've come to think now that he's a "true believer" - which is more scarry I do not know . . . I'm not a Rush apologist, but he's right about Amd 2. Since there is no real "promise," no real "cures," no real anything with embryonic stem cells at present the only reason to pass Amd 2 is for no other reason than to protect the cloning of human embryos. I'd also like to address your "illegal" statement about cloning, which you seem to miunderstand, it is illegal to clone a whole human being, but it is not illegal to to take a totipotent cell from say a 128cell trophoblast, and creat another identical embryo. That's the cloning I'm talking about and it is nonsensical to make it an amendment to state constituion - it's silly. But who really cares about importat issues . . . |
||||||||
|
kementari 28-Oct-06, 08:14 |
alex I think the editorial is trying to say that Rush Limbaugh is deliberately making himself appear to be stupid as part of some Larger Plan. Like Pawnt, I feel that this is bs. He already has a very large audience of devoted fans. He doesn't need to use Trojan Horse tactics. If you want to read a great essay on Rush and politics in general, and get a feel for just how heartless I am, read this. www.kurtsaxon.com" target="_blank">-> www.kurtsaxon.com (I agree with the gentleman who wrote this 110%, which would make me something less than liberal, I'm afraid.) << His statements are heartless, mean and cruel. >> And he grew up in a world that is heartless, mean and cruel. Look at his career in the 70's. Think about what it's like to grow up as a "chunky" kid. << In addition, they have nothing to do with the subject matter being discussed which is proposed Missouri Amendment 2, so they are also irrelevant. >> Sure they do. They demonize the liberals who oppose the conservatives, and that is his show in a nutshell. It's what his audience wants, and it's what his sponsers want. Win-win. << He doesn't deserve his audience, even if they share his heartlessness, meaness and cruelty. >> Bwa ha ha ha ha. (Oh, I'm sorry, I was supposed to be more sensitive.) His audience is just a bunch of people trying to believe that everything's alright, and listening to something that comforts them. It's not really, but he makes them feel like it is. And that's what's really important, in the end. It keeps our economy going, for now. Chin up gang, it'll be alright. We'll adapt. Or rather, some of the smart and driven people will adapt. Many, many, many of us will die, and that's not necessarily a bad thing for this planet (although it certainly is a bad thing for the ones who lose everything and perish on the streets with their children when the system collapses under it's own weight.) I wish I could say that I'll live to see the recovery from that, but I probably won't. I might not even live to see the collapse (which is a big might, all things considered.) My daughter almost certainly will. Our population growth is unsustainable, and controlling it through external means is unethical. Convincing people to control it themselves hasn't worked too well, and there isn't much reason to suspect that it will in the future. Our industrial growth will require the resources of two planet earths to feed it if it continues at the same pace by the year 2050. Water is going to be a serious issue. Rush Limbaugh is a reaction to our collective desire to bury our heads in the sand and rock ourselves to sleep instead of standing up and doing something about it. He probably doesn't realize it, although it's possible that he does. In any case, he's very good at what he does. |
||||||||
|
kementari 28-Oct-06, 09:26 |
alex and jdh Err... not exactly a logical conclusion. Rush is rather adept at taking valid arguments and bringing them to invalid conclusions. The invalid conclusions do not make the valid arguments fallacious, and assuming that somebody else is getting their information from Rush just because they also make the same *valid* arguments that he does is opening yourself up for an immediate smackdown. Simple fact: more real progress in terms of research and results has been made using adult stem cells than with embryonic stem cells, for now. This doesn't mean that embryonic stem cells should not be used in research, or that there is no real benifit to be gained from that research. There are no guarantees either way. There is only hope and curiousity, twin forces which have brought us some pretty cool results in the past. Jdh: << the only reason to pass Amd 2 is for no other reason than to protect the cloning of human embryos. >> Touchy question here, but why are you against this? (If you'd like to start another thread here, that's cool, but I think continuing this one is fine.) |
||||||||
|
alexwilson 28-Oct-06, 10:08 |
jdh71 You know better than I do the state of the art with respect to treatments and cures. I will accept for the sake of argument that embryonic stem cells have resulted in no cures for disease. However, I do know that if we don't look for cures, we will not find cures. That by itself, in my opinion, is reason enough to justify research into embryonic stem cells. Further, I am of the opinion that a human embryo (please note I did not say a human foetus) is not much more than a mass of cells. If one implants it into a fertile female, then we might be talking about something with rights and obligations to protect, but not until then. I had my wisdom teeth extracted which resulted in their demise. At the time I was in a foul mood and I would have clobbered anyone who interfered with my right to have that done. An embryo is different, but not by much. There are surplus embryos stored in fertility clinics across this land. Is it right to keep them frozen? Do they have the right to be implanted? Is it right to flush them down the toilet, which is what we will do to them, if they aren't used to cure disease? In the words of Dick Cheney when he endorsed torture... "that is a no-brainer." |
||||||||
|
kem |
||||||||
|
alexwilson |
||||||||
|
soulcrates 28-Oct-06, 10:17 |
This man is not even worth my breath. |
||||||||
|
alexwilson 28-Oct-06, 10:35 |
jdh71 Let me get this straight. You are in favor of research involving stem cells from human embryos. What makes you mad about Missouri Amendment 2 is that the results of the research that you have no objection to is used to treat and cure human disease. That makes no sense to me. |
||||||||
|
alexwilson 28-Oct-06, 10:50 |
Kem I want to know where you get your opinion that the population growth of the earth is unsustainable. It seems to me that the trend of the world has been towards growing population and rising standards of living, increased longetivity, increased prosperity. I understand your theory, Malthus proposed it in the 19th Century and he has been consistantly proved wrong for about 200 years now. Where is your evidence that the population of the earth is unsustainable? |
||||||||
| |||||||||
Log in 
