Rush Limbaugh, Professional Asshole

October 24, 2006 8:40 PM

Rush Limbaugh claims Michael J. Fox is faking the side effects of his Parkinson's disease treatment in a new political ad being run during the World Series. Classy, Rush. Classy.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus (118 comments total)

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Anyone who listens to Rush Limbaugh is a fucking idiot because he is an absolute moron.

Where are your pain pills, Rush? Ooh sorry, where are your illegal pain pills, Rush?
posted by fenriq at 8:44 PM on October 24, 2006 [1 favorite]

This makes more sense than when Ann Coulter went after the 9/11 widows.

When that's the best you can say for Rush, he's pretty deep in the hole.
posted by ®@ at 8:47 PM on October 24, 2006

Really? We're going to post what Rush Limbaugh says?
posted by xmutex at 8:48 PM on October 24, 2006 [1 favorite]

Man... I just watched the ad. That's really sad.

Why would someone fake that? Oh, right, because Democrats feed on the sympathy of America to abort babies, raise taxes, and swallow puppies whole.
posted by ®@ at 8:49 PM on October 24, 2006

I claim Limbaugh faked orgasms with underage prostitutes in the Dominican Republic. Hey, that was fun.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:50 PM on October 24, 2006

Even if he WAS faking it- which he so was not- what the fuck does Rush care?

Parkinsons is worse than MJF was in that commercial, but he is a well-known spokes-person.

What is the message he is trying to send? "Parkinsons isn't THAT bad people, not as bad as murduring embryos!"
posted by ackeber at 8:50 PM on October 24, 2006

Can we drag him out into the street and shoot him now? Seriously.
posted by gnutron at 8:51 PM on October 24, 2006

Rush Limbaugh: proof that you can't spell "class" without "ass".
posted by clevershark at 8:53 PM on October 24, 2006

Speaking as a fucking idiot, I can say that Rush's beef with the ad is because the bill on the line that Claire McCaskill supports and Jim Talent opposes has nothing to do with stem cell research, which incidentally is legal in Missouri. What the bill would do is legalize human cloning, and Fox characterizing it as being a bill to outlaw stem cell research is completely bogus.

I do believe that Jim Talent doesn't even oppose stem cell research personally, in fact. Anyway, Rush says that since MJF has made a political statement that opens him up to criticism.

In any case, he spent the whole damn show going on and on about this stupid thing and by the end of if I wanted to shoot him too, just to get him to talk about something else.
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 9:01 PM on October 24, 2006

Total BS, of course.

An expert quoted in that article: "What you are seeing on the video is side effects of the medication. He has to take that medication to sit there and talk to you like that. ... He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance of Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look stiff, and frozen, and don't move at all."
posted by ibmcginty at 9:02 PM on October 24, 2006

Rush is a pig (and a drug addict). What a pathetic loser. Although the really pathetic ones are the ditto heads.
posted by caddis at 9:06 PM on October 24, 2006

I watch the Evening News (tm) on a major network about once a month (seriously, Katie Couric? I never thought I'd live to see the day. CBS must truly be desperate). I saw ABC tonight. They ran this as part of a larger story about MJF supporting stem cell research, but they added that after being confronted by callers, Rush apologized.

Rush really is a bottom dweller amongst already unsavory individuals. He is an empty shell of a human, and where I used to hate the man, now I feel mostly pity.
posted by Ynoxas at 9:07 PM on October 24, 2006

Mr. E.: That spin doesn't seem to be quite accurate.

"Senator Talent supports medical research including stem cell research that doesn't involve cloning or destroying a human embryo," said Talent spokesman Rich Chrismer.
...
McCaskill has made support for the research a key part of her campaign to unseat Sen. Jim Talent. The Republican incumbent opposes the research as unethical, saying it destroys human embryos.


Now, there's also a \n amendment on the ballot in MO that Talent is opposing because he thinks it opens things up for cloning. I haven't heard about this initiative; that strikes me as unlikely to be the intent of the initiative's writers, but if it's poorly written, I guess that's a plausible objection.
posted by ibmcginty at 9:07 PM on October 24, 2006

Previously, four days ago.
posted by booksandlibretti at 9:08 PM on October 24, 2006

You know, it might open him up to criticism. That's certainly a possibility. But does it bring into question his character? That he would be faking symptoms of an illness he verifiably has? Suggesting that Fox would be lying in such a visceral way to garner support for his position is reprehensible, Mr. Encyclopedia.
posted by boo_radley at 9:10 PM on October 24, 2006

Rush is a pig (and a drug addict).

Hey now, some of my best friends are drug addicts, no need to drag them down there with Mr. Limbaugh.
posted by doctor_negative at 9:12 PM on October 24, 2006

Rush says that since MJF has made a political statement that opens him up to criticism.


It's interesting that Rush is attacking Mr. Fox's presentation, as that suggests that if his condition is really that bad, Rush finds it a compelling argument.
posted by owhydididoit at 9:15 PM on October 24, 2006

And just when you thought the smear attacks couldn't get any more retarded.

In other news, this Daily Show YouTube of Ken Mehlman talking about "Stay the Course vs. Cut and Run" is a doozy.

*head explodes*
posted by dhammond at 9:20 PM on October 24, 2006

Diurnal emission, seal thyself.
posted by rob511 at 9:21 PM on October 24, 2006

Not faking - ACTING. And a damn good acting job.
posted by rough ashlar at 9:31 PM on October 24, 2006

Response to the MJF commerical staring JESUS! I wish I was kidding.
posted by aburd at 9:39 PM on October 24, 2006

Regarding the ridiculous answer ad, I really can't believe Patrica Heaton is in there. She seems intelligent.
posted by xmutex at 9:50 PM on October 24, 2006

Off topic but really an insight into the man.

I don't consider myself an offensive guy. I am just a harmless lovable little fuzzball.
posted by Holy foxy moxie batman! at 9:54 PM on October 24, 2006

Okay. We've heard from Michael J. Fox about it, but let's hear from the stem cells and their culture of life.
posted by leftcoastbob at 10:02 PM on October 24, 2006

Regarding the ridiculous answer ad, I really can't believe Patrica Heaton is in there. She seems intelligent.

Nah, she's a real right-winger. From her Wikipedia article:

Heaton is known as an outspoken conservative, pro-life activist and is the honorary chairperson of Feminists for Life, an organization that opposes the practice of abortion. She is a Republican and supporter of both President George W. Bush and the U.S. military invasion and occupation of Iraq. In addition, she is an active supporter for the nonprofit world-hunger organization Heifer International. On her website she mentions giving Heifer International gifts to the cast and crew of Everybody Loves Raymond. Although she has been quoted as saying "once a Catholic, always a Catholic," Heaton now attends an evangelical Presbyterian church with her husband and their four sons. She has not left the Catholic church nor converted to Presbyterianism.

Course it also claims she played Han Solo's younger sister in Return of the Jedi in 1977...
posted by hoborg at 10:06 PM on October 24, 2006

Not surprising to me (re: Heaton). ELR is such a freakin piece of conservative family values pablum.
posted by papakwanz at 10:08 PM on October 24, 2006

When I was in Indianpolis last summer for the Indy 500. There was an office next to the chocolate store that was blaring rush out into the town circle They were having these civil war renactments and it was really disturbing to have the limbaugh voiceover. Fuck him. The world would be a better place if he was dead.

.
posted by Mr_Zero at 10:10 PM on October 24, 2006

At some time, in the near future, when the mankind once again has time to write the insane history of the beginning of the 21st century ...

The Lintbomb show will be the only evidence that has to be cited ...

posted by Twang at 10:11 PM on October 24, 2006

What is the message he is trying to send? "Parkinsons isn't THAT bad people, not as bad as murduring embryos!"

In general, yes. But I think more specifically it would be "Parkinsons isn't as bad as murdering embryos!"

Now, I don't hold the view that the life that exists at conception is deserving of the same protections as life accumulates later on, but if you do hold this view (and really, there is no right answer, just personal moral decisions) opposition to destroying embryos is a reasonable result.

As far as Michael J. Fox is concerned, even if he did go off medications to film the commercial (and I don't think he did, see his appearance on Inside the Actor's Studio)? So what? What exactly is wrong with putting on display the disease he is fighting to cure?

Do we complain when Jerry Lewis doesn't store the kids behind screens for the MS telethon? Or that calls for charitable help to recover from Hurricane Katrina are generally accompanied by images of the devastation? Since when are emotional pleas only allowed if devoid of emotional content?
posted by obfusciatrist at 10:12 PM on October 24, 2006

I'm surprised that Heaton's right-wing beliefs are news. She was everywhere during the Schiavo controversy.
posted by jrossi4r at 10:14 PM on October 24, 2006

[Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance

XX Redundant clause
posted by Twang at 10:14 PM on October 24, 2006

If only Fox were as honest as Bush is about stem cell research and the value human life.
posted by homunculus at 10:15 PM on October 24, 2006

Limbaugh = hypocritical, human trash.
posted by oddman at 10:22 PM on October 24, 2006

Here's what I don't understand about the logic of being anti-abortion:

If you're taking the position that you're against abortion for religious reasons, and you think that destroying the zygote/embryo/fetus amounts to murder, what do you think happens to the 'person' after they are murdered?

Without original sin, you'd have to assume that the tissue person with a full-blown soul is automatically sent to heaven. What's so bad about that? If the pregnancy took place normally and the person then was born into the wrong religion and thus went to hell, isn't that worse than being murdered and going straight to heaven?

I'll admit I'm not religious, and I doubt that there is a heaven. Still, just the possibility that there is eternal ecstasy waiting just around the corner sorta makes me wish I had been aborted. If these people really believed in heaven, they'd be getting abortions all the time so they'd have a huge happy family in the afterlife. After all, if it's a sin to have an abortion you could simply ask for forgiveness (Genius! Christianity has such convenient loopholes) and your actions would be stricken from the record.

The only reason to be against abortion is if deep down you believe you're going to hell, and you don't want your (or anyone else's) offspring to get to enjoy the wonders of heaven.

It seems to me that if heaven is real, the most wonderful thing you could do is spend your days destroying fertilized millions of embryos. You'd have legions of souls in the afterlife indebted to you for sparing them the possibility of damnation and hellfire.
posted by mullingitover at 10:26 PM on October 24, 2006 [1 favorite]

That response ad is amazing. Kurt Warner? Do you really want to take voting instructions from a back-up quarterback?

And that bitch from Everyone Loves Raymond does ads for a local supermarket chain. So I think by extension it's safe to say that Shaw's/Albertson's/Acme hates people with Parkinsons.
posted by Mayor Curley at 10:26 PM on October 24, 2006

Without original sin, you'd have to assume that the tissue person with a full-blown soul is automatically sent to heaven. What's so bad about that?

Yeah, it doesn't make that much sense. If you go with the simple moral dictate "Murder is wrong" and leave heaven out of the equation, it seems pretty bad. But when you factor in heaven, then it loses some coherency.

I think the major opposition for abortion actually comes from a desire to punish sluts by saddling them with babies. The opposition to stem cell research and such just seems pathological.
posted by delmoi at 11:00 PM on October 24, 2006 [2 favorites]

The response ad could have been better.

Maybe a spot where a scientist in a lab is preparing to do some experiments on a specimen in a petri dish. We hear a wailing from disembodied voices crying "Please don't kill us! We want to grow up to be real little children!" but the scientist just smiles evilly and lights a bunson burner, ready to fry the little eggs. Suddenly, Jesus comes crashing through the wall like the Kool Aid man. He uses his angelic chi power, or maybe an AR-15, to dispatch the scientist and save the petri dish. We then cut to Michael J. Fox in his posh mansion wearing a silk robe, smoking a pipe, and eating caviar (EGGS, people!). Sensing something is amiss, he leaps out of his lay-z-boy and screams "NOOO!" while clutching his head and falling to his knees. Then Rush Limbaugh can come in and cap him in the back of the head with a baseball bat or something.

Okay, it could use some work, but I'm not a professional.
posted by moonbiter at 11:07 PM on October 24, 2006 [4 favorites]

What a slimeball. Doesn't he have some underage kids he should be diddling?
posted by bshort at 11:23 PM on October 24, 2006

These emails claim Fox has admitted in interviews that he goes off his medication." A tireless search of the Internet produces no such record of any interview, or any statement in which Fox has ever admitted or even suggested that he ever goes off his Parkinson's treatment at all, let alone for the purposes of shaking it up for the television audience.


although i abhor limbaugh and his comment in this instance sickens me particularly, i do actually remember hearing MJF make a comment during a fairly recent interview (Nightline, maybe?) to the effect that he sometimes does go off of some of his meds, in order to alleviate some side effects and so as not to forget what the actual disease itself feels like. or something like that.

i suppose even the worst lies and misdirections begin with a seed of the truth.
posted by ab3 at 11:48 PM on October 24, 2006

Yeah ab3 and some nice Limbaugh bullshit to make it grow.
posted by bouncebounce at 12:15 AM on October 25, 2006

Without original sin, you'd have to assume that the tissue person with a full-blown soul is automatically sent to heaven.

Limbus infantium, mullingitover, limbus infantium. Which, following the Pope's recent non-decision over its existence, is still somewhat in limbo itself.
posted by flashboy at 12:37 AM on October 25, 2006

I think one of the Zucker brothers could make your ad come true, moonbiter.
posted by starkeffect at 1:41 AM on October 25, 2006

In case anyone cares, those look like pretty typical choreo-athetoid side effects of dopaminergic agonists used in the treatment of Parkinson disease to me. I'd be pretty surprised to learn he was faking them.
posted by ikkyu2 at 1:45 AM on October 25, 2006

Without original sin, you'd have to assume that the tissue person with a full-blown soul is automatically sent to heaven.

Without original sin? What happened to original sin? Did someone do something with the original sin when I wasn't looking?

on preview: thanks, flashboy.

Under Pope Benedict XVI, the Commission is expected to recommend in their report that the doctrine that all children who die do so “in the hope of eternal salvation” be formally adopted, thus rejecting the theological hypothesis of Limbo.

The theological hypothesis of Limbo. Aside from yet another great band name, I have to wonder why it can't all be considered theological hypothesizing? Cause we have some other hypotheses that can actually be tested...
posted by dreamsign at 2:00 AM on October 25, 2006

flashboy writes "Limbus infantium, mullingitover, limbus infantium. Which, following the Pope's recent non-decision over its existence, is still somewhat in limbo itself."

Good point. From your link it sounds like, at least to Catholics, there are far worse things than limbo for the young 'uns. Thomas Aquinas made it sound pretty peachy, "an eternal state of joy." What's so bad about that? If I was an abortion doctor I'd bring this up frequently.

Why doesn't the Pope just go back into the indulgences business on this one? Lots of Catholics are going to do it whether he likes it or not, so why not cash in? Perhaps they could put the abortion indulgence money toward providing free condoms at mass. That way if they're still feeling bad about sending the little ones straight to heaven, they can prevent them. However, with the rationale that abortion sends babies to heaven, I'd have to say that contraception really is immoral. If I were Pope I'd decree that whenever possible every pregnancy should end in abortion. There's just too much at stake to risk sending their souls to hell frivolously.

I'm tempted to start an askMe thread on this topic but it would inevitably go down in flames if it didn't get deleted first. Sad, really, because it's interesting to see where things go when you apply the axioms you're given.
posted by mullingitover at 2:11 AM on October 25, 2006

posted by ackeber What is the message he is trying to send? "Parkinsons isn't THAT bad people, not as bad as murduring embryos!"

"Weiner also pointed out something else I hadn't considered: Fox was actually being commendably nuanced in the ad. The actor could have said stem cells will lead to a Parkinson's cure, but he said merely that it gives patients hope -- which is accurate. There's no way to know for sure what stem cells will do for Parkinson's, or other diseases, but they have the potential to do so. The only way to find out for sure is to do the research that Limbaugh and his allies are bent on blocking." link
posted by fandango_matt at 2:42 AM on October 25, 2006

Rush is ultimately just a symbol of his fan base, a front man for America's dark underbelly...

...contrasted with Michael J. Fox, a entertainer who believes that science can save him, or save any of us...

Can science save America?
posted by ewkpates at 3:07 AM on October 25, 2006

Is anybody really surprised? Rush has been doing the same attack routine for the past sixteen years on anybody who challenges the conservative agenda. He has never passed on anybody. Same for Ann Coulter.

It is what they are and what they do.

It is what they will be remembered for.
posted by rougy at 4:11 AM on October 25, 2006

Has Bill Frist watched the video of Fox's ad and made his diagnosis yet?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 5:11 AM on October 25, 2006 [1 favorite]

Without original sin, you'd have to assume that the tissue person with a full-blown soul is automatically sent to heaven.

Limbus infantium, mullingitover, limbus infantium.

Simple workaround:

Baptize your child as soon as it develops a forehead!

(That was satire)
posted by saraswati at 5:16 AM on October 25, 2006

Without original sin, you'd have to assume that the tissue person with a full-blown soul is automatically sent to heaven.

Actually, there are quite a lot of evangelicals who believe that original sin is there from the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg--and if you believe that it's already a person, I think that makes a certain kind of logical sense. Certainly more so than sin suddenly entering your soul at the moment you're squeezed out into the open air.

The usual Biblical authority for this position, though, is a single verse from Psalms:

Surely I was sinful at birth,
Sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

I think there's quite of bit of argument that can be made about the poetic nature of that particular book and the problems with basing any theological argument on a single scrap of scripture taken out of the context of the rest of the Bible, but evangelical fundementalists are often not exactly averse to cherry-picking bits and pieces to reinforce their own preassumptions.

So anyhow, yeah. If you're doing stem-cell research, you're not just killing babies. You're sending them to hell.
posted by EarBucket at 5:20 AM on October 25, 2006

This Evangelical movement, and all it's efforts in relation to the Constitution, make it clear just how important " Separation of Church and State" is.
posted by lobstah at 5:28 AM on October 25, 2006

This Evangelical movement, and all it's efforts in relation to the Constitution, make it clear just how important " Separation of Church and State the Right to Keep and Bear Arms" is.

Remember kids -- those Evagelicals? One of the lives in the White House.
posted by eriko at 5:44 AM on October 25, 2006 [1 favorite]

EarBucket writes "So anyhow, yeah. If you're doing stem-cell research, you're not just killing babies. You're sending them to hell."

Good point. I agree that many who follow the Bible tend to cherry-pick. I haven't seen an authoritative breakdown of the afterlife implications of abortion (and man, would I love to see one particular religion try to stand up and do that!). It seems that if any group tried to do this the whole anti-abortion united front would suddenly collapse into infighting.

Interestingly, since something like 20% of pregnancies are terminated naturally by spontaneous miscarriage, does that also mean that these would-be babies are doomed to hellfire as well? We need to see a spreadsheet of the various religions and their beliefs about where the unborn are sent. I want answers.
posted by mullingitover at 6:17 AM on October 25, 2006

From this ad posted by aburd :

Extracting donor eggs is an extremely painful and dangerous procedure... 25 women have dies and 6000 have experienced complications.

They're not saying that you can't harvest eggs, though, are they? Harvesting for in vitro fertilization is still fine; you just can't torture them.

And they say that it will take at least 15 years for any cures. So??? I know that Americans want instant gratification, but a wait of 15 years is more of a comma than Iraq is.
posted by leftcoastbob at 6:29 AM on October 25, 2006

Anyone who listens to Rush Limbaugh is a fucking idiot because he is an absolute moron

Stupidity, especially when coupled to monumental physical unattractiveness, can be comedy gold.

As for Michael J. Fox, he did a few commercials for a company I used to work for, which then closed all it's stores leaving many people jobless. I blame him.
posted by jonmc at 6:31 AM on October 25, 2006

I'd like to see at least once a pro-life argument that is not ultimately based on lunacy/religion.
posted by clevershark at 6:31 AM on October 25, 2006

Rush Limbaugh says something offensive and mean! Film at 11!
posted by pardonyou? at 6:48 AM on October 25, 2006

clevershark writes "I'd like to see at least once a pro-life argument that is not ultimately based on lunacy/religion."

The sane pro-life argument is easy to make. The problem lies in the definition of 'life'. We're all unambiguously 'pro-life' in the sense that we're not advocating murder of sentient beings, so the first step is to discard the term as something you're willing to debate against. You're really talking about being 'pro-irrational fear of terminating pregnancy or even preventing the possibility of pregnancy.' Once you put it in accurate terms, you'll recognize that position as inherently irrational and you see that there really isn't any way to argue it without lunacy/religion.
posted by mullingitover at 6:50 AM on October 25, 2006

I'd like to see at least once a pro-life argument that is not ultimately based on lunacy/religion.

I'm not pro-life, but I think I can tackle that one without too much trouble. How about:

1. Killing a person is wrong.
2. If left alone, a fetus will become a person.
3. Aborting a fetus prevents the fetus from becoming a person.
4. Preventing a fetus from becoming a person is killing a person.
5. Therefore, aborting a fetus is wrong.

Can you really say that argument is based on lunacy? I know rational, non-religious people who oppose abortion on logic much like the above. I also know pro-choice people who would personally never have an abortion, but who support the right of others to have them on privacy grounds.
posted by pardonyou? at 6:56 AM on October 25, 2006

I should add that it's obvious that number four is the point of controversy. But differences of opinion on that point can't be dismissed by labelling one view as "lunacy." The sticking point is the simple fact that some people view the potential of life as worthy of great protection. It's not inherently "wrong" to think that way -- it just happens to not be what you believe.
posted by pardonyou? at 7:05 AM on October 25, 2006

pardonyou? writes "2. If left alone, a fetus will become a person."

er, no. A foetus is neither viable outside its host, nor without its host assisting it by forcible nourishment, oxygenation, etc.
posted by clevershark at 7:11 AM on October 25, 2006

WTF do professional athletes know about stem cell research and the far-reaching consequences of law? I can't imagine Jeff Suppan spends a goodly portion of his time between starts reading case law or that Mike Sweeney spends a lot of time reading philosophical texts. One would think that if egg harvesting were so painful and dangerous they could have found one or two women to speak up for the ad. Instead they gather a fistful of fundy ballplayers who are forced to thanking some version of Jesus that resembles a cross between an invisible superman and fairy godmother as a means of resolving the bedrock incongruence they feel exists between their wealth and contribution to society.

And then there's Mr. Oxycontin himself... A right fat child prostitute visiting bastard if ever there was one.
posted by Fezboy! at 7:12 AM on October 25, 2006

I can't imagine Jeff Suppan spends a goodly portion of his time between starts reading case law or that Mike Sweeney spends a lot of time reading philosophical texts.

Coz jocks iz dumb. Specially ones I disagree with.
posted by jonmc at 7:18 AM on October 25, 2006

This ad featuring a little girl asking the question, "How come he thinks he gets to decide who lives and dies?" is also quite powerful.
posted by caddis at 7:18 AM on October 25, 2006

What the bill would do is legalize human cloning...

Section 38(d). 1. This section shall be known as the Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative.

2. To ensure that Missouri patients have access to stem cell therapies and cures, that Missouri researchers can conduct stem cell research in the state, and that all such research is conducted safely and ethically, any stem cell research permitted under federal law may be conducted in Missouri, and any stem cell therapies and cures permitted under federal law may be provided to patients in Missouri, subject to the requirements of federal law and only the following additional limitations and requirements:

(1) No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.
posted by schoolgirl report at 7:22 AM on October 25, 2006

er, no. A foetus is neither viable outside its host, nor without its host assisting it by forcible nourishment, oxygenation, etc.

Semantics. Would this placate you: "If left alone not aborted, a fetus will become a person"? That was the point -- I was not advancing the viability argument. I am arguing that the logic is not "lunacy" even pre-viability.
posted by pardonyou? at 7:26 AM on October 25, 2006

pardonyou? writes "4. Preventing a fetus from becoming a person is killing a person."

I murdered someone today because I decided not to get a girl pregnant. By preventing the child which would've resulted, I have killed it? Say wha?

It's not a point of controversy, it's the point where the whole thing goes off the rails.
posted by mullingitover at 7:37 AM on October 25, 2006

I heart moonbiter. That made my morning.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 7:37 AM on October 25, 2006

schoolgirl report - wha huh? now i am totally confused.
posted by thekilgore at 7:38 AM on October 25, 2006

jonmc: Coz jocks iz dumb. Specially ones I disagree with.

Spend a lot of time looking into the life of Jeff Suppan? Because I have^* and he's not particularly brilliant or concerned with the legal field. From what I understand8212;though I will cop to not having researched it personally8212;Sweeney is on the same bus.<sup>**

*</sup>Competing in a deep NL-only fantasy baseball league with owners who devote every waking moment to player research will cause one to do strange things. I was looking for an explanation for his new-found effectiveness a few years back8212;you know, does he inject or not? What I found was a relatively fundy pitcher who happened to find a way to paint the corners a few years later than most. It was a great $2 pickup in 2005 FYI...most others in my league considered him an injector or fluke or both. But then, you were way more interested in flaming me than any reasoned discourse weren't you?

^**This has been an interesting conversation on my league's listserv for the past several hours and someone I trust has claimed to have looked into Sweeney's background and makes the same assessment...in the event you were truly interested. Notice I did not make any comment about Warner8212;fantasy football and the NFL are both repugnant activities in my universe.
posted by Fezboy! at 7:43 AM on October 25, 2006

I murdered someone today because I decided not to get a girl pregnant. By preventing the child which would've resulted, I have killed it? Say wha?

False analogy. If you refuse to acknowledge the difference between endless theoretical possibilities and taking specific action to prevent what is already in motion and would otherwise occur, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
posted by pardonyou? at 7:49 AM on October 25, 2006

pardonyou? writes "I was not advancing the viability argument."

The second point makes no sense if it doesn't imply viability. Even assuming that it's an intellectual exercise, the argument is weak because it confuses potential viability with actual viability. One may as well argue that male masturbation is some sort of micro-genocide.
posted by clevershark at 7:57 AM on October 25, 2006

thekilgore: I was responding to Mr. Encyclopedia's claim at the top of the thread that the bill legalizes human cloning. It expressly does the opposite.
posted by schoolgirl report at 7:57 AM on October 25, 2006

clevershark: "I'd like to see at least once a pro-life argument that is not ultimately based on lunacy/religion."

You can't, but you're asking the wrong question. It's completely acceptable in our society today to make an appeal from emotion, with or without solid rational founding. Crossing over from another thread, that's why we have laws that make "hate crime" something different than regular crime and laws that make terrorism a crime in itself, effectively a crime of intent rather than commission.

From a purely rational, logical position there's simply no tenable position for the pro-life argument. However, it would be the opposite of rationality to assume that mankind's effects on the world will be or should be due solely to rational actions.

When you get right down to it, humans are creatures of heart and head. Both viewpoints, and the actions thereby motivated, are part of everyone's human nature. It's when you try to totally deny one for the other that you run into trouble.
posted by Mr. Gunn at 8:07 AM on October 25, 2006

Even assuming that it's an intellectual exercise, the argument is weak because it confuses potential viability with actual viability.

Well, to begin with, I'm not saying it's strong, I'm saying it's not "lunacy." If it was strong, I'd agree with it. I don't. But for some people -- non lunatics included -- a fetus is many steps removed from (and entitled to correspondingly greater protection than) a spent sperm or (in mullingitover's example) an idea or a possibility. That's not "crazy," or objectively wrong, it's just not a perspective shared by you or me. If we could get past the endless need to denigrate people who don't share our views, we might actually reach some sort of peace and understanding (if not agreement) in this world.
posted by pardonyou? at 8:12 AM on October 25, 2006

fezboy, I'm not saying he's not a jerk, but it's not impossible to be a smart athlete with knowledge of issues anymore than it's impossible to be an actor with the same. But it's still just another celebrity with a ten cent opinion, to be sure.
posted by jonmc at 8:17 AM on October 25, 2006

Coz jocks iz dumb. Specially ones I disagree with.

Yeah, way to mischaracterize what he's saying, Jon.

If they wanted that crappy response ad to carry any weight they should have talked a doctor or a scientist or someone with a shred of credibility rather than to a bunch of ball players and actors.

Oh, and it would have helped if they had actually processed the audio a little bit.
posted by bshort at 10:01 AM on October 25, 2006

Is Kurt Warner in prison in that awesomely terrible "response" ad?
posted by tpl1212 at 10:04 AM on October 25, 2006

I saw ABC tonight. They ran this as part of a larger story about MJF supporting stem cell research, but they added that after being confronted by callers, Rush apologized.

"Apologized" would be way too strong a word for what Rush did.

His initial position was essentially "I've seen Michael J. Fox on `Boston Legal' and he didn't shake uncontrollably on there so Fox was clearly acting for effect in the campaign ad"

After receiving several emails from listeners who informed Rush that they had seen Fox exhibit the same behavior in other TV appearances, Rush then changed his position to "Fox intentionally goes off his medication when testifying before Congress or campaigning for candidates he supports in order to dramatize the effects of Parkinson's".

Sean Hannitty was on "Good Morning America" this morning essentially defending Rush on this second point.
posted by The Gooch at 10:30 AM on October 25, 2006

80 comments and no link to the definitive analysis of Mr. Limbaugh's philosophy?

OK, I'll do it:

Speaking of Satan, I was watching Rush Limbaugh recently... Can't you just picture his fat, corpulent body lying in a tub while Reagan, Quayle, and Bush stand all around peeing on him. 'Ooh, I can't get hard. Ronnie, pee in my mouth'. He still can't get hard, so Barbara Bush comes in. She takes off her pearls, stuffs them up his ass, and undoes her girdle. Her wrinkled, flaccid labia unfurl half way to her knees, like some ball-less scrotum. Barbara walks over, squats over his face, and squeezes out a link into his mouth. Finally, his tiny dick gets half-way hard. 'Oooh!' A little bubble forms on the end of his dick, with a little maggot inside. The maggot pops the bubble, and goes off to join a pro-life group somewhere.

-- Bill Hicks
posted by matteo at 11:18 AM on October 25, 2006 [1 favorite]

Without reading all the comments, I consistently find it amazing that people demonize him for being a drug addict, when in fact he should be demonized for being a hypocrite. This from the very same crowd (the left) who would applaud if a speaker got up and admitted that they had been an addict...I wish that it wouldn't go down like this, bc if we get into the "(s)he's a drug addict/gambler/whore/sinner/whatever" arena (and a wide variety of Republicans come to mind who fit that bill), we're playing on the field of the religious right...which is rapidly sinking this country into all the various hells they accuse the left of dragging us all down into.

That being said, I'm a proud member of the left, and Rush Limbaugh is a belligerent asshole who should be used for bait for a creature who is very pissed off, plays with its food and eats slowly.

Sorry if any of this has been said already.
posted by nevercalm at 11:26 AM on October 25, 2006

Has Fox gone off his meds in public to show what he looks like unmedicated?

Yes.

He testified before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Hearing on Parkinson's Research and Treatment on September 28, 1999. The full transcript is here. Fox also talked about the hearing in his book:

"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."

Without the medication, his Parkinson's symptoms -- stiffness, tremors, "freezing up" -- would have been more visible. But was this sneaky? Shouldn't he have told the subcommittee that day that they were seeing him unmedicated?

Yes. And he did.

From that transcript:

"For many people with Parkinson's, managing their disease is a full-time job; it is a constant balancing act. Too little medicine causes tremors and stiffness, too much medicine produces uncontrollable movement and slurring, and far too often Parkinson's patients wait and wait (as I am right now) for their medicines to kick in."

And please note that, as ibmcginty has said, the symptoms he showed in that commercial were NOT Parkinson's symptoms. They were the side-effects of his L-Dopa medication.

Given that Fox has been honest in the past about being on or off medication in media appearances, I think he's being honest now. He wasn't off his meds (which wouldn't have helped with the flailing anyway.). He wasn't faking. Outside of carefully framed and edited appearances in tv entertainment, he does look that bad.
posted by maudlin at 12:24 PM on October 25, 2006

Yes, and those carefully framed and edited appearances probably came from many takes, the ones with the least movement being used in the final cut.

From a purely rational, logical position there's simply no tenable position for the pro-life argument.

Oh, please. A fetus is alive. Abortion kills it. That some people would oppose this on other than purely religious grounds makes very good logical sense.
posted by caddis at 1:05 PM on October 25, 2006

Progress or Not -- "Michael J. Fox’s political ads supporting stem-cell research are not only in good taste, they’re vital to the public discourse."
posted by ericb at 1:39 PM on October 25, 2006

"Don Imus comments on Rush Limbaugh's character for his claims that Michael J. Fox was only 'acting' in the commercial by "moving all around and shaking:"

'Rush Limbaugh, a fat, draft-dodging, drug addict -- jacking his maid up, having her buy dope for him -- That fat son of bitch, I mean, enough bad stuff can't happen to him,' Imus said." [YouTube]
posted by ericb at 1:46 PM on October 25, 2006

stop it or you'll make me like Imus for the first time in my life
posted by matteo at 1:50 PM on October 25, 2006

I consistently find it amazing that people demonize him for being a drug addict, when in fact he should be demonized for being a hypocrite.

Given his public stance on drug addicts, I'd say that was tautologous.
posted by Sparx at 1:52 PM on October 25, 2006

Anybody make out what Caviezel was saying at the beginning of that response ad? I was ready to assume it was what he said at the end, reversed.

Look, Rush is just mad because Michael J. Fox used to be such a loyal young conservative Republican.
posted by dhartung at 1:59 PM on October 25, 2006

You can't be both a loyal Republican and a loyal conservative.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:04 PM on October 25, 2006

Mr. Encyclopedia: Talent opposes embryonic stem cell research, and does so openly. This research does, in fact, give Parkinson's sufferers some hope.

Thus the ad is not a lie, even though your dittohead master wishes you to believe otherwise.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 2:14 PM on October 25, 2006

Y'know, one good thing about Rush's bullshit comment. Without his pompous absurdity, I never would've bothered watching that ad.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 2:16 PM on October 25, 2006

I consistently find it amazing that people demonize him for being a drug addict, when in fact he should be demonized for being a hypocrite.

It's two sides of the same coin. Being a drug addict is one of the things that MAKES him such an enraging hypocrite.

Noone on the left would probably care about his addictions if he hadn't been so public about advocating draconian punishments for drug use.

Also, he is a giant jackass, and the people that listen to him are truly imbeciles.
posted by Ynoxas at 2:25 PM on October 25, 2006

I prefer Dr Laura...
posted by i_cola at 2:47 PM on October 25, 2006

It's two sides of the same coin. Being a drug addict is one of the things that MAKES him such an enraging hypocrite.

I still say go at him for hypocrisy, not addiction. They are most decidedly not two sides of the same coin. One is often the result of another, sure, but plenty of people in recovery are addicts while not being hypocrites. It takes a special kind of asshole (and probably one who isn't facing 100% up to facts)(sounds like our illustrious president, actually) to be a hypocrite about it, to simultaneously be addicted to drugs and scream about how deranged and horrible drug addicts are. It's the same reason a priest molesting a boy is somehow worse than just some guy...both are really bad, but in only one case is someone presumed to be publicly and innately against the activity, with the resulting total violation of a mutually presumed trust feeling like much more of a violation because of the presumption. Name your favorite drug abuser....if he suddenly came out against drugs, you wouldn't turn on him bc of his stance, but rather his stance in light of his ongoing activities to the contrary.

Noone on the left would probably care about his addictions if he hadn't been so public about advocating draconian punishments for drug use.

This is what I'm saying. So don't go after him for being a drug addict. His addiction isn't the problem, it's his demonization of addicts, which is rank hypocrisy of the highest order. Which is a HUGE problem of the gay-baitin' (Foley, et al), tax-and-spend hatin' (what, 6 yrs of Bush running up all sortsa bills), family-values-pushing (hmmm....gays, gamblers, felons, killers, warmakers and greedheads of every stripe), national-security-mongering (take your pick) Republican party. So go ahead and fill the messenger with holes, just do it for the right reasons.
posted by nevercalm at 2:54 PM on October 25, 2006

I prefer Dr Laura...
posted by i_cola at 4:47 PM CST on October 25

She certainly looks better naked.

nevercalm: I see what you're saying. I think maybe people consider it more accurate and more hurtful to say the object the person is hypocritical about rather than just a generic "hypocrite".

For instance, an abusing priest might rightly be more shamed by being called a "child molester" than simply a "hypocrite". I mean, they could be a hypocrite for literally hundreds of reasons. But that one in particular is a real doozy.

I'd like to say again that Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot.(Thanks Al Franken)
posted by Ynoxas at 3:09 PM on October 25, 2006

There is one thing that Michael J. Fox manipulated:

His pronunciation of the state.

In an interview here, he clearly pronounces the name of MO as Missourree. But in the ad he pronounces it as Missourruh.

Pandering to Missourians, eh? I smell a scandal.
posted by Deathalicious at 4:09 PM on October 25, 2006

On the news tonight they where commenting on the fact the Rush has actually made the ad a national issue, and the D candidate has been getting a lot of extra resources because of it. The national GOP just poured $2 extra mill into the state.
(oh and what the GOP is calling these infusions of cash into MO, TN and VA? Buyback money.)
posted by edgeways at 4:56 PM on October 25, 2006

Anybody make out what Caviezel was saying at the beginning of that response ad? I was ready to assume it was what he said at the end, reversed.

I think it's Aramaic, to tie in with the fact that he's Jesus. It's a weird, weird commercial.
posted by EarBucket at 4:58 PM on October 25, 2006

A reversal --

Limbaugh on Michael J. Fox: ‘I Take Back None of What I Said’

"I stand by what I said. I take back none of what I said. I wouldn’t rephrase it any differently. It is what I believe; it is what I think. It is what I have found to be true."

posted by ericb at 5:51 PM on October 25, 2006

What do we expect from shit-disturbing intellectual midgets like Limbaugh and his audience, anyway.

I was almost about to forget, among those other things that one may call him -- hare-brained, junky, asshole -- Limbaugh is also impotent. Isn't that what one uses Viagra to "treat"?

Bald, fat, addicted, impotent and dumb as a box of hair. Good thing he's got money, that's got to buy him a lot of teenaged hookers down in the Dominican Republic.
posted by clevershark at 6:06 PM on October 25, 2006

Patti Davis: Heartlessness. "Michael J. Fox is an example of how we should all be living our lives. Rush Limbaugh’s nasty stem-cell-ad response is not."
posted by ericb at 7:48 PM on October 25, 2006

pardonyou?, I think an argument more typical of strongly pro-life people is something like:


1) Any living human being is a person.
2) At the time of fertilization, a human egg becomes a human being.
3) Therefore a living fertilized human egg, or embryo, or fetus, is a person.
5) Aborting a living fertilized egg, or embryo, or fetus, is killing a person.
6) Deliberately killing a person is wrong.
7) Abortion* is wrong.

Hence, all the indecision about "potential" goes away. The bright line is right at the beginning.

To strongly pro-life people, that is.


*If done deliberately. As far as I know, strongly pro-life people have no problem with spontaneous abortion/ miscarriage, if it is purely accidental in nature.
posted by xigxag at 9:13 PM on October 25, 2006

Olbermann Gives Us The Visual To Limbaugh’s Attack On Michael J. Fox
posted by homunculus at 10:59 PM on October 25, 2006

pardonyou?, I think an argument more typical of strongly pro-life people is something like:

You're probably right. However, I wasn't trying to make the strong pro-life argument; I was only advancing an argument in response to clevershark's somewhat absurd statement, "I'd like to see at least once a pro-life argument that is not ultimately based on lunacy/religion." Although, frankly, caddis' compressed response was probably better.
posted by pardonyou? at 6:49 AM on October 26, 2006

You Too Can Be A Taxi Cab Feminazi
posted by homunculus at 9:35 AM on October 26, 2006

ABC pre-emptively criticized Democrats for negative campaign ads that have not yet been produced
posted by homunculus at 9:43 AM on October 26, 2006

The visual of Rush shaking about, simulating the tremors, made me physically ill. There aren't words to adequately convey my contempt for the man.
posted by parilous at 10:06 AM on October 26, 2006

It shows what a low class guy he really is.
posted by caddis at 11:08 AM on October 26, 2006

caddis: "Yes, and those carefully framed and edited appearances probably came from many takes, the ones with the least movement being used in the final cut.

From a purely rational, logical position there's simply no tenable position for the pro-life argument.

Oh, please. A fetus is alive. Abortion kills it. That some people would oppose this on other than purely religious grounds makes very good logical sense."

As pointed out further down this thread, if you want to be rational, you either draw the bright line at the beginning(ev'ry sperm is sacred), or you don't draw it at all and make your argument on other grounds. As practiced, the pro-life position draws a line somewhere between a morula and an embryo, and there can be no rational basis for this.

To say it's wrong to kill something that's alive is to make a moral statement that most people won't disagree with, but doesn't hold up when you look at it. We eat things that are alive, but that's OK because those things aren't human. We cannibalize parts of our body daily to go on living, but that's ok because those are just parts of our body, not the whole thing and don't live on their own. At what point does an egg go from being part of the woman's body to a organism living on its own? When it's fertilized? What about if, instead of fusing a sperm with the egg, you removed the nucleus of the egg and added a nucleus from a cell derived from, say, the mammary epithelium? The egg itself is but a part of the woman's body. The epithelial cell is but a part of the body, but now it can go on to become a living breathing organism which it would presumably be wrong to kill. So when did the magic happen? Is the soul in the nucleus or the cytoplasm?

There's no rational basis upon which the theory that killing something that hasn't been born yet can rest. That's not saying there's no good argument, just that there's no rational one, and it's OK that there's no rational one. Not all decisions can or should be rational. But please don't try to say something is rational when it's not.
posted by Mr. Gunn at 11:12 AM on October 26, 2006

The visual of Rush shaking about, simulating the tremors, made me physically ill. There aren't words to adequately convey my contempt for the man.

I agree. I'd FPP it if there were not already two posts on the whole MJF ad thing already. I think that if more people saw the clip, the whole fake "controversy" around the MJF ad would turn around and bite Rushbo.
posted by Mid at 11:29 AM on October 26, 2006

‘The Fox Effect.’

A new study of Michael J. Fox’s stem cell ad shows “support for stem cell research increased from 78% prior to viewing the ad, to 83% after viewing the ad. Support among Democrats increased from 89% to 93%, support among Republicans increased from 66% to 68% and support among Independents increased from 80% to 87% after viewing the ad.”

posted by ericb at 12:00 PM on October 26, 2006

if you want to be rational, you either draw the bright line at the beginning(ev'ry sperm is sacred), or you don't draw it at all

How irrational.

To say it's wrong to kill something that's alive

I did not make that statement.
posted by caddis at 12:25 PM on October 26, 2006

Michael J. Fox on the CBS Evening News: I Was Over-Medicated In Stem Cell Ad.

Watch the interview.
posted by ericb at 7:52 PM on October 26, 2006

Jesus Disagrees With Michael J. Fox
posted by homunculus at 1:23 PM on October 27, 2006

NIH: Stem Cells Likely to Treat Parkinson's
posted by homunculus at 1:32 PM on October 27, 2006

Michael J Fox’s compasionate plea
posted by homunculus at 7:57 PM on October 29, 2006

Colbert On Limbaugh
posted by homunculus at 11:04 AM on October 31, 2006