Counter to Micheal J Fox

[AKLRULZ]

Besides neglecting to takes his medication to enhance the shock value of his ad, here is what else Fox neglected to inform Missouri voters:


Counter to Fox's ad

 

[bicker]

This is just a reflection of how this issue cuts so close to people's personal beliefs.

As such, this shouldn't be something government imposes. Reasonable people disagree about this, so those who object to it can avoid participating in and making use of the benefits of stem-cell research, while the rest of us can participate in it, and make use of its benefits.

 

[Galahad]

This is just a reflection of how this issue cuts so close to people's personal beliefs.

As such, this shouldn't be something government imposes. Reasonable people disagree about this, so those who object to it can avoid participating in and making use of the benefits of stem-cell research, while the rest of us can participate in it, and make use of its benefits.

I agree. It's the same reasoning behind the fact that the federal government doesn't pay for abortions. They are perfectly legal but we aren't forcing the public to pay for them.

 

[Fitswimmer]

I hadn't heard anything from the opposite side of the debate, so I found that commercial really interesting.

 

[DeterminedOne]

 

[Heidict]

I agree. It's the same reasoning behind the fact that the federal government doesn't pay for abortions. They are perfectly legal but we aren't forcing the public to pay for them.

Actually I am paying for them. As are you and most others.

We pay for them with our tax dollars, for those who have state medicaid insurance. And with the cost of our premimiums going up, due to private insurance being forced to pay for them, in most cases.

Stem cell research is a touchy subject for most people. I can see the good and bad in it.

 

[hentob]

Actually I am paying for them. As are you and most others.

We pay for them with our tax dollars, for those who have state medicaid insurance. And with the cost of our premimiums going up, due to private insurance being forced to pay for them, in most cases.

I didn't know that state medicaid insurance covered abortions? Am I out of the loop

 

[Galahad]

I didn't know that state medicaid insurance covered abortions? Am I out of the loop

I think some States do, but I think most don't (ours does not - for elective abortions). I suppose they are right about cost shifting, but the principle is still the same - governments in general - Federal or State - don't directly pay for abortion procedures even though the procedures are kept legal.

 

[AllyandJack]

I believe it is up to the states to kick in Medicaid funding for abortions. Some allow it freely, others have restrictions, such as rape, incest, fetal anomaly, risk to mother.

 

[rabx5]

Besides neglecting to takes his medication to enhance the shock value of his ad,

How do you know that he neglected to take his meds? Did Tinkerbelle tell ya?
Just another IMO

Leave it up to Missouri voters.

 

[hentob]

I believe it is up to the states to kick in Medicaid funding for abortions. Some allow it freely, others have restrictions, such as rape, incest, fetal anomaly, risk to mother.

I learned something new today. I had no idea abortion was ever covered. Not a bad idea.

 

[Heidict]

I think some States do, but I think most don't (ours does not - for elective abortions). I suppose they are right about cost shifting, but the principle is still the same - governments in general - Federal or State - don't directly pay for abortion procedures even though the procedures are kept legal.

Oh. I know ours does. I guess I just figured that they all do now.

 

[Beth76]

How do you know that he neglected to take his meds? Did Tinkerbelle tell ya?
Just another IMO

Leave it up to Missouri voters.

I think he said that he didn't take his meds, which he absolutely should do! If he's fighting for studies and treatment of his illness he needs to show the world what his illness actually is. Not the sugar coated (read: medicated) version.

I'd much rather listen to MJF who actually has a need for this than random sports/entertainment figures who just don't like it. And why did it take 5 people to go up against one person?

But, don't worry people, I doubt this will pass.

 

[NewJersey]

How is it deception when he doesn't take the meds that hide the effects of his illness? I think he just wants people to see what can happen when people who aren't fortunate enough to be able to afford the meds he can take, happens to their bodies.

 

[JudicialTyranny]

Name one thing that "stem cells" have cured.

The facts are that:

- The amendment in question (that Fox is promoting) is about cloning, not stem cell research

- Adult stem cells, rather than embryonic, show the most promise. Some of those promoting embryonic research treat the issue as simply a branch of the abortion debate. To some, it is all the same debate, it's just a question of age. Two day old embryo vs. 6 month fetus - same thing. Kill either at will.

- Is this what Fox wants?

Stem cells might cause brain tumors, study finds

Injecting human embryonic stem cells into the brains of Parkinson's disease patients may cause tumors to form, U.S. researchers reported on Sunday.

- Oh, and wait a minute. The Democrats keep telling us that it's Bush's Fault and conservatives fault that we can't do stem cell research. Read the above quote from the Reuters article. Seems that is not the case, isn't it? Hmmm... Someone is lying, its seems.

 

[hentob]

I'd much rather listen to MJF who actually has a need for this than random sports/entertainment figures who just don't like it. And why did it take 5 people to go up against one person?

Patricia Heaton -- Don't get me started

 

[Independent]

Besides neglecting to takes his medication to enhance the shock value of his ad, here is what else Fox neglected to inform Missouri voters:


Counter to Fox's ad

Wow, I am just in awe. I had no idea we had one of Michael J. Fox's personal physicians regularly posting on the DIS boards. And an expert in Parkinson's to boot.

 

[cardaway]

Sad that there was once again a bunch panties in a bunch because MJF, an actor, was speaking on politics and yet no whining here when actors and sports figures are doing the same thing.

 

[Fitswimmer]

I watched MJF testify to Congress. My Dad has Parkinson's and I was interested in the hearings. MJF said that he deliberately did NOT take his meds that day so that the symptoms would be more pronounced. If he did the same thing for the commercial, he didn't disclose it like he did at the hearings. That's the only thing I can think would be a problem.

How come it's ok for him to do the commercial, but not ok for the athletes and actors who have an opposing view? Do you have to have Parkinson's to have a valid opinion? Is my opinion less valid because my Dad has it and I don't or is that opinion only slightly less valid?

Personally, I think that it would make a lot more sense to fund the research privately. Every time government gets involved, things get screwed up.

 

[Geoff_M]

To the question of Fox and taking this medication, Fox clearly believes that when advocating for research into Parkinson's, it's best to show the disease unmasked by drugs that control its symptoms. In Fox's own words, from his own web site:

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. Link

In an episode of "Inside The Actor's Studio" taped last year is was clear that Fox is able to control the symptoms through the use of medication, though he requires it frequently. During the "Actor's" interview he had to excuse himself to take some more and returned after a cut in the interview with the Parkinson's symptoms gone. Given this facts, the belief that Fox once again held his medication when engauging in public advocacy is neither "cruel" or illogical.

As to the Democrats using Fox's illness as a political "trump card", Blogger Dean Barnett (who suffers from Cystic Fibrosis and might also benefit from stem cell research) offers some other insight on the whole Fox issue:

Absolute Moral Authority Revisited
Posted by Dean Barnett

Allah (Allahpundit, another blogger) yesterday uncomfortably alluded to an Ann Coulter theory that the left was devising a strategy where it would rely solely on spokespeople that you couldn’t argue with. While I, too, deplore Ann’s bomb throwing, when she’s right, she’s right. The left’s strategy is to have absolute moral authority figures like the Jersey Girls or Cindy Sheehan carry its message. The messengers would also necessarily be victims so if you got down ‘n’ dirty with them, you would automatically qualify as a cretin.

I learned this firsthand over the past couple of days when I questioned Michael J. Fox’s actions during this campaign season. My inbox filled with vituperative semi-literate screeds, while on the internet blogging imbeciles inferred from my post that I was “mad that I can’t attack handicapped people.”

Much as Glenn Greenwald heaves one of his virtual despairing sighs when neither he nor any of his alter egos can achieve a productive dialogue with his right wing critics, I now face the temptation to walk away from this matter. Alas, sadly, there is more to say. Markos Moulitsas has coined the Michael J. Fox offensive the real October surprise. Thus, it must be dealt with.

First, given the ridiculous protocols of our day, I feel it’s necessary to establish the fact that my victim bona fides compare favorably to Fox’s. For those of you new to the site, I have Cystic Fibrosis. CF is a genetic disease, so I’ve had it all my life. It is no exaggeration to say that while Fox was gamboling around the set of Family Ties in the mid-1980’s, I was fighting for my life. Since then, my health has ranged from shockingly good for a CF patient to rather precarious.

I say this not to elicit anyone’s sympathy. Quite the contrary, I have willingly entered the rough and tumble of politics via the blogosphere expecting no quarter. Nor have I offered any. If I have a code, that’s it.

Liberal Democrats, on the other hand, often operate as if guided by the exact opposite principle. They think a person’s victim status means that he must necessarily be treated with kid gloves. Max Cleland has become a voice of perpetual outrage since he was ousted from the Senate in 2002. The Democrats bring him out every time they wish to create a visual representation of how mean Republicans are. Cleland’s triple amputee status serves as an implicit and often explicit indictment of Republican politics – so venal are Republicans, Cleland’s very presence seems to scream, they attacked this heroic man.

But I’m here to tell you that you’re not a hero just because you get sick or have bad luck. You’re not even special. Before we get off this planet, we’ll all have serious illness or serious bad luck, likely both. Sorry to say, the world isn’t full of 6 billion heroes.

I’ve sat in lung transplant support groups and seen people show incredible courage and stoicism. I’ve also seen people carry on endlessly, lost in their own self-pity, angry at the world and doing everything possible to make their loved ones miserable. I can tell you from personal experience, you’d have to have a heart of stone to not feel for all these people. But they’re not all heroes. No way.

Michael J. Fox has willingly entered the political fray several times over the past decade. I’ve learned that a lot of people think that questioning him, his motives or his wisdom is a third rail of polite conversation. It isn’t, or at least it shouldn’t be.

The ad that premiered yesterday in support of Claire McCaskill was grossly misleading. It didn’t mention any of the specifics where Talent differed with Fox, surely because McCaskill knew that on those areas of difference, Talent is much more closely aligned with Mizz-o-rah voters than Fox is. What’s more, the areas of difference will be settled by a referendum question in the Show Me state, so the differences between the Senate candidates are moot.

Today Fox debuted an ad on behalf of Maryland Senate candidate Ben Cardin. The scene was the same as the McCaskill ad – an obviously unwell Fox looking into the camera and beseeching viewers to support Ben Cardin.

In both ads, Fox’s commentary raises the issue of what lines of research have been promising and what lines haven’t. Oddly, both ads avoid the mention of embryonic stem cell research, but that must be what Fox was talking about. I haven’t heard a single politician, either Republican or Democrat, oppose adult stem cell research or any other kind of stem cell research except embryonic stem cell research.

The first thing of note about embryonic stem cell research is that to date it has been a dead end. Again, regarding what kind of funding embryonic stem cell research should get, I can call on some personal expertise. The medical research community has scarce dollars. Those dollars get funneled into the most promising areas. Unless the government is doing the spending, they are not frittered away on vanity projects or to make political statements. Based on embryonic stem cell research’s results to date – none – it is not a logical recipient for scarce research dollars.

And then of course there is the moral issue. Fox’s plea is presumably supposed to preempt any debate on that matter. His presence seems to defy any political antagonists to defend a fetus and deny him hope.

It doesn’t work that way, or at least it shouldn’t. Michael J. Fox has no particular monopoly on morality. Quite the contrary, his past admission that he appeared before a Senate subcommittee without having used his medication suggests an unbecoming moral flexibility. This is brutally manipulative behavior, and I’ve seen many ill people use similar means to get what they want. Such conduct is contemptible.

Here’s the part that Michael J. Fox and his abettors in the Democratic Party don’t get. A presence like Fox’s or Cleland’s can end arguments, but they don’t win them. People may be reluctant to disagree with them publicly because of the pity factor that Fox and Cleland so assiduously court, but just because people who disagree with them are cowed into silence doesn’t mean they rest in agreement.

When all was said and done, Max Cleland lost his reelection campaign in 2002. That’s a fact the 2006 Democratic Party would do well to remember.

Link