# Rush Limbaugh is a dick of the highest order **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 25, 2006, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-is-a-dick-of-the-highest-order/377858 "2006-10-25T17:24:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2006, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-is-a-dick-of-the-highest-order/377858/101 "2006-10-27T13:38:36Z")
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian] 7) Katie Couric is a dumbass partisan conservative fuckface, whose ratings are in the toilet. (Okay, I did not see this particular interview, but I’ll take Digby’s review of it at his word until I can see it for myself.) [/QUOTE] To be fair to Couric, I never got the impression she was pushing to uncover some falsehood on his part (I watched the interview on CBC’s website). To me it seemed as though she was just asking him the questions that were bound to come up when he’d been attacked by Rush (among others); it didn’t seem as though she were attacking herself, and her questions seemed pretty neutral (Some people have said this; what is your response?). The only point i’d say at which she did properly _question_ him was when they showed Fox one of the ads running for the competitor; it made allegations that the amendment would allow cloning (as well as a couple of other things) and she pressed him on his views on that. Again, I didn’t get the impression of vindictiveness in her approach - if anything, she seemed kinda insubstantial. ---
**Author:** ![Aholibah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Aholibah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aholibah)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2006, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-is-a-dick-of-the-highest-order/377858/102 "2006-10-27T15:08:15Z")
[QUOTE=Bob55] The section you quoted is indeed dealing with stem cells, and I did not know that because I hadn’t read the ballot initiative. But what I’ve heard is that stem cell research is _already_ legal in Missouri, and going on in Universities across the state (according to Rush) so there’s nothing really on the ballot about it other than wording. I don’t know if he’s wrong or right on that, **I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt because people can obviously fact check that**. I think another point might be that the opponent to the candidate Fox spoke for is not against stem cells in any way, which is another reason the ad was misleading. [/QUOTE] _(emphasis added)_ **Bob55** , YOU can fact-check it. I provided a link to the full-text of the initiative. You don’t have to take Rush’s word for it anymore! And you shouldn’t, because his words are lies, on this subject at least. The ballot initiative is clearly written in order to preserve the ability of Missouri researchers to perform embryonic stem cell research and of doctors to prescribe treatments based on such research. If passed, it would prohibit any kind of punitive funding shenanigans, like withholding grant money on one project because the principal investigator is involved in stem cell research on another project. No, the amendment is not intended to legalize something that is currently illegal, but to enshrine in the state’s constitution the right of scientists, researchers and doctors to pursue their research (within the bounds of ethics, and under the direction of Institutional Review Boards), without fear of political or financial reprisal. And of course the candidate Fox spoke for (Claire McCaskill) is not against stem cells in any way. That’s the point of Fox advocating for her. But I suspect you were trying to say that McCaskill’s opponent (Jim Talent) is not against stem cells. Here’s the problem with that assertion: [Talent has supported stem cell research ban](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Talent#Stem_Cell_Research) [Quote=wikipedia] Since joining the Senate in 2002, **Talent had supported federal legislation that would ban embryonic stem cell research. This included co-sponsoring a bill (S.658) sponsored by Senator Sam Brownback which would ban all forms of human cloning including embryonic therapeutic cloning techniques that are seen as crucial to stem cell research.** Many felt this law was unneeded since President Bill Clinton outlawed Human Cloning in 1998. **On Feb 10, 2006, Talent withdrew his support for the bill** , citing the need to balance research and protection against human cloning. **This move followed criticism by Talent’s opponent in the 2006 election, Claire McCaskill,** as well as pressure from Missouri business interests that oppose restrictions on stem cell research. Though **this reversal was widely criticized as being due to politics,** Talent told the Associated Press, “The technology is changing all the time and so I’m always considering whether there is a better way to strike the balance.”. Talent suggests that moral concerns might be put to rest through a possible future scientific breakthrough - replicating embryonic stem cells without the use of cloned embryos. There is a ballot-initiative in Missouri in November 2006 to amend the state constitution and allow, in line with federal law, stem cell research and treatment. \*\*On May 1, 2006, Talent announced his opposition to the proposed ballot-initiative \*\*. Stem cell research and treatment is working up to be a divisive issue for many Republicans and is taking a particular prominence in Missouri. In July 2006, **he voted against expanding federal funds for embryonic stem cell research in cases where the embryos were donated by fertility clinics or were created for purposes of fertility treatment.** This bill passed the Senate 63-37, but was vetoed by President Bush, in a move that was said to have significant political implications for Talent. [/quote] _(emphasis added again)_ Please, **Bob** : Read, Think, Question. Don’t just ditto. ---
**Author:** ![Aholibah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Aholibah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aholibah)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2006, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-is-a-dick-of-the-highest-order/377858/103 "2006-10-27T15:13:44Z")
**Bob** – I apologize. I see that you did include “the opponent to the candidate Fox spoke for.” I told you I needed help from people with advanced reading comprehension. 😉 All I can say is, [Quote=me] **Read** , Think, Question [/quote] do as I say, not as I do. ---
**Author:** ![OneCentStamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/13edae/32.png) [@OneCentStamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OneCentStamp)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2006, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-is-a-dick-of-the-highest-order/377858/104 "2006-10-27T15:25:08Z")
[QUOTE=Mince] My grandfather suffered through Alzheimer’s for an extended period before he died; so your appeal to pity is meaningless in my world. [/quote] This makes no sense at all to me. I would think that losing a loved one to a degenerative disease would make you _more_ empathetic here, not less. > [@](#): > > Beyond a Google search for “Michael J. Fox and Parkinson’s” I don’t know how much exposure you’ve had to someone suffering from a neurologic condition. Plenty. Besides members of my own extended family (Alzheimers, like your grandfather), one of my summer jobs in high school (all three years) was volunteering at the nursing home where my mom worked. > [@](#): > > I know I’ve at least had the exposure of my grandfather. He, amongst others in my family, wanted stem cell research and (knock on wood) its subsequent cure more than anything. But I have a high degree of confidence in stating that he would not have approved using his disease state as a tool for securing such cure. He was a wise man and recognized that those who did not see the path to a cure would not be convinced by an on-camera display of the effects of his disease. How else is someone who has had no direct exposure to the effects of the disease expected to make an informed decision about it? You, of all people, should know that a Wikipedia article (for example) on Parkinson’s disease doesn’t tell the whole story on the suffering it causes. > [@](#): > > That’s the key, isn’t it. If you really think that McCaskill is more interested in curing Parkinson’s than getting elected, you certainly may have standing. But you also must allow that she might do anything to accomplish _both_ tasks, including exploiting Fox’s disease to garner votes. I guess here’s another place we differ. If Fox is willingly participating, and McCaskill really follows through on what she promises, I don’t see how it’s exploitation. Both people are getting exactly what they want. ---
**Author:** ![Bob55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Bob55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bob55)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2006, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-is-a-dick-of-the-highest-order/377858/105 "2006-10-27T16:02:51Z")
[QUOTE=Sailboat] You mean, he’s admitted to doing it other times? He’s not “admitting to it” this time: [Fox: I wasn’t acting or off medication](http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/27/fox.couric.ap/index.html) Sailboat [/QUOTE] As it turns out, Fox has gone the other way and said he has been taking _too much_ medication, and results in what is called dyskinesia and are the symptoms he is exhibiting in this advertisement: [link](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_J._Fox) > [@](#): > > FOX: Well, actually, I’ve been erring on the side of caution–I think ‘erring’ is actually the right word–in that I’ve been medicating perhaps too much, in the sense that a lot of times the symptoms that people see in some of these interviews that have been on are actually dyskinesia, which is a reaction to the medication. Because if I were purely symptomatic with Parkinson’s symptoms, a lot of times speaking is difficult. There’s a kind of a cluttering of speech and it’s very difficult to sit still, to sit in one place. You know, the symptoms are different, so I’d rather kind of suffer the symptoms of dyskinesia. . .this kind of weaving and this kind of continuous thing is much preferable, actually, than pure Parkinson’s symptoms. So that’s what I generally do. . . . . .So I haven’t had any, you know, problems with pure Parkinson’s symptoms in any of these interviews, because I’ll tend to just make sure that I have enough Sinemet in my system and, in some cases, too much. But to me, it’s preferable. It’s not representative of what I’m like in my everyday life. I get a lot of people with Parkinson’s coming up to me saying, ‘You take too much medication.’ I say, ‘Well, you sit across from Larry King and see if you want to tempt it.’ [QUOTE=Aholibah] _(emphasis added)_ **Bob55** , YOU can fact-check it. I provided a link to the full-text of the initiative. You don’t have to take Rush’s word for it anymore! And you shouldn’t, because his words are lies, on this subject at least. The ballot initiative is clearly written in order to preserve the ability of Missouri researchers to perform embryonic stem cell research and of doctors to prescribe treatments based on such research. If passed, it would prohibit any kind of punitive funding shenanigans, like withholding grant money on one project because the principal investigator is involved in stem cell research on another project. No, the amendment is not intended to legalize something that is currently illegal, but to enshrine in the state’s constitution the right of scientists, researchers and doctors to pursue their research (within the bounds of ethics, and under the direction of Institutional Review Boards), without fear of political or financial reprisal. And of course the candidate Fox spoke for (Claire McCaskill) is not against stem cells in any way. That’s the point of Fox advocating for her. But I suspect you were trying to say that McCaskill’s opponent (Jim Talent) is not against stem cells. Here’s the problem with that assertion: [Talent has supported stem cell research ban](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Talent#Stem_Cell_Research) _(emphasis added again)_ Please, **Bob** : Read, Think, Question. Don’t just ditto. [/QUOTE] I’ll admit it, sometimes I just “ditto” as you said. I think I assume that everyone is honest, and that they wouldn’t/shouldn’t lie - especially to 20 million listeners who can fact-check things as I said - about anything. I do give talk radio the benefit of the doubt because unlike television or newspaper writers who can say something and not defend/respond to it, Rush/Beck/Hannity/Boortz/etc all have to go up against people who disagree with them constantly, live, on the air. In the case of Jim Talent, as it says he reversed his opinion on the stem cell ban. Political or not, people change their minds all the time (like party-switching after you’re elected), and in this case maybe he felt his support of the ban was wrong? It’s possible the evidence changed his mind. I don’t know who MJ Fox did the other advertisement for (maybe someone in New Jersey?), but Rush stated that that candidate had in fact supported a ban on stem cell research as well. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2006, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-is-a-dick-of-the-highest-order/377858/106 "2006-10-27T16:17:49Z")
[QUOTE=Bob55] I do give talk radio the benefit of the doubt because unlike television or newspaper writers who can say something and not defend/respond to it, Rush/Beck/Hannity/Boortz/etc all have to go up against people who disagree with them constantly, live, on the air. [/QUOTE] :dubious: You are aware, aren’t you, that Rush’s calls are carefully screened? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2006, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-is-a-dick-of-the-highest-order/377858/107 "2006-10-27T16:22:54Z")
I don’t know why I continue to be surprised, but I honestly am a bit dumbfounded at the sheer ignorance of people who listen to right wing radio. My word, but reading **bob’s** stuff here and talking with others makes me think that these folks are intellectually 14 years of age. For example, I just had an argument today with a right-wing radio consumer in our office. He contended the following things (sticking only with the factually oriented nonsense and saying nothing about the stupidity of his opinions): 1. The Missouri ballot initiative supports cloning humans (it expressly prohibits it). 2. Diabetes is not commonly mentioned as a disease for which stem cell research might provide a cures. 3. Bush’s policy and official actions on stem cells have increased, not curtailed, the amount of stem cell research being conducted in America. 4. Of course, Michael J. Fox did not take his medications and was playing up his symptoms. 5. 51% of Syrians support human cloning. (I don’t know for sure that this is false, but I have a gut feeling that it’s bullshit. It was also, as you might guess, fairly irrelevant, but I digress). How many times to fucking morons who listen to these right wing radio programs actually check their facts? How often do they think, “Hey, I’m getting a fair bit of misinformation here. Perhaps I should stop listening to these clowns.”? Do they prefer to appear exceptionally stupid? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2006, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-is-a-dick-of-the-highest-order/377858/108 "2006-10-27T16:27:10Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] :dubious: You are aware, aren’t you, that Rush’s calls are carefully screened? [/QUOTE] Related: [Study Shows Conservative Radio Hosts Less Accepting of Dissenters than Liberal Hosts](http://www.research2000.us/2006/09/21/talk-show-radio-accessibility-follow-up-survey-results/) ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2006, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-is-a-dick-of-the-highest-order/377858/109 "2006-10-27T16:30:38Z")
It’s amazing what you can write in [Canadian newspapers](http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1161856750000&call_pageid=968867505381&col=969048872038) > [@](#): > > Now, I know this may offend those who suffer from this particular condition, and these individuals might not like it much when I suggest that a certain person with this diagnosis is exaggerating his symptoms, but I have to say, I think Rush Limbaugh is just pretending to be a dick. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2006, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-is-a-dick-of-the-highest-order/377858/110 "2006-10-27T16:30:48Z")
[QUOTE=Bob55] I don’t know who MJ Fox did the other advertisement for (maybe someone in New Jersey?), but Rush stated that that candidate had in fact supported a ban on stem cell research as well. [/QUOTE] Kee-ryst, but I hope your woeful ignorance suggests to you that you should reconsider your beliefs about the sources for your news. That was Arlen Specter, Senator from Pennsylvania. Here’s his website statement regarding stem cells: [http://specter.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.Home&Issue\_id=23](http://specter.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.Home&Issue_id=23) > [@](#): > > With the increased availability of Federal research dollars, it is also important for Congress to help facilitate the availability of ethical and innovative research techniques. For this reason, I have continued to advocate stem cell research for the purposes of discovering knowledge that may lead to cures for ailments such as cancer, Parkinson’s, and Alzheimer’s. On February 8, 2005, I joined a bipartisan group of senators in introducing S. 471, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005. Current federal policy on human embryonic stem cell research only allows federally funded research on those stem cells derived before August 9, 2001. Today, only 22 stem cell lines are available to federally funded scientists. S. 471 would lift the date restriction and allow federally funded scientists to research a greater number of stem cell lines. The legislation would also provide stronger ethical requirements on stem cell lines eligible for funding including donor consent, certification that embryos donated are in excess of clinical need, and that the embryos would be otherwise discarded. You are right. These people do routinely lie about things that are easily checked out and debunked. You know why they do? Because you let them. You don’t bother checking, you don’t bother thinking, and you continue to listen. I mean, if you even thought about it for a moment, why would Fox do a stem cell ad for someone who opposes stem cell research? It’s just illogical on its face, let alone being devoid of truth. My god, but you are a scary dude. ---
**Author:** ![Aholibah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Aholibah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aholibah)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2006, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-is-a-dick-of-the-highest-order/377858/111 "2006-10-27T16:37:11Z")
[QUOTE=Bob55] I’ll admit it, sometimes I just “ditto” as you said. I think I assume that everyone is honest, and that they wouldn’t/shouldn’t lie - especially to 20 million listeners who can fact-check things as I said - about anything. [/quote] It’s understandable — we can’t all check everything. But I’m hoping that the give and take in this thread might inspire you to listen with more caution and skepticism. Remember that Rush has a lot of control over what callers get on the air, what they are permitted to say and how much time they are given to make their case. He (and O’Reilly and their ilk) have the ultimate bully pulpit, and they use it to bully. (And yes, I know that that’s not the original sense of “bully pulpit” – I just think it’s fitting here). Reasoned debate is not their metier – it doesn’t get the ratings. > [@Bob55](#): > > In the case of Jim Talent, as it says he reversed his opinion on the stem cell ban. Political or not, people change their minds all the time (like party-switching after you’re elected), and in this case maybe he felt his support of the ban was wrong? It’s possible the evidence changed his mind. Of course, it’s possible, but here’s the thing. If you’re Michael J. Fox, and you are dealing with a progressive debilitating disease, and you believe that stem cell research offers the best hope of a cure (for yourself or others like you, now or in the future), and you have the opportunity to advocate for a political candidate with some reasonable hope of swaying some voters to your cause, do you advocate for a guy who co-sponsored a bill to ban stem cell research, but then withdrew his support for that bill, but has since come out against the ballot initiative that would protect and encourage stem cell research and voted to oppose expanded federal funding, or do you advocate for the challenger who is promising to do all she can to advance the cause about which you care most? Do you see why Talent’s record on this issue is not adequately summed up by “he reversed his opinion on the stem cell ban?” He co-sponsored it, then withdrew his support, but since then has taken several opportunities to block stem cell research. Whether Talent’s motives in all this are pure or base, he does not represent MJF’s best hope for advancing the cause of stem cell research. Advocating for Talent’s opponent makes perfect sense for a person who cares deeply about the prospects for stem cell research in this country. > [@Bob55](#): > > I don’t know who MJ Fox did the other advertisement for (maybe someone in New Jersey?), but Rush stated that that candidate had in fact supported a ban on stem cell research as well. Well, according to [The Washington Post](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/25/AR2006102500145.html) : > [@Washington Post](#): > > Fox also has lent his celebrity to Democrats Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin, running for the Senate in Maryland, and Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle, who is seeking re-election. Both politicians also back stem cell research. Regarding Jim Doyle, here’s what I could dig up quickly: > [@wikipedia](#): > > His stated priorities are; investing in public schools, property taxes, regional economic development, transportation reform, and funding of stem cell research. In an ad on television Michael J Fox gave support for Doyle due to his support of stem cell research. Regarding Cardin, I’ve got [this press release](http://www.steeleformaryland.com/SETTINGTHERECORDSTRAIGHTCardinVotedAgainstStemCellResearchforPurePoliticalGain.htm) from his opponent, stating: > [@Michael Steele press release](#): > > Michael Steele said, “There is only one candidate in this race who voted against stem cell research and it’s Congressman Ben Cardin. Ben Cardin had a chance to support stem cell research that would not destroy human embryos, and he voted against it … [snip] … Michael Steele added, “I am an enthusiastic supporter of cord blood, adult stem cell and embryonic stem cell research that does not destroy the embryo, and I fully support expanding innovations in technology that make it possible to treat and prevent disease without the willful destruction of human embryos.” I confess, on this one, I don’t really know what’s up, but I don’t have time for more digging right now. I’ll have to look again later. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2006, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-is-a-dick-of-the-highest-order/377858/112 "2006-10-27T16:48:05Z")
[QUOTE=C K Dexter Haven] No, he’s not a dick… he’s just acting like one. And exploiting his dickness for political purposes. [/QUOTE] Hey, if it looks like a dick and walks like a dick and quacks like a dick… it’s a dick! ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2006, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-is-a-dick-of-the-highest-order/377858/113 "2006-10-27T17:07:52Z")
[QUOTE=Squink] [The Michael J. Fox Effect](http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/10/26/the_michael_j_fox_effect.html) [/QUOTE] Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2006, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-is-a-dick-of-the-highest-order/377858/114 "2006-10-27T17:15:15Z")
[QUOTE=Aholibah] Regarding Cardin, I’ve got [this press release](http://www.steeleformaryland.com/SETTINGTHERECORDSTRAIGHTCardinVotedAgainstStemCellResearchforPurePoliticalGain.htm) from his opponent, stating: > [@](#): > > Michael Steele said, “There is only one candidate in this race who voted against stem cell research and it’s Congressman Ben Cardin. Ben Cardin had a chance to support stem cell research that would not destroy human embryos, and he voted against it … [snip] … Michael Steele added, “I am an enthusiastic supporter of cord blood, adult stem cell and embryonic **stem cell research that does not destroy the embryo** , and I fully support expanding innovations in technology that make it possible to treat and prevent disease without the willful destruction of human embryos.” [/QUOTE] (emphasis added) I don’t think there is such a thing as embryonic stem cell research that does not result in the destruction of the embryo. Someone please educate me, if I am incorrect. Otherwise, it appears as thogh Mr. Steele is pretty disingenuous. **Bob55** , you’re willingness to go along with factual allegations made by someone who has been discredited for failing to report facts accurately speaks volumes. I am so afraid that you vote. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2006, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-is-a-dick-of-the-highest-order/377858/115 "2006-10-27T17:49:21Z")
It might be possible to create a sort of pseudo-embryo using gamete progenitor cells which could never develop fully, but would still yield usable pluripotent stem cells. This has been accomplished in mice (using sperm progenitors), but so has cloning by somatic cell nuclear transfer, something that has proven fiendishly difficult to accomplish in monkeys, and has yet to be done humans. Mice are not men, in other words. So, presently, it’s still pure speculation that it could work in man, and I wouldn’t pin my hopes on this being the best approach until the actual research has been done. One may also biopsy embryos, and use the biopsied cell or cells to derive ebryonic stem cell lines from. Embryo biopsies are performed routinely for pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, and the process usually does not harm the embryom though the true rate of growth arrest following biopsy is controversial, and can vary from lab to lab. One would likely not be able to get many cells for ESC research by scavenging PGD labs, as the cell or cells from the biopsy cannot be replaces, lest the embryo be damaged too severly, and must be killed themselves to do the analysis (DNA must either be extracted to serve as the substrate for an PCR-based assay, or denatured to allow a fluorescent probe to hybridize with chromosome-specific sequences). It’s possible people undergoing IVF might donate some cells from the embryos before transfer. That would likely be the main source. At any rate, taking cells from embryos which are immediately intended for transfer are perhaps the only source I can think of that might satisfy conservative Christians. This is a rather expensive, risky, and llaborious way to go about obtaining embryonic cells however, when there are a ready supply of frozen embryos wich are slated to be discarded. For the purposes of pure research, it makes far, far more sense to use that source, unless religious objections prohibit it. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2006, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-is-a-dick-of-the-highest-order/377858/116 "2006-10-27T17:59:35Z")
[QUOTE=Loopydude] It might be possible to create a sort of pseudo-embryo using gamete progenitor cells which could never develop fully, but would still yield usable pluripotent stem cells. This has been accomplished in mice (using sperm progenitors), but so has cloning by somatic cell nuclear transfer, something that has proven fiendishly difficult to accomplish in monkeys, and has yet to be done humans. Mice are not men, in other words. So, presently, it’s still pure speculation that it could work in man, and I wouldn’t pin my hopes on this being the best approach until the actual research has been done. One may also biopsy embryos, and use the biopsied cell or cells to derive ebryonic stem cell lines from. Embryo biopsies are performed routinely for pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, and the process usually does not harm the embryom though the true rate of growth arrest following biopsy is controversial, and can vary from lab to lab. One would likely not be able to get many cells for ESC research by scavenging PGD labs, as the cell or cells from the biopsy cannot be replaces, lest the embryo be damaged too severly, and must be killed themselves to do the analysis (DNA must either be extracted to serve as the substrate for an PCR-based assay, or denatured to allow a fluorescent probe to hybridize with chromosome-specific sequences). It’s possible people undergoing IVF might donate some cells from the embryos before transfer. That would likely be the main source. At any rate, taking cells from embryos which are immediately intended for transfer are perhaps the only source I can think of that might satisfy conservative Christians. This is a rather expensive, risky, and llaborious way to go about obtaining embryonic cells however, when there are a ready supply of frozen embryos wich are slated to be discarded. For the purposes of pure research, it makes far, far more sense to use that source, unless religious objections prohibit it. [/QUOTE] who’s going to volunteer up their embryo that they intend to keep? In other words, maybe the harvesting doesn’t kill the embryo, but realistically where is this supply of embryos that someone intends to grow into a child going to come from? Aren’t most of these embryos going to be discards from fertility clinics? To put it not so delicately, haven’t they already been slated for the bio-hazzard trash can? No one’s going to say, “Oh, before you put my future baby in me, suck some of his.her stem cells out.” Are they? Then isn’t Steele just endorsing a reasearch that will never be conducted? ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2006, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-is-a-dick-of-the-highest-order/377858/117 "2006-10-27T18:25:58Z")
No. The whole point now of performing the biopsies is to screen embryos for transfer. That means they have a good chance of being viable after the biopsy, and the intent is always to use as many embryos as test negative for one or more deleterious traits, are needed, and are available. So, prior to transfer, it’s entirely possible to biopsy an embryo that is intended to be used to produce a child, and instead of the biopsy being used for diagnostics, it is instead used to derive embryonic stem cell lines. What IVF produces is different for different patients. Some produce many embryos, far more than they can use, and hence the rest are usually discarded. Others produce so few every embryo that is available is transferred in each cycle. And there are folks in between. If I read the ethical tenor of this “option” correctly, only those embryos which are intended for transfer would be permitted to be biopsied. It appears that it would be immoral, in the minds of those who see this as the best, and perhaps only, acceptable approach, to take a cell or cells from an embryo that must eventually be discarded, because that embryo is not meant to become a baby. IOW, it’s OK to biopsy embryos that are to be direclty transferred, even if that puts them at some risk, rather than embryos that will inevitably end up as waste, because the former can become life, and the latter will not. If that seems absurd to you, well… ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2006, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-is-a-dick-of-the-highest-order/377858/118 "2006-10-27T20:16:06Z")
[QUOTE=Mince] Whether or not Fox should be cured is _not_ the issue. I bet you will not find anybody on any side of the issue that does not agree that Fox should be cured. The manner in which he should be cured is the controversy. [/quote] And if their opinion is that it’s wrong to use stem cells in research, no matter how debilitating the disease, then see Fox’s symptoms in full will not change their mind, and it makes no difference how drugged or un-drugged he was when he made the commercial. However, I do not think most voters are that absolute in their views. A fair number of them base their stance on these sorts of issues on a sort of risk/reward calculation. They may not like the idea of using embryos for research, but find that the concept of dying from Parkinsons to be sufficiently horrible that it outweighs concerns about the research. This attitude pretty much defines the pro-choice movement as it is: no one really _likes_ the idea of abortions, but they find the idea of the government forcing women to bear a child against their will to be significantly more abhorrent. Showing voters precisely what Parkinson’s (or the current treatments for Parkinson’s) does to a person may be enough to tip someone who thinks stem cell research is a bad idea into the “but Parkinson’s is clearly worse” camp. > [@](#): > > It might surprise you when I say I’m _for_ stem cell research/usage. Not really. > [@](#): > > But I find it difficult to believe that a candidate would not use Fox’s illness for leverage, given the chance. This isn’t about the candidate. It’s about how Fox chooses to present his symptoms, and how he chooses to use those symptoms to further a cause he believes in. I don’t think any of us have any right to pass judgement on him for that. This disease has destroyed his career, and will eventually end his life. If he can find some good in it, some way to twist his disease towards a positive outcome, that is his decision entirely. Not mine, not yours, and not Limbaugh’s. > [@](#): > > I believe the majority of those who even bother to vote are intelligent and informed enough to decide on the issue even absent an on-camera demostration of the horrors of Parkinson’s. Most people don’t need to be shown dead bodies to know that murder is wrong. They also do not need an illustration of a Grand Mal sufferer in a full seizure to know that epilepsy should be cured. I envy your optimism. I do not have nearly so rosy a view of the electorate. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2006, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-is-a-dick-of-the-highest-order/377858/119 "2006-10-27T20:28:24Z")
> [@](#): > > Most people don’t need to be shown dead bodies to know that murder is wrong. however, it’s a stock tactic in trials that the prosecutor will want as many pics of the dead body as possible, especially to convince the jurors of the heinousness of the crime. So, stands to reason, then that they’d pick some one affailable with the specific condition, vs. say, the homeless bum in the street that has barely started feeling the effects of the disease. it’s a debilitating disease. why on earth would they select as a spokesperson to personify said condition, one who was not suffering the debilitating effects? ---
**Author:** ![Bob55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Bob55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bob55)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2006, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-is-a-dick-of-the-highest-order/377858/120 "2006-10-27T21:36:50Z")
[QUOTE=Aholibah] It’s understandable — we can’t all check everything. But I’m hoping that the give and take in this thread might inspire you to listen with more caution and skepticism. Remember that Rush has a lot of control over what callers get on the air, what they are permitted to say and how much time they are given to make their case. He (and O’Reilly and their ilk) have the ultimate bully pulpit, and they use it to bully. (And yes, I know that that’s not the original sense of “bully pulpit” – I just think it’s fitting here). Reasoned debate is not their metier – it doesn’t get the ratings. [/QUOTE] Suprisingly, it has caused me to be more skeptical (despite some people here thinking I’m close-minded). Your ability to remain calm in discussions and point out things in a factual manner goes much further than someone telling me I have the intellect of a 14 year old or shouldn’t be voting. Thanks for the research. [QUOTE=BrainGlutton] :dubious: You are aware, aren’t you, that Rush’s calls are carefully screened? [/QUOTE] Well, I know Rush’s do, but if you listen to Boortz (my favorite), he claims people who disagree with him get to the head of the line. And he has people who disagree with him on A LOT. Granted he’s libertarian, and more open-minded about everything so I think that’s why I like him the most. I wasn’t supporting Rush in this thread necessarily (like him or hate him, or say he’s wrong or right I don’t care), I was only trying to explain his side of the argument to those who didn’t ever listen to him and only saw a 10 second clip. [QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian] I don’t know why I continue to be surprised, but I honestly am a bit dumbfounded at the sheer ignorance of people who listen to right wing radio. My word, but reading **bob’s** stuff here and talking with others makes me think that these folks are intellectually 14 years of age. [/QUOTE] Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they’re stupid (I for one have a Ph.D. in Molecular Cell Biology). And just because they don’t have 100% of their facts in place doesn’t either - people have work, family, bills, and other things in life to worry about 99% of the time, don’t judge them to harshly for just trying to get through the day. Others of us have the free time to fact-check, learn about the issues, debate them on message boards, watch the news networks, and formulate more educated opinions. Does that mean that those of us who can do this have more of a right to vote or lead or bash others? No. Intelligence is not as important as some would like to believe when it comes to such things as voting, leading, or making the correct decisions for your family and society. I know many people with average IQs who are much more practical, functional, and capable than those with high IQs. I generally see this when I go from my scientific environment surrounded by the biggest geniouses in the field who tend to believe that research is the _only_ thing that makes the world go around and they are Gods among men, to the real world of my family and friends (who are brokers, bankers, construction workers, teachers, mechanics, etc) who _really_ make the world go round. In the real world, IQs don’t go as far as one would think. But hard work, common sense, dedication, empathy, and practicality do, traits that geniouses don’t always have. [QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian] Kee-ryst, but I hope your woeful ignorance suggests to you that you should reconsider your beliefs about the sources for your news. That was Arlen Specter, Senator from Pennsylvania. Here’s his website statement regarding stem cells: [http://specter.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.Home&Issue\_id=23](http://specter.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.Home&Issue_id=23) You are right. These people do routinely lie about things that are easily checked out and debunked. You know why they do? Because you let them. You don’t bother checking, you don’t bother thinking, and you continue to listen. I mean, if you even thought about it for a moment, why would Fox do a stem cell ad for someone who opposes stem cell research? It’s just illogical on its face, let alone being devoid of truth. My god, but you are a scary dude. [/QUOTE] No, it was Cardin, as Aholibah said. Who’s ignorant though? It is illogical that Fox would do an ad for someone who voted against stem cell research, yet he did, please fact check next time before you accuse me of not doing the same. You are a scary dude. [QUOTE=whole bean] (emphasis added) I don’t think there is such a thing as embryonic stem cell research that does not result in the destruction of the embryo. Someone please educate me, if I am incorrect. Otherwise, it appears as thogh Mr. Steele is pretty disingenuous. **Bob55** , you’re willingness to go along with factual allegations made by someone who has been discredited for failing to report facts accurately speaks volumes. I am so afraid that you vote. [/QUOTE] Yes, people in the real world who don’t have time to check every little piece of information shouldn’t vote. Oh and people with IQs under 100 shouldn’t vote. In fact the entire southeast shouldn’t vote, or Texans, or those red states up in the west because they’re terribly misinformed and don’t fact-check everything they hear. If I had to fact check everything I heard I wouldn’t have much time for anything else (like the real world). Please explain who was discredited by failing to report facts accurately (actually, this is the standard MO of politicians and news reporters)? I assume you’re talking about Rush, which if this is the case I couldn’t care less because I don’t take verything he says as the truth. Again, the only reason I entered this discussion was to talk about the MJ Fox/Rush issue, and present to the community Rush’s side of things that most did not hear (I assume you want both sides to a debate?). I heard his side, and am reporting it with the facts _he_ presented, not me. So attack him please, not me in this. I didn’t come here to defend Rush with my dying breath. Yes I listen to him from time to time if I happen to be in my car when he’s on and I do find him entertaining, but I listen to Clark Howard, Dave Ramsey, Neal Boortz, Glenn Beck, Bill O’reilly, Dr. Laura, Bill Handel, and Cigar Dave too if they are on the radio. I just prefer talk to music. Should I fact-check everything Cigar Dave tells me? Or go read law journals of specific states to fact-check Bill Handel’s advice? Or assume Clark Howard is a lair in all of his consumer advice? Or believe the banks over Dave Ramsey and max out my credit cards? Or go get a degree in psychology so I can fact-check Dr. Laura? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-is-a-dick-of-the-highest-order/377858.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-is-a-dick-of-the-highest-order/377858.md?page=7)