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.
(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
(emphasis added again)
Please, Bob: Read, Think, Question. Don’t just ditto.
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,
do as I say, not as I do.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
:dubious: You are aware, aren’t you, that Rush’s calls are carefully screened?
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):
- The Missouri ballot initiative supports cloning humans (it expressly prohibits it).
- Diabetes is not commonly mentioned as a disease for which stem cell research might provide a cures.
- Bush’s policy and official actions on stem cells have increased, not curtailed, the amount of stem cell research being conducted in America.
- Of course, Michael J. Fox did not take his medications and was playing up his symptoms.
- 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?
It’s amazing what you can write in Canadian newspapers
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
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.
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.
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.
Well, according to The Washington Post :
Regarding Jim Doyle, here’s what I could dig up quickly:
Regarding Cardin, I’ve got this press release from his opponent, stating:
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.
Hey, if it looks like a dick and walks like a dick and quacks like a dick… it’s a dick!
Thanks!
(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.
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.
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?
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…
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.
Not really.
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 envy your optimism. I do not have nearly so rosy a view of the electorate.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?