Rush Limbaugh needs a.... - page 2
:trout: .... Read More
Oct 25, '06
Oct 25, '06Rush Limbaugh needs a...soul transplant. As a bleeding-heart liberal do-gooder, I am deeply vested in the belief that every living being has value and dignity, but Limbaugh manages to make me question that belief.
Having seen in patients the devestation of Parkinson's, my heart goes out to Michael J. Fox. In a way, it seems more cruel even than Alzheimer's, in that it's victims are fully aware of their debility. (Not to imply that Alzheimer's is anything other than tragic.)
I do respect the opinion of those who oppose abortion. Along with an admittedly narrow majority of Americans, I agree with President Clinton that abortions should be legal, safe, and rare. Clearly, abortion should be the last resort of birth control--we should do all we can to encourage less traumatic means, including contraception and abstinence, of exercising reproductive freedom. Ideally, every conception should be cause for hope and joy.
The moral and ethical implications of stem cell research are matter for serious consideration. The reactionary rantings of Rush Limbaugh add nothing pertinent to the discussion. As my father would say, if you called him a wit, you'd be half right.:spin:
Oct 25, '06Quite frankly I'll be glad when the elections are OVER with and we can ALL be free of the likes of Rush and these political ads. And, having put my two cents put in, I'm off to watch another night of Food Network, who fortunately doesn't run any of them. As Emeril would say: "BAM!"Last edit by CseMgr1 on Oct 25, '06
Oct 25, '06http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...aims_of_m.html
"The implicit claim that research based on new embryos is "the most promising" is absurd, completely unsupported by the scientific literature, and an insult to voters, based as it is on the assumption that they are incapable of understanding the issue."
"The plain fact is that embryonic stem cell research is proving to be a bust. There are currently 72 therapies showing human benefits using adult stem cells and zero using embryonic stem cells. Scientifically-minded readers can review this medical journal article on the status of adult stem cell research. Adult stem cell therapies are already being advertised and promoted while no such treatments are even remotely in prospect for embryonic stem cell research."
Oct 25, '06Quote from CseMgr1Yeah but 2008 is just around the corner. In a way, not looking forwward to that, thanks to the political mudslinging.Quite frankly I'll be glad when the elections are OVER with and we can ALL be free of the likes of Rush and these political ads. And, having put my two cents put in, I'm off to watch another night of Food Network, who fortunately doesn't run any of them. As Emeril would say: "BAM!"
Oct 25, '06I also disagree strongly with the characterization of messages such as those by Fox, Christopher Reeve, or the Reagan family as "shameless manipulation." Those with most at stake in this debate have every right to speak out about it. Others, surely, have every right to disagree. But whereas these celebrity advocates of stem cell research argue from feeling, rather than pure reason, Limbaugh argues from reflex, with no higher brain function required.
Oct 25, '06Quote from nursemikeThey might have a right to speak out, but that DOESN'T give them the right to make a moral play based on high emotionalism and no substance. And it doesn't give them the right to do so unchallenged.I also disagree strongly with the characterization of messages such as those by Fox, Christopher Reeve, or the Reagan family as "shameless manipulation." Those with most at stake in this debate have every right to speak out about it. Others, surely, have every right to disagree. But whereas these celebrity advocates of stem cell research argue from feeling, rather than pure reason, Limbaugh argues from reflex, with no higher brain function required.
The voters emotions ARE being tugged so that they don't look at the substance of the issue. THAT is shameless manipulation.
And the real substance of the issue: There are no bars anywhere in this nation for research into adult stem cells, and quite a bit of money being spent on it. They show promise. Embryonic stem cells do not. So long as we use emotional pulls and tugs to support failed research, then that money and time is lost to promising research.
The result is the same as what MJF accuses: if such cures can be found, people will die for not focusing on the issue.
At this point, embyronic stem cells is a detour in time and money from such cures. To shamelessly promote it at this point is a political position, and not a scientific one. Indeed, it seems that MJF had in mind defeating Republicans instead of advancing research. THAT is a shameless manipulation of this issue.
Oct 25, '06
Oct 26, '06Well ... I remember watching an interview on that show "Inside the Actors Studio" where Fox had to stop the interview to take some medication.
Seemed to me that his symptoms are very unpredictable ... otherwise why would he stop everything in the middle of an interview to take some meds?
And this wasn't a political show ... it was a very flattering profile of his career.
:typingLast edit by Sheri257 on Oct 26, '06
Oct 26, '06of course the media takes rush's comment out of context . . . i was actually listening to the show and have been all week listening to the fallout . . . i didn't read about it on msnbc . . .
mjf admitted in his own book and to others, including an interview with diane sawyer, that he goes off his meds to make a point about the ravages of parkinson's, which he did when he testified before congress. now, i'm not saying this is wrong, just admit it. what i have a problem with is his view regarding embyronic stem cells.
and mjf does not deserve a pass just because he has a disease. we have a right to question whether his views about embryonic stem cells are true. he stepped in the political arena and does not get to say whatever he wants without being challenged just because he has parkinsons. and tim is right - the promise of "stem cell" research is in adult cells, not embyronic stem cells. people hear "stem cell" without differentiating between the two.
mjf's ad is wrong on many things . . . he says that jim talent wants to criminalize embyronic stem cell research but the only one to vote against it is his democratic opponent, the one mjf is doing the commercial for, benjamin cardin. another:
mary davenport, m.d., obstetrician-gynecologist, a fellow of the american college of obstetrics and gynecology, writing today at the american thinker. it's entitled, "the unconscionable claims of michael j. fox -- the popular and appealing star has taken to the airwaves in senate battleground states missouri, maryland, and new jersey with a highly misleading ad urging defeat of republican senatorial candidates opposing the use of taxpayer dollars to fund new embryonic stem cell line research.
"he states, 'stem cell research offers hope to millions of americans with diseases like diabetes, alzheimer’s and parkinson’s…. but george bush and michael steele would put limits on the most promising stem cell research.' mr. fox and his ads’ sponsors are guilty of conflating embryonic stem cell research, which the gop candidates and many americans oppose for destroying a human life in the name of curing other people’s diseases, with stem cell research in general, which includes adult stem cell research and umbilical cord blood stem cell research. the only limits in question are on federal funding of new embryonic stem cell lines, requiring the sacrifice of new embryos. private and state-funded research (california voters are spending six billion dollars borrowing money to fund this) is ongoing. the implicit claim that research based on new embryos is 'the most promising' is absurd, completely unsupported by the scientific literature, and an insult to voters, based as it is on the assumption that they are incapable of understanding the issue."
"the only limits in question are on federal funding of new embryonic stem cell lines, requiring the sacrifice of new embryos."
what i've found is that most people do not truly know the difference between embyronic and adult stem cells, lump it all together and have no idea about the research.
stating the obvious, that mjf was off his meds during the commercial is not hateful. mjf was off his meds.
stephLast edit by Spidey's mom on Oct 26, '06
Oct 26, '06It would appear that both types of research, embryonic and adult stem cells are useful. A search of the literature can provide valid research examples for both. To say that one type of research is not of value, is simply not true. The research of one supports the research of the other. There also problems with both that need to be addressed.
I have zero interest in a debate on abortion, but I do have a problem with looking at this issue so narrowly. These two persons were referenced to give an opinion as to the value of embryonic research. Mary Davenport, MD belongs to the American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Dr. Prentiss belongs to an organization that has the same particular point of view:
Quote from www.boston.com/yourlife/health/diseases/articles/2004/11/01/from_adult_stem_cells_comes_debate/?page=1http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/355/12/1189... Whether the government should fund this research has become the focus of a bitter political standoff...Yet when Prentice went before the senators, he offered a dramatic solution to the dilemma. There have been ''a wealth of scientific papers published over the last few years" showing that adult stem cells, which can be obtained without destroying an embryo, have virtually the same qualities as embryonic stem cells, he testified....
This has become a key assertion -- in editorials, in debates, on antiabortion websites -- of opponents of embryo research, but most stem cell specialists say it is simply wrong. A wave of recent experiments has cast grave doubts on the ability of adult stem cells to become a wide range of cells...
Quote from content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/355/12/1189http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...072900158.htmlKarl Rove, head of the White House's Office of Political Affairs, has declared that embryonic stem cells aren't required because there is "far more promise from adult stem cells." Yet the notion that adult stem cells have the same developmental potential as embryonic stem cells, let alone "more promise," is dubious. It seems that the White House received this idea from David Prentice, a senior fellow for life sciences at the Family Research Council and an advisor to Republican members of Congress. In a report of the President's Council on Bioethics, Prentice claimed that adult stem cells can effectively treat more than 65 diseases. Not only is this assertion patently false, but the information purveyed on the Family Research Council's Web site is pure hokum.
Quote from www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/29/AR2005072900158.htmlAs a transplant surgeon, Frist has played an influential role in the emotional debate. In July 2001, he outlined an ambitious research agenda on stem cells derived from embryos and adults. But when Bush announced the following month that he would restrict federal money to the embryonic stem cell lines that existed at that time -- estimated at 78 -- Frist acquiesced, and he had maintained until a month ago that Bush's approach would suffice.
Yesterday, in a brief interview, he said he changed his position after learning recently that the two dozen or so embryonic stem cell lines actually available under the Bush policy appear to have weakened as they replicate many times over.
"I knew people said there were only 22" cell lines, he said. "I wasn't aware the stability of the lines was as marginal as they say."Last edit by indigo girl on Oct 27, '06
Oct 26, '06Admittedly, I didn't listen to Limbaugh, himself, but based my views on the MSN report. I have listened to Limbaugh in the past, and I do believe that at some point it is legitimate to dismiss the man as a fool and an oaf. For me, he passed that point long ago. This, of course, does not prove that everything he says is wrong. It does persuade me that nothing he says is worth listening to. There are usually countless intelligent opinions on the issues he addresses that are for more worthy of consideration.
Oct 26, '06Quote from nursemike:yeahthat: :yeahthat: :yeahthat:Admittedly, I didn't listen to Limbaugh, himself, but based my views on the MSN report. I have listened to Limbaugh in the past, and I do believe that at some point it is legitimate to dismiss the man as a fool and an oaf. For me, he passed that point long ago. This, of course, does not prove that everything he says is wrong. It does persuade me that nothing he says is worth listening to. There are usually countless intelligent opinions on the issues he addresses that are for more worthy of consideration.