Yesterday I criticized Rush Limbaugh for his comments about Michael J. Fox. The commentator accused the actor of exaggerating Parkinson's for a Democratic campaign commercial, possibly by not taking his medicine. I argued that (A) some sources say the medication, not the disease, causes the awkward movements and (B) it's fine to take issue with what Fox said, but bringing the symptoms into the discussion won't score you any points.
Well, Limbaugh has actually produced evidence that Fox has exaggerated his illness in the past. From his Web site:
This would be Michael J. Fox, an excerpt from his book "Lucky Man" June 1, 2002. Here is what he writes regarding his appearance before a Senate appropriations subcommittee hearing in Washington on September 28th, 1999: "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."
This still doesn't answer the question of whether the new alleged exaggeration was due to Fox intentionally forgetting his medicine (sources I've come across indicate that awkward movements are not a symptom of the disease itself; Parkinson's impairs movement), but regardless, it shows that the actor is known to exploit his illness. It's likely the commercial was put together for maximum impact, even at the expense of accurately portraying Fox's Parkinson's symptoms.
Limbaugh's site also has a worthwhile case against embryonic stem cell research. While I support the practice, I do think there are incredibly important distinctions between embryonic and adult stem cells, and between criminalizing the work and simply ending government funding for it.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com/.
6 comments:
It might help to actually discuss this with someone knowledgable about Parkinsonism before speculating from bits and pieces of web pages.
The symptoms Michael J. Fox was exhibiting in the ad were quite likely side-effects of the medication used to treat his Parkinson's, rather than symptoms of the disease itself. If you plan to post another opinion on this matter, please make it a better informed one.
You are wrong on multiple counts. To exaggerate, one makes something worse than it really is. By not taking his medication, Fox was showing the real state of the disease. If you wanted to show the effects of a disease, you certainly would not want to hide it's symptoms with medication. limbaugh is simply an evil person. Who would send thousands to horrible deaths in order to destroy federal regulation of interstate commerce.
You ignorant, IGNORANT man! You wrote "awkward movements are not a symptom of the disease" which could not be further from the truth.
I have seen multiple people with this disease... and "awkward movements" are a part of daily life.
This is not a disease that hits you 100% all at once. It is progressive. It is debilitating. It is a very sad condition for anybody or anybody AROUND the affected person.
Anybody who justifies Rush's comments is scum... ignorant, stupid scum of the earth, because they don't know there head from a hole in the ground.
And remember... Rush is a drug addict who is in denial.
He's a hypocrite, albeit a rich one.
But he'll still die a hypocrite and the people who believe him will die fools.
The quote from Fox's book you highlighted:
“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.”
Then you wrote:
This still doesn’t answer the question of whether the exaggeration was due to Fox intentionally forgetting his medicine (sources I’ve come across indicate that awkward movements are not a symptom of the disease itself; Parkinson’s impairs movement), but regardless, it shows that the actor is known to exploit his illness. It’s likely the commercial was put together for maximum impact, even at the expense of accurately portraying Fox’s Parkinson’s symptoms.
Okay, a few observations:
1. You (and Rush) haven't provided anything that even approaches "evidence" that "Michael J. Fox exaggerates illness." You really should change your headline, unless you're intentionally trying for bias and misdirection.
2. Choosing to stop taking one's medication is not the same as intentionally exaggerating one's symptoms. One is putting the unvarnished truth of the illness on display for everyone to see. The other is lying. You (indirectly) and Limbaugh (directly) are accusing Fox of the latter based on his admission of having done the former once.
3. Your conclusions - in particular the second half of the last sentence - are not based on any fact you've presented in this post. Can you show any evidence that this is likely to be true? Have you spoken to the gaffer, or the sound mixer, or someone on the set who can attest to this? Or did you just pull this out of your own ass?
I have to admit I'm amused by the diversity of opinion here.
Either:
--Awkward movements are from the medication, not the disease, just as I said (and documented with a link), but I'm wrong anyway.
--I'm wrong to say he "exaggerated" the effects of said medication, because by not taking his medication he's letting the disease come through. Even though it's pretty much established that it's the medication, not the disease, possibly exaggerated here. And the fact he's exhibiting MORE symptoms than he has to, on purpose.
--Awkward movements are from the disease, not the medication, but Rush was wrong anyway.
For clarity's sake, he's admitted not taking his medication. The symptoms in the ad are not consistent with that, though, so this post contends he may be guilty of a different kind of exaggeration.
The symptoms in the ad are not consistent with that, though, so this post contends he may be guilty of a different kind of exaggeration.
Yes it does . . . AND THEN OFFERS NO EVIDENCE TO THAT EFFECT. You (and Limbaugh) are MERELY SPECULATING.
How hard is it for you to grasp that, Robert? And how hard is it for you to grasp that your headline needs to be changed to reflect that?
Of course, if you have actual evidence, let's see it, and I'll retract everything I've written.
Post a Comment