Limbaugh needs some duct tape.

[southsider2k5]

Well I will say one thing, Rush should be an expert on what happens when you go without your meds.... Maybe we should be listening to him? Nah.

[Steff]

am I missing something?

 

 

 

Nope.

[Balta1701]

So far no one has accused Fox of exaggerating his condition. Whether he was on or off the drugs he would seem to be portraying the worst case scenario.

[/color]

LIMBAUGH: Now, this is Michael J. Fox. He's got Parkinson's disease. And in this commercial, he is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He is moving all around and shaking. And it's purely an act. This is the only time I have ever seen Michael J. Fox portray any of the symptoms of the disease he has. I know he's got it and he's raising money for it, but when I've seen him in public, I've never seen him betray any of the symptoms. But this commercial, he -- he's just all over the place. He can barely control himself. He can control himself enough to stay in the frame of the picture, and he can control himself enough to keep his eyes right on the lens, the teleprompter. But his head and shoulders are moving all over the place, and he is acting like his disease is deteriorating because Jim Talent opposes research that would help him, Michael J. Fox, get cured.

-From the actual broadcast in question.

 

Well I will say one thing, Rush should be an expert on what happens when you go without your meds.... Maybe we should be listening to him? Nah.

I'm so glad someone other than me made the joke...thanks guys!

[Texsox]

No. Limbaugh did. When he said FOX was acting. Or am I missing something?

It seemed that Rush was stating that by Fox not taking his meds, Fox's actions were exaggerated. Not regardless of his medications, he would not exhibit these symptoms. Sorry for the detour.

[southsider2k5]

I'm so glad someone other than me made the joke...thanks guys!

 

no problem... its what I do.

[Soxy]

It seemed that Rush was stating that by Fox not taking his meds, Fox's actions were exaggerated. Not regardless of his medications, he would not exhibit these symptoms. Sorry for the detour.

But he WAS taking the meds, and when he says he's exaggerating the symptoms of the disease, I don't see that as related to the meds issue either.

 

Wait, did I just waste 10 seconds of my life on Rush Limbaugh. DAMMIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Balta1701]

It seemed that Rush was stating that by Fox not taking his meds, Fox's actions were exaggerated. Not regardless of his medications, he would not exhibit these symptoms. Sorry for the detour.

To be 100% specific, he says that it's either him not taking his medications or him deliberately acting.

 

LIMBAUGH: And I think, didn't he even say -- they said it at a debate. I don't know if he said it at a convention. So this is really shameless, folks, this is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting, one of the two.

[Balta1701]

FLEMINGTON, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--A new national study revealed that American voters' support for stem cell research increased after they viewed an ad featuring Michael J. Fox in which he expresses his support for candidates who are in favor of stem cell research.

 

The study was conducted among 955 Americans by HCD Research and Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion (MCIPO) during October 24-25, to obtain Americans' views on the stem cell research before and after they watched the ad.

 

The participants included self-reported Democrats, Republicans and Independents. They were asked to view the ad and respond to pre-and post-viewing questions regarding their opinions and emotions concerning the ad.

 

Among the study findings:

 

* Among all respondents, support for stem cell research increased from 78% prior to viewing the ad, to 83% after viewing the ad. Support among Democrats increased from 89% to 93%, support among Republicans increased from 66% to 68% and support among Independents increased from 80% to 87% after viewing the ad.

* The level of concern regarding a candidate's view on stem cell research increased among all respondents from 57% prior to viewing the ad to 70% after viewing the ad. Among Democrats, the level of concern increased from 66% to 83% and Republicans' level of concern increased from 50% to 60%. Independents' level of concern increased from 58% to 69%.

* The perception that the November election is relevant to the U.S. policy on stem cell research increased across all voter segments, with an increase of 9% among all respondents pre- and post-viewing from 62% to 71%. The Democrats' perception increased from 75% to 83%, Republicans' perception increased from 55% to 62% and Independents' perception increased from 60% to 68% pre- and post-viewing.

* The advertisement elicited similar emotional responses from all responders with all voter segments indicating that they were "not bored and attentive" followed by "sorrowful, thankful, afraid and regretful."

* The vast majority of responders indicated that the advertisement was believable with 76% of all responders reporting that it was "extremely believable" or "believable." Among party affiliation, 93% of Democrats 57% of Republicans and 78% of Independents indicated it "extremely believable" or "believable."

 

Respondents were asked to indicate what candidate they would vote for in the U.S. House of Representatives election if it was held today before and after viewing the ad.

# Republicans who indicated that they were voting for a Republican candidate decreased by 10% after viewing the ad (77% to 67%). Independents planning to vote for Democrats increased by 10%, from 39% to 49%.

Link.

[Rex Kickass]

Here's what I love about politics.

 

Michael J Fox suffers from Parkinson's Disease and has a foundation dedicated to finding a cure for it. His foundation supports candidates who support embryonic stem cell research because they feel its the best hope to find a cure.

 

As a result, he works with candidates who support funding for the program he wants and says in plain english, the candidate I support supports this and the one who doesn't, opposes this. His physical symptoms of his disease are plainly viewable.

 

Somehow that's construed as negative advertising because the viewer is forced to see the effects of the disease.

 

There's a difference between an effective ad and a negative ad.

[Jenksismyhero]

Here's what I love about politics.

 

Michael J Fox suffers from Parkinson's Disease and has a foundation dedicated to finding a cure for it. His foundation supports candidates who support embryonic stem cell research because they feel its the best hope to find a cure.

 

As a result, he works with candidates who support funding for the program he wants and says in plain english, the candidate I support supports this and the one who doesn't, opposes this. His physical symptoms of his disease are plainly viewable.

 

Somehow that's construed as negative advertising because the viewer is forced to see the effects of the disease.

 

There's a difference between an effective ad and a negative ad.

 

 

But there are levels of acceptability with 'effective' ads. Like I said before, if there's an anti-abortion ad why not show a pile of bloody fetus'. It effectively shows what happens, but is it in good taste?

 

In part he's also misrepresenting his disease. Why not show a spinal cord injury victim who's paralyzed from the waist down crawling on the floor, struggling to get to the bathroom or kitchen or wherever he wants to go? Sure, they could have taped him using his wheelchair, but why do that when we can effectively show the problems associated with being paralyzed? "See how difficult it is for him to move? See how difficult it is for him to live on a daily basis? Vote for X because he supports stem cell research which could allow this victim to walk again. The other candidate loves the fact this man must crawl to any place he wants to go. He hates stem cell research and he hates you. Vote X in 2007."

 

It's crap.

[NorthSideSox72]

But there are levels of acceptability with 'effective' ads. Like I said before, if there's an anti-abortion ad why not show a pile of bloody fetus'. It effectively shows what happens, but is it in good taste?

 

In part he's also misrepresenting his disease. Why not show a spinal cord injury victim who's paralyzed from the waist down crawling on the floor, struggling to get to the bathroom or kitchen or wherever he wants to go? Sure, they could have taped him using his wheelchair, but why do that when we can effectively show the problems associated with being paralyzed? "See how difficult it is for him to move? See how difficult it is for him to live on a daily basis? Vote for X because he supports stem cell research which could allow this victim to walk again. The other candidate loves the fact this man must crawl to any place he wants to go. He hates stem cell research and he hates you. Vote X in 2007."

 

It's crap.

You think showing someone with more-or-less typical Parkinson's symptoms is equivalent to a pile of dead fetuses? Or someone crawling around on the ground?

 

Use hyperbole much?

[Steff]

But there are levels of acceptability with 'effective' ads. Like I said before, if there's an anti-abortion ad why not show a pile of bloody fetus'. It effectively shows what happens, but is it in good taste?

 

In part he's also misrepresenting his disease. Why not show a spinal cord injury victim who's paralyzed from the waist down crawling on the floor, struggling to get to the bathroom or kitchen or wherever he wants to go? Sure, they could have taped him using his wheelchair, but why do that when we can effectively show the problems associated with being paralyzed? "See how difficult it is for him to move? See how difficult it is for him to live on a daily basis? Vote for X because he supports stem cell research which could allow this victim to walk again. The other candidate loves the fact this man must crawl to any place he wants to go. He hates stem cell research and he hates you. Vote X in 2007."

 

It's crap.

 

 

How is he misrepresenting his disease...? He has Parkinson's and he's focusing on that and what SCR can do for finding a cure for it.

 

I'd find it a bit odd if he didn't use his disease, something he has first hand knowledge of, as a starting point for his fight.

[Jenksismyhero]

You think showing someone with more-or-less typical Parkinson's symptoms is equivalent to a pile of dead fetuses? Or someone crawling around on the ground?

 

Use hyperbole much?

 

 

The fetus one yeah. I was just making a point that making an effective ad isn't always acceptable.

 

But it's not more or less typical. Watch any recent speech he gives and it's not even close. If he didn't take his medicine and then filmed the ad, it's no different than a paralzyed person not using their wheelchair just to show they can't use their legs. It's misrepresenting the condition he's usually in.

 

I'm not picking sides here, I'm very much pro-stem cell research. I'm against sh*tty ads that make us pick politicians for the wrong reasons (emotion versus intelligence). According to Balta's find above, the sh*tty ad worked. Instead of people looking at the issues surrounding stem cell research, they got moved by a guy shaking uncontrollably on the TV.

[Balta1701]

I'm not picking sides here, I'm very much pro-stem cell research. I'm against sh*tty ads that make us pick politicians for the wrong reasons (emotion versus intelligence). According to Balta's find above, the sh*tty ad worked. Instead of people looking at the issues surrounding stem cell research, they got moved by a guy shaking uncontrollably on the TV.

Of course...if people actually looked at the issue in its entirety using only logic anyway...there wouldn't be any debate about Embryonic stem cell research...the only point for debate would be whether or not to ban fertility clinics.

[Soxy]

The fetus one yeah. I was just making a point that making an effective ad isn't always acceptable.

 

But it's not more or less typical. Watch any recent speech he gives and it's not even close. If he didn't take his medicine and then filmed the ad, it's no different than a paralzyed person not using their wheelchair just to show they can't use their legs. It's misrepresenting the condition he's usually in.

 

I'm not picking sides here, I'm very much pro-stem cell research. I'm against sh*tty ads that make us pick politicians for the wrong reasons (emotion versus intelligence). According to Balta's find above, the sh*tty ad worked. Instead of people looking at the issues surrounding stem cell research, they got moved by a guy shaking uncontrollably on the TV.

If you read his statements (and most of this thread), MJF WAS taking his meds when he was doing this commercial. So, his ads would be analogous to showing a quadrapalegiac in the wheelchair.

[NorthSideSox72]

The fetus one yeah. I was just making a point that making an effective ad isn't always acceptable.

 

But it's not more or less typical. Watch any recent speech he gives and it's not even close. If he didn't take his medicine and then filmed the ad, it's no different than a paralzyed person not using their wheelchair just to show they can't use their legs. It's misrepresenting the condition he's usually in.

 

I'm not picking sides here, I'm very much pro-stem cell research. I'm against sh*tty ads that make us pick politicians for the wrong reasons (emotion versus intelligence). According to Balta's find above, the sh*tty ad worked. Instead of people looking at the issues surrounding stem cell research, they got moved by a guy shaking uncontrollably on the TV.

I certainly agree that political ads are lacking in intelligent discussion. They are definitely all about the sound bite, the shock value, and the outright deception. Both sides too. They're really almost comical in some instances. I'd laugh, except, for some people, they'll take it seriously, and that's sad.

 

Just out of curiosity, what did you think about Christopher Reeve showing up in front of Congress (on multiple occasions I think) trying to champion research? I think there is a grey area there, as to how far is OK to go. I personally am OK with Reeve, and also Fox's actions.

[Steff]

Instead of people looking at the issues surrounding stem cell research, they got moved by a guy shaking uncontrollably on the TV.

 

 

If it brings attention to the research does it matter how it got in the spotlight??

 

He shakes. That's what Parkinson's suffers do. Shame on him for showing the world the truth to cause a buzz...

[Balta1701]

Just out of curiosity, what did you think about Christopher Reeve showing up in front of Congress (on multiple occasions I think) trying to champion research? I think there is a grey area there, as to how far is OK to go. I personally am OK with Reeve, and also Fox's actions.

Rare Disease Nabs Big-Time Celebrity Spokesman

 

BALTIMORE–Flehner-Lathrop Syndrome Foundation officials excitedly announced Monday that actor Ted Danson has been diagnosed with the rare, deadly degenerative disease, bringing much-needed star power to their cause.

 

"This is the big one we've been waiting for," said Paula Brooks, director of the Baltimore-based FLS Foundation. "For years, our organization struggled with scant funding, a dearth of resources, and the lack of a prominent spokesperson to draw attention to this dread disease. Then, out of the blue, Ted Danson! Needless to say, we're elated."

 

"Before this," Brooks continued, "the closest thing we had to a celebrity afflicted with FLS was a cousin of Al Jarreau's. Obviously, this is a big step up."

 

Flehner-Lathrop Syndrome, a genetic cardiac disorder which causes the heart's left ventricle to deteriorate and typically results in death within three to five years, affects fewer than 1 in 500,000 Americans–grim statistics for any disease seeking a high-profile celebrity to shine a spotlight on its cause.

 

"A disease this rare usually can't compete with the big boys," Brooks said. "But this takes us to the next level. With Ted in our corner, FLS can hold its own against just about anybody, from Tay-Sachs to cystic fibrosis."

 

Danson, 52, best known for his role as bartender Sam Malone on the hit 1980s NBC sitcom Cheers and currently the star of CBS's Becker, was diagnosed with FLS Sept. 12, five days after complaining of chest pain during a celebrity golf tournament in Palm Springs, CA. The diagnosis has delighted sufferers of the disease and their loved ones.

 

"I've been a fan of Ted Danson's forever," said West Columbia, SC, resident Emily Dutler, whose 11-year-old son Seth was stricken with FLS last year. "I mean, I've probably seen every episode of Cheers five times. I can't tell you what a godsend this is to have him speaking and fundraising on Seth's behalf. We've prayed for something like this to happen."

 

"This really puts us in position for a very lucrative run," wrote Brooks in the September/October issue of Heartbeats, the FLS Foundation's bimonthly newsletter. "We can expect three or four good years of impassioned spokesmanship from Ted, followed by several months of heartrending images of his brave, final battle with FLS–the kind of thing that really jerks tears and gets donations pouring in. Then, when Ted finally dies, expect a full week's worth of tributes in USA Today and on Entertainment Tonight that mention his love for our organization. Then there's the cover of People, guaranteed. All told, that translates to somewhere in the neighborhood of $500 million in free advertising and promotion."

 

Elated FLS Foundation official Mark Knoll answers questions about the new face of the disease.

 

"It really is amazing," said Mark Knoll, national director of communications for the FLS Foundation. "I know of diseases that afflict 10 to 20 times as many people as ours, and they don't have a spokesperson anywhere near as big as Ted Danson. I mean, look at cardiofibrilitis–1 in 20,000 Americans are afflicted, and all they've got is Alfonso Ribeiro. Talk about low-wattage advocacy."

 

"And it's not like Danson is some washed-up star with nothing but a couple of Emmys and his memories," Knoll continued. "I mean, Becker is one of the top-rated television shows in the country, with a choice Monday-night slot between Everybody Loves Raymond and Family Law. You can't get much better than that."

 

The FLS Foundation is already moving ahead with a promotional campaign to capitalize on its new celebrity sufferer. In next week's issue of Time, the organization will run a full-page ad featuring a photo of Danson accompanied by the words, "Making Your Way In The World Today Takes Everything You've Got... Especially If You've Got An Incurable Cardiac Disorder Like Flehner-Lathrop Syndrome."

 

"Make no mistake," Brooks said, "Mr. Danson is going to get the red-carpet treatment from us. When he sees how grateful we are, I think Ted will agree he couldn't have come down with a better fatal disease than Flehner-Lathrop Syndrome."

 

Pausing to open a letter that had just come across her desk, Brooks emitted a delighted squeal and brandished the newest bequest to the FLS Foundation: a check for $250,000 from CBS Television.

 

"Couldn't you just die?" a gleeful Brooks said.

Linkity.

[Steff]

It's pretty effing sad that a movie/tv/or singing sensation has to have an illness or disease before it get's any attention. Not shame on those trying to cure the problem.. shame on everyone else for needing a Ted, Chris, or MJF to give a s***.

[Soxy]

It's pretty effing sad that a movie/tv/or singing sensation has to have an illness or disease before it get's any attention. Not shame on those trying to cure the problem.. shame on everyone else for needing a Ted, Chris, or MJF to give a s***.

You did see that the Ted Danson article was from The Onion, right?

[Steff]

You did see that the Ted Danson article was from The Onion, right?

 

 

No, I didn't.

 

Does it make a difference though? MJF, Chris, Lance Armstrong, etc, etc... I think the point I was making is valid. Most of the time people don't think about illnesses unless they happen to them or someone they are close to.

 

Very sad.

[Jenksismyhero]

I certainly agree that political ads are lacking in intelligent discussion. They are definitely all about the sound bite, the shock value, and the outright deception. Both sides too. They're really almost comical in some instances. I'd laugh, except, for some people, they'll take it seriously, and that's sad.

 

Just out of curiosity, what did you think about Christopher Reeve showing up in front of Congress (on multiple occasions I think) trying to champion research? I think there is a grey area there, as to how far is OK to go. I personally am OK with Reeve, and also Fox's actions.

 

 

I wouldn't have a problem with that because there's nothing about his condition he can 'make worse' for a bigger effect.

 

Look, I'm just going off of what I saw on ABC-7 two nights ago that discussed the ad. They showed the ad, and then the showed him at some fundraiser for an IL Dem candidate where his shaking wasn't even close to what was on the ad.

 

If he just had a 'bad day' with the disease when he filmed it, fine, there's nothing wrong with it. But from what I saw in the two clips, it looked like it was a clear attempt to gain a sympathy vote, which as I've said is BS.

 

 

If it brings attention to the research does it matter how it got in the spotlight??

 

He shakes. That's what Parkinson's suffers do. Shame on him for showing the world the truth to cause a buzz...

 

While I'd like to agree, I just don't trust the media, and more importantly, the political parties, to make accurate, neutral ads using 'truth.' As any 'reality' show fan knows, 'reality' can be manipulated to produce the show the creators want. "Truth" can be manipulated in the same way.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Use hyperbole much?

 

All the time and then some.

 

[Steff]

If he just had a 'bad day' with the disease when he filmed it, fine, there's nothing wrong with it. But from what I saw in the two clips, it looked like it was a clear attempt to gain a sympathy vote, which as I've said is BS.

 

While I'd like to agree, I just don't trust the media, and more importantly, the political parties, to make accurate, neutral ads using 'truth.' As any 'reality' show fan knows, 'reality' can be manipulated to produce the show the creators want. "Truth" can be manipulated in the same way.

 

In his case you don't even have to look at the media. He's been in front of congress at least a dozen times over the past 5 years begging for SCR.

 

As for his shaking, I strongly suggest you watch the clip from his congressional appearances in '02, '03, and '05 specifically. He shakes a lot when trying to stay in one spot.

 

His reality is he has Parkinson's.

 

No manipulating that.

[Soxy]

In his case you don't even have to look at the media. He's been in front of congress at least a dozen times over the past 5 years begging for SCR.

 

As for his shaking, I strongly suggest you watch the clip from his congressional appearances in '02, '03, and '05 specifically. He shakes a lot when trying to stay in one spot.

 

His reality is he has Parkinson's.

 

No manipulating that.

To build on what Steff said, it's called a resting tremor for a reason. The tremor usually stops with intential movement, so sitting still will give much more characteristic movements than, say, gesturing.

 

And I don't disagree with your earlier point, it is sad that diseases need a famous name to get some cash thrown their way.