A blog about News.

Characteristics of Parkinson's Disease

  LEARN MORE ABOUTThis http://www.umm.edu/aniplaye...>short video illustrates how dopamine production in people with Parkinson's disease becomes irregular and inadequate, which leads to involuntary trembling.
Visit QuickTime for free download Requires QuickTime.
(download for free)

These are the characteristic symptoms of Parkinson's disease:

  • They tremble involuntarily (http://www.umm.edu/aniplaye...>video).
  • They find their muscles become rigid and stiff, and they lose their ability to make rapid, spontaneous movements.
  • They walk in a recognizable manner, with a typical gait in which the body is bent or flexed.
  • They may have difficulty maintaining their balance.

The characteristic symptoms of moderate Parkinson's disease can be remembered with the acronym TRAP

http://www.umm.edu/parkinso...

My daughter in laws mother had Parkinsons and Alzheimers.  She told me that the doc said the meds to help control the trembling make the memory loss worse so they opted for the meds that help the memory rather than the tremors.

posted by anonymous on Oct 27, 2006 at 12:00 AM
Fox said in his book that he intentionally did not take his meds before testifying before Congress, in order to show the effects of his disease.  Also, the video spot of Fox shaking could have been re-shot, but was not.  Therefore, it was purposely done to show the full effects of the disease.  He had the right to do so, but I believe this was done to make people believe that he is like this all the time.  Also the commercial makes one believe that if Jim Talent was just voted out of office, that Fox and others would be cured.  Is Fox going to do spots against any Democrats who are against the bill, or just Talent? 

Fox has the right to do this; Rush has the right to mention the showmanship.   Fox, lest we forget, is an actor.  The previous Pope was portrayed as a frail old fool because of his Parkinson's, while Fox is put forth as a genius who we should listen to. 
posted by tkozy on Oct 27, 2006 at 02:09 AM

What is your point??

Did you see Fox on TV tonight. Do you see something appealing about Parkinson’s. Do you wish to bear Fox’s illness for him..

Fox has said he had taken his medication.. Period..

Rush lied.. He said Fox either did not take his medication. Or that Fox was acting..

That is a lie..

Do you understand that Fox admitted to not taking his medication before appearing before Congress.

Can you explain why you think Fox would lie tonight when he said he took his medication before the commercial..

Rush Lied.. Hoping to gain politically from his lie..

MY GOD.. Fox is sick. He’s got a note from his doctor..

Stop being Rush Apologists.

There is no excuse for what he said..

posted by tkozy on Oct 27, 2006 at 02:30 AM

You have no clue as to the effects of nerve damage..

Every individual, has different symptoms, everyday..

I have written a post on the effects it has on me.. At times the medication actually makes my symptoms worse. And I have to stop the medication..

I don’t know why. And my neurosurgeon does not know why…

There are times. Though few and far between. That I have actually no pain.. No reflex problems.

Most often this will be when I first awake in the morning.. I know that as soon as I start to move. The pain will come again..

But you can’t just lay there. You can’t, ‘not make the commercial‘. You can’t wake up and cry all day.. You have to go on with life the way it comes to you..

 

Your wish is to be normal So that is your goal..

Fox.. Does not have to prove anything to Rush or you..

We have a note from our doctors..

 

You don’t have to believe it.. You can’t be forced to believe it..

But that’s the way it is..

If you can’t bare to watch the commercial. You have the right to turn the channel..

posted by mattloch on Oct 27, 2006 at 10:30 AM
Anon, Fox did an ad for Specter in 2004, I'd say he's doing it in an impartial manner. 
.
Dg, you are confusing "cloning" with "human cloning". I'll try to make it simple for you. Any cell is going to have genetic material in it. It needs to in order to function, and to reproduce through division. Normal cell division creates two genetically identical cells. In a sense, this is the cell "cloning" itself. This is what stem-cell research does- it creates cells that are genetically identical to one another. Stem cells are cells without a specific purpose; "normal" cells have a specific purpose (skin cells are different than muscle cells are different than nerve cells, etc., etc.) Stem cell "cloning" creates additional stem-cells that are identical to the original one. "Human" cloning is creating another being with "normal" cells which will develop into a fully-functioning person. Stem cells are a homogeneous goo that will never become a person, only at best a single type of cell (organ, muscle, nerve, whatever).

The reason this research is important is two specific fields: organ transplants and cancer research. Stem-cells are important because they haven't become "specialized" (see my "normal" definition, above), and so can be made into organs that are genetically identical to the individual (so that they won't be rejected by the body as today's organs are), or replace cancerous (i.e. genetically damaged and often dangerous) cells within the body.

Hope this clears thing up for you and others.
posted by anonymous on Oct 27, 2006 at 01:05 PM
They are now running the Fox ad in Maryland, using it against Michael Steele, the GOP candidate.  They have stopped running it in Missouri, where it has had the effect of helping Talent and hurting McCaskill.  Steele has a rebuttal ad out today in which his niece, who has multiple sclerosis, makes the case that Steele has voted in favor of stem cell research, while Cardin  the Democratic opponent , has in the past voted against stem cell research.  Regardless of the facts, Democrats are trying to make the implication that the GOP is heartlessly letting people suffer.  Remember when AIDS patients were promised that if voters would just toss out GHW Bush, AIDS would be conquered.  8 years of Clinton and 5 years of GW Bush, who has outspent Clinton on AIDS research, and AIDS is still with us.  It is a shame to pander to people suffering with disease, promising them the moon, just for a few lousy votes. 

Specter is a RINO at best.  I do not doubt the sincerity of MJ Fox.  However, he is being ill-used by people who do not care a whit about anything else but getting a few votes. 
posted by anonymous on Oct 30, 2006 at 10:38 PM
Fox now stumping for the Dem candidate running against Dewine in Ohio, after yesteday admitting on ABC, that he had never read the proposed legislation in Missouri, where his ad ran against Talent.  

1

  (You need to be signed in to leave a comment)

BAKERSFIELD.COM HOT TOPICS:

Advertisement

About talkofthetown


Member Since:
June 21, 2006
Last Signed In:
December 02, 2008
Profile Views:
10752
Blog Views:
147889
View Profile
Send a Message
Send To A Friend
Sign Guestbook
Add as a Friend

Previous Posts
Depressing Christmas cards
Leading Catholic: Disney has corrupted kids
Kid comes before designer jeans
Predicting the stock market
Judge: Obese fliers should get two airline seats
Palin's unfortunate interview backdrop!
Record number of pot plants seized in state
Safe haven or easy way out?
Where's the good gas prices news?
McDonald's shines in bad economy
Archives
June 06
July 06
August 06
September 06
October 06
November 06
December 06
January 07
February 07
March 07
April 07
May 07
June 07
July 07
August 07
September 07
October 07
November 07
December 07
January 08
February 08
March 08
April 08
May 08
June 08
July 08
August 08
September 08
October 08
November 08
December 08
More Archives
June 06
May 06
April 06
March 06
February 06
January 06
December 05
November 05
October 05
September 05
August 05
July 05
June 05
May 05
April 05

Blog Roll


Ask The Californian
Editorials
Entertainment
Eye of Bakersfield
Faith Forum
Fired Up!
Inside Sports
Neighbors
Right Thinking
Sound Off
Talk of the Town
Subscribe!
RSS 2.0 feed RSS 2.0
Add to My Yahoo
Add to My Google
Add to Bloglines
Add to My AOL

Share!


talkofthetown - > Talk of the Town -> Rush to judgment on Michael J. Fox
Rush to judgment on Michael J. Fox
I had a visceral reaction when I saw a clip of Rush Limbaugh criticizing Michael J. Fox for exaggerating his Parkinson disease movements in Fox's stem cell research ad.

It was, "Rush you're a jerk."

Rush alleged Fox stopped taking medication so his body movements would look worse in the ad.

What offended me was someone making fun of another's infirmity.

People do that all the time with comments like you're fat, stupid, frail, sick, uncoordinated or whatever.

Yes, if you know a person and the person knows you love and respect him or her, you can make good-natured fun of his imperfections.

But that's not what Rush did here. He was trying in a vicious way to undermine Fox's political message.

Some conservative commentators are supporting Rush. Even Rush said he would apologize if he was wrong about his allegation.

It disgusts me how ugly politics gets sometimes.

Posted by Steve E. Swenson



Posted in these Groups:
Topics:
posted by talkofthetown on Wednesday, October 25, 2006 at 09:52 AM
Report a Violation
Viewed 416 times
37 comments from 15 users

1

posted by ProgressivePete2 on Oct 25, 2006 at 08:35 AM
Making fun of someone overweight isn't even as tasteless as this. If it were a conservative doing the same commercial, *El Gordo* would have been gushing over his flabbiness to praise the person. Instead, *the blob of flesh* sees this is a liberal threat to his well being (let's face it, he loves to eat, and I bet he spends a lot of money doing so), and questions the honesty of the commercial. Like there's any commercial out there that's 100% honest. Rush needs to get a life. He's becoming more and more irrelevant and dishonest every day. Oh yeah, and he's fat.
posted by randomfactor on Oct 25, 2006 at 10:23 AM
Wonder how many of *THESE* people Rush will accuse of "going off their meds."
.
http://rising-hegemon.blogs...
posted by TomW on Oct 25, 2006 at 06:00 PM
The whole thing bolsters my point, DG.  Thanks for providing me the opportunity to prove that again and show once again, more strongly this time, that the Republicans are lying.
posted by nooneisabovethelaw on Oct 25, 2006 at 01:05 PM
Rush would know about the behavior of someone not being on his meds, that's for certain.

As for being mean and vicious to undermine Fox's political status...well...that's what Rush and his ilk do. It's what they're paid to do. Sadly.
posted by dgrealish on Oct 25, 2006 at 04:57 PM
Whether or not Michael J. Fox went off his medication to enhance his symptoms isn't the only question in this issue.  Fox does admit in his book that before he appears before Congress he goes off his meds for just that reason, however I believe the real lie is in what they're not telling us about this proposed Missouri Amendment.  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id...  Think what you will about Fox.  He just wants to get better.  But is this really the right way?
posted by TomW on Oct 25, 2006 at 05:11 PM
Interesting article.  It should have pointed out this from the actual bill on the Missouri Sec. of State website:

Article III to read as follows:

Section 38(d). 1. This section shall be known as the “ Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative.”

2. To ensure that Missouri patients have access to stem cell therapies and cures, that Missouri researchers can conduct stem cell research in the state, and that all such research is conducted safely and ethically, any stem cell research permitted under federal law may be conducted in Missouri, and any stem cell therapies and cures permitted under federal law may be provided to patients in Missouri, subject to the requirements of federal law and only the following additional limitations and requirements:

(1) No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.

(2) No human blastocyst may be produced by fertilization solely for the purpose of stem cell research.

(3) No stem cells may be taken from a human blastocyst more than fourteen days after cell division begins; provided, however, that time during which a blastocyst is frozen does not count against the fourteen-day limit.

(4) No person may, for valuable consideration, purchase or sell human blastocysts or eggs for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures.

(5) Human blastocysts and eggs obtained for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures must have been donated with voluntary and informed consent, documented in writing.

posted by TomW on Oct 25, 2006 at 05:15 PM
The problem with much of th press these days is that they try to be neutral instead of objective.  I read the article and found out the the Republicans are lying in 1 minute of research.  But instead of saying that, the news just says "one side claims x and the other side claims y".  It's this not adhering to fact that has caused so much trouble in the last decade.
posted by dgrealish on Oct 25, 2006 at 05:29 PM
Tom, wouldn't it be, should I say "more honest" or "less dishonest" to copy and paste the entire Missouri Constitutional Amendment 2 rather than the part you feel bolsters your point?  They're are definitions of cloning a human being and valuable compensation that leave gaping holes through which many will be allowed to pass.
posted by TomW on Oct 25, 2006 at 05:44 PM
Sorry, DG, didn't want to take up a whole page, but at your request I'll post it.  Feel free to point out the gaping holes.

2006 Ballot Measure
Constitutional Amendment 2

Stem Cell Initiative

Submitted October 11, 2005

NOTICE: You are advised that the proposed constitutional amendment may change, repeal, or modify by implication or may be construed by some persons to change, repeal or modify by implication, the following provisions of the Constitution of Missouri – Sections 2, 10, 14, and 32 of Article I; Section 1 of Article II; Sections 1, 21, 22, 23, 28, 36, 39, 40, 41, and 42 of Article III; Sections 1, 14, 36(a), 37, 37(a), 39, and 52 of Article IV; Sections 5, 14, 17, 18, and 23, and subsection 17 of Section 27 of Article V; Sections 18(b), 18(c), 18(d), 18(k), 18(m), 19(a), 20, 31, 32(a), and 32(b) of Article VI; Section 9(a) of Article IX; Sections 1, 6, 11(a), 11(d), and 11(f) of Article X; and Section 3 or Article XI.

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT

Be it resolved by the people of the state of Missouri that the Constitution be amended:

One new section is adopted by adding one new section to be known as section 38(d) of Article III to read as follows:

Section 38(d). 1. This section shall be known as the “ Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative.”

2. To ensure that Missouri patients have access to stem cell therapies and cures, that Missouri researchers can conduct stem cell research in the state, and that all such research is conducted safely and ethically, any stem cell research permitted under federal law may be conducted in Missouri, and any stem cell therapies and cures permitted under federal law may be provided to patients in Missouri, subject to the requirements of federal law and only the following additional limitations and requirements:

(1) No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.

(2) No human blastocyst may be produced by fertilization solely for the purpose of stem cell research.

(3) No stem cells may be taken from a human blastocyst more than fourteen days after cell division begins; provided, however, that time during which a blastocyst is frozen does not count against the fourteen-day limit.

(4) No person may, for valuable consideration, purchase or sell human blastocysts or eggs for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures.

(5) Human blastocysts and eggs obtained for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures must have been donated with voluntary and informed consent, documented in writing.

(6) Human embryonic stem cell research may be conducted only by persons that, within 180 days of the effective date of this section or otherwise prior to commencement of such research, whichever is later, have

(a) provided oversight responsibility and approval authority for such research to an embryonic stem cell research oversight committee whose membership includes representatives of the public and medical and scientific experts;

(b) adopted ethical standards for such research that comply with the requirements of this section; and

(c) obtained a determination from an Institutional Review Board that the research complies with all applicable federal statutes and regulations that the Institutional Review Board is responsible for administering.

(7) All stem cell research and all stem cell therapies and cures must be conducted and provided in accordance with state and local laws of general applicability, including but not limited to laws concerning scientific and medical practices and patient safety and privacy, to the extent that any such laws do not (i) prevent, restrict, obstruct, or discourage any stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures that are permitted by the provisions of this section other than this subdivision (7) to be conducted or provided, or (ii) create disincentives for any person to engage in or otherwise associate with such research or therapies and cures.

3. Any person who knowingly and willfully violates in this state subdivision (1) of subsection 2 of this section commits a crime and shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of up to fifteen years or by the imposition of a fine of up to two hundred fifty thousand dollars, or by both. Any person who knowingly and willfully violates in this state subdivisions (2) or (3) of subsection 2 of this section commits a crime and shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of up to ten years or by the imposition of a fine of up to one hundred thousand dollars, or by both. A civil action may be brought against any person who knowingly and willfully violates in this state any of subdivisions (1) through (6) of subsection 2 of this section, and the state in such action shall be entitled to a judgment recovering a civil penalty of up to fifty thousand dollars per violation, requiring disgorgement of any financial profit derived from such violation, and/or enjoining any further such violation. The attorney general shall have the exclusive right to bring a civil action for such violation. Venue for such action shall be the county in which the alleged violation occurred.

4. Each institution, hospital, other entity, or other person conducting human embryonic stem cell research in the state shall (i) prepare an annual report stating the nature of the human embryonic stem cells used in, and the purpose of, the research conducted during the prior calendar year, and certifying compliance with subdivision (6) of subsection 2 of this section; and (ii) no later than June 30 of the subsequent year, make such report available to the public and inform the Secretary of State how the public may obtain copies of or otherwise gain access to the report. The report shall not contain private or confidential medical, scientific, or other information. Individuals conducting research at an institution, hospital, or other entity that prepares and makes available a report pursuant to this subsection 4 concerning such research are not required to prepare and make available a separate report concerning that same research. A civil action may be brought against any institution, hospital, other entity, or other person that fails to prepare or make available the report or inform the Secretary of State how the public may obtain copies of or otherwise gain access to the report, and the state in such action shall be entitled as its sole remedy to an affirmative injunction requiring such institution, hospital, other entity, or other person to prepare and make available the report or inform the Secretary of State how the public may obtain or otherwise gain access to the report. The attorney general shall have the exclusive right to bring a civil action for such violation.

5. To ensure that no governmental body or official arbitrarily restricts funds designated for purposes other than stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures as a means of inhibiting lawful stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures, no state or local governmental body or official shall eliminate, reduce, deny, or withhold any public funds provided or eligible to be provided to a person that (i) lawfully conducts stem cell research or provides stem cell therapies and cures, allows for such research or therapies and cures to be conducted or provided on its premises, or is otherwise associated with such research or therapies and cures, but (ii) receives or is eligible to receive such public funds for purposes other than such stem cell-related activities, on account of, or otherwise for the purpose of creating disincentives for any person to engage in or otherwise associate with, or preventing, restricting, obstructing, or discouraging, such stem cell-related activities.

6. As used in this section, the following terms have the following meanings:

(1) “Blastocyst” means a small mass of cells that results from cell division, caused either by fertilization or somatic cell nuclear transfer, that has not been implanted in a uterus.

(2) “Clone or attempt to clone a human being” means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.

(3) “Donated” means donated for use in connection either with scientific or medical research or with medical treatment.

(4) “Fertilization” means the process whereby an egg of a human female and the sperm of a human male form a zygote (i.e., fertilized egg).

(5) “Human embryonic stem cell research,” also referred to as “early stem cell research,” means any scientific or medical research involving human stem cells derived from in vitro fertilization blastocysts or from somatic cell nuclear transfer. For purposes of this section, human embryonic stem cell research does not include stem cell clinical trials.

(6) “In vitro fertilization” means fertilization of an egg with a sperm outside the body.

(7) “Institutional Review Board” means a specially constituted review board established and operating in accordance with federal law as set forth in 42 U.S.C. 289, 45 C.F.R. Part 46, and any other applicable federal statutes and regulations, as amended from time to time.

(8) “Permitted under federal law” means, as it relates to stem cell research and stem cell therapies and cures, any such research, therapies, and cures that are not prohibited under federal law from being conducted or provided, regardless of whether federal funds are made available for such activities.

(9) “Person” means any natural person, corporation, association, partnership, public or private institution, or other legal entity.

(10) “Private or confidential medical, scientific, or other information” means any private or confidential patient, medical, or personnel records or matters, intellectual property or work product, whether patentable or not and including but not limited to any scientific or technological innovations in which an entity or person involved in the research has a proprietary interest, prepublication scientific working papers, research, or data, and any other matter excepted from disclosure under Chapter 610, RSMo, as amended from time to time.

(11) “Solely for the purpose of stem cell research” means producing human blastocysts using in vitro fertilization exclusively for stem cell research, but does not include producing any number of human blastocysts for the purpose of treating human infertility.

(12) “Sperm” means mature spermatozoa or precursor cells such as spermatids and spermatocytes.

(13) “Stem cell” means a cell that can divide multiple times and give rise to specialized cells in the body, and includes but is not limited to the stem cells generally referred to as (i) adult stem cells that are found in some body tissues (including but not limited to adult stem cells derived from adult body tissues and from discarded umbilical cords and placentas), and (ii) embryonic stem cells (including but not limited to stem cells derived from in vitro fertilization blastocysts and from cell reprogramming techniques such as somatic cell nuclear transfer).

(14) “Stem cell clinical trials” means federally regulated clinical trials involving stem cells and human subjects designed to develop, or assess or test the efficacy or safety of, medical treatments.

(15) “Stem cell research” means any scientific or medical research involving stem cells. For purposes of this section, stem cell research does not include stem cell clinical trials.

(16) “Stem cell therapies and cures” means any medical treatment that involves or otherwise derives from the use of stem cells, and that is used to treat or cure any disease or injury. For purposes of this section, stem cell therapies and cures does include stem cell clinical trials.

(17) “Valuable consideration” means financial gain or advantage, but does not include reimbursement for reasonable costs incurred in connection with the removal, processing, disposal, preservation, quality control, storage, transfer, or donation of human eggs, sperm, or blastocysts, including lost wages of the donor. Valuable consideration also does not include the consideration paid to a donor of human eggs or sperm by a fertilization clinic or sperm bank, as well as any other consideration expressly allowed by federal law.

7. The provisions of this section and of all state and local laws, regulations, rules, charters, ordinances, and other governmental actions shall be construed in favor of the conduct of stem cell research and the provision of stem cell therapies and cures. No state or local law, regulation, rule, charter, ordinance, or other governmental action shall (i) prevent, restrict, obstruct, or discourage any stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures that are permitted by this section to be conducted or provided, or (ii) create disincentives for any person to engage in or otherwise associate with such research or therapies and cures.

8. The provisions of this section are self-executing. All of the provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or unconstitutionally enacted, the remaining provisions of this section shall be and remain valid.

posted by randomfactor on Oct 25, 2006 at 05:45 PM
Dg, since he provided a link to the actual wording, and that doesn't contradict his claim that the Republicans are lying, I'd have to say "more honest."
.
The definition of cloning, for example, leaves out the possibility of a clone being grown in an artificial womb, but there's no such thing.   Without a uterus--and the law also covers pig or primate uteri--no pregnancy, no clone.   I suppose it could be read to allow the deliberate creation of an ectopic pregnancy, but I don't see where that's going to give you any advantages.
.
Where are your gaping holes?
posted by dgrealish on Oct 25, 2006 at 08:36 PM
  • Page 1 of the amendment says it bans cloning. But page 4 allows bio-tech special interests to clone human embryos through "Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer" - the scientific definition for cloning and the method used to clone Dolly the sheep.

  • Page 1 of the amendment says you can't buy or sell human eggs. But page 5 says firms can pay women for their eggs, which will be needed in the millions for the kind of unethical experimentation this amendment allows. This is not only deceptive, but it shows who will pay the real price for these cloning experiments - vulnerable women who will be asked to put their health and fertility at risk

    Please be patient while I look for more clairification.

    http://www.2tricky.org/
  • posted by dgrealish on Oct 25, 2006 at 08:59 PM
    By the defination of cloning in (2) "Clone or attempt to clone a human being", only cloning for reproduction is restricted.  That leaves open human cloning for experimental purposes.  That my friend is a hole the size of the Grand Canyon. 
    posted by TomW on Oct 25, 2006 at 11:29 PM
    dg, can you cite the language you are using to make these claims?  Neither you nor the website you direct to shows the language.

    And that hole the size of the Grand Canyon:  They can clone cells.  Not people, not fetuses.  And unless you can show me language that overrides these three statements, no one reading this blog can believe you.
    "No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being"
    "No human blastocyst may be produced by fertilization solely for the purpose of stem cell research" and
    “Clone or attempt to clone a human being” means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being."

    The bit about Dolly is silly.  How was Dolly created?  It was a cloned blastocyst that was implanted in another sheep, an action specifically banned under this act.

    And as for buying and selling, you're wrong again and make all sorts of unfounded implications without citing the very text you insisted I post in full on the page.

    Look, I don't mean to club you, but this is actually important and if you're lying or spouting someone else's lies, I've got an obligation to beat them down.  It's not personnal, and none of this excuses the original assult by Rush Limbaugh, who apparently thinks mocking people with Parkinsons in funny.
    posted by NancyII on Oct 26, 2006 at 05:25 AM
    Why is it necessary to use phrases like "if you're lying or spouting someone's elses lies" to someone who sees a different meaning in text?"  That's pretty insulting to someone who hasn't given any reason at any time for people to think she is lying.

    As much as I've disagreed with people on here, I never felt it necessary to even hint that they might be lying.  Misinformed, misread, misunderstood, not in agreement, seeing things differently, getting different meanings from writings, yes.  But lying?  That's pretty harsh even when couched in a polite way.

    I suppose it's just me, but when I see things like "lying",  "hate mongers",  "freedom haters", "constitution haters"...
    You know.. "HATE" talk..I start to tune them out and won't read the posts.  If anyone wants to convince others of their point of view, they might consider keeping it civil.  Saying it in a polite way doesn't make it any less accusatory.

    (small apology for scolding..it must be the mother/teacher/ counselor in me..the part about communication skills comes to mind)
    posted by Shsrebel10 on Oct 26, 2006 at 08:54 AM
    Rush Limbaugh is an ass.  He's one of the most, if not the most, hateful talkshow host in America today.  Another reason why I can't stand KNZR.
    posted by Hardliner4freedom on Oct 26, 2006 at 08:59 AM
    I don't know; Laura Ingrahate is pretty bad.  Of course, all of KNZR should be called KNaZiR.
    .
    In the 1990s, KNaZiR made a diligent effort to offer a wide spectrum of opinions.  Today they have chased the ratings -- or been chased by new management.
    .
    What a terrible reflection on our society that hate sells, and comprises an established market.
    posted by tkozy on Oct 26, 2006 at 09:12 AM
    Who's the idiot gun Nut?

    The one that is having his sister send him his 50 calibers... 
    posted by TomW on Oct 26, 2006 at 09:25 AM
    Sorry Nancy, should I have said "less honest" or "more dishonest"?  These are lies.  The site that DG linked to is lying.  They are deliberately manufacturing out of whole cloth things which are not true because their real position is not popular.  I did go as far as to make sure I said it wasn't personal and I was attacking the lies, not the person.  But people who oppose this bill by trying to imply that it allows for human cloning are either lying or have no business discussing policy.

    I don't generally approve of or resort to this language, but at some point you have to call things what they are.  Again, and not going after you, but one of the common Republican party tactics is to frame an issue as a debate between to equal viewpoints with no regard for the truth.  You'll see the "differing opinions" and "we don't have enough information to judge" and "reasonable people an disagree" style of argument quite often once you start looking for it.  It's how this country has gotten to where it is.  If we don't have some measure of respect for the truth and the self respect to stand up for it, we're bound to be ruled by the lower common denominator.
    posted by dgrealish on Oct 26, 2006 at 10:19 AM

    TomW, I hope this helps clarify the language.  There is no question in the scientific community that Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer is cloning.  It is only questioned in the political community.

    In SCNT the nucleus, which contains the organism's DNA, of a somatic cell (a body cell other than a sperm or egg cell) is removed and the rest of the cell is discarded. At the same time, the nucleus of an egg cell is removed. The nucleus of the somatic cell is then inserted into the enucleated egg cell. After being inserted into the egg, the somatic cell nucleus is reprogrammed by the host cell. The egg, now containing the nucleus of a somatic cell, is stimulated in such a way that it begins to divide. After many mitotic divisions in culture, this single cell forms a blastocyst (an early stage embryo with about 100 cells) with almost identical DNA to the original organism.

    posted by TomW on Oct 26, 2006 at 10:36 AM
    DG, so when you say cloning, you don't mean cloning embryos then, you mean cloning of cells.  This isn't human cloning by any stretch, it's not cloning embryos.  All of that is specifically prohibited by this law.

    No stem cells may be taken from a human blastocyst more than fourteen days after cell division begins; provided, however, that time during which a blastocyst is frozen does not count against the fourteen-day limit.
    posted by motopoet on Oct 26, 2006 at 12:17 PM
    OH! You mean the site DG linked is lying? Are you suggesting that many of the left links I have been sent by people in here aren't? Give me a break! The truth, as usual in these debates, is most likely somewhere in between the ravings of either side.  ADULT stem cell research IS legal and has been forever and IT is yielding POSSIBILITIES of certain treatments for certain ailments(or so I am led to believe by researchers interviewed about this over the last few years) while there is absolutelty NO scientific evidence that embryonic stem cell research has made any headway into anything. It is being said that the left is pushing this so they can slip abortion into the fray. I really don't know if that is their intention, but it wouldn't surprise me given their stance on the issue ever since I can remember. I listened to the audio of what Rush said about the Fox thing. I didn't get the feeling he was attacking Fox, but rather, was pointing out the exploitation of Fox by the left and Fox's own exploitation of his illness in the face of Fox's own admission that he goes off his meds before some speeches for "theatrical effect because it seems right to me".  I'm no big fan of Limbaugh, but it sounds to me like his detractors are just using it for another attack on him, forgetting that he isn't running for any office.
    posted by TomW on Oct 26, 2006 at 12:39 PM
    Moto, I'm not suggesting it.  I'm saying it.  There is a difference between lying left wing sites and correct left wing sites. Just as there are on the right.  And if you think the left is pushing this because of abortion, that's wrong.  Abortion is legal and the majority of Americans want it to stay that way.  That battle is all but over.  The only reason the abortion limitation initiatives even make the ballot is to drive conservative turnout at the polls.

    This "somewhere in the middle" talk is the thing I was saying above.  The technique is officially called the Overton window.  You propose something flat wrong on one side to contradict the truth and then people believe that there is a correct middle ground.  This is the guiding philosophy of right wing think tanks which is why Ann Coulter and her ilk are out there.  Not because people are supposed to agree with them (though frighteningly some do) but it is to get the society to the place where everything is opinion and the new middle is so far right you can't even see the truth from there.
    posted by dgrealish on Oct 26, 2006 at 02:34 PM
    It is in the language of 6 (2), which defines the cloning of a human being,

    2) “Clone or attempt to clone a human being” means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.

    And in 6 (13), which I'll post again,

    13) “Stem cell” means a cell that can divide multiple times and give rise to specialized cells in the body, and includes but is not limited to the stem cells generally referred to as (i) adult stem cells that are found in some body tissues (including but not limited to adult stem cells derived from adult body tissues and from discarded umbilical cords and placentas), and (ii) embryonic stem cells (including but not limited to stem cells derived from in vitro fertilization blastocysts and from cell reprogramming techniques such as somatic cell nuclear transfer). 

    that includes somatic cell nuclear transfer, scientifically accepted as cloning.

    By definition alone, 6 (2) and 6 (13) are certainly contradictory.

    In number 2 (4),

    (4) No person may, for valuable consideration, purchase or sell human blastocysts of eggs for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures.

    which is then contradicted in its definition of "valuable consideration" in 6 (17)

    (17) “Valuable consideration” means financial gain or advantage, but does not include reimbursement for reasonable costs incurred in connection with the removal, processing, disposal, preservation, quality control, storage, transfer, or donation of human eggs, sperm, or blastocysts, including lost wages of the donor. Valuable consideration also does not include the consideration paid to a donor of human eggs or sperm by a fertilization clinic or sperm bank, as well as any other consideration expressly allowed by federal law.

     In it's very own language, this amendment is contradictory and confusing.  And as Mark has mentioned, embryonic stem cell research has brought nothing to the table to date, while adult stem cell research is showing results. 

    posted by TomW on Oct 26, 2006 at 03:28 PM
    DG, the definitions clarify the language of the bill.  The bill allows cloning of cells.  That is all.  It does not allow human cloning.  The bill is not contradictory.  The example of valuable consideration is specifying exactly what comprises valuable consideration.  A person may not "sell", but can be compensated in accordance with existing law.

    You're confusing cloning of a human being and cloning human cells.  The language is complex, but it has to be to hold up in court and prevent loopholes.
    posted by dgrealish on Oct 26, 2006 at 04:19 PM

    The definition of human cloning is prohibitive only for reproductive purposes, only if it results in a "human fetus or human birth".  This wording in itself is subject to interpretation.  Just as is the question of when life begins.  How far does the cloning of human cells go before what you have is considered "human"?  And who decides?  Just because what was created was done in a petri dish and without being implanted in a uterus, is it any less human?  It is the language that creates the loopholes.  As for valuable consideration, would a prostitute be any less a prostitute if she accepted a DVD player rather than cash for services rendered?  Valuable consideration is payment, period.

    posted by TomW on Oct 26, 2006 at 04:43 PM
    I don't know when a group of cells becomes human, DG.  This statute sets the limit they can go to at 14 days.

    (3) No stem cells may be taken from a human blastocyst more than fourteen days after cell division begins; provided, however, that time during which a blastocyst is frozen does not count against the fourteen-day limit.

    As for valuable consideration, personally, it wouldn't bother me if women became rich from this.  The right of the government to tell me what to do should stop at least at my skin.  But to argue the point, there are very strict limits on compensation.  These laws are to prohibit trafficking and forced donation.  Women can already do this to contribute their eggs to fertility clinics.  The same laws apply here.
    posted by dgrealish on Oct 26, 2006 at 04:51 PM
    It says no stem cells may be taken from a human blastocyst for more than fourteen days after cell division begins, that leaves it anything else wide open, doesn't it.
    posted by dusty1215 on Oct 26, 2006 at 04:57 PM
    Fox stated last night that when he is OFF his meds, the tremors lessen, so how does going off his meds make him more pathetic/sympathetic an individual? The disease paralyzes the body, the tremors are as a result of taking the meds..jeebus..people need to see Alex Trebek and buy a clue on this one.
    posted by TomW on Oct 26, 2006 at 05:07 PM
    What is "everything else", dg?  You can't implant them in a uterus and they can't become a fetus without one.
    posted by blognroll on Oct 26, 2006 at 09:14 PM

    Rush lives for "visceral" responses.  Our disgust: his dinner.  Our shock: his sleep. 

    posted by NancyII on Oct 26, 2006 at 09:33 PM
    I don't know what Michael Fox Said but symptoms of Parkinsons IS trembling and the meds help control the trembling.
    It doesn't make much sense that he would earlier state the he wen toff his meds to show people what Parkinsons is really like and turn around and say he only trembles when he's ON meds.

    Check this out...