Today the national media was buzzing with commentary. The subject: Rush Limbaugh’s controversial remarks about Michael J. Fox’s appearnce in a campaign ad for Clair McHaskill (D-MO).
Now, I’m skeptical of campaign ads in general. They are short, superficial, sensational, and quite often ridiculous, yet there are the select few that utilize honest, effective marketing to convey a true message. After reviewing the ad in question, I genuinely feel that it belongs in the second group.
Yes, Michael’s appearance is shocking. Yes, his bobs and tremors are glaring. But despite these distractions, and quite possibly becaues of them, he makes a brief but strikingly eloquent argument in favor of stem cell research. I do not find his appearance offensive in the least. If Michael J. Fox did withhold his medication, as Rush Limbaugh so bullishly declared, then he merely showed his true disability. Were it not for modern medicine, he would never be able to disguise his horrible tremors. It is the blatancy of his illness which underlines his endorsement of stem cell research.
I found commentator Lennard Davis’ NPR piece to be quite interesting. He offers a unique point of view, going so far as to suggest that Rush’s comments point to a common sentiment: that disabled people should hide their conditions. Is it bad form to flaunt one’s disability for what it truly is? And to what extent do disabilities define us? Is it really rude to use a disability to make a point? Granted, the sympathy card does not sit well with most, but in this instance, I believe Michael J. Fox merely showed his illness for what it is: a horribly crippling disease known as Parkinson’s.
Truth or Exploitation?
October 26, 2006
Today the national media was buzzing with commentary. The subject: Rush Limbaugh’s controversial remarks about Michael J. Fox’s appearnce in a campaign ad for Clair McHaskill (D-MO).
Now, I’m skeptical of campaign ads in general. They are short, superficial, sensational, and quite often ridiculous, yet there are the select few that utilize honest, effective marketing to convey a true message. After reviewing the ad in question, I genuinely feel that it belongs in the second group.
Yes, Michael’s appearance is shocking. Yes, his bobs and tremors are glaring. But despite these distractions, and quite possibly becaues of them, he makes a brief but strikingly eloquent argument in favor of stem cell research. I do not find his appearance offensive in the least. If Michael J. Fox did withhold his medication, as Rush Limbaugh so bullishly declared, then he merely showed his true disability. Were it not for modern medicine, he would never be able to disguise his horrible tremors. It is the blatancy of his illness which underlines his endorsement of stem cell research.
I found commentator Lennard Davis’ NPR piece to be quite interesting. He offers a unique point of view, going so far as to suggest that Rush’s comments point to a common sentiment: that disabled people should hide their conditions. Is it bad form to flaunt one’s disability for what it truly is? And to what extent do disabilities define us? Is it really rude to use a disability to make a point? Granted, the sympathy card does not sit well with most, but in this instance, I believe Michael J. Fox merely showed his illness for what it is: a horribly crippling disease known as Parkinson’s.
Filed in Politics and Commentary