(cross posted at kickin it with cg and motley moose)

Everywhere I turn it seems Rush Limbaugh is. Much as I try and avoid the inanity, he is everywhere.  Say for instance even today, I was reading an article about Michael J. Fox and Parkinsons's disease, and wouldn't you know it...

Fox writes in Always Looking Up of getting painted with the crude brush of U.S. political discourse. In the summer of 2006, he was appalled to see George W. Bush exercise the first veto of his presidency to kill a bill that would have permitted funding for embryonic stem-cell research.

Vowing it wouldn't happen again, Fox turned his office into the headquarters of a co-ordinated effort that promised to throw its weight behind any candidate in that fall's midterm elections - Democrat or Republican, House member or Senate hopeful - who supported the research. He appeared at rallies, raised funds and filmed commercials for candidates. And then, in mid-October, Rush Limbaugh attacked Fox for an ad made on behalf of a Democratic candidate in which the right-wing radio host said Fox was "exaggerating the effects of the disease."For good measure, Limbaugh even imitated Fox's dyskinisias, rolling from side to side and waving his arms in the air, and added, "It's purely an act."

In short order, Limbaugh had his ass handed to him on a plate, as experts and Parkinson's patients scolded him for his ignorance. And Fox was given the platform of a lengthy interview with Katie Couric on the CBS Evening News in which he kept to the high road, helping to move attention from Limbaugh and himself to open up a broader debate about stem-cell research.

"It almost in a way lightened the moment for me, because I kind of went: 'Oh, is it this predictable, is it this cartoonish, that you have to dehumanize the messenger?' " Fox recalls with a kind of glee. "And then it became this wonderful thing, because there was something karmic about the fact that the conversation got hijacked, and they spent the last two weeks [of the campaign] talking about.

Who would have expected Rush Limbaugh to become a national figure and the "official opposition" to the Obama administration? Garnering more attention than the Republican party's actual leadership?  As Rush himself says on his website:

"There is a 'consensus' among the American people, who have made this the most listened to program, that it is also the most accurate, most right, and most correct.  People who disagree with this are Rush Deniers."

Really? What's interesting is that Limbaugh's 'dirty little secret' is becoming public, namely that he is not quite as 'in demand' as many would have you believe.

That's obviously not it. OK, so why IS his show so "popular?" Why do hundreds of stations around the country carry his show, the most widely syndicated talkfest in the country?

Glad you asked.

The real story is not generally well-known. The only reason I know is through my covering the business of radio for years for several major daily newspapers and also, for industry trade magazines like Radio World.

It's because -- ready for this? -- Rush's show was, and presumably still is, given away for free to many local radio stations.

This shocker is because of a little-known practice in broadcast syndication called a "barter deal." (Barter deals were briefly mentioned in Michael Wolff's first-rate recent piece on Rush in Vanity Fair).

Here's how a barter deal works: To launch the show, Limbaugh's syndicator, Premiere Radio Networks -- the same folks who syndicate wingnut du jour Glen Beck -- gave Limbaugh's three hours away -- that's right, no cash -- to local radio stations, mostly in medium and smaller markets, back in the early 1990's.

So, a local talk station got Rush's show for zilch. In exchange, Premiere took for itself much of the local station's available advertising time (roughly 15 minutes an hour) and packed the show with national ads it had already pre-sold.

Well, well, well - that explains a lot. And of course - Rush is on one side of the Republican civil war brewing...

But I guess this begs the question, are we making Rush relevant by paying him attention like others publicitiy whores in his brethren?  

I think so.  

There's more...

Louisiana Governor Jindal Supports Radical Anti-Stem Cell Politics over Patient Health

In the special session of the Louisiana Legislature that ended on March 14, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal took an important stand for the future of biotechnology in the state. He called for, and achieved, an investment of $50 million for Pennington Biomedical Research Center, going so far as to open the legislative session on Pennington's campus alongside the facility's president.

A bill that passed out of committee on April 9 completely nullifies that commitment to scientific advancement. HB 370 by Rep. Cameron Henry, WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY GOVERNOR BOBBY JINDAL AND HIS ADMINISTRATION, prohibits the use of public funds - state or federal - for stem cell research. The bill defines human cloning as "somatic cell nuclear transfer," which is not the case. There are important scientific differences between human reproductive cloning and SCNT, also known as therapeutic cloning.

http://www.wafb.com/global/video/flash/p opupplayer.asp?ClipID1=2369905&h1=Hu man%20Cloning%

Let's ignore for a minute the constitutionality of a state government prohibiting the federal government's giving money to a private institution and focus on the issue. SCNT is NOT human cloning. The scientists that conduct the potentially lifesaving research that is being discussed do not want to clone humans. SCNT utilizes unfertilized eggs and does not result in life, unlike actual human reproductive cloning. SCNT doesn't create life, it saves lives.

One legislator went so far as to compare research being done by today's scientists to Nazi experiments on Jews in World War II, saying any good that may come from such research is not worth the lives lost. This legislator even told a father testifying about his daughter's disease that it was the father's "opinion" that the life of his daughter was more important than a cell in a Petri dish.

http://www.bayoubuzz.com/News/Louisiana/ Government/Stem_Cell_Research_Under_Embr yonic_Louisiana_Debate__6202.asp

Governor Jindal, his administration, and the majority of the members of the House Committee on Health and Welfare have chosen to ignore the facts, ignore the potential for research and ignore the cries for help from patients in need - all in order to cater to one loud, radical special interest.

It is outrageous to think that the Republican Party is still considering Louisiana's Governor Jindal as a potential vice president after hypocritical, dangerous actions such as this. If they want him, fine. Our children with diabetes, our parents with degenerative diseases, and all our afflicted patients will be glad to see him go.

There's more...

A good friend of the campaign here in IL-03 -- Don Reed -- asked me to write up a short piece on stem cell research to circulate among proponents of stem cell research.

He posted it here at DailyKos and asked me to cross post it. I think it does a good job of drawing yet another distinction between myself and Dan Lipinski.

The election is just 32 days away. Please take a minute to read this and keep following our exciting campaign for Congress here and at www.PERA08.com.

Thank you -- Mark

Dear friend of stem cell research,

My name is Mark Pera and I'm a Democratic candidate for Congress in Illinois' 3rd district. I'm writing you today to ask you an important question. Have you, like me, wondered why a Democratically-controlled Congress cannot override President Bush's endless mistakes, including his opposition to stem cell research?

Part of the blame belongs to a handful of Democrats, including Congressman Dan Lipinski, who have consistently voted with Bush on many issues important to Democrats, including the critical issue of stem-cell research.

There's more...

This is how rumors get started.

Everyone who knows anything about John Edwards, knows that John Edwards supports expanding embryonic stem cell research.  In fact, in the press release before the LiveStrong Presidential Forum, the press release from John Edwards' campaign included:

- Respect Science: John Edwards believes that policy should be science driven, and that science shouldn't be politics driven. Ideological debates have drained resources from promising research. Edwards will increase funding for and lift stifling research restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, while banning reproductive human cloning.

But over at the DU, they are telling this lie:

There's more...

I am working on a book that I believe is very relevant to this forum and was hoping that you all could look into it and provide some feedback. I represent the book, "Why We'll Win: Left Edition" by Malcolm Friedberg, which explores the constitutional contentions behind hotpoint issues such as abortion, the pledge of allegiance, gun control, and gay marriage along with perspectives written by liberal leaders.

The book is written from a bipartisan perspective with the aim to inform the average political junkie of the legal and constitutional arguments that are made and heard within the confines of the Supreme Court. For instance, the chapter on abortion draws the distinction that the constitution lays out (and the courts have specified) between the state rights to protect the unborn and a woman's right to choose. While, of course, there is no easy mediation between the two sides, this book is designed to make readers aware of the LEGAL contentions behind the debate and prepare them to argue their case.

I thought that this book would be of interest to this community. What do you all think?

There's more...