Are some people above criticism?

Criticizing Michael J Fox is like kicking your dog. He's cute, he's sick, he's lovable. But suppose Fox kicks his dog? Are we not allowed to say anything because he has the moral high ground?

Is he allowed to make a manipulative and misleading commercial because he suffers from an illness? Are we not allowed to discuss the merits of his argument?

I'm willing to concede that the man is a highly engaging actor who is suffering from a deadly disease. But this whole stem cell controversy has been removed from the scientific realm and is being framed as a moral issue, which it is not. Stem cell research, embryonic and adult, is legal in all 50 states. There is no law against it. Several states actually fund it, including basket cases like California and New Jersey which would be well advised to spend their money in some more worthy endeavor. The actual result of this funding is to put taxpayers' money in the hands of scientists who want government grant money to carry out their research instead of spending private funds.

The jury is still out on stem cell research. If funds are needed, who not ask George Soros for the money--or Bill Gates? Or some Saudi princeling who has millions to throw around? There are also plenty of private charities who give out money for medical research. I guess it's easier to get it from the government.

However, back to my question: who is immune to criticism? Besides RoPers, I mean.

Here's a partial list, just so you know.

Cindy "absolute moral authority" Sheehan; Michael Berg, peace lover whose son was beheaded and who wears a kefiyeh around his neck; Max Cleland, war hero who was injured during a beer run; Lynne Stewart, professional traitor, attorney, and cancer sufferer.