Bush's Addiction Rages On

Progressive Daily Beacon ^ | 4/22/05 | Bruce MacKay

[Ditter]

What a steaming pile of you know what! This creep psychoanalyzes President Bush without ever having met him. Well then, I will analyze this jerk. He became a therapist because he is so screwed up he is trying to fix himself.

[Prodn2000]

Funny, the same argument applies Dr. Frist and his internet/video tape diagonsis of Terri Shiavo. I didn't any outrage at him though...........

[Allegra]

This writer is WARPED.

[HitmanLV]

Not really - I don't think Dr. Frist was presumptuous enough to give such a detailed diagnosis of Terri Schiavo, and he relied on the opinion of doctors who had met with Terri and diagnosed her.

Best as I am aware, the psychiatrist who wrote the book did nothing remotely like that.

[Prodn2000]

I feel as if we are using selective memory techniques again.... Frist said something along the lines of "I've seen the tape, and as a doctor I can tell you that she is not in a PVS." Again, that is not verbatim.

Anywho, anyone who thinks Dubya has been sober since the 80s needs to visit http://www.thesmokinggun.com/bush/bush.html

[HitmanLV]

No, its not verbatim, which really makes your use of quotes odd and misplaced, as well as just plain incorrect. No idea where that came from, sorry.

My statement still stands: I didn't get the impression that Dr. Frist offered a serious medical diagnosis, and whatever his comments were it is certainly not comparable to writing a detailed book on the subject, as the psychiatrist who never treated President Bush composed.

Most people have no problem distinguishing between the two, and in any event Frist was arguing for a Federal Court review on due process grounds, not for Congress to come to a position on the issue that would supercede the court decision.

That's not selective memory, either for the first time, or 'again' as you suggested - I don't know of another one of my posts where 'we' [as you wrote] were using selective memory, though I can't speak for your posts since I can't remember any of them.

As for Dubya and his sobriety, that's a non sequitur here, as I haven't offered any opinion or belief about that on this thread or elsewhere on FR, making that comment additionally odd and disjointed. I will say that your comments speak volumes for your clarity of thought, though.

Be seeing you.

[TASMANIANRED]

[Prodn2000]

As far as clarity of thought is concerned, I feel as if you have misrepresented me. Dr. Frist did make a diagnosis and used that in his justification of the support of the "Palm Sunday Compromise" bill. The actual quote was: "I question it based on a review of the video footage which I spent an hour or so looking at last night in my office... she certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli."

Anyway, I felt that I needed to post this because the general consensus of this thread was that the writer of the book had no place making a diagnosis without meeting the "patient."

The remark about George Bush's alleged sobriety were actually in response to post #44 which contained this little gem: "...I'm sober for over 20 years without any help from this asshole, and so is the President."

[HitmanLV]

Clarity of thought is evidently is a problem: the actual quote you offered isn't any kind of diagnosis at all: he is explicitly questioning a conclusion based on review of some video. That's not a diagnosis of Schiavo being in a PVS or not being in a PVS.

It's just questioning a medical conclusion (which is entirely legitimate). If you look at the quote you supplied again (which is very different from your quoted paraphrase, as odd as that was) you can see that Frist males no diagnosis either way.

He questions the diagnosis based on video footage. She certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli. He isn't making any type of sophisticated diagnosis, nor purports to, sorry.

Writing a book that clearly purports to make a diagnosis based on no direct interaction with a patient is not a way to gain credibility. The author of the book has no credibility. If Frist did something comparable in firmness and scope (and here he did neither), he would lose comparable credibility.

And your observation regarding 'we' having selective memory 'again' are still not very meaningful - we have had nothing of the kind, neither for the first time nor again. No idea where you got that from, sorry.

And I have no idea why you felt compelled to respond to post #44 in a post to me, since I had nothing to do with that post and those observations made you appear more confused and disjointed - though now that you clarified, while I still think it's odd and misplaced, I realize I am probably wrong and that you are not as confused and disjointed as I originally thought.

In any case, thanks for pointing out what clear minded folks knew: the writer of the book couldn't make a meaningful diagnosis without actually thoroughly examining his subject (your use of the word 'patient' notwithstanding). Frist couldn't make one either. The distinction, of course, is that the author of this book purports to do just that, in fairly definite terms, while the quote you supplied from Frist isn't very comparable at all.

[rwfromkansas]

One of the worst articles I have ever read.

Five barf bags aren't enough.

[HitmanLV]

Re: misrepresenting you.

I'm sorry if you felt I misrepresented you. If anything, you misrepresented Frist's comments. The first quote you offered (which wasn't a quote, but a paraphrase you oddly placed within quotes, which suggests you don't know how to use quotes, but that's neither here nor there) was a misrepresentation - Frist didn't say anything remotely like that.

The actual quote you supplied doesn't say what you think it said. There is no firm diagnosis of Schiavo not being in a PVS. It is an explicit questioning of the conclusion that she is in a PVS. The last part, that she 'certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli,' is a statement of fact and opinion - it may be wrong but it's not a firm diagnosis either way.

I am sorry if you feel that pointing this out somehow misrepresents you, and I apologize.

[skr]

Sounds live Progressive drivel to me.

[tiki]

Phew! What a screed! Where do these bitter, angry people see this stuff? Am I blind?

I know an alcoholic or 50, I know drunk ones, sober ones, and I've been closely aquainted with 5 who have died of it. I've seen dry drunks and let me tell you Dubya isn't on one. He's not that good an actor. I think he's like my husband, who didn't get treatment or go to AA. Dry drunks are just like active alcoholics, they don't grow and mature, they're like...like Clinton.

[Prodn2000]

Thank you for your speedy reply and the courtesy in your words. I do realize that I misused quotation marks in my initial post. I have been up to my ears in APA-style papers for the past month and was shocked to see that I had made an such an error. For my benefit only I will repeat what I have learned tonight: You only use quotes when the authors words are being reproduced verbatim. I must also say that it is refreshing and inspiring to find someone that also believes that good grammar and spelling should not exclusively exist offline.

Dr. Frist's comments on March 20 were interpreted by myself and others as a diagnosis. The small quote that I provided for you was all that I could find on short notice that was not a paraphrase. His comments also appeared to be dismissal of previous diagnoses by doctors more closely related to the personal care of Terri Schaivo. It is widely recognized that the majority of doctors in that specialty that actually met Ms. Schaivo concurred with the initial assessment and concluded that she was in fact PVS.

[HitmanLV]

No worries, friend. I'm not an obsessive stickler for spelling and grammar, though I do notice deviations from the rules of grammar here and there. Your use of quotes was incongruous and just plain wrong: it really suggested you didn't know their proper use.

As for your interpretation of Dr. Frist's comments, reasonable people can disagree on that, of course, and as you say you are merely stating your opinion on the impression Frist's comments gave you.

My interpretation rests mostly on his explicit use of a variation of the word 'question.' I take that literally - based on what he saw (and what he said he saw, admittedly limited information - and Frist wouldn't disagree) he questions the conclusion of some of the doctors (but not all of the doctors, as there were doctors who examined Terri who disagreed with the consensus diagnosis).

So all Frist did was question (and literally question, as he offered no explicit diagnosis) the conclusions of some of the doctors.

Now if he explicitly said she was in his medical opinion not in a PVS (or was in a PVS), that would be a diagnosis. He didn't do that, and in fact came nowhere close, regardless of your impressions on the quote you provided.

In any case, I hope you can see how your paraphrase really didn't convey what Frist said at all. Nowhere in the quote does he say she was conclusively not in a PVS, and that he was offering his medical opinion.

Many on FR had a strange fixation on the Schiavo case as it developed (and evidently, some still do). In any case, that isn't license to

In any event, the situations are not comparable. One medical professional wrote a thick book that explicitly gives a medical diagnosis at length about a subject they never examined. Another medical professional questioned the diagnosis of some doctors (but not all) based on admittedly limited information he saw.

Questioning a medical conclusion isn't the same as a diagnosis - for example, it might just simply be a call for more medical examination. That much is certainly possible, your opinion notwithstanding.

[PGalt]

LOL! DUH! I saw your post yesterday but it just hit me today. GRATE!