President Bush Had Lyme Disease - Diagnosis of Potentially Neuropsychiatric Disease Withheld From Public For A Year

How is a factually accurate headline bizarre?

It's extremely rare for this to become a psychiatric problem. But it is accurate. The man's intestines were all over the TV for days, so why not disclose this health problem?

WTF cares? Besides which, if the president were to become incapacitated we'd have Cheney as president and then the bedwetting could really begin in earnest.

and make him believe things that are not true?

hehe...

epiphany sorbet in #2

Why do you have to politicize this issue of health and national security? Aren't you concerned as a respecting citizen of this great nation that the executive health could be potentially compromised and that we should be aware of potential consequences. This is not the time to indulge in partisan bickering. This is the time to stand together united as one people of a great nation. Sheesh!

Why do you hate America?

This is so tabloid-esque. If you actually read the article it says the following:

The overall summary of the president's medical history, signed by all 11 doctors who have examined him over the past year, say he's in terrific health. Big. Gen. Richard Tubb, the White House physician, and Dr. Kenneth Cooper, president of The Cooper Aerobics Center in Dallas, Texas, oversaw the examinations.

He's in fine health and doesn't have lyme disease... and even if he did at one point he doesnt' anymore... I think it would be interesting if someone could find the statistics about the probability of a lyme disease sufferer contracting the symptoms that Killfile had mentioned. If it is very common then I could see there being an issue, I just have never heard of these symptoms for Lyme disease before... this comes fromt he CDC website...

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has funded several studies on the treatment of Lyme disease. These studies have shown that most patients can be cured with a few weeks of antibiotics taken by mouth. Antibiotics commonly used for oral treatment include doxycycline, amoxicillin, or cefuroxime axetil. Patients with certain neurological or cardiac forms of illness may require intravenous treatment with drugs such as ceftriaxone or penicillin.

His health is his issue unless it affects his ability to lead. His decisions have seemed pretty consistent during his tenure and as such I have no reason to believe that this somehow upset his decision-making.

Are you seriously so blinded by partisanship that you can't see a public interest in knowing if the President of the United States has a disease that can impair his thinking and make him believe things that are not true?

Not if he doesn't have such a disease. I notice we haven't been informed whether or not he is suffering from schizophrenia, dementia, Alzheimer's, lead poisoning or ANY of those diseases on House. OMG! How deep does this cover up go?

I don't have Lyme disease, but I do admit to posting on Newsvine while loopy from NyQuil.

Thats big of you to admit Tom...

Thank you for your personal testimonial, Jedi.

Killfile,

It wasn't a big deal, and he never developed any of the symptoms that beloved Wiki details. The nuclear trigger is safe. Whew!

However, your attempt to tie Bush to psychosis was clever, and I give you points for trying. You're off to an early start today.

and he never developed any of the symptoms that beloved Wiki details

and how would we know if he did or didn't show some or all of these symtoms?

the secrecy of the whitehouse is the bigger issue.

what other things have they not told us because of the political fallout?

Killfile - nobody was "keeping secrets"....let me quote for this CNN article for those who may not have read it:

It's been resolved," Stanzel said. "He's had no reoccurrence and no other symptoms." Stanzel said the disclosure was not made sooner because the rash wasn't serious enough to be revealed. "This was a rash and did not impact his duties, so it's being reported now," he said.

Furthermore, killfile, I think it's disingenuous of you to include in this headline "Potential Neuropsychiatric" which can occur only in late stage lyme's---something our President does NOT have. Also, why did you skip over the Physical and Neurological symptoms of late stage lyme's and jump right to the sexier neuropsychiatric ones in your comment 1.0 laundry list of symptoms?

nobody was "keeping secrets"

Quoting the White House spokesman does not prove there aren't any secrets. I'm sure you are aware that both Republican and Democrat Presidents have had serious health issues go undisclosed to the public until they left office.

In this particular case I don't think it's a very big deal. But he had the most minor of surgeries and we heard (and witnessed) every little detail. Yet potential Lyme disease isn't immediately disclosed. I understand the reasoning, but still don't like it.

Maybe FoxNews and CNN should have breaking news bulletins every time the President gets a rash. I mean, a rash COULD mean he is suffering from late stage neuropsychiatric symptoms. Can't be too careful with that nuclear trigger.

Were you complaining this much when they showed us his colon a few weeks ago?

Me? No. I ignored his colon.

killl,
psst - diagnosis - check the spelling

As for this deal about people to staff every time someone writes something I'd just like to note that I did a piece analyzing the mathmatics of it all and Killfile came but I think everyone else was confused or frightened that I'd out-geeked myself.

And I don't mean to say I told you so but I recently suggested it's time we start thinking about whether we trust our government to be honest with providing us medical reports of politicians in a timely manner. I think that's even more true today.

All that said, I was thinking about truly debilitating matters. As I noted West Wing had the president having MS (I think that's what it was) which would be more debiltating and affect a president much more than Lyme Disease ever would.

So I think this is all a whole lot of nothing.

Besides who believes Bush even runs the country anyway - now if Cheney had a headache or went into a coma or something THEN I'd be worried.

Could you be any more dismissively sarcastic? Really?

Er...is that rhetorical?

Of course, you know I can. Shall I really put some effort into it, or can I just let the other sarcasm sort of stand on its own? :P

Oh, come now, Killfile, don't go getting your feathers ruffled. You've gotten more than 100 comments going here and so you have accomplished your mission. Heck, I would feel let down if you weren't keeping busy - you've launched some of the more entertaining threads around here.

if it were nothing at all, why report it at all?

From Bill Harrison's WAPO link:

President Bush was treated a year ago for what appears to have been Lyme disease, the White House said yesterday in disclosing the results of his annual physical exam.

They are reporting it as part of the results of his annual physical exam.

This is getting kind of tedious but the point I was making is that last year the president underwent his annual physical on August 1st. Apparently he was treated for the possible Lyme disease infection on August 6th. The presidential health report card is issued each year immediately upon completion of the annual physical and is never updated during the year unless the president undergoes surgery (the WH immediately announced that the president had some skin lesions removed that could have been pre-cancerous back in 2001) in or is treated for a serious disease and Lyme disease ain't one of 'em. That's the only reason I believe the headline was misleading.

Ya know, I'm conservative, I'm irritated at this seed, but I really had to laugh at that joke. Boons, that was genuinely funny.

It's interesting to compare and contrast CNN's story with the WaPo's far more in-depth reporting. Nor is it accurate to describe this as being "hidden" from the public as the president was apparently treated last August 6th after the annual presidential physical which last year took place on August 1, 2006.

So once again we have a misleading headline from the Vine's resident citizen "journalist".

Wait.

You're irritated at this seed, but you found the one that Bohdi seeded (5 Questions for liberuls) to be "interesting" and valid?

You can argue that this is much-ado about nothing, but the fact is -- it's a seed to an actual news story about an actual malady suffered by an actual wanker President.

Killfile's headline might be unlikely -- but it's not wrong. The seed that you left comment after comment defending didn't even "try" to be newsworthy, or civil, or intelligent. Yet you weren't irritated by it. Quite the opposite.

C'mon Tom.

And, on top of that, neither ES nor Bill Harrison have any room to be talking about inflammatory or misleading headlines anyway. Probably just upset that you're moving in on their territory.

Uh, what about the part about presidential health report cards being released after the annual physical apart from a serious illness or surgery don't you understand?

Lyme disease can also affect the nervous system, causing symptoms such as stiff neck and severe headache (meningitis), temporary paralysis of facial muscles (Bell's palsy), numbness, pain or weakness in the limbs or poor coordination. More subtle changes such as memory loss, difficulty with concentration, and a change in mood or sleeping habits have also been associated with Lyme disease. People with these latter symptoms alone only extremely rarely (if at all) have Lyme disease as their cause.

Nervous system abnormalities usually develop several weeks, months, or even years following an untreated infection. These symptoms often last for weeks or months and may recur. These features of Lyme disease usually start to resolve even before antibiotics are started. Patients with neurologic disease usually have a total return to normal function.

The mountain labored and produced -- a mouse.

Well as someone pointed out - technically the headline should read he had lyme disease - the rest is just spin designed to attract attention.

Well as someone pointed out - technically the headline should read he had lyme disease - the rest is just spin designed to attract attention.

----

Not a big deal. Same difference as saying "Iraq had WMDs" and "Iraq has WMDs".

Oh - and Bill, if you could go ahead and let me know where the White House disclosed the President's diagnosis with a disease that can impair his ability to distinguish fantasy from reality back in 2006 I'd love to see it. Thanks.

Apparently they did in the most recent Annual Fitness Report. While you seem deeply invested in the idea and perspective this should have been reported right away and thus was a cover up, my suspicion is most see it for what it was - a minor incident that was treated right away and thus presented no physical or psychological impairment to the President.

The way your going on about you would think we need a report on every sneeze and cough cause when you get down to it my experience has been even the common cold has the potential to affect my mental state and judgement.

Brian 5.5:

How about me? I got room?

I probably wouldn't have reported this one if hadn't already been pissed off about the one I reported yesterday, the NYTimes lead editorial which was appropriately seeded by five other users while this seed's author just had to inflammoratize the headline.

After I reported it, I went to the earlier seeds to comment:

The Fear of Fear Itself

The Fear of Fear Itself

Although I'm abashed to admit I missed this one:

The Fear of Fear Itself

killfile:

You say "inflammoratize" I say "describe."

Horse manure. There wasn't word one in that editorial suggesting that the vote the NYT objected to was to gain vacation time by Blue Dog Democrats or anyone else.

So that headline described nothing except your own simplistic, and oh by the way, wrong assessment of motive on the part of those who supported the bill. If you wanted to make that silly argument, you could have commented to that effect on the existing seeds to that editorial.

Not only did and do I say "inflammoratize," to my knowledge, but correct me if I'm wrong, I coined the word.

I guess I don't see anything in the ToS that says we can't provide our own headline. I change headlines when they suck (or when they're only one word) or when I want to add something about the article that -caused- me to seed it in the first place.

At any rate, if 5 people are seeding one NY Times article, I think we have bigger things to worry about than one person choosing a new title for it. But, that's something the NYT causes based on the way their links work.

I guess I don't see anything in the ToS that says we can't provide our own headline.

-------

Absolutely, buddy. In fact, I just caught someone trying to complain about this non-issue.

http://beevine.newsvine.com/_news/2007/08/09/886665-hero-tells-president-bush-nope-#c934281

Brian:

At any rate, if 5 people are seeding one NY Times article ...

I tend to agree, although in this exact instance, I'm annoyed on the meta level because it's pretty clear that new headline served just as much to diferentiate it from the multiple other seeds and draw hits, votes and comments it would not otherwise have earned because of the previous seeds, as it did to "describe" the content, which, as I just said, it didn't do anyway.

I was pissed off that he duped me into clicking a seed I had already read; I thought some goo-goo op-ed had been written on the subject in addition to the lead editorial.

Personally, I just add something I want to say to the text field or in comment #1, as here:

Obama and Pakistan

technically the headline should read he had lyme disease

No, technically the headline should read he was treated for Lyme disease. He was never tested for Lyme disease so no one know if he had it or not. According to Bill Harrison's WaPo link, he could also have had a different tick borne disease that is common in Texas and is treated the same way as Lyme disease.

killfile:

Actually, seriously, it generally doesn't bother me enough to make the effort at private contact and explanation and argument and so forth. Now I just click the explanation mark and move on. I joined the discussion today because it was two days in a row AND the subject came up already and there was considerable engagement on the subject in a couple of different sub-threads.

Certainly there have been a number of articles and pieces written suggesting that this passed because the Democrats wanted to go home.

Then seed those articles. I happen to think it's a simplistic, nay, juvenile argument, but I'd like to make that case on a seed or article that makes such a claim.

But if you (general you, not jfxgillis specifically) post in the thread about why my headlines are inflammatory I will not let you or anyone else bully me into changing a headline.

Shrug.

What's good for the gander is good for the goose.

"Inflame" is no good. It implies something like "cigarette lighter." I go with "inflammoratize" because it implies something closer to "kindling." I could also have gone with "inflammablize."

Wait.

You're irritated at this seed, but you found the one that Bohdi seeded (5 Questions for liberuls) to be "interesting" and valid?

Tsk tsk Brian. Go back and read the whole comment. I was saying that I found an anti-Bush joke funny. I said I laughed. It's OK! I'm a happy boy.

~ chuckle ~

The comment at 5.0 sparked this idea.

Thank you. I dedicated the story to you, Boons

Donald. I think you're confused. This is about politics, and Apple wasn't even mentioned.

Interestingly, it's unlikely that you will get Lyme disease from a tick unless it's on you for 48 hours -- or so I've read. By that time, he'd have had a pretty big tick attached to his skin.

But, yeah -- everything I've read about Lyme disease (due to having to deal with ticks for the dog we recently bought) is pretty adamant that it's rarely an issue. My thoughts are that if they caught it early, treated it early -- no need to treat it as a big deal.

On the other hand, I don't see why they wouldn't announce it right away and take the time to let people know that tick bites usually aren't that serious and of the importance of early treatment.

Donald, it's a factual news story. Apparently you believe facts have a liberal bias.

Donald, it's a factual news story. Apparently you believe facts have a liberal bias.

I could not find in the article where it stated that Bush HAS Lyme disease as the title states. I did find where it stated that it has been resolved.

On the other hand, I don't see why they wouldn't announce it right away and take the time to let people know that tick bites usually aren't that serious and of the importance of early treatment.

My guess is they just didn't see it as a big deal. He got a rash, they treated it. Do we really need a news story on every little cough or sneeze the President has.

I could not find in the article where it stated that Bush HAS Lyme disease as the title states. I did find where it stated that it has been resolved.

He's been treated for the symptoms. To me that means he might have the disease. "Resolved" does not mean cured because if he's later tested and Lyme disease is found it's incurable. I know people who have it and it's not simply a rash that goes away.

Oh -- we have a lot of the lonestar ticks here. (Kansas City area.) I imagine Bush would be exposed to those as well as they are prevalent in Texas. They aren't known to carry Lyme disease, though they do transmit Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever.

Those things get pretty big after a few hours.

Nothing like pulling a bloated tick off your dog :)

ron:

Day late, dollar short. See comment 5.0

Ah phooey, Jack.

I gave you a thumbs up, Ron. And I gave the other comment my approval too.

It's simply a matter of great minds thinking alike!

Luv.

Rebecca:

It's simply a matter of great minds thinking alike!

Not in comedy!!!!

how long has he had it? Six years? Seven?

I was thinking the same thing, Zoilus. While I don't have a problem with seeding the article -- I always enjoy Killfile's stuff anyway -- ole Dubya's been unhinged for a lot longer than twelve months.

Maybe W's got a pet tick farm somewhere (like the old ant farms kids used to have) and he just keeps getting bit on a regular basis . . .

Maybe he has taken the Cowboy persona too far as well.

Spoon!

Even odds someone would invoke Clinton or Hitler in this discussion. And we have a winner!

It's the equivalent of Godwin's law. Call it Clinton's law.

My tag line is: "But, but, Clinton did that too, waa... waa..."

Neocons like to live in the previous century.

And starting with 2009 it we hearing a lot of "well, Bush did it....." but the shoes will on the other feet. It never ends. Just call everyone Hitler and be done with it.

You guys are cracking me up. It amazes me how the problems in this country started when George W. Bush took office. Every president before, especially a Democrap is snowy white and perfect. Clinton had Binladen in his hands and let him go, he bombed an asprin factory to cover up his dilly dallying with a cigar and an intern. His wife has the mouth of a sailor and zero respect for any other human being on the face of the planet. But you guys just keep burying your head in the sand! If I had a choice between a president like Clinton or a guy with Lyme disease I say bring on the ticks! Because Bush has shown more mental capacity then Clint EVER did.

Yes indeed Scoop. President Bartlett (the real president of America, not the phony one with the tick bite, who is really just a clever Bartlett impersonator) had MS, and the Republicans tried to screw him for not revealing it to the people.

Thing is I see that story arc as being a more difficult ethical issue – more debilitating of a medical problem – than this one.

Shortness of pants.

We don't need more partisan fear-mongering on Newsvine.

-----

It ain't fear mongering pal. This is just full disclosure of information. I am glad I know now.

Leave the fear mongering to the professionals like Rudolf "Democrat president = another 9/11" Giuliani.

Hey, I agree with you on full disclosure. I'm not criticizing the seeding of the article, and I apologize if I was unclear. I'm talking, as so many people were, about the phrasing of the seed's headline.

As it stands right now, I don't see anything wrong with it:

- Bush had Lyme disease = true
- It's a potentially neuropsychiatric disease = true
- it was withheld from the public for a year = true

Nothing wrong.

Pev:

Well, now the little argument we had on that "Stealing Health Care from Babies" thread makes a little more sense. Without surrendering the substance of my argument over there, at least now I can see the principles that that underlay why you complained.

Frankly, without this added context, it simply looked to me like you were picking a fight with a low-profile poster over a marginal call that was at least accurately descriptive of the seeded article, even if it was slightly inflammabilized. I almost asked you why the @!$%# you were coming after george s when there were dozens of more flagrant examples by more high-profile users every day, but I figured I better just let the exchange go. Maybe I should have asked. Without the "the @!$%#."

Heh...yeah, Jack. I thought it'd be a little off topic, in that case, to say that I was actively policing my own 'side' and speaking up when I saw sensationalistic anti-conservative headlines...but yeah, I totally see your point. You're right, and I hadn't realized it would come off that way. Sorry about that.

Pev:

I commend the nobility of your purpose and the rigor and objectivity of the application of your stated principles. I should go to the group and read the guidelines; I hadn't realized that "police your own side" was one of the elements of the inverse challenge.

Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, I'm afraid your project is destined not to succeed. But if it's not an abject failure, you can count it as a success.

:^{)>

My kingdom for an edit button. An entire comment blown because I didn't close an href tag? Come on, people.

What I said was, iarnuocon's challenge is worth reading, because he really raises some good points about the black-and-white nature of debate on Newsvine, and the way we tend to close our minds when certain hot-button issues come up. A lot of really good articles have come out of it, but I think the articles are only a small part of his point -- we need to be responsible for reminding the people with whom we'd normally agree to keep raising the level of debate, rather than just shouting at those other people when they say something nasty.

I'm not really interested in his challenge in the way it's laid out. I don't want to repeat someone else's argument -- I want those on the extreme right and left to stop with the bull@!$%# and the "democrats are like this or republicans are like that" rhetoric when 9 times out of 10 -- they don't have a clue what they're talking about.

And, I would especially like those who are coming here to rag on Killfile for his seed to recognize that they're just as (if not more) guilty of being partisan hacks on their own columns.

But, apparently it's okay -- because they don't alter headlines.

Pfft.

Pev:

Yeah, I kinda blew past the other things he said because I wasn't interested in the Inverse-Challenge.

As I say, it seems like a noble effort.

Personally, it seems like I almost always end up on the opposite side of such meta issues from people I'm on the same side with politically anyway.

Bush had Lyme disease = true

Bush had Lyme disease = unknown

Bush was never tested for Lyme disease so no one has any way of knowing whether or not he acutally HAD Lyme disease. Therefore the statement "Bush had Lyme disease = true" is less than true.

Lyme disease, if he had, he has it, there is no cure.

I want those on the extreme right and left to stop with the bull@!$%# and the "democrats are like this or republicans are like that" rhetoric when 9 times out of 10 -- they don't have a clue what they're talking about.

Quoted for emphasis. The incessant whining of certain Newsviners notwithstanding, it is this exact phenomenon which causes most of the rancor around here. There are certain posters (several of whom are posting in this thread) who seem to find it absolutely impossible to write an article or post a seed in which the article (or, more accurately, it's core argument) can't be reduced to "[liberals|conservatives] are teh suck." Just once, I'd like to see an article written that says, for example "the President's policies are good for the country because of x, y, and z" without having the (usually not-very-well-disguised) subtext of the article say "liberals who don't support the policies of the President hate America." Ironic that this type of article usually comes from the same people who can't seem to stop wringing their hands over the idea that people "hate" President Bush, given their obvious loathing for the ever-growing majority of people in this country who don't share their fawning adoration of the man.

There is nothing even remotely objectionable about the existing headline.

But here's the thing. While every piece of the headline may be true on technicalities, that doesn't make it any less inflamatory. I think you know it was inflamatory, sensationalistic, and attention-grabbing...and I think you can tell that it was successfully inflamatory, sensationalistic, and attention-grabbing, because at the time I'm writing this response, there have been 156 comments to this article and a significant number of them -- if not a majority, I'm not going back to count -- have been in reference to the subject line.

If your headline is getting more attention than the actual meat of your article, that's a good sign that your headline is too inflamatory. You're very smart, killfile, and an impressive journalist, and you've been here longer than most of us...no one needs to tell you that. But you seem to need a reminder.

I've said before that I think Newsvine needs a Jon Stewart-on-Crossfire moment, a voice of reason coming in to tell both sides to stop. But in order for that to happen, both sides need to enforce it themselves.

Stop. Please. You're giving the people who agree with you a bad name.

I think you can tell that it was successfully inflamatory, sensationalistic, and attention-grabbing, because at the time I'm writing this response, there have been 156 comments to this article and a significant number of them -- if not a majority, I'm not going back to count -- have been in reference to the subject line.

Pev, you and I agree with each other pretty consistently. I don't want to disagree with you, exactly, but the point has been made that perhaps some of the "outrage" that resulted in 156 comments, many about the headline, may have been manufactured outrage, ginned up as an artificial proof of the point you're making. I don't know if it is, or if it isn't. I think it's plausible (although I doubt it originates in the group that's been mentioned earlier), and I suspect we'll be hearing more about it in the next few days. I'm not sure enough about it to make any assertions, but certainly we can agree that if that's what is going on, any assessment of the "inflammatorialization©" of the headline based on analysis of the number of comments could be skewed.

Personally, I think killfile deserves the benefit of the doubt here. He's been around a long time, he's very successfully learned what works and what doesn't, he has a clear focus, and he doesn't pretend to be anything that he's not. Although I understand your sentiment, and although I think there's a place for it here at Newsvine, I respectfully disagree with the idea that killfile's crossed any lines here.

Brad 20.14:

Just once, I'd like to see an article written that says, for example "the President's policies are good for the country because of x, y, and z"

Try this: Stay the Course ... At Least for a While

Brad 20.16:

Personally, I think killfile deserves the benefit of the doubt here.

I'm more inclined to argue the opposite. Because he is senior, because he's a leader, he carries an extra burden. He shouldn't even be approaching any lines, let alone even arguably crossing them. By that I mean not that he crossed the lines (although I think he did, that argument is played out) but that he should be careful to not even allow the argument to be made. The gender's inapt, but "Caesar's Wife" and all that.

Jack, I'd agree that's a pretty fair example of what I'm talking about, and I'll concede the point on that article. I had a feeling that my "just once" was going to bite me in the ass. I suppose I'd have to more accurately say that what I'd really like is to see a more common practice made of writing articles which focus more on what's great about your side, rather than "how liberals think" or "what liberals do."

You may think that by bashing conservatives you'll increase your standing (where by "you" I mean the general "you," not you Jack), or lower the standing of conservatives, but in reality you really only wind up looking like a bully. Please note the distinction, however, between writing, for example, an article pointing out the bizarre and duplicitous behavior of an individual (e.g. President Bush, Dick Cheney, Harry Reid), and an article pointing out how "the anti-war crowd" (whozzat?) hates America, or how "the cons" are nothing but a bunch of lying, greedy, opportunistic bastards out to improve their lot at the expense of the rest of America. Let's talk about what Cheney did, or what Jefferson did, or whether Stevens paid for his remodeling work, or whether the 35W bridge collapse was the fault of the Minnesota electorate - those things are worthy of discussion. The hateful and divisive tendency to attack groups of which you are not a member, and about which you can claim little knowledge, is not even a little bit useful, all claims by Otto and Kevinb66 notwithstanding.

I'm more inclined to argue the opposite. Because he is senior, because he's a leader, he carries an extra burden. He shouldn't even be approaching any lines, let alone even arguably crossing them. By that I mean not that he crossed the lines (although I think he did, that argument is played out) but that he should be careful to not even allow the argument to be made.

Again, Jack, I'm not entirely convinced that some of the outrage we're seeing here isn't manufactured, although I certainly believe that your particular feelings are genuine. I'll reserve judgment on some of the braying jackasses until I learn a little more about this phenomenon.

Brad 20.19:

The problem is, I think that's an unlikely prospect. That's because the civil discourse (term of art meaning "discourse about civil affairs," not "discourse that is polite and civil") has, for as long as it has existed in the the English language (I start it here with Thomas Nashe), been characterized by essentially political groups--including religious sectarianism when it included a political aspect, which it almost always did--attacking each other as groups.

That's sort of the point of politics. It's also the most rhetorically effective as a matter of persuasion.

Moreover, it can't be avoided when the issue at stake is a principle adopted as a partisan-unifying idea. In fact, I made a flat assertion about "Reganites" on TomB's "Competence Above Ideology" thread, but the principle holds whether it's Roundheads versus Cavaliers in the 17th century or Democrats versus Republicans now.

Brad 20.20:

Well, I know for a fact certain that some of it isn't.

Re. 20.14

Was Epiphany Sorbet originally Melody Pearl? Sorry to hijack, just noticed the writing style.

The problem is, I think that's an unlikely prospect.

I don't disagree. I don't even disagree that it's been going on for a long time. I would, however, disagree with any assertion that it is effective. I can assure you that when I make a statement attacking all conservatives, it's because I don't have a good alternative argument to make. Also, at the point at which I determine that my best option is to try to take a broad swipe at conservatives, I've already decided that I'm not going to sway anyone's opinion. As someone who has made both successful and unsuccessful attempts to sway opinions, I can assure you that I've never been successful when I started out insulting my opponent, even when I had a really good point to make. I doubt you have either. When I'm on the opposite side, when someone is trying to sway my opinion, I'm not exaggerating a bit when I tell you that nobody has ever succeeded in swaying my opinion when they've started out insulting me. Never. Not even once. Doesn't work. Don't even bother. That said, your chance of insulting me is much greater when you start out your argument with a phrase like "you liberals..." or "all of you fat people..." or "the @!$%#ing Democrats..." rather than if, for example, you said something like "some of the more extreme fat people..." or "I once knew an Arizonan who..." or "one time, in band camp..." See what I'm getting at? Sure, it's rare. We're a rare group of people, Jack, who want to get together and explore each others' views on controversial issues. We're not your average run-of-the-mill group of partisan political hacks who can't climb down off of our high horses and concede a point, and as such, we don't need to spend all our time needlessly and inappropriately insulting each other. It's rude, it's uncivil, and it doesn't work.

Well, I know for a fact certain that some of it isn't.

Agreed. I know that, too, and didn't mean to imply anything to the contrary.

Thank you for that response, killfile. I think you make some very valid points.

Scott Butki posted a similar article called 'Bush Had Lyme Disease: Should We Care? Should We Have Been Informed Earlier?'. I mention it because it's an example of a less inflamatory headline. I think it would've been perfectly valid to raise the question of the potential effects of late-stage Lyme disease in the body of the article; to discuss what the president having Lyme disease potentially means for the country. This is part of why I object to the headline: you're raising a point that people ought to be talking about, and by raising it in a sensationalistic and divisive way, people are only discussing the medium rather than the message.

I agree that most of the people who've flooded to your article are shouting for partisan reasons. And most of them have done the exact same thing, and should be ashamed of themselves for flat-out hypocrisy. But this is why I'm speaking up and being so adamant: I think you can trust that I'm not being partisan. I just want to encourage less biased headlines on all sides, and I believe that a less biased article in general comes across as more trustworthy (i.e, I don't give much credence to news that comes from Fox News, and I even eye the New York Times with skepticism).

When I'm on the opposite side, when someone is trying to sway my opinion, I'm not exaggerating a bit when I tell you that nobody has ever succeeded in swaying my opinion when they've started out insulting me.

I wish more people would remember that. I almost wonder if people aren't actually interested in changing opinions as much as they are trying to look awesome on the internets.

I mention it because it's an example of a less inflamatory headline. I think it would've been perfectly valid to raise the question of the potential effects of late-stage Lyme disease in the body of the article; to discuss what the president having Lyme disease potentially means for the country.

I don't get the point or see the difference, really. Obviously, Killfile -does- care, and he "does" think it matters. There's no point for him to pussyfoot around that. If he seeded this article "because of those concerns" he should be able to direct the discussion that way.

And, people should then choose to report it, or disagree. (Though, I thought everyone was supposed to be against reporting articles simply because we disagree with them. I can't keep track of all the things people are upset about.)

MacMillanRe. 20.14

Was Epiphany Sorbet originally Melody Pearl? Sorry to hijack, just noticed the writing style.

That's an excellent question.

Pev, thanks for the mention. I chose to write my headline to include the main question within it rather than reaching a conclusion. Some might say it's more wishy washy but I thought it might put the questions involved - was the news delayed and does it matter - front and center rather than reaching a conclusion.

I don't know that there's a right or wrong way to do headlines but I too am tired of predictable responses. That's why, for example, when Kill seeded something from Kos I posted a warning that he can expect - if the topic took offf, which in that case it didn't - of people more interested in attacking democrats via attacking kos' site than actually talking about the issue.

and over at zen aid's good piece at fallacies I griped about people focusing too much on the exact wording of a headline rather than on the content itself.
If people spent much more time debating content instead of wording of headlines, whats on the front page and what isn't etc I think this would be a more interesting (and hopefully less divisive place)

I'm having flashbacks lately to working as a journalist where the headlines and photo captions were usually written by others yet the majority of the calls or complaints I got were about the headline. Regardless of who wrote the headline though my gripe then and now would be "what do you think of the actual contents" as opposed to focusing on one line?

Knowing several people that have had the disease for years, I didn't realize that if caught in the early stages strong antibiotics could cure it.

Steve --

What we have are a few people who are well aware that they can pop into someone else's threads, throw out a few hypocritical accusations and derail the discussion. They then hang out in the aftermath and leave "chatty" conversations about nothing at all worthwhile and bask in the destruction 4 or 5 people can create.

It'd be funny, except -- again -- I'm told that these sorties are planned out on the "rightwing" group talk page. All those slams against Chindi that you see? An organized attempt by the right on Newsvine to discredit an author.

Steve... the problem is a small number of people who have formed a private group in which they plot these sort of attacks on liberal columns. If you look through this comment section, you can see who they are.

Brian:

If we'd just add a 7th provision to the Code of Honor, "The preceding 6 provisions do not apply to OVs nothwithstanding that OVs can insist they apply to everyone else," at least then we'd all understand the rules.

killfile:

Old Viners (as if you didn't know)

Oh boy! The "old viners" line, again.

That's what gets trotted out when someone gets called out for being an ass or when they want to excuse their dumb behavior.

"But, the OVs get away with EVERYTHING! Nothing is applied fairly!."

Gotcha.

Brian:

Yeah. It'll keep getting trotted out as long as OVs are allowed to violate the CoH while it gets enforced on others.

Where do you see that happening? I'd say that several people in this very thread who aren't OVs violate the CoH all the time -- and get away with it.

You do it every time you get your panties in a knot, resulting in comments of verbal diarrhea and language unbecoming of such a distinguished teacher of our youth. Is that how you handle your students when you don't like what they have to say?

Either way, you're still here. Those nasty admins must really have it out for you.

Beyond that, I assure you that most every "OV" has had the CoH cited against us. Those of us who are still here are just willing to accept when we've crossed the line. Those who complain about unfairness are usually unwilling to see why they're being called out on something.

When Calvin sends me that email, I respond and say: "Yep, I crossed the line. Sorry." And that's that.

Too many people get all pouty and defensive about their obvious transgressions. Get over it.

Brian:

Where do you see that happening?

ON THIS SEED, for one place. On the seed I documented in 5.10 for another.

Beyond that, I assure you that most every "OV" has had the CoH cited against us.

I have no reason to doubt that. But that's not my complaint. My complaint is that the "line" you talk about having "crossed" is a moving target.

No, it's not.

It's a line that everyone crosses "on occasion" and it's a line that some people make a habit of crossing. Those that do so habitually tend to leap farther over the line, as well.

It's the latter group that is most often heard discussing the unfairness of the CoH, which I find to be eye-rollingly annoying.

I'm seeing a lot of this where people go into other threads and hijack and i've been thinking about what we can do about it.
Has someone asked Calvin what he'd like us to do about comments/threads that are of
no value? The only avenue I'm aware of is collapsing things and that doesn't seem to really do the job.

I would like to add... Newsvine is a place we talk about IDEAS not try to prove someone is a hypocrite or not!!

Conservatives... stop protecting Bush. He has done bad stuff by any standard... probably not as bad as the liberals make it out but I am sorry, the facts are that he has done horrable things while in office.

Liberals.... when an idea from a conservative is raised, discuss it... don't attack the person.

To all parties... semantics do not push the knowledge forward and do not win an argument... stop playing them!!

The Far-Right Conservatives take pride in their believe that they invented swiftboating, and think they do it better then Liberals do, The truth is that the Liberals don't do it at all and that it was invented by Joseph Goebbels, in charge of Nazi propaganda, as is he explains here; If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and
or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.
Joseph Goebbels And they wonder why the Hitler connection is made so often, by so many. If they ever succeed in their power coup we will have a history book burning party that will melt both of the ice caps in a week. They can only see in others what they have in themselves, nothing more, so what motivates them is what they believe is the motivation of everyone. How does that axiom go? A rogue will look around him and see nothing but other rogues.

To all parties... semantics do not push the knowledge forward and do not win an argument... stop playing them

This sums up what i'm thinking and saying more eloquently and concisely than I could do.

I think it bears reading twice.

Behind My Screen makes a reasonable and civil request to all sides to tone down the rhetoric and stick to issues in #26.1.

Zoilus follows up with yet another conservative - nazi comparison in #26.2.

It makes one want to do what the cannibal did: simply throw up your hands.

I've not been following this thread very closely, and now I remembered why I haven't been. The title is inflammatory, and so the content followed. Allegations of conspiracies are baseless - the number of conservatives participating in this thread is miniscule. If there was a conspiracy, which there isn't that I know of, it sure has sucked in its execution then, hasn't it? Where are all of the conservatives who are taking over? I sure don't see them. You want to know why some folks - not really me - debate with Chindi, by the way? Chindi gets a lot of negative comments because Chindi thrives on controversy. End of story.

Meh.

First of all, The competency of Bush to be President is the issue here.

Third; Newsvine is a place were controversial issues are to be discussed, and chindi does a very good job at exposing them and is an articulate debater who knows here subjects.

So when we ask the question of who is ushering in the rhetorical arguments, I think you should look up the word, and then look in a mirror. because your very good at it. Rhetoric is the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, not a bad word at all. Of course, as you so eloquently demonstrated, rhetoric can also be in the form of sophistry, language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but is often regarded as lacking in meaningful content

So when we ask the question of who is ushering in the rhetorical arguments, I think you should look up the word, and then look in a mirror. because your very good at it.

Um, which word? That looks like a whatcha call it? Sentence? Question? Sure is more than one word, though.

I really don't think Nazi or Hitler references EVER improve the quality of conversation unless the topic is, say, Name the 5 biggest genocides of history.