July 20, 2002
11:12 AM   Subscribe

"What are we to make of the fact that the Fearless Leader of the Free World, a man brave enough to challenge terrorists in 80 nations to worldwide war, requires a general anesthetic for a routine colonoscopy?" Spectator magazine columnist David Steinberg raises a stink. (Found on Flutterby!)
posted by rcade (21 comments total)
 
I don't know about David Steinberg, but the prospect of having anything in my ass without first applying anesthetic is a bad idea to me.

I also have no leadership skills, and am unable to bring a peace to the Middle East because I'm "way over at the end of the spectrum on the issue of anal inversion" It's my own personal shame.
posted by Homeskillet Freshy Fresh at 11:56 AM on July 20, 2002


At the top of the page: Live video streaming - hot transexuals

Great way to start the day....

"which is why I find the thought of the President of the United States, with his ass in the air, about to be penetrated by White House physician Richard Tubb, particularly appealing, even if the man was unconscious at the time."

SO many bad mental pictures, too. I can just see GWB with his teeth clenched (sans anesthetics).

That reminds me of the 'naked' Seinfeld episode, there's a good kind of naked and a bad kind of naked. I'm seeing lots of the bad kind, and I don't like it.
posted by insomnyuk at 12:02 PM on July 20, 2002


I believe the anesthetic was Cheney's idea...
posted by mecran01 at 12:11 PM on July 20, 2002


Much ado about nothing.

General anesthetic for colonoscopy is common and I'm somehow more comfortable with Bushs desire for sedation than I would be with him willing to do it without the anesthetic... c'mon, a "seven foot tube," ?

I don't often agree with Dubya, but when my time comes I intend to be damn near comatose for the procedure.
posted by cedar at 12:23 PM on July 20, 2002


From my perspective, there's a good kind of anal penetration and a bad one- colonoscopy is a bad one. If you've ever had it done (I'm on the yes side of this), you know that it's virtually impossible to imagine withstanding the pain and discomfort of it without sedation.

And the whole "homophobia" subtext is totally bogus. I know plenty of gay men who are just as 'uptight' about being penetrated as your average heterosexual male.

Another desperate attempt by a hack writer (trust no editorial on the same page with an ad for "Hershey Honey the escort") to take blind potshots with a low-power air rifle at a man for being momentarily human. It's the same schtick that Bob Barr and his cronies used in a desperate attempt to chop down Bill Clinton. I was no fan of Clinton by his second term, but the slimy, pathological personal invasions and attacks went way over the line, and smelled desperate, mean-spirited, and suspect. I see the same desperation going on in regards to Mr. Bush from the murky end of the left and it's just as rotten.

Give it up, Steinberg. Use your scant word-smithing abilities for good- by writing better ad copy for "Hershey Honey".
posted by evanizer at 12:49 PM on July 20, 2002


I see the same desperation going on in regards to Mr. Bush from the murky end of the left and it's just as rotten.

...and just as amusing.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 1:07 PM on July 20, 2002


There's a big difference between Barr and Steinberg, evanizer. Barr wasn't kidding. How can you miss the playfulness of an article that discusses reasons the president might be "anally averse"?

Steinberg asks a question I'd love to see tossed around by the talking heads tomorrow morning: Why did the president have to get knocked out cold for the same procedure when Katie Couric could do it on morning TV?
posted by rcade at 1:07 PM on July 20, 2002


Come one, with all of the shitty, moronic things Bush has done since and before being elected to office, do you really need to go to ass humor to insult the guy? I mean I know the guy's approval rating remains frustratingly high (much like Clinton's before him), but come on... There are all kinds of things to attack Bush over. This shouldn't be one of them.
posted by willnot at 1:10 PM on July 20, 2002


This is what the Internet has done to people. Steinberg didn't put a smiley emoticon at the end of his article, so everybody takes it seriously. It's just a little over-the-top bit of fun, people.
posted by troybob at 1:23 PM on July 20, 2002


This is what the Internet has done to people. Steinberg didn't put a smiley emoticon at the end of his article, so everybody takes it seriously. It's just a little over-the-top bit of fun, people.

That darn Internet. It's deprived me of the ability to read an authors mind and extract irony from poorly written inflammatory statements.
posted by cedar at 2:01 PM on July 20, 2002


I'm afraid that David Steinberg writes with all the gusto of a two year old who delights in playing with his own poop. I suspect that Freud would have a much more rewarding time analyzing him than Shrub.

This article, I fear, will probably end up getting much more attention than it deserves. What am I saying... it already has.
posted by clevershark at 2:24 PM on July 20, 2002


Why did the president have to get knocked out cold for the same procedure when Katie Couric could do it on morning TV?
I know that the MSNBC link here says that Katie had a colonoscopy, but didn't she really have a flexible sigmoidoscopy (a less thorough procedure which uses a much shorter probe, and only penetrates up one side of the large intestine)? If she had a full colonoscopy without anesthesia, I can imagine her making a sound very much like Jackie Gleason's trademark "Bwwwwoaaooow!", rather than deliver a composed commentary.
posted by Faze at 3:35 PM on July 20, 2002


In the interest of clarity: Colonoscopy is not performed with general anesthesia, it is performed under sedation. Two two are decidedly different. Sedation produces relaxation and amnesia (I don't remember my ass being penetrated and I was too relaxed to stop it anyhow). General anesthesia requires a ventilator and a dedicated anesthetist. If the President had general anesthesia then he was subjected to much more procedural risk than if he had merely had sedation.

A moment of clarity. That is all.
posted by shagoth at 4:46 PM on July 20, 2002


I don't remember my ass being penetrated and I was too relaxed to stop it anyhow

That's what all the boys say in the morning 'round my digs.

Heh. Sorry, but I just couldn't resist...
posted by evanizer at 4:50 PM on July 20, 2002


I don't remember my ass being penetrated and I was too relaxed to stop it anyhow

That's what all the boys say in the morning 'round my digs.

Heh. Sorry, but I just couldn't resist...
posted by evanizer at 5:15 PM on July 20, 2002


Wow, not that funny the first time, definitely not funny twice...
posted by evanizer at 5:16 PM on July 20, 2002


To further the interest of clarity it should be noted that Bush has had polyps removed from his colon on two prior occasions [1]. His medical history could well have led to the decision to sedate him more heavily than normal for the procedure, in anticipation of additional procedures.

I may have been overzealous in my prior use of the term 'general anesthetic', but the fact remains that patients are often sedated to the point of being unconscious [2]. Additionally, it should be noted that Propofol results in over sedation of 4 in 20 patients [3]. When the patient in question is the president, 4 in 20 doesn't seem like such a good gamble.

Considering the potential risks in the procedure under the 25th Amendment [3] Bush was required to transfer power to the vice-president while he was unable to perform his duties (whether over-sedated, unconscious, or just resting).

I fully understand what you saying concerning general anesthesia and shouldn't have used the term so lightly, nonetheless, to a layman sedation to the point unconsciousness may as well be a general anesthetic.

In the interests of clarity, of course.
posted by cedar at 5:42 PM on July 20, 2002


I believe the anesthetic was Cheney's idea...

Has anyone checked to see if he signed anything during his 135 minutes at the top?
posted by inpHilltr8r at 5:44 PM on July 20, 2002


Has anyone checked to see if he signed anything during his 135 minutes at the top?

Seemingly not. A quick Googling doesn't turn much up excpt a factetious CBS editorial which oddly enough was written just this month.

Aside from that, the only proof I have is we're not at war (oh wait, we are), environmental protections are intact (oh wait, they're not) and corporations are being held accountable... okay, nevermind.
posted by cedar at 6:06 PM on July 20, 2002


I'm sorry, I am very happy to diss Bush as a general rule, but the guy overeggs his pudding. It turns into a diatribe about why Bush shouldn't be afraid of having 7 foot things stuck up his arse. In my hapless opinion, Bush has demonstrated common sense. The only pleasure I get from my arse is something coming out of it, not going into it. I accept I may be a little weird in this respect.
Hah, fantastic imagery though.
posted by Fat Buddha at 6:07 PM on July 20, 2002


nonetheless, to a layman sedation to the point unconsciousness may as well be a general anesthetic
or a $100 pub crawl.
posted by quonsar at 5:02 AM on July 21, 2002


« Older A Peace to End All Peace:   |   Alan Lomax 1915-2002 Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments