Ex-academy Instructor Cleared at Hearing

Colleges and Universities A-Z Naval Academy - Annapolis
21

<p>Hi, Bill! Where ya been, buddy? :)</p>

<p>The details you cite are all true, but not germane to the point of discussion. Namely, did those in question HAVE to run and report the incident instead of just confronting the moron face-to-face?</p>

<p>Also, color me radical or old-fashioned, but if I have an issue with someone and they apologize to me and I accept it, and later on someone comes along asking me questions about it (whether they be in an official capacity or not), my answer will be, "I'm sorry, but the matter is closed in my book. I'm not going to add anything further."</p>

<p>But that's just me.</p>

22

<p>Hey, I plead not guilty, Bill! So, to give her the benefit of the doubt, maybe she was "tearful" about the fact that she was put in this situation and not about the actual acts. Still, as I said before, I believe that it was wrong of the other officers to put the mid in this situation. Reminds me of when my students complain about someone and quickly point out that "he did it to her, too!" in order to give more credence to their complaint. </p>

<p>I will refer you to the Kleinfeld quote, "This is the behavior of a southern belle of another century, now designed for the quite contemporary political purpose of punishing speech" because when women resort to tears they are using a gender tool just as men use salty language. Both are meant to elicit a response.</p>

23

<p>Z-great point! Thanks for putting it so well.</p>

24

<p>"The Lewinsky situation is referred to three or four times in this piece."</p>

<p>So what's the connection with world terrorism and the attack of 9/11?</p>

25

<p>
[quote]
So what's the connection with world terrorism and the attack of 9/11?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Slick Willie was preoccupied with interns, impeachment hearings, Hillary the Hun's rath, etc.</p>

26

<p>"Simply pointing out the truth, or at least treating the ideas posted by a certain person with the contempt they deserve."</p>

<p>Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.</p>

<p>It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. It suggests that the attackers logical argument may be unsound and unlikely to stand on it's own merit, and that the attacker is unsure of the strength of his argument. The attacker uses this approach as a last ditch effort to divert the discussion away from the issue.</p>

27

<p>And don't forget the distraction of the "Cuban" crisis in the back room of the oval office! (Yea, WHERE was NOW when all that was going down and 20 year olds were being handed drycleaning bills they obviously could not afford. Mysteriously absent.) And we're not talking about Z's disdain for his philandering or for Sir Slick's blatant misuse of office (and taxpayer $$) or for his total inability to focus on his job. Even his supporters agree that he spent virtually no time attending to national or world affairs as he was embroiled in explaining his own.</p>

<p>Yes, we can only imagine the White House reinhabited by this scoundrel and his bride. At least he'd not be distracted by the needs of the free world and he could freely attend to his private business. (Wish I could figure out how to do a Z-gram type smiley face right here. btw, anyone besides me remember "Z Grams"? And I'm not talking about a meerkat's musings.)</p>

28

<p>Well, I try to maintain a life . . . </p>

<p>In any event, the point is germane because many of the comments are critical of the mid and how she reacted.</p>

<p>One quote: 'But back to this circumstance. One would think the USNA experience would be inclined to encourage her to address it as both an adult and an officer-in-training in the United States Navy'</p>

<p>The criticism is of "her" as in the mid. You even chastised her to "get a spine" for her tearful testimony. You also conclude that she didn't accept the apology, when in the article there is no indication of such.</p>

<p>No, they [as in the OFFICERS] did not "have" to run and report the incident; nobody "has" to do anything except die and pay taxes. I am pleased that some people, however, feel an obligaton, i.e. that they "have," to report injustices. Nobody "has" to report wrongdoing within the government but I am damn glad that whistleblowers exist.</p>

<p>Finally, many seem to be critical of her being "tearful." Implying that she used her tears to elicit a desired response or that she was, somehow, weak under the circumstances. The article does not indicate she became "tearful" upon hearing the words, but, rather, that she "tearfully testified." Testifying in a court, especially when you are twenty or so, can be very trying [so to speak]. Many adult women [and some men too] can become "tearful" when testifying; I know, I have caused many a tear on the witness stand.</p>

<p>As usual, everybody reads into a story whatever it is that floats their boat.</p>

<p>Oh, one more thing, I would love to hear you tell a judge that "the matter is closed" when asked why you would not respond to a question under oath . . . . oh, that's right, don't like those robe-masters intruding upon my constitutional rights to not answer questions. You expect a mid to do this?</p>

29

<p>^^^^Bill, thank you for that reminder. Reporting and confirming are different, and I can just imagine the stress the conflict must have put on her. For all we know, the tears were a result of being put into a position of having to testify against someone whom she had accepted an apology as resolution to the issue at hand, and not a response to what was said. We just don't know. </p>

<p>I just want to say that I respect the comments and insights offered by all the posters above, even though I may hold to a different view on some of them. Believe it or not, I have both a daughter and a son. I don't want my daughter to be a victum of some over zealous, aggressive male figure, nor do I want my son to be a victum of some crazed female drama queen. I pray I have given each of them the tools to deal with both....time will tell. But what I have tried to impart in them is to respect themselves and tolerate only what they are deserving of.</p>

<p>
[quote]
As to the empowerment issue, get serious. You're telling me that a stellar student with a laundry list of accomplishments cannot muster the courage to tell the guy "I feel uncomfortable and embarrassed when you use graphic sexual terms and explicit language. I would like you to refrain from using this terminology and language in my presence."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It is possible. How old was she? 18? 19? How old are you? 40's? 50's? Entirely possible. It took me well into my 30's to be able to speak up to some of the idiots walking around with MDs after their names. Call me a slow learner, but as Z can vouch that I can stand up for myself. Unfortunately, some women never get there, even in this day and age. </p>

<p>Who is to say this was the first exposure for this Mid to a teacher such as this? Could she have handleed it better? Sure! Certainly the way you suggest would have been better....but how long did it take you to be able to do that? 18? 20? 25? 30????? And just how many incidents did you have to "tolerate" before you came to the realization that you had had enough? The first indicent? The 10th? The 50th? Who knows how much "experience" this kid had in handling an inappropiate adult....was this her first? Her 10th? Her 50th? Obviously she did not have such a well-honned response at the "ready" in her "tool box" of skills at the time the incident occurred....no doubt she will now for the next time some idiot comes across with the same kind of blatent, ignorant comment.</p>

<p>The bottom line is that his behavior was inappropiate, and as someone sitting in a postion of teacher, totally not acceptable. This is not rocket science. He knew enough to apologize...which means he knew he was wrong in the first place. And from what was reported, this was not a one-time slip of the tounge.....it was a repeated pattern of behavior. It was not enough to speak about how "turned on" at the very site of that floating gray hull...no, he has to ask her if she got aroused as well! So tell me, did he ask her shipmates if they also got their jollies on? Absolutely not! It was meant to embarrass HER....to humiliate HER...to demean HER..... if it was said simply as "jest," simply a joke in poor taste, then he would have asked everyone that was there.....but that is not what he did....he put HER on the spot.....</p>

<p>And then he offers some apology. And then he continues with other just-as-inappropiate comments. Over the course of a week. In a confined environment to a captive audience. </p>

<p>So what you are left with is a teacher who knows wrong from right, makes a conscious choice to ignore that, and acts surprised when he finally gets called to task for his behavior. Sorry, I don't buy it. </p>

<p>I do expect teachers to walk the talk. Teach honor. Teach respect. Walk the talk. Don't want to be a role model? Then stop teaching. Either climb aboard or risk being removed. </p>

<p>Enough is enough, and there has been enough education and warning for all. It's time to step up to the plate and comply. Can't do it? Then go elsewhere.</p>

<p>
[quote]
No one can take your "power" unless you give it to them.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree. The only problem with this is that while our young women, or anyone for that matter, are going through the learning curve, they remain at at a clear disadvantage...especially with adults who have BTDT. I can forgive her ignorance...this time. I can't forgive his. The guy has no place as a teacher of the future officers of the US Navy if he is unable to restrain his mouth. IMHO.</p>

<p>Like I said, you get what you tolerate, therefore you get what you deserve. </p>

<p>
[quote]
As to the core values, is it honorable to accept an apology and then renege? Also, it seems perhaps the others who came to her and to whom she confirmed the incident may have issues which they were using her to bring to light. Also not entirely honorable to use someone with a more vulnerable position to crucify someone you are (reasonably) angry with. Defend your own issues.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, I would not consider it an honorable thing to accept an apology and then pull a 180.....but it sounds like that is not what happened here.</p>

<p>One would hope our young people would be able to make their own choices and defend their own positions. Z is correct, we know just what has been reported, which is hardly an arguement for a balanced understanding. It would seem that this young lady accepted an apology, and as Bill pointed out, confirmed the information when questioned....under stress it would appear....sounds as if this conflict that she found herself in was difficult, and IMHO, not of her doing. </p>

<p>What remains troublesome to me is several points:</p>

<p>First, that a teacher would be the root cause of this. Others, I can almost understand; the difficulty I have is that he is a teacher...good, bad or indifferent, he sets the tone, and IMHO, he should have known better, and since he apparently doesn't, he should be removed.</p>

<p>Second, I am troubled that this mid was used once again...as someone posted, by other female mids that reported the incident, thus forcing (not sure that is the word I want to use) but certainly having the incident escelated to a level that was not intended. What served as the motivation for this remains unclear....but could it have been because there were other similiar incidents concerning this teacher? Could it have been that the collective body had enough? </p>

<p>
[quote]
As to the "The guy is in charge of the girl..." Can you spell HYPOCRISY. Please. And Bill Clinton wasn't in power over Monica. How can you lionize the man who did essentially the same thing (oh, wait, it may even be worse than saying naughty words...) and villify this guy who used words in a most repugnant way?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>???? How did Bill Clinton get into the discussion???? I would pull the lever for HILLARY..... the other half already disgraced the White House. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I can suffer a difference of opinion provided the underlying general intent is sincere, logical, and puts the right principles first. For example, I have met Navy2010, and while I may disagree with her on this topic, I find her to be a fundamentally decent and honest person who wants the best for the Service and for the country. We may view this issue a bit differently, but I know that she wants the true best to come forth. I can (and do) respect that despite some differences of opinion.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Thanks Z.... I knew you would restore my faith! ;) Your girls are in good hands!!!!</p>

<p>Whistle Pig:</p>

<p>
[quote]
There are a great many women in this world who've bought into the 2010 posture and belief, along with both the explicit and implied notions put forth in the Baltimore Sun piece. Thearticulation so often is extremist in its tone. Appalled. Udderly. Speechless. Outraged. Many UPPER CASED words. It all minimizes those things which we should be truly outraged about but sadly aren't. For many, this has become the battlefield on which to take the last stand.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not enough women. Still too much "it's ok" mentality. Uppercase words....sorry...would have used italics if I wasn't so computer-challenged. Lastly, this is hardly the last battleground as you suggest....just a tired old war that has long ago seen its day....extremist? No, just walking the talk....I have taught my kids to be respectful of themselves and others. I expect no less....for them, from them. I am just a mom trying to support her son and daughter, trying to get them from point A to point B safely, trying to get them launched on their own trajectory.... not always doing a great job, but always trying to set the standard.... trying to remind them that there is lots of injustice and ignorance in the world, but always mindful to teach them not to add to it, not to tolerate it, and always with the focus on trying to be a part of the solution instead of the problem. Just your average, everyday mom trying to do her best. Sometime succeeding, sometimes falling short, but always trying.</p>

30

<p>
[quote]
It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. It suggests that the attackers logical argument may be unsound and unlikely to stand on it's own merit, and that the attacker is unsure of the strength of his argument. The attacker uses this approach as a last ditch effort to divert the discussion away from the issue.

[/quote]

Simply pointing it right back at them. The last six years have been a study in it. "Bush lied", "Bush is Hitler", "Blood for Oil", etc., all bandied about with reckless abandon and a complete lack of facts.</p>

<p>I think that the point of view a person espouses DOES speak for their character at least in part. If the argument is baseless, then the technique cannot be said to be completely discredited.</p>

<p>
[quote]
anyone besides me remember "Z Grams"?

[/quote]

I wasn't in at the time, but I've heard horror stories about them. Yeesh!</p>

<p>
[quote]
Oh, one more thing, I would love to hear you tell a judge that "the matter is closed" when asked why you would not respond to a question under oath . . . . oh, that's right, don't like those robe-masters intruding upon my constitutional rights to not answer questions.

[/quote]

Damned straight. If I don't want to testify, then no one can bloody well make me. Who the hell is this idiot in a robe to demand from me anything I don't wish to say? I have a right not to incriminate myself, and nowhere does the government have the power to force me to incriminate anyone else. "I don't know why I'm here, Your Honor. I have no dog in this hunt."</p>

<p>
[quote]
You expect a mid to do this?

[/quote]

Under the right circumstances, YES.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Thanks Z.... I knew you would restore my faith!

[/quote]

My only regret is that I caused you to doubt me. :o</p>

31

<p>
[quote]
And don't forget the distraction of the "Cuban" crisis in the back room of the oval office!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Don't you mean "Oral" office? :D</p>

<p>
[quote]
anyone besides me remember "Z Grams"?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I remember the stories of ADM Zumwalt's tenure as CNO -- beards in the Navy (rescinded by John Lehman), civies for liberty call, etc. Slightly before my time.</p>

32

<p>Uh, ok. </p>

<p>You interjected Sir Slick. Surely you're not so naive to think that he ain't taggin' along in Ms. Hillary's coattails like she did his. They both like the game way too much to believe that he'll be the meek and mild first lady, giving Xmas tours of the Lincoln bedroom (well, now that I think of it ...) and hosting teas for the wives of foreign officials. Hey this might be the PERFECT job for our infamous impeached Prexy! </p>

<p>Remember, as we learned their first coupla times around, we get 2 for the price of 1. Maybe more accurately none for the price of many as we learned on 9/11. </p>

<p>Wasn't she gonna run national healthcare? </p>

<p>You know, I'm just a dad trying to teach my son and daughter that this world is filled with opportunity. It's their responsibility to go and get and not allow themselves any "victim" mentality. They're not. And this young mid was only because she was nurtured to think she was. Perception is reality, and it's clear there are sorely disparate perceptions on this. </p>

<p>Just one more thought that I believe is so right on the $$$ and it's not original with me. One noted it earlier in this thread and it's been too quietly noted in our societal picture. The feminist gig is to empower and lift-up women in the world by feminizing boys. Hasn't worked, won't work, and is sorely dangerous. Boys are boys, and that's not intended to say that this instructor or any of us should not work at treating women fairly and with respect. It wonders me how we've gotten to this pon But frankly when it comes to defending our country, while I'm glad that many men are men.</p>

<p>Thanks for the lowering your cases in most cases, 2010. ;-) Yep, this is an old and sorely misguided battlefield and the feminists have bought into misguiding leadership, imo.</p>

<p>Yea, make it "Oral." But it took a Rhodes Scholar to assure the nation "hey, that ain't sex." </p>

<p>Can you only imagine Bill Clinton as a USNA midshipman ... or a Naval officer?</p>

33

<p>
[quote]
Not unlike the far more substantial circumstance of the USNA footballer and his complicit midshipwoman. In fact, while for another day and thread, one must ask, what will be HER punishment, if any, since logically, if he was determined not guilty of that which she alleged, then she must have lied. Cannot be both ways. Right?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sorry but can't let this one pass w/o comment. Courts martial, like other legal proceedings, have standards of proof. Being found "not guilty" does not mean one was found innocent (despite what the media always says). It merely means that the charges were not proven to the level required -- i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal trials. </p>

<p>The fact that the standard of proof was not met does not mean that the female mid was lying. She may have been telling the truth but the rest of the evidence didn't support a conviction. For example, she may not have recalled certain critical events clearly. The physical evidence may have been weak, etc. Likewise, the defendant -- even though found not guilty on the rape charge -- may have lied about certain things. They both could have lied, told the truth or a combination of both -- the verdict alone doesn't "prove" which was the case. </p>

<p>Obviously, if the court determined that either party was lying, he/she should be punished for perjury. But, absent such a determination, you should not assume from the verdict that either party was telling the truth or lying.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Can you only imagine Bill Clinton as a USNA midshipman ... or a Naval officer?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sure. I can think of a lot of folks I've known as mids or officers who are no better (or no worse, depending on your perspective) than Clinton. Regardless of your political views, not really a relevant comment.</p>

34

<p>
[quote]
</p>

<p>My only regret is that I caused you to doubt me.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>awwww....no, not possilbe Z......I told you I had faith! ;)</p>

<p>WP...

[quote]
You interjected Sir Slick. Surely you're not so naive to think that he ain't taggin' along in Ms. Hillary's coattails like she did his.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>guess I did...not intentionally mind you! The difference is that she is smart enough to ignore him, she keeps her zipper up, and she will do a better job of it overall. She is smart, articulate, passionate, straightforward, visionary and decisive. She can, and has, stood her own against the biggest and the best bullies Washington had to offer. I hope she gets the chance.</p>

<p>BTW- she doesn't do tours, and she doesn't bake cookies. She spends her time as a US senator- she has written books- very good national bestsellers I might add- and well worth reading. As for Bill, the last thing I would assign him to do is give tours of the bedrooms. :eek: </p>

<p>
[quote]
Wasn't she gonna run national healthcare?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>She tried to reform it. And came very, very close. Too many stakeholders. One of our top physicians was on her select panel. Some of the meetings were held right here, and I was there for some of them. The plans were good. They made sense. They were affordable. They were worth a try. She was stopped dead in her tracks by the insurance companies with way, way too much to lose. So we remain, as we were, a nation of those covered with healthcare, and millions of those without, with skyrocketing costs and 3rd party payers with fat pockets. Drugs we can't afford. More R&D money poured into wrinkle creams then cancer drugs. And the Oregonians who have resorted to rationing their care....ok if you are one of the "lucky" diagnosis-treatment pairs that get covered, sh$# out of luck if you are sick with a diagnosis below the funding line. Highest rates of premature birth and infant mortality. Highest rates of heart disease. This, in the most industrialized nation in the world. Don't get me started!!!!!
Very, very sad. At least she tried. </p>

<p>
[quote]
You know, I'm just a dad trying to teach my son and daughter that this world is filled with opportunity. It's their responsibility to go and get and not allow themselves any "victim" mentality.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Understood. Now you need to understand that it is not always in their control. Life just ain't that fair. Try and you might to teach them, it is during that learning curve that kids sometimes find themselves manipulated by adults who have BTDT into corners that they never intended to go....this "Mid" did not run and report...she said "ok".....and she was done with it, if we are to believe what has been reported (hopefully going forward she will learn to say..."not ok...not on my watch....that wonderful comeback sistersunnie shared (copied and pasted that one to my daughter)....) but for now she said "ok"....that is what she had in her arsenal...and then she was caught up in the reporting whirlwind that she did not initiate, one that was initiated, instead, by adults...Naval Officers....I am not sure I would classify this as a "victim mentality." Instead of crucifying her, where is the outrage for the teacher making reference to his woody with his STUDENTS!!!! And WE are paying his salary!!!!!!!!!!</p>

<p>I will repeat...you get what you tolerate, therefore you get what you deserve. Like you said, she is not like 99.9% of the other females out there...and you are absolutely right...she is a Midshipman at the United States Naval Academy. She deserves respect. They all do. This "teacher" was a jerk.</p>

<p>And I am not so "naive" or out of touch with reality to think that she will not encounter more of them while she is out on the big bad ocean.... or that trash talking is a thing of the past.... what I am hoping is that this encounter reaffirmed for her, and others alike, that she is deserving of better....and that she does not have to tolerate this nonsense. I would be willing to bet she will handle it differently the next time....we all learn from our expereinces, as distasteful as some of them are.</p>

<p>As for "feminizing" our boys, I do not think treating others, female or otherwise, with respect is threatening or undermining their masculanity in any way, shape, manner or form. Respect is not gender specific; it is a universal value applicable to all.</p>

<p>Lastly, I am glad you are happy that the ones "guarding our country" are men. Just remember, there are lots of memorials in Washington and elsewhere dedicated to the women that died right along side of them. And there were millions more of them that stayed at home, keeping industries running, holding together families, rearing children, and keeping our society...the one the "guys" were out there defending....intact.</p>

<p>Give me a break.</p>

<p>"Boys are boys"... and girls are girls and nasty teachers are nasty imbiciles and old outdated mentalities are old, stale and obsolete. </p>

<p>People are people. Get with the program.</p>

<p>XX or XY, 4200 Mids have taken an Oath to defend our country. They will be asked to risk their lives. They will do it, over and over and over. They will bleed the same red blood. A bullet is not going to care what their chromosomal structure is when it hits. Many, far too many, will be injured or killed. They deserve respect. Bottom line.</p>

35

<p>ps...

[quote]
Can you only imagine Bill Clinton as a USNA midshipman ... or a Naval officer?</p>

<p>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>nah...he would have been "found."</p>

36

<p>yeah . .. right</p>

<p>Remind us again of the honor concept of telling truth; how does that apply here?</p>

<p>Remind us again of the Constitution [which you swore to uphold] which gives authority to the judicial system to ask you questions. [Since she wasn't being asked to incriminate herself.]</p>

<p>Remind us again that, as a mid, you would avoid answering questions posed to you by the court so you can save the sorry butt of some jerk.</p>

<p>yeah . . . right.</p>

<p>Re: healthcare. Interesting that the VA [a mini-nationalized health care system] is now considered one of the best hospital systems in teh country.<br>
The present-day system does nto make money off of healthy peopel so thate is no interest or direction towards keeping people healthy. Rather, as you point out, the insurance companies, drug companies, etc. have a strangle hold on the delivery of health care and maintining the status quo.</p>

37

<p>^^^^ the VA system works because it is a single payer....the USA. No refferals, no denials, no waiting for approvals for needed procedures that never come. </p>

<p>And lets not forget the pharmaceutical companies...they are just as guilty. (oops...you got them! almost missed that!)</p>

38

<p>
[quote]
Remind us again of the Constitution [which you swore to uphold] which gives authority to the judicial system to ask you questions.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>They can ask all they want. Show me the part where I am required to answer.</p>

<p>Oh, and nationalized healthcare is a joke. I went through the Navy system for two surgeries. Had to go OUTSIDE and get MY OWN DOCTORS to come up with the evidence the idiot at USNH Portsmouth couldn't find staring him in the face. I even got chewed out for it, too! Finally, I got lucky and found one who knew what he was doing and was less than happy at how I'd been treated. Still, it took the better part of a year to get a surgery scheduled that took a civilian doctor literally 5 minutes to determine I needed.</p>

<p>The VA is the best system in the world, eh? Not from what I've heard all these years about how it stinks. Maybe that was just political posturing. Still, remove the military discipline involved and open it up to the rest of the country and see how quickly it remains the best. I guess all those folks coming from Canada and Europe for their treatments must be completely stupid. Right. I sincerely hope it IS the best; our troops deserve that.</p>

<p>Oh, and show me a government agency that has come up with a medical device, pharmaceutical, or diagnostic that has saved a person's life. The stranglehold on medicine in this country can be placed squarely at the feet of the FDA and the Trial Lawyers Association (Not in that order, either). Corprate Greed falls lower on the pareto chart than either of those two. At least the FDA is protecting the public health. The lawyers are just out to get rich. I know because I've worked in the Medical Device industry for 10 years. You have no earthly idea just how much red tape and expense goes into putting that little pill in your hand or that pacemaker in your chest.</p>

39

<p>Prisons work wonders that way. Then you really would have a better understanding of the meaning of male arousal.</p>

<p>Re: The VA hospital.</p>

<p>The VA runs the largest integrated health-care system in the country, with more than 1,400 hospitals, clinics and nursing homes employing 14,800 doctors and 61,000 nurses. And by a number of measures, this government-managed health-care program--socialized medicine on a small scale--is beating the marketplace. For the sixth year in a row, VA hospitals last year scored higher than private facilities on the University of Michigan's American Customer Satisfaction Index, based on patient surveys on the quality of care received. The VA scored 83 out of 100; private institutions, 71. Males 65 years and older receiving VA care had about a 40% lower risk of death than those enrolled in Medicare Advantage, whose care is provided through private health plans or HMOs, according to a study published in the April edition of Medical Care. Harvard University just gave the VA its Innovations in American Government Award for the agency's work in computerizing patient records.</p>

40

<p>Question:
So what's the connection with world terrorism and the attack of 9/11?</p>

<p>Answer:
Slick Willie was preoccupied with interns, impeachment hearings, Hillary the Hun's rath, etc.</p>

<p>I can't argue with that logic.</p>