Conference back40::soapbox

    And already covered in News Briefs...
    

    
    psst, that note's for news briefs.

    
    according to the news the president asked for her resignation
    after she gave her views about masterbation.
    

    
    
    
    RAH, what were those views?  Are they in here?  I think I missed them.
    
    
    Mike

    Why?  did the match Abigail Van Buren's?
    
    dear Abby said that she thought masturbation would be a good way to
    prevent pregnancy among teens and the tranmission of STD's.

    BC's just mad because there wasn't going to be a show and tell.

    
    Maybe she was hitting too close to home??
    
    Seeing as how Hillary.... never mind...
    

    mastUrbation

    >mastUrbation
    
    To each his own... :-)

    
    It must be Friday ...
    
    

    Gee.. I thought a masterbater was the top guy on the fishing boats!

    
    .3 & .4 --->  Yeah, she said "If you bill it, they will come."
    
    ]:^}
    
    

    Anent .7: Like I said, Andy, what's your excuse?

>    
>    It must be Friday ...
>    

It is, but she was indeed fired, and it was for the reason stated.

/john

    
    
    Ah!!! I see!!!
    
    To joke is okay for thee... but not for me....???
    
    
    What Steve? Just a lousy "Sheesh"? No longwinded, wordy verbage to 
    bolster the ego???
    
      Eating sour grapes must be "pruning" the fingertips!!
    

    
    Now that the Condom Queen has resigned/been fired, maybe mass murderer
    Janet Reno will be next.
    
    Paul
    

    We can only hope...

    	re "Dear Abbey"
    
    	While it hasn't been stated what Elders said about masturbation,
    	even if we assume that she said the same thing as Dear Abbey, I
    	can see Clinton asking for a resignation.  Dear Abbey is just
    	Dear Abbey.  She does not represent the administration.  She is
    	just a writer.  I'm sure she faced some loss of readership due
    	to what she said.  I'm sure the administration can not afford
    	to lose much more public support due to someone like her who
    	has already demonstrated some loose-cannon tendencies.
    
    	And for the record, Abbey is correct.  While I see masturbation
    	as morally wrong, I agree that teens using that as a sexual outlet 
    	instead of sexual contact with others is far less costly/risky
    	in human consequences.
    
    	I'd like to hear just what Elders had to say about it, if anything.
    	She may have been truly in character and stated something like
    	all kids need to learn to masturbate, and the schools ought to
    	be the vector for them to learn it.  We'll know soon enough.

    .18
    
    In so much twisted politcal bureau-speak, the last paragraph is as
    close as it comes to what she actually said.
    
    Heard it on the radio.

    I see her firing as more politically motivated than a response to
    her rather casual remarks about masturbation. 

Elders was shown on ABC News tonight saying that masturbation is an important
part of human sexuality, so much so that we should teach it to children in
schools.

/john

    
    After she taught the little kiddies how to masturbate, was she going to
    assign them homework?
    
    Paul
    

My Saturday Constipation says Jocelyn was fired.  Newt says it's good for 
the country and good for the president.  I thinks it's good for the country
and bad for the president.  Them dems are conspicuously silent the article 
goes on to tell.    

Bilary's finally starting to realize his mistakes in his politically correct 
appointments and he's trying to correct them.  Won't work Clinton.  You see
the people of this great land are not as stupid as you think.

This administration is truely farcical and incompetent.

Paul

    
    Just in case anyone's curious, she was quoted by AP as saying:
    
    "As per your specific question in regard to masturbation, I think that
     it is something that is a part of human sexuality and it's a part of
     something that perhaps should be taught. But we've not even taught
     our children the very basics. And I feel that we have tried ignorance
     for a very long time and it's time we try education."
    

Re: .24

>>    "As per your specific question in regard to masturbation, I think that
>>     it is something that is a part of human sexuality and it's a part of
>>     something that perhaps should be taught. But we've not even taught
>>     our children the very basics. And I feel that we have tried ignorance
>>     for a very long time and it's time we try education."


What a concept.... a politically incorrect response to a valid question...

And to think that those who oppose her "politically-incorrect" and
honest response -- in SOAPBOX (and you know who you are) and in general -- 
are those who are the greatest detractors of the POLITICAL-CORRECTNESS 
movement...?!?!

Go figure...!?!!?
    

    Ummm.  How many guys in here had to be taught to masturbate?
    
    Not me.
    
    Bob

    She didn't mean that anyone should teach ANYONE 'how to'.....just
    teach that it is something that many people do.  Imagine if we
    started by just NOT teaching all the old myths...like warts, etc.
    bob

  9. The traditional Catholic doctrine that masturbation
constitutes a grave moral disorder is often called into doubt or
expressly denied today.  It is said that psychology and sociology
show that it is a normal phenomenon of sexual development,
especially among the young. It is stated that there is real and
serious fault only in the measure that the subject deliberately
indulges in solitary pleasure closed in on self ("ispsation"),
because in this case the act would indeed be radically opposed to
the loving communion between persons of different sex which some
hold is what is principally sought in the use of the sexual
faculty.

  This opinion is contradictory to the teachings and pastoral
practice of the Catholic Church.  Whatever the force of certain
arguments of a biological and philosophical nature, which have
sometimes been used the theologians, in fact both the Magisterium
of the Church -- in the course of a constant tradition --- and the
moral sense of the faithful have declared without hesitation that
masturbation is an intrinsically and seriously disordered act [19].
The main reason is that, whatever the motive for acting in this
way, the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal
conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the
faculty.  For it lacks the sexual relationship called for by the
moral order, namely the relationship which realizes "the full sense
of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true
love" [20].  All deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved
to this regular relationship.  Even if it cannot be proved that
Scripture condemns this sin by name, the tradition of the Church
has rightly understood it to be condemned in the New Testament when
the latter speaks of "impurity," "Unchasteness" and other vices
contrary to chastity and continence.

  Sociological surveys are able to show the frequency of this
disorder according to the places, populations or circumstance
studies.  In this way facts are discovered, but facts do not
constituted a criterion for judging the moral value of human acts
[21].  The frequency of the phenomenon in question is certainly to
be linked with man's innate weakness following original sin; but it
is also to be linked with the loss of a sense of God, with the
corruption of morals engendered by the commercialization of vice,
with the unrestrained licentiousness of so many public
entertainments and publications, as well as with the neglect of
modesty, which is the guardian of chastity.

  On the subject of masturbation modern psychology provides much
valid and useful information for formulating a more equitable
judgement on moral responsibility and for orienting pastoral
action.  Psychology helps one to see how the immaturity of
adolescence (which can sometimes persist after that age),
psychological imbalance or habit can influence behavior,
diminishing the deliberate character of the act and bringing about
a situation whereby subjectively there may not always be  serious
fault.  But in general, the absence of serious responsibility must
not be presumed; this would be to misunderstand people's moral
capacity.

  In the pastoral ministry, in order to form an adequate judgement
in concrete cases, the habitual behavior of people will be
considered in its totality, not only with regard to the
individual's practice of charity and of justice but also with
regard to the individual's care in observing the particular
precepts of chastity.  In particular, one will have to examine
whether the individual is using the necessary means, both natural
and supernatural, which Christian asceticism from its long
experience recommends for overcoming the passions and progressing
in virtue.

   It should be pointed out that Elders' statement was in effect an
   approving response to the statement by the previous speaker who had
   basically said
   
   	It's time to break down another sexual taboo: masturbation.
        I'm glad to say that I masturbate and think that other people
        should be able to say that they masturbate, too.
   
   What was going on here was basically yet another attempt by Elders
   to use official government policy on what is to be taught in the
   schools to indoctrinate and redirect the morals of the nation.
   
   Taken by itself, this statement is not the most outrageous statement
   to come from Elders.  Much more troubling was her lecture to high
   school girls, in which she told them that if they were going out on
   a date with someone they liked, they should be sure to have a condom
   in their purse.  Or her lecture to pastors, in which she told them
   that they should be preaching about condoms from the pulpits, and
   when one of the pastors responded that she was asking them to change
   their values; that they intended to teach abstinence, she told them
   that abstinence wasn't working, and it was time for condoms.
   
   /john

    
    as far as the catholic church is concerned, they have
    limited credibility on matters sexual as long as lecherous
    priests continue preyinng on little boys.
    
    ironically, Ms Elders remarks aren't far off what I tell
    my son (don't do sex but be damned sure you wear one if 
    you do, no  masterbation doesn't make one blind, else half
    of SF would have white canes) but her confrontational manner
    and inept speaking style are not really appropriate to a
    surgeon general.

    What took him so long? Must have been one of Hillary's choices would be
    my guess. She caused turmoil each time she opened her yap. He should
    have fired her the first time she caused his administration an
    embarrassment. Was this the best he could find for the job? Political 
    correctness at its best. Made my day to see this hammerhead bite the
    dust. 

    .25
    
    'scuse me? Elders politically incorrect? What planet you from?
    
    Elders is about as PC as it gets, and a perfect example of
    just how sickening the concept of PC can be... the whole
    "chips are down? have a wank!" outlook is sooooo Clintonian...
    
    -b

    .32 Yes indeed! Good one. Right to the point and 100% accurate.

    As Surgeon General, elders was supposed to be worried about the health
    of the nation, not the popularity of her statements.  Suggesting that
    masturbation be mentioned as something normal for teens in sex ed
    courses could have been to help prevent teen pregnancies and the
    transmission of STD's, including, but not limited to HIV and Hepitiis
    B, both of which are incurable and can lead to death.  This IMO was
    expressing concern for a nation's health.  
    
    meg

"Normal" does not necessarily mean "desirable".

The claim that this behaviour will reduce the incidence of other social
ills is not at all clear.  While it may temporarily reduce the immediate
pressure to engage in intercourse, overall it may increase the desire to
do so.

A program of encouragement to chastity, abstinence, and respect for the
human generative organs and function is much more effective public health
policy.

/john

    re: .28 
    
    In other words, the scripture doesn't explicitly denounce the act by name
    but we think it's bad so you will go to hell if you do.  How nice, how
    twisted.  
    
    

    S.O.P.  Why are we not surprizzed.
    

    The way this is going, Clinton's next appointee will be... well, see my
    p-name.
    
    -b

    
    It's not this particular statement, which is of minor importance.
    
    She just isn't a team player.  Contrast with Ron Brown, for example.
    
    You cannot backstab your boss when he's in trouble, not in any job.
    
      bb

re: .35, /john

>A program of encouragement to chastity, abstinence, and respect for the
>human generative organs and function is much more effective public health
>policy.

It may make for an excellent "missionary policy", though those deserve
condemnation in their own right.

It may make for a good "religious policy", but then that, by rights, ought
to be limited to those subscribing to the "religion".

It might even arguably make some sort of reasonable "moral policy", however,
thankfully, we are free to choose among those we subcribe to and those we
don't for matters of this nature.

As for an "effective public health policy", perhaps if your vision were not
so obscured by dogma and ideological tradition, you'd see the humor in the
very assertion.

Telling all the chilluns that they'll burn in hell for playing with themselves
has to be a far more intelligent approach to the problem than mentioning to
them that it's natural and safe. That's clear to see.

    obviously,
    
    let's leave kids to be screwed up about sex the way their family and
    friends are currently.  It obviously works quite well.  Look at the
    amazing reductions in STD's, teen pregnancy, and divorce we have had
    over the last 14 years since "just say no" became the watch word.
    
    

    Not surprised really, but of course some of you are missing the point.
    If I, as a parent, feel that encouraging masturbation is my solution
    for the potential pitfalls of sex (I do not, but even if I did...),
    then it is my business as a parent. It is not BC's business. It
    is not Elder's business. It is not the school's business. My kids
    are at school to learn academics. Period!
    
    But the whiners and government boot lickers on the other side are
    all lining up to decide what my children will learn, my opinion
    be damned!
    
    You were all told quite firmly to bugger off on November 8. Take
    the hint.
    
    -b

	This is all rather stupid.

	I agree it is not school or anyone else's business
to teach this stuff but the parents.

	I wonder just how they were thinking of teaching this
to kids ??????????

Not sure whom you're addressing, Brian, but if, in fact, Elders comment
was that masturbation should be mentioned as a normal safe alternative
to sex, rather than being a) ignored, or b) mentioned as "an abomination",
then I don't think it was out of line. I haven't a problem with that
approach for a teenaged audience who, more than likely, already has some
sense of what can be done with what's in their crotch.

The contention that a "public policy" of "leave it alone" is preferable
does not make a whole lot of sense when the audience has already discovered
that there are better things to do than leave it alone. It's not like
they can "forget about it". If the home wants to provide a moral or religious
backing to the aspect, then all well and good. I don't see that a simple
mention of the normalcy of the act flies in the face of that.

-Jack, card-carrying member of the GOP

PS. I'm just as glad to see her sorry butt out of office, anyway.

    Jack,
    
    The problem is, in what academic context would tbe "normalcy" of
    masturbation be discussed? One would assume that this is in the
    context of "sex education", which I am opposed to. I feel that if
    sex is taught in school, it should be taught purely as a matter
    of biology. If it goes beyond that, then even if it is _not_
    in conflict with my personal beliefs, it is likely to be in
    conflict with someone else's...
    
    I intend for my children to learn about their sexuality from their
    parents... I acknowledge that they will also inevitably learn
    from "the street". I can overcome that... however, I'm not sure I
    can overcome what they learn on the street _and_ what they get
    pumped into them at school.
    
    I am, in principle, opposed to school prayer for the same reason.
    However, I find the idea of a moment of silence less objectionable
    than, say, "wanking 101".
    
    -b

    P.S. to .46:
    
    In regard to whom I was addressing in in my previous note, I was
    addressing those that buy into the whole Clinton model of the
    role of government. Let's face it, the reason why Elder was
    still around was because for the most part BC, and those that
    think like BC, agreed with her!
    
    I was not addressing any particular boxer or group of boxers...
    
    -b

To the best of my knowledge, neither Elders nor anyone else proposed courses
of instruction in technique. What was discussed was that the act be mentioned
as a normal, safe alternative to sex with a partner.

I don't necessarily disagree with you regarding the fact that there should
be limits to the expressiveness allowed in sex ed. But the fact of the
matter is that "sex ed IS". If it IS, and if they are going to discuss
the fact that there are health and psychological/sociological risks
associated with sex with a partner, and they are going to discuss ways
in which one can prevent or limit those risks, including condoms or
abstinence, then they should just as well be mentioning self-gratification
as another of those alternatives because there are already too damn many
kids out there whose heads have already been filled with garbage about
it causing abnormal hair growth, visual impairment or eternal damnation.

Mentioning it as a normal alternative is no more harmful than mentioning
condoms or abstinence. If we're going to mention anything at all on the
matter, then for christ's sake, what the hell's the sense in ignoring
critical pieces that can make a difference? No details, no pictures,
no demos - just mentioning that it _IS_ a safe alternative.

    
    I doubt it.  Elders was around because she was one of the Clinton
    Arkansas mafia.  He needed to get the blacks out in quantity to
    win there, and she was his edge.  She was given the SG job even
    though she had no national reputation because she knew him.  But
    the national job is political, and you just aren't allowed to speak
    your mind all the time.  He hated to fire her, although he disagreed
    with her, because it leaves him with nobody much left from Arkansas.
    He's totally adrift from his roots, amidst national politicians and
    hired experts, none of them loyal personally to him.  He hates it.
    
      bb

Mebbe he should click his heels together three times and keep repeating
"There's no place like home."

    Jack,
    
    This is a variant on the "well, they're already being taught things you
    don't agree with, why not this?" argument. It's all chalked up as the
    price of a public education. So fine, if my local school board wants
    to put it on the agenda, if I feel strongly about it either way I
    can go and make my case... but as a matter of national policy?
    
    I agree with your outlook on masturbation. And I also agree that what
    Elders said had nothing to do with _teaching_ masturbation (although,
    you'll have to forgive me for trying to capitalize on the comedic
    effect). The point is, we've got a bunch of people in Washington who
    get payed to contemplate the benefits of wanking! C'mon! As some wag
    once said, "It's a good thing we don't get all the government we pay
    for."
    
    I can't think of a better context for such nonsense to rear its head
    than in the current administration.
    
    -b

Well, that's a point well taken, Brian.

Speaking of comedic effect, though, I could not believe the number of
folks calling in to the radio talk shows all weekend who in fact had
expectations that demos would be included in the syllabus. Chicken
Little is alive and well and calling WRKO.

    
    
    I happen to agree with Brian, but like the way the last 6+ replies were
    handled between he and Jack....
    
    and the limo-libs say that conservatives don't have a clue!!!

    Masturbation was certainly an element and it may have been the "straw
    that broke the camel's back." Obviously, she's made controversial
    statements before, e.g. legalizing Mary Jane...
    
    I'd consider her on the fringe which probably scared the hell out of
    BC. I'm not sure how her positions, opinions, ideas escaped the
    decision making process, but it's the right thing to do.
    
    The above has nothing to do with my persoanl views on her remark or
    Sex Ed. in general. It critically necessary to educate America's
    youth today now that we're speaking very real life or death activity.
    
    Stating the gov't is focused/spending money on the study of wanking
    was pretty inane (Brian). Recorded studies go back farther the Freud.
    
    Chip
    

    I remember a Washington POST Magazine interview with Elders soon after
    she was nominated to the position of SG.  The interviewer asked 'why'
    she had been selected, and Elders, after giving a typical politician's
    answer, was asked, "Did it improve your chances for receiving the
    nomination that your views for families and family health are nearly
    identical to Hillary Clinton's?"  The Elder response was, "It sure
    doesn't hurt them."
    
    Elders pronouncements over the past 2 years was merely a parroting of
    HRC's own viewpoints.  And I bet it was pnly the influence of HRC that
    had kept Elders around for as long as she did.
    
    In view of her tenure as SG, this last incident was just the straw that
    broke the camel's back.  Now, if the election results in November were
    more favorable to this administration, I'd suspect she still be SG even
    after this last episode.  

	Elders got bounced for embarrasing her boss at a time when
	Bill is trying to out-Republican the Republicans. More a 
	case of bad timing than anything else. If the election had
	gone the other way, she'd still be employed.

	Aside from that, it sounds like she was answering a question.
	We have the text of her response, does anyone have the text
	of the question?

Jim

    
    RE: .42  Meg   ..."just say no"
    
    A report was just released saying that drug usage by schoolkids has
    increased relative to the '80's. Since you blame the "just say no"
    campaign for STD, teen pregnancy and divorce, you then must logically
    credit "just say no" for decreased drug use among teens.
    
    Paul                                          

Er, would you mind running this one past us one more time. Something's
failing to parse properly, but I'm not sure what.


           <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 168.58                The Surgeon General resigns                  58 of 58
RICKS::TOOHEY                                         9 lines  13-DEC-1994 09:20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    RE: .42  Meg   ..."just say no"
    
    A report was just released saying that drug usage by schoolkids has
    increased relative to the '80's. Since you blame the "just say no"
    campaign for STD, teen pregnancy and divorce, you then must logically
    credit "just say no" for decreased drug use among teens.
    
    Paul                                          

    
  A.  "Just Say No" = increased STD, teen pregnancy, divorce.
    
  B.  "Just Say No" = decreased teen drug use.
    
  Meg claimed A. I'm saying if A is true, then, by the same logic, B is also
  true.
    
  Paul
    

    
    To clarify a bit further, "Just Say No" was emphasized during the
    '80's. Teen drug use decreased during the '80's. Now, during President
    Chicken's regime, drug use among teens has increased. I guess we must
    conclude, therefore, that President Chicken and the condom queen Elders
    are responsible for increased teen drug use.
    
    Paul
    

    I get a kick outta seeing people say:
    
    "You shouldn't smoke dope, because it'll lead you down the path to
    nowhere, or ruin.... or the Presidency of the United States".
    

    
    Or the House Speakership....
    
    								-mr. bill

    Someone once said that Elders didn't have any medical qualifications
    to be Surgeon General in the first place, e.g., she was not
    "officially" (degreed, etc.) a medical doctor.  Is that true?
    
    Chris

	heard she was a pediatric endocrinologist.  i think.

    
|   Someone once said that Elders didn't have any medical qualifications
|   to be Surgeon General in the first place, e.g., she was not
|   "officially" (degreed, etc.) a medical doctor.  Is that true?
    
    No.  But do go on repeating this disinformation, after all, someone
    once said....
    
    								-mr. bill

    
>>    No.  But do go on repeating this disinformation, after all, someone
>>    once said....

	or perhaps pose the question in a notesfile, so that the rumor
	can be partially dispelled.

    ... the vultures are circling.

    
    RE 168.56:
    
    Oh, but didn't you know ? Hillary's become a practicing Methodist as
    of late.  I've seen at least 2 separate articles in which she shows
    us her "spiritual" side. 
    
    Rather than showing us that, she should have mooned us instead. That
    I could believe.

    
    Note 168.66
    
          -< As quickly as you can, name the previous SG.... >-
    
    Everett Koop?
    

    Wrong.
    
    								-mr. bill

    Just say no through the 80's resulted in the increase of teen
    pregnancies and STD's.  This isn't a new rtesult.
    
    the kids I know who went through the social experiment of the 80's and
    90's (DARE) go to one extreme or the other.  either they believe
    everything and are 100% abstinent from all drugs, or they spot the lies
    involved and go completely in the other direction.  DARE is still an
    active program, and one of the darlings of both conservatives and
    liberals, but recent studies (suppressed bby the federal government)
    have show that after a year it is inneffective, except that these kids
    are better at lying on surveys than those who haven't been through the
    program.
    
    meg

    
      RE: .73 Meg
    
    
      I just think that saying X resulted in Y (concerning "Just Say No")
      is too strong a statement, because no control group was used. Only
      assumptions and speculations can be stated, not provable 'results'.
    
    
      Paul

    Paul,
    
    In the case of DARE there were controls.  Not every school in every
    district in the country subscribed to the program.  This has enabbled
    people to study this.

    Re forms SG  Anonia mumble, a bush appointee.  C Everett wqas not
    invited back.  seems he was too controversial, since he also urged
    condom use, and funded a study concluding no longterm psychological
    efffects around chosen abortions.  (miscarriages were a defferent
    story)
    
    meg

>> Someone once said that Elders didn't have any medical qualifications
>> to be Surgeon General in the first place, e.g., she was not
>> "officially" (degreed, etc.) a medical doctor.  Is that true?
    
>    No.  But do go on repeating this disinformation, after all, someone
>    once said....
>
>    								-mr. bill
    
    My question was intended to be an inquiry.
    
    I'd heard this from someone, questioned its veracity, and asked
    here for further information.
    
    Wasn't that obvious.
    
    Chris

    Another inquiry:  what are the responsibilities of the Surgeon-General?
    Is the office of Cabinet rank?  Does he/she administer a department, or
    set administration policy?
    
    -Stephen

The office of Surgeon General is of cabinet rank, but it is being suggested
that it should be reduced.

It is a uniformed services commission (notice what she wears).

She is the commanding officer of the Public Health Service.

/john

    So...she was a proponent of fetal tissue experimentation.  Creating
    embryos in a lab to do what they wished.  Beautiful.
    
    -Jack

    
    Oh, Jack, put a sock in it.

	The problem with just say no is that they thought this took care of
everything. Ohh... that and watching Bush ride around Miami in a speed boat!


Glen

    >>>    Oh, Jack, put a sock in it.
    
    Mz. Debra, surely you don't approve of this practice...a civilized 
    intelligent woman such as yourself?!
    
    

    >Mz. Debra, surely you don't approve of this practice...a civilized 
    >intelligent woman such as yourself?!
    
    Is there any marriage cheapening involved?
    
    -b

    
    <-- count me in 8^).
    
    Meaty, I do NOT approve of creating embryos simply to do research on
    them.  I DO approve of doing research on embryos that have been
    aborted, either spontaneously or induced, if the findings can help to
    cure diseases that are killing the already-born.
    
    I simply consider already-born people more important.

    
    Let's see,
    Long ago, when Powell was appointed, BtheB heard that he was
    unqualified.
    
    Kit thought somebody said that Clarence Thomas never wrote an opinion.
    
    And now Chris inquires about a rumor that Jocelyn Elders isn't a doctor.
    
    
    Naaaaaaaah.  No trend here.
    
    								-mr. bill

    So PeeWee Hermin is waiting in masterbated breath in the wings as a
    replacement?:)

    Fer chrissakes, Bill, would you explain in clear terms here
    exactly what is wrong with my asking about a statement that
    I'd heard, found difficult to believe, and wanted clarification
    about.  Without being coy, sarcastic, or lumping me in with
    people and events that aren't the least bit relevant.
    
    If you can't do that, then get the hell off my back.
    
    Chris

    Debra:
    
    So do you believe the AMA or whoever doesn't use the former?  Doing
    research on a nonviable embryo can only go so far.  A live embryo 
    would prove far more valuable to research.
    
    This is what their doing in the Jocelyn Elders chamber of horrors!!!!!
    
    -Meaty

    
    Show me proof, Jack my son, and I'll prostrate myself at your feet in
    groveling apologetic writhing movements.

	.42
        
>    let's leave kids to be screwed up about sex the way their family and
>    friends are currently.  It obviously works quite well.  Look at the
>    amazing reductions in STD's, teen pregnancy, and divorce we have had
>    over the last 14 years since "just say no" became the watch word.
    
    	What does "just say no" have to do with sex?  I thought it was 
    	a drug-use program...
    
    	And I think that a person would be seriously deluded to think
    	that sexual abstinence has been the watch word over the last
    	14 years.
    
    	And who are all these "family and friends" that are so screwed
    	up about sex?  What do you consider to be "screwed up"?  Based
    	on what I've written in soapbox and elsewhere that we co-note,
    	do you consider me "screwed up" with respect to sex?  (I will
    	not take offense to a yes answer, or any answer for that matter,
    	I promise, so please feel free to be frank with that answer.)
    
    	Joe

    "Just say no" became a catch phrase for all sorts of socially
    reprehensible acts like skate boarding and string bikinis.  Not at all
    unlike the Wendy's commercials and the "Where's the beef?" spin offs
    when it came time for the politicians to come out and play.  
    
    And shouldn't your p/n be "I'm and Orcan"?  :-)

    
    Antonia Novello, cousin of Father Guido.
    
    At one time I believe that someone said that Ms Elders had
    no MD degree. She does in fact have one from U Ark.

during the past week...

1.  newt tells reporters clinton _has_ to be sympathetic to elders
    views on legalizing drugs because he continues to keep her as
    part of his administration.
2.  clinton dumps elders.
3.  u of michigan releases the results of a broad survey (420 schools
    and 50,000 students) showing that last year pot smoking increased
    50% among 8th graders, and 40% among 12th graders.  

methinks the monkey spanking is a red herring.

bill

Chris,
    Bill is unable to clarify any of his statements. Not only would it
destroy his personna, it would expose his secret identity as well.

-Jack

    IMHO, Elders was simply a victim of her own opinions (shared by
    hundred of thousands) and courage.
    
    Regardless of how you weigh her's to your's, she's one hell of a
    courageous women. 
    
    Chip

    when did courageous ever mean stupid?

    <- your opinion only... Fortunately.

    yours too...

    
    
    I'll finish this for you kids......
    
    
    wuz not....
    
    wuz too
    
    wuz not
    
    wuz too
    
    not
    
    too
    
    not
    
    too
    
    etc......

    Ooooo... get me the SG I've been fletzed!
    
    Seriously, maybe (just maybe) from a career standpoint, it probably
    wasn't the brightest thing to do (but not stupid). 
    
    Like you, some people stand behind their convictions and are willing
    to risk things by being honest and upright. I'd rather have these
    people around instead of many other gov't offials too numerous to
    name.
    
    Chip

    ... thanks Mike.

    Chip:
    
    It's been your party who has bloated the size of the Federal Government
    over the past 60 years that has lead to "numerous government
    officials"...

    shuddap fatboy!

    
    
    
    No problem, Chip.  :')
    
    
    As for you Waffle, for you to use that term towards me,
    well.......let's just be kind and say it's laughable.
    
    
    
    Mike
    
    

    Ahhh, my party (which is)? Please enlighten me... 
    
    Let me help... I'm Independent and voted both this year. 
    
    No one's without blame. I know you know this. I'm pretty sure you
    know that generalization is generally worthless and generalizing
    without facts is... you know.
    
    Chip

    Joe,
    
    Nancy reagan Started "Just say no" regarding teen sex.
    
    It made such a nice sound bite, that the PDFA and others soon picked it
    up for drugs as well.  
    
    meg

    
    
    I think that one of the most effective commercials regarding teen sex
    is the one with the teen boy and teen girl.  At the end, it shows the
    boy saying that she's found someone who doesn't pressure her and is a
    mice guy, then he asks, "What does that make me then?"  The commercial
    then goes to a picture of a rat.
    
    
    Mike

>    mice guy, then he asks, "What does that make me then?"  The commercial
     ----
>    then goes to a picture of a rat.
				 ---

Freudian slip, there, Michael?
:^)

    
    
    
    It appears so, Jack. :')
    
    make that nice guy.......

| <<< Note 168.87 by AIMHI::RAUH "I survived the Cruel Spa" >>>

| So PeeWee Hermin is waiting in masterbated breath in the wings as a 
| replacement?:)

	Yeah... waiting in the movie theater..... :-)

    Mikey:
    
    As you very well know, a peer and a DEC mgr's voicemail that I got this
    morning at 5:45 just put me into a bummer mood.  Didn't mean to hurt
    your feelings, we know how sensitive you are these days going through
    your ML crisis... :-)
    
    Chip:
    
    No harm meant...see above except last part of last sentence.   :-)
    

    I personally thought the quote (if it was correct/accurate) was quite
    reasonable.  It is naive at best to think children---->adolescents
    haven't already figured out that thier hands and arms are capable of
    reaching all the way to their shoe laces and places in between.  The
    media, conservatives, and other agenda holders have leveraged this into
    a spotlight issue.  I agree with Chip on this.  She spoke her mind, was
    quoted out of context and is now paying the price for being less
    politically astute by mentioning the "M" word.  I saw nothing that
    encouraged the behavior by the way nor suggested it should be taught as
    part of a school curriculum.  
    

   What she said was that masturbation was "part of something that perhaps
   should be taught."  She really fumble-mouthed the statement; near as I
   can figure it, she meant to say that masturbation was part of sexuality
   and that sexuality should, perhaps, be taught in school.

>I saw nothing that encouraged the behavior by the way nor suggested it
>should be taught as part of a school curriculum.  
    
How blind can you be?!

The discussion was on ways to prevent AIDS.  The previous speaker had
just presented masturbation as (supposedly) a method for preventing AIDS
about which there was a great taboo, and specifically stated that it was
time to remove the taboo and that he would begin the process by proclaiming
that he was a masturbator.

Elders then stated that she thought that schoolchildren should be taught
about this, clearly implying to all those who are not blinded by their
liberalism that the approved curriculum would teach that masturbation is
a morally neutral behaviour.

What conservatives in this country do not want is a government which
teaches in the schools that the moral tenets of Americans are wrong.

There is no evidence to support the idea that teenagers who masturbate
are likely to feel it is an alternative to engaging in sexual intercourse.
In fact, the evidence is rather clear that the more sexual stimulation
that a person engages in, the more is desired.

The most effective way to reduce disease and unwanted pregnancy is through
self-control; masturbation is _NOT_ self-control (well, er, it is, but not
in the sense that I mean).

/john

    being a bit behind here....but....
    
    lets keep one thing in perspective about the SG being canned. in a
    position such as hers you have a responsibility to support your
    superiors and communicate that support appropriately upward, downward,
    and especially to the press. elders did none of the above. getting
    fired is her just reward for such actions. either she had a political
    suicide wish or is so blinded by principals as to be ignorant, or is
    just plain stupid. i tend to lean towards the latter. many of those AR
    cronies slick put in office just aren't DC material. period.

If her statement as I understood it meant that masterbation is an "alternate"
to sex-with-others as a way to prevent aids/pregnancy/disease. and that as 
part of sex-ed it should be taught and to dispel the stupid rumors about 
hairy-palms. I agree with her.
I would have fired her long ago for other statements that she made, and I 
thought in general she is an idiot for parroting some of the leftist clap-trap
but I wouldn't have fired her for this statement.

if it would really _significantly_ reduce teen-preggers and STD's 
I'd be in favor of a daily period of privacy in school(to be delicate) :-}
to make sure they get their quota :-}

Amos

>               -< many moralists don't want to reduce teen-preg >-

A world of truth in that, Amos. "Let's get the morality and the adherence
to moral principles that we're after before we worry about the goals."

I'm more copncerned with the goals. I don't particularly give a flying
crap how we get there, to a degree.

    Unfortunately, that's all you'll get out of Washington: the flying
    crap.
    
    How many layers of bureaucrats under the PHS you think they have
    exploring the, um er, ramifications, of Elder's proposal?
    
    -b

   Did she wear more medals than Koop, the same number, or fewer?

    I'm perplexed by her firing, taking the pertinent facts at face value.
    Her comments concerning masturbation were relatively mild (given that
    sex ed obviously exists); Clinton appears to have over-reacted and
    to have bowed excessively to what he perceives as the changing wind.
    
    "Perhaps should be taught" hardly seems like firing material to me.
    On the other hand, much of what she has said in the past *does* seem
    like firing material, and yet he did nothing.
    
    If he's going to attempt to re-invent himself (far too late, IMO), he
    should at least try to be a bit more subtle about it.  He looks pretty
    silly the way he's doing it now.
    
    Chris

    >I'm perplexed by her firing, taking the pertinent facts at face value.
    >Her comments concerning masturbation were relatively mild (given that
    >sex ed obviously exists); Clinton appears to have over-reacted and
    >to have bowed excessively to what he perceives as the changing wind.
    
    this is "panic politics". it'll get worse. the bigger the fish to fry,
    the more "soldiers" gotta die.

    >I'm perplexed by her firing, taking the pertinent facts at face value.
    
     Me too. I claim this is the sign of a weak leader; he was unwilling to
    weather the minor storm her comments would have generated. I saw the
    quote in question, and I said afterwards, "he fired her for that?!!"

    Nothing perplexing about it. Bill is in the process of wedging Hillary
    back into the cage. Edler's comments made for a convenient excuse to do
    what he wanted to do.
    
    As WhiteWater heats up, look for Bill to sacrifice anyone and everyone
    to the lions, including Hillary. He'll stop at nothing to protect his
    own hide. He'll even stand aside and let the wife wear a number for a
    while if it keeps his ass out of the fry-o-lator.
    
    -b

| <<< Note 168.114 by TNPUBS::JONG "Steve" >>>


| What she said was that masturbation was "part of something that perhaps
| should be taught."  

	Do they have films on this? Mannequins? This really would be kind of a
funny thing to teach. :-)



Glen

    /john,
    
    As a matter of fact I am, legally, without corrective lenses that is
    but that is irrelevant.  I still read the statement posted as being a 
    reasonable answer to the question posed.  She did not speak out as an 
    advocate for sexual self or mutual gratification at least not the way 
    I read it.  
    
    I do have a problem with the gentleman you referred to by coming out in
    support of mastubation as being an effective prevention for AIDs.  I am
    in agreement with you and others on this point I believe.  I also think
    it is wrong to deny that that part of human sexuality exists.  
    
    I have no information to refute your claims that increased stimulus
    leads to increased desire but I would like to see them substantiated. 
    I am sure we have all heard the "love is a drug" analogy but I have yet
    to see evidence supporting the same either from persoanl experience or
    otherwise.  
    
    I also think you forgot to add "some" to the following line.  I'll
    leave it to you to figure out where. 
    
    > teaches in the schools that the moral tenets of Americans are wrong.
    
    Brian

    Maybe the surgeon general will get them to put a stamp on people's
    willies with a warning and instructions on it...
    
    	"Warning: The surgeon general has concluded that wanking
    		  can be harmful to your career prospects..."
    
    -b

| <<< Note 168.115 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>


| and that he would begin the process by proclaiming that he was a masturbator.

	Well, they do have debators at school..... as teams even! Maybe it's
just that this guy is a mater at baiting....

| Elders then stated that she thought that schoolchildren should be taught
| about this, clearly implying to all those who are not blinded by their
| liberalism that the approved curriculum would teach that masturbation is
| a morally neutral behaviour.

	John, this is funny. How did you get morally neutral behaviour out of
her words??? My, you do seem to have Master Baiting techniques.


Glen

    .55> Obviously, she's made controversial statements before, e.g.
       > legalizing Mary Jane...
    
    in the interests of presenting the correct record, she said
    decriminalisation should be studied.
    
    DougO

    re .129
    
    That would be ...admitting to... 

    > What conservatives in this country do not want is a government which
    > teaches in the schools that the moral tenets of Americans are wrong.
    
    "some" Americans, John.  Conservatives would love it if the government
    taught in the schools that moral tenets of Americans who believe legal
    abortion is better than illegal abortion, that gay people aren't evil,
    that sex outside marriage isn't necessarily bad, are wrong. 
    Conservatives would not only love a government that does this but have
    been actively pushing government to adopt these policies.  So drop
    your absolutism; obviously, conservatives only want the government to
    protect "some" Americans' moral tenets (theirs), not all; which puts
    their (your) "principle" in a considerably different light, just as
    partisan as Elders'.
    
    DougO

    Bullcrap. I'm a conservative, and a pretty main-stream one at that,
    and I'd love a government that just shuts the hell up, TYVM. I'd
    also prefer a school that focuses on teaching math, science and
    language skills and doesn't concern itself with making sure I've
    spawned PC munchkins.
    
    -b

    <---- A government that shuts the hell up.  I like it, a lot.  Sticking 
    to basics would be fine by me as well.  
    
    Brian

    	re .107
    
    	No, Meg, Nancy Reagan's "just say no" was purely about drug
    	use.

DougO merely forgot to mention "Some" conservatives . . . 

    re; a SG's job is to cover the butts of your superiors...
    
    Ahhh, and all this time I thought those positions were to promote the
    good of the people. Well Gene thanks for straightening me out.
    
    I'd propose that, by doing what you suggested,  you have a greater
    chance of not doing what the people want. At least that's been your
    party line as far as BC goes...
    
    Chip

    Wrongo Joe,
    
    the first time I heard her say it was regarding teen sex.  She took the
    drug war to heart about 6 months later.
    
    meg

    .125 Levesque
    
    I agree; over week-end on one of the political discussion shows 
    several reporters also thought his knee-jerk reaction would just
    make Clinton appear weaker (than he already does).  On this issue,
    I tend to agree with Elders.  I think BC jumped on the comments as
    an excuse to dump her.
    
    .127 Silva
    
    Yes, her comments are on tape; as usual, the media did not include
    the comments made by another speaker that prompted the SG's remarks
    (at least not on any of their saturation type clips of the incident).
    Someone else in here mentioned she's not the best public speaker and
    I tend to agree.  My interpretation of what I "thought" she was trying
    to say was that masturbation should be taught as part of a sex-ed
    course (unfortunately for her, she never mentioned the sex-ed class).
    Saying "taught" left the comments open to mis-interpretation IMHO.
    
    Clinton had to know what he was getting when he appointed Elders SG;
    she had worked for him when he was Gov. of Ark. and apparently had
    a reputation as somewhat of a loose cannon then.  This was a PC
    appointment from the get-go; Elders wasn't a favorite of mine, but
    BC looks like the real loser here, not Elders.
    
    
    

| <<< Note 168.140 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround" >>>


| Yes, her comments are on tape; as usual, the media did not include
| the comments made by another speaker that prompted the SG's remarks


	<grin>.... when I asked if they had any films, it was for the, "how to
masterbate", not if her words were caught on film. :-)


Glen

    Glen,
    
    {{{smaq}}}
    
    

    
    <-- don't forget the (tm)

Note 168.138 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C
    
    >Ahhh, and all this time I thought those positions were to promote the
    >good of the people. Well Gene thanks for straightening me out.
    
    its about time somebody tried.
    
    >I'd propose that, by doing what you suggested,  you have a greater
    >chance of not doing what the people want. 
    
    how perceptive. that's precisely what's been going on in DC. its
    exactly why the last election brought forth the results it did. and
    its precisely why slick canned her. all business as usual. and until we
    finish cleaning house in '96 it'll get worse as the full realization of
    "panic politics" (tm) is understood.

    	re .139
    
    	Well even if you are correct on that point, "Just say no" was 
    	fully coopted by the drug war at the expense of sexual abstinence.
    	Surely you agree with that!  "Just say no" was *NOT* the "watch
    	word" for sexual behavior over the last 14 years as you tried
    	to claim in .42.

	Joe, what she claimed was that just say no was first used for stopping
sex. You are the one who claimed she applied it to the other crap. 

    	Shut up, Glen.  You don't make any sense.  Go read .42.  Then
    	go away.

    re -1
    
    joe, if you told me to shut up and go away i assure you i would not!

    
    zebras can really get on your nerves though gene...
    

    re -1
    
    guess what andy? i got a great recipe for zebra steaks. no kiddin.

    	Well, Gene, you don't write notes that warrant such a reply,
    	so I don't have to worry about you ignoring me.  Nor do I
    	have to worry about Glen ignoring me, because he will anyway,
    	so I don't worry about it.  But it's fun to write it nonetheless.

    re -1
    
    yup.

    I've held back from putting this in here because it has been several
    years since my wife told me this story, and I really don't want to ask
    here again for the details for fear she'll wonder what I'm up to, but,
    ...
    
    A friend of ours, a psychiatrist or psychologist, or some such, early
    in her career taught mentally-challenged how to masturbate (and you all
    thought it was natural, huh).  I believe she used a book with pictures. 
    
    Beats me (oh err) how she verified that they were learning their
    lessons.  Perhaps like the old joke about the easy final exam, all you
    have to do is <ro>.
    
    -- Jim

    
    RE: .150
    
    Any good???
    

| zebras can really get on your nerves though gene...

	Someday Andy..... we will meet.... you'll see that I don't have any
stripes, and I ain't part of no herd! :-)

| <<< Note 168.151 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Plucky kind of a kid" >>>


| Nor do I have to worry about Glen ignoring me, because he will anyway,
| so I don't worry about it.  

	Me go away?? You'll be gone to Oracle before I'm gone Joeykins.

| But it's fun to write it nonetheless.

	I will give you that. You always bring a smile to my face when you
speak. It's too bad it's always at your expense!


Glen

>	I will give you that. You always bring a smile to my face when you
>speak. 

	Well, Glen, the simpleminded are so easily amused.  

    POWDML::LAUER "Little Chamber of Perdition"           3 lines 
    13-DEC-1994 17:07
    
    
 >>   Show me proof, Jack my son, and I'll prostrate myself at your feet
 >>   in groveling apologetic writhing movements.
    
    I think my heart rate just doubled!!! :-)

| <<< Note 168.157 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Plucky kind of a kid" >>>


| Well, Glen, the simpleminded are so easily amused.


	If that were true, you'd be far less cranky.

    	So did you use up all your wit quota on that reply?

| <<< Note 168.160 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Plucky kind of a kid" >>>



| So did you use up all your wit quota on that reply?


	I try my best to not be like you, so no.

    	It looks like the pool is wide but shallow.

    
    The new nominee, Foster is it ?  Lotsa posturing going on right now.
    Seems he did some abortions, etc.
    
    He'll get a grilling, but Prexies mostly get whomever they want in
    these ceremonial posts.  Politically, the GOP would like "Elders,
    the Sequel" so they can attack him.  But while he may have the same
    Planned-Parenthood views, it's hard to imagine him mouthing off
    like her.
    
    So they'll try to touch him up a bit and then unless something juicy
    turns up, wave him by.
    
      bb

    If people like Dan Quayle feel abortion should be permissable for the
    big three, then I kind of fail to see what the problem would be on that
    note.  Somebody has to do them.
    
    The SG position is not a policymaking post but it is a bully pulpit for 
    trying to manipulate policy.  I think the big question is does the US
    want an SG with a Planned Parenthood mentality...regardless of some of
    the good they've done!?
    
    -Jack

    I want a surgeon general who is competant in his or her specialty.  In
    the case of reproductive medicine (OB/GYN) I would expect that this
    person would be competent in ALL facets of reproductive medicine from
    the female side, including abortion.  Anything less is asking for
    mediocracy of flat out incompetancy in the name of moral correctness.
    
    If I were having bleeding from an incomplete SA, I wouldn't want
    someone who didn't know the correct end of a canula or curette, or how
    to properly dialate a cervix coming anywhere near me.  It could lead to
    minor complications like incompetant cervix, perforated uterus, further
    hemorage and a hysterectomy.  
    
    meg

But, presumably, neither you, nor anyone else, is going to be having
the Surgeon General of the United States  anywhere within 25 feet of
them suited up for surgery.

Meg, a gynecologist doesn't have to do abortions to be competent in all
aspects of gynecology.  Otherwise abortions would have been experimental
surgery when they became legal.

	.165

	competent
	competence
	(in)competency
	mediocrity
	hemorrhage

re .168:

You forgot dilate.

	oh sorry, you're right.

    Unless you are one of those who feels that a Dr. who presumably makes
    health recommendations for the country doesn't need to be competent to
    do his or her job, being competent in one's field to me is pretty
    important.
    
    

Meg, the surgeon general doesn't do surgery.

    Gerald,
    
    No kidding!!!
    
    However he or she encourages health care policy.  If it isn't important 
    for an SG to be competent in his or her profession, then why not hire
    some unemployed manager.  Seems there are quite a few out on the market
    these days.

	I don't understand your line of reasoning at all, Meg.  Would
	you say that a heart surgeon who hadn't actually done a heart
	transplant was "incompetent"?  
	What does that have to do with being able to operate as surgeon
	general anyways?

You haven't established that a gynecologist who's never done an elective
abortion is incompetent.  If that were the case, U.S.-trained gynecologists
who began doing elective abortions after Roe v. Wade would have botched them.

    gerald,
    
    You forget.  Schools taught theraputic abortion technique even
    pre-RoevWade.  the difference between an elective and thereputic
    abortion is nothing, as far as the procedure.  
    
    What I would be more interested in for competence is his vaginal breech
    delivery rate and sucess, however, since the abortion question will be
    the priority from those who are more concerned with moral correctness
    than health.
    
    meg

    What's far more important about the Foster nomination is that nobody is
    focussing on his excellent qualifications, including his pioneering work 
    in reducing teen pregnancies.  The prolifers have hijacked the process
    and Clinton is dithering.
    
    DougO

    
    foster says on "nightline" he is listed as the doctor of record for
    39 abortions.  he has been practicing medicine for 38 years.

    why doesn't the gov't just leave the post vacant and save some money...
    
    Chip

    I think one issue is whether or not he will use his position as a
    pulpit for spewing pro-abortion propaganda.

| <<< Note 168.180 by CSOA1::LEECH "hi" >>>



| I think one issue is whether or not he will use his position as a
| pulpit for spewing pro-abortion propaganda.


	Seems to me that's what you might be afraid of most. Am I correct on
this?

    re: .181
    
    It's definitely a concern.

    what is "Pro-abortion propaganda:"
    
    Every woman needs to have a surgical  abortion at least once in her
    life?
    
    If you can't afford to finance your pregnancy and raise your children
    abort?  (Seems like a certain republican speacker of the house is
    encouraging this while saying he is opposed)
    
    Abortion is a sacred act?
    
    what do you mean?
    
    meg

The Surgeon General should deal with the science of health issues, and
stay off the soapbox. 

The Surgeon General post should be lifetime, instead of a political hack
appointment.

HTH,

Art

    
    So...this Foster guy...he play ball or something?
    

 re .184


 What he said.

> The Surgeon General should deal with the science of health issues, and
> stay off the soapbox. 

So you think the SG's Report on Smoking back in the '60s was wrong?

    	The Clinton administration is definitely "dithering" on this one. The
    administration should simply say that abortion is legal in the US, and
    state the qualifications of their candidate explaining that he will make 
    an outstanding surgeon general.
          
	But the above would demonstrate leadership, so don't expect to see it.

    Re: .184
    
    >The Surgeon General should deal with the science of health issues, and
    >stay off the soapbox. 
    
    So, the surgeon general should not have put warning labels on
    cigarettes and alcohol.  The surgeon general should not urge teens to
    abstain from sex.  The surgeon general should not urge people to get
    more exercise.
    
    What's the point of having a surgeon general? 

>    What's the point of having a surgeon general? 

To lead the surgeon colonels into battle?

| <<< Note 168.182 by CSOA1::LEECH "hi" >>>


| It's definitely a concern.

	Well, what about all those smokers that did not want the SG to be
sticking his nose into cigarettes? It's not any different, is it?

    .182
    Just a different subject.

    	There are definite, medical, scientific, and measurable consequences
    	to alcohol and tobacco use.
    
    	The politicization of the abortion debate is not the same thing.
    	(Though I should point out that there ARE definite, medical, 
    	scientific and measurable consequences to abortion.)  The SG is
    	not out of line in making an issue of the health risks of
    	tobacco use.  He would be out of line in getting involved in
    	a related political football such as a debate over tobacco
    	farmer subsidies.

    re: .193
    
    There are definite medical, scientific and measurable
    consequences to having sex.
    
    Where do you propose they put the warning label, eh?
    ;-) ;-) 
    
    Mary-Michael
    

    
    Belly tattoos at birth!
    

    
    .194
    
    8^)!

	.194    
    
>    There are definite medical, scientific and measurable
>    consequences to having sex.
    
    	Actually the SG *DOES* get involved in sexual issues, such
    	as the spread of AIDS and other STDs.

    .188  I agree, abortions were/are legal during the time Foster per-
    formed them.  He advocates working with teens to prevent unwanted
    pregnancies as the preferred alternative.  This shouldn't be an
    issue at all; however, since Clinton is behind him 100%, his nomination
    is probably doomed.
    
    

    
    What bothers me is the dumb Three Stooges act the White House is
    pulling again...
    
     First it was 12 abortions to help/save the mother's lives...
    
    Now its 39....
    
    What's the real story? Why weren't the exact figures (for whatever
    reason they're being brought up) known and disclosed in the beginning?
    
     It's like Moe, Larry and Curly trying to fix the bathtub upstairs from
    the dinner party.... and it just keeps getting worse...
    

    who cares?
    
    To those who believe abortion is dreadful, I would think one would be
    as bad as 2000.  However the fact is that abortions are legal and have
    been for over 20 years nationwide, and legal with different flavors of
    restrictions prior to that in many states.
    
    To those who are interested in reducing the number of abortions in this
    country, I would look at his program with teens at risk, and see what
    his actions are there.  I would also look to see what his ideas are
    about other health issues,  including prenatal care, nutrition
    counseling, aids prevention, etc.  
    
    meg

    
    <------
    meg...
    
    Say you're at an interview for a job and the employer finds a
    discrepancy in your resume'....
    
    Whatever you say then and there doesn't jibe with the facts...
    
    What is going to be the employers first impression?

	Has anyone mentioned the sterilizations he did on "severely 
handicapped (retarded?)" women?  Again, another accepted pratice at
the time - but is that ethical as well?

ME

>Has anyone mentioned the sterilizations he did on "severely 
>handicapped (retarded?)" women?

The press is trying verrrrrry hard to sweep this one under the rug; typical
articles devote 10-20 paragraphs to calls by various pro-abortion groups to
proceed with his nomination and 1-2 paragraphs hidden toward the middle of
the article on this activity, followed by a few more paragraphs of support.

>is that ethical as well?

What determines what is ethical in the "Gimme" society?

/john

Possibly of more interest than whether or not it is ethical, might be
the arguments in support of why severely retarded persons should remain
fertile.

I'm not attempting to make a case for sterilization, but I am attempting
to bring to light any reasons why the severely retarded should be allowed
to procreate. I can't think of any, myself.

    rep
    
    Sterilization of the mentally retarded has been a hot button for some
    time.  It was a medically accepted practice for many decades, usually
    done with the advice of the gaurdian of the person as well.  Sometime
    in the late 70's early 80's the procedure came under fire.  There were
    some horror stories around those who were thought to be retarded who
    were deaf, minorities, simply abuse victims, etc.  There is also the
    issue around informed consent.  Obviously someone with the mental
    capacity of a one year old is unable to give consent to any procedure,
    and hysterectomies are major surgery.
    
    Leaving my personal opinion out around possibly forced procreation,
    rather than forced sterilization, I fail to see what the issue is
    around this. 
    
    Now why is anyone surprised that an OB/GYN praticed legal, lawful
    medicine by the standard of his college over many years?  Are you
    shocked that someone who is a surgeon does surgery?  Hysterectomies are
    the 2nd most performed surgeries in the country, just behind
    c-sections.
    
    As far as his resume, I haven't seen a copy yet.
    
    meg

Note that a hysterectomy is more than just a sterilization procedure.
At the time these were popular, it was apparently considered a matter
of hygeine to prevent the severely retarded from menstruating.

 hygeine?

Is he back?

I could have sworn I typed "hygiene."  It must have been a hardware error.

    [guffaw!]

    	Clinton is putting a lot of eggs in this one basket.  First he
    	states that he is placing his full efforts -- in effect placing
    	his own reputation on the line -- behind approval of this
    	nomination.  Then, to counter what has evolved into a stain
    	on a doctor's record for doing abortions (legal or otherwise),
    	he has decided to turn this into a right-to-abortion issue.

	Saw a clip on the Ruch Limbaugh chow last night:

	Senator Biden - (paraphrasing) Maybe we don't need to have a 
Surgeon General.  This clip was from when reporters were asking him
questions while he was on his way for something to do with the crime
bill.

ME

    	And maybe he's right.

    What bothers me is that if the country is so wound up about the issue
    of health care as BC and the Dems claimed in '92, how come they didn't
    appoint an SG who could have contributed more to the process of putting
    together a health plan? And, why was it left in the hands of HC who had
    neither the experience or the benefit of a recognized position in
    government to deal with it?
    
    -b

    Perhaps what is needed is a holographic surgeon general.

  Re .214


   Good question..

    I'm now firmly convinced that we don't need a SG any longer.  Heck,
    with the purported downsizing of government, this is "EASILY" a safe
    choice in the elimination process.
    
    Does anyone know how much staff the SG's office has?  Anybody more than
    one pool secretary is WAY to much!

       <<< Note 168.214 by MPGS::MARKEY "Llamas are larger than frogs" >>>

>    What bothers me is that if the country is so wound up about the issue
>    of health care as BC and the Dems claimed in '92, how come they didn't
>    appoint an SG who could have contributed more to the process of putting
>    together a health plan? And, why was it left in the hands of HC who had
>    neither the experience or the benefit of a recognized position in
>    government to deal with it?

Because health care LEGISLATION is law, not medicine.

Tom

How many staff?

The Surgeon General is equivalent to a military chief of staff.

The entire uniformed public health service reports to the SG.

A few thousand commissioned officers.

/john

    	Yeah, John, but those few thousand commissioned officers wouldn't
    	be eliminated as was the intended spirit of the question you were
    	answering.

What does the uniformed public health service do?

    Re: .220
    
    >but those few thousand commissioned officers wouldn't be eliminated
    
    So who would be in charge of them?  Or would they get to do whatever
    they wanted?

    	Ridiculous, Chelsea.
    
    	So who is in charge of them now that the position is vacant?

    Re: .223
    
    >So who is in charge of them now that the position is vacant?
    
    One of our managers is leaving.  Until such time as his position is
    filled, one of his subordinates will be acting manager -- this in
    addition to his own management duties.  When the position is filled, he
    will be able to devote himself to his own responsibilities.
    
    Isn't that the way it normally works?

    .224
    
    Maybe you don't understand, but if the place can run without the head
    cheese, eliminate that layer of management and put up the deputy guy
    who was really runniing things...SSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEESSSSSHHHH!

    Maybe you don't understand that people can cover for others on a
    TEMPORARY basis but not on a PERMANENT basis.  You don't have one guy
    doing two jobs; you have one guy doing the most critical parts of two
    jobs and letting some things slide -- things which have to be caught up
    with eventually.
    
    I find it hard to believe that y'all have never encountered this
    phenomenon in your own careers.

    .225
    
    I find it hard to believe that in your career you haven't encountered
    some "head honcho" who wasn't worth his weight in horse manure.  If the
    department can run efficiently without the figurehead, what's the use
    of even having the SOB?

    Re: .227
    
    >If the department can run efficiently without the figurehead
    
    Notice the word "if" there.  We have not established that either the
    surgeon general _or_ my manager is a figurehead.  We have not
    established whether or not their department can run efficiently without
    them.  I submit that you don't know enough about what the surgeon
    general or my manager does to make any such demonstration.
    
    Get your prejudices out of my argument.

    you made the ionference that the department 'could' run efficiently, if
    that was the case, point, match!
    
    if not, well, sorry for my misunderstanding.

	wrong, Ron.

    	Actually, Chelsea, what I found more ridiculous than the point
    	I commented on is the notion that all the commissioned medical
    	officers actually report to the SG, or that he's "in charge" of 
    	them.
    
    	Military medical personnel report to their superior officers,
    	and to the heads of the military establishment at which they
    	are stationed/working.  Very few, if any, report to the SG.
    
    	If the SG post is necessary to give these medical officers a
    	person to report to, let them report to the President, who is
    	their Commander In Chief.

Joe, I think you misunderstand.  I gather from John's reply that there are
uniformed personnel in the U.S. Public Health Service (not the military)
whose head honcho is the Surgeon General.

    Re: .229
    
    >you made the ionference that the department 'could' run efficiently
    
    Where?  (And are you sure that shouldn't be "implication"?)

    	re .232
    
    	Maybe I did.  I'll wait for clarification.

    RE: .226
    
    Chelsea...
    
    Maybe you can help clarify a point here...
    
    What is the SG's "job"?

    I don't know -- which is why I haven't claimed it's a figurehead
    position, or that it isn't.

    
    re:228
    
    
     Sine we don't have an surgeon general right now and we have not
    established whether or not their department can run efficiently without
    them. Why not give it a shot, if things run along fine we don't need
    him, if efficient goes to he**, then hire one...
    
     Boy thats simple, sometimes I surpise myself...
    
    
    Dave

    Re: .237
    
    >Why not give it a shot
    
    Why not figure out what the surgeon general does, and what the
    immediate subordinates do, and see if there's leeway to spread the top
    job around?  Otherwise, you risk screwing up the Public Health Service
    while conducting an experiment.

    
    
    Re:238
    
     Sounds like a good idea, if it runs without getting screwed up we can
    save some dollars, and no more brickering in Congress about who gets
    the job....

THOMAS: FOSTER IS JOYCELYN ELDERS REINCARNATED  2/10/95

By Cal Thomas

The nomination of Henry W. Foster Jr. to replace Joycelyn Elders as
Surgeon General is another sign that the Clinton Administration has
completely failed to understand the message of the last election. It
continues to impose on this country people and policies rooted in a
philosophy that has proved to be an utter failure.

Foster was less than forthcoming about his views and how many
abortions he has performed. Even the pro-choice Kansas Republican
Sen. Nancy Kassebaum said she was disturbed by the misleading
information given to her by the White House concerning Foster.

But there is more to this than misinformation and disinformation.
Foster has close ties to Planned Parenthood, which has a view of sex
and education that has exacerbated, not solved, one of the major
problems our country faces. Planned Parenthood is not interested in
changing sexual behavior but rather in avoiding the unwanted
physical consequences of premature sex. Yet one has to wonder why it
has failed so miserably in achieving that objective. California may
be the best state to judge the results of the philosophy held by
Planned Parenthood and its devotees, who include the nominee for
Surgeon General.

Mike Males, a graduate student in the doctoral program of the School
of Social Ecology at the University of California, Irvine, has
studied tabulations from the California Center for Health Statistics
covering 46,500 births among school-age (ages 18 and younger)
adolescents in the state in 1993. In 85 percent of these births the
fathers' ages are identified. The statistics show two very different
types of ''teen-age'' motherhood.

The first involves peer schoolboy partners, ages 18 and younger, who
average about one year older than their girlfriends. These are the
targets of the Elders-Foster-Planned Parenthood condom squads and
the focus of the chastity vs. condoms war. Boys in this category
accounted for about 13,400 births among schoolgirls in California in
1993, only 29 percent of the total. In 33,200 births among
California girls ages 11-18 (71 percent of the total), the father
was a post-high-school adult man averaging over 22 years of age --
five years older than the mother, on average. These adult fathers
who are responsible for nearly three-fourths of the 40,700 births
among senior high girls average nearly 23 years old. The adult men
who father half the 5,900 births among junior high girls (ages
11-15) average 22.1 years of age, six and a half years older than
their mothers. In 6,000 births among California schoolgirls in 1993,
the fathers were over age 25. Also surprising was that one-fifth of
the births fathered by schoolboys (about 3,000) were by adult,
post-school women.

As Males notes, this isn't about ''children having children'' or
''teen motherhood.'' It is adult sex with school-age youths.

For more than 30 years, Planned Parenthood and its disciples such as
Elders and Foster have targeted elementary school children with
their brand of sex education. Elders wanted to teach elementary kids
how to masturbate and use condoms. But in California in 1993,
elementary schoolboys fathered no children. Senior high boys,
though, were responsible for 41 percent of the births and adult men
fathered more than 50 percent of babies born to girls between ages
11 and 15.

Numerous studies, including some by Planned Parenthood's research
arm, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, show that most ''sexually
active'' girls under 15 are victims of rape by substantially older
men. Males writes it is a fact that ''adolescents reflect adult
values and behavior.'' We are deceiving ourselves when we think we
can make adolescents behave differently than the irresponsible
adults who surround them and who pump sex into everything from
movies and television to music and advertising.

We would be far better off working to reduce the 71 percent figure
(post-high-school adult men fathering children with teen-age girls)
than focusing on the 29 percent figure (peer schoolboy partners).

Foster isn't really ''Elders Lite''; he is Elders reincarnated. Her
ideas have been proved not to work. His are just more of the same.
We deserve a Surgeon General who will focus on the real health needs
of the country, not condone those whose behavior is detrimental to
our society's well being. When is this Administration going to get
it?

C'mon - don't toy with us like that, /john. Which bastion of objective
truth have we to thank for that thoroughly unbiased piece of journalism?

    
    
    Cal Thomas is an author of some rather odd books.  He is a columnist,
    not a journalist, and has been caught in numerous mistatements of
    statistics before.  He was the darling speaker for a fundraiser for
    Colorado for "Family Values" this summer.  Reading his bio and preview
    of his talk, was enough to make me decide that he is imbalanced.  
    
    

    Cal Thomas is former head of operation rescue, and well known as a
    fundie rightwing reactionary.
    
    DougO

    If the candidate is truly an Elders clone, then he too will prolly fall
    on his own merits
    
    -Jack

    
>    Cal Thomas is former head of operation rescue, and well known as a
>    fundie rightwing reactionary.
    
>    DougO
    
    
    i don't think this is correct (the or connection).  at any rate, thomas
    has a daily show on tv - CNBC.  though clearly conservative and
    admittedly Christian, it is not unreasonable to consider (on the basis
    of having a tv show) whether the pejorative "fundie rightwing
    reactionary" is accurate or appropriate (dougo's perspective
    withstanding).
    
    jeff

 I don't believe he was ever head of OR.  At one time he was associated
 with Jerry Falwell (many years ago).  He is indeed a Christian, and 
 fundamentalist which of course makes him suspect..




Jim

re: .240
    
>> ...another sign that the Clinton Administration has
>> completely failed to understand the message of the last election.
    
    This is the thing that hit me as soon as the Foster nomination
    hit the fan.  He just doesn't get it.
    
    Regardless of how I feel about Foster's abortions and hysterectomies
    and so on, it's just politically stupid to pick such a controversial
    person in the current political environment.  Clintoon could have
    picked *any* competent cardiologist, oncologist (heart disease and
    cancer are still the nation's biggest health problems), or a
    specialist in any other field who didn't have this kind of baggage.
    
    Instead, he picks a political hot potato with a controversial history
    that seems to change daily, in some of the most sore-spot areas in
    the country today, at a time when he's supposedly in the process of
    "re-inventing" himself.
    
    Either Clinton doesn't get it, or he's still into the my-way
    in-your-face mode (or his wife is), or he's doing all this as
    yet-another-diversion for us to gawk at while he's messing up
    bigtime everywhere else.
    
    Chris

    By all appearances, he seems determined to get a minority, any
    minority, into these positions regardless of qualifications or
    suitability. Is this simple pandering to minorities in an attempt to
    curry favor for the next election or is there something more devious at
    work here? One might think he's gone out of his way to prove that no
    qualified minorities exist for the positions to which he's appointed
    them given the people he's appointed. We seem to be so far from "is
    this the best person for the job?" and "is this the right person for
    the job?" that we are now asking "how much damage can this person do?"
    Clinton still doesn't know how to pick 'em, but then, it would seem he
    has surrounded himself with incompetant advisors who are completely
    isolated from society at large so they don't even know the trouble they
    are making for him.
    
     I must say in Clinton's defense that at least he is finally sticking
    by someone. And in Foster's defense, the abortions and hysterectomies
    don't in and of themselves preclude him from serving, but the changing
    story is somewhat troubling.

    Mark, have you truly been so ill-served by the media that you don't
    know of his work in reducing teen pregnancies?  Is this not an
    extremely well-chosen issue by which Clinton extends an olice branch to
    the GOP, "see, here I offer a candidate whom George Bush praised for his
    actions on an issue of concern to us all, children having children."
    
    But no, the anti-abort zealots have clouded the coverage and the minds
    of even reasonable people from considering the man on his record and
    his very obvious merits.
    
    DougO

    
    <--------
    DougO
    
    Will you take a crack at answering my resume' question awhile back???
    

RE: 247/248

I don't think its fair to call this appointment an affirmative action job, 
which is what you're implying. Yeah, BC could have picked some AMA fat cat, 
to give him another cherry in his resume. But what good would that do? I 
really don't know what the SG's job is, but I know what Coop made it 
become, which is a bully pulpet for advancing the medical issues of the 
day.

Certainly teenage pregnancy and the enormous drag it puts on our country 
(not to mention the young women and their children), is a very big issue 
these days. And this guy had DONE SOMETHING about it. I think it makes him 
eminently more qualified than a cardiologist who has no more than 
some big-name clients and $50K contribution to the president's campaign to 
recommend him.

    Tom:
    
    Between the lines read, "Rich doctors aren't deserving of the post."
    
    As far as your first comment about AA.  Yes, the suspicious attitudes
    of the American public.  Even you acknowledge that Affirmative action
    has a negative stigma to it.  Thank you.
    
    -Jack

        <<< Note 168.252 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

>    Tom:
>    
>    Between the lines read, "Rich doctors aren't deserving of the post."

Now who's whining, Jack? I didn't say being rich disqualifies you. I said 
JUST being rich doesn't qualify you. Or do you have some AA plans for the 
rich?
    
>    As far as your first comment about AA.  Yes, the suspicious attitudes
>    of the American public.  Even you acknowledge that Affirmative action
>    has a negative stigma to it.  Thank you.

Never said it didn't, my friend. But then we Christians have a stigma in 
some parts, don't we? That doesn't make us all bad, does it?

Tom

Seen on the net: if Clinton wanted a surgeon general that Republicans would
support, he should have nominated a prostate specialist.

    and all  this time I would have thought it would have been a
    proctologist

    Nope, most of the available proctologists already work for the
    White House... that pack of buzzards will try and stick their
    fingers into everything.
    
    -b

    
    
    Anyone hear about a slip of the tongue that Mr. Foster had regarding
    the people who are opposing him?
    
    
    Mike

    slip of the tongue?  he said they were right wingers with their own
    agenda, or something like that, which is true.
    
    DougO

    No DougO, we just don't want you legislating morality...you know...just
    like when Dan Quayle was in office...remember?

    
    
    
    RE: .258  Is that what you heard Doug?  I heard it went a little
    different.  Something like, "White right wing extremists".......
    

     That was no slip of the tongue.

    
    Couple of weeks ago, the chairman/president/high muckety-muck (pick
    one) of the AMA said something like:
    
      blankety blank bastards...
    
     in reference to the repubs in congress...
    
      It went unreported, and only showed up as a tiny blurb in the middle
    of the Boston Globe when someone called for his ouster cause he
    wouldn't apologize...
    
       No bias there.... 

    > Is that what you heard Doug?  
    
    Yep.
    
    > I heard it went a little different.  Something like, "White right
    > wing extremists".......
    
    I saw three separate printed versions.  None included a racial slur.
    Where did you 'hear' this?
    
    DougO

    is "white" a racial slur?
    
    -Stephen

    used as 'overheard', yes, I would so consider it.  but I repeat my
    request for documnetation, because I saw this reported multiple times
    without any such slur.
    
    DougO

Of course you saw it multiple times without the racist comment, because
most of the liberal press would prefer that you not see such a slip by
Dr. Foster.  I just reviewed the last two days of the Globe, and could
only find an article with it edited out.  But I knew I had seen it
somewhere, and then I remembered where.

>    (c) Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.
>
>    New York Times 
    ...
>    On Sunday, Foster appeared at the First Baptist Church Capitol Hill and
>    asked the congregation for prayers, "to fight the latest attack from
>    the white right-wing extremists that are using my nomination to achieve
>    their radical goals."

/john

 My, that little "slip" doesn't seem to be getting the press attention that 
 Mr. Armey's did.  Wonder why?





 Jim

    
    Saw it in yesterday's Washington Times, Doug.
    
    
    
    Mike
    

    
    
    Boston Herald - Nation/World News in Brief.

         Washington - The White House is characterizing as "a slip 
    of the tongue" Surgeon General nominee Henry Foster's reference
    to opponents as "white right-wing extremists."

         The word "white" was not in Foster's prepared text for the
    Sunday speech at a Nashville, Tenn., church.  And the White 
    House said he did not mean to use it.  "I think it's pretty
    clear he misspoke," press secretary Mike McCurry said yesterday.
    "It was a slip of the tongue."  Foster is Black.
                                 

     

    I saw the a tape of the quote and it was no slip of the tongue, though
    of course the spin doctors have to play it that way. That's what the
    man feels; he was clearly speaking his mind. Now that his mind
    apparently holds some racial ideas, we have to pretend that this wasn't
    what he meant to say. That the hubbub over this does not approach a
    tenth of that generated from Armey's misstatement (which he corrected
    right away) does not surprise anyone with even the slightest awareness
    of what's been going on in the media for years.
    
     My personal opinion is that both of these gentlemen revealed what they
    really think. And that is a cardinal sin in Washington, where you have
    to pussyfoot around everything and every voting block. It's BS. I'd bet
    Armey is homophobic, and that Foster harbors significant resentment of
    white people. Not that they have the gonads to admit it.

    ok.  He said it.  I don't like it.
    
    DougO

    But looking back at the news report John posted, that says he was
    speaking at the First Baptist Capitol Hill (Washington, right?)
    
    The original news reports about his speaking about right wing
    extremists using the smear campaign against him to advance their 
    own agenda indicated he was speaking to his home town congregation 
    in Tennessee.
    
    Sounds to me like there were two separate occasions when he spoke
    against right wing extremists, and I'd only heard reports about the
    first.  Far more plausible than presuming that those dastardly liberal
    news media wouldn't sell every paper they could printing up a slur from
    an embattled nominee (though your mileage will vary proportionately
    with your prejudices against that 'liberal' media...eh, John?).
    
    DougO

re .272

Now it's your turn to provide the reports.

    
      Why be so sensitive ?  How many of us rightwing whackos are actually
     black ?  The Supreme Court is only so large...
    
      Pity Foster doesn't read the papers - whackos won the election.  If
     he wants the job, he has to grovel before whackos.
    
      bb

    >-< Maybe.  But I think you're trying to obfuscate >-
    >
    >Now it's your turn to provide the reports.
    
    ok.  here's one of the sources I saw before.  "hometown", "Tennessee".
    
    DougO
    -----
    Nominee Attacks His Attackers / Foster's critics called `extremists' 
    
    
    Nashville, Tenn. 
    
    [...]
    
    Before his hometown congregation at First Baptist Church, the
    61-year-old obstetrician-gynecologist urged church members to help
    fight ``the latest attack from the right-wing extremists that are using
    my nomination to achieve their radical goals.'' 
    
    [...]
    
    2/27/95 , San Francisco Chronicle

>    But looking back at the news report John posted, that says he was
>    speaking at the First Baptist Capitol Hill (Washington, right?)

Nope.  First Baptist Church, Capitol Hill, Nashville, Tennessee.

Nashville is the capital of Tennesee, and the state capitol is on
Capitol Hill.

That's where he spoke Sunday, and that's where he said what he said.

/john

    You wanted documentation, you got it.  Documentation that indicated
    that, as I said, I saw reports that he was speaking in his hometown and
    that didn't include mention of a slur.  Don't get up on your high horse
    about 'convenience', cowboy, when you requested that report and should
    have known what you were asking for.
    
    DougO

    Well DougO, the Atlanta Journal/Constipation quoted him as saying
    "white right-wing extremists" newspaper dated 2/28/95.
    
    

    > Don't get up on your high horse about 'convenience', cowboy, when you 
    >requested that report and should have known what you were asking for.
    
     He's not accusing you of conveinently ommitting the damning word; he's
    accusing the SFC.

    Reese, I've seen other reports that include the slur.  My response is
    posted about ten notes back.  Its old news.
    
    Mark, oh, really?  damnable liberal news media 'conveniently' omitting
    sensational news that would sell more papers...hardly likely.  He's
    made the accusation, more than once before, and it is boringly
    repetitious and unsustainable when he can no sooner know the minds 
    of the reporter or the editor than he knows yours or mine.  How
    'convenient' that you support his unprovable assertion.  Perhaps I
    should make unprovable assertions about which wire service dropped the
    slur such that the story got reprinted in several papers without it?
    'liberal news media' "convenient" RUBBISH.  It would have sold more
    papers.  They'd have used it had they had it.  There, two unprovable
    assertions, one grounded in economic reality, one in political
    'knowledge'.  Take your pick...
    
    DougO

    Perhaps you'd care to opine on the contrast between the media treatment of
    this "slip of the tongue" and Armey's?

    John, John, John.
    
    Do you think we wouldn't notice the sleight-of-hand?
    
    Now you've gone and changed the title of note .273.
    
    >   -< First Baptist Church, Capitol Hill, Nashville, Tennessee>-
    
    Too bad for you my .275 captured your first version.
    
    >-< Maybe.  But I think you're trying to obfuscate >-
    
    Rewriting the past is such a cheap tactic.
    
    DougO
    

    >Perhaps you'd care to opine on the contrast
    
    I already did.  "Had they had it, they'd have used it."
    
    DougO

    .281 Good point; but I had to get to the section of the Journal where
    readers write-in before someone drew the same parallel.  As the
    writer commented, both slurs are unacceptable.  Armey's was shouted
    from the rooftops, Foster's was played out low-key..
    
    

    > I already did.  "Had they had it, they'd have used it."
    
     Sounds like an attempt at a Cochran like explanation of the obvious
    with the implausible.

    I may be wrong, but here's how I see it:
    
    "white" by itself isn't a slur.  "Fag" is.
    
    The only problem I can see with the "white right wing extremists"
    comment is that it might seem, by implication, to impute a racist
    motive to his enemies.
    
    But I'm not as sensitive to the intricacies of the American language as
    many of you.  
    
    -Stephen

    You asked me to 'opine'.  Eat it and like it ;-).  Grounded in economic
    reality, too, that should make it go down easier, even though you
    appear to want to choke down John's conveeeeeeenience theory instead.
    
    DougO

    
    
      So he doesn't like the majority skin-color.  Should this be an
     impediment for Babykiller General for the Clintonistas ?   Given
     to insulting Congress, he'd fit right in down there.
    
      bb

I fail to see the comparison between Armey's freudian slip and Foster's 
statement. 

Armey betrayed a likely use of the pejorative "fag" in private reference to 
Barney Frank. It was much ado about nothing, IMO, but at least it had a 
kernel of revelation to it.

Foster simply tacked on an unnecessary adjective. Sure, it might have been 
slightly impolitic in our extremely PC-sensitive society (the left ain't 
got a monopoly on PC), but it was hardly a revelation of any hidden 
persona. There are a few Black, red, yellow right-wingers, to be sure, 
but when you picture a right-wing extremist in your mind, chances are it 
would resemble the chubby white faces of Limbaugh or Gingrich. Besides, 
since when does "white" have the same negative impact as "fag?"

When are you guys going to snap out of this media-conspiracy nightmare? 
Black liberals are hardly exempt from the wrath of the media spotlight. 
Jessie jackson, the very icon of black liberalism, got a lot more press for 
his "hymietown" statement than Armey for his "barney Fag." But then, 
Jackson was a more important figure.

DougO's right, the news media knows no allegiance but fact and money, and not 
always in that order.

Tom

Jesse.

    Naw...Jesse Jackson is just annoying!

    
    
    What if the guy was white and said that it's black liberal extremists
    who were trying to thwart his nomination?  Let's be honest, what would
    the reaction be?
    
    
    Mike

    Frankly, I think its inaccurate.  I don't think the main impetus to
    Foster's nomination is racism, I think right wing extremists would
    oppose anyone with his record.  I think black right wing extremists
    oppose him just as much as white ones do.  of course, given that there
    aren't very many non-white right wing extremists, one could say that
    all Foster is guilty of is redundancy.
    
    But no- he is actually guilty of playing the race card, of accusing his
    opponents of attacking him because he is black - all implicitly, of
    course, by mentioning their color.  Playing the race card is a very
    dangerous thing in American politics.  The White House is correct to
    have done damage control on it.  If he repeats the mistake they'll have
    to disavow him.  I expect not, though; I expect that he himself
    recognizes the inappropriateness of the remark and will refrain from
    such in the future.
    
    Of course, what has gone completely unmentioned is the lie that
    provoked him.  Foster was accused of complicity in tolerating studies
    ongoing at Tuskegee that are now considered heinous atrocities against
    black men, in the name of medical research.  Foster is justifiably
    outraged at the accusation, because when he discovered it he exposed it
    and insisted it be ended.  The accusation was actually playing the race
    card against him, attempting to undermine him within his community, a
    dispicable act, and one that might indeed tempt anyone to lash out.
    In this context then, 'white right wing extremists' identifies those
    outside of his community who attack him through his community ties.
    He was speaking to his home congregation.
    
    He won't repeat the error.
    
    Where is the media treatment of those who accused him of atrocity?
    Where is the contrast, Mark, John, Mike W?  How is it none of you have
    even mentioned what lies provoked him?  Has that 'liberal media' covered
    it up?  How conveeeeeeeeeeenient.  How is it NONE of you has addressed
    it?  Didn't know?   How conveeeeeeeeeeenient.
    
    From the same article as before:
    
    > The controversy stems from the conservative Family Research Council's
    > allegation that Foster learned in 1969 of a federal study that left
    > black Alabama sharecroppers with syphilis untreated, and that he did
    > nothing about it. 
    >
    > Foster says he did not find out about the experiment until 1972. He
    > says that, when he did learn about it, he was outraged and pressed to
    > get proper treatment for the men. 
    >
    > The Public Health Service conducted the Tuskegee Project from 1932 to
    > 1972. 
    
    DougO

    
    
    Doug, are you are referring to the Syphillis studies in 1972?  It seems 
    that there is at least one person who was involved in the studies who
    says that Foster was aware and had no objections.  I'll get the
    article.
    
    Also, "extremists" is a tool to try and discredit.  Why don't we leave
    that little ploy alone and use either liberal/conservative or right
    wing/left wing.  It would make the discussion more receptive to both
    sides (I would imagine).
    
    
    Mike

    
    
    RE: .293  Doug, this is from today's Washington Times
    
    Doctor disputes Foster claim on study
    
    Says nominee had no objection to not treating syphilis patients
    
    A former head of an Alabama medical board yesterday disputed Dr. Henry
    W. Foster Jr.'s claim that he learned of a federal study in which
    hundreds of syphilis patients were left untreated only after the study
    ended in 1972.
    	Dr. Luther C. McRae Jr., now a family physician in Mount Vernon, Ga.,
    said Dr. Foster, President Clinton's embattled surgeon general nominee,
    attended a Macon County Medical Society meeeting on May 19, 1969, in
    which federal health officials discussed the controversial Tuskegee
    Syphilis Study and expressed their interest in getting permission to
    continue it.
    	Dr Foster "voiced no objection to the continuation of the study"
    Dr. McRae said in a letter released yesterday.
    
    

    Mike, nobody is talking about Foster's real record.  We try to point
    out that he spent years developing and succeeding with a program to
    reduce teen pregnancies in Tennessee and that falls into a void; nobody
    on the rightwing side will even admit hearing us claim that, nobody
    cares to discuss how good that is, how well qualified the nominee is on
    such grounds, even how it indicates that Clinton is willing to look for
    compromise candidates.  Instead, what we get are bombshells about lies
    that he performed 700+ abortions, or that he had no objection to
    nazi-like studies performed on black men.  You want us to believe that
    we should drop rhetoric about 'extremists' you're gonna have to start
    addressing HIS RECORD, not the bombshells flung by the extremists.
    
    DougO

    Henry Foster's Nomination Sent to Senate 
    
    
    Washington 
    
    A month after President Clinton chose Henry Foster to serve as surgeon
    general, the White House formally forwarded the doctor's controversial
    nomination to an uncertain future in the Senate yesterday. 
    
    Foster's name was not formally submitted to the Senate until yesterday
    because of the time involved in completing his FBI background check and
    other necessary paperwork. 
    
    Published 3/1/95 in SF Chronicle

    
    
    
    Doug,
    
    
    Let's see the results of his efforts.  I applaud his effort to 
    curtail teen pregnancies.  You are trying to switch gears here.  
    You say that what was alleged was not true and was the act of 
    "right wing extremists" basically lying.  I cited someone who 
    was on the same committee saying that it was not a lie.  Then 
    you drop that and try and head in another direction.  
    
    
    Mike  

    
    In our constitutional framework, a whacko president (right or left),
    has a right to whacko advisors.  Separation of powers.  With the
    exception of posts having independent authority (Supremes, the Fed),
    if the nominee isn't actually a criminal, a foreign agent, or gets
    exposed as a fraud, he or she ought to be confirmed.  The prez can
    fire someone from the largely ceremonial post of Loose-Cannon General
    without congressional approval, after all.  If you don't like it, try
    a parliamentary decision.
    
      bb

    	The Surgeon General says snarfing can be hazzardous to your health
    
    ME

Personally, I'm touched that the Family Research Council has seen fit at this
time to denounce such experimentation. I look forward to their commentary on
other such deeds.

    
    RE: .296
    
    Can you say "Borked"?
    

    > Let's see the results of his efforts.  I applaud his effort to 
    > curtail teen pregnancies.  You are trying to switch gears here.  
    
    Wow, it only had to be mentioned three times in this string before one
    of the people opposing the nomination admitted his record even contains
    this.  Trying to switch gears?  No, I'm trying for the third time to
    bring up what is relevant in his record.
    
    > You say that what was alleged was not true and was the act of
    > "right wing extremists" basically lying.
    
    I say that Foster himself denies it, and your 'someone' on the
    committee who insists that Foster knew of it before then is alledging
    that he perfectly recalls who was in a full conference room at every
    minute of a several-day long conference...26 years ago.  I think I'm
    perfectly right to complain about such a loose and irresponsible
    allegation when you people have been ignoring the real facts of his
    record all along (until you finally admitted admiration for the curbing
    teen pregnancy efforts in your last note.)  I'm complaining about the
    imbalance.
    
    >Then you drop that and try and head in another direction.  
    
    I have been trying all along to focus on verifiable facts about his
    record, not bombshells from 26-year old memories of working groups at
    medical project funding review conferences and lies excerpted from
    unvalidated transcripts.
    
    DougO

    >Can you say "Borked"?
        
    The nomination just went to the hill.  We'll see if the treatment Dr
    Foster recieves there deserves such a description.  All he's gotten so
    far is paid-extremist rants.  
    
    But if we're to talk about the political aspects of his treatment, then
    don't be surprised to find Clinton driving the abortion wedge deep into
    the GOP over the next 18 months.  Its a huge vulnerability, and the
    ambivalence with which the lynch-Foster-the-700-abortionist-hue-and-cry
    was greeted demonstrated that pretty effectively.  GOP can't win on the
    abortion issue; moderates among them will try to get the plank out of
    the platform, and the Buchananite wing will fight to keep it; and
    Clinton will stir that pot with the voters.  Lets see how well that one
    plays out at the GOP Convention summer of '96, shall we?
    
    DougO

    
    
    
    RE: .303  Doug, please show me where I opposed the nomination.......
    
    
    
    
    Mike
    
    
    

    Gee, Mikey, when it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, parroting
    the arguments against the nomination while ignoring the arguments for,
    one assumes the duck opposes the nomination.  Just because you haven't
    admitted it cuts no ice with me.
    
    DougO

    
    
    See what you get when you assume Doug?  I haven't made up my mind yet
    of what I think of the man in this position.  I don't like the abortion
    thing at all, but I have heard some things I like.
    
    Mike

    Battle Over Foster Nomination Begins Today 
    
    Washington 
    
    Buffeted for months by abortion foes and other critics, President
    Clinton's surgeon general nominee declared himself primed to ``define
    who Henry Foster is'' at a Senate hearing today. Administration
    officials conceded that confirmation still looked difficult. 
    
    Brushing off questions about Foster's abortion record, Clinton called
    him a ``pro-life, pro-choice doctor'' yesterday. And the president
    added, ``If we can't confirm Henry Foster to be the surgeon general of
    the United States, what kind of person can we confirm?'' 
    
    But Senate majority leader Bob Dole, who has said he may not call up
    the nomination for a vote even if it gets out of committee, said the
    White House had caused whatever problems there were. 
    
    ``This is not about abortion. This is about credibility. This is about
    telling the truth. This is about the White House leveling with the
    American people and not letting it drip, drip, drip out as the American
    people find out,'' said Dole, who is running for president. 
    
    Foster smiled and joked at yesterday's Capitol Hill news conference,
    surrounded by teenagers who are enrolled in his ``I Have a Future''
    program in Tennessee and who rode a bus to Washington to show their
    support. He said he was ready for the tough grilling he is likely to
    get today before the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee. 
    
    ``Am I intimidated? No. And I'm not being immodest, I'm not being
    cocky,'' the 61-year-old obstetrician-gynecologist said. He said hups
    and lawmakers -- primarily over the fact that he performed abortions
    and gave several different answers about how many. 
    
    Clinton saw the Tennessee doctor's professional experience differently. 
    
    ``Henry Foster's record can be seen in the lives of thousands of babies
    that he has helped come into this world in a healthy way, in the people
    he has tried to educate and the people he has tried to help,'' Clinton
    said. ``He deserves to be more than a political football in the
    emerging politics of this season,'' the president said at a luncheon
    for Emily's List, a fund-raising and political organization for
    Democratic women. 
    
    Later at the White House, Clinton lauded Foster's ``I Have a Future''
    program in Tennessee and the teenage members who came to Washington to
    support the doctor. 
    
    Aides said Clinton was committed to fighting the battle to the end, and
    some said a strong performance at the hearing could still turn things
    around for Foster. But others predicted that he would not be confirmed
    in the end. 
    
    Foster will testify before the committee's nine Republicans and seven
    Democrats after various members of Congress speak about his nomination.
    He will be introduced by Senator Patty Murray, D- Wash., an outspoken
    supporter, as well as Tennessee Democratic Representatives Bob Clement
    and Harold Ford. 
    
    Nominees' home-state senators usually introduce them at such hearings,
    but Tennessee's two freshman senators, Republicans Fred Thompson and
    Bill Frist, declined. 
    
    Frist, a member of the committee, said in a telephone interview
    yesterday: ``Out of all of this, what I hope surfaces amid the various
    allegations is the strong character of a man who has contributed
    tremendously to the Tennessee community and to the lives of tens of
    thousands of mothers and children.'' 
    
    But he also said, ``The Republican leadership has made it clear they
    would like him not to make it through the confirmation process.'' 
    
    Conservative groups, including the National Right to Life Committee,
    the Family Research Council and the Republican National Coalition for
    Life, also held a news conference on Capitol Hill, urging senators to
    oppose the nomination. 
    
    ``Abortionist-General Replaces Condom Queen,'' read the top of a press
    release from the Eagle Forum -- an allusion to former Surgeon General
    Joycelyn Elders who was criticized for advocating the distribution of
    condoms. 
    
    Printed 5/2/95 in San Francisco Chronicle

    >> Clinton's surgeon general nominee declared himself primed to ``define
    >> who Henry Foster is''
    
    Future question on a Trivial Pursuit card?
    
    Chris

    Battle Lines Harden in Fight Over Foster 
    
    Douglas Jehl 
    Washington 
    
    President Clinton offered an impassioned defense yesterday of Dr. Henry
    Foster Jr. as his choice to become surgeon general, charging that
    Republican-led opposition to the nomination was motivated solely by
    politics. 
    
    With Senate hearings on the nomination to begin today, Clinton appeared
    by turns angry and energized as he staged what amounted to two
    last-minute pep rallies for Foster. The nomination of the 61-year-old
    Tennessee physician has become tangled in the debate over abortion, and
    even the White House concedes that it faces an uphill fight. 
    
    ``We're not going to let this good man be put in a little box for
    somebody's political objectives,'' the president vowed before a
    gathering of Foster's supporters in a White House conference room. 
    
    After first giving accounts saying he performed few abortions in his
    38-year medical career, Foster has subsequently acknowledged that as an
    obstetrician-gynecologist he has performed several dozen abortions.
    Since February, when Clinton put Foster's name forward, the White House
    has sought to direct attention instead to the more prominent aspects of
    a career in which Foster has delivered tens of thousands of babies and
    championed a program in Nashville to curb teenage pregnancy. 
    
    But Foster's abortion record has remained the focus of conservative
    critics who contend that it makes him unsuited to serve as the nation's
    chief public health officer, giving Republicans a powerful reason to
    oppose the president's choice. 
    
    As the White House sought again yesterday to shift the terms of the
    battle, Clinton appeared to be wiping away tears as two young people at
    the event spoke about how they had benefited from the self-esteem
    program Foster founded in Nashville public housing developments. 
    
    But the president's emotional testimonials were more than matched by
    blunt new words from Senator Bob Dole of Kansas, the majority leader
    seeking his party's presidential nomination, who warned again that he
    might never put the nomination before the full Senate. 
    
    ``This is not about abortion, this is about credibility,'' Dole told a
    Republican political gathering. ``This is about telling the truth. This
    is about the White House leveling with the American people and not
    letting it drip and drip and drip out so the American people don't find
    out the truth.'' 
    
    In a speech that appeared to harden the lines in the fight over the
    nominee's fate, the senator noted that Democrats had prevented votes on
    161 Republican-backed nominations during the six years they controlled
    the Senate under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush. Dole
    defended his opposition to Foster as based on the conflicting accounts
    given by the nominee and the White House about the number of abortions
    he has performed. 
    
    Yesterday, Foster himself adopted an upbeat tone in an appearance on
    Capitol Hill, saying he was ready to ``define who Henry Foster is'' in
    his appearance today before the Senate Labor and Human Resources
    Committee. But the schedule for the hearing offered a reminder that he
    may be given an unsympathetic ear. 
    
    Instead of being presented to the panel by his home-state senators, as
    is customary, the Tennessean will be introduced by two Democratic
    congressmen instead and by Senator Patty Murray, D-Washington. The two
    senators from Tennessee, Bill Frist and Fred Thompson, are both
    freshman Republicans who declined to perform the courtesy. 
    
    Printed 5/2/95 in San Francisco Chronicle

    
    re: .310  (First paragraph)
    
     No!!!!!!!!!!
    
     Why them dirty Republicans!!!!! How dare they do some thing like
    that!!! Partisan politics!!! Why!!! Who ever heard of such a thing!!!
    

    Fairness And Dr. Foster 
    
    ELLEN GOODMAN 
    Boston 
    
    THERE IS some solace in hearing Henry Foster's opponents trip over
    their tongues as they try to explain their hostility to the doctor
    without using the A-word. 
    
    Republican leaders have been left stammering by the prospect that
    today's confirmation hearings will turn into another party-splintering
    debacle. Even ardent anti-abortion advocates have chosen to stutter
    over the three C's rather than stick to the one A. The fight over
    Foster's nomination to the surgeon general's post isn't really about
    abortion, they all insist. It's about Credibility. It's about
    Character. It's about Controversy. 
    
    Joycelyn Elders had to turn in her surgeon general's uniform after she
    gave the impression of appearing to be seeming to be saying that it
    wasn't a bad idea to teach masturbation in school. 
    
    Henry Foster was her conservative replacement. He was the safe,
    consensus candidate for the job, the picture-perfect profile of a
    gray-haired doc who once delivered babies of poor black women barred
    from white hospitals and ran programs to prevent teenage pregnancy. 
    
    But the 61-year-old Ob-Gyn had also performed abortions. That outraged
    the hard-core troops who want to make doctors pariahs, and made some
    politicians nervous. But when the number of abortions was called into
    question many in Congress latched onto the numbers game. The issue
    wasn't really abortion, they swore, it was Credibility. 
    
    When that didn't quite wash, the usual suspects began floating reports
    of forced sterilizations, and accusations -- roundly denied -- that Dr.
    Foster approved of the Tuskegee experiment which left black men
    untreated for syphilis. The issue wasn't abortion, it was Character.
    Finally, of course, the people who created a controversy now insist
    that Dr. Foster is disqualified because he is too Controversial. 
    
    In fact, Dr. Foster's nomination has always been in trouble because of
    the politics of abortion. Emphasis on politics. Robert Dole, for one,
    has been forthright about his deep desire to get Dr. Foster on the next
    available plane back to Tennessee. The last thing the candidate for
    president wants is a debate and vote on the Senate floor. 
    
    So the fate of the Foster nomination now falls in the lap of Nancy
    Kassebaum, the chair of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee.
    On the one hand, Kassebaum is the chief supporter of fellow Kansan Bob
    Dole. On the other hand, she's a senator with a carefully tended
    reputation as an independent, a moderate and an abortion rights
    supporter. But in some ways, these reports have been exaggerated. After
    all, she voted in favor of the Hyde Amendment banning federal funds for
    abortion except in cases of rape or incest.  The C-word that has
    Kassebaum stammering is Clinton.  She is said to believe that the
    president planned this nomination to split her party.  But in an
    expected close committee vote, the power to get the Foster nomination
    onto the Senate floor rests on her actions. 
    
    When all is said and done, Dr. Foster is another in a line of private
    citizens who have been escorted onto the public stage and walked right
    into a political propeller. For months, he's watched his life's work
    twisted into some unrecognizable shape. At the very least he deserves a
    trip to the Senate floor and a vote. Come to think of it, maybe this
    isn't about abortion. Maybe it's about another word: Fairness. 
    
    Published 5/2/95 in San Francisco Chronicle

    A Worthy Nominee For Surgeon General 
    
    AT A TIME when the nation suffers from an epidemic of teenage
    pregnancy, President Clinton has nominated as surgeon general one of
    the few people in the United States with success in combatting the
    crisis. 
    
    Yet, far from exploring this important accomplishment of nominee Dr.
    Henry Foster, a group of anti-choice zealots has succeeded in reducing
    an illustrious 30- year career to the performance of several dozen
    abortions -- a legal, necessary medical procedure that a majority of
    Americans believe is a constitutional right. 
    
    Foster -- and the country -- deserve better than to see a single-
    minded minority debase the confirmation process while delivering the
    message that healers who perform abortions had best forget about
    serving the public in any official capacity. 
    
    Foster's confirmation hearings begin today before the Senate Labor and
    Human Resources Committee, and let us hope our elected representatives
    will focus on the 61-year-old obstetrician-gynecologist's estimable
    qualifications, which include being chairman of the Department of
    Obstetrics and Gynecology at both Meharry Medical College and the
    Tuskegee Institute in Tennessee and being dean of the School of
    Medicine at Meharry. Foster was one of the youngest people ever
    inducted into the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of
    Sciences. 
    
    Last week, about 30 doctors who received their medical training from
    Foster at Meharry Medical College in Nashville traveled to Washington
    to speak to individual senators on Foster's behalf. Yesterday, several
    dozen young people who journeyed by bus from Nashville met with
    senators to tell how they have been helped by Foster's ``I Have a
    Future'' program. 
    
    The nationally recognized program, which has a established a record of
    steering its participants away from early pregnancies, promotes
    abstinence by presenting incentives for teenagers to delay sexual
    activity and childbearing -- and it emphasizes job training, drug
    prevention and education. 
    
    Foster also is one of the nation's leading authorities on reducing
    infant mortality and on teenage drug abuse. The number of babies he has
    delivered -- 10,000 -- far outnumbers the abortions he has performed. 
    
    Consider the benefit to the nation if Foster were able to use the bully
    pulpit of the surgeon general's office to reduce teenage pregnancy,
    much as Dr. C. Everett Koop used the office to educate Americans about
    the health dangers of tobacco. 
    
    An enlightened Senate will allow Foster to do just that. 
    
    Editorial published 5/2/95 in San Francisco Chronicle

    	The office of Surgeon General, and all the supporting staff, and
    	all the wasted money trying to get someone nominated/defeated,
    	etc., would be a great place to look for budget cuts.
    
    	In the last few presidential administrations it has become nothing 
    	but a ceremonial position, a waste of money, an expensive political
    	football.

    Amen Joe, amen!
    
    

    > In the last few presidential administrations it has become nothing but
    > a ceremonial position, a waste of money, an expensive political
    > football.
    
    What a nonsense.  And the evidence to the contrary was just mentioned,
    too:
    
    >> ...as Dr. C. Everett Koop used the office to educate Americans about
    >> the health dangers of tobacco. 
    
    Koop was instrumental in the last decade's progress towards improving
    the public health by curtailing smoking.  The position is relevant and
    will of course remain.
    
    DougO

      <<< Note 168.316 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

>    What a nonsense.  
>    
>    >> ...as Dr. C. Everett Koop used the office to educate Americans about
>    >> the health dangers of tobacco. 
>    
>    Koop was instrumental in the last decade's progress towards improving
>    the public health by curtailing smoking.  The position is relevant and
>    will of course remain.
    
    	Americans knew about the dangers of smoking long before Koop
    	hit the scene.  CDC and AMA and the American Heart Association,
    	etc., are the bigger mouthpieces for health information.
    
    	Eliminate the office.  I've already written to my Senators
    	suggesting the same.
    
    	The position is NOT relevant, or at least not worth the money
    	spent on it (I agree that it can be a focal point for information
    	dissemination).  I do agree with you that the position will
    	remain, however I do not agree with your reasoning for saying
    	that it will remain.

    > Americans knew about the dangers of smoking long before Koop
    > hit the scene.
    
    True - and why?  Because the Surgeon General mandated thirty years ago
    that cigarettes carry health warnings.  And Koop revived interest in
    the issue and was the drumbeater for a new focus in the face of
    complacence.  Excellent uses of the position.
    
    There will be similar needs in the future; over birth control, safer
    sex, child vaccinations, safe water supplies, and a dozen other issues. 
    Having a high-profile professional in a position to mobilize public
    opinion is a good thing.
    
    DougO

I'm not sure that mobilizing public opinion requires a full time cabinet
position and the attendent staff/expenses/controversy/etc. I'd be willing
to bet that you could as easily (and less controversially) mobilize public
opinion by entreating the current president of the AMA to make a statement
now and again. And I bet he'd do it for free.

    I suggest that until someone finds out exactly what the Surgeon
    General's responsibilities are, it is premature to demand that the
    office be dissolved.

    	Valid point, Chelsea, though the fact that few if any of us
    	know what the SG does might say something about what s/he 
    	does...
    
    	I'd rather see all the effort that is going to go into confirmation
    	hearings be directed at quantifying the value of the position
    	itself.

    I'd rather they waste time and energy in confirmation hearings than be
    allowed to try stick with another stupid law that has been passed to
    them by a lobbist.
    
    Dennis

    
    I think this is dead already and we are watching choreographed
    political preparation for 1996.  Clinton is using the dead
    appointment to solidify a pro-choice base.  Republicans are
    trying to twist Foster till he lashes out verbally, but face
    it, this isn't the "dream team", it's the Senate Judiciary
    Committee.  I predict he will manage to keep it calm inside
    while they try to get him to try the "race card".
    
    Given that the S-G is a no-op, but not a very expensive one by
    DC standards, it is amazing to me the media hoopla of this, as
    compared, say, to the Archer Medicare hearings - a MUCH more
    important matter, where hundreds of billions in the outyears
    will be decided.  I agree with Senator Joe Biden - what a waste
    of everybody's time.  But perhaps it will garner some of the OJ
    overloaded viewer share.
    
      bb

 What a country...

    
    
    The orchestra is set up and playing away in the Grand Ball Room as the
    ship starts listing to port....

    re: "mobilize public opinion"
    
    What's that, the latest euphemism for "brainwash"?  I don't need
    some puffed-up political puppet strutting around in a South American
    style uniform to tell me what to think about any social or health
    issues.
    
    However, it has been damned good entertainment in the past.  I say,
    let this guy in, and hope that he pulls enough Elders-class boners
    (pardon the pun) that he'll just be another anchor weighing down
    the Clinton iceberg as it lumbers and stumbles towards the 1996
    elections.
    
    Chris

From the hearings(CSPAN) it would seem Foster did good work in Tenn. to
prevent teen pregnancies a goal everyone can agree on. a major part of the
program involves abstinance the favorite topic of the witch-hunters.

If the repubs would get off the abortion issue and get on with what is 
important politically, namely restoring constitutional gov't, they would
win all the elections they want.

Foster sounds like a good candidate. Approve him and get on with business.

    Yeah, let's get off the abortion issue and get on with important stuff
    like syphillis injections.

>> If the repubs would get off the abortion issue
    
    Like with so many other Clinton-related flub-ups, it isn't the
    issue itself, but rather that it was lied about initially, and
    then was changed, and then was changed again, and again, and who
    knows whether we've heard the actual truth yet?
    
    Why can't these Clinton people just tell the blasted truth the
    first time?  What is it with them?
    
    As for the SG, it would've been in Slick's best interest, after
    the Elders debacle, to put into place some cardiologist or oncologist
    or someone similar who could help with things like heart disease
    or cancer, which are bigger health problems in this country than teen
    pregnancy.  He could have picked someone non-controversial like
    that.  But nooooooo, as usual he's in our face with yet-another
    political controversy.
    
    But like I said, it's his political neck, so go for it.
    
    Chris

    Chris,
    
    How many networks have I fixed over the last 6 years?  I don't
    remember exactly how many brouter configurations i have done in the
    last month, without going over my records, let alone all the things I
    have done in my job in the last 6 years, and you are talking about a
    GYN/OB who has been in practice over 30 years.  Abortion is a part of a
    competant GYN/OB's practice, as are other items.  
    
    How much has his current program reduced infant mortality?  Do the kids
    involved in his pregnancy prevention program have a lower number of
    pregnancies than those outside the program?  Where does he stand on
    innoculations?  What ideas does he have for early cancer detection and
    treatment in this country?  does he have any new ideas to add to the
    "drug war?"  Does he have ideas to stem the epidemic of child abuse,
    and kids killing each other?  Does he have ideas for improved outcomes
    of pregnancies for all women?  what is his attitude about raising
    children in toxic waste sites?  
    
    Get to the real meat, and worry about what OB/GYN's really do for a
    living later.
    
    meg

    <<< Note 168.330 by CSC32::M_EVANS "proud counter-culture McGovernik" >>>

>    How many networks have I fixed over the last 6 years?  I don't
>    remember exactly how many brouter configurations i have done in the
>    last month, without going over my records, let alone all the things I
>    have done in my job in the last 6 years, and you are talking about a
>    GYN/OB who has been in practice over 30 years.  Abortion is a part of a
>    competant GYN/OB's practice, as are other items.  
    
    	But you'd know whether you did only one, or more than one.  You
    	would know if you did just a handful or many of them.  You 
    	COULD answer, "Let me check my records," instead of making up
    	a number.  That way your answer wouldn't have to change so
    	many times.  And you'd think that a person (or his handlers) 
    	would be smart enough not to play with the numbers regarding
    	such a politically-charged issue.  It's not like the political
    	arena is going to care how many networks he fixed.  But your
    	boss will when you are doing your annual review.  How would
    	your boss react to your monkeying around with the numbers on
    	your PA?

    Joe,
    
    I thought in your case is wouldn't matter if he did one or 1000?  After
    all abortions are ONLY done for the convenience of the woman, right?
    
    meg

    
    
    RE: .330  So, pro life OB/GYN's are incompetent, eh?

    	re .332
    
    	You miss the forest for the trees.  The political issue at hand is 
    	not that he did abortions (though the fact that THAT gets discussed
    	shows that this society still has shreds of moral conscience).  The
    	issue, which you tried to dismiss, is that he was very sloppy --
    	and very Clintonesque -- in saying what he did.  My response showed
    	you why that sloppiness can't be dismissed as you would like to do.
    
    	Trying to escape by casting an oil slick regarding my own personal
    	opinions on abortion will not work for you here.

    re: .330
    
    >> How many networks have I fixed over the last 6 years?  I don't
    >> remember...
    
    But if you were about to pursue a promotion where you know for
    a fact that the specific number of networks you've fixed would
    be a critical issue, you'd bother to go back and find out.  More
    specifically, if it were some criterion that might be held against
    you in the pursuit of such position, for example how many networks
    have you broken, you'd be *very* sure to get that number right,
    and get it right the first time.
    
    You wouldn't tell the promotion review committee some low number,
    and then revise it when they came back to you a while later with
    evidence that the number was higher, and then repeat the same
    revision until they're either satisfied or give up on you, figuring
    that you're not credible enough to deserve the promotion.
    
    That's what has happened here.  He should have known, and should
    have told us the correct number the first time.  Anything else
    appears incompetent at best and deceitful at worst, and we don't
    want either quality in a Surgeon General.
    
    
    re: "What ideas does he have...?"
    
    That can be applied to any competent doctor in any specialty.  Why
    stick with this baggage when there are so many others out there with
    so many potential ideas to offer us as well?
    
    Chris

> Why stick with this baggage when there are so many others out there with
> so many potential ideas to offer us as well?

In truth, at this point in time, May 3rd, 1995, the only reason I can think
of to "stick with this baggage" is in order to avoid having to distract
congressmen with having to haggle over his appointment when there are far
more important things that they should be doing, like keeping an eye on
the scumbag in the Whitehouse while he and his AG try to pull some fast
ones on us.

Conversely, I suppose if congress were to quickly toss Foster out offhand,
they'd have the opportunity to force Slick & Co. to spend their time
coming up with a new appointee instead of sticking their noses where they
don't belong.

    The blow hards on the right side of the isle are producing CO2 at an
    alarming rate and not allowing the blow hards on the left side get
    their 2 million in to stem the vote for the new Surgeon general.  Pres.
    will need to go back and pick another candidate.  My prediction, we
    will be Surgeon Generalless for the duration of this presidential term. 

    > My prediction, we will be Surgeon Generalless for the duration
    > of this presidential term. 
    
    I know, it's terrible too. How many days I wake up and think
    to myself, "Wow, this country is REALLY screwed up. If ONLY
    we had a Surgeon General."
    
    -b

So the Public Health Service is being run by the Surgeon Colonel?
Should we expect a report on the healthfulness of fried chicken?

    ....to teach us to inhale, the joys of familial physical love, 
    surgical birth control methods, and evolution.  I seen the agenda, 
    I seen the agenda!
    
    

    
      Of course, the office isn't a very important one.  But there is
     big symbolism in this.  Phil Gramm is fillibustering.  Bob Dole
     schedules cloture votes, then votes against cloture.  Sliq and
     Henry (with a Cheshire cat grin, a la Gingrich) appear on the
     White House lawn, an image of impotence.  Could it be there is
     already some presidential politics being played out ?  Naw - they
     all have the good of the USA foremost in their minds...
    
      bb

    Stupid question.......
    What does the Surgeon General do beside tell us not to smoke, drink, or
    "enjoy the company" of members of the opposite sex (without
    protection)?  Ohhh yeah they (he/she/it) said we should do something
    artificial instead of "enjoy the company" of members of the opposite
    sex.... BTW didn't some SG complain about overpopulation..... hhhmmm... 
    sounds like a conspiracy to me......

    :-)
    Dan

    
    The office has become politicized to the extreme. Even Koop, who did a
    good job, revitalized the office and used the bully pulpit to worthy
    ends, had a 10-month nomination fight, owing to his anti-abortion
    stand.
    
    

    
    .342
    
    The job is mostly a bully pulpit, but I think it's a good investment
    for about $1M annual budget.
    
    

    >So the Public Health Service is being run by the Surgeon Colonel?
    
    Actually I've known a couple of Colonels. So I have come to the
    understanding that the PHS is now run by some Staff Sargent!
    
    Hope we don't have a war on health. Who'd be in charge of the Nuclear
    weapons??  :)
    
    ...Tom

    
    Speaking of Colonels....
    
     Why do they spell 'colonel' (notice I didn't say 'it' :) that way and
    pronounce it with an 'r'???
    
    

    .345
    
    Sergeant.
    
    NNTTM.

Unless it's Mr. Shriver.

Speaking of this...Barbara Boxer said the most insulting thing regarding
this nomination... I saw it on CSPAN and also Rush's TV show...

She's on the floor of the senate and says (paraphasing)

"I hear comparisions between him and Elders. Why is that? Why? Think really
hard people. I've heard more than one mention this comparision? Why is
that? What do they have in common? The only thing I can think of, is that
they are African-Americans"

Talk about total and utter stupidity on the floor... it's also a very
racist thing to say as well.

I never liked her, and stuff like this just renforces why I dislike her.

/scott

    
    didn't the demos bork an AA presidential appointee
    during the bush years?

   Why not eliminate the position of Surgeon General and get on to the next
  silly fight?

    Yes.  The SG position is a Public Relations post.  Clinton is using
    this to drive a wedge using the abortion issue as a vehicle.
    
    -Jack

    
    I love Slick's rhetoric...
    
    The repubs are sending the nation a "chilling message"...
    
    ha!
    

	I guess it is just a coincidence that the 2 front runners in the repub
race for Prez happened to be the very two people that tried so hard to kill
this one..... 

    
    
    Politics is politics....
    

	eggggzactly

    Makes no diff Glen.  Abortion is already legal and Clinton is talking
    out of his ass again.
    
    What an expensive price to pay in order to learn Character does count.
    
    -Jack

    >> The repubs are sending the nation a "chilling message"...
    
    That's a good one... I've got news for Slick:  since last
    November, the nation *is* the Repubs, since we voted them
    in there to represent us, the people.
    
    What he really should be saying is "The Repubs, and the nation,
    are sending ME and my lapdogs a chilling message", if he wanted
    to be accurate.
    
    Chris

    
      Actually, I could use a chilling message.  I'd settle for a
     chilling note.
    
      bb

>    That's a good one... I've got news for Slick:  since last
>    November, the nation *is* the Repubs, since we voted them
>    in there to represent us, the people.

Foster had enough votes to be confirmed.  If it weren't for the peculiar
institution called the filibuster, he would have been.  This was a clear
case of minority rule.

    Clinton is absolutely correct to hold the GOP's feet to the fire for
    their cowardice in preventing a floor vote.  Of course, as the GOP is
    so acutely vulnerable on the issue of abortion, they don't dare even
    admit that this is the issue upon which the nomination was held
    captive.  And they want to talk of 'character'!  Gutless spineless
    weasels woudn't know character in a nominee when they can't even bring
    themselves to admit why they didn't dare confirm him- for fear of their
    own rightwing extremists and a very possible GOP split approaching the
    primaries.  THAT is why Dr Foster was denied a vote.  GOP protestations
    of 'character' are laughable.
    
    DougO

    I have to ask a question...
    
    "what is a filibuster"?
    
    
    stupid question I know..but what is it?
    

    > .... when they can't even bring
    > themselves to admit why they didn't dare confirm him- for fear of their
    > own rightwing extremists and a very possible GOP split approaching the
    > primaries.  THAT is why Dr Foster was denied a vote.

    You've been listening to NPR toooooo much !

    I must disagree with you.  I believe that Phil Gramm (sp) was standing
    up for what he believed in.  He did not want this guy as Surgeon
    General, and he therefore filibustered the vote.  This is perfectly
    allowable and correct.  I am glad he is not Surgeon General, not
    because I'm Pro-life, but because the guy and the White House couldn't
    get the story straight.  But in all honesty if he did get elected I
    don't think it would have mattered a whole hill of beans.  After all
    the last wacko that was in that position effectively made it a
    non-entity.

    Dan

    > "what is a filibuster"?
    
    The Congressional equivalent of EDP.
    
    -b

    > "what is a filibuster"?
    
     It's a parliamentary procedure wherein a vote is prevented by engaging
    in unending speech for the purpose of blocking legislative action. A
    filibuster can be stopped by a vote of cloture, which requires 60
    votes, which ends the filibuster in order to bring the motion on the
    floor to a vote.

    re: he had the votes
    
    Is it possible that once these senators knew that they wouldn't
    actually have to vote on this, many of the ones who wouldn't
    have voted for him came out and said they would have voted
    for him?  That way they'd get to have their political cake
    and eat it too, in a way.
    
    I don't know the sequence of events, but I find it difficult to
    accept that a Republican-majority Senate would have actually
    confirmed Foster if it actually came to a vote, risking the wrath
    of their constituents.
    
    I'm disappointed that it ended this way, actually.  A floor vote
    would've been most interesting, because it would have forced the
    Repubs to put their vote where their mouth is, and we all know
    how much any politician dislikes making a firm commitment in any
    direction.
    
    As for Foster, I don't care how many abortions he's performed, but
    I do care that he was so evasive on this and other issues.  To me
    that's what made the difference.  It's not exactly like removing
    a hangnail.  He either knew how many he'd done all along, in which
    case he was lying, or he didn't know how many he'd done all along,
    in which case one can question why he doesn't know.
    
    Chris

    Thanks
    

re .364:

Agagagagagagagagagag!

    the chilling message is how Slick continues to refuse or acknowledge
    the one coming from most American voters.

I suspect most American voters are disgusted by the institution of the
filibuster.

| <<< Note 168.369 by OUTSRC::HEISER "Maranatha!" >>>

| the chilling message is how Slick continues to refuse or acknowledge
| the one coming from most American voters.

	the right does not make up most american voters

    Why?  It worked to perfection this week.

    The filibuster is just a tool.  If you are going to be disgusted, be
    disgusted at the person who is inappropriately using it.

    Dan

    > | the chilling message is how Slick continues to refuse or acknowledge
    > | the one coming from most American voters.
    > 
    > 	the right does not make up most american voters

    I'm afraid that currently, it does.

    Dan

    >	the right does not make up most american voters
    
    then explain November 1994.

I'm disgusted with the filibuster regardless of what it's used for.

    re: filibusters
    
    Agreed... it's the equivalent of a childish tantrum, or holding
    one's breath 'till one turns blue.  Frankly I expect more from
    the allegedly-intelligent people that we choose to represent us,
    regardless of party or the individual situation.
    
    It conjures up images of smoke-filled rooms and all the other
    dirty political stunts that go on all the time down there.  It
    also makes me believe that even we could do better at this than
    they do, which is a damned scary thought.
    
    Chris

	Mike, what was supposed to happen in November, 1994?

    DougO:
    
    I was talking about Clintons character.  Even when he makes correct
    decisions, people are suspicious of him.
    
    Makes for a lousy CiC
    
    

    >You've been listening to NPR toooooo much !
         
    Its been months since I've heard NPR; my alarm clock is set to a
    classical station, I listen to modern rock while shaving, and I'm not
    near a radio again on a regular basis all day long.
    
    > I must disagree with you.  I believe that Phil Gramm (sp) was
    > standing up for what he believed in.  He did not want this guy as
    > Surgeon General, and he therefore filibustered the vote.
    
    This is not a disagreement.  *WHY* does Gram not want Foster confirmed? 
    Because Foster thinks abortions are ok, which is anathema to the
    radical right, which is the constituency to which Gram panders as he
    pursues the GOP presidential nomination.  Ding!
    
    > This is perfectly allowable and correct.
    
    As well as transparent.  I chastised the GOP for claiming 'character'
    as the issue when they were too cowardly to admit the real issue.  Ding!
    
    DougO

| <<< Note 168.379 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| I was talking about Clintons character.  Even when he makes correct
| decisions, people are suspicious of him.

	Seems to me like the people should be looking at the decisions, and not
the person maybe? I mean, if it is a correct decision, then it is correct.

    	Abolish the office entirely.
    
    	"Oh, but it's budget is only a million dollars."  
    
    	So?  Every bit counts.

    Yeah, but in terms of effort expended on the cut, the ROI really turfs.

Come on. This nomination was in trouble from the moment any serious question
was met with evasion and misinformation. Slick knew it, the dems knew it,
the repubs knew it. The dems played this guy for a political pawn. SLick had a
chance to rectify this months ago but there was too much political hay to be
made here.

The outcome was the correct one. If it takes a filibuster to force a 
supermajority than that's just fine. If he gets 50 for and 50 against
he's just as good as bad. If he could get 60 votes then he would have
been more good than bad. Sounds like a pretty good tool to me.

The founding fathers understood this.

Doug.

    DougO:
    
    If you were a member of the army and Benedict Arnold was your
    commander...but he made good decisions, does he deserve to be your
    commander in your heart.
    
    The slightest doubt will compromise his effectiveness over the
    regiment.  There you have it...ineffective leadership due to bad
    morale.
    
    -Jack

    
    dems didn't need to use it when they had control
    of both houses so for them to crow their outrayyge
    over repub use of it ring somewhat hollow.

    Repubs control both houses now.  filibuster is a reasonable tool for
    parties of the minority on matters of principle.  Helms is notorious
    for it in earlier years.  GOP caving in with it now is tacit admission
    that they didn't dare risk the floor vote- that this one had too much
    collateral damage (to GOP unity on abortion issue) to risk facing.
    
    The abortion issue isn't going to go away.  GOP moderates know that if
    religious radicals force the issue they'll lose that centrist majority
    among the electorate that happened, out of disgust for Clinton, to give 
    them control in '94- and so don't want the issue brought to a head.  Of
    course Democrats know this and won't let it be buried.  GOP candidate
    will either be acceptable to the far right on this issue and lose the 
    country, or not.  Foster is merely the first bystander screwed.  
    
    And the GOP wants to talk about 'character'!
    
    DougO

I fail to see how the surgeon general's position on abortion (or anything
else for that matter) would have much of any effect on the nation. 

I'm pro-choice, but I'm still glad to see Foster (or any other Slick
appointee) tossed out off hand.

It's important to keep reminding the man in the White House that he's
immaterial, IMNSHO.

    > It's important to keep reminding the man in the White House that he's
    > immaterial, IMNSHO.
    
    Bingo!
    
    -b

    y'all are agreeing with my point, you know- I said this was all due to
    GOP presidential politics, ie, Gram catering to the religicos and the
    rest of the GOP allowing him to get away with it- and Foster is merely
    the innocent bystander, screwed shamelessly and tossed aside.  Thanks
    for endorsing my analysis of the filibuster.
    
    > but I'm still glad to see Foster (or any other Slick appointee) 
    > tossed out off hand.
    
    Bork didn't deserve the treatment he got, but at least he got the 
    chance for a hearing.  With this latest fiasco, Jack, what you're
    saying is that you don't care that upstanding people who've served the
    public good in private capacities may be savaged by the political
    scraps of the moment.  You don't care that this will ineviatably lead
    many good people to shun government service, because the approval
    process is a sham, unrelated to their merit.  I think that the republic
    is ill served by this treatment.  I think your remark is careless and
    ill considered.  I thought, frankly, that you were smarter than that.
    
    DougO

    
    There are plenty of qualified people out there that the Senate would
    approve of. This guy isn't one of them. Slick knew it. 
    
    The Senate is doing its job.
    
    Doug.

> Thanks for endorsing my analysis of the filibuster.

You're welcome, DougO.
    
>			With this latest fiasco, Jack, what you're
>    saying is that you don't care that upstanding people who've served the
>    public good in private capacities may be savaged by the political
>    scraps of the moment.

I certainly don't care what happens to any appointee of The War Hero. Folks
would do well to distance themselves from him if they choose to avoid the
embarassment which will ensue from an association. Let the idiot sit and
stew by himself 'til next November.

>		  You don't care that this will ineviatably lead
>    many good people to shun government service, because the approval
>    process is a sham, unrelated to their merit.

People should learn to read the writing on the wall better, Doug. The best that
can come of this is that folks with merit will learn to shun Slick.

>					  I think that the republic
>    is ill served by this treatment.  I think your remark is careless and
>    ill considered.


And I think you're failing to recognize that this latest development is
in itself a brilliant tactical manouver on the part of the Senate. The
SG's position is unimportant. The message is otherwise.

    	Hey, Dougo, it's not spelled Gram.

           <<< Note 168.383 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    Yeah, but in terms of effort expended on the cut, the ROI really turfs.
    
    	The efforts expended on the cut -- a one-time effort -- pale
    	when compared to the efforts spent on nomination after nomination.

    

       Filibusters don't kill nominations.  People kill nominations.
    
    NNTTM.
       

    > y'all are agreeing with my point, you know- I said this was all due to
    > GOP presidential politics, ie, Gram catering to the religicos and the
    > rest of the GOP allowing him to get away with it- and Foster is merely
    > the innocent bystander, screwed shamelessly and tossed aside.

    Wrong !  Foster screwed himself.  Did he REALLY think he could lie
    about something like that and get away with it ?  If he did, he sure as
    shootin' should be canned.  Foster was canned because he was lacking in
    character.  You will disagree with this DougO, but that's the way I see
    it, and that's the way I would have voted.  If Clinton put up someone
    who deserved the position, he would be approved.

    Dan

 ZZ   I'm pro-choice, but I'm still glad to see Foster (or any other Slick
 ZZ   appointee) tossed out off hand.
    
    I agree...and at this point, Foster being the Surgeon General would
    matter little.  Especially since the presidential election is 16 months
    away.
    
    Let's just do away with the Surgeon General...and HUD while we're at
    it!
    
    -Jack

    >Wrong !  Foster screwed himself.  Did he REALLY think he could lie
        about something like that and get away with it ? 
    
    Is such ignorance a soapbox facade, or are some of you really this
    clueless?
    
    DougO

    	Did Foster not lie, Dougo?  (Specifically in his initial
    	statements about doing abortions?)  Where is the ignorance
    	in pointing this out?

no SG snarf!

    Hmmmm, so Clinton is poppin' mad about this... well, something
    else good has come out of it then.
    
    Now, as a little experiment, and if he really wants to try something
    new and interesting, what would happen if he came out and said "You
    know what?  It's my administration, and the hell with you guys, I'm
    installing Foster as Surgeon General anyway, and whaddar you going
    to do about it?"
    
    Chris

    Joe, how many times have you masturbated in the past two decades?
    
    Presume, for a moment, that someone kept records on it, but you have
    had no reason at all to suppose that anyone would ever care how often
    you engaged in a perfectly legal activity and that you haven't yourself
    even kept very good track, mentally.  So, you think for a second, and
    say, "a dozen".  
    
    Of course, the anti-masturbators fringe goes wild when this news
    reaches them.  They drag out the records and prove you maturbated not
    12 times, but 39 times, in the past two decades!
    
    Do you consider yourself a liar?
    
    I don't consider Foster a liar either.  He had no intent to deceive.
    
    DougO

    
    
    DougO...
    
    Lying, masturbation and abortion aside....
    
    Could you list the qualifications of the good doctor for this highest
    position in the nation?

    DougO:
    
    Amazing you using masturbation as a legitamate analogy for abortion...
    considering abortion is still a heated topic after 22 years and has
    been a political nightmare for many a nominee.
    
    -Jack

    jack,
    
    Both abortion and masturbation are legal things people do.  
    
    I fail to see the problem.  Masturbation has also been a heated issue
    through the centuries.
    
    meg

>   Masturbation has also been a heated issue through the centuries.

More explanation for the callouses, no doubt.

Why in this case, is masturbation different than abortion?  Because the Clinton
administration and anyone nominated for the SG post knows the nominee will be
asked if they performed abortions and if so, how many.  No one would ask the
same about masturbation, although any nominee should be prepared to discuss
their position on the subject, given the history of the previous SG.

Bob

    
    re: .402
    
    DougO,
        Your analagy doesn't hold.  An abortion is a medical procedure that
    requires certain guidlines be followed.  One also assumes that the
    doctor was paid for said abortions.  Masterbation on the other hand (no
    pun intended), is a somewhat less {ahem} formal procedure, and as far
    as I know one would not usually get paid for it.
    
    > I don't consider Foster a liar either.  He had no intent to deceive.
    
    How can you say this, you know Dr Foster well enough to be able to know
    his intensions?  The White House should have researched his background
    more thoughly.  It was shoddy work all 'round.
    
    On the lighter side....
    
    > I'm pro-choice, but I'm still glad to see Foster (or any other Slick
    > appointee) tossed out off hand.
    
    No, no, no that was Jocylen Elders that was in ..... 
    wait a minute... "tossed out of hand"......
    never mind 
    
    :-)
    Dan
    

>as far as I know one would not usually get paid for it.

Not usually.

But if you want to be paid, call 617 497-8646.

/john    

They probably wouldn't accept Dan... they have _standards_.

    The verbal and logical gymnastics being performed here are rather
    impressive. I think it's pretty clear to anyone with a pair of working
    lobes that the nomination was quashed for two reasons: one) because the
    republican presidential hopefuls are catering to the religious right
    and two) because it was politically advantageous for the republicans to
    quash the nomination, thus further eroding the President's appearance
    of relevance.
    
    I'm rather amused that the "he didn't tell us the truth when we asked
    him how many abortions he performed" fig leaf is still being clung to
    when it's pretty clear that the number was totally irrelevant. Some
    republicans could not accede to allowing a man who wasn't more
    restrictive on abortions to become surgeon general when there was such
    a political gain to be had by denying him. It was easy political hay to
    make. That's about the size of it. 

      <<< Note 168.402 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

>    Joe, how many times have you masturbated in the past two decades?
    
    	Excellent question to demonstrate the point here.
    
    	Were I being considered for a position where the answer to
    	this question mattered, I would surely not just say the first
    	number that came to mind.  If I could not deflect the question
    	eltirely as inapprioriate, I would say that I would have to
    	report back at a later time.
    
    	Maybe Foster and Clinton and the advisors were caught off-guard
    	with the question.  Personally I see that as strike-one given
    	the political volatility of abortion, but that is beside the
    	point.  What was Foster's first response?  One?  Seven?  I
    	don't recall now, but it wasn't even in the right magnitude,
    	nevermind being close.  I think that Foster knew the moment
    	that his first answer escaped his lips that he was doomed.
    	Strike-two.  A smarter man would have come clean and done damage 
    	control rather than dig in his heels and let it dribble out as it 
    	did in this case.  Strike-three, swinging.
    
>    Presume, for a moment, that someone kept records on it, but you have
>    had no reason at all to suppose that anyone would ever care how often
>    you engaged in a perfectly legal activity 
    
    	See, there is the mistake.  To think there is no reason at all
    	to suppose no one would ever care is pure stupidity on this issue
    	given the post for which he was nominated.
    
>    I don't consider Foster a liar either.  He had no intent to deceive.
    
    	You can't know his intent.  My personal opinion is that he
    	knew at the very second the question was asked that it would
    	become a monstrous issue.  He simply did a bad job of parrying,
    	and then tightened the noose in the ensuing days as the whole
    	truth was revealed.  And to be fair to Foster, I think that
    	the real fault lies in the administration's lap, and Foster
    	is the victim for their mishandling of the matter.

    > They probably wouldn't accept Dan... they have _standards_.
    
    HEY !  I don't have to take that !
    You forgot the smiley face !
    
    :-)
    Dan

    
    I believe you have to be at least 5'9" to be accepted as a sperm donor.

    > I believe you have to be at least 5'9" to be accepted as a sperm donor.
    
    Is this a requirement of the organization, or is more of a ...
    
    {cough}
    
    personal requirement ?
    
    :-)
    Dan

    
    8^)
    
    No really, I read an article in the Glob about a sperm bank somewhere
    in Boston.  There was a list of requirements but the only one that
    stuck in my mind was that the donor had to be at least 5'9".

    I GOT A SMILEY FROM MZ_DEB  ! ! ! ! ! !
    
    I MADE A FUNNNNNY,.......
    I MADE A FUNNNNNY,.......
    I MADE A FUNNNNNY,.......
    I MADE A FUNNNNNY,.......
    
    :-)    :-)    :-)    :-)
    
    :-)
    Dan

But what if the donee wants her kid to be a jockey?

    DougO,
    
    Thanks for cracking me up. 
    
    Foster is a liar - and he got caught.  It has nothing to do about
    pro choice/pro life.  He coulda lied about something else and got
    caught.
    
    If Foster and his handlers had any integrity what would have happened
    would have been:
    
    "Mr. Foster, have you ever done any abortions?"
    "Hell ya, I hate doing them, but of course I have, I'm a doctor
    for crying out loud, and this surgical procedure is sometimes
    necessary".
    
    "How many have you done?"
    "How the heck do I know?  I don't keep track.  I've been a doctor
    for x years."
    
    This issue would have been stopped cold, and Mr. Foster would have
    been confirmed.  FWIW: I'm glad he got junked, however it happened.
    This is political payola/pandering... it's a joke.
    
    MadMike
                                                 

    madMike,
    
    I don't believe that if he had answered this way he would have stood
    any better of a chance of confirmation than he did.  Certain groups
    have said that if a Dr. has performed any surgical procedures that they
    don't approve of that they will derail a nomination.  It doesn't matter
    if it was one or one hundred, the message they want to get a cross is
    if you ever performed an abortion that you cannot get a cabinet post.  
    
    Wonderful to get to listen to hate radio, posing as religious talk
    radio on the way home.  listening to this drek, the talkers even said
    that the "character issue" was to be played to try to fool the
    american people who didn't feel abortion disqualifies a surgeon to be
    SG.
    
    meg

    Re: .419
    
    >This issue would have been stopped cold
    
    I find this uncharacteristically naive of you.
    
    >This is political payola/pandering... it's a joke.
    
    Kinda like Reagan nominating Clarence Thomas to Marshall's seat.

    Meg and chels,
    
    The anti-abortion folks were given ammo because because Foster
    LIED about ABORTIONS.  Was he ashamed? Why was he hiding that?
    
    The "small radical right wing groups" got ammo over this deal.
    If the issue were handled differently, I don't think congress would
    have been willing to take the heat for stalling something as
    stupid as the SG nomination.  Because he lied, it became an issue.
    
    This whole deal was mismanaged right from the start.
                                                                    

    Re: .422
    
    >Because he lied, it became an issue.
    
    What "it"?  Lying?  Well, if he hadn't lied, of course it couldn't have
    become an issue.  Abortion?  Always an issue.

    > Excellent question to demonstrate the point here.
    >
    > Were I being considered for a position where the answer to
    > this question mattered, 
    
    Excellent point indeed.  Many of us, Foster surely included, do not
    think that the number of abortions performed in the course of an ob/gyn
    career has any relevance to fitness for public office in general nor
    for the post of SG specifically.  
    
    As I've insisted all along, and you've just helped demonstrate (you 
    can take your foot ("this question mattered") out of your mouth now) 
    is that this nomination was derailed because of abortion politics.
    
    > What was Foster's first response?  One?  Seven?  I don't recall now,
    > but it wasn't even in the right magnitude, nevermind being close.
    
    The numbers were the ones I used in my conjecture to you: 12 and 39.
    So, are you a liar, Joe?  39 is in the same order of magnitude as 12.
    
    Foster was nominated because of his founding role and continuing
    leadership over the past decade in a program to prevent teen pregnancy. 
    He could have taken that focus nationwide, but the GOP fools in the
    Senate lost him to the religious right in yet another senseless attack
    on the presidency.  Its too bad that these attacks have such bad
    effects upon the country as well. 
    
    DougO

    re: .423 Chels,
    
    Both became an issue.  If he shot straight, many of the fence
    sitters (wrt abortion) wouldn't have cared what happened.  Since 
    he lied, the "far right loonies" had a field day with him and
    Congress stiffed him.
    
    Now it's being spun any way each agenda pushing group wants.

    <<< Note 168.420 by CSC32::M_EVANS "proud counter-culture McGovernik" >>>

>    Wonderful to get to listen to hate radio, posing as religious talk
>    radio on the way home.  
    
    	Oh, I'm sure you approached this program with an open mind...

      <<< Note 168.424 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

>    Excellent point indeed.  Many of us, Foster surely included, do not
>    think that the number of abortions performed in the course of an ob/gyn
>    career has any relevance to fitness for public office in general nor
>    for the post of SG specifically.  
    
    	Well then you all deserve each others' naivet�.  Abortion
    	participation (or anti-abortion participation) and abortion
    	ideology *IS* relevant for practically any politician running
    	for public office, and even more so for one appointed to a
    	bully-pulpit political position.
    
    	So how would you be reacting to some SG nominee who has been 
    	actively pro-life -- who has picketed (legally) against abortion 
    	clinics, who has lectured extensively on the biological formations 
    	of the fetus at the vartious stages, who emphasizes a professional 
    	history of having never performed abortions?  I'd bet my bottom 
    	dollar you'd be	wailing about him, though today you say his
    	abortion business doesn't matter.
    
>    As I've insisted all along, and you've just helped demonstrate 
>    is that this nomination was derailed because of abortion politics.
    
    	The Foster lies made that politicization that much simpler.
    	Without the lies, the politics would not have had the medium
    	to grow.
    
    	Bottom line is that you are left crying in your beer.
    
>    The numbers were the ones I used in my conjecture to you: 12 and 39.
>    So, are you a liar, Joe?  39 is in the same order of magnitude as 12.
    
    	Nope.  Not a liar.  Mistakes are allowable in this medium.  Were
    	I being considered for Surgeon General, such a mistake about my
    	own career would not be acceptable.
    
>    on the presidency.  Its too bad that these attacks have such bad
>    effects upon the country as well. 
    
    	I think that the corralling of abortion politics on any front 
    	has a positive effect on the country.  I'd rather be part of
    	a society that encourages life, not one that can't even protect
    	the weakest of its members.

    
    Sorry to interrupt the Foster praising/bashing/requiem, but
    regarding the sperm donor rathole that developed earlier...
    
    My best friend tried to become a sperm donor to make a little extra
    money while he was in college.  Alas, it was not to be.  After his 
    first couple of, er, submissions (each of which netted him about $40,)
    he was told that they would no longer be needing his, um, services.
    Although he was certainly capable of fathering a child, his sperm
    was of insufficient motility to meet their high standards.
    
    We had many a good laugh over this.
    
    "You're so lazy you couldn't even keep a job as a sperm donor."  "Yeah,
    even my sperm is too lazy to keep a regular job."
    
    He has now received a vasectomy, so the issue is now moot.
    
    
    
    
    Rob
      

    
    
    So Chels, tell us more about this Clarence Thomas theory, won't you? 
    Sounds kind of interesting.  
    
    
    

    >Kinda like Reagan nominating Clarence Thomas to Marshall's seat.
    
     I didn't realize ex-presidents had such authority.

>    >Kinda like Reagan nominating Clarence Thomas to Marshall's seat.
    
 >    I didn't realize ex-presidents had such authority.


   Maybe with alzheimer's he forgot he was an ex-president when he nominated
   him?

    Re: .425
    
    >Both became an issue.
    
    No.  Lying became an issue.  Abortion always was (and always will be)
    an issue, which is why they asked the questions in the first place.
    
    
    Re: .429                                                   
    
    The Clarence Thomas nomination was political pandering as well.  It was
    the "black" seat.  The only way not to nominate a black was to have
    nominated one previously, which he hadn't gotten around to.
    
    
    Re: .430, .431
    
    I didn't get my usual Sunday nap, and was noting on too little sleep
    yesterday.  Reagan, Bush, they're all the same when viewed from that
    perspective.  Or many other perspectives, for that matter....

    
    re: .424
    
    So DougO.... is this your way of answering my request for his
    qualifications??
    
    >Foster was nominated because of his founding role and continuing
    >leadership over the past decade in a program to prevent teen pregnancy.
    
    
     
     This qualifies him to be SG???
    
     What was the success of this particular "program"??
    
     
     Other qualifications??
    

    MadMike is right, it was not the abortions, it was the lying and
    dodging and numbers game.  I'll add a speculation that he was trying
    to minimize the number of abortions he's done not to appease the
    anti-abortion segment, but rather to maintain a consistency with
    the "rare" part of Slick's "safe, legal, and rare" abortion chant.
    
    After all, if Slick really wanted them to be rare, why would he
    nominate a surgeon general who's performed perhaps hundreds?  It
    would look politically two-faced.  I think that Foster did the
    numbers dance, perhaps on Clinton's instructions, to maintain
    the appearance of "rare".
    
    Chris

    >     What was the success of this particular "program"??
    
     If you don't know, how can you criticize?

    
    
    I do know.... I just want DougO to stop dodging...