Surgeon General Nominee = Anti-gay Bigot

[revtj]

He needs a press person like Tony Snow or Stephen Colbert or somebody.

Possible Answers:

"I cannot comment on an ongoing rectal examination"

or Clintonesque:

"I did not have a paper with that-- that sex, Pathophysiology..."

or the Bushies favorite:

"I don't recall." which, when coupled with, "On the advice of counsel, I choose to exercise my 5th Amendment rights" secures your job for 2 years at least.

or Colbertesque: demonize the questioner and flatter the people, like,

"Senator, I am not going to sit here and waste the taxpayers money being forced to talk about the lurid details of gay sex acts. You, sir, should be ashamed!"

or George H W-esque:

"Read my lips. No more c*cks*ckers."



(gimmee a break, it's Friday!)

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

Christian Century is generally regarded as a "progressive" Christian journal. However, it sometimes tries to be very "middle of the road" regarding the LGBT issue. It editorialized against Soulforce's direct action at the 2000 United Methodist General Conference in Cleveland, for instance.

Now Christian Century has published an article which makes the claim that Holsinger is being subjected to an unfair "religious litmus test." ". . .go against your church on the gay issue, or say goodbye to any political future."

Christian Century publishes critical letters to the Editor. Anyone so motivated?

Here's the article which Christian Century published in their July 24th edition. The link here is to the version of the article that appeared on Christian Century's blog, Theolog.org.

http://www.theolog.org/blog/2007/07/...t-ga.html#more

There are a few valid points made by the author. Some of the claims made against Holsinger in the blogosphere and the press were exagerated or mistaken. But there was some truth to some of the claims.

The article claims that Holsinger's position on the United Methodist Judicial Council was that of a "strict constructionist." However, one of his fellow Judicial Council members issued a stinging dissent accusing Holsinger of legislating from the bench--the exact opposite of what a "strict constructionist" should be.

I'm not sure I can take on another project right now. Anyone up to doing a "letter to the editor?"

Steven Webster

[Emproph]

There's a little bit too much NOT going on with that article to fully address it all, but what's my word limit?

I didn't think I was up for it and I can't promise anything, but I posted this on the site and apparently it's those goat getters that really get me going...

Jason Byassee writes: "There may be good reason to oppose Holsinger, including a 1991 report to the church that went on at length on the dangers of anal sex. That was a common conservative argument then, and is still widely held now, even if its supporters keep their heads down in public."
____
-To even frame that paper as being about the dangers of anal sex tells me you haven't read the paper itself, let alone this thorough rebuttal of it:
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/06/11/431

-An excerpt:
"Conclusion: The whole point of Holsinger's paper is to draw a sharp contrast between gay relationships and heterosexual relationships. But to do so, he culls his evidence largely from papers which describe injuries from nonconsensual intercourse to denigrate consensual relationships, he describes odd sexual practices that are enjoyed by heterosexual couples to denigrate the minority of gay couples who indulge in those same practices, and he misleads his readers by padding his bibliography with more references to papers explicitly describing injuries experienced by heterosexual men and women to imply that they describe gay men instead."

-The examples of dishonesty in the article are many and varied, but here's just one specific example:
"But to justify his singling out of gay men, Holsinger cited another study to say that STD's are "strongly correlated to sexual lifestyle" ... It turns out that these statistics came from one lone study consisting of a convenience sample of 365 male patients, all of whom attended a single urban STD clinic in Copenhagen over a seven month period in 1983."

-Would YOU go to ONE hospital to measure the health of an entire population, and then present that as science?

This is what I mean by dishonesty. So when I hear complaints about the unfair employment of a religious litmus test, what I see is the defense of intentional dishonesty in the name of Christianity.

I realize you used Holsinger's paper as a possible reason why he should NOT be confirmed, but you might want to take a closer look before defending it as even being about the dangers of anal sex -- "That was a common conservative argument then, and is still widely held now."

Don't worry, I'd be kind.

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

The Bible Belt Blogger has just posted a quote from John Kerry

Press release via State News Service:

Senator John Kerry released the following statement today on the nomination of Dr. James Holsinger Jr. for U.S. Surgeon General.
"For the past six years we have seen this White House put politics ahead of health and science in a dangerous and reckless way," Senator Kerry said. "From vetoing the potential of life saving stem cell research to manipulating climate change reports to quieting the dangers of second hand smoke, they've gone to any lengths to put their interests ahead of our public health and scientific research.
"That's why more than ever the American people need a surgeon general who won't bend to heavy-handed political pressure. Dr. Holsinger is not the right person for the job. His troubling, unscientific and intolerant writings on homosexuality and his unwillingness to promote women's health initiatives while Chief Medical Director at the Department of Veterans Affairs prove he will serve based on his own political views, and not the truth of science. Dr. Holsinger's track record proves he cannot be an unbiased, science-first national spokesman on medical and public health issues. I will oppose his nomination to be Surgeon General and urge my colleagues to do the same."

Here's the link to Bible Belt Blogger--a good news source, and he's been dogging the Holsinger nomination.

http://www2.arkansasonline.com/blogs...1/surgeon-ge3/

I can't see this nomination going through the Senate. Let's see if Bush pullls another "recess appointment" just to show how he can still govern as "King George" without oversight or bothersome "checks and balances."

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

Very early in the Holsinger controversy, one of the more extreme claims made in the blogosphere was the charge of "embezzlement" having to do with the Surgeon General nominee's role as a trustee with a not for profit.

First the link to the recently published well-documented article: http://www.mediatransparency.org:80/...hp?storyID=208

"Embezzlement" was likely an exageration, however more research into the issues involved raise serious questions of "conflict of interest" and serious ethical issues. While Holsinger was President ("Chief Justice") of the Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church, he was at the same time President of a Board of Trustees of a $20 million Foundation that was suing the United Methodist Church over control of those assets--which the United Methodist Church owned. While the United Methodist Church was fighting for ten years for control of these assets, the Foundation made several very large grants to the University of Kentucky Medical School where Holsinger was Chancellor. The historic purpose of the Foundation when it was under United Methodist control was to provide care for the indigent poor, not to endow professorial chairs at Universities.

I fully agree with the call to hold Senate hearings on the question of Surgeon General nominee Holsinger's ethics.

Steven Webster

[Jamie McDaniel]

Here is some news.

The Cincinnati Post
Surgeon General Nominee on Hold

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

This is kind of a suprise:

http://www.wfn.org/2007/10/msg00184.html

Holsinger is not giving up his seat on the Judicial Council, but he seems to want to stay out of the lime light just now. Apparently, he thinks he still has a chance at the Surgeon General job.

He is eligible to run for a second 8-year term on the Judicial Council at an election to be held at the General Conference next April-May.

Odd he seems to find a reason to recuse himself from an entire session of the Judicial Council now. He seemed to see no problem sitting on the Judicial Council these last several years while he was fighting the church in civil court over control of a 20 million dollar foundation. See one of my recent posts in this thread for more information about that.

This might be good news for Drew Phoenix. However, I beleve there may be an alternate Judicial Council member who might take Holsinger's place--a liberal, moderate or conservative?--I don't know.

It may just have been too hot in the kitchen for Holsinger.

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

Here's a link to the Blade's article on Holsinger's decision to be absent from the current session of the Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church.

http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/t...?blog_id=14923

I've seen no speculation yet as to why this suprise move. My guess would be that Holsinger still wants to be Surgeon General and he's trying to avoid more adverse publicity while the Senate is still sitting on his nomination.

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

And here's an article from a Kentucky paper:

http://www.kentucky.com/471/story/211851.html

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

Surgeon General Nominee James Holsinger is playing hooky from this meeting that he's supposed to preside at. Never-the-less the Judicial Council is meeting to decide several issues of importance to LGBT persons. Here's a link to a blog discussing a direct action in support of LGBT persons occuring at the Judicial Council meeting.

http://welcomingministries.blogspot....il-update.html

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

Holsinger is back in the news:

http://www.kentucky.com/454/story/265062.html

The Senate is again remaining in pro forma session in order to forestall a recess appointment of Holsinger (and others?) by Bush.

In the meantime, Holsinger still hasn't submitted answers to a written list of questions submitted by the Senate committee reviewing his nomination.

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

One of the good things that happened at the United Methodist General Conference was the election losses suffered by the James Holsinger wing of the Judicial Council. Holsinger himself declined to run for re-election and his right-wing Judicial Council colleagues were swept out of office and replaced with progressives and moderates.

One issue that was before the General Conference delegates was a motion to censure James Holsinger for a church-related money-scandal. Holsinger seems to have had a serious and unacknowledged conflict of interest. At the same time as he was President of the Judicial Council, he was involved in a civil lawsuit against the United Methodist Church! As the recent article below alleges, Holsinger used his position as a trustee of a non-profit foundation to make multi-million dollar grants of United Methodist money to the University of Kentucky while he was at the same time responsible for fundraising for the University of Kentucky.

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/4/29/155331/419

While at General Conference in Fort Worth last week, I had a chance encounter with Dr. Holsinger. I shook his hand and, with a smile, introduced myself as with Soulforce. Someone was just then commiserating with him about the rough treatment he has recently received. I must admit, I don't feel much sorry for him.

Steven Webster