Holsinger nomination is still dead

Kentuckian James Holsinger, President Bush's nominee for Surgeon General, got grilled by a U. S. Senate health committee over his 1991 paper for a United Methodist Church committee on the health ramifications of homosexual behavior. Holsinger has invited political enemies on both ends of the political spectrum by, on the one hand, having written the paper, and on the other, by not even trying to defend it.

Here is the Washington Post relating the offensive nature of the paper:

Holsinger said he prepared the paper for a study committee of the United Methodist Church. In it, he argued that the sexes are anatomically complementary and that "when the complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and diseases may occur."

Thinking that the sexes are anatomically complementary now apparently constitutes a thought crime in Washington and in the media. Instead of standing up for what he said he believed, Holsinger immediately wilted in the media glare that followed his nomination for the position, and his dissembling continued before the Senate committee. This is how far we have come:

Holsinger said yesterday that his views had evolved and that the issues he raised in the paper would not be relevant in public health discussions today. "I have a deep appreciation for the essential humanity of everyone, regardless of their personal circumstances or sexual orientation," he said.

Of course people's essential humanity has nothing to do with it, and saying that it does goes beyond the bounds of surrendering yourself to the ideological thought police and constitutes rendering them aid and comfort.

Why is the Bush administration even continuing to push his nomination? It has been dead for months.

Postmodern Sex and Orifice Confusion

Okay, I'm thinking about how nice it must have been in better times to open up the newspaper and read about the latest good deeds of the local women's charitable society and all the nice things it was doing for foreign orphans or something. But thanks to things like the debate over the Holsinger nomination, we find ourselves opening up the pages of the local gazette and being treated to the latest apologetic for the legitimacy of trying to use the digestive system as if it were the reproductive system by those who seem to hold the dictates of biology is extremely low esteem.

Gee. I actually got through that whole paragraph without saying what I really would rather not talk about but can't seem to avoid because certain people want to talk very publicly about what they keep insisting, in the same breath, everyone ought to stay out of because it is their own private business.

"O shame, where is they blush?"

But there it is: prominently displayed on the editorial page of the Louisville Courier-Journal. We're arguing about anal sex. Ugh. It's enough of an indignity to have to talk about it in the first place, but do we really have to endure pious sermons on why it's a sin to consider such peculiar activity abnormal?

Here is Michael Cornwall, waxing eloquent (but not particularly logical) on why homosexuals should not be distinguished by their homosexuality despite the fact that that is, literally, their only distinguishing feature:

Gays and lesbians cannot be reduced to STDs and abnormal sex. Gays and lesbians enjoy an ample culture, in spite of the roadblocks placed in their way, complete with fulfilling, loving relationships.

In other words, we have a whole group of people who define and distinguish themselves by a particular act who are now complaining that everyone defines and distinguishes them by this act. Well, if their actions are not peculiar, their arguments certainly are. "'Normal' sexual expression cannot be characterized by intake and expulsion orifices," Corwall, who is apparently confused as to which orifice is which, assures us.

Then there is this logical specimen from Todd M. Read of Jeffersonville, Indiana:

According to his logic [the logic that says that certain orifices have certain purposes], the duality of the female vagina as an entrance and an exit should confuse the human race so as there would be no reproduction. I mean, if we are all "normal," wouldn't this conflict of interests end civilization as we know it?

I don't know who Todd M. Read is, but let's just hope, for the sake of the people of Jeffersonville, Indiana, that he's not an OB/GYN (or for that matter, a plumber). One supposes that in medical school, unlike certain lodgements in Jeffersonville, Indiana, there is little confusion as to which orifice is to be used for what purpose.

And speaking of plumbers, would anyone hire a piping professional (they're not calling them that now, but I give it five years) who didn't think it out of the ordinary to hook up the sewage pipes to the water pipes? Didn't think so.

And it only adds to the indignity of having to listen to all this that these people who are arguing for the normality of the multipurpose use of orifices (and that's the last time I'm ever going to use that word--I promise) don't even believe in normality in the first place. In the postmodern world, nothing has any purpose except that to which it happens to be put. You can't really apply that idea to anything practical of course: a 11/16" socket only fits an 11/16" nut (which is one reason you find so few postmodern mechanics). But, for some reason, there are people who think all this makes perfect sense when it comes to sex.

You just can't argue that something is abnormal with people who don't believe in normality at all, any more than you can argue with someone that a stick is crooked when they don't believe in such a thing a straight stick.

But I believe in such a thing as a straight stick, even though there are some people who apparently think that is controversial.

Holsinger's testimony proof he's perfect for Washington

Kentuckian James Holsinger is looking more and more qualified for life in Washington should he be approved by a Senate Committee that is now conducting a show trial on his nomination as U. S. Surgeon General. He announced, as everyone expected, that he disavowed the now controversial report he wrote as a member of a United Methodist task force in 1991 that found certain homosexual sexual practices were unhealthy.

This shows that he is willing to bow to political pressure to secure his position. This is an essential skill one must master in the nation's capitol in order to survive politically.

Furthermore, after bowing to political pressure, Holsinger announced that, if approved as U. S. Surgeon General, he would never bow to political pressure. This is also a promising sign. This shows his willingness to engage in hypocrisy with a straight face. Even some seasoned political operators have not completely mastered this skill. To be able to look straight into a camera and claim that you are not going to do what you are, in fact, even at that very moment, doing will come in handy in Washington.

Surely Ted Kennedy, of all people, should appreciate this quality in Holsinger.

The other members too should see in Holsinger a characteristic they all ought to admire, since they possess it to such a large degree themselves. After all, none of the medicine has changed since the report was written, but the politics certainly has. And these senators, who at the time would undoubtedly themselves have agreed with the report's findings (remember, this was 1991, when almost everyone agreed with what Holsinger wrote in his report), are indignant that anyone would have believed then what they themselves surely believed at the time.

But for some reason, many of the members of the committee, who want to ensure that the U. S. Surgeon General's office remains above politics by forcing nominees to bow to politics, remain unimpressed.

Here is a committee of politicians who want to sacrifice science to politics while it is saying that it doesn't want science sacrificed to politics, and it has a nominee in front of it who is willing to sacrifice science to politics and bold enough to tell the committee that he would never do such a thing, and they're going to let the opportunity go by?

If they do that, someone is just going to have to start questioning their integrity.

Holsinger op ed in today's Herald-Leader

My editorial "Do we need a Surgeon General who takes medicine this seriously?" (see below) was the lead opinion piece in today's Lexington Herald-Leader. The new title: "He's just a doctor. What does he know?"

Kentucky Equality Federation opposes Holsinger for "U. S. Attorney General" just in case.

Gay rights zealotry has its privileges, which apparently include the ability to oppose a nominee for a position for which he has not even been considered. The Kentucky Equality Federation is so opposed to Dr. James Holsinger that they are not merely opposing him for the position for which he has been nominated, but also for positions for which he has not been nominated.

Bible Belt Blogger Frank Lockwood (who, by the way, kindly posted a link to a previous post despite the fact that I took a pop at him in the piece--what a guy) spotted this comment in The Kentucky Equality Federation's newest press release:

Kentucky Equality Federation will be sending its certified condemnation of Dr. James Holsinger as U.S. Attorney General to U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy, the chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. [emphasis added]

I'm sure Ted Kennedy will appreciate the sentiment.

While they're at it, why don't they go ahead and oppose him for Labor Secretary, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Secretary of State? They could, on the other hand, take a completely different tack and actually support him for some other position. I'm thinking, for instance, of something like Ambassador to the Sudan.

The wording of the Equality Federation's press release is interesting for another reason. Note that they are not simply opposing Holsinger's nomination, but condemning him. This is not atypical behavior for the Tolerance Police, who, while they lecture everyone else about the evils of hate, are in fact the most inveterate practitioners of it.

Oh, and this condemnation is not just a condemnation, but a "certified condemnation." Ooooh. Exactly where does one go to get a condemnation certified? Can I do it at my local bank? At the post office? One begins to think that it is only a matter of time before the Equality Federation begins issuing official anathemas against those who have the temerity to question their gay rights dogmas.

The press release contends that Holsinger's medical opinions have been influenced by his religious beliefs. That, of course, is against the Equality Federation's long-standing position that medical opinions should not be influenced by religion, but should instead be influenced by politics.