frankhagan.com

The Conservative Political Action Conference, CPAC, certainly had its moments. In what appears to be an impromptu statement, Ryan Sorba, head of the Young Americans for Freedom’s California chapter, stood up to condemn CPAC’s invitation to GOProud, a group that supports gay Republicans:

Mr. Sorba was booed by some in the conservative audience. He has a right to his opinion, and certainly to his personal beliefs. Without vilifying Mr. Sorba, I would like to examine why his concerns are misplaced.

Conservatives and libertarians are concerned about the scope and reach of government. The phrase “limited government” is used to convey this thought. But it is a complex subject. Conservatives generally recognize the need for laws governing human actions that harm or endanger others. Social conservatives tend to marry this idea with another: that individual actions can endanger entire communities, cultures and nations. Sometimes, they want to enact laws, or continue supporting standards to protect society. I submit that is not within the purview of a limited government, as only an expansive, intrusive and overbearing government can hope to “preserve” a culture (think: France).

Finding the right balance between maximum freedom, smallest government, and social order is difficult. But if the choice is between limiting the reach of government into our daily lives and limiting access to political activism by gay people, it might be instructive to take this simple three question test:

Choose one answer in each question:
Within the last 500 years, which one of the following groups has wrongly imprisoned, tortured, and executed people in violation of natural law:
A. Governments
B. Gay people

Within the last 500 years, which one of the following has extracted onerous taxes from people, often without giving them the right to be represented:
A. Governments
B. Gay people

Within the last 500 years, which one of the following has restricted various liberties, including property rights, religious liberty and freedom of speech:
A. Governments
B. Gay people

As the audience members at CPAC booed, they reminded me of the decision by Ronald Reagan as he considered a run for the Presidency. He was asked to oppose the 1978 Briggs Initiative, a measure put to the voters that prohibited gay and lesbian teachers, with jail terms specified for encouraging homosexual behavior. It enjoyed about two thirds support prior to Reagan weighing in, as the Log Cabin Republicans note in their history:

Many prominent politicians in the Republican and Democratic parties were hesitant about standing up to the bigotry of Briggs and his allies. That’s when gay conservatives turned to former governor Ronald Reagan. At the time he was preparing to mount a campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 1980. His advisors all thought he was committing political suicide when he decided to be an outspoken foe of the Briggs Initiative. Reagan declared that the initiative “is not needed to protect our children – we have the legal protection now.”

Reagan went further, detailing the dangers of passing such a measure. “It has the potential for real mischief,” the former governor explained. “What if an overwrought youngster, disappointed by bad grades, imagined it was the teacher’s fault and struck out by accusing the teacher of advocating homosexuality? Innocent lives could be ruined.”

Reagan’s forceful opposition helped defeat the Briggs Initiative. In November 1978, voters rejected the Briggs Initiative by more than a million votes. Even in conservative Orange County, Briggs’ home base, the initiative lost. Long-time Democratic gay activist David Mixner met with Reagan in 1978 to personally lobby him on the Briggs initiative, recalling, “Never have I been treated more graciously by a human being. He turned opinion around and saved that election for us,” Mixner said. “We would have been in deep trouble. He just thought it was wrong and came out against it.”

While social conservatives have a home in the greater conservative movement, it would be instructive for them to remember the greatest threat to freedom comes from government. A government expansive enough to limit the freedom of gays is one expansive enough to limit the freedom of conservatives.

Cross posted to Donklephant

Culture, Politics CPAC, gay rights, GOProud, Log Cabin Republicans, Ronald Reagan

So far in 2009, I have found one exceptional Christmas album to recommend: Christmas in Bethlehem by Swedish artist Carola.

Amazon.com is featuring the song Hark, the Herald Angels Sing [feat. Aygun Beyler and Mahsa Vahdat] as part of their free offerings this year. Hark is a wonderful rendition with a very middle-eastern sound and haunting vocals.

Carola is popular in Sweden, perhaps the most popular female singer in that country, but virtually unknown in the US. The album contains more songs arranged in a similar way to Hark, with complex rhythms, but also beautiful traditional arrangements. In all of them Carola’s voice speaks directly to your soul. I wasn’t surprised to find out she is a Christian; you can tell the music means something.

Culture Amazon MP3, Carola, Christmas, music

In a stunning pairing the likes of which hasn’t been seen since Jimi Hendrix opened for the pseudo-musical group The Monkees, Diane Birch will be the opening act for Nick Jonas and The Administration starting in January, 2010.

Nick Jonas is the youngest brother of the teen-pop Disney-promoted group The Jonas Brothers. One could hope that he has assembled a band that can explore music not suitable for TJB (i.e, “real music”), but alas, it seems that his new band’s album, due out in early 2010, will appeal to his TJB fans:

Nick Jonas & the Administration are comprised of four musicians the Jonas Brothers had met and worked with before, Nick writes, describing the sound as ” ‘heart & soul,’ because the music that I make is from my heart, and the lyrics I write are from my soul.”

Barf.

Meanwhile, the pairing can only be good for Diane Birch, one of the best new singer-songwriters to come along in years. Her appearance on Live from Daryl’s House provided ample evidence of her musical chops:

“Diane has one of the best new female voices I’ve heard in quite a while,” said Daryl about the latest new artist to appear on Live From Daryl’s House. “She’s also a very evocative songwriter and kills on the Wurlitzer. We really had a blast.”

Birch is one of the best new artists to hit this past year, and her album Bible Belt should not be missed.

Culture Daryl Hall, Diane Birch, Live from Daryl's House, Nick Jonas and the Administration

Norman Borlaug has saved more lives than almost any human who has ever lived. He saved more lives than Captain Sullenburger did by successfully landing his airplane on the Hudson River. He saved more lives than Jonas Salk. And Norman Borlaug died Sunday at 95.

Not many of us know about Norman. I ran across him the first time when I was looking into the apocalyptic claims of the environmentalists in the 1960s who said we cannot possibly stem the advance of famine, and that population growth will quickly outstrip our food supplies. Today, many still use the same faulty arguments the environmentalists used then. The environmentalists didn’t know about Norman Borlaug, but he knew about them. He didn’t accept their predictions. And he made sure they didn’t come true.

In 1968, Paul Ehrlich wrote in his highly rated book “The Population Bomb” that “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.” Ehrlich also said, “I have yet to meet anyone familiar with the situation who thinks India will be self-sufficient in food by 1971.” And also that “India couldn’t possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980.”

Ehrlich should have known about Norman, because Norman had already solved that problem. No, not by birth control, abortion or shooting every other person, but by cross-breeding wheat so that it was resistant to bugs and diseases. By 1965, Norman had convinced US authorities to ship the hybrid wheat to Pakistan and India. By the time Ehrlich wrote his book Norman had already been hailed as starting the “Green Revolution” that, except for political interference, ended famine on planet earth.

I had to look up these details again, and found many of them at an obituary at the Reason.com Blog. It is worth reading, just to see how a common American scientist did more than any pop star, movie star or politician.

Norman Borlaug saved more lives than any other human in human history, and most of us have never heard of him. It would be wonderful if the mass media would recognize him this coming week.

Culture, Politics, Science

The Cato Institute’s Michael D. Tanner has published a policy analysis of current health care reform proposals: Obamacare to Come: Seven Bad Ideas for Health Care Reform. The synopsis at that link includes a brief description of the rationing sure to come of any government-mandated plan:

The government would undertake comparative-effectiveness research and cost-effectiveness research, and use the results of that research to impose practice guidelines on providers — initially, in government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, but possibly eventually extending such rationing to private insurance plans.

Starting on page 10 of the full report, he describes the funding in place for “comparative-effectiveness research” … $1.1 billion. The problem with this type of research is it replaces doctor-patient decision making with a statistical analysis of what works for the average patient. Humans are complex individuals, and one treatment might work well for 95% of the people, but be a disaster for the remaining 5%. And it ignores the ethical dimension of decision making.

The “effectiveness formula” will have to include a determination of the outcome for the patient based on their overall health condition and age. Should we give knee replacements to people within 1 year of their average life expectancy? Should children with terminal diseases be given palliative treatments such as tonsil surgery?

Today, those decisions are made by the patient and doctor. The expected Obamacare plan will centralize that decision, based on statistical analysis.

As I noted in my blog post Obama’s Last Theorem, the problem with making these decisions with different outcomes for those within the last year of life is that you cannot possibly know when that last year begins. Statistics look backward in time, and average the results. Patients and doctors are forced to look forward, into the uncertain future, to make the best decision they can based on their own personal knowledge of their illness, life and family history. Effectiveness studies that merely factor in average life expectancies ignore the individual.

Even the effectiveness study itself may do damage to patients in established private medical insurance plans:

Already, special-interest groups are maneuvering to influence the outcome of comparative-effectiveness research. To cite just one example, the Partnership to Improve Patient Care is funded by groups such as Easter Seals, Friends of Cancer Research, the Alliance for Aging Research, the Advanced Medical Technology Association, and the pharmaceutical and biotech industry lobbies. It seeks to “refocus” the comparative-research debate to ensure that its members’ interests are protected.

Special interest groups with undue influence may tweak the results of the study such that more expensive treatments are given the green light, only to be blocked by the rationing effect of the “last year of life” calculation made by some number cruncher. An equally effective, but cheaper treatment, may not be approved because it is not the most “cost effective” according to the lobbyist-influenced study. And private insurers are more likely to use the government sponsored study to avoid paying claims (and abandon their own studies).

Reform in health care should come from more patient and doctor empowerment, not less. Insurance will always have limits, but a market based approach will let people choose the level of coverage they want to have. Insurers have to compete no only on price, but on what they cover.

Beyond the limits of individual insurance coverage, decisions on “comparative effectiveness” are best left to the patient and doctor. As long as the death rate remains at 1:1, an individual should be able to choose if selling his home and possessions is worth the extra weeks, months or years a procedure will give him.

While the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a basic American ideal, the corollary is that government will invariably try to limit all three. Americans should opt for more liberty in daily life, including the freedom to make their own decisions about health care and the limits they want to impose on health care insurance. A more market-based approach is the way to accomplish this without harm to those basic American ideals.

Cross posted to PoliteTalk.com

Culture, Politics