News from the left

That is, the one for him for president, and the one where the state in which his op-ed appears, California, voted to bar gay marriage.

Libertarian Party candidate Barr was not well-loved by many party members for writing the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, which Barr disavows in the Los Angeles Times with some of these words. (This is not the first time he's said he regrets DOMA. But it is the first time he did so in a piece written by him in a major newspaper. It might have been politically smarter to write and try to get prominent placement for this piece in late October.)

I've....come to the conclusion that DOMA is not working out as planned. In testifying before Congress against a federal marriage amendment, and more recently while making my case to skeptical Libertarians as to why I was worthy of their support as their party's presidential nominee, I have concluded that DOMA is neither meeting the principles of federalism it was supposed to, nor is its impact limited to federal law.

In effect, DOMA's language reflects one-way federalism: It protects only those states that don't want to accept a same-sex marriage granted by another state. Moreover, the heterosexual definition of marriage for purposes of federal laws -- including, immigration, Social Security survivor rights and veteran's benefits -- has become a de facto club used to limit, if not thwart, the ability of a state to choose to recognize same-sex unions.

Even more so now than in 1996, I believe we need to reduce federal power over the lives of the citizenry and over the prerogatives of the states. It truly is time to get the federal government out of the marriage business. In law and policy, such decisions should be left to the people themselves.

Reason magazine ran a cover feature interview with candidate Barr in our November 2008 issue. Reason.com did a post-election chat with him in late November. 

So says Andrew Sullivan, in a pretty persuasive (to me) chunk of writing about the controversy over Barack Obama inviting Prop. 8 supporter Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation (on which, make sure to read Katherine Mangu-Ward's piece from Friday). Excerpt from Sullivan:

Virtually Normal was an attempt to construct a theory for gay civil rights which rests on as much freedom and as little power as possible. I want to live in a free society alongside people who genuinely believe I am a sinner destined for hell - and I want to get along with them. I am concerned (but not obsessed) with changing their minds, but totally repelled by the idea of coercing or pressuring them to do so. I am simply interested in having the government treat me as it would treat them. Once we establish that, we can all believe and say and argue for precisely what we want. May a thousand theologies bloom.

So I oppose hate crime laws because they walk too close to the line of trying to police people's thoughts. I support the right of various religious associations to discriminate against homosexuals in employment. I support the right of the most fanatical Christianist to spread the most defamatory stuff about me and the right of the most persuasive Christianist to teach me the error of my ways. I support the right of the St Patrick's Day Parade to exclude gay people - because that's what freedom of association requires. In my ideal libertarian world, I would even support the right of employers to fire gay people at will (although I am in a tiny minority of gays and straights who would tolerate such a thing). All I ask in return is a reciprocal respect: the right to express myself freely and to be treated by the government exactly as any heterosexual in my position would be treated.

I deliberately framed my own case for gay rights away from forcing or even pressuring any other citizen to accept me - because that impedes their freedom and, in my view, the gay movement should always, always be about expanding freedom for everyone, even bigots. That's why I focused on the government treating gays and straights alike.

Whole thing here. Reason on gay/lesbian issues here, including:

* Walter Olson's 1996 review of Virtually Normal, in which Sullivan "emerges much more clearly as a partisan of classical-liberal, if not quite libertarian, views."

* Senior Editor Jacob Sullum more recent argument that "legal equality does not mean requiring universal acceptance of homosexuality," and

* Jonathan Rauch's 2004 examination of "what Friedrich Hayek can teach us about gay marriage."

Oh LGBTers. Don't cry. I know President-elect Barack Obama's breaking your heart. It sucks, doesn't it, when you hitch your wagon to a political party, but the party is just not that into you?

Obama's selection of Rick Warren to do the invocation at his inauguration is a tough blow. After all, Pastor Warren is the guy who recently compared gay marriage to incestuous, polygamous, and pedophilic marriage. Sure, he's not as bad as Jerry Falwell, but it's cold comfort to be told that even though homosexuality is "not the natural way" and is a sin, at least "in the hierarchy of evil...homosexuality is not the worst sin."

And all this had to happen so soon after the whole Proposition 8 fiasco in California, too. It's been a rough couple of months hasn't it, gay and lesbian buddies? Everything looked so cheery on November 3. Obama was about to win, and there was all the excitement of a new relationship. He even let you put his face on your buttons.

But you know who your real friends are, LGBTers. And we're going to help you get through this. Besides, who knows better than libertarians what it's like to be in a long-standing lopsided love affair with a mainstream political party?

After all, we libertarians have given the Republicans our best years, and what do we have to show for it? Nothing. Worse than nothing. Bailouts. For crying out loud, Congress even gave the ballout program a cute nickname (TARP!). It's like they're doing it just to spite us. Sure, opposition to high taxes and regulation brought us together at first. Remember how we used to go red-baiting on dates? It seemed like we had so much in common with the Republicans. But ever since the PATRIOT Act, things just haven't been the same between us.

Those Republicans talk a big game. The bailout is a one-time thing, it means nothing to me, says President George W. Bush. "I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system." You actually expect us to buy that?

Why do we let ourselves get pulled into these dysfunctional relationships over and over, LGBTers? It's not like Barack and Vice President-elect Joe Biden didn't warn you. It was during Rick Warren's Saddleback Civil Forum that Obama said, "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian....it's also a sacred union." But he also said he wouldn't support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and that he'd repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, both of which sounded good. We always hear what we want to hear, don't we?

Anyway, your relationship with the Democratic Party isn't abusive, you just fight sometimes, right? Obama doesn't beat you up, does he? I only ask because of what I heard from that big gossip Kevin Naff, editor of the Washington Blade. He said Warren's "presence on the inauguration stand is a slap in the faces of the millions of GLBT voters who so enthusiastically supported him."

I know what you're thinking, LGBTers. Obama and Warren aren't even right for each other. California gay rights activist Rick Jacobs, who chairs California's Courage Campaign, sounded so right when he said, "It's a huge mistake. He's really the wrong person to lead the president into office."

But I've got to tell it to you straight: For a Bible-thumper, Warren is pretty low key on the whole civil unions thing, plus the issues of visitation and inheritance rights. What if Warren and Obama are both actually just nice Christians who still feel a little squeamish about letting gays go all the way? Obama seems like he's such a nice, liberal guy. He can't really oppose gay marriage, can he? Ugh. Are all relationships plauged with such doubt?

There, there, LGBTers. Remember who was there for you in Florida on the gay adoption thing? Libertarians. Remember who stood by you when Virginia tried to pass an anti-gay marriage amendment? Libertarians. Mainstream political parties may come and go, but we'll always have each other. Sure, we've fought about anti-discrimination and hate speech laws, but you know we just want what's best for you.

Oh, and give Andrew Sullivan my love, OK? I know he had it pretty bad for Obama. "An analyst's mind and a poet's tongue," indeed. Looks like he's seeing Obama in the cold light of inauguration morning now. "If anyone is under any illusion that Obama is interested in advancing gay equality, they should probably sober up now. He won't be as bad as the Clintons (who, among leading Democrats, could?), but pandering to Christianists at his inauguration is a depressing omen."

And then, yesterday, Obama had the nerve to act like this whole Warren thing isn't a big deal. Like inviting Joseph Lowery to do the benediction makes it all better, just because he's a respected civil rights leader.

I know you're probably going to go crawling back to the Democrats, LGBTers. The single life can be tough, and God knows it's not like Republicans are showing that much interest in you. You'd think they'd at least want to take you out to dinner and get to know you better. Oh well. All it's going to take is for Obama to repeal "don't ask don't tell" and adopt a pug and you're going to fly right back into his arms. And I don't blame you for it.

But don't let him treat you so badly, OK? You deserve better. Just don't act surprised when he does it again, either. You know how politicians are. Dogs, all of them.

Katherine Mangu-Ward is an associate editor at reason.

Pat Boone, "descendant of the legendary pioneer Daniel Boone, top-selling recording artist, star of his own hit TV series, movie star, Broadway headliner, and best-selling author," says America should be be on alert, because the hate-fueled violence we saw in Mumbai last month could happen here.  And not necessarily just from militant Islamists, but also from . . . the queers.

Have you not seen the awful similarity between what happened in Mumbai and what's happening right now in our cities?

Oh, I know the homosexual "rights" demonstrations haven't reached the same level of violence, but I'm referring to the anger, the vehemence, the total disregard for law and order and the supposed rights of their fellow citizens. I'm referring to the intolerance, the hate seething in the words, faces and actions of those who didn't get their way in a democratic election, and who proclaim loudly that they will get their way, no matter what the electorate wants!

Hate is hate, no matter where it erupts. And hate, unbridled, will eventually and inevitably boil into violence.

[...]

What troubles me so deeply, and should trouble all thinking Americans, is that there is a real, unbroken line between the jihadist savagery in Mumbai and the hedonistic, irresponsible, blindly selfish goals and tactics of our homegrown sexual jihadists. Hate is hate, no matter where it erupts. And by its very nature, if it's not held in check, it will escalate into acts vile, violent and destructive. 

I suppose that would explain all the recent news stories about roving gangs of homosexuals beating straight people to death because of their sexual preference.

1) Rich Raddon, "the highly praised and well-liked director of the ever-enlarging L.A. Film Festival," privately donates $1,500 to the campaign in favor of Proposition 8, the California initiative limiting state-sanctioned marriage to heterosexual couples.

2) Because of disclosure laws, Raddon's name shows up on the Prop. 8 donor database. Hollywood blogger David Poland notices, reports the news, and word soon spreads.

3) Raddon resigns from the festival's parent organization (Film Independent, or "FIND"), but the resignation is turned down. Further outcry ensues.

4) About 10 days later, Raddon resigns again. This time it's accepted.

5) On the Santa Monica-based KCRW, arguably the most influential public radio station in the country, Claude Brodesser-Akner, host of the Industry-tracking program "The Business," opens his Dec. 8 show (about Che Guevara, fittingly enough!) with a self-descibed "rant" about the whole episode:

Raddon's censure feels an awful lot we're headed back to a time in Hollywood none of us should want to revisit. It was called the Black List. Let's not shame ourselves with a Pink List to go with it.

6) Chastened no-on-8 types decide to chill out, and think twice before demanding people lose their jobs over their political activities. Ha ha, just kidding. Legendary KCRW General Manager Ruth Seymour–past recipient of a Los Angeles Times First Amendment Award!–takes the unusual step of bitch-slapping Brodesser-Akner publicly:

Last week listeners to this program heard an announcement by host Claude Brodesser-Akner purporting to be a (quote) "rant on behalf of the entire editorial staff of The Business."

Well, a "rant" is certainly what it was, in all the pejorative meanings of that term.

The management of KCRW takes editorial positions on very rare occasions. Management alone has that prerogative. In this instance, management was neither consulted nor informed. [...]

The Business compared his resignation to the Hollywood Blacklist days when members of the film industry lost their jobs because of alleged Communist sympathies. The actors, directors, writers and producers who were targeted in the Blacklist never resigned their positions. The Business never offered those who disagreed with the producers the opportunity to answer. KCRW regrets airing this out-of-the-blue opinion and has made it clear to those involved that it is unacceptable. On behalf of the station and its commitment to fairness and accuracy, please accept our apologies and regrets.

Back in 2004, I wrote about how Ruth Seymour A) fired an essayist for inadvertently using the word "fuck" on air, and then B) blamed it on the Bush administration.

The folks at prestigious Johns-Hopkins are making some surprisingly salient big-picture observations about the absolute crappy health-care system our pharma and scientific masters have created.

While you're at it, put aside the medical attention you receive, which you're generally happy with, according to most surveys. Instead, immerse yourself in the harrowing statistics: The United States spends $2.1 trillion a year on health care. More than 30 percent of that — about $700 billion — has nothing to do with improving people's health. Instead, it goes to administrative costs and for tests and treatments that aren't necessary.

Unecessary tests and treatments? Who'da thunk?

"The best of the best of our health system is the best in the world," says William R. Brody, president of Johns Hopkins University, who will retire from his post at the end of the year. "But the average is not so hot. We need to do better."

Euphemistically speaking, Yes, the average is " not so hot". Honestly speaking,  it's crap, served in a crap sandwich. Bogus tests to scare people and sell toxic, expensive drugs that have so many side effects, you need MORE toxic, expensive drugs!

One way to attack the cost issue while treating patients better is to re-emphasize primary care. Barbara Starfield, a professor at the Bloomberg School, found that when primary care physicians lead medical teams, health improves and costs fall. The more physicians there are, the more mortality is reduced.

Quoting the great Barbara Starfield is always a good thing. Particularly, her acknowledgement that US doctors and hospitals kill 225,000. See Starfield, JAMA (2000) 284:483-485

Read the whole damn thing!

Detective Clark Baker returns to the scene of the crime.

The problem is that this scam is fast approaching the $1 TRILLION mark in what taxpayers have wasted on AIDS since 1984. As recently as last summer, Congress and President Bush authorized another $48 billion for the alleged “AIDS epidemic” in Africa. But you will see on pages seven and eight that South Africa’s own government reports that AIDS deaths represent less than one percent of all mortality there. That number is also suspect because many companies rely on the AIDS mythology to avoid liability.

By MARIA CHENG – 11 hours ago

LONDON (AP) — As World AIDS Day is marked on Monday, some experts are growing more outspoken in complaining that AIDS is eating up funding at the expense of more pressing health needs.

They argue that the world has entered a post-AIDS era in which the disease's spread has largely been curbed in much of the world, Africa excepted.

"AIDS is a terrible humanitarian tragedy, but it's just one of many terrible humanitarian tragedies," said Jeremy Shiffman, who studies health spending at Syracuse University.

Roger England of Health Systems Workshop, a think tank based in the Caribbean island of Grenada, goes further. He argues that UNAIDS, the U.N. agency leading the fight against the disease, has outlived its purpose and should be disbanded.

"The global HIV industry is too big and out of control. We have created a monster with too many vested interests and reputations at stake, ... too many relatively well paid HIV staff in affected countries, and too many rock stars with AIDS support as a fashion accessory," he wrote in the British Medical Journal in May.

Paul de Lay, a director at UNAIDS, disagrees. It's valid to question AIDS' place in the world's priorities, he says, but insists the turnaround is very recent and it would be wrong to think the epidemic is under control.

"We have an epidemic that has caused between 55 million and 60 million infections," de Lay said. "To suddenly pull the rug out from underneath that would be disastrous."

U.N. officials roughly estimate that about 33 million people worldwide have HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Scientists say infections peaked in the late 1990s and are unlikely to spark big epidemics beyond Africa.

In developed countries, AIDS drugs have turned the once-fatal disease into a manageable illness.

England argues that closing UNAIDS would free up its $200 million annual budget for other health problems such as pneumonia, which kills more children every year than AIDS, malaria and measles combined.

"By putting more money into AIDS, we are implicitly saying it's OK for more kids to die of pneumonia," England said.

His comments touch on the bigger complaint: that AIDS hogs money and may damage other health programs.

By 2006, AIDS funding accounted for 80 percent of all American aid for health and population issues, according to the Global Health Council.

In Ethiopia, Rwanda, Uganda and elsewhere, donations for HIV projects routinely outstrip the entire national health budgets.

In a 2006 report, Rwandan officials noted a "gross misallocation of resources" in health: $47 million went to HIV, $18 million went to malaria, the country's biggest killer, and $1 million went to childhood illnesses.

"There needs to be a rational system for how to apportion scarce funds," said Helen Epstein, an AIDS expert who has consulted for UNICEF, the World Bank, and others.

AIDS advocates say their projects do more than curb the virus; their efforts strengthen other health programs by providing basic health services.

But across Africa, about 1.5 million doctors and nurses are still needed, and hospitals regularly run out of basic medicines.

Experts working on other health problems struggle to attract money and attention when competing with AIDS.

"Diarrhea kills five times as many kids as AIDS," said John Oldfield, executive vice president of Water Advocates, a Washington, D.C.-based organization that promotes clean water and sanitation.

"Everybody talks about AIDS at cocktail parties," Oldfield said. "But nobody wants to hear about diarrhea," he said.

These competing claims on public money are likely to grow louder as the world financial meltdown threatens to deplete health dollars.

"We cannot afford, in this time of crisis, to squander our investments," Dr. Margaret Chan, WHO's director-general, said in a recent statement.

Some experts ask whether it makes sense to have UNAIDS, WHO, UNICEF, the World Bank, the Global Fund plus countless other AIDS organizations, all serving the same cause.

"I do not want to see the cause of AIDS harmed," said Shiffman of Syracuse University. But "For AIDS to crowd out other issues is ethically unjust."

De Lay argues that the solution is not to reshuffle resources but to boost them.

"To take money away from AIDS and give it to diarrheal diseases or onchocerciasis (river blindness) or leishmaniasis (disfiguring parasites) doesn't make any sense," he said. "We'd just be doing a worse job in everything else."