Saturday Links

By John Ballard

?Who will sit with whom for SOTU?  In response to the Tucson tragedy someone came up with the notion of desegregating elected representatives for the president's State of the Union message. Congressmen and Senators sitting in bipartisan pairs or small groups will be an interesting scene, if it really happens. (I suppose the Supreme Court will not participate in this Kumbaya moment but analyzing their configuration would make a good parlor game. As would watching Justice Alito's lips.)

But this arrangement is not being met with universal enthusiasm. At least one elected representative sees this arrangement as a Democratic trick to mute Republicans in the aftermath of a bruising defeat in the 2010 midterms. Georgia's Tenth District Representative Paul Broun, a physician doncha know, is four-square against the arrangement. Desegregation has been an issue before in his part of the country, but this time it takes on a different, er, shade.

A proposal for Democrats and Republicans to sit among each other during the State of the Union next week is gaining momentum, but one House Republican said in a radio interview that he thinks the idea is a "trap."

In the wake of the tragic shooting in Tucson, Ariz. earlier this month that left Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) critically wounded, Democratic Senator Mark Udall of Colorado suggested that members of the House and Senate end the practice of divided seating along partisan lines during the State of the Union, in the name of civility. Several congressmen have agreed to the mixed-seating plan, but don't expect to see Republican Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia sitting with any Democrats.

In an interview with conservative radio host Scott Hennen, highlighted by the liberal media watchdog group "Media Matters," Broun said he was suspicious of the Democrats' motivations for the mixed seating.

"I already believe very firmly that it is a trap and a ruse that Democrats are proposing," Broun said. "They don't want civility. They want silence from the Republicans. And the sitting together being kissy-kissy is just another way to try to silence Republicans, and also to show -- to keep the American people from seeing how few of them there are in the U.S. House now."

I must admit that this man understands his constituency. His headlines and soundbites are a study in populist appeal.

• "People Are Gonna Die" Because Of Clean Energy Legislation


• Broun Warns Constituents Of Obama Dictatorship


• Broun: Pelosi A 'Domestic Enemy Of The Constitution' 


• Broun calls out Pelosi (again) 


• Compares Health Care Reform To "The Great War Of Yankee Aggression"

H/T TPC.
What more can I say? I've been living in this political cesspool for decades.
I can relate to Jane Goodall.

~~~~~

?Human rights "not the same" in Haiti, Duvalier lawyer says

In a way this link is exhibit #2 in the Georgia Political Cesspool folder. It seems one of the lawyers on the team of Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier is another former Georgia Congressman, Bob Barr.
Pinch your nose as you read this...

Human rights in Haiti should not be judged by the standards of the United States or Switzerland, a US lawyer working with ex-president Jean-Claude Duvalier said late Friday.

'Baby Doc' Duvalier, whose rule from 1971 to 1986 was to be investigated for suspected human rights abuses, returned to the earthquake-stricken country on Sunday after a 25-year exile.

'Human rights in Haiti are not the same as in the US, Switzerland or in Sweden,' said Edwin Marger, one of several US lawyers speaking as Duvalier's assistants in the Haitian capital on Friday.

'Human rights in Haiti is based on all of the things that Haitians have had to endure,' said the lawyer, who has also worked with Duvalier's father and predecessor.

'Yes there were people who were killed in all those regimes,' Marger said. But he also noted 'the tyres being put over the necks of the Duvalierists that remained in this country and being burned,' in reference to the reprisals against Duvalier's supporters after he was ousted in 1986.

'Regardless of what people say or do or think about what happened during the Duvalier regime, at least there was stability in the country and the people in great measure were progressive,' Marger said.

Now, he said, progress 'has come to a halt.'

[...] US lawyer and former Republican congressman Bob Barr, another counsel for Duvalier, said the former dictator could help restore donors' confidence in Haiti.

Aid money could then flow to an 'entity' which 'everybody agrees is trustworthy and will spend those money for the people of Haiti,' Barr said.

Duvalier's representatives were asked whether his unexpected return had anything to do with a Swiss law to be passed next month which could send 5 million dollars, currently blocked in accounts in his name, back to the beleaguered Caribbean country.

The lawyers replied that the former ruler had no interest in the money 'for himself.'

'What he'd like to do with the funds in Switzerland is contribute to the rebuilding of the country,' Marger said. 'That's one of the reasons he came back, because we believe that the US, knowing what the reasons are for his returning, will help him to do that.'

H/T Crawford Kilian

Quick. Get a tissue to wipe the tears.
This poor man and his associates have nothing more in mind than protecting human rights and helping the poor people of Haiti.
If it were happening in America they would be consulting the ACLU.
Riiiight.

~~~~~

?VIDEO: The ad that Fox rejected. Go watch at the link. It's perfect for Newshoggers because they have a flying pig under the video.

No further commentary is necessary.

~~~~~

?A Path Is Sought for States to Escape Their Debt Burdens

Policymakers are working behind the scenes to come up with a way to let states declare bankruptcy and get out from under crushing debts, including the pensions they have promised to retired public workers.

Unlike cities, the states are barred from seeking protection in federal bankruptcy court. Any effort to change that status would have to clear high constitutional hurdles because the states are considered sovereign.

But proponents say some states are so burdened that the only feasible way out may be bankruptcy, giving Illinois, for example, the opportunity to do what General Motors did with the federal government�s aid.

Beyond their short-term budget gaps, some states have deep structural problems, like insolvent pension funds, that are diverting money from essential public services like education and health care. Some members of Congress fear that it is just a matter of time before a state seeks a bailout, say bankruptcy lawyers who have been consulted by Congressional aides.

This is not news. It was also predictable. Anyone who thinks elected representatives give a damn what happens after they are out of office is living in a fool's paradise. How else would state after state allow themselves to get into such a mess? If this were an isolated instance of one or two states I would come to a different conclusion. But when most of the country is involved a systemic problem is conspicuously clear.

The root of the problem is not bonds and investments but state and local politicians who cannot resist promising what they cannot deliver, retirement benefits way out of line with what most non-government pension plans offer with financing left to future office-holders. Many of these plans were conceived with the best of good intentions and no attempt to promise what might not be delivered. But unlike bank depositors or pension plan participants with FDIC and PBGC respectively for safety nets, municipal and state employees don't have a safety net in the event their city or state is not able to meet their (actuarially predictable, incidentally) payout responsibilities.

My prediction is two-fold.

First, a closer look at retirement arrangements for state and local empoloyees are about to receive a very belated second look to see (a) what is realistic and (b) how much of those future obligations should be paid for my the future beneficiaries themselves. Think IRA, 401k, ROTH, etc.

And second, a national safety net for this class of professionals will be conceived and put into motion to get states and cities out of trouble (really serious trouble only -- i.e. bankruptcy) if there are no alternatives. It can be called SLECPPF (State & Local Employees Christmas Pony Protection Fund), to be funded quarterly by all participating government entities. Failure to participate will result in a lower credit and bond rating for any such entity refusing to participate.

(A third option would be a safety net for state obligations other than those promised for future employee benefits. a fund in which states could participate. But that notion implies far too much fiduciary responsibility by any political entiey, local, state or national. Events of the last few decades clearly indicate such an idea is not even close to realistic.)

~~~~~

?What happens when an entire country legalizes drug use?

Portugal is now several years along in the world's most important test case seeking an answer to that question.

In the end, there was no way to ignore the problem, and no way for politicians to spin it, either. Young people across Portugal were injecting themselves with heroin. HIV and Hepatitis C infection rates were soaring. And Casal Ventoso, a neighborhood in Lisbon, had become a dark symbol of this small nation�s immense drug problem. Junkies openly injected themselves in the street, dirty syringes piled up in the gutters, alleyways reeked of garbage and human waste, and no one seemed to care.

�Welcome to Lisbon�s drugs supermarket,� a police officer said to a visitor in 2001, surveying the daily depravity with a shrug. But Jo�Goul� Portugal�s drug czar, admits now that the police officer was probably understating it. �Casal Ventoso,� Goul�said recently, �was the biggest supermarket of drugs in Europe.�

Faced with both a public health crisis and a public relations disaster, Portugal�s elected officials took a bold step. They decided to decriminalize the possession of all illicit drugs � from marijuana to heroin � but continue to impose criminal sanctions on distribution and trafficking. The goal: easing the burden on the nation�s criminal justice system and improving the people�s overall health by treating addiction as an illness, not a crime.

As the sweeping reforms went into effect nine years ago, some in Portugal prepared themselves for the worst. They worried that the country would become a junkie nirvana, that many neighborhoods would soon resemble Casal Ventoso, and that tourists would come to Portugal for one reason only: to get high. �We promise sun, beaches, and any drug you like,� complained one fearful politician at the time.

But nearly a decade later, there�s evidence that Portugal�s great drug experiment not only didn�t blow up in its face; it may have actually worked. More addicts are in treatment. Drug use among youths has declined in recent years.

I haven't read the whole article yet but I already know where it is headed. And so do you.

I am reminded of my time as a Army Medic and the challenge of venereal disease, now more accurately called STD's. Years ago getting VD was a court-martial offense. Consequently no one was discovered until their condition was too medically messy to ignore and the chain of infection had been passed on the many more partners. VD was impossible to control. But when the military began treating VD as a medical condition those who got crab lice, gonorrhea, syphilis or other infections could access a doctor and get treated. Did VD go away? Of course not. But it became far more manageable than it had been when it was a punishable condition. In the little dispensary where I was assigned village prostitutes were routinely discretely brought in for penicillin shots when they tested positive for VD.
(Tested how? By whom? I have no idea. I didn't ask. I was told they were registered and tested in the village by some local authority. Civilian or official? Again, I don't know. Those were really the days of don't ask, don't tell.)