– Mexico’s organized crime groups are now starting to take over some other agricultural industries by force.

– Naked Capitalism connects the dots on how our banking crisis provided a very strong disincentive to do anything about Wachovia’s dealings with Mexico’s drug trafficking organizations.

– At the Cannabis Defense Coalition’s public meeting tomorrow night, the discussion will be about the pending medical marijuana bill.

– Also regarding medical marijuana, Dr. Oz actually did a pretty good job with the topic, despite allowing heavily-funded charlatan Andrea Barthwell on the panel (Barthwell is paid by a company that makes a medical marijuana substitute called Sativex, which would like to charge lots of money for their drug without having to worry about people just using the plant instead).

– A good start for the M’s. They’re 2-0 and yesterday Ichiro became the all-time franchise hits leader.

It appears that – contrary to popular belief – Dave Reichert does things in Washington:

AARP lobbied for the new health care law and now it stands to profit, Republican lawmakers charged Wednesday as they called for the IRS to investigate whether the powerful interest group representing older Americans should be stripped of its federal tax exemption.

Three veteran GOP representatives released a report that estimates the seniors lobby could make an additional $1 billion over 10 years on health insurance plans whose sales are expected to pick up under the new law. They also questioned seven-figure compensation for some AARP executives.

“Based on the available evidence, substantial questions remain about whether AARP should maintain its tax-exempt status,” said the report, released by Reps. Wally Herger of California, Charles Boustany of Louisiana and Dave Reichert of Washington.

As Sarge in Seattle points out:

By definition, AARP makes no profit, and has no shareholders to distribute profits to. What it does have is a lot of money to promote the interests of its members, lobby Congress, and fund various charitable organizations.

AARP is big, and the CEO makes a lot of money. But it is neither an insurance company nor a for profit organization. Congressman Sander Levin of Michigan called this for what it is; a “witch hunt”.

That’s all true, but it avoids the most unseemly thing about Reichert’s attempt to “go Full ACORN” on the AARP. Insurance companies – whose practices should be far more of a concern to the American public – make profits and pay out salaries that completely dwarf what anyone at the AARP makes, yet are ignored by Reichert and his cronies. These companies also got what they wanted with the Affordable Care Act.

If Dave Reichert actually cared about how much money non-profits like the AARP are able to finagle for themselves in a system where the government will soon force citizens to buy private coverage without a public alternative, he’d be advocating for the one big structural change that could undercut all the profiteering – a public option. But he’s not concerned about those structural issues, only the non-profits who gain from them. His constituency isn’t the middle class family in Auburn who struggles to find adequate health care coverage – he could give a fuck about them. His constituency is the insurance company who doesn’t like the fact that the AARP has been able to use their trusted name to rake in lots of money in the health care market.

It’s entirely possible that the AARP will get roasted for their actions here, but with Dave Reichert and the House Republicans driving the bus until 2013, the situation for America’s families is only going to get worse.

UPDATE: Curtis Cartier at the Weekly writes:

AARP functions in two distinct ways–one, as a lobbying group, dedicated to advancing causes for seniors; two, as a kind of “branding organization” that offers to lend its name to certain products (namely insurance plans) for a cost.

It’s these dual roles that Republicans believe should disqualify the group from tax exemptions.

Sort of like how they are also calling for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to lose its tax-exempt status for supporting the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case, which stands to bring in hundreds of millions of dollars to its corporations through their ability to anonymously contribute to political campaigns, right?

Wait, I’m being told that Republicans have made no such demands.

I’m in Hearing Room A of the John L. O’Brien Building in Olympia. I’m here for the House Ways and Means Committee hearing, where they’ll be discussing E2SSB 5073, the medical marijuana bill. As the meeting progresses, I may post updates here, or to my Twitter feed. This is an open thread.

UPDATE: Layla Bush, who was shot in the Jewish Federation shooting, just testified for the bill. She became a medical marijuana patient in order to deal with the nerve pain resulting from her injuries.

UPDATE 2: A number of testifiers – from physicians to lawyers to other health care professionals – are reiterating their objection to Section 301.2a, which could potentially endanger pain specialists who see patients diagnosed by other physicians.

The last time UW Professor Roger Roffman wrote a column in the Seattle Times on marijuana legalization, it was a little heavy on concern-trolling and a little light on the science behind the debate. This time around, Roffman gets it much more right:

Proposals to regulate and legalize its use for adults must include careful planning for how children and adolescents, who are more vulnerable to the risks posed by marijuana use, can best be protected.

But a full discussion requires not only that the proponents of change acknowledge the risks of trying a new approach, but also that those opposing change acknowledge the harms of current policies and the potential of alternative strategies. They may find it’s possible to implement a policy that accomplishes both protecting youth and ending the criminalization of responsible adult marijuana use.

A legalization policy should draw from the successes and failures of alcohol and tobacco laws. In the success category, teenage alcohol- and tobacco-usage rates have declined considerably since the late 1970s. Our experience shows that prevention can work and that society can establish community norms, making clear we neither approve nor tolerate underage use. In the failure category, youth are commonly enticed to use alcohol and tobacco via relentless advertising and cheap prices.

Roffman doesn’t offer his opinion on whether or not legalization and regulation will – by itself – be a big step towards keeping marijuana out of the hands of young people. My contention is that it will, and that continues to be one of the biggest reasons I have for supporting the move. He mentions that the “de facto” legalization in Holland didn’t affect usage rates among young people. But I’d contend that the criminal groups controlling marijuana distribution in the U.S. are far more numerous and extensive that what existed in Holland in the 1970s.

On his larger point, though, I’m in full agreement. Drug policy reformers should focus on what’s best for young people, because drug problems tend to be most severe for those who begin their drug use before adulthood. That’s why I find it horrendously counterproductive to treat drug users as criminals – and to criminalize the sale of mild drugs to responsible adults. Both actions end up harming children in different ways, either by limiting opportunities in a misguided attempt to scare people straight, or by putting the control of adult-only drugs in the hands of those who have no incentive not to sell them to underage customers.

Last week’s contest was won by wes.in.wa. It was the ferry landing in the Lummi Reservation.

This week’s contest is related to something in news from March. Good luck!

– Glenn Greenwald on the Koch Brothers victimhood complex

– Juan Cole on Libya

– Bob Herbert’s final NYT column

– The medical marijuana bill in the legislature was modified in the House to fix some problematic amendments added in the Senate, and has moved to the House floor. And with the legalization bill going nowhere, signature gathering for I-1149 is underway.

– Bud Withers discusses the controversy surrounding the high profile arrests of Washington State basketball players this season, and notes that there are legitimate questions to be asked of the Pullman police. This is especially true now that it appears that the most recent arrest occurred following what appears to have been an illegal search.

– Pete Guither takes on well-known fraudster Andrea Barthwell and her attempts to dismiss the reality of marijuana as medicine. He also writes about Florida Governor Rick Scott’s attempt to violate the rights of state workers.

– Scott Morgan looks at the staggering amount of money New York City spends on marijuana enforcement.

UPDATE: One more link: All fifteen State House Reps and Senators from Seattle support a legalized market for adult marijuana use.

UPDATE 2: The rural Texas judge who’s presiding over Willie Nelson’s marijuana possession case wants him to sing a song in the courtroom as part of a plea deal.

E.D. Kain is one of my favorite bloggers and someone who I respect for his ability to get beyond simple partisan talking points, but I think he’s in denial about this:

As far as I’m concerned there are no good arguments for intervention in Libya. Reports that we’ve saved 100,000 lives there strike me as no better than propaganda.

As soon as Libyans began gearing up for their February 17th protests (which were supposed to mimic the successful Egyptian protest movement), I began to follow the situation closely. It’s a country (and a regime) that I’ve been fascinated by since I became friends with a Libyan who was given asylum in the U.S. in the early 90s. To this day, I’ve never been able to get the whole story out of him on why he had to flee the country.

For a while, it did appear as if Libya would follow the script of both Egypt and Tunisia. Protesters took to the streets across the country and in many cities were able to raise the tri-colored flag of pre-Gaddafi Libya. At one point, only Tripoli, Sirte, and a few other tiny pockets of the country remained loyal to Gaddafi.

As in Egypt – and in Cairo in particular – this required that people “lose the fear”. In Benghazi, this happened, and while some troops stayed loyal to Gaddafi, many didn’t (they were found bound and burned alive). Fighter pilots that were sent to bomb the city flew to Malta and demanded asylum. Many other Libyan diplomats defected and joined the ranks of the protesters. Benghazi was able to overrun the few Gaddafi supporters left and raise the rebel flag. But in the capital, none of this happened.

When protests started to break out in Tripoli, Gaddafi had enough fighters (along with paid mercenaries from other countries) who began terrorizing the populace. They fired from tanks and aircraft into crowds of peaceful unarmed protesters. At this point, the internet was still available and people in Libya were posting pictures and videos of the truly gruesome carnage. And my friend (who was still in communication with his large family back in Tripoli) was still optimistic when I talked to him, but Gaddafi’s assaults on the populace brought the fear back in Tripoli and allowed for him to project to the world that he still had support in the capital.

It’s hard to really get into the mind of someone like Gaddafi, but it’s not hard to see that from his speeches that it matters to him deeply that he’s loved by his people. And here he was faced with his entire nation standing up and telling him to fuck off. It was very similar to Mubarak, but Gaddafi isn’t Mubarak. And the Libyan Army isn’t an institution capable of rejecting a diseased head of state bent on massacring his populace in order to project an image to the world that he’s beloved.

At this point, there was still hope that the protesters could arm themselves and take on Gaddafi’s loyalists and paid fighters, but that hope was dashed in a flurry of intense military retribution on the general public. Tens of thousands started to flee to the Tunisian border. Gaddafi then started consolidating his military assets to reclaim cities that had raised the rebel flag. He repeatedly attacked Zawia, just west of Tripoli, by shelling residential areas. After several days of fighting, Gaddafi achieved his objective, to be able to set a scene where western reporters could broadcast to the world a scene of pro-Gaddafi supporters waving green flags and holding up his picture. It’s nearly impossible to know how many people died in order to set up this photo op. As was the case throughout the battles in Libya, dead bodies were picked up from the streets and taken away by the military. Hospitals were attacked and ambulances were often hijacked.

In the east, Gaddafi forces were able to continue along the main highway between Tripoli and Benghazi. Having the ability to fire from the air made it impossible for the now-armed but largely untrained opposition to stop them, especially in sparsely populated areas where it’s tough to hide. There was nothing stopping the advance on Benghazi, the second largest city in the country – and the heart of the newly formed revolution government. It would’ve been enormously wishful thinking to say that we weren’t staring down the possibility of a massacre that could’ve taken 100,000 lives. The Obama Administration had the military means to prevent a significant loss of life. And if Obama had not acted to wipe out Gaddafi’s troops and they did in Benghazi what they did in Zawia, you can be sure as hell that everyone would lay the blame for that massacre at Obama’s feet.

I recognize that there are a number of good counter-points to our intervention in Libya, and I’m still worried as hell that this situation will continue to deteriorate, but any argument that tries to dismiss the idea that a huge massacre was about to occur in Benghazi is not dialed in to what was going on there. And ultimately why I fall into the camp of the interventionists here is along the same lines of why these uprisings have managed to be so successful to this point. The citizens of the world are far more aware of what happens outside of their communities than ever before. And while this phenomenon can lead to greater understanding of one’s own state of being oppressed (as we’re seeing throughout the Middle East), it can also lead to greater expectations for those world powers who have the means to intervene on behalf of those being most oppressed. Of course, it would be considerably better if the Obama Administration were a little more consistent on when we intervene (see: Ivory Coast). But I still believe standing alongside the Libyan people here was still the right move, even if the outcome isn’t as triumphant as we’d all hope for.

This may be a few days old, but I just saw it today. Guy Lawson’s story in Rolling Stone about the two marijuana enthusiasts who managed to win a $300 million DoD contract – then got busted for trying to re-package illegal Chinese ammo in Albania – is well worth the read.

Last week’s contest was won by mlc1us. It was the construction site for what eventually became the set of Wipeout, just outside of Los Angeles.

Here’s this week’s, a location within Washington State, good luck!

It appears that military action by the French is under way in Libya. I find myself in agreement with the decision to take action, even if some of the potential risks do worry me. I’ve seen a lot of chatter in various places trying to make comparisons to how we went into Iraq, but this really isn’t comparable. Besides the fact that the war we launched in Iraq was promoted disingenuously in a number of different ways – and was designed from the outset to be an occupation – this is a military action for which the Arab world is largely welcoming our involvement.

That’s not to say that it couldn’t backfire, it sure as hell could. While it still appears to me that Gaddafi has next to no support among the Libyan population, a misstep or two could cause some Libyans to rally around him. And the Obama Administration’s mishandling and misunderstanding of the situation in Afghanistan always makes me nervous about their willingness to be optimistic when optimism isn’t warranted. But overall, I think Fareed Zakaria’s point here is the one thing that overrides everything else:

Now the U.S. has the opportunity to break the dysfunctional dynamic that produces anti-American hatred and violence. The Obama Administration has properly aligned itself with the hopes and aspirations of the Arab people, and it has called for governments in the region to engage in serious reform. But right now all these efforts have been sidelined. Libya is burning. Its people rose, and the tyrant gunned them down. Unless something changes, Muammar Gaddafi and his sons will be able to reassert control over the country amid a mass slaughter of its civilians.

This would be a terrible outcome. President Obama has made it unambiguously clear that he wants Gaddafi to step down. The U.S. is actively seeking his ouster. To have him survive would be a humiliation for Washington at a moment and in a region where its words still have great impact. It would also send a disastrous signal to the other rulers of the region — in Syria, Algeria, Iran — that Mubarak made a mistake and that the way to stay in office is to engage in mass slaughter, scare the U.S. away and wait out the sanctions and isolation. America would lose its opportunity to align with the rising forces of the Arab world.

This is a crucial moment for the Obama Administration, and how this is handled will go a long way towards helping our hurting the more serious problems in the region. Like Bahrain.

Updates on the various drug law reform items I’ve been following:

– Yesterday, former U.S. Attorney for Western Washington John McKay, along with former police officer Tim Burgess and Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes, encouraged the state legislature to legalize marijuana and have it sold in state liquor stores. At the very least, I’d like to see a vote on this bill. There are a lot of legislators in this state who talk a good game on the budget, and it’d be interesting to see how many of them have the courage to put politics aside and walk the walk.

– The trial of medical marijuana provider Bryan Gabriel ended with a hung jury. Eight jurors found him not guilty, three found him guilty, and one was undecided. It’s not known yet whether King County Prosecutors will attempt to retry him, but I have trouble believing that they would. The case they had against Gabriel was laughable (and it’s worth pointing out that they filed these charges on the day Snoqualmie Police were forced to return 10 ounces of medical marijuana to him from a different sting operation – and 15 months after the alleged transaction took place). In trial, they had no audio or video evidence, no fingerprints, and the person to whom Gabriel allegedly sold the bag wouldn’t even testify under oath. Only Snoqualmie Police officers took the stand for the prosecution. If Satterberg’s office balked at bringing charges against Ian Birk because they wouldn’t be able to win a conviction, then what the hell was this?

– On Monday there were a number of raids across Montana shutting down marijuana production facilities. Just as in Washington, Montana has legalized the use of medical marijuana, but hasn’t established a network of distribution to supply their patients. But unlike here in Washington – where we’re on the verge of legalizing both dispensaries and licensed grows – their legislature tried to repeal their still-popular medical marijuana law. As the Montana State Senate deadlocked on the repeal bill, the Obama Administration’s DEA began shutting down the facilities across the state anyway. Because these facilities were operating outside state law, this wasn’t a violation of Obama’s stated position on medical marijuana, but this certainly appears to be a case where the Obama Administration is working closely with Montana’s Republicans to gut a law that both the people of the state and the state’s Democrats both support. There’s no excuse for that.

I’m currently on the seventh floor of the King County Courthouse building in downtown Seattle. The jury is deliberating in the trial of Bryan Gabriel, the medical marijuana provider at the center of the tragic circumstances from last June that I wrote about here, in which a medical marijuana patient named Jeff Roetter died during an epileptic seizure as Snoqualmie police were pressuring him to testify against Gabriel. The charges that Gabriel currently faces are unrelated to Roetter, but were curiously filed the exact same day that Snoqualmie police were forced by a judge to return 10 ounces of marijuana to Gabriel.

The reason I’m even able to be here today, though, is that yesterday was my last day of work at the job I’ve been at since late 2008. I don’t write much about my actual day job since I let work and blogging co-mingle a bit too much at Microsoft. I work much harder to keep the two things separate (which I make easy for myself by being a shitty blogger with a relatively small audience). This past job was even easier for me to do that, since a lot of the people I worked with weren’t local, and I became a father in 2009 – giving me even less time to write shitty posts.

My career is in software quality assurance (QA). I’ve worked on airplanes, office productivity products, online music systems, statistical modeling applications, and large-scale data warehouses. My career has presented me with numerous challenges and I genuinely like the process of having to solve difficult problems. In this most recent job, I succeeded in climbing up into management and got a different perspective on how QA is done and a better perspective on how large projects are managed and – more commonly – mismanaged.

But this experience has also made me ponder the parallels between how QA functions within a company building a commercial product and how government functions within a society. Working on flight control software at Boeing early on in my career, I saw the overlap between them, as the FAA worked directly with us in our certification efforts. While it’s true that Boeing cares a lot about safety, I’ve worked at enough places since then to know that corporate bottom lines are often the most immovable objects, and that FAA presence within the group was both welcome and necessary. It made it easier for those of us in QA to demand enough time to complete our job.

At many other places, that isn’t always the case. QA efforts are often undermanned and underfunded, and yet still end up taking the blame when things go wrong. Developers and sometimes even program management fail to see the value that QA provides until a horrendous bug is found in a production system that probably would’ve been found by that QA engineer that you laid off last year. It’s one of the basic tenets of software development that the longer it takes for you to find a bug, the more it costs you. You know QA has done their job well when you aren’t constantly reminded of how important they are.

This isn’t an argument to have government regulation for all types of software development. Most commercial software development doesn’t impact public safety the way that airplanes do, and companies survive or fail based upon the quality of the products they produce (and they often don’t, but that’s a whole other post) without us needing to interfere with that process. But the parallels to government and how it’s seen in our society is what this post is about.

At the town hall I attended last weekend, Republican State Rep Jay Rodne complained that the state Department of Transportation had 5000 engineers on its staff. He seemed utterly incredulous at this statistic, as if he’d discovered some secret cabal that’s bleeding the taxpayers of Washington state dry. He didn’t provide any examples of waste. In his mind, the mere presence of the workers is an indication of wastefulness. This is religion dressed up as politics, a belief that a public sector employee or any public project is inherently a drain on society.

One can easily look on the WSDOT page to see what those engineers work on. Currently featured is the work being done on the Alaskan Way Viaduct for earthquake preparedness. These are things that you tend to notice only when they’re not done right – or not done at all. And when you decide to skimp on those things, just like in the software world, you can end up costing yourself far more in the long run.

My latest work experience was a frustrating one. Without going into too much detail, it involved significant budget cutting to our QA groups, including an offshoring push. The efforts to rein in costs made it very difficult to do proper QA on a number of their systems, potentially costing them far more in the long run. They closed down our office before I got to see how it all unfolded, but with some free time inbetween jobs, I’ll have some extra time to watch what happens in our greater society as we continue to take the same approach with government programs – eliminating workers whose value is often underappreciated, and taking away projects whose presence keeps overall costs down.

The trial is finally underway this week. The background of the case is here. Updates from the courtroom using the Twitter tag #kcvbg. Most interesting update so far is this one.

Last week’s contest was won by wes.in.wa. It was in Edinburgh, Scotland.

This week’s is related to a TV show or a movie, and before you grab the pitchforks and hunt me down, this image is probably 2-3 years old, so that’s a clue. Good luck!