– Specter goes down

– The Korean War – still going on

– Ryan Grim points out that the truly despicable Mark Souder is now seeking forgiveness for moral transgressions after never believing in such a thing as a Congressman.

– Daniel Jack Chasan in Crosscut claims that Attorney General Rob McKenna’s lawsuit against the health care bill isn’t as ridiculous as most legal experts think it is. But what I found interesting was that on page 2, McKenna tries to address the hypocrisy of being outraged by the new health care bill, despite not being previously outraged by the ruling that set the most recent precedent for interpreting the Commerce Clause, Gonzales v. Raich. In fact, McKenna happily used that ruling to go after medical marijuana patients in this state. Here’s what Chasan reported:

McKenna concedes that five years ago in Raich, Justice Antonin Scalia concurred with the majority ruling that the commerce clause enabled Congress to seize marijuana plants being grown legally — allegedly for medical purposes — under California law. (Talk about strange bedfellows: Scalia concurred in the majority opinion written by John Paul Stevens, while Clarence Thomas joined Sandra Day O’Connor’s dissent.) But pot-growing is activity, not inactivity, McKenna notes, and besides, marijuana is clearly traded in interstate commerce.

Here’s part of the ruling from Gonzales v. Raich:

Cases decided during that “new era,” which now spans more than a century, have identified three general categories of regulation in which Congress is authorized to engage under its commerce power. First, Congress can regulate the channels of interstate commerce. Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 150 (1971). Second, Congress has authority to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and persons or things in interstate commerce. Ibid. Third, Congress has the power to regulate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Ibid.; NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 37 (1937). Only the third category is implicated in the case at hand.

Our case law firmly establishes Congress’ power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic “class of activities” that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. See, e.g., Perez, 402 U.S., at 151; Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 128—129 (1942). As we stated in Wickard, “even if appellee’s activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.” Id., at 125. We have never required Congress to legislate with scientific exactitude. When Congress decides that the “ ‘total incidence’ ” of a practice poses a threat to a national market, it may regulate the entire class. See Perez, 402 U.S., at 154—155 (quoting Westfall v. United States, 274 U.S. 256, 259 (1927) (“[W]hen it is necessary in order to prevent an evil to make the law embrace more than the precise thing to be prevented it may do so”)). In this vein, we have reiterated that when “ ‘a general regulatory statute bears a substantial relation to commerce, the de minimis character of individual instances arising under that statute is of no consequence.’ ” E.g., Lopez, 514 U.S., at 558 (emphasis deleted) (quoting Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U.S. 183, 196, n. 27 (1968)).

The lines that McKenna is trying to draw here between the two cases simply don’t matter within the context of the Gonzales v. Raich decision. There’s no distinction made between activity and inactivity or any reason to believe that failing to be insured wouldn’t be considered an “activity”. Congress can establish requirements for possessing health insurance because the lack of health insurance by large numbers of citizens would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Second, in the Gonzales v. Raich decision, they specifically addressed the case where the marijuana is not sold and never part of any market. What was decided was that even in that case, price fluctuations could theoretically cause the marijuana to enter the market, therefore it was within the scope of the Commerce Clause to regulate it.

That’s the aspect of the decision that never sat well with me, but there isn’t even an equivalent argument to be made for what McKenna is arguing. In a regulated health care system (which not even McKenna is saying Congress can’t implement), if you establish a rule that health care providers can’t reject people with pre-existing conditions, then you have to implement something to keep people from just waiting until they get sick before they buy insurance. Otherwise, the system goes bankrupt. And that’s done through either mandates or taxes. I don’t see any way that the Supreme Court would rule that one method is fine (implementing taxes), but the other is unconstitutional. And neither do most legal experts from what I can tell.

– The Q13 Fox news director who declined to air the recent police brutality video has resigned.

– 40 years of failure in the drug war. Now that legalization appears to be around the corner, this is where the next battle is likely to occur.

– A mysterious disease has infected the poppy harvest in Afghanistan, although I’m not on board with any wild conspiracy theories involving Joe Biden, who helped introduce this bill in 2006.

– Dominic Holden catches another Seattle Times reporter failing to do her job properly when covering a drug bust.

– Ezra Klein on the gap between young liberal Jews and older Zionists.

– As a fairly frequent Facebook user, I’ve been trying to follow the backlash against the company over its privacy concerns. One thing I certainly agree with the anti-Facebook camp about is that the application is buggy – as hell. It’s probably the buggiest web interface I’ve ever used, and it wouldn’t surprise me at all if the security is just as bad. But what I’m not sure I fully grasp yet is the actual threat posed by having the information we put on Facebook shared with third parties.

I deal with issues like this in my day job (I’m an IT manager at a financial services company), so I tend to see a distinction between the importance of keeping something like financial information private and not letting a marketing person determine which demographics are most likely to say they like The Jonas Brothers and Lost. If Facebook is not properly securing user passwords, or collecting enough information from people that identity theft becomes easy for a hacker, that’s one thing (and that may be true, but I haven’t seen that alleged yet). But I tend not to put anything on Facebook that I wouldn’t say out loud on a Metro bus. Someone who had access to my profile could learn a bit about me, but I don’t see how they’d have anything of any real value besides a few data points for doing large scale analytics.

Maybe I’m just different from most people in that respect. It doesn’t bother me much if people I don’t know see my pictures, but others probably do. Facebook very blatantly defaults to having things public rather than the other way around. But I think we should recognize that this approach is why Facebook succeeded. When people began setting up their networks, it was remarkably easy to find your friends and get hooked up with people you haven’t seen in years. A community web site that tried harder to protect people’s privacy just wouldn’t have taken off the way Facebook did.

Last week’s contest was won by Ken Oplinger, who correctly identified that the picture was of Faisal Shahzad’s home in Bridgeport, Connecticut (and thanks to mlc1us for providing the link).

As always, the contest picture is related to something in the news and can be facing east, west, north, or south. Here’s this week’s, good luck!

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Back in Black – Glenn Beck’s Nazi Tourette’s
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

TPM digs into AmeriPAC, a right-wing political organization run by Bellevue’s Alan Gottlieb. The organization raised $1.3 million from people – primarily by playing upon unfounded fears that the Obama Administration is going after everyone’s guns – but only spent $1,300 on actual political campaigns. So where’s all the money going?

Most of the money raised by AmeriPAC has gone to Diener Consultants, a Lititz, Pennsylvania, firm whose pared down website boasts of “email marketing software and related professional services streamline production time to maximize your return on investment.”

Diener reportedly did work for Alan Keyes’ 1996 and 2000 presidential campaigns. According to the Arizona Republic, Diener also ran the failed 2005 California congressional campaign of Minuteman Project founder Jim Gilchrist. But he was none too pleased with their services, telling the paper, “I fired them the day after my campaign was over.”

And by the way, Gottlieb has previously served time for tax evasion.

Last week, Goldy posted the video of police officers storming into a Columbia, Missouri house and shooting two dogs in front of a young child – all in the pursuit of someone they believed had marijuana in his possession. Radley Balko has an excellent post about the raid, the reaction, and the reality:

Last week, a Columbia, Missouri, drug raid captured on video went viral. As of this morning, the video had garnered 950,000 views on YouTube. It has lit up message boards, blogs, and discussion groups around the Web, unleashing anger, resentment and even, regrettably, calls for violence against the police officers who conducted the raid. I’ve been writing about and researching these raids for about five years, including raids that claimed the lives of innocent children, grandmothers, college students, and bystanders. Innocent families have been terrorized by cops who raided on bad information, or who raided the wrong home due to some careless mistake. There’s never been a reaction like this one.

But despite all the anger the raid has inspired, the only thing unusual thing here is that the raid was captured on video, and that the video was subsequently released to the press. Everything else was routine. Save for the outrage coming from Columbia residents themselves, therefore, the mass anger directed at the Columbia Police Department over the last week is misdirected. Raids just like the one captured in the video happen 100-150 times every day in America. Those angered by that video should probably look to their own communities. Odds are pretty good that your local police department is doing the same thing.

…

It’s heartening that nearly a million people have now seen the Columbia video. But it needs some context. The officers in that video aren’t rogue cops. They’re no different than other SWAT teams across the country. The raid itself is no different from the tens of thousands of drug raids carried out each year in the U.S. If the video is going to effect any change, the Internet anger directed at the Columbia Police Department needs to be redirected to America’s drug policy in general. Calling for the heads of the Columbia SWAT team isn’t going to stop these raids. Calling for the heads of the politicians who defend these tactics and promote a “war on drugs” that’s become all too literal—that just might.

And now the Columbia police chief hates the internet. Oh, that mean, mean internet – always pointing out that storming into houses and shooting dogs in front of young children isn’t an appropriate response to marijuana use.

Paul Armentano brings us the scary resume of President Obama’s nominee to run the DEA, Michele Leonhart:

As interim DEA director, Ms. Leonhart orchestrated federal raids on individuals and facilities who were compliant with the medical marijuana laws of their states — a policy that is in direct conflict with the wishes of the present administration. Further, Ms. Leonhart has inexplicably called the rising death toll of civilians attributable to the U.S./Mexican drug war “a signpost of the success” of current drug prohibition strategies. Finally, she has repeatedly acted to block clinical research into the medical properties of marijuana — actions that would appear to run contrary to this administration’s pledge to allow science, rather than rhetoric and ideology, guide public policy.

You can contact Senators Murray and Cantwell with this online alert.

Canada’s justice minister signed off on Marc Emery’s extradition. He’s expected to be in federal court in Seattle this week.

It looks like Obama is set to pick Elena Kagan for the open Supreme Court slot. Glenn Greenwald has previously laid out why this is a terrible choice. University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos explains how reminiscent she is of Harriet Miers:

At least in theory Kagan could compensate somewhat for the slenderness of her academic resume through the quality of her work. But if Kagan is a brilliant legal scholar, the evidence must be lurking somewhere other than in her publications. Kagan’s scholarly writings are lifeless, dull, and eminently forgettable. They are, on the whole, cautious academic exercises in the sort of banal on-the-other-handing whose prime virtue is that it’s unlikely to offend anyone in a position of power.

Take, for example, Kagan’s article, “Presidential Administration,” which appeared in the Harvard Law Review in 2001. The piece is dedicated largely to reviewing the extant literature on the power of Congress and the president to control the actions of administrative agencies. Kagan’s thesis consists of presenting a fairly standard view within administrative law scholarship—that relatively tight presidential oversight of administrative agencies can have beneficial regulatory effects—as if it were a novel argument. She maintains, on the basis of thin evidence, that such oversight increased significantly under the Reagan and Clinton presidencies, and concludes with the tautological insight that presidential oversight can be a good thing if it doesn’t go too far.

Kagan’s work reminded me of Orwell’s observation that, if book reviewers were honest, 19 of 20 reviews would consist of the sentence, “this book inspires in me no thoughts whatever.” The bottom line regarding Kagan’s scholarly career is that there’s no there there. This is a problem not only because we have no evidence regarding what her views might be on almost any important legal question, but also because Kagan’s supposed academic achievements are being touted as the primary justification for putting someone who has never been a judge on the nation’s highest court. Now the fact that Kagan is more or less an academic nonentity would be of merely academic interest if she possessed unrelated but compelling qualifications for ascending to the nation’s highest court. But what else, exactly, has she done?

Besides her law-school career, Kagan’s resume consists of four years in the Clinton White House, where she was Associate White House Counsel—a full rung down from Harriet Miers’ position in the Bush White House—and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council, and six years as the dean of Harvard’s law school. (Last year, Obama chose her as his solicitor general).

Apparently her main accomplishment as dean at Harvard was raising a lot of money, which, given that it’s the Harvard Law School, sounds roughly as impressive as managing to sell a lot of pot at a Grateful Dead concert. (She’s also been given credit for improving the collegial atmosphere at the school, a.k.a., getting a bunch of egomaniacs to engage in less backstabbing, which anyone familiar with law school faculties can attest is not a negligible accomplishment. Whether it’s a sufficient basis for putting somebody on the Supreme Court is another matter.)

It seems clear Kagan is a bright person and an able administrator. But Harriet Miers was those things as well: She had a long and successful career in the private practice of law, she was the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association, and she was the top lawyer in the White House for several years prior to her nomination to the Court.

Miers’ nomination was derailed by two complaints: that her primary qualification was that she was a “crony” of the president, and that nobody knew what views she had, if any, on the vast majority of questions facing the Supreme Court. Both criticisms are just as relevant to Kagan’s potential selection.

Greenwald has a longer list of those pointing out the inadequacy of this pick.

UPDATE: Well, that didn’t take long. The “Obama is the messiah and I dare not question his judgment” point of view has already been shared in the comments:

As for trusting Obama’s judgement over my own? Yeh .. he is smarter than I am and has access to a lot of good advice. That is why I voted for him.

From Greenwald’s post I linked to above:

Perhaps most revealing of all: a new article in The Daily Caller reports on growing criticisms of Kagan among “liberal legal scholars and experts” (with a focus on the work I’ve been doing), and it quotes the progressive legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky as follows: “The reality is that Democrats, including liberals, will accept and push whomever Obama picks.” Yesterday on Twitter, Matt Yglesias supplied the rationale for this mentality: “Argument will be simple: Clinton & Obama like and trust [Kagan], and most liberals (myself included) like and trust Clinton & Obama.”

Just think about what that means. If the choice is Kagan, you’ll have huge numbers of Democrats and progressives running around saying, in essence: “I have no idea what Kagan thinks or believes about virtually anything, and it’s quite possible she’ll move the Court to the Right, but I support her nomination and think Obama made a great choice.” In other words, according to Chemerinksy and Yglesias, progressives will view Obama’s choice as a good one by virtue of the fact that it’s Obama choice. Isn’t that a pure embodiment of mindless tribalism and authoritarianism? Democrats love to mock the Right for their propensity to engage in party-line, close-minded adherence to their Leaders, but compare what conservatives did with Bush’s selection of Harriet Miers to what progressives are almost certain to do with Obama’s selection of someone who is, at best, an absolute blank slate.

Exactly. The idea that progressives need to support Obama’s decisions without question just turns us into what has been so dangerous about the current incarnation of the Republican Party.

UPDATE 2: Lawrence Lessig’s post at HuffPo is a good rebuttal to those who say that Kagan is unqualified. I’m still in agreement with Greenwald that Obama should be faulted for not picking a justice with a more well-established background, but Lessig does make me feel a little more optimistic about what is my primary fear – that Kagan will end up being the direct opposite of David Souter, a justice who ends up shifting the court in the opposite direction from what was expected by his/her supporters.

UPDATE 3: Adam Serwer finds some evidence that Kagan may be better on executive power issues than expected, but wonders why the Administration hasn’t been more forthcoming over it.

Last week’s contest was won by waguy. It was the Bank of Greece in Athens.

Just as a reminder, each contest picture is related to something happening in the news. Also, the view can now be from any direction. Here’s this week’s, good luck!

– Poland has some draconian blasphemy laws.

– Radical Muslims are trying to shut down the Facebook profiles of Arabs who profess to be atheist or otherwise anti-religious.

– Israeli settlers are suspected in a recent fire at a West Bank mosque. This is following the burning of a different mosque in December and vandalism at another mosque last month.

– Commenter ‘slingshot’ sent me this NPR piece with Philadelphia Daily News reporters Barbara Laker and Wendy Ruderman. Laker and Ruderman won a Pulitzer Prize this year for their investigation of corruption within the Philadelphia Police Department’s narcotics division. As a result of their work, hundreds of drug cases in Philadelphia were re-examined.

Last summer, when my parents (who still reside in suburban Philadelphia) came out to visit me, I asked my dad what he thought about the case. My dad reads the Inquirer and watches local news, but he’d never even heard about it. At least the Pulitzer folks can still recognize that a rogue narcotics unit that may have sent hundreds of innocent people to prison counts as an important news story.

Dominic Holden has a very interesting post about how Q-13 Fox is threatening to sue the photographer and KIRO news over the video showing Seattle Police beating up an innocent man. The photographer is claiming that Q-13 refused to air the video in order to preserve their good relationship with SPD. He then turned around and sold it to KIRO, which Q-13 claims was illegal since the video was their property.

The photographer denies that, of course, but Q-13 sat on the video for three weeks. When it finally aired on KIRO, it caused such an uproar that the officer involved gave a teary apology at a press conference last night. Q-13 may very well be right that the photographer illegally sold the video, but what’s much clearer – and far more important – is that Q-13 tried to bury this important news story. I think we deserve to know why.

If the video Goldy posted last night was the perfect example of why marijuana prohibition needs to end from a civil liberties standpoint, this may be the perfect example of why it needs to end from an economic standpoint:

The Brooks County Sheriff’s Department has a marijuana problem. They’ve got 200,000 pounds of pot, and they’re complaining that it would be too expensive to destroy it.

Even if you assume that this is all cheap Mexican weed, that’s still easily over $100 million worth of marijuana. Yet this Texas police department is worried about blowing their budget trying to destroy it. If they turned around and sold 1% of their looted stash, they could easily destroy the other 99% and probably upgrade their whole fleet of vehicles. Why we can’t do this math as a society (for a drug that makes people giggle and eat junk food) is why we arguably deserve the economic mess we’re living through.

Dan Savage has been bringing us the latest anti-gay zealot to be exposed as having a secret gay lifestyle.

I’ve always wondered (and may have even asked this question before at HA), is there an equivalent to this when it comes to being fervently anti-drugs? Have any hardcore drug warriors ever been exposed as secret drug users? Off the top of my head, I can only think of this one, but that guy was neither a politician, nor all that zealous a drug warrior. What’s the difference, then? Obviously, the major difference between homosexuality and drug use is that homosexuality is in-born, while drug use is a choice, but I’m not sure that difference alone explains why the phenomenon of self-loathing only happens with homosexuality.

UPDATE: In the comments, Troutski points out that Elvis was made an honorary narcotics enforcement official by Nixon. That also made me think of an obvious example of this, Rush Limbaugh, whose love of Oxycontin and frequent railing against druggies certainly qualifies.