Tim Dickinson, writing for Rolling Stone, has a column entitled Weathervane McCain: Throw Rummy Under the Bus. That’s a good nick-name for Sen. John McCain. I’m right with Mr. Dickinson when he writes:

I take the unmaking of John McCain personally. Another lifetime ago, when he was running against Gov. G.W. Bush, I registered Republican to vote for McCain in the California presidential primary. He struck me as a principled problem solver. A man who might bring about a post-partisan revolution in good government and accountability.

The article goes on to document a few of McCain’s greater flip-flops, but takes particular umbrage at McCain only now choosing to criticize Rumsfeld’s handling of the War in Iraq. McCain had the power to do something about Rumsfeld and his prosecution of the war years ago, but did nothing. Now that Rumsfeld has been removed, spitting on the grave of his career serves little purpose.

TPMmuckraker is doing a bang-up job covering the corruption indictment of “Dusty” Foggo, formerly the CIA’s executive director until he resigned in May. Foggo was a close friend of defense contractor, Brent Wilkes.

One of the officials said the grand jury heard claims that Foggo joined Wilkes on trips to Hawaii and Scotland, and was introduced to Wilkes’ employees as early as 2003 as a “future executive” of Wilkes’ company, Wilkes Corp., which allegedly received $12 million in illicit contracts from various government agencies.

Wilkes was also charged with conspiring to bribe convicted former Congressman, Duke Cunningham. TPM Muckraker has entries here, here, here, here, and here. You can’t expect folks to just watch the torrent of “defense” money coming out of Washington without trying to get a little taste, can you? People are getting rich from these expenditures, and it’s not the troops in the field.

The Kung Fu Monkey. Go for his thorough and amusing discourse about “Catholic” League rightwingnut William Donahue’s hand-wringing about John Edwards choice of bloggers to use as netroots staffers; stay for everything else.

The U.S. Federal Reserve send 363 tons of currency (bills, not coins), totalling $5.5 billion into Baghdad according to an AP story.

“Who in their right mind would send 363 tons of cash into a war zone? But that’s exactly what our government did,” [Rep. Henry Waxman] said during a hearing reviewing possible waste, fraud and abuse of funds in Iraq.

The story goes on to note that $8.8 billion out of $12 billion disbursed by Paul Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority was unaccounted for.

Indiana Representative Dan Burton, apparently able to drag himself out of the 19th Hole, bothered to show up to comment, “We are in a war against terrorists, to have a blame meeting isn’t, in my opinion, constructive[.]”

All that sun on the golf course must be baking Rep. Burton’s brains. Otherwise, he would surely realize that, if we weren’t pumping billions of dollars into an Iraqi black hole, we might not have to borrow so much money from our grandchildren to try to fight the terrorists, some of whom have probably now made their way to Iraq now that it’s been destabilized. (Nevermind the very real possibility that those recent Iraqi immigrant/terrorists could be funding themselves with the dollars that are unaccounted for.)

One of our great political commentators has died. Molly Ivins died after a long battle with breast cancer at the age of 62. She was entertaining and she was dead-on most of the time. That’s quite a loss.

I thought this was a very interesting exchange between Mike Kole who was posing a question to Branden Robinson. (I would also direct readers to Mike’s thoughts on the limitations of democratic governments.) So, as the guy with his name on the blog, I’m exercising my liberty to move Branden’s response to the front page. (Though, more seriously, I recognize that much of the value of this space comes from the thoughtful posts of the commenters. So, here or any other time, let me know if you’re unhappy with the way I use a comment.)

(Mike Kole): How do you reconcile one’s right to choose who they associate against prohibitions against discrimination?

Remember that a right cannot negate a right and have both survive.

(Branden’s response follows)
The subject no doubt demands an essay or more to elucidate fully, but in the interest of brevity (a mistress I serve mercurually at best), let me offer you the guiding principles I’d apply:

* There is such a thing as a public space. Unlike radical propertarians, I do not reject the notion of a commons (in the physical or abstract senses), and do not insist that every square inch of land on this planet be the property of some individual, with right of exclusion to everyone else.

* On the other hand, I do believe each individual does have a right to some area of exclusive use, to which they can retreat when stressed, invite friends and confidantes, and otherwise assert control over an intimate space.

* I find exclusive use to be fundamentally incompatible with operating a retail enterprise wherein one seeks the custom of strangers.

* Economic theory illustrates that markets operate most efficiently when market actors are rational and well-informed.

* Actual market actors, whether as individuals or as organizations, are frequently anything <em>but</em> rational and well-informed.

* Efficient markets are desirable because they ultimately empower individuals to do more with the resources they have.

* It is therefore a societal good to increase the amount of rationality and information in the marketplace.

* You can’t force people to learn or be rational.

* You can, however, through legal prescriptions and proscriptions, encourage (or compel) them to behave as if they were rational and/or informed.

* Such compulsion should only be undertaken where the benefit is worth the infringement on individual liberty.

* There is no easy formula for making such evaluations. The popular will, as well as fundamental individual rights, must be seriously weighed.

* Discrimination against gays and racial minorities is irrational (and frequently ill-informed, grounded on stereotypes or myths, including religious myths).

* Discrimination against gays and racial minorities makes the market less efficient.

* An individual has a fundamental right to exclude whomever he/she chooses from his or her private exlcusionary zone.

* A private exlcusionary zone does not include, e.g., a retail business, as covered above.

* Individuals have a right to transact commerce in public spaces.

* It is acceptable for the society (acting through persuasion, protests, picketing, or petition of their elected representatives) to discourage this form of irrational market behavior, on behalf of the individuals being irrationally discriminated against.

That’s longer than I had hoped, but I hope it is useful to you to illuminate my values and my approach.

I think this story from JS Online should pretty much put an end to any pretense that our health care system bears any resemblance to a free market economy.

An elderly woman underwent hernia surgery and had to stay overnight for observation. She was already required to take certain medications and, therefore, had the necessary supplies. However, the hospital refused to allow her to take her own medications during her stay; charging her the inflated in-house rates for the medications. Her medication bill included $16 for four acetaminophen tablets (that’d be Tylenol), $4 for a single multiple vitamin, $49 for two breast cancer tablets that Walgreens sells for $9.93 each when purchased in a 30-day supply, and $13.98 for an antacid tablet that sells for $1.27. She also was charged $258 for an asthma inhaler that costs $42 at Walgreens.

Meanwhile, Medicare only pays for prescription medicines for patients who are “admitted,” but not for patients who are merely “checked in for observation.” Regardless of the status, however, patients are not allowed to bring in medications they have already purchased themselves.

One hospital administrator justified the practice of jacking up the prices for in-house drugs by noting that the hospital loses money on Medicare and Medicaid patients and, therefore, has to make up the costs elsewhere, such as from the uninsured or from those covered by commercial insurers.

Tracy Warner at the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette has a column entitled Americans have CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. Consideration of our rights as citizens primarily takes place in the context of smoking bans. However, “rights” as they pertain to the use of seat belts figure prominently in the piece as well. Given our recent discussion of the issue, I think it’s worth a read.

It’s not terribly insightful, I suppose, but this post at MyDD reminded me how our considerations of candidates is shaped by our political memories and not just our philosophies about policy. The post is about a college student who is developing a Facebook network in support of Barack Obama.

The group had a celebratory conference call just now after they got their 100,000th sign-up, and I was on the call briefly. It was kind of silly, with college guys chit-chatting about the different candidates. There wasn’t a hugely passionate embrace of Obama and the discussion centered around ideas and information that aren’t on CNN and Fox News. These kids are talking to each other, swapping information easily and quickly. They also don’t really remember the bitterness of the Clinton impeachment, and they are not scarred by the politics and fear-mongering prior to the Iraq war that touches each of us, or the incompetence of the Kerry campaign angered all of us who tried to volunteer but were treated as an ATM. Politics for them can be hopeful and fun, as light as another Facebook group.

If I step back and take a look at my own political views, particularly on the national level, it’s tough for me to erase the stain of the Clinton impeachment when considering Republican candidates. Aside from a bit of volunteering for Bush-Quayle in ’88 and some enthusiasm for Perot in ’92 and to a lesser extent ’96, the impeachment was more or less my political awakening. It angered me deeply that the bedrock of our Constitution was being tampered with over something so frivolous and transparently political. Heap on that the toxicity of the Rehnquist Supreme Court stopping the vote count in Florida, and the Iraq War for good measure, and you have a big thumb on my own internal political scales for future Congressional and Presidential races.

Obviously, I’m aware of my own biases in this respect. What I tend to forget is that others have different political memories or (in many cases) no political memories. That goes a long way toward explaining why I can see a candidate much differently than another person, even where our analysis and opinions of the candidate’s policy choices are essentially the same.