Dear Morans: What Would Edmund Burke Do (To You)?

Robert Creamer writes in Huffpo about a political backlash against the Republicans for the "Death Panels" lie intended to make people fearful of health care reform.

His last two paragraphs sum up the debt they incur by this starkly, and I'm sure he's correct about the political dimension.

In their attempt to enflame the powerful emotions surrounding the deaths of loved ones by spreading intentional lies, the Republicans have stooped to a new low. The Terry Schiavo case should have taught the Republicans that some emotions are too precious to be exploited for partisan political advantage. Apparently it did not.

But when Americans begin to discover just how far the Republicans have been willing to go to stop health insurance reform, they may receive a new lesson. Republicans will learn that combining those powerful emotions with deceit can create an explosive mixture that they will find impossible to forget.

Correct - but only superficially so. However shrewdly he sees this situation, he sees it through the lens of politics, purely as a political opportunity created by an "emotional reaction."

And for that (and only to the extent that it is true, of course,) he deserves reproof. For it should be clear that there is a larger, ethical dimension that is, or should be obvious to everyone.

We ignore those larger considerations at our peril, for that leads directly to evil flourishing due to the unwillingness of good men to do what they know to be right.


The reason that both the Terry Schaivo case backfired and the current Death Panels lie will have a shocking backlash is that they are evil deeds done by evil men for evil reasons and the political justifications made in favor of doing such things are simply more lies by evil, conscious and willful liars.

To quote my shirt which quotes Edmund Burke, "All that is required for evil to flourish is that good men (and women) do nothing."

It is no accident that I quote Burke, who is correctly credited and blamed for his part in founding a long and storied tradition of philosophical Conservatism amongst the English-Speaking peoples. And yet an overview of his words and his causes reveals complexity, intellectual rigor and above all, a deep and abiding regard for doing the Right thing.



Burke was observing the injustice of law being wielded by commercial interests against the interests of the common man, and he would say no less caustic things regarding corporate theft and the misuse of political office in defense of thieves.




Burke might well be alarmed at the idea of any sort of public health insurance scheme - but I doubt that he'd balk at the idea of some sharp regulatory checks on unrestrained greed, or the application of Justice to those to those who's criminality while in service to the state brought it's honor into disrepute.

As a Whig, he of course approached Right Action in the Whig way. But for the most part, it seems, he did not place the cart before the horse. It's a tribute to the lasting import and continuing influence of Edmund Burke that the Modern Whig Party has been established.

I absolutely endorse that effort, an effort among good men and women to do something. They have realized that the GOP has become a creature of evil, a thing to be discarded and supplanted by a party that does not merely stand against this or that, but which stands staunchly for the things that are worth conserving and are worth achieving.

It is as yet still possible to do something good by political means - and as Iraq Vets, many of the founders have a FAR clearer appreciation of "Politics By Other Means" then have slide-jacking funnymentalist eliminationist peckerheads that have made their exodus from the party a moral imperative.



When someone lies to my face for the third time, in order to induce me to go along with some transparently stupid or evil deed, I stop listening. Indeed, I have no trouble whatsoever using whatever reasonable and necessary force is required in order to remove them from my front porch.

Indeed, I see waiting for the third strike to be an exercise in most Christian charity. But "Three Times is Enemy Action" is a rule of thumb that has served me well. It requires a little forbearance, but with that comes a reasonable certainty of conviction.

But clearly, I'm in a distinct minority, even should I count the current members of the Modern Whigs, It saddens me that one explanation may be my lifelong unwillingness to "go along to get along."

Perhaps if more people were more concerned about right actions and right outcomes, and a little less tolerant of those who think that there is no social problem that cannot be solved by sticking someone else with the expense or the cleanup, a civilization might arise between the borders of Canada and Mexico.

I'm not sure if this sort of situation is what Menckin had in mind when he uttered his widely-cited observation, that "Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the Jolly Roger, and start slitting throats."

What I am sure of is this; that when that temptation starts to become a creeping suspicion of an impending moral obligation... it's definitely time for good men and women to do something besides complain. Perhaps you should run for office.

Edmund Burke "Triumph of Evil" Shirt by webcarve
Design customized t shirts at zazzle.com

Why Ask Why - The Torture Memos

The Price of Apathy... by webcarve

A great deal of genuine angst is being expended on a question that is consuming a lot of thought, happily or sadly. The question is this: "What could possibly allow people to convince themselves that torture and abuse of other human beings is OK, in the name of any cause?"

The answer, sadly enough, is simple.

Because it's fun!

It is perhaps an unpalatable truth about humanity, but it is true nonetheless; the sublimation of our urge towards sadomasochistic behavior manifests itself in every aspect of our culture, from sport, to politics, to entertainment. I leave the the fun of finding appropriate examples to you, save for this one.



It's the sort of fun that we have to create general social rules to prevent, but it's also a pretty basic, if very dark human urge, made the darker for being buried and repressed. It forces us to make up justifications and rationalizations and excuses that allow us to pretend that we are doing what we would do anyway for Higher Purposes, even because God Demands It.

The ability to degrade and abuse other human beings and get away with it is one of the single greatest perks of power, nor has any human being ever managed to entirely free themselves of the thrill that comes from grinding a victim's face in the dirt.

Some manage to shed or regret the impulse quicker than others. The best of us realize that it must an may only be savored when it is to the end of genuine right action, because only then do the karmic dominoes resolve into an aesthetic whole, rather than a noisy, chaotic mess.

The very worst of us seek power for the very purpose of being able to inflict pain and horror on others.
They have or need no greater reason and any motives they cite are there only to convince you to give them the power to do as they will. But any good or evil that results from their exercise of power is entirely beside the point, save to concentrate and preserve their power to do it again, harder and more frequently.

Dick Cheney Sez: Jerry Falwell went to hell... by webcarve

We call that "Evil" - or if you wish a more personal image, try Dick Cheney.

There is a man who has created an entire world-view that permits any imaginable exercise of power over others while keeping whatever remains of his conscience restrained from it's duty. But let's face it; Cheney would be nothing without his enablers and fellow travelers; those who think of their perception of humanity as being "realistic," their understanding of power and consequence as being natural and free of "Naive self-delusion," their manipulations of the body politic "necessary" to evade the "squeamish" objections of "cowardly liberals" who think - as does the FBI - that torture brings nothing but bad karma and highly motivated enemies.

This viewpoint is ultimately shared by the likes of Cheney - but if you were to ask him bluntly during a sodium thiopental interview, the answer might well be a question - as in, "what's your point?"

The creation of external enemies from people who's viewpoints might or might not make them enemies is all to the good for such a mind. It places everyone into two neat little boxes. "Us, and Them." All that remains is to slowly crush anyone labeled "them" Repeat as often as needed, until only "Us" remains.

Unfortunately for the rest of humanity, the only "Us" in Dick Cheney's universe is Dick Cheney and perhaps a handful of direct relatives. I wouldn't bet on that, though. While blood may be thicker than water, there is a great deal of history regarding tyrants and dictators that suggests that power is at least an order of magnitude thicker than blood.

The thing to remember is that there is nothing more visceral, nothing more primal than forcing some "deserving" loser's face into a pile of horse dung and raping him with one's riding crop whilst forcing him to watch his wife and children being "entertained" by the troops. The torture memos reveal nothing more than an attempt to make it possible for our leaders to enjoy this classic perk of leadership without being held accountable by "squeamish moralists."

Now, frankly, I have no moral qualms with consensual sadism. For every person who enjoys wielding power, there are many that enjoy it being used upon them far more than conventional moralists and ethicist would believe. I think it an important dynamic, but it breaks down when the one wielding the staff of power refuses to admit that their power is donated by those they have power over toward the end of creating a society that is more than the sum of it's parts.

And when the entire purpose of a society is the self-gratification of a Great Leader, it is not more, but less than the sum of it's parts.

Americans can see this all around them, if they care to look. The idea that society is composed of "winners and losers" and that the "winners" owe nothing to those less successful save, perhaps a charitable kick in the ass to "motivate them." For example, equating a lack of charity and community with patriotism and responsible behavior has become the latest trogladyte meme.

Tea Party sign / poster: You Are Not ENTITLED by My2Cents

I find it starkly hilarious that any "online entrepreneur" could say that with a straight face, for any profit they have "earned" from their efforts is due to an infrastructure developed as a direct result of hundreds of thousands of volunteer man-hours undertaken with no particular anticipation of profit.

Furthermore, Internet Marketing is, even at it's most ethical, something of an intrusion upon the tolerance of others. How much spam, for instance, has the Tea-Party movement generated all by itself? Perhaps Google or Yahoo might tell us the frequency of "Tea-Party" as a spam filter keyword.

Without a collective infrastructure, there is no commerce. It breaks down in confusion, or - as we have seen - due to those who see a collective trust in a system an opportunity to abuse that trust for personal gain. Whether that be Bernie Madoff, the Savings and Loan industry, Enron, the Securities industry, or even the US Federal Reserve, abuse and manipulation by insiders for personal power, influence and reward leads to the destruction of not just individuals, but puts the whole fabric of civilization at risk. Commerce and capitalism are certainly parts of that fabric - but they are certainly not the point to it. Commerce and profit are means, one hopes, to the end of a better life and a more secure and enjoyable life for all.

If for no other reason than this; happy, fufilled people are far less likely to rip you off at gunpoint.

The stated position - that one "earns" one's bread without incurring any obligation to the rest of society or it's common financial, social, political, legal, regulatory or transportation infrastructures is intuitively ethically untenable, it requires a great deal of propaganda, religious brainwashing, jingoism and induced paranoia to maintain. A rigorously monolingual and functionally illiterate mindset helps a great deal, due to the fact that most writings in the social sciences are either in other languages or written in an English that is inaccessible to the majority of the American people - that is to say, above a sixth grade level.

One of the great problems American Conservatives have with the French is that they have committed great Socialistic Sins, have placed people far above capitalistic ideals - and have yet managed to muddle through. Though if anything, American Conservatives hate Scandinavia and Canada as much or more, for each, in their way, prove that with more social structure and investment comes more, not less individual liberty. (A reality, that to be fair about it, alarms many liberals and socialists as much as it does our own Social Conservatives)

But never mind all that; the stated motives of politicians are but an illusion; a mask upon a corpse. And even when such an idiology is sincere and genuine, the Liberal mindset is no more useful, for it tries to deny just as many aspects of human nature, or suggest that a properly constructed society could and would successfully suppress them, for the Greater Good.

Greater Good arguments, far from being a slippery slope, are a precipitous cliff. You see, it all goes toward the question of what the Greater Good is, who is empowered to define it, and whether they actually understand if their chosen means can possibly achieve the desired end, even if that end is unarguably desirable.

One can eliminate crime, for instance, by simply shooting all criminals. Sharp reductions in criminal behavior will be immediately evident - if only due to the enhanced caution of criminals.

One can also eliminate crime by eliminating all laws, under the premise that if there is no foul, there can be no harm. Even as a quite seriously anti authoritarian, I present this as an absurd premise. With no law, no regulation, no justice - you get Somalia.

In both cases, negative consequences will occur - but those negative consequences are commonly dismissed as being "the price of security" or "the price of freedom." Actually, they are, in both cases, direct and predictable consequences arising from human responses to a social matrix developed without regard to human nature is the price of willful, unethical stupidity. It's entirely possible for a civilization to be more free and more secure by indulging neither conceit.

There can be no lasting social structure that does not account for all aspects of human nature, create places for people biased in particular directions and put in place mechanisms that tend to reward positive expressions while disadvantaging negative ones, so long as society never expects nor demands perfect results in all cases. Society must be satisfied with statistical progress, while permitting and collectively insuring against risks that may lead to individual failures.

Why? Ask any successful businessman how many failures it took for them to succeed. Or any successful person who is known for anything remarkable at all. It is not the conformist that makes great things possible, it's the non-conformist; the guy that would rather accept the risk of failure than buy into a managed, franchized "sure-fire success."

Paradoxically, a society that does not permit enough room for people to make horrible mistakes is too inflexible to learn and grow. And a society that demoniezes, or worse yet, denies the existance certain tendancies that lead to certain very predictable mistakes can easily collapse overnight, as the structures that appear to be sound reveal themseleves to have been consumed from within.

Dick Cheney is not evil because of his nature. There's nothing inherently evil about enjoying pain, suffering, the defeat and humiliation of competetors or the exercise of power upon one's enemies. It's very often a critical, survival grade trait. For instance, Dr. Christian Barnard is often said to have been a sadist; it is certainly a trait that is clearly useful to a surgeon. Likewise, the ability to send young men and women to their deaths is a trait we value in the military, even in slightly glorious excess - though even there we sharply disapprove of those who contrive excuses for doing it.

The choice to value the limbic rewards of an action to the point where right action and just outcomes become immaterial - that is evil.

That sort of person flourishes best when there is a structure intended to oppress and oppose the very thing they most wish to do - by the methods and means they most like employing themselves.

Take the war on drugs. In the name of protecting people from their own choices, the very worst case outcomes are enforced, making the apparent need a seeming necessity. The war on drugs is nothing more and nothing less than a contrivance, a self-fulfilling prophecy and a sinecure for those who can imagine no better life-path than one based upon imposing their will upon others.

This is not to say that there are not very upright and capable people within law-enforcement who sincerely believe that the road to hell is paved with recreational medicine, or those who see drug cartels as being heavily armed dangerous people who really should be dealt with appropriately. I'm sad for the first, for they are sincere fools, and sad for the second, for they are correct without having any leverage upon the problem.

But the vast majority of those who take up the cause of suppressing Vice in the name of Virtue... I would say their grasp of virtue is, or will soon be compromised. It's simply a matter of time.

Your Neoconservatives At Work: Heartless and yet, completely useless.

Well, that's your problem right there:

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

More Health Care Myths [Mark Hemingway]

Why do Democrats push preventative health care as a cost savings measure at every turn? If you want to save the healthcare system money, drop dead of a heart attack at 50. Living to 88 on the other hand — that's expensive.

02/24 09:48 PM

A simplistic observation that while being only superficially true, manages to advance the proposition that being a complete bastard is a moral virtue without any practical utility to anyone with genuine human concerns. In other words, definitively Neoconservative.

I expect far higher standards of such an august name as held by the venerable National Review. Finding this was rather like encountering a small turd floating in the punchbowl - two mugs past the point of no return.

Graphictruth makes the front page of Forbes.com

There it is, at the bottom, with it's Graphictruth style titling, my post about the significance of The Pickens Plan and the economic foolishness of staying wedded to a petroleum economy.

This isn't actually the first time Forbe's scrapers have found one of my stories, it's merely the first time it struck me how significant it is. Consider the odds, under ordinary circumstances, of anyone who would read Forbes magazine stumbling across anything I'd ever write.

Now, it's still up to me to "make the sale," to have a story that is significant and worth reading that's actually relevant to the keywords that Forbes seeks out. As it happens, the piece I wrote is relevant - and written from a perspective that I hope appeals to a broad spectrum of people that are genuinely Conservative in their approach to life and economics.

And it points out that the world wide web is a broad net that is the ultimate antitude to "common wisdoms" that can exist only when we religiously avoid exposure to ideas of unapproved origins. I assure you, no social conservative nor Neoconservative would approve of me in any sense I have the slightest ability to change.

It's the ETHICS, Stupid! by webcarve

There are many principles of genuine Conservatism that I strongly adhere to; prudence, fiscal conservatism and a well-developed sense that stench and smoke points to waste that is polluting the commons - waste which could be transformed into wealth by someone with the wit to do so, instead of corrupting some pliable elected idiot to permit the waste to continue.

Don't tell me it's "the smell of money" or that it's ok because it's "always been that way." It ain't, neither one.

Real conservatives are not wedded to the status quo when it's a mere historical hiccup, dating as it does from the acendency of Thatcherism and Reaganomics or even the Industrial Revolution; real conservatism is about the conservation of real wealth, things, ideals and structures of provable and enduring value on all levels, from the entirely personal to the global, by means of robust, traditional wisdom that has been proven over long stretches of history with wide variations of circumstance.

Furthermore, ever time new understandings evolve from application of wisdom to reality, the practical Conservative adds to the body of wisdom, while the ideologue contrives elaborate excuses for failure in practice.

Why? Well, Society and culture is built upon ideas and ideals that once were seen to be astonishing, radical, offensive - things that very much argued against the common wisdom of the day and have yet come to be understood to be expressing some aspect of fundamental, practical truth. John Donne was speaking such a visceral truth to entrenched powers when he wrote this immortal poem, capturing in very few words the importance of a wider vision of wealth in context.

For Whom The Bell Tolls

John Donne

No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manner of thine own
Or of thine friend’s were.
Each man’s death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.

The true Conservative does not oppose liberalism, or even radicalism. The true Conservative applauds them - from a prudent distance. The difference was summed up for me today on Mythbusters, when Adam observed to Jaime: "You know the difference between us and 14 year old pyromaniacs?" To answer that, he raps upon the acrylic blast shield, one which was probably over engineered by a factor of ten.

It is important to realize that the Neoconservatives and Social Conservatives are not new, not at all conservative and have very little faith in society. Worst of all, they prefer faith in their theories to the degree that they try them out without any sensible precautions in place.

Well, to quote a practical conservative rhetorical axiom - "And How's That Workin' Out For You?"

Let's look at that.

A culture that has a large number of very rich people may yet be steeped in intellectual, spiritual and even literal poverty, and in that context, money does not actually translate into genuine wealth.

That is to say, the sort of place where the most visible form of status is the ability to expend resources in service to the end of keeping other ring-tailed sonsofbitches like yourself taking it away from you is not wealthy or much of a society, not if you cannot translate cash into comfort and personal security at a reasonable rate of exchange.

Consider what sort of practical, personal liberties even the richest person has in countries with greater divides between rich and poor in nations like, oh, Bangladesh or Pakistan. Consider the practical risks and rewards of being of the "privileged" class in Mexico and Central America, where some significant proportion of your assets must be diverted toward not being kidnapped or murdered. Consider the consequential issues of living in nations where every interaction with a government official - from the highest to the lowest - must be lubricated with a bribe. Consider the practical difficulties in getting anything done in nations where even building codes are regarded as optional, because all laws are seen by the average persons as existing primarily as a means of extortion, and not there to promote an inherent good - like not taking a sledge-hammer to a load-bearing wall.

It is certainly an indicator of status to be in a position to afford a combat-trained driver capable of taking you safely from A to B in your electrified armored and flame-thrower equipped SUV. It definitely is a "shiny thing" - until you realize the implications of being told by your insurance agent that you absolutely MUST have such a thing and use it faithfully in order for them to insure your life and safety at all. In this light, consider that gout was also once an indicator of social status.

Meditate upon that thought for a moment. If you don't come out with a prolonged mental expletive, I'll be stunned.

Now consider all the very smart and skilled people involved in various aspects of security and personal protection that could be doing something else that actually contributed to the economy in a positive sense, and you start realizing that not only is that tax on wealth very high indeed, it's also regressive as all hell. It manages to penalize poverty and poor people (after all, they are the most likely to want to steal your stuff) even more than it taxes wealth. We see a very high costs arising when large segments of society cannot afford to rationally trust one another.

When one factors in the consequential stress and limitations on liberty with the direct out of pocket costs, they amount to extraordinarily high taxes on wealth.

Frankly, one wonders how many people capable of generating large piles of wealth choose to use that skill to the end of relocating themselves and their families elsewhere. When even the dirt-poor are bailing on your society, trying to find some place, any place where they can have some hope of building real, generational wealth - clearly there is a need to address the real issues, for ordinarily, people will put up with adverse circumstances rather than rupture the bonds of family and place.

While these societies and governments are arguably much to blame for many of the structural and social problems that lead to these issues and unarguably responsible for the situation by definition, the Neoconservative movement, which has gained control of the banking and finance system for the world has acted in ways that have made the situation very much worse. They have done this as a matter of ideological policy that, in order to exist at all, must absolutely discount the significance of human suffering, or at least see it as a measure of some perverted success. Consider how much suffering has been inflicted in the name of this vision upon the world in just the last eight years.

I think of this as wrong - actually, I prefer the term "evil" when the attitude is expressed by one individual in regard to another. But that is an moral and ethical opinion - and we need not consider that when we have far too many stinking piles of effect that point straight back to that ideology as causative agent.

Neoconservatism has severely undermined the social structures that make it generally unacceptable to shoot people and take their stuff, and have done it with very little distance between cause and effect in a very short period of historical time. If it's acceptable to shoot people and take their stuff, the advantage of shooting rich people becomes obvious. They have better stuff and more of it. If they won't tell you where their stuff is - you can crush the testicles of their firstborn in order to change their minds. The precedent has been set. The example has been made and said to be good.

If it is acceptable in the name of an abstract good, such as patriotism or National Security, it's surely acceptable if you, personally, are hungry and unable to feed your own children.

History is littered with the remains of those who governed by such example. They do make interesting history, but as any historian will tell you, the less interesting history there is, the better off people were at the time.

The key to opening a new chapter of history is contained in the negative example of Mexico City, the positive and venerable advice of John Donne and the happy accident in which Forbes's algorithm stumbled across my own iconoclastic view of energy policy.

I'm not claiming any particularly original vision or revolutionary philosophy. On the contrary. I do tend to find things in diverse-seeming places and assemble them in unusual ways - an artifact of unusual brain wiring that, along with the fallout of somewhat-well-meaning abuse intended to turn me into a "productive citizen" would under ordinary circumstances make what I thought about anything irrelevant to anyone who matters.

And yet, through no fault or virtue of my own - there is what I wrote on Forbes.com. Not because of who I am, but because of what I know and what I said. Something that was considered to have a high probability of relevance to anyone interested in investing in petroleum infrastructure.

Now, here's the profit to me that someone takes those ideas and sees a path to a large personal fortune they can found a dynasty upon. If they do it in a way that advantages the other ideas in there, MY idea of wealth is advanced.

But that's beside the interesting point. The interesting point is that the conventional wisdom - as expressed by Neocons and Social Conservatives - is at variance with actual wisdom. I'm not claiming a great deal of personal wisdom, though I hope I'm doing a workmanlike job of expressing it. My only claim to fame in this regard is being widely read and having been exposed to the writing of people considered to be wise over a far wider span of time than is common.

You may attach significant blame for my contrian predilections to the Jesuits who endured me during Ninth Grade, where I infamously applied Occam's Razor to the doctrine of the Virgin birth, exactly as I was taught by the man who had taught me to use Occam's Razor - and who was trying to teach me the foundation of this great mystery of faith.

"Surely, Fr. Kieran," I said, "there must be a more plausible explanation?"

It is somewhat disturbing that I got an A in both courses. And a recruitment offer.

I was gifted during that year with a fine appreciation for the practical value of a faith that is unashamed of ruthless contact with reality and which celebrates many extremely practical outcomes over a long period of time - and which also is willing to embrace and record an equally long litany of error, so that those errors may inform both faith and reason.

We cannot afford to tolerate leaders who hold other people in contempt, that see humanity in general as irredeemably evil, in need of harsh punishments and severe restrictions upon their choices and liberties.

I state that not merely from a position grounded in ethics, but from a deeply practical point of view. Real wealth seems to explode when placed in the presence of practical and economic freedom. Wherever and whenever the heavy hand of social conservatives is lifted, by whatever means, civilizations grow, become more civilized, advance rapidly and make great piles of stuff worth having and remarkable public places people wish to be. Why is this true?

Well, at bottom, it's an extraordinary simple insight, one I would think would be far more obvious to far more people. Civilization and all the things that make it possible - government, the money supply, various churches, charities associations and groups - are all trust networks, and they all work in much the same way. What they do is make it more possible for people to engage in economic and social transactions by reducing the risk of having trusted unwisely.

The foundational assumption of Social Conservatism in Western culture, and it's intellectual fathers; Augustine, Calvin and the Apostle Paul, is that nobody can be trusted without the direct intervention of Authority operating with the direct and unquestionable mandate of God.

We have spent the last thirty years or so in which that view of human nature has become increasingly dominant, in no small part to the rise of the Evangelical and Reconstructionist brands of "Christianity."

It has reached the point where people are being educated in business and law with that as a foundational premise - that really, nobody cannot be trusted, that all persons are inherently corrupt without direct and ongoing spiritual intervention of the specific brand one is currently addicted to.

The ONLY way in which this assumption about the inherent corrupt nature of humanity could possibly work is if we could develop an infallible, objective test for the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" and some objective theory as to how that changes the human dynamic. In the absence of such a test, the advantage always goes to the best liar in the room. Consider how many people still consider George Bush to be a "good Christian," in the very teeth of the Blindingly Obvious.

Matthew 7:18-20 (New International Version)

¹⁸A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. ¹⁹Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. ²⁰Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

It's difficult for me to understand how common sense that blatant has to be accorded divine inerrance to be taken seriously. It's even more astonishment that, when given that level of "pay attention, this is God talking" how little practical application we see it being given by so-called Christians.

It's not difficult to see how human nature works in this environment. Rather than advantaging the most honest person, it leverages the sociopath, for the absolutely most reliable path to power is the willingness to say, Trust Me, since I'm blessed by Authority to be an Exception to this flaw. Oh, and, since you are inherently corrupt, you must of course distrust your gut when it tells you to distrust me.

This circularity of unreasoning conformity to an authority that accepts it's own untrustworthy nature as inherent to it's own core ideology is best visualized by walking into the bathroom and flushing the toilet. If you like, you can empty your wallet into the bowl first to underline the profit you may expect from participating in that system without absolute control over it. You will be exploited to the exact degree that you rely on this counterfeit trust network. What point is there in participating in a trust network that cannot be trusted?

Any economic or social philosophy that would argue that paying higher taxes in exchange for smaller personal and social benefits is obvious lunacy. This is, nonetheless, exactly the effective outcome of NeoConservative economic philosopy. The proof is in the pudding, as it were.

There can only be a very few Pat Robinsons and Bernie Maddoffs, and the social conservatism of each relys far more upon the philosophy of P.T. Barnum than Jesus of Nazereth.

William Kristol v Matt Damon: Bets?

Iraq War Showdown: Bill Kristol Agrees to Debate Matt Damon After Actor’s “Idiot” Slam
by Andrew Breitbart

On Sunday afternoon Weekly Standard editor and New York Times columnist Bill Kristol — in an email exchange with Big Hollywood — agreed to debate Matt Damon on his Hollywood home turf after being informed the 38-year old actor ridiculed Kristol in an interview in the Miami Herald.

“He’s an idiot — he wrote that we should be grateful to George Bush because he won the Iraq war. We! Won! The! War!”

As the sponsor of the event, Big Hollywood is offering $100,000 to Damon (or to the charity or carbon credit of his choice) to publicly debate Kristol at a mutually agreed upon time, date and venue.

Boy, I wish I had 100 grand to toss around like that. But I do agree that it would be fun to watch. I disagree with the Drudge-traffic as to why, and at who's expense the fun would be had.

Krystol took umbrage at the following line.

[C]onservative William Kristol, according to Damon: ''He's an idiot -- he wrote that we should be grateful to George Bush because he won the Iraq war. We! Won! The! War!'' (The opinionated Mr. Damon-Miami Herald.)

Breitbart and Kristol together have confirmed for me (ok, I infer from context) a long-held assumption; they can't read. Or at least, they suck at opposition research.

You see, context is rather important. What the context shows is someone who is quite well informed on the issues, human, ethical and practical.

Instead, the small talk -- if that's the right phrase -- ranged from which New York Times columnist is the worst (conservative William Kristol, according to Damon: ''He's an idiot -- he wrote that we should be grateful to George Bush because he won the Iraq war. We! Won! The! War!'') to the proper place of torture in American foreign policy.

''Look, the best line about torture I've heard came from [retired CIA officer turned war-on-terrorism critic] Milt Beardon,'' Damon says. ``He said, `If a guy knows where a dirty bomb is hidden that's going to go off in a Marriott, put me in a room with him and I'll find out. But don't codify that. Just let me break the law.'

``Which I think is right. You can't legalize torture. But anybody would do it in that situation. You'd do it to me in that situation; you'd pull out my fingernails if you thought I knew something like that.''

This is an extremely important point, showing a sophisticated understanding of the ethics of realpolitik and real life. Sometimes, yes, one must break the law in order to preserve things worth preserving - including the institutions that uphold and defend the rule of law. But the people doing that cannot and must not evade responsibility for the fact that their choice was between this wrong and that wrong.

That is to say, Nixon was right in saying that Presidents very often have to do things that are not, technically, legal. He was wrong in saying that "when the President does it, it is NOT illegal." No, it may well be necessary, but the person in charge of the law MUST know where the line is, even in the act of crossing it.

There's a dictum I firmly believe in: "Never let morality get in the way of doing the right thing." But that is by no means a defense of either amoral or immoral behavior. Ethics is about assesments of balances of harm and benefit, in specific cases. Morality (and law) is supposed to be a general guide for most people in most circumstances.

But Kristol is one of many NeoCon apologists who would like you to believe that torture is a tool that can be morally justified if "the right people" do it unto "the proper suspects," and supports the practice of a public posture of doing it and letting people KNOW it's being done.

That makes it both state terrorism and the foundation for an argument for "regime change" identical to the one Kristol was famous for touting, vis-a-vie Saddam Hussein, one of huge numbers of bizarre and inherent cognitive dissonances and factual conflicts one must accept in order to accept Kristol's apologias and spinmiestry.

Nonetheless, the pinheads are agog at the possibility that Matt Damon might take up Kristol's challenge to a debate! It's sort of hubris by proxy!

Sandy - January 26th, 2009 at 9:26 am

In a real-world debate between pretend-smart and actually-smart, Damon would be like the Texas girl’s basketball game where the coach got fired for winning 100-0.
It would be like me playing chess against Kasparov.

Sandy

Shellie Lewis - January 26th, 2009 at 9:26 am

Bill Kristol will clean Damon’s clock! I bet this debate never happens. Typical libtard bombast, all mouth, no guts. We don’t go to the movies, either. Matt Damon is particularly irritating. I guess George and Brad, et al, use him as their mouthpiece. And, how about money for a Bill Kristol charity when he wins?

And hundreds more. Hundreds upon hundreds more.

Generally speaking, it's unwise to assume that someone with a viewpoint that disagrees with you is "not smart." It's far safer to assume they are lots smarter than you, source their facts and look to their arguments. The FIRST thing you want to do in a debate - or ANY intellectual dispute - is to ensure that your own facts and assumptions are as inarguable as possible. That's what they taught ME in debate class. Then, of course, they gave us topics that were arguable by definition. The facts don't change, but the assumptions based on what the facts mean... that's where the fun zone is.

And here's some of the rules of thumb for fun in that zone.

If a person who can be shown to be an idiot agrees with you, you really should re-assess your position. The proposition is not reversable. Being disagreed with by an idiot does not make you correct. Nor does being disagreed with prove that the critic is an idiot by definition. Ideally, we want as little space between what is true and what we wish to be true as possible - and opponents who do not understand that that gap is the ideal place to wedge The Crowbar Of Truth.

What's that saying? "You have a right to your own opinion, but not your own facts." And that, I presume is why Matt Damon thinks Kristol is an idiot for saying what he did.

Holy crap, it's an amazingly, breathtakingly idiotic statement on the face of it, the sort of statement that requires far more than "and I'll stake my reputation upon it" as an argumentative foundation. It is a statement that requires some sort of proof; certainly a definition of terms, such as, what do you mean by "victory," or "what did we win?"

Now, I can actually see an argument that could look at the war retrospectively as being a good thing, on the whole, but the problem is that for that to work out, a whole lot of people who are not subject to US influence, much less Kristol's, have to make very good, rational and dispassionate choices in an environment that - thanks to the neocon war effort - is rather hostile to rationality.

Frankly, I think that final historical view of history will be as arguable as the typical views as to the benefits of the War Between The States or US accounts of that great victory over British aggression, the War of 1812.

Ok, here's MY take on the contenders and their potential strenghts and weaknesses as a person actually trained in debate.

Bill Kristol is a professional NeoCon, and has taken literally thousands of positions in the public record that have turned out to be less than entirely correct. Not even close enough for government work, not even by the below-sea-level standards for government that Bushites adhere to. And let us remember that political philosophy aside, at the end of the day, that is what he's paid to be, as a think tanker and pundit - to be correct on the facts and to take those facts and make correct forecasts from those facts so that others may profit by them.

Otherwise, why pay him?

Debate is an important public policy tool; it allows those listening to evaluate both the facts (which must actually be factual and will be challenged if they are of doubtful provenance) and the use those involved make of those facts to found their arguments.

Now, all I know about Damon is that he's a Harvard trained actor. Which means, aside from everything else, he may well have had very high-level competitive speech training. And, like him or hate him, there's a lot less ammunition just lying around waiting to be used against him.

So, he's at least as well prepared as The Great Communicator was when he handily won HIS debates - with far less to work with.

So, this is where these facts lead me. Matt Damon disagrees with Bill Kristol - in public. Kris - in fine NeoAuthoritarian tradition - responds with a challenge to meet him in the playground after school.

I think I've seen this movie.

But there's a difference. Damon doesn't know "just a little karate."

Now, philosophically, I would differ with both. I'm neither a Liberal nor a NeoConservative. But - and this is an important point here - I know the foundational assumptions of each and can argue those positions, should I wish.

Moreover, I've enjoyed and learned from people who argued from those positions skillfully and with great apparent sincerity. Say what you will about Margerate Thatcher; no-one took her lightly and came away unscathed. Or, again, say what you will about Noam Chomsky. Many on the right do - but all too commonly, in saying it, they reveal that they simply don't have the slightest idea of what he said. This is not to say that his conclusions are correct, or that one could not successfully argue with him, as William F. Buckley famously proved.

The core issue here is that you simply cannot pull unfounded, unfactual assumptions about economics, human nature and the dynamics of warfare out of your ass and make them true by presenting them in a way that is appealing to fools who wish to believe your mythos.

Liberal or Conservative, War on Terror or Kumbyah; believing the propaganda is the first sign of the sort of intellectual deficit that should keep you far from any position of influence - such as, say, the editorial page of the New York Times.

And finally, we have seen Kristol in action, getting owned by John Stewart - no editing needed.

Who can forget when he told Stewart he was getting wrong information because he was relying too much on... the New York Times. Stewart replied: "But you work for the New York Times, Bill!"

Now, when you are prone to saying things things like that with very little provocation... imagine what he'd say if he was seriously challenged?

The debate would be Damon's to lose, frankly. And wouldn't it be lovely, Matt, to take Brietbart's money and put it into, oh, say, stem cell research, solar energy or possibly an organic arugula farm?

Or maybe a small film about the history of the NeoConservative movement.

The Stupid; It Burns! Mug by webcarve
Design ceramic coffee mugs With Zazzle.com
Browse other Jokes Mugs

Please don't buy this shirt! (Buy the stickers instead!)

These are the people in your neighborhood T-Shirt
by

webcarve

Make personalized t shirts At Zazzle.com
Browse Satire T-Shirts

HT: Inspired by a post from the Vegas Gleaner, one of them rabble-rousing Lib-a-ruls. Of course he should be on zazzle himself. I mean, just the title alone:

"Billions of Nevadans make pilgrimage to glimpse Divine Prophet"

When I want to punch the stupid out of people, I don't get mad, I get creative. Really. That's why I do it. It really, really gets in the way of making commercial stuff.

Ya see, this shirt basically says that only idiots who like beating up people who disagree with them are actually still stupid enough vote for Palin and McCain.

Let me underline this with the fact that Ron Paul refused to endorse the ticket, and of all people, Paleocon Patrick J. Buchannon has actually endorsed Obama!

If Pat and Ron don't feel room in that big tent - and they are far from alone in that, well, we should look at what's left. Neocons, snake-oil artists and the sort of people that poisoned their own kids because Jim Jones said so.

So, given that these people are not just foolish, but dangerously and stupidly foolish, it doesn't seem like the smart money is on wearing one in public. But, I do have an idea. If a t-shirt is just too damn dangerous to wear in public, it's time to have a little fun with stickers.

The Corn Is Watching
by

webcarve

Design a cheap sticker on zazzle.com
View other Satire Stickers

Get out there and back-slap a few Republicans. You know, ones who don't know where you live.

Would you be afraid to wear this shirt in public?

Wanted for Treason and Murder T-Shirt by webcarve

I'm not really used to one of my shirts driving a story; it's usually the other way around. But this shirt has consistently been on the top page of my popularity list. And yet, not one sale. I hadn't made it with that idea in mind, so it really hadn't clicked.

I mean, I'd never wear it in public. I wouldn't stand NEXT to me, even if I had press credentials.





But do I believe in what it says? You betcha. The fact is, there is indeed more than enough probable cause to arrest George Bush for treason and murder, than ANY of the arrests depicted above.

New York Times Publishes Terroristic Threats

Wanted for Treason and Murder T-Shirt by webcarve
Design Customized TShirts On Zazzle

There are certain things you simply do not publish. Terror threats for the benefit of one another nation against another are not things you need even bother running past the State Department. One is either the editor of one of the most respected newspapers in the world, or one is a willing shill and agent of a foreign power. And I word that latter part charitably, for without the context of the editorial page of the New York Times, Benny Morris would simply be one of many Strangelovian enablers of horror.

Joseph A. Palermo: Professor Benny Morris: Nuclear War to Avoid Nuclear War: "In today's New York Times the Israeli academic Benny Morris, in an article fittingly entitled 'Using Bombs to Stave Off War,' opines that a 'preemptive' nuclear conflagration in the Middle East could have some kind of positive outcome for Israel, the United States, and the world. It's a disgraceful piece of intellectual demagoguery based on mind-boggling, and really quite insane, situational ethics. 'Israel,' Morris's lead begins, 'will almost certainly attack Iran's nuclear sites in the next four to seven months.'"

I direct you to the full article at Huffpo. Meanwhile, I shall respond in the same general vein.

When threats are made that can reasonably be presumed, given context, to have the full, if veiled intent of two of the most powerful and dangerously touchy nations in the world behind them, it would be insane to not take precautions. Since Iran has no ability to match even Israel in terms of conventional war-fighting ability, it would make perfect sense to approach this issue asymmetrically.

Indeed, I would advise them to do so, for the great advantage of intelligently managed asymmetrical warfare is that it has the potential of directly addressing those who are responsible for a policy.

Yes, were I being consulted, I would advise Iran to take some immediate steps to neutralize this threat and fortunately, there are ways to do this without resort to the asymmetrical deterrents that trouble my dreams from time to time. One hopes that the government of Iran recognizes they are being baited and responds with cunning, rather than in kind.

In history, there are examples where envoys have been returned in pieces as the response to far less implacable threats, and of course that is your basic pretext for war. It's lovely to realize that GWB is willing to sacrifice New York City in order to achieve a goal.

Again.

I, personally, take great exception to the New York Times facilitating such a threat and allowing those issuing it the cover of a US population base - and their employees. I do hope that Iran is capable of a precisely calculated and measured response. I sincerely hope and encourage the use of words instead of bombs, blades or bullets.

But to say that the surgical use of bullets and blades would be inappropriate - that is not something I can bring myself to say, and I'm horrified that anyone could think to be a shill for such a proposition and think they can or should be held innocent of part of that intent.

The New York Times has published a terrorist threat, made by one Benny Morris. It would be laughable under the circumstances to think for a moment that this is NOT done with the full approval of Israel and the State Department - indeed, of George Bush, personally. And somehow it got past the editorial board, without anyone raising the obvious objection to an act.

Fortunately, this suggests a viable course of asymmetrical action that is apt, just and one which neither Israel NOR the US Government is likely to be able to effectively counter.

If I were president, and this happened on my watch, I'd be publicly peeling a strip off the New York Times AFTER recalling the Ambassador to Israel for "prolonged consultation." Indeed, I'd probably recall the embassy - citing the need for "asbestos abatement and structural enhancement."

So a case could be made (and an obvious alliance exists) that even tacit support of Israel's threats amounts to yet another impeachable offense, if it does not indeed rise to the level of acting as an agent of a foreign power. That's the polite phrase for treason.

I find it remarkable that the legal staff at the NYT have not raised the issue that furthering the ends of those who have already met the standard for impeachment and arguably for treason is a consequential act. But since they have not, allow me to explain why legitimizing the threats Israel is making is very bad policy for the Times - and for the United States.

I long ago learned that those who presume upon your friendship are not your friends. When they presume upon your friendship in ways that puts you in danger, they are neither friends nor allies; they have become dangerous parasites at best and enemies at worst. In neither case do you permit them to continue exploiting your good nature. When your President clearly considers that it's worthwhile putting the American civilian population at risk in order to perpetuate the current government of Israel and it's manifestly inhumane and unethical policies - it's time to remove that President from office.

I think this action shows such a public contempt for the good will and well-being of the American people in general, and the people of New York City in particular that it can only lend credibility to the premise that Israel was somehow involved in the 9/11 conspiracy by virtue of the fact that they are clearly trying to set the scene for this to happen again.

You see, if I happened to have a weapon of mass destruction available, or could construct one from bits purchased at home depot, and people were making such inadvisable threats toward MY nation and my interests, I would certainly consider arranging things so that even if my nation were to be turned into "a glazed crater," those responsible would not emerge unscathed.

That is such an obvious precaution that I'd be stunned if it has not been taken. And not JUST by Iran.

Indeed, it may well be that 9/11 was the result of such a long-extant "precaution" on the part of Israel. The problem is, things have been well arranged to ensure that we will likely never know. But let us face it; it's possible for such things to be done by any competent intelligence agency with any amount of foresight - and the evident possibility of the need for Iran (as well as any number of other small powers) to have such a "hole card" has been clear - or should have been clear - since the seventies.

Because, as I said, the only sane course of response - indeed, the only response a power like Iran is capable of is asymmetrical. Sane defense planners take such realities into consideration - on both sides of any potential conflict.

Well - the logical response here would be a more or less precise strike against targets that are related to the insult: The New York Times, the Israeli Embassy or the State Department would be on the short list as a response to this incident - if unleashing a pre-placed WMD were an appropriate or useful response.

I sincerely hope it is not seen as such. As I hinted above, and hint again - there's a far better and even more appropriate response.

Nonetheless, I think that if I were an employee of any of these and hundreds of other relevant response targets, I should greatly resent it and would deeply consider a change in career.

Regarding the New York Times, it would certainly cause me to reassess the prestige of working there and the regard and assumptions made about me due to my byline being seen upon their pages.

In short, I'm revolted. This was a contemptible act with potentially gravely dangerous implications. I hope the bribe was sufficient to sooth the consciences of those involved. Presuming there exists such a thing, of course.

For citizens of these United States, we who already have far too much evidence of the contempt for which our putative leaders have for us - there is but one possible response to a government that would even consider floating a trial balloon for a global thermonuclear conflict as a means of addressing personal and political goals.

Impeachment, removal from office, trials and convictions under relevant domestic laws for treason and then remand to the Hague for trial under international law for war crimes for those for whom such indictments have been issued.

We have (provisionally) free speech in this country. But free speech does not mean that when threats are freely spoken that it is at all reasonable to expect freedom from consequence. Indeed, the law recognize that the utterance of a threat is an exception.

Well, this is precisely such a case. It's an obvious, intended threat, meant to intimidate. And I would suggest to Iran that they hire the most vicious and effective firm they can find to sue the New York Times and Persons to Be Named Later immediately. I suggest further that they set up a web page for the effort and solicit donations for the legal and public campaign.

I would suggest that this be done in as many venues as possible, as soon as possible.

Economic warfare is also war - and has the advantage of being potentially vastly entertaining to we, the people of these here United States who will no doubt be the largest donors to the cause. And while, yes, you could blockade the Strait of Hormuz and cause gas prices to spike to ten bucks a gallon - this response is far better tactically and cost-efficient. Nor does it offer any legitimate pretext to either Israel OR the United States to wage war against you - rather, it sets up a considerable political deterrent.

Should you do this - and I would suggest doing this as openly and as transparently as possible - I will support it. This response is not terrorism. It's a legal and civilized response to uncivil, illegal and terroristic acts that are aimed at you.

Potential prize - legitimate ownership of the New York Times. Certainly a great deal of expense, mental pain and suffering for those directly and subsequently responsible for the injury. The satisfaction of seeing a few moderately conspicuous Satans held financially if not legally accountable, and a not-bad shot of contributing to the latter outcome as well.

I mean, seriously, you-all who make such decisions worldwide - is this not exactly the course Sun Tsu would advise?

Karl Rove: Rats Desert the Ship of State

Where in the World is Karl Rove? « NotionsCapital: "Where in the World is Karl Rove?
Where in the World is Karl Rove? That’s the big Blogosphere question tonight. See it here and here and here.

This so needs to be a T-Shirt.

But as hot and topical as this is, I find it difficult to say anything of substance, beyond "aw, fuck, what did you think was going to happen?"

I said difficult. Not impossible.

There's more...

But let's start with some hindsight. I typed "Karl Rove" into my site search. Just mine. I imagine the results would be similar on pretty much any reality-based site, or even, say The New York Times.

The results on this one person blog would choke a goat.

Meet the New Smirk; Same as the old Smirk.

I used to respect John McCain a great deal. But I'm afraid that he's lost his way; while politics is the art of compromise, it is not supposed to be the art of compromising one's principles to the end of gaining power.

He's now forthright for torture and supports the police state tactics that the Bush Cabal desires - most lately endorsing warrantless wiretapping "In this time of war." A "war" will last just as long as needed to justify the "emergency procedures" Karl Rove desires.

Whatever the orthodoxy of the Republican Party thinks, whatever their media machine believes, McCain's actual chance of winning an even somewhat honest election at this point, with the Bush Albatross around his neck and a ringing promise of a hundred more years of war in the middle east if that's what it takes to "win" is that of a urinal puck in a Texas Honky-Tonk.

Pot. Kettle. Rove.

But, thanks to Susie, I was directed to this article on BoingBoing:

"I'm the proud owner of Karl Rove’s father’s solid gold cock ring."

You know, that might well be the most compelling headline of the decade.

Well, now; that explains a lot, don't it? Oh, and Karl was raised in Sparks, Nev, just for that local interest angle.

I've always thought that Karl was a little bit "queer" myself. Not in the way his dad was, but in the sense of being ooozingly, off-puttingly not quite right. In the old sense, before the word came to be a synonym for homosexuality, one connotation was the sort of person that caused you to wipe your hand on your pants-leg after shaking their hand.

And oddly enough, Karl is the exact sort that would like you to confuse those terms, with the sort of pasty phiz you see in sex-offender registries.

Siegelman and Scrushy - Tip of the Iceburg?

The story itself bears so much similarity to so many other stories that it seems almost routine. It took a few of the comments to make me realize that suddenly "Dog bites Man" is genuine news.

The news is that "plausible deniablity" is off the table. We now know that when "Dog bites Man," it's almost always the same goddamn dog - just as we always suspected.

And on, and on and on. Siebel Edwards, Valerie Plaime, Eliot Spitzer, Siegelman and Scrushy are just a few of the names we know, people that for some reason or another would not yield and therefore got "Roved." It surely leads one to wonder who caved in. Nancy Pelosi seems an obvious suspect, as does our own Harry Reid.

But considering what Rove hath wrought upon those whom he has been displeased with, getting full cover from the Justice Department even in acts of outright treason, it's really difficult to gin up any great moral outrage at a failure of courage in such straits.

Hell, consider this:

The Pragmatic Progressive: Puzzling cluster of dead microbiologists.

Consider that all the targets of the Anthrax terror attack were Democrats, and that the agent was a weapons grade strain of anthrax processed to make it go easily airborne that clearly came from our own bio-warfare labs.

A fact, of course, that had to be confirmed by microbiology and genetics.

Hm. Not sayin' there's a direct connection between the two things, of course. But the net impression from this and many hundreds of other hints dropped upon us is that there is no length to which these people will not go. Indeed, they have gone there, and are clearly comfortable with doing it again, harder.

Nor are they even embarrassed to point to what their tactics have achieved - or apparently even conscious of the costs imposed upon us to make their gains. Just ask John McCain's economic advisor, Phil Grahm. He'll tell you:

" 'We have sort of become a nation of whiners,' he said. 'You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline' despite a major export boom that is the primary reason that growth continues in the economy, he said.

" 'We've never been more dominant; we've never had more natural advantages than we have today,' he said. 'We have benefited greatly' from the globalization of the economy in the last 30 years.

And that is all very true - depending on what your definition of "we" is. It surely does not include me. It almost certainly does not include you. If you happen to be Libral, gay, black, mexican or of middle-eastern, non-Israeli origin., you are specifically dis included. (Jews, of course, need to be kept around so they can be the centerpiece of the great Armageddon Barbecue.)

It's very clear we have a government led by, informed by and beholden to people that consider the citizenry to be of little more importance than serfs, wage-slaves at the vast latifundia of Wal-Mart and the Military-Industrial Complexes scattered about our land.

Those who believe our voices should count get counted out. One way or another and by whatever means are most convenient, without any need to consider ethics, morality or consequences.

Rove - probably THE key figure in all of this - is quite obviously a sociopath. Equally obviously, he depends upon and promotes a network of the gullible, fellow sociopaths, the greedy and the corruptible. He's used by people even more evil than he, for most are probably NOT such pure-strain sociopaths themselves.

Being what he is and knowing what he knows, he's certainly not going to allow his employers to throw him to the mob as a sop to apparent justice, but I'm somewhat surprised that such a trove of information was allowed to slip out of the country. Perhaps he's in a secure, undisclosed location. It would not suprise me (nor, I wager, him) to learn that he's now deceased. But should he actually BE on a "long planned vacation" with the sort of security a man with his official (rather than actual) status has, I'd consider it damnably remiss of any foreign intelligence agency to not explore a kidnap and interrogation operation.

I mean, consider the leverage a few weeks of determined interrogation could produce. The man who knows where all the bodies are buried, because he bought all the shovels? My word.

As lovely as it is to think of, say, MI6 or perhaps some deniable contractors professionally questioning Karl in some atmospherically ancient dungeon, one can learn a great deal simply by looking at all the long-term associates and entanglements with Rove.

Personally, I do not think it would be unreasonable or unwise to presume that those who deal with such a treasonous malevolent bastard as a matter of choice are any better than he, nor would it be wise to think they have any greater concern for the ethics of power.

You can start with Phil Graham, by informing him that when the rats start to desert the Ship of State, it's clear that the gilding above the waterline is hiding some serious structural defects.