Category: Ethics

French Armed Forces Chief of Staff Agrees With Captain Kirk

1 Comment

You can find the full episode, Taste of Armegeddon, on Youtube, but here is Seth MacFarlane doing William Shatner

In a speech, he is suggesting that the extensive use of remotely controlled vehicles in the pursuit of war creates a sanitized war that could become immoral:

Admiral Edouard Guillaud, the French armed forces chief of staff, warned his distinguished audience at the Summer Defense University on September 14 that “there needs to be a fundamental reflection on the idea that there can be zero deaths in war.” Speaking in measured tones Guillaud, who could easily pass for a brilliant university professor, questioned the increasing use of armed unmanned air vehicles (UAVs) in Afghanistan. “War becomes banal when the aggressor runs no risks,” he said adding that “the growth in technology must slow down because man must be able to master it.” He stressed that this issue of man mastering technology or allowing himself to become a slave to it “is a real question.” He said “this is an ethical question which will eventually lead to some form of legislation.”

It does sound a lot like:

“Death… destruction, disease, horror, that’s what war is all about. That’s what makes it a thing to be avoided. You’ve made it neat and painless. So neat and painless, you’ve had no reason to stop it. And you’ve had it for over five hundred years. Since it seems to be the only way I can save my crew, and my ship, I’m going to end it for you. One way, or another.”

Obviously, it’s not immoral to make war in a manner that minimizes casualties, but it’s equally obvious that if the technology results in making war that one would not otherwise make, then there needs to be some real discussion of the what the idea of remote control war, run by remote control, makes war too much of a throw away decision.

So Now You Can Patent Recipes

No Comments

It appears that a French company has patented Plumpy’nut, a fortified peanut butter as a treatment for severe malnutrition:

Should a revolutionary humanitarian food product be protected by commercial patent, when lifting restrictions might save millions of starving children?

That is the moral conundrum at the heart of a bitter transatlantic legal dispute.

On one side are the French inventors of Plumpy’nut, a peanut paste which in the last five years has transformed treatment of acute malnutrition in Africa.

Nutriset, the Normandy-based company, says the patent is needed to safeguard production of Plumpy’nut in the developing world, and to stop the market being swamped by cheap US surpluses.

And on the other side are two American not-for-profit organisations that have filed a suit at a Washington DC federal court to have the patent overturned.

They say they are being stopped by Nutriset from manufacturing similar – and cheaper – peanut-based food products, despite the proven demand from aid agencies.

“By their actions, Nutriset are preventing malnourished children from getting what they need to survive. It is as simple as that,” said Mike Mellace, of the San Diego-based Mama Cares Foundation.

I will spare you the picture of the severely malnourished child in the article, but it appears to me that this patent is not only morally indefensible, but also a very real expansion of IP law to an area where it had not previously applied, recipes, which are rather famously not covered by copyright (see here), and the patent appears to be rather broad, covering pretty much every nut based food with milk in it, which would include the Nutella from which Plumpy’nut was originally derived.

The problem here is that the other potential players in this market (EVIL term, that) are all small not for profits who would be driven to extinction with a loss in a patent court.

One solution here is to make patents like civil rights law, and allow people to file suit before infringing, for the same reason that they do with civil rights suits: because the chilling effect occurs even if no one breaks the law.

Porter Goss???

No Comments

As a part of Congressional ethics reform, the Office of Congressional Ethics was established in 2008.

It’s co-chair is Porter Goss, whose aides both in Congress and while he was at the CIA, were convicted of corruption, which (unsurprisingly, it involved Republicans) and whose number 2 at the CIA was sleeping with a woman who was sleeping with a Russian spy at the time of he hired him. (My archive of my posts on him are here)

He was also the guy when asked about an investigation of the invasion or Iraq, he quipped that he would wait for a blue dress.

This is like putting Keith Richards in charge of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

This may explain why the only two Congressmen brought up on charges so far are Black Democrats, and, just heard on Olbermann, that there have been 8 investigations, and all 8 of them were of Black Democrats.

Jeebus! I understand that this needs to be a bipartisan commission, but you should not be putting rat f%$#ers on the commission so that they can attempt to gain partisan advantage.

I Agree

No Comments

This would be a vastly better world to live in if Matt Drudge decided to handle his emotional problems more responsibly, and set himself on fire.

For those of you whodon’t know, the preceedings was written by Dave Weigel on the private (and now shuttered) JournOlist listserv, and was subsequently leaked to right wing bloggers, leading to his resignation from his position at the Washington Post as their blogger covering the right wing movement.

It should be noted that a number of prominent conservatives have come to his defense.

I cannot speak to the ethics of leaking information from a private listserv, after all we see a lot of leaked private emails when the media covers other industries, but I think that whoever did this was a dick, though they might be an ethical dick.*

Needless to say, it all that the Washington, DC professional blogosphere is talking about right now, to which my response is to go back to covering the damn news.

BTW, if you read the Washington Post Ombudsman’s article on this, which is basically a plea to conservatives to like them, you will understand why you should not subscribe to the paper.

*Come to think of it, “Ethical Dick” is a should be a synonym for “good reporter.”

Moron

No Comments

Notwithstanding the nobility, and moral necessity of his actions, the person who leaked the helecopter “collateral murder” video, the leaker is a f%$#ing moron.

You see, he revealed that he was the leaker to some random guy online, and now has been arrested:

Federal officials have arrested an Army intelligence analyst who boasted of giving classified U.S. combat video and hundreds of thousands of classified State Department records to whistleblower site Wikileaks, Wired.com has learned.

SPC Bradley Manning, 22, of Potomac, Maryland, was stationed at Forward Operating Base Hammer, 40 miles east of Baghdad, where he was arrested nearly two weeks ago by the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division. A family member says he’s being held in custody in Kuwait, and has not been formally charged.

Manning was turned in late last month by a former computer hacker with whom he spoke online. In the course of their chats, Manning took credit for leaking a headline-making video of a helicopter attack that Wikileaks posted online in April. The video showed a deadly 2007 U.S. helicopter air strike in Baghdad that claimed the lives of several innocent civilians.

Admitting to the leak to some random guy online, particularly given Obama’s, and his Department of Justice’s, jihad on leakers, is Palin-level stupid and arrogant.

It’s even stupider when you realize that he outed himself to Adrian Lamo.

I think that he did the right thing, because the coverups that the military engages in on such matters are simply not acceptable in a democracy, but in blithely telling someone that he did, and then doing something this mind-bogglingly stupid, and getting caught as a result, he dissuades future whistle-blowers, which is a blow to keeping our military, and our government honest.

He’s also completely screwed, because while he might be able to prevail on a civilian jury to see that the whistle-blowing served the public good, there is no way that a group of officers is going to show any mercy to an SPC (Specialiats) who does not even qualify as an NCO.

If there has been anything consistent about the progress of military justice since 911, whether it be torture at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, the death, and subsequent cover-up of the details of Pat Tillman, etc. it is that the military will go to extremes to cover-up the truth, and if forced to prosecute, it will go after enlisted men, as a first step.

Jon Stewart:12 – Steve Jobs:0

2 Comments
Brutal!

The interesting thing here is that it’s actually pretty clear that Jon Stewart is a big fan huge fanboi of Apple® Computer and its products, and his take-down of Apple’s actions in the Gismodo iPhone prototype case is even more brutal because of it:

It wasn’t supposed to be this way. Microsoft was supposed to be the evil one. But now you guys are busting down doors in Palo Alto, while commandant Gates is ridding the world of mosquitoes. What the f**k is going on? It is all mixed up. I don’t know which end is up anymore. Black is white. Cats are dogs.

His point is that a large part of the appeal of products from Apple® is that it is, in some manner, sticking it to the man, and that now they are the man.

He also notes that in its corporate paranoia, Apple® ignores the real threats to its products:

I mean, if you wanna break down someone’s door, why don’t you start with AT&T, for God sakes? They make your amazing phone unusable as a phone! I mean, seriously! How do you drop four calls in a one-mile stretch of the West Side Highway! There’re no buildings around! What, does the open space confuse AT&T’s signal?!

Brutal, particularly when he invokes Apple®‘s iconic 1984 ad.

A Coda on “Collateral Murder”

No Comments

A soldier whose unit was involved in the incident captured on video is saying that these actions were business as usual and were fully in accord with the rules of engagement.

The full statement is after the break, but his basic point is that this is an inevitable part of war.

Certainly this is true to some degree, but the incident is also a reflection of some real issues with US doctrine, particularly with the aggressive use of air power, and rules of engagement.

Both of these problems contribute, and continue to contribute to, a situation where we are creating an environment where we create more insurgents, and, in the long run, more dead American soldiers.

Statement follows:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 9, 2010 10:45 AM
CONTACT: Media Advisory

Veteran of “Collateral Murder” Company Speaks Out

WASHINGTON – April 9 – Josh Stieber, who is a former soldier of the “Collateral Murder” Company, says that the acts of brutality caught on film and recently released via Wikileaks are not isolated instances, but were commonplace during his tour of duty.



“A lot of my friends are in that video,” says Stieber. “After watching the video, I would definitely say that that is, nine times out of ten, the way things ended up. Killing was following military protocol. It was going along with the rules as they are.”



Stieber deployed to Baghdad with Bravo Company 2-16, whose members were involved in the incident captured in Wikileaks’ “Collateral Murder” video, which has made international headlines by depicting a July 2007 shooting incident outside of Baghdad in which over a dozen people, including two Reuters employees, were killed. Although he was not present at the scene of the video, he knows those who were involved and is familiar with the environment. Stieber, who now works to promote peace and alternatives to war, is speaking publicly about his time in Iraq and the incident captured in this video.



“If these videos shock and revolt you, they show the reality of what war is like,” says Stieber. “If you don’t like what you see in them, it means we should be working harder towards alternatives to war.”



Stieber currently lives in Washington, D.C.




BACKGROUND ON JOSH STIEBER:
Branch of service: United States Army (USA)

Unit: 1st ID

Rank: Spc.

Home: Laytonsville, Maryland

Served in: Baghdad (Rustamiyah) 07-08 Fort Riley, KS 06-07, 08-09



###

Hearts and Minds

2 Comments

The head of Wikileaks on Dylan Ratigan


The Wikileaks Video

Dan Froomkin has some very trenchant commentary on the video released by Wikileaks showing the attack on a Reuters camera crew and the people who later attempted to take the shooting victims to hospital.

Wikileaks calls it “Collateral Murder,” and I think that the characterization is a bit inflammatory.

That being said, regardless of intent or criminality, it is clear that this was a mistake. As Glenn Greenwald notes on Ratigan, the people effected by this violence will have their world view, and their view of the United States, colored by these events, as will the people in the Arab world who see videos like this, and videos like this are common features on various Arab broadcast networks.

In a word, incidents like this create a fertile ground for the radicalization of individuals, who then are far more likely to take action against Americans and American interests: In other words, they create terrorists.

That being said, I think that there are some problems here beyond the tactical, an over-reliance on relative imprecise airpower and artillery in a counter-insurgency situation, or the aesthetic, the rather creepy laughter on the video.

The first is that this sort of tragedy is an inevitable part of war, and are unavoidable, and so invasion and occupation, even when conceived to combat radicalism and terrorism, must create some level of new radicalism and terrorism, because sh$# like this will happen. War is confusing, and mistakes will be made.

Second, it does appear, at least according to as to training and rules of engagement, there were some violations, at least according to Lt. Col Anthony Shaffer (again on Ratigan), based on his observation of the video, and the fire directed at the would be rescuers of the injured people.

Third, and most importantly, it is clear that the US Military has a policy of deliberately lying about such things as standard operating procedure, whether it is this incident, the friend fire incident that killed Pat Tillman, or the rather gruesome account of special forces operatives digging bullets out of bodies in order to cover up their mistakes that has been reported recently by the New York Times.

It’s clear that this has nothing to do with protecting militarily sensitive information, simply put, shooting innocent civilians, or former NFL players, is not militarily sensitive, and the people on the ground, both the general public in the war zones, as well as the forces opposing us, already know what is going on.

The purpose of these activities is to deliberately deceive the American public, which is something that the military has been specifically forbidden to do by law, and the media, particularly the broadcast and cable media, appear to be all to willing to ignore.

Simply put, on matters where embarrassment is an issue, the Military can be reliably relied on to lie, and the press can be trusted to mindlessly parrot the stories over the news cycle.

Charles Rangel ‘Admonished’ by House Ethics Committee

No Comments

I think that the facts are beginning to catch up with him, which is a pity, because he’s right on the issues:

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, a New York Democrat, has been admonished by the chamber’s ethics panel for trips he made to the Caribbean.

The committee determined he violated House gift rules when he accepted the trips to conferences in 2007 and 2008 sponsored by the Carib News Foundation. The foundation received contributions from corporations specifically to fund the conferences, the panel said in a statement.

The committee said yesterday that while it didn’t find evidence Rangel was aware of the funding, members of his staff did and “Representative Rangel was responsible for the knowledge and actions of his staff in the performance of their official duties.”

We are going to be seeing more of this, and I do not expect Rangel to run for reelection in 2012, because by that point, the pile of sleaze will be too high.

I expect a new eruption every few months for the next 2 years or so.

Google Mans Up On China

No Comments

Google set up a Chinese search page, Google.cn, in 2006 to accommodate the censorship demands of the Chinese government.

At the time, it said that it would, “carefully monitor conditions in China, including new laws and other restrictions on our services.,” and thatif it determined that it was, “unable to achieve the objectives outlined we will not hesitate to reconsider our approach to China.”

Well, it’s reconsidered its approach, and it is telling the government of China to go Cheney itself.

The proximate cause appears to be sophisticated, and repeated efforts by the Chinese government to hack the Gmail accounts of Chinese democracy activists, as well as similar, and pervasive attempts to hack other businesses with similar goals.

The money phrase is this:

These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered–combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web–have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.

They just gave the Chinese government 3 weeks to shut them down.

It is possible that this may be a game of chicken, as is the case with Google news and AP stories, but I am inclined to doubt this.

If they have any understanding of China at all, they must understand that this public statement, and the associated loss of face for the Chinese authorities should they accede to Google’s demands, will result in the shuttering of their site, and their operations, in China.

Full statement after the break:

A new approach to China
1/12/2010 03:00:00 PM
Like many other well-known organizations, we face cyber attacks of varying degrees on a regular basis. In mid-December, we detected a highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China that resulted in the theft of intellectual property from Google. However, it soon became clear that what at first appeared to be solely a security incident–albeit a significant one–was something quite different.

First, this attack was not just on Google. As part of our investigation we have discovered that at least twenty other large companies from a wide range of businesses–including the Internet, finance, technology, media and chemical sectors–have been similarly targeted. We are currently in the process of notifying those companies, and we are also working with the relevant U.S. authorities.

Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. Based on our investigation to date we believe their attack did not achieve that objective. Only two Gmail accounts appear to have been accessed, and that activity was limited to account information (such as the date the account was created) and subject line, rather than the content of emails themselves.

Third, as part of this investigation but independent of the attack on Google, we have discovered that the accounts of dozens of U.S.-, China- and Europe-based Gmail users who are advocates of human rights in China appear to have been routinely accessed by third parties. These accounts have not been accessed through any security breach at Google, but most likely via phishing scams or malware placed on the users’ computers.

We have already used information gained from this attack to make infrastructure and architectural improvements that enhance security for Google and for our users. In terms of individual users, we would advise people to deploy reputable anti-virus and anti-spyware programs on their computers, to install patches for their operating systems and to update their web browsers. Always be cautious when clicking on links appearing in instant messages and emails, or when asked to share personal information like passwords online. You can read more here about our cyber-security recommendations. People wanting to learn more about these kinds of attacks can read this U.S. government report (PDF), Nart Villeneuve’s blog and this presentation on the GhostNet spying incident.

We have taken the unusual step of sharing information about these attacks with a broad audience not just because of the security and human rights implications of what we have unearthed, but also because this information goes to the heart of a much bigger global debate about freedom of speech. In the last two decades, China’s economic reform programs and its citizens’ entrepreneurial flair have lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese people out of poverty. Indeed, this great nation is at the heart of much economic progress and development in the world today.

We launched Google.cn in January 2006 in the belief that the benefits of increased access to information for people in China and a more open Internet outweighed our discomfort in agreeing to censor some results. At the time we made clear that “we will carefully monitor conditions in China, including new laws and other restrictions on our services. If we determine that we are unable to achieve the objectives outlined we will not hesitate to reconsider our approach to China.”

These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered–combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web–have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.

The decision to review our business operations in China has been incredibly hard, and we know that it will have potentially far-reaching consequences. We want to make clear that this move was driven by our executives in the United States, without the knowledge or involvement of our employees in China who have worked incredibly hard to make Google.cn the success it is today. We are committed to working responsibly to resolve the very difficult issues raised.

Posted by David Drummond, SVP, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer

Time for a Blogger Ethics Panel

No Comments

There are two questions raised by the kidnapping, and rescue of, New York Times reporter Stephen Farrell in Afghanistan.

The first, and the one I don’t know enough about to come to a decision is whether it was worth the lives lost to rescue him, particularly since it appears to have been a series of spectacularly ill-advised decisions by Mr. Farrell precipitated this.

However, I am disgusted at the people who say something to the effect of, “It’s the New York Times, and they hurt the military, and so should be given no security consideration whatsoever.”

Here’s a thing, if you sound like Ann Coulter, it means that you are an asshole.

By the same token, if people routinely do amazingly stupid things, and expect to be rescued because they work for the New York Times, making it clear that neither the public purse, nor the blood of our military will be spent in such an endeavor makes sense.

The second question, is one that I do feel qualified to discuss, is whether news of kidnappings of journalists should be suppressed.

Bill Roggio reported the kidnapping on the Threat Matrix blog, and has been widely criticized by many in the media (here, and a few of the comments in response to his story) for reporting on this despite the request by the New York Times that he sit on the story.

I think that Mr. Roggio nailed the issue in a response in the comments on this post:

I speak as someone who has reported from both Iraq and Afghanistan since 2005. To me, this is simple. Either a kidnapping is news, or it isn’t. When soldiers, contractors, etc. are kidnapped, it is news. When a reporter is kidnapped, it is also news.

(emphasis mine)

Bill Ardolino, also of Threat Matrix, adds a useful data point:

A partial list of reports by the The New York Times on kidnappings:

November 15, 2002: NYT: Red Cross workers kidnapped in Chechnya

September 17, 2004, NYT: Insurgents kidnap American and British civilians in Iraq

January 18, 2005: NYT: Catholic Archbishop of Mosul kidnapped in Iraq

May 17, 2005: NYT: CARE worker kidnapped in Kabul

December 29, 2005: NYT: German Family Kidnapped by Yemeni Tribe

January 27, 2008: NYT: NGO worker kidnapped in Afghanistan

August 29, 2009, Reuters in the NYT: Foreign Aid Workers kidnapped in Darfur

20 hours ago: NYT: Greek national kidnapped in Pakistan

It is clear that the demands for news suppression are self serving and dishonest.

Where Are the Slime Going to Flow?

No Comments

One of the arguments about the obscene compensation on Wall Street is that they have to pay in order to keep their “talent” from jumping ship.

Brendan Coffey looks at this, and notes that these folks really have no where to go:

  • Hedge funds: They are shutting down, and now that they aren’t making double digit returns people are not interested in 2% of assets and 20% of gains any more.
  • Private Equity: It’s dependent on cheap credit, there isn’t that much any more, and it likely won’t be in the near term.
  • Foreign banks: Compensation for CEOs, except for the UK’s “The Street”, which is sicker than Wall Street, their CEOs make less than a lot of junior traders get for bonuses.

If these whiners are so sick of this, and threatening to jump ship, let’s not throw them a life raft when they land in the water.

MoDo’s Mistake

No Comments

The entire thing is interesting. Here is the blog that outed her, here is the Op-Ed in question, along with the correction:

Correction: May 18, 2009
Maureen Dowd’s column on Sunday, about torture, failed to attribute a paragraph about the timeline for prisoner abuse to Josh Marshall’s blog at Talking Points Memo.

Here is
Josh Marshall’s original post, and the pertinent excerpt:

More and more the timeline is raising the question of why, if the torture was to prevent terrorist attacks, it seemed to happen mainly during the period when we were looking for what was essentially political information to justify the invasion of Iraq.

And her version in the original:

More and more the timeline is raising the question of why, if the torture was to prevent terrorist attacks, it seemed to happen mainly during the period when the Bush crowd was looking for what was essentially political information to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Difference are bolded.

Her claim is that she heard it from a friend, and she really liked it, so she dropped it in, but that story stinks. The charitable explanation is that she got an email, liked the line, copied it in for a draft, went to get a cup of coffee, and forgot to cite.

The obvious question, is really where does she get her ideas from in the first place, and is this a single transgression, or a part of a pattern?

Since I don’t like her stuff, I’m not going to comb through it to check….It’s too painful.

When the Rude Pundit Isn’t

No Comments

He isn’t rude, that is, at least after the first paragraph, where he compares Republicans to fattie amputee midget S&M fetishists who draw a line when someone sends them links to child porn:

Some conservatives have actually gotten queasy with the release of the torture memos and the Senate Armed Services Committee report on the same. Maggie Gallagher, who has lived for years now off the lucre she makes from her hatred of gay marriage, once praised the illegal data mining that Bush’s NSA did: “When exposed to information about efforts like this by President Bush, I am not outraged. I’m deeply grateful. And worried now about who might die now that The New York Times has published this information.” Now, in the National Review Online (motto: “Is anyone still reading this sh$# beyond bloggers who need something to argue with?”), Gallagher writes, “I personally believe torture is wrong. We shouldn’t do it. Even if it means me, my husband, and my two sons get blown up. Seriously, if I had to choose I’d say: Death is common to us all; torture is a choice.” It’s as impassioned an anti-torture statement as anyone on the Left has made.

($#@ of swear words mine, as is the emphasis)

He’s right. Maggie Gallagher gets it.

Go read the rest.

The Phrase is “Good Germans”

No Comments

The term which should be applied to doctors and other medical personnel who aided in torture at Guantanamo and the CIA gulag system.

Note that while the Red Cross did say that medical assistance rendered in furtherance of torturer was unethical even if it was the preserve the life or health of the subject, that the activities of medical personnel did not even fall under this limited scope, but rather that they were, “medical professionals’ role was primarily to support the interrogators, not to protect the prisoners, and that the professionals had ‘condoned and participated in ill treatment.'”

This is wrong, and the people involved should never be allowed to participate in patient care ever again.

Now This is a Breath of Fresh Air

No Comments

Well, it looks like President Elect Barack Obama has decided to tighten ethics rules, and it will hit the pentagon hardest, “No political appointees would be able to work regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration.”

It’s a very good start. It will have the effect of reducing the so called “Tron Triangle.”

Of course, you get the complaints:

“You can understand the motivation behind it, but it’s not clear that you will get the best and brightest people who understand what needs to be done to serve in the government. As you know previous administrations have had great difficulty attracting people under the existing guidelines,” a procurement expert with experience in and out of government told me this morning.

But the, “procurement expert with experience in and out of government,” is the problem, not the solution.

It’s this kind of self dealing that gets us a JSF that runs nearly $1/5 billion a plane.

Sarah Palin’s Clothing Bill, and the Big Picture

No Comments

While the comment of a Talking Points Memo commenter about Palin and the GOP dropping over $150,000.00 of campaign funds on her cloths and bling is amusing, “If Sarah Palin’s $150,000 wardrobe had a life of its own, it would get a tax cut from a President Obama,” it misses the big picture.

We have to remember that she also accepted per deim payments intended for away from home expenses for times when she was at home, which should have the IRS coming after her, and her bilking the state out of over $21,000.00 for travel expenses for her children.

This is not about Sarah Palin. It is rather about movement conservatism, of which Sarah Palin is, at least until after election day, a sterling example.

Movement conservatism is by its nature corrupt.

Basically, these people read too much Ayn Rand, or more accurately they took it too seriously, because any amount or Ayn being read is too much.

Because of this these people believe that the government, and government service to be inherently evil, and so they enter into service to do what they believe to be evil.

The only reason for them to enter government service is money and power, and they believe that they are owed these little bits of corruption, whether it be Palin’s per deim or Stevens’ house renovations, because they are doing something so awful.