In the News

Two sociopathic leaders were involved in elections. In Russia, Vladimir Putin's party secured a victory. Here is the important part.

Mr Putin has said a strong result would give him the authority to retain
political power after his presidential term ends next year, possibly as prime
minister.

No one can underestimate this guy's evil and cunning under any circumstances. He has used the price of oil to gain extra power and he has his sights set on damaging our country. I believe that Bush's biggest mistake was looking into this man's eyes and not seeing the cold blooded evil of a former KGB agent, but rather goodness.





Hugo Chavez, on the other hand, lost in his appeal to rule for as long as he wanted. The race was tight however in the end he lost 51-49 percent.

Voters in this country narrowly defeated a proposed overhaul to the constitution in a contentious referendum over granting President Hugo Chávez sweeping new powers, the Election Commission announced early Monday.

It was the first major electoral defeat in the nine years of his presidency. Voters rejected the 69 proposed amendments 51 to 49 percent.

The political opposition erupted into celebration, shooting fireworks into the air and honking car horns, when electoral officials announced the results at 1:20 a.m. The nation had remained on edge since polls closed Sunday afternoon and the wait for results began.

The British teacher in the Sudan that "dared" to allow one of her students to name their teddy bear Muhammad has been released from jail.

Sudan released a British woman given a presidential pardon today after being jailed for insulting religion and handed her over to British officials, an embassy spokesman said.

"We can confirm now she’s in British embassy custody and our officials are with her," Omar Daair told AFP by telephone refusing to give any further details on her precise location.

Teacher Gillian Gibbons was arrested eight days ago and sentenced to 15 days in prison on Thursday for insulting religion by allowing children at an English school to name a teddy bear Mohammed - the same name as the Muslim Prophet.

Hey, she "only" had to spend eight days in jail for her "crime". Here is a new twist. I don't know if I should be impressed by her courage and tenacity or wonder about her sanity.

The British teacher jailed for naming a teddy bear Muhammad has said she wished she could stay in Sudan.

Gillian Gibbons, who faces deportation when she is released, said: "I'm really sad to leave and if I could go back to work tomorrow then I would."

In a statement issued through her legal team on Saturday, she added: "I'm fine, I'm well, I'm very grateful to all the people who have been working on my behalf. I know so many people out there have done so much. I want people to know that I have been well treated and especially that I am being well fed."

I have a friend who is 23 years old. She is always apologizing to me for what are frankly trivial things. For instance, she sent me a text message meant for someone else. She apologized later. I keep telling her that apologizing for trivial things is a sign of weakness and also it clouds the issue when you have something that you actually should apologize for. This faux outrage over nothing of course clouds the issue in the same manner. It is frankly obscene. Their fellow Muslims cut off people's heads in the name of their beloved religion and they choose this to get outraged about.

It only took the New Republic almost five months but they have finally figured out that Scott Thomas' work shouldn't have been published. For all those that haven't followed this story, Scott Thomas wrote a few pieces in TNR about horrors he claimed to have seen in Iraq. The stories were suspect and with little or no outside sourcing besides his word. Bloggers immediately picked apart the story for mistakes and inconsistencies. There were plenty and it became obvious in almost no time to most observers that Thomas was a fraud. It took TNR about five months to join the rest of us.

For months, our magazine has been subject to accusations that stories we published by an American soldier then serving in Iraq were fabricated. When these accusations first arose, we promised our readers a full account of our investigation. We spent the last four-and-a-half months re-reporting his stories. These are our findings.

When Michael Goldfarb, a blogger for The Weekly Standard, left me a message on a Tuesday afternoon in mid-July, I didn't know him or his byline. And I certainly didn't anticipate that his message would become the starting point for a controversy.

A day earlier, The New Republic had published a piece titled "Shock Troops." It appeared on the magazine's back page, the "Diarist" slot, which is reserved for short first-person meditations. "Shock Troops" bore the byline Scott Thomas, which we identified as a pseudonym for a soldier then serving in Iraq. Thomas described how war distorts moral judgments. To illustrate his point, he narrated three disturbing anecdotes. In one, he and his comrades cracked vulgar jokes about a woman with a scarred face while she sat in close proximity. In another, a soldier paraded around with the fragment of an exhumed skull on his head. A final vignette described a driver of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle who took pride in running over dogs.

Goldfarb said he had been contacted by tipsters who thought these scenarios sounded concocted by a writer with an overactive imagination--or perhaps by a total fabulist. He asked for evidence that might answer these complaints, "any details that would reassure that this isn't fiction." Among other things, he wanted the name of the base where the author had mocked the disfigured woman.

The same afternoon, we contacted the author, asking permission to answer Goldfarb's queries. We thought we could provide details that might answer these concerns without revealing the author's identity and violating the compact we formed when granting him a pseudonym. He agreed. I told Goldfarb that the insults to the woman had occurred at Forward Operating Base (FOB) Falcon. A day later, Goldfarb sent a link to an item on the Standard blog. It quoted an anonymous source who said the story sounded like a collection of the "This is no bullshit ... stories soldiers like to tell." Goldfarb called on the military blogosphere to do "some digging" and for "individual soldiers and veterans to come forward with relevant information."

Paul Krugman makes what would be a laughable, if it wasn't so dangerous, contribution to the mortgage crisis. He actually blames the concept of mortgage backed securities for creating the crisis. There is too much to break down here, however Krugman fails to mention that mortgage backed securities created an opportunity for millions of poor folks to own property they never would have. To blame financial innovation for a crisis is frankly the height of irresponsibility and class warfare. It is nothing short of dangerous.

A fresh batch of polls are out in Iowa and for the first time Huckabee leads in the RCP average. His momentum is real. He shouldn't be underestimated, and neither should the power of charm and charisma, which he has in spades. A second poll in a row has Obama leading as well. Obama also now leads in the RCP average. Again, the power of charm and charisma cannot be underestimated...Obama has it in spades and Hillary...well she has Bill.

Who Is The Real Sociopath?? (UPDATE)

Introduction: For anyone who hasn't been following my work, let me give you a quick recap. A few weeks back I passed along a story about purported corruption at Grady Hospital with the potential of Emory University staff, who account for all of Grady's staff, being in the middle of it. After that story was published, I was contacted Kevin Kuritzky. He maintains that he blew the whistle on much of the corruption at Grady Hospital and beyond. He was expelled from Emory Medical School with forty one days left. He claims it was in retaliation and Emory claims it was due to tardiness and other offenses. He has a civil suit against Emory University currently in the appeals court. I should point out that Kevin has been at least a source for several stories and I have also done a radio show together with Kevin Kuritzky.

While I in no way hide whatever biases I have, I believe that in the case of what follows the latin phrase, Res Ipso Loquitor (the facts speak for themselves), applies.

A couple of weeks ago I received this UNSOLICITED email.

Mike, Just wanted to let you know that you shouldn't get taken in by Kevin Kuritzky. The guy is a pathological liar and I have personally been taken in by his stories only to realize that he was flat out lying. I also know numerous other people who have experienced the same. It is quite sad because he is a very charming, intelligent person. He just uses these skills to manipulate people. Don't get taken in by him.

Mike--

Michael Ward MD,

MBA

Resident Physician

Department of Emergency Medicine

University of Cincinnati

So, who is Michael Ward MD etc, etc...and what is he talking about? According to the chic professional networking site, Linked In, Michael Ward MD etc., etc... is in fact a member of the staff at the University of Cincinnati. It appears that his path crossed with that Kevin Kuritzky a few years back at medical school at Emory University. If what Dr. Ward says is true, it makes the basis of a lot of my reporting suspect to say the least. In fact, my first comprehensive piece on this subject was based largely on the testimony of Kevin Kuritzky. I say this so that my natural biases are clearly laid out as I continue with my analysis.

The reason that I reveal this email now about three weeks after I got it originally is because through the grapevine I am told that I am told the P.R. arm of Emory University has been making similar claims to Mike King of the AJC. (in that case I believe the word sociopath was used in describing Kuritzky) It is also consistent with the comments of the mysterious pseudonym John in response to this story.

I was in Kevin’s class at Emory (well at one point as it took him several years to complete one academic year), and the allegations by Emory concerning his behavior, ethics and morals are accurate. He should not be taking care of patients plain and simple.

Ironically enough, the term sociopath is one which most of my friends have told me I have a disturbing and obscene fascination with. (Given that two of my favorite shows, 24 and The Sopranos, each delved into the topic at roughly the same time, "I had no choice" (or I just couldn't help myself, potato...) but to get interested in it) Anyone who has read my work knows that I have had personal contact with my fair share of sociopaths and and I see several of the world leaders and our enemies as sociopaths as well. While this by no means makes me an expert, I will use my experience with the phenomenon to try and separate fact from perception in this situation.

One thing is clear. There is no doubt that one of these two side is certainly sociopathic, which in simplest terms is an individual devoid of empathy (in other words they are so selfish that nothing but their own self interest becomes relevant to them). Either Kevin Kuritzky has decided to lie pathological for his own self interest or his opponents want to paint him as such for theirs. Since, in this story, there is no middle ground we are absolutely dealing with sociopathology on one person's part.

If Kevin Kuritzky is himself a sociopath, then his compulsive lying would be a standard trait. There could be several reasons of self interest for his lying. He may have decided to get revenge at Emory for real or perceived wrongs. He may have thought that given the incendiary nature of his lies that they would bring him fame, or money, or both. There are in fact any number of self interest reasons for Kuritzky lying in this case.

On the other hand, if Emory University and their cohorts are sociopathic, they would look to smear Kevin because they know he is a threat. If in fact what he says is true, then their own sociopathic nature would have every reason to eliminate him. Remember, if Kevin is telling the truth, he is a hero. He is then trying to expose some of the worst corruption, leading to fraud, horrible patient care, and outrageous waste of tax payer money. Emory University along with several other people and group are the targets of his accusations. If he is telling the truth, then a sociopath would have every motivation to use every single means available to eliminate, marginalize and demean him.

Obviously, knowing the truth beyond all doubt is impossible, however in this case, it is my opinion that the truth beyond all reasonable doubt is pretty easy to decipher.

First, we know that Grady Hospital is now in such financial turmoil that it will likely need hundreds of millions to survive. We know that State Senator Charles Walker used Grady Hospital and other entities to commit an obscen amount of corruption. (He was charged with 137 felonies, convicted of 127, flipped on no one, and yet only got ten years in jail. Oh, and no one else, besides his daughter and the companies they ran were even charged) We know that in the mid and late 1990's Grady Hospital was the subject of an investigation and ultimately prosecution and settlement for Medicare fraud.

We know that in the mid and late 1990's Grady Hospital was the subject of an investigation and ultimately prosecution and settlement for Medicare fraud. We know that in the beginning of this millenia Grady was subject to an NIH investigation. While the investigation ultimately didn't lead to any arrests, fines or convictions, we do know that four Emory professors were ultimately paid off for their silence. We also know that 2004-2005 HHS conducted its own investigation. Here is the conclusion of that investigation.

there is an exteme and immediate threat to the health and safety of the patients

There is even evidence that in the case of one paid off professor, Dr. Jim Murtaugh, Emory and Grady paid him off without receiving permission from the board of trustees. Finally, even in the current civil case between Emory University and Kevin Kuritzy there is some questionable behavior on the part of Emory University. Court records show that Emory University couldn't produce hundreds if not thousands of documents in the case. In many instances, Emory even admitted to destroying certain documents.

The problem for Emory University, in my mind, is these are all clear characteristics of sociopathic behavior. Sociopaths remove every threat in the way of their goal. Between paying people off, expelling others, destroying documents, I believe they have exhibited that behavior in their goal of running a corrupt hospital. Given all of this evidence it makes Kuritzky's claims well within the pattern of evidence that anyone can discover by simply mastering the art of google.com. The only evidence that Kuritzky is a sociopath come in the accusations of Emory and their cohorts.

Even in the case of the email of Michael Ward, MD, etc, etc, there are no specific accusations. In our exchange by email upon receiving it, I invited Ward to give me specifics and I even emailed him my cell phone number. He never responded with any examples. In the case of the mysterious John it is also vague and unspecific allegations. Emory many times points to Kuritzky being expelled as evidence. Keep in mind it was Emory that expelled him. If they are the sociopaths, his expulsion would fit the behavior pattern of a sociopath to a tee.

In order for Kuritzky to be a sociopath, the pattern of behavior that Grady and Emory exhibited (keep in mind while the two entities are separate Grady is almost entirely staffed by Emory personnel and in many cases Grady higher ups move onto positions with Emory a la William Casarella) was either an anomaly or either a condition that was fixed in a few short years between the events I described and the time period of Kuritzky's accusations. Even that would be hard to believe because the HHS report coincided with the time period of Kuritzky's investigations. If you were to believe that, you would then have a very hard time explaining the current financial crisis at Grady Hospital.

Thus, in conclusion, those that I am accusing can say I have a bias, however I believe I have laid out a solid case for who is the sociopath here. While I must admit that I enjoy an obscene and disturbing amount of fun in delving into the condition of sociopathology, this question is central to what is going on. If Kuritky is the sociopath, then we need not worry about infusing Grady with more money because their administration is fit to receive it. If, on the other hand, it is Emory, Grady and beyond, that are the real sociopaths, then it is time for full fair and open hearings before even one cent is dolled out to what would be the very people that caused the mess.

If my supposition is right, then the likes of Kent Alexander, William Casarella, Ed Renford, Robert Brown, Vernon Jones, (and maybe even State Senator Charles Walker if that can be arranged) as well as those that would be the heroes in this mess: Kevin Kuritzky, Ron Marshall, Dale Cardwell, Joyce Harris and even all those that were paid off, need to be put under oath, on television, to answer truthfully their involvement in this crisis.

Finally, I invite the powers that be at Emory, Mike King, Dr. Ward, and even the mysterious John to respond at their leisure if they feel I have been inaccurate.

UPDATE:

If you are picking up the story of the Grady Hospital crisis anywhere in the middle, you are likely to get quite confused. This maybe happening if this particular story is your first exposure to the crisis. Thus, I have put together a summary of the entire fiasco that tries to put all of its moving parts together in one piece. Please read it for guidance. Also, please check out the recommendations that I and my colleagues have put together for fixing Grady Hospital.

Answering Richard Cohen vis a vis Iran

Anyone who wants to read an eloquent explanation of the way in which George Soros would like to see our foreign policy run at least as it concerns Iran should read this piece by Richard Cohen. Cohen starts with a long winded and quite condescending assessment of Rudy's confrontational style. Now, Rudy gains as many enemies as he does friends, and it should come as a surprise to no one that an ideological opposite like Cohen doesn't like Rudy's style. That is fine and irrelevant and it needs not be quoted for he doesn't deserve such esteem. The meat of Cohen's arguement is here.

War with Iran would be ugly. An airstrike would undoubtedly cause Iran to unleash Hezbollah, Hamas and other extremist groups, causing no end of trouble in the Middle East. It could close the Persian Gulf to shipping, producing an oil shock. It could foment serious trouble in Saudi Arabia's oil-producing region, which has a significant Shiite population.

and here,

Rather than enhance Ahmadinejad's standing in his own country, rather than put Iran up against a wall and dare it to back down, rather than make Iran the hero of anti-American Islamists everywhere, why not attempt to engage in direct talks and treat the country not as a pariah -- one-third of the ludicrous and illogical "axis of evil" -- but as a fellow state? Why not, as it were, treat Iran as we once did the Soviet Union or we now do China? We talked to the former; we talk to the latter.

The meat of Cohen's arguement is that such talk only props up Ahmadinejad among his own people, war with Iran would be messy, and so what we really need to do is talk to them. All veterans of my work will know that this is a similar arguement to one made by Joe Conason. Just like Conason, Cohen is long on rhetoric and very short on evidence and facts to back up his rhetoric. For instance, he claims that Rudy's incendiary and confrontational tone props up Ahmadinejad among his own people. I find it highly unlikely that the words of any single Presidential candidate does much to change the opinion of the Iranian people toward Ahmadinejad one way or another, but more importantly, according to polling, the Iranian people put the blame for this confrontation where it belongs, at the hands of their own leaders. Here are some results from a poll done this summer

Iranians want nuclear power more than nuclear weapons. Suffering under gasoline rationing and falling energy exports, three-quarters said that developing nuclear power, without weapons, was “very important.” By contrast, only 37 percent said developing nuclear weapons was a similar priority. Since the Iranian regime says that it wants nuclear power, not nuclear weapons, its stated position accords with its people’s views. (The government, of course, is lying and wants to get a bomb.)

and

Iranians would gladly agree to “full inspections and a guarantee that Iran would not develop nuclear weapons” if other nations would increase overall trade and investment (80 percent), increase investment in the energy sector (79 percent), give humanitarian assistance (80 percent) or assist in helping Iran develop peaceful nuclear energy (80 percent).

* Only 33 percent said supporting terrorist proxies Hezbollah or Hamas was a priority, and 55 percent are ready to endorse full recognition of Israel and of a Palestinian state if they could get “normal trade and full recognition” from the United States. Almost two-thirds - 64 percent - said that they are willing to end Iranian assistance to armed groups in Iraq and 51 percent would forgo nuclear weaponry and accept full international controls and inspections in return for normal relations with the United States.

The polling says they see their own government as the aggressor and merely want normalized relations with our government. It seems to be a stretch to say that they will then back Ahmadinejad if their own government's aggression leads to confrontation.

Cohen says to other important things. First, he proclaims that war with Iran would be messy. Well, I agree war with Iran would be messy, but not nearly as messy as allowing them to get the bomb. He also proclaims that we should sit down with Iran the way in which we sat down with Russia and China. There is a difference between Iran and those other regimes. Those regimes practiced the rule of self preservation. In other words, there was some reason to them because ultimately they wanted to avoid their own annihilation. Iran would gladly get annihilated if that is in pursuit of destroying the infidels.

Now, I am not against sitting down with Iran per se, but certainly not the way Cohen sees it. He seems to think that sitting down with them would solve all our problems. The Iranian regime is a collection of sociopaths. They only respond to threats that they take seriously. The only negotiations that would work are those in conjunction with an action that lets them know that the alternative is their own destruction, and even then negotiations may very well not work.

Thus, unless the real and clear threat of all out war is on the table, negotiations are not only fruitless, but frankly counter productive. I, myself, have devised a three point plan for bringing the regime down peacefully. My plan and any plan that has any hope of success must be done in conjunction with the real and unmistakeable threat that if all else fails, we will go to war with Iran before we allow them to get nukes.

Rudy is not war mongering as Cohen is suggesting, but rather making it clear to the regime that if they push him, he will destroy them. Like all sociopaths they will only respond nicely to force they know they can't match.

An Alternative Iranian Policy

Joe Conason penned this piece explaining how he would deal with the Iranian regime. I will take things one at a time. First, he lays out the current policy as he sees it.

The loud, angry and sterile debate over the Iranian president's visit to
Columbia University raises a more serious problem that has long confounded
American policymakers: How to cope with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's real masters, the corrupt regime of mullahs who determine both foreign and domestic policy in
Iran. Their rule has meant awful suffering for the Iranian people, whose
democratic aspirations remain frustrated, and instability for the Middle East
and the world, as the leadership in Tehran constantly seeks provocations to
distract from its own failures.

Now the same geopolitical geniuses who promoted the invasion of Iraq -- and
thereby endowed the mullahs with more influence than they ever enjoyed before --
insist that the only solution is another war. They claim that we are already at
war and should begin bombing Iranian nuclear and military sites as soon as
possible.

Obviously, he has no use for Bush or his neoconservative administration and that is fine. Somewhere around two thirds of Americans and more agree with him. What is troubling about his assertion that the administration is marching toward war and that is the only solution. What I believe is closer to the truth is that Bush has relied on the UN and the Europeans for far too long and has put war so far on the back burner that the Iranian regime has become emboldened. It isn't that Bush has foresaken diplomacy, in my opinion, but that he has relied too much on it. The two countries have had several high level meetings vis a vis Iraq and all that has happened is that the weaponry from Iran used to kill our soldiers has only increased.

Conason believes that our isolationist policy has gotten no results but the Clinton admin made engagement their policy with regards to the Syrians and the Palestinians throughout the nineties, and I assert that those policies were significantly more counter productive than ours. I assert that the problem is that while we isolate the Europeans engage. If we can come together on a full court isolationist policy, that would have devastating results. While it isn't a perfect model, the South African apartheid government was brought down largely through coordinated isolation. I don't know any despot and tyrant who was brought down through engagement.
Conason continues...
"

Once merely a small-time populist politician in his hometown, Ahmadinejad has
become a folk hero throughout the Muslim and Arab worlds thanks to his
provocations against America, Israel and the West. Sunni Muslims and
secular-minded Arabs who might otherwise oppose Shiite authoritarianism applaud
him because they perceive him as standing up for them against Western
oppressors. Each expression of American outrage against the Iranian president
from afar, every screaming tabloid headline and radio rant, only inflates the
significance of this unimpressive and fundamentally unimportant man. And the
constant threats of war from within the Bush White House and its neoconservative
echo chamber intensify the effectiveness of his propaganda, both within his own
country and across the Middle East.

Here Conason is just merely engaging in misrepresentation or out and out lying. Ahmadinejad is no folk hero anywhere, especially not in his country. Fortunately, unlike, Conason, I have a little more than mere assertions to back up my case. For proof, let's take a look at a poll of Iranians conducted just this past July

Iranians oppose the institution of an "unelected Supreme Leader" by 61-27
and favor democracy by 79-14. So when liberals assail neocons for having a naive
faith in peoples' aspirations for freedom, they are just wrong - even in Iran.

* Iranians want nuclear power more than nuclear weapons. Suffering under
gasoline rationing and falling energy exports, three-quarters said that
developing nuclear power, without weapons, was "very important." By contrast,
only 37 percent said developing nuclear weapons was a similar priority. Since
the Iranian regime says that it wants nuclear power, not nuclear weapons, its
stated position accords with its people's views. (The government, of course, is
lying and wants to get a bomb.)

The survey underscores the need to separate nuclear power from weaponry in
the minds of the people and make clear that Western sanctions are designed to
prevent Iran from getting the bomb, not power or energy.

* Iranians would gladly agree to "full inspections and a guarantee that
Iran would not develop nuclear weapons" if other nations would increase overall
trade and investment (80 percent), increase investment in the energy sector (79
percent), give humanitarian assistance (80 percent) or assist in helping Iran
develop peaceful nuclear energy (80 percent).

* Only 33 percent said supporting terrorist proxies Hezbollah or Hamas was
a priority, and 55 percent are ready to endorse full recognition of Israel and
of a Palestinian state if they could get "normal trade and full recognition"
from the United States. Almost two-thirds - 64 percent - said that they are
willing to end Iranian assistance to armed groups in Iraq and 51 percent would
forgo nuclear weaponry and accept full international controls and inspections in
return for normal relations with the United States.

Furthermore, Ahmadinejad has been roundly criticized for his own domestic economic policy

At the same time, the traditional conservatives and their natural allies, the
bazarries, the country's small merchant class who control much of the Iranian
economy, are increasingly alarmed about Ahmadinejad’s policies. The influential
head of Tehran's bazaar guilds, Ahmad Karimi, recently stated that economics is
a science and those who have neglected its basic principals -- meaning the
Ahmadinejad administration -- can no longer evade responsibility by blaming
others for their mismanagement. Iran's influential Friday prayer leaders, most
of whom are conservative, have also heaped contempt on the president for his
economic policies. The mainstream political analyst Amir Mohebbian, in an
interview with Roozonline daily, stated that the conservative faction can no
longer afford to conceal its widening internal schisms -- implying that the time
for compromise with the militant faction has passed.

If this is praise, I have to wonder what exactly someone needs to say for Conason to consider it condemnation. As for the rest of Middle East, mostly Sunni to Ahmadinejad's Shia, they are almost universally petrified of him. So much so that there was nothing but whispers to the recent bombing of a suspected Syrian nuclear site. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia just entered into an arms deal specifically to counter the threat from Iran that the Saudis fear.

The United States is reported to be preparing a major arms deal with Saudi
Arabia and other Gulf states worth $20bn (£9.8bn) over the next decade. Defence
officials quoted by US media said the sales would include advanced weaponry,
missile guidance systems, upgraded fighter jets and naval ships. It is said to
be an attempt to counter the regional threat posed by Iran.

The rest of the Middle East feels pretty much the same way. Most of the entire Middle East considers Iran nothing but a threat to their very existence
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan regard the Syrian-Iranian-Hizballah triangle (as voiced through the press, and not from the regimes themselves) as a sort of axis of radical policy, the muqawamah--the "Shi'a storm" as King Abdallah of Jordan dared call it--or as a group that strives for an Islamic Middle East. Such terms were being applied to this axis even before the Lebanon War of the summer of 2006. The Arab countries were aware of Iran, the ambitious giant that rose up from the East, at least since Ahmadinejad's election as president, but they consciously chose to ignore this. In the accord from the March 2006 Arab summit in Khartoum, the only reference to Iran was, as in the past, the demand to return the three islands over which there is dispute between Iran and the United Arab Emirates.

Unlike me, Conason, has absolutely no back up for his assertion that Ahmadinejad is some sort of a populist in most of the Middle East. The truth is much closer to his being perceived as a madman on the scale of the greatest madmen of all time a la Adolph Hitler.
Conason continues...

The moment of dialogue at Columbia, by contrast, shrank Ahmadinejad back down to a more realistic size. Unlike Tehran, where his thugs can intimidate, imprison
and even murder those who dare to question him, he had to stand and listen
meekly as Columbia students and president Lee Bollinger demanded answers about
his government's repressive acts. Although Bollinger went over the top in
parroting various White House themes in his brusque language, his commitment to
free speech reflected well on the United States.

If only that were true, but I already debunked this myth just yesterday. Here are some excerpts of reaction to his speech from the Middle East and beyond...

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may have faced ridicule in the United States
bysuggesting there were no homosexuals in Iran, but he won praise at home
onWednesday for taking his country’s case to “the Lion’s Den.”
Generally,politicians and media in the Islamic Republic — even some who have
previouslycriticized the president — described Ahmadinejad’s visit to New York
as atriumph and denounced the university president who called him “a petty and
crueldictator.” ...The president spoke at Columbia University on Monday and
onTuesday addressed the U.N. General Assembly, where he told world leaders
theissue of Iran’s nuclear ambitions was “closed” and that military threats
andsanctions had failed.“By fearlessly and courageously walking into the‘Lion’s
Den’ ... he is sure to become even more of a hero in the Arab-Muslimstreet than
before,” the daily Iran News wrote."...

Ahmadinejad is hitting the blind spots, the stuff polite society does not
talkabout, that is his attractionHis comments on the bomb are more intelligent
thanthe drivel you read in the Western press by so called analysts.Basically the
US,Western countries have lost the moral highground - Putin's talkbacks prove
thattoo -- No I would not vote for Ahmadinejad, if I lived in Iran - you vote
forhim, he is not a dictator ... to use words like fascism in an Iranian
contextdoes not make sense ... yes the party I would vote for is illegal in Iran
...,no I would not vote for Putin

Thus, whatever Conason thinks of the reaction to his speech, in reality, it was as I predicted a PR coup for him where it mattered, the Middle East.

Conason then leads us into his own ideas for dealing with the regime...

When the sideshow ends and the mullahs' puppet returns to Tehran, we will
still have to decide how to deal with the regime he represents. As Peter
Galbraith explains in a penetrating essay in the current issue of The New York
Review of Books, the Bush administration has vastly empowered the Iranian
leaders by overthrowing their enemy Saddam Hussein and installing their Shiite
allies as Baghdad's new government.

With 160,000 American troops in Iraq, moreover, we are not exactly in the
optimal strategic position to wage war against Iran, despite the bloody
fantasies of Vice President Dick Cheney. Unlike Saddam in 2003, whose armed
forces disintegrated within days, Tehran has a real army and air force, and
sufficient naval power to block the Iraqi ports. Our forces would have to fight
not only the 800,000-man Iranian army but also the Shiite militias, who could
swiftly cut our resupply route.

Let's leave aside the balance of power question for a minute and deal with the idea that having 160K in troops on his border somehow puts us in a weaker position militarily to strike at him. That is absurd on its face and needs no link to be disproven. The simple fact is that we had troops all throughout Western Europe specifically as a military challenge to the Soviet Union, and we continue to have troops on the Korean border for the exact same reason. Whatever one thinks of the Iraq war claiming that having troops in Iraq puts us in a poorer position to strike Iran is just intellectually bankrupt. As to the Iraqi government being beholden to Iran, well the beauty of democratically elected governments is that they tranisegent. The people of Iraq will be no happier with a puppet Iranian theocracy anymore than they were happy with Saddam's baathist, but the only difference is that this government can be voted out.

Acting like Saddam should have been kept in power because he would act as a counter weight to an equally evil rival is pretty absurd. Trying to resolve issues by relying on several evil regimes holding some sort of a delicate balance would eventually blow up in your face and lead to all sorts of unintended consequences.
Conason finishes...

It is an ugly prospect to contemplate, with potential losses that would
dwarf our casualties in Iraq and an aftermath that would be still more chaotic,
dangerous and ruinous to our reputation. Assuming we would eventually win, would
that mean taking control of Iran -- with the same kind of "success" we have
enjoyed next door?

The alternative is what Iran's courageous democratic dissidents have long
implored us to do, and what the Iraq Study Group urged last year. Engage the
regime, draw Iran into the world economic system and penetrate its closed
borders peacefully to strengthen its civil society and weaken its overgrown
theocratic state. Stop making heroes of the villainous mullahs and their
puppets, and start dividing the pragmatists and reformers from the fanatics. And
mute the threats that in Iranian eyes justify a nuclear weapons
program.

That would be the beginning of wisdom.

Anyone reading this should have long become weary of every assertion Conason makes. He backs absolutely nothing up. He seems to take as fact that propping a theocracy up economically will somehow help our cause. For instance he claims we are uniting reformers and fanatics. Not only did the poll I cited utterly refute that, but how exactly does propping up the economy divide those groups. Furthermore, he asserts that dissidents have long implored that we engage the regime. Who are these dissidents? None that I know of say that we should engage with the regime. He claims that we are making them heroes, which, again, I thoroughly debunked as well. This is the sort of empty rhetoric that one will find all over college campuses as they willfully ignore evidence to the contrary.

I am not against engaging with evil sociopaths like Ahmadinejad per se. For instance, the U.S. and Britain engaged one of the worst in history in Joseph Stalin in WWII. However, there was something different there. Stalin felt a threat worse than the U.S. in Hitler and used the enemy of my enemy logic. We don't have that here. Even when Reagan engaged Gorbachev, who I must make sure everyone understands is every bit a reasonable person and no sociopath, he did it only after he built up the arms race so that the Soviets were crumbling. Peace through strength is not a mere slogan but proper diplomacy when dealing with enemies. Simply meeting because you feel dialogue is always the answer is totally counter productive when you are dealing with sociopaths. Sociopaths have goals and all that matters to them is accomplishing those goals. Ahmadinejad wants to rule the Middle East and kill everyone he disagrees with and any meeting will be used on his part to accomplish that goal.

As someone so aptly put once "The only way to negotiate with your enemy, is with your knee on his chest and your knife at his throat." If we are going to negotiate with Ahmadinejad it is with that thought in mind, not with any of the touchy feely ideas that Conason has.

Finally, if you want an alternative to Conason's alternative please read her

Larry Lindsey Gets it Right

I have been disappointed if not surprised by the media coverage of the sub prime crisis. It has been filled with political correctness, condescending nebulus terms that even mortgage brokers don't understand, and very short on any analysis that let's the people know what happened. That's why I was surprised by this article by Lawrence Lindsey. Before I talk about the article, I think it is time once and for all to lay out the mortgage crisis as an insider sees it.

The root of the crisis started with the refinancing boom from 2000-2003. At that time, mortgage brokers, like myself, were making money hand over fist lowering rates of people in the prime market. sub prime banks were being squeezed out. In order to get our collective attention, they began to loosen their restrictions. It worked. Suddenly, borrowers that we all thought couldn't get qualified were now being qualified.

I have long believed that for the most part my industry is filled with sociopaths. The reason that this is important is that while prime loans were plentiful during the refinancing boom, the margins were razor thin. In sub prime, the borrower is dumber and more desperate and thus the mortgage broker can and will take advantage of that knowledge by driving up the rate in ways they would never do with a prime borrower. Thus, with the restrictions loosening, mortgage brokers were perfectly happy to focus more and more on sub prime since they knew they could charge a heck of a lot more in that arena.

Everything was fine and dandy. Wall Street loved the sub prime loans and with property values going up these loans were profitable for them. With renewed vigor in the sub prime market so came new competition. In order to compete, banks each tried to one up each other in offering more and more aggressive loans. Lower and lower credit scores were allowed to buy property with no money down, and then with no money down and stating income (something I will explain and go into further later), and then overlooking bankruptcies, collections, charge offs, mortgage lates, and just about any negative one can find on a credit report.

At some point these loans went from being aggressive to being loans given to deadbeats. Let's say that again. The reason that we have a sub prime crisis is because a bunch of dead beats bought homes they couldn't afford from banks that should have never lent them money. The role of the mortgage broker in securing these loans shouldn't be understated and frankly I will never miss any opportunity to take a pot shot at my industry, however blaming this crisis on us frankly gives us too much credit. We have always been a collective group of sociopaths. That didn't start two years ago. That was always so. Thus, there was a new dynamic in play in the last few years.

The biggest problem loans are three interest only, no money down, and stated loans, and of course the biggest problems are those that combine several of those together. Basically what happened was that people with marginal credit scores, in other words a credit score of someone I would refer to as a dead beat, were able to not only buy a home, but buy one with no money down, by stating their income, and to lower their payment they got an interest only loans.

Now, the mainstream media would have you believe that evil mortgage brokers committed fraud on unsuspecting banks while innocent poor people stood by helplessly and put themselves in an untennable position that they had no control over. (This is a position that Hillary Clinton holds and one I will address later). Stated loans are those loans in which an income is stated but no proof is provided to verify it. They were initially created for self employed people who have great accountants, but they filtered to other borrowers, and even borrowers who have a simple salary. Why do you ask would someone need to go stated if they simply make a salary? Couldn't they simply provide their taxes? They could but then they wouldn't qualify for the house they want.

The banks are not without blame here either. Stated loans were excepted regularly with janitors supposedly making 60k per year and more, teachers making as much as a hundred thousand, secretaries north of 50k per year. These were common place. Now, if a bank is willing to believe that a janitor makes 60k per year in order to approve a loan, whose fault is it if that loan goes bad? To use a crude metaphor, this is like a girl getting naked jumping into my bed and then wondering why I tried to f$&k her. If a bank doesn't want to take on fraudulent loans maybe they shouldn't be so quick to believe janitors make 60k a year, maybe they should not allow for stated loans for salaried borrowers altogether.

The borrower is not without fault by a long shot. While the bank may think the janitor makes sixty thousand a year, the janitor knows what he makes. He knows if the mortgage payment is eating up to sixty percent of his monthly income. If this person goes ahead and accepts the loan anyway, is it really the fault of the mortgage broker when they go bad on it.

Yet, this is not the narrative you will hear. You will hear about evil, evil mortgage brokers praying on helpless poor people and unsuspecting banks. The reality is in six years in the business, 99 times out 100, whenever I tell someone how big a mortgage they can afford, they wind up bidding on house with a mortgage at least ten percent higher. Is that suddenly my fault?

Now to Mr. Lindsey, who does get what happened. He takes to task a proposal by Chuck Schumer known as Senate Bill 1299,

One leading proposal is a bill called S. 1299, offered by Sen. Chuck
Schumer of New York. Mr. Schumer is a senior Democrat on the Banking Committee
and the third-ranking member of his party in the entire Senate, so any proposal
he makes should be taken seriously. His proposal represents a regulatory and
litigious approach to mortgage-market reform.
The bill requires that each
mortgage originator act with "reasonable skill, care, and diligence" and in
"good faith and fair dealing." It also requires that all loans are "reasonably
advantageous to the consumer." Surely these are noble sentiments. But they are
also vague and ill-defined legal requirements that open up the mortgage industry
to endless litigation in an environment where juries comprised of homeowners
must decide between families in the process of losing their homes and mortgage
brokers, investment bankers and other financial intermediaries.
The key to
getting America out of its current housing and mortgage market mess is to do
everything possible to maximize the availability of credit.
Mr. Schumer's
bill makes the ultimate lenders legally responsible for "acts, omissions, and
representations made by the mortgage broker." Remember that in the modern
mortgage market, the mortgage broker is unlikely to be under the employ or
control of the lender. The mortgage may be "owned" by someone who has never seen
the borrower or the originator. So, anyone supplying money to the mortgage
market may well be taking on uncontrollable and unquantifiable risk in the
process.
The legislation also prescribes some regulatory tightening that will
block access to mortgages for some key segments of the population, or at least
make those mortgages more expensive and less appropriate. The bill would require
that all borrowers qualify for a mortgage at the fully indexed long-term rate
that would apply when a variable-rate mortgage converts to its long-term
level.

he continues,

Locking in a long-term fixed rate is risky for the lender, and so he must charge
more. Borrowers can obtain a mortgage with a lower monthly payment or qualify
for a larger home if they choose a variable-rate loan. Equally important, in a
country where the average household moves every seven years, it seems foolish
for everyone to pay for "interest rate protection" they may not need. The
Schumer bill requires that they do.
One other factor needs be considered:
Incomes rise over time, particularly for people in the prime home buying ages of
25 to 40. The typical family will see its income rise in excess of 5% a year as
inflation, promotions and real wage gains take effect. Why should a family be
forced to qualify for a monthly mortgage payment today that it won't have to
face for another two to five years, when its income is likely to be
substantially higher?

he is absolutely right on all counts. Anyone who is veteran of my work knows my favorite quote and is probably sick of it but with respect to Ronald Reagan, "the nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Let's take things one at a time. First, "mortgage originator act with "reasonable skill, care, and diligence" and in "good faith and fair dealing." It also requires that all loans are "reasonably advantageous to the consumer". Talk about nebulus and vague. This is either a throw away line or even worse the beginning of a new government bureaucracy to enforce something that no one can define. Will HUD or some other group now oversee to make sure that originators (a fancy word for mortgage broker and an example of the condescending term I was talking about)
mortgage originator act with "reasonable skill, care, and diligence" and in "good faith and fair dealing." It also requires that all loans are "reasonably advantageous to the consumer. Is this what we want, another government bureaucracy overseeing another industry to enforce nebulus rules and regulations.

Furthermore, Lindsey is right. This crisis is not merely a crisis of economics, but a crisis of culture. We are going to be dangerously close at the end of this crisis of being like most nations, where only the elite own. If Schmur et al have their way, the middle class will never own their own property because they won't ever qualify for a loan. The answer isn't to reduce the number of loan products but to do everything we can to keep as many as possible. We have the biggest most sophisticated loan market in the world, and this crisis may end all that. Gone will be days when someone can buy a home with no money down. That is a bad thing not a good thing. Just because dead beats were able to do it, doesn't mean the answer is to disqualify everyone from doing it.

Finally, Lindsey says this...

The legislation also prescribes some regulatory tightening that will block
access to mortgages for some key segments of the population, or at least make
those mortgages more expensive and less appropriate. The bill would require that
all borrowers qualify for a mortgage at the fully indexed long-term rate that
would apply when a variable-rate mortgage converts to its long-term level.

Whatever the merits of the idea in the long run, this is precisely the
wrong time to add this requirement. Three-quarters of the subprime mortgages
issued in 2006, along with other variable rate mortgages, will reset in 2008.
Borrowers who had planned on refinancing then may be stopped by the requirements
in S. 1299. Unable to pay the new reset rate and barred by law and regulation
from easy access to refinancing, many or most of these borrowers could have
little choice but to give up their homes. This in turn would put further
downward pressure on all home prices.

This is absolutely right. To add to the crisis, variable rates are adjusting. If you think people couldn't afford their mortgages wait till the mortgage are two, three and four hundred dollars higher. Some of these people can get into a new lower mortgage and some can't, but Senator Schumer will ride on his white horse and insure none of them can by disqualifying all of them from qualifying for a new loan. Since Schumer's proposal hasn't been flushed out, we can only infer. The maximum on a variable rate can be up to six percentage points higher than the original rate. If that is the case, and new qualification rules would have to be at the maximum rate, that would for all intense and purposes eliminate variable rate loans as any sort of viable product. Thus, even if you only planned to live in a house for three, five, seven or ten years, you would go ahead and be forced to take a fixed rate.

Now, let's examine some things Senator Clinton said.

"Today we have a clear choice: We can look at the statistics, wring our hands and continue to do nothing, or we can do what America has done in times of difficulty, acknowledge we have a real challenge and confront it head-on with real solutions," Clinton said. "I think we need to act now with smart, practical solutions to strengthen our housing and mortgage markets"

Yes, that's right, Senator Clinton will be riding on her own white horse right behind her counterpart from New York.

The New York senator's proposal includes a $1 billion federal fund to help
homeowners avoid foreclosure, an end to prepayment penalties and more affordable
housing options.

Let's examine this. First, let's remember the overwhelming majority of people about to go into foreclosure are dead beats, and the Senator wants to use public funds to extend even more credit to these dead beats. Yes, this certainly sounds like a good populist proposal, but let me tell you how it will work in the real world.

Here is an example of a dead beat I ran across. This couple was struggling to pay their mortgage, and they should have, since it was eating up almost 70% of their total income. The only thing they weren't paying was the taxes on the home. In the middle of the loan, they went and bought a car. Yes, that's right. They couldn't afford to pay their taxes, their mortgage ate up 70% of their budget, and they saw fit to buy a car. You think this is out of the ordinary, not that much, and Senator Clinton proposes that we extend one billion dollars in public money to exactly these types of dead beats.

She goes on,

It's a combination now, of economic conditions that are not working for the
majority of Americans, and unsavory practices that are undermining the dream of
home ownership," Clinton said.
When Congress returns from its summer recess,
Clinton said she will introduce legislation targeting "fly-by-night mortgage
lenders" who make "really seductive offers."

Now, again, Senator Clinton will ride in on her white horse and save the world from unscrupulous mortgage brokers. It is exactly these sorts of nebulus promises that Ronald Reagan warned us against, when he said what he said.

She continues,

Clinton also proposed banning contracts that trap borrowers in "unworkable"
mortgage scenarios in which nothing is budgeted for taxes and insurance

There are no such contracts. There is no bank in the world that ignores taxes when figuring out ratios. What Senator Clinton is talking about is of course stated loans. Again, she puts the blame squarely on people like me. Think about the story I told. Do you think that couple is just an innocent victim in devious plot of some sociopathic mortgage broker? How exactly, folks, was a borrower forced into an unworkable contract? They weren't. What forced them into it was the irresistable urge to buy a house that they couldn't afford.

The article finishes like this,

In March, Clinton called on a crackdown on predatory lending practices in the subprime market. On Tuesday, she said those loans were only the start.
"I think the subprime market, that was like the canary in the mine. It was telling us loudly and clearly, there are problems here," she said.
Rival John Edwards also has proposed cracking down on predatory lenders in a market he compared in June to "the wild West."

I will finish with this, "the nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help''

Amen.

Confronting a Sociopath

For proper context, this story needs to start at the beginning, about a year ago. I was working as a mortgage broker. Bobby was working with a buddy of mine who was also a colleague. My buddy was helping him close loans that Bobby had been bringing in. The problem was that my buddy was totally incompetent. Bobby was bringing in deals only to have them get blown up by incompetence while they were being processed. http://www.americanloansearch.com/info-loanprocess.htm The loans kept getting denied and Bobby was always smoothing things over with the client. . I was more experienced and they were making what I refer to as “rookie mistakes”. I started helping and I saved a couple deals.

One November night, Bobby proposed that we open a satellite office for our mortgage company. He was in tight with the owner so we would get great terms. We ultimately decided that he would work with me from now on and that we would try and shoot for getting the satellite office going by January 1st. The weird thing was that Bobby sort of just started coming and working with me. He never told my buddy what was going on and we just let him figure it out on his own. At this point I will admit that I was along for the ride with Bobby in all his sociopathy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopathy

Once I started working with him, I realized that he knew very little for someone who had been around the business for five years as he claimed. I tried to teach him the basics of the business. For instance, each loan is unique. What we, as mortgage brokers, try to do is break down the individual characteristics of the loan, like credit score, Loan to value, property type, etc. and we call this a scenario. Most banks allow a competent mortgage broker to enter this so called scenario right over the web on their site to produce exact terms for a loan. Obviously, Bobby couldn’t perform this function. This takes about ten minutes to learn and still Bobby somehow had managed to get by without learning it for five years.

Whenever I tried to teach him, he would resist. At first, he claimed that it was unnecessary for him to know. He simply wanted to be the so-called rainmaker. He would bring the deals in while someone else would put it together. Unfortunately, our business doesn’t work like that. One cannot be totally incompetent, the way Bobby was, in the structure and process of loans, and still be able to close consistently. The client knew more about the process than Bobby did and you just can’t survive like that no matter how smooth a talker you are, and Bobby was. Bobby a would agree with my analysis of the business and his prospects in it, however he would always find a reason not to get started right now. He was always in a state of motion. Whether he was going to church, or a friends’ house, or some guy about some deal, he was never around long enough to teach him anything.

Bobby was always finding new reasons not to learn any of the business I was trying to teach him. For a while he was using the excuse that he we hadn’t yet closed a loan together. In other words, I had to prove myself before he would try and learn anything from me. Psychological stunts and tactics were a Modus Operandi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_operandi After we started closing a few loans he found a new excuse. Now, he wanted to wait until after this one deal would close because he was making a ton on it. He claimed that short term financial woes were blocking his focus. Right after his “big” loan had closed, I still had these delusions that I would still be able to get Bobby to learn.
Training people had become a bigger part of my job and I had one major success. I had trained in the previous few months a 23 year old guy that I started to refer to as my protégé. He had become quite competent quite quickly. He was able to put together deals rather well especially considering he hadn’t even been in the business for a year. Bobby noticed this and must have figured that he would be getting my knowledge without the annoying attitude and the insistence that he would do such awful things as work and learn. My protégé was his perfect next target.

For the next week or so Bobby came into the office sparingly. He would say hello and be gone soon afterward. I simply put two and two together, after a while and realized that he decided he wasn’t working with me anymore. He never actually confronted me about it, in the same way he never directly confronted my friend when I was on the other side.

Bobby came back to me about a month later. He had no choice. He had a potential deal worth about 700k that was too complicated even for my protégé. Again, I was still under the illusion that I could still teach Bobby. One day I was going over the technical aspects of the loan when he started blowing up at me. He began to berate me in front of several people including my protégé. He went so far as to say that I was a horrible teach and that I had no people skills. He said all sorts of nasty things to me that seemed totally out of line considering what I was trying to do. It seemed even more inappropriate because he said everything in front of my protégé. The whole tirade lasted for about ten minutes and it was unnerving.

I put everything together and I finally came to the conclusion that Bobby was a sociopath. I had the same thoughts that some of you had, and I realized that I was beginning to think everyone was a sociopath. Still, everything I thought of fit the profile of the literature. He had reminded me of a passage I had read from the book The Sociopath Next Door by Martha Stout http://www.amazon.com/Sociopath-Next-Door-Martha-Stout/dp/076791581X

"Or let us imagine the opposite extreme--you have no interest in
power. To the contrary, you are the sort of person who really does not want much
of anything. Your only real ambition is not to have to exert yourself to get by.
You do not want to work like everyone else does. Without a conscience, you can
nap or pursue your hobbies or watch television or just hang out somewhere all
day long. Living a bit on the fringes, and with some handouts from relatives and
friends, you can do this indefinitely. People may whisper to each other that you
are an underachiever, or that you are depressed, a sad case, or in contrast, if
they get angry, they may grumble that you are lazy. When they get to know you
better, and get really angry, they may scream at you and call you a loser, a
bum. But it will never occur to them that you literally do not have a
conscience, that in such a fundamental way, your very mind is not the same as
theirs. The panicked feeling of a guilty conscience never squeezes at your heart
or wakes you in the middle of the night. Despite your lifestyle, you never feel
irresponsible, neglectful, or so much as embarrassed, although for the sake of
appearances, sometimes you pretend that you do. For example, if you are a decent
observer of people and what they react to, you may adopt a lifeless facial
expression, say how ashamed of your life you are, and talk about how rotten you
feel. This you do only because it is more convenient to have people think you
are depressed than it is to have them shouting at you all the time, or insisting
that you get a job.”

Bobby started fitting every profile. He was totally promiscuous and he had been involved in all sorts of criminal enterprises in his past. Even the way in which he treated his client screamed sociopath. Once, we tried to refinance a “friend” of his. The savings was about seventy dollars a month and it didn’t seem worth it to me for her to pay all the closing costs for such a small savings. She was a professional singer and Bobby assured me that she wouldn’t notice. It turns out she did. She started thinking about canceling in the days or rescission. http://www.thetruthaboutmortgage.com/right-of-rescission/ Bobby did some double talking and made up a few lies and suddenly she was convinced. One time he actually stole a garbage can from a Chinese restaurant (I guess it was a “cool” looking garbage can)

Here is a list of behavior traits: http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~mcafee/Bin/sb.html

• Glibness and Superficial Charm
  
• Manipulative and Conning They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.
  
• Grandiose Sense of Self Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."
  
• Pathological Lying Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.
  
• Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
  
• Shallow Emotions When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.
  
• Incapacity for Love
  
• Need for Stimulation Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.
  Callousness/Lack of Empathy Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.
  
• Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.
  
• Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.
  Irresponsibility/Unreliability Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.
  
• Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.
  
• Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.
  
• Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily
  

I realized that Bobby had been playing me since that first conversation about opening an office together. To him, opening an office meant that I would do almost all of the work involved with running it, while he made enough to get by. If it didn’t work out, I have no doubt that he had a way out that would leave me stuck on my own. He was in tight with the owner. He probably could get out of any agreement, or at least, I am sure he thought he could. Once he realized that I was going to be insistent on teaching him so that he did everything, he bought time while he figured out a way to extricate himself from me. He worked with my protégé because my protégé would be willing to do all the work and not insist that Bobby actually learn to do it himself. He was looking for a sucker that was willing to do all the work while he made enough to get by.

He never had any intention of learning anything. In fact, anytime I tried must have been among the worst experiences of his life. He wanted nothing to do with learning. It may have been possible that in the beginning he just had a perverted view of the way the office was going to be run. Still, at some point he must have realized that there was no way he was ever going try and learn anything. He knew that this is the way I would have wanted to run it as such. He never had a heart to heart. Instead, he pretended as though everything was fine. By everything, I mean in the long term. He would then come up with excuses to not learn. At the same time, he would reaffirm commitment to the overall goal. There I was hanging onto hope that one day I could get him to change and be more attentive to the technical side of the business. I took the whole thing as a challenge. I thought that if I could get him to learn I could be successful with most candidates. He never had any intention of learning whatsoever.

Without thinking it through, I decided to confront him. At this point, I still wasn’t sure I was right, and in fact I was pretty sure I was overreacting, but I didn’t think this was something that I should just overlook. I was feeling quite tired the next day. I confronted him but I wasn’t on top of my game when I did. He immediately lashed out at me in an aggressive way. Many of the same things he had pulled in the earlier episode, he brought back. For instance, at one point, he again accused me of not having people skills. There was a lot of rationalization. At one point he asked rhetorically, “am I a sociopath just because I manipulate s$%t at work”

Going into the conversation I wasn’t really sure I was right, however after witnessing his performance I actually became more sold. For instance, I probably said it the wrong way. I should have said that some of the things he had been doing was sociopathic in nature. I thought about it though, and I think he may just really be a full fledged sociopath. The literature says that the sociopath lashes out at anyone that confronts them on their behavior. They also deny the behavior at all costs.

Bobby walked out of my office swearing we were through as friends, and we were. I feel lucky. After reading more literature, I figured he would lash out at me even more. I thought he would go to the owner and use their friendship against me. There was a lot of things that I thought he would do, and they may all be the overworked imagination of an obsessed individual, however I have no doubt that when I confronted Bobby that day, I was confronting a sociopath with the truth of his situation. You want a scary story, try doing once in your life.