From answers.com...

Ockham's Razor: (Note: apparently, according to Answers, both "Occam" and "Ockham" work. I had always spelled it "Occam," and found out after I had changed it to "Ockham" my correction fetish doesn't always serve me well when editing.)

A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. Also called law of parsimony.

   I am here, typing this now, to argue with a certain interpretation of the Razor, and maybe even whether it is true at all. How many times have you heard "Occam's Razor proves?" Occam's Razor proves nothing. It suggests. I even argue with that suggestion.

   I suppose it boils down to this question... how many real simple answers are there?

   Occam's Razor is often used for 9/11.

   Observe this post of mine at Volconvo, a debate site, responding to how according to one poster the official story regarding 9/11 is more simple; therefore win in a Razor-off ...

Re: Occam's Razor

Let's see...

Somehow all these bin Laden supporters either didn't squeal or not loud enough to be heard or believed...

They managed to get through what security there was at the time and even have, as devote Muslims of the fundamentalistic kind, a wild party the night before that still didn't raise enough suspicions.

Managed to take over planes with no more than box cutters.

Three out of four succeeded to fly unchallenged into the towers, not even much of an attempt... if any... to stop them. And the one that didn't make it only failed because of passengers. I would assume it would have hit without challenge too: unless someone can prove the shot down theory; the same theory that many consider also to be nutso. (I don't. It actually makes some sense if we are to consider Razor applicable at all.)

Did anyone ever disprove that the terrorist IDs were found, undamaged, scattered over the ruins? How "Razor" is that?

I'm sorry but Ockham's Razor doesn't apply here... no matter which way we spin it. That's the problem with Ockham's Razor. Complex things do happen, and simply because it's the most simple explanation doesn't necessarily mean it's the right one. It's simply the easiest one to sell. Because a good portion of the public is dull-witted enough to believe Ockham's Razor is a proven construct: gospel. It's an interesting guideline. That's all.

Example: before we knew as much as we did and had the tools to measure, wouldn't Ockham's Razor dictate the sun moved around the Earth at one point in our history, or earlier that the Earth was flat? What we know is always limited by what we see, what we know how to test and our intellectual development. Atoms? Molecules? Electrons? Oh, common, it's simply just God particles created during that Adam and Eve "poof" moment!

   Back to 9/11...

   Not to mention getting the terrorists here, training them all those years before, and after, they got here... including indoctrination. Positioning them. Flying lessons.

   No matter what scenario we choose to believe regarding 9/11, there's an inherent complexity... unless you wish to believe God did it. Poof! Even Satan doing it would require a lot of God doing squat and Satan plotting, planning, sending these lost souls to do his work that complicates it all. With God doing it, well... he was teaching us a lesson. All are guilty, all are sinners...

   Ah, blessed simplicity! Just like the sun revolving around the Earth, at least until we get a little more complex in our observations.

   If we are to believe Ockham as it is commonly interpreted the the simplest answer must be right. "God did it." Poof!

   Let's bring it down to basics. "A butterfly flies because it has wings." Very Ockham's Razor-ish. But a butterfly doesn't fly because it has wings, otherwise chickens would fly too. There's so much involved including genetics, the development of this creature through evolution, how they have been kept or not in captivity, physics in regard to flying... or not, aerodynamics, atmosphere as it exists here vs. other environments. (Otherwise a butterfly should be able to fly in space or near the ocean floor.)

   That's the short, but still complex, list.

   Once you look into anything, simplicity slips away and the true complexity of life, death and reality take hold.

   Occam's Razor has its uses. Once a theory becomes needlessly complex it helps guide us towards what might be a better solution... until we learn more. But that's all. It is not "proof" of anything, and it is a weak guideline at best. The overly complex may still be the right path to take. One of the best applications of this dull version of Razor might be the old concept that every element, every facet of reality and what we see, hear, feel and taste, is controlled by one deity. Not even just one God. One deity each. Otherwise we add to the complexity that one deity would have to have. An all powerful, all knowing, eternal God would indeed be a quite complex being.

   No complexity to how gravity works, no black holes, no naturally occurring hurricanes, tornadoes and all the laws of physics and such that apply...

   All the "poof" work of one deity each.

   Of course where all these deities reside... that might be a bit too complex for some who push Occam's Razor.

   Life is complex.

   Reality is complex.

   Those who claim simplicity often understate the complexity of what they support, and these same "understaters" usually only point out the complexity when it comes to what they disagree with.

   It's that simple.

   Or is it?

  (Chuckle.)

                                                         -30-

   Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 30 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks and into the unseen cracks and crevasses that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.

© Copyright 2009
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved

   The great rhetorical train wreck called America.

   You hear it in the "I am willing to say anything" nasal tone of Ann Coulter, the Left Wing pundits who claim Obama is George Bush in Black.. or that George Bush gets off on torture... the sniffles of Glen Beck moaning and over the top histrionics about "his" America and invisible plans to steal guns.

   While my own political skew is obvious to most readers, I won't type that it's all the fault of the Right, the Left, the Fundies, the Secular, bloggers or even my own generation. I won't even claim that my personal pedestal is higher than all the aforementioned.

   It's not.

   We have a problem America. We can't talk to each other.

   I know the past is filled with parents and sons fighting over Nam, yellow journalism at the start of the nation, split families killing each other over North-South issues, and when the first President Adams heard a pub patron call him old and querulous he had him locked away until Jefferson set him free. Why? Simply because Adams found him disagreeable.

   All of this has happened before.

   But it seems as of late the punditry; both armchair and more "official," has for little reason gathered the worst of these attributes and added both fertilizer and accelerant in a way that would make Timothy McVeigh jealous. It's a little different when compared with an understandable, passionate, violent, disagreement citizens might have during a Civil War. Or Nam where there was a likelihood you might be forced to kill; drafted into a position where there was a good chance you would be killed... or spat upon for doing what a nation asked of you.

   If one's rhetoric those days was a little over the top, well so were the circumstances. Compared to now? Not so much.

   These days it's both "over the top" with the mere intent just to be more "over the top" than the last guy; Glen Beck angst driven, baby-babble and, honestly... plain phony. Because many on either side really don't care who their targets really are. Disagreeing alone justifies saying anything; doing anything.

   Think of North Korea and how they act as if everything is an offense and a threat. Currently they are getting ready for the impending invasion and yelling at us that, "We'd better not..." Yup. That's the North. We all know how "loony" and over the top" they are, right? Notice how for years they have laced every conversation with accusations and threats of their own. Yet... are we really far behind them rhetorically speaking as a nation when we argue with each other?

   Recently I heard Thom Hartmann on his show discussing the murder of Dr. George Tiller with Randall Terry. Like a corpse dangling from his own rhetorical rope, Terry refused to admit that the over the top rhetoric of some of those in the anti-abortion/pro-life camp may drive people to murder others. After many decades of clinic bombings, murders of abortion providers, nurses, clinic workers... in your face clinic tactics and assassination lists, there can be little doubt that the way the debate has been framed by those who wish to make abortion illegal again has fueled passions.

   As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Tiller, more than anything else, is a victim of the warped nature of the national discourse on most issues. He was run over by our metaphorical train.

   And what must be said about a movement dedicated to saving life so frequently stained by the taking of it? Left, Right or "other," one cannot escape the blood stain left on any movement when many individuals over a long period of time are driven by rhetoric to such extremes.

   But Pro-Lifers aren't alone in this out of control train wreck created by over the top rhetoric. We have become a society which argues by extreme; absurd, hyperbole... and that has become the standard for "rationale" discussion. Those who disagree with us are cast in absurd stage lights while we toss rotten tomatoes: personal insults and mischaracterizations, at them. Many of these comments are no more than mere smears that would make Boris Badenov seem more human: more real. They're certainly not true debate or discussion.

   Of course another factor here is the tendency to portray whatever those who disagree with us believe in as always resulting in worst case scenarios, while whatever you believe in will always result in best case scenarios.

   Worst and best case scenarios almost never come true. Intent is rarely as evil as we might claim.

   We have a not so funny, funny, way of discussing issues these days. We paint anyone who dares to disagree with broad brushes then continue on as if our painting is "fact." We must ask ourselves when we discuss; when we debate, what exactly does strong sarcasm, name calling, and conveniently proclaiming you know the "true motives" of those who you disagree with achieve?

   Will it make anything better?

   Will those you disagree with just go away, no matter how clever your insults are? Or will they be more determined to oppose you?

   Will it all escalate?

   If you think the actions, opinions or words of those you disagree with might be very wrong headed, just how much good will handling such conversations in a very confrontational way achieve?

   The answer here is almost always...

   "It will make it all worse."

   To bring up another specific example, I heard a master of exploiting this art a while ago on NPR. Michael Savage was being interviewed by Neal Conan on Talk of the Nation via the telephone after the unwelcome mat was tossed down for him in England. He blathered on and on about "free speech," "toleration" and "name calling..." I only use "blathered" because of what happened next. Neal Conan took some calls: as he often does when he has guests. The first caller questioned the choice of Savage as a guest, getting about eleven words out. (I believe it was, "I don't think Michael Savage was the wisest choice for a guest...") Savage immediately interrupted the caller with some version of "commie pinko liar jackass" and then pounced on Neal, claiming if he was going to let %$#@!*&^%$#@!s on to his program he would go elsewhere. To Neal's credit he politely: and I do mean politely, told Savage that if that's what he wanted to do... well go ahead. Savage slammed the phone down. I give Conan even more credit because he went on with the topic and mentioned what had been said by those who defend Mr. Savage without an ounce of sarcasm or nastiness.

  Now that's a professional interviewer.

   While I don't defend his tactics, I do defend Mr. Savage's right to say what he says, I just think he is the prime example of how we shouldn't be debating and discussing topics. I also think his style of "debate" is like an angry mugger with severe mental issues than a debater. Whether Mr. Savage actually has mental issues is a matter of how much of an act his act is.

   May society learn to resist, or at least ignore, such: no matter what end of the spectrum it comes from.

   Emotion isn't "discourse."

   It's just emotion.

   And how do we explain someone who claims Obama is nothing more than a Communist out to grab every gun, or Rush Limbaugh is nothing more than "a big fat idiot?" I have loathed Limbaugh since he first went national and quickly learned his idea of humor was promoting his own ego while using this very type of discourse, but I'm sure, as a human, he's more than just "a big fat idiot." And he is "human," despite smartass remarks even this author may have made occasionally.

   See? I told you. I claim no purity.

   Sonia Sotomayor... a racist? You would think that Newt Gingrich would be a little sensitive about such bomb throwing in the form of casting such aspersions, considering how he has been portrayed as a baby having a tantrum in the past, for example.

   Why is it those who cast such aspersions never notice it simply ricochets back at them?

   What is the result of running the national discourse as if it were mere framing of individuals and groups using potty bowl-based materials? Think of past shootings, bombings, even 9/11... and we're talking pure rhetoric driven mass murder here. You can draw a straight line between over the top, hate-filled, bleak; yet cartoonish, rhetoric pumping over our airwaves and the Knoxville UU church shooting, the assassinations of many Dr. George Tillers, 9/11 and Timothy McVeigh. When did we get into the realm of Joe Sixpacks walking into churches and blowing strangers away to get back at "liberals," or those who perform abortions?

   When as a society did we decide that stoking the fires of mass murder via slander, lies and screaming fire in a formerly more placid theater, is OK?

   When did we decide that to rhetorically mimic the Roman's delightful tendency to feed large portions of humanity to the wild beasts is still "entertainment?"

   And just who are these "wild beasts?" To modify Pogo...

"We have claimed we have met the enemy, while we go out of our way to make him us."

                                                              -30-

   Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 30 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks and into the unseen cracks and crevasses that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.

© Copyright 2009
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved

HERE.

    Why does all this torture debate remind me of "either it's right, or wrong," "rule of law," "the meaning of 'is'" and "I did not have sex with that woman..." only the offenses here make all that past overwrought angst seem mildly piddling in comparison? You mean we sent Susan McDougal to prison; forced her to live in a cell block with high profile targets: women who murdered their own children, and we're going to become all relativistic about this?

   Oh, and I forgot to mention: the sides here have completely flipped. Relativists have decided they are now absolutists; absolutists have become squishy, weak kneed relativists; with the firm morals of watery jello.

   One of my great joys on the web is the give and take over at a site called Volconvo. It's billed as a debating site, though I prefer to think of it as a learning site: where we learn how to discuss topics and about the different thinking processes we all have.

   On a thread called 9/11= Inside Job a while ago I was exposed to the absolutist rhetoric of those who are fond of using "truthers" and "deniers" when it comes to insulting and making fun of those who question the official 9/11 story. "Deniers," of course, has been pulled from the term "holocaust deniers" and applied unevenly, in my opinion, to both those who have questions and concerns... and those who have built up a convoluted theory. Plus, how can one even begin to compare toasting millions of Jews and other "undesirables" with those wondering out loud about what actually happened, or even those a bit more "out there..." who have designed their own personal absurdly complex conspiracy theory-based tinfoil hat?

   A patently absurd comparison, content-wise.

   But if we do use this admittedly somewhat off-based comparison, then I find it amusing that some of those love to slap around those who question 9/11 suddenly get all pro-denying when it comes to torture.

   Doesn't matter if we prosecuted, even executed, soldiers for waterboarding in the past.

   Doesn't matter if children are included in these various methods to get at their parents.

   Doesn't matter if electricity was applied to genitals.

   Doesn't matter if due process is denied and torture was applied to those who simply were pointed to by a vengeful neighbor as "suspicious."

   Doesn't matter if a method of drowning was applied well over 100 times to at least one person.

   Doesn't matter if pepper spray was applied to a detainee's hemorrhoids.

   Doesn't matter that this was used to try to get detainees to provide false connections: bin Laden with Saddam, to provide cover for a war that, like any war tends to, killed innocent people in horrific ways.

   Suddenly now everything's relative. What would be a simple example of an out of control administration and abusive; corrupt, interrogators becomes all complex; so convoluted. And if it works, well the it must be justified, right? Admitted Christians turn "turn the other cheek" into "turn and slam that cheek against a wall until he says what we want him to say."

   The very meaning of the word "torture" is being tormented with excuses worthy a mentally ill parent of a bully-boy; who might ask the parents regarding the conflict with their now hospitalized son, "But how 'effective" were my son's methods?"

   And in regard to Dick Cheney's talk about unclassified, secret, memos that "prove" torture "worked," well then he's either lying, or as only a citizen now... revealing state secrets for his own personal gain. In that case he's a traitor and should be prosecuted as such. It really is that simple and not so convoluted.

   That's real "rule of law: "real "justice."

   If we are going to reuse and redefine the term "holocaust denier" then this seems a far more apt application: for these "deniers" will do and say anything to deny and excuse torture. Their kind of approach would feel all too familiar to those who ignored Jews being experimented on, or when they were sent to the ovens... or made excuses for why it was "OK." And, of course, it would familiar to those who have confronted Holocaust deniers. These modern day "deniers:" despite our having prosecuting it before, believe torture isn't torture... if we do it.

   Or if "it worked."

   Or if "what they do to us is worse."

   All the same excuses some of them probably used when they beat up some kid in elementary school for fun and pleasure. Now they've moved on to supporting drowning people, reviving them, then drowning them again over 100 times.

   Yes, it's all relative: if you want to go all pansy on "rule of law." In that case? Even murder of the innocent might be considered "relative." Every time a Rove or a Cheney open their mouth lately, all I hear is, "'Was' it torture? Well, depends upon what your definition of the meaning of 'is' is."

   It "was."

   And it "is."

   Once again proving their masterful ability to torture both context and syntax, and confuse tenses. That should make us all "tense" when it comes to their idea of "justice."

                                     -30-

For more Inspection columns, please click HERE.

"...a few bad apples..."

-Ex-Pres. George W. Bush, forgetting to mention these were mostly the rotten apples at the top of the barrel

"What they essentially have said is, 'If we have policy disagreements with our predecessors, what we are going to do is turn ourselves into the moral equivalent of a Latin America country... and systematically prosecute the previous administration on policy differences.'"

-Karl Rove, claiming that drowning people, slamming their heads up against the wall and locking their children into bug infested boxes are merely "policy differences."

(Obama's stand on prosecuting torture...) "...has turned into a 'murky maybe.'"

-Bill Press, getting it right

 

    Anyone who would ever accuse me of being a Bush supporter either has never read a damn thing I've written, or their reading comprehension is less than zero.

    And as many regular and former regular readers know, I don't always quite qualify as an "Obama supporter." Brief history: I started with Kucinich, who the media made damn sure would never get any traction. Then I marginally picked Hillary over Obama... only because I felt, between the two, only a Clinton would hit back enough to win. And maybe, just maybe, the Clintons knew enough about what happened last time that they wouldn't put up with another Right Wing Hell storm. It certainly wasn't because I'm some googly eyed Hillary-ite, any more than I'm what the Right Wing likes to refer to as "Messiah worshiping" Obama-nite.

    I'm very glad I was wrong regarding Barack's ability to win.

   I'm one of those voters that always winds up voting for the least undesirable option, not that I thought Obama himself was that "undesirable." Just not my first pick by any means... any more than Hillary was.

    Why?

    Because I had a sneaking suspicion that he was more platitudes than substance. I guess you might say that I get suspicious when any candidate's main source of rhetoric is mouthing catch phrases over and over, like different slight variations on the theme of "change." I don't ever do well when it comes to selling candidates with "new and improved"-type labels. Reminds me of all the products that really weren't.

    Hillary? I already knew she had the same problem to a certain extent, only less "catch phrase"-y.

    I have been pleasantly surprised in many ways. For example: pleasantly surprised that there has been a change in how we speak to other nations, and talk about things... especially the BS bluster.

    Thanks, Barack.

    I also have recently seen another possible pleasant surprise recently: a possible change in whether we will legally pursue those who approved torture.... and those who did all they could to legally excuse torture. But as to whether he's sincere? I agree with Bill Press: "murky."

    Not that I think Hillary would have been doing any better at this point. Frankly, I never thought at the core they would be all that different. My marginal choice was based on winning.

    I'm glad so glad I was wrong about that. But I also think without Hillary and Barack trading the rhetorical ball back and forth the outcome could have been quite different. Two moving targets; sometimes pitted against each other in media-convenient ways, are always harder than one.

    Intentional tactic?

    Part of the plan?

    Those those who were angered by Barack offering a post to Hillary would understandable speculate so, but maybe not. Yet if it was a bit of a fake like in football: damn good plan. With most of the talking head shills, and a whole network, serving as propaganda slaves for the other side, more than a few fake passes would always get a big thumbs up from me.

    The shills and the Goebbels for the Right network can go suck on their pens and computer mice as far as I'm concerned. May they be arsenic-laced.

    But as to the torture issue, I'm not happy regarding how it has been handled, to type the least vile descriptive I can. Though it was about all I would have expected of a weak knee; Democratic administration, run by either Hillary or Barack. You know: the kind more interested in "getting along" and "going forward" than actual justice or precedents set?

    May the Cambodian skulls and concentration camp half dead be damned: just crunch your way towards a... better? ...future. That's "the past:" just shove those tormented souls off to the side.

    As of this typing Barack is now varying somewhere between, "Yes we will," "Maybe we will" and, "No, we won't." I suppose that's marginally better than, "No, we won't."

    Some very bad precedents will been set here unless we prosecute; at least one precedent (#2) that Hillary and her husband unintentionally helped to create. Precedents that might include, but are not limited to...

1. Under a Republican administration Republicans can do anything no matter how vile, how much of a lie. Personal responsibility is for everyone else. The President has more information than you, so shut the hell up.

2. Under a Democratic administration any accusation aimed against a Democrat; especially a president, is fair game and proof of guilt in itself. Everything is a plot: even when your friend with depression issues commits suicide. If your cat named Socks gets fan mail it's obviously some socialistic plot.

3. "Unequal protection" applies to George Bush and Dick Cheney and highly placed Republicans, but never Democrats or Lynddie England. Grunts have to take the fall for what the leadership will still claim was the right thing to do many years later.

    Anyone claiming any of the above is fair, well Karl-bot, go ^%$#@! yourself with live wires attached to your genitals. After all, it's not really "torture..." right?

   Right???

    And as far as I'm concerned not only should the Bybees and the Gonzos out there be on trial and some headed to the gallows both metaphorical and, perhaps, real, but Democratic enablers like Harry Reid too. One of my talk show habits is Mike Malloy. Mike says, "Barack did the appropriate thing handing it over. It's up to Eric Holder now." With all respect, Mike, I'm sure Eric knows what his boss wants done here; so if they don't prosecute, in my opinion, it bounces right back to Barack.

   Now here is my stand: plain and simple...

1. It doesn't matter one bit whether torture "works" or not. Prince Vlad certainly saw less crime and perhaps even "terrorism" when he shoved big sharp poles up through his victims. "Works" is not the point, nor should it be. If we are to claim that it is right to use "whatever works," then we might as well admit we are terrorists too.

2. Waterboarding is not "simulated drowning." If you were to continue the process your victim would die. It is drowning people, and reviving them to drown them again... and therefore qualifies as "torture."

3. If "enhanced interrogation" works so damn well, well then... where is bin Laden eight years later? Where is those massive amounts of invisible WMDs six years later? Not under here? Not under here? HA, HA, Ha, ha, haaaa... funny: not.

4. 9/11 provides no more an "excuse" for those wrongfully imprisoned than if any country; or movement, with an overwhelming number of these wrongfully imprisoned people decided that outrage would excuse torturing U.S. soldiers. Please remember: bin Laden and company had their excuses too. Doesn't make it right, or anything but but horrific, sadistic, and a large number of rather nasty descriptive terms I'd rather not type.

    So, if we "must" give a pass to Bush, Cheney and their cronies... whom do I blame now? Not just Bush and Cheney. I blame both Hillary and Barack.

    Otherwise I have been somewhat pleased...

    When Barack offered Hillary an appointment the Hillary hating portion of the Left howled. They spewed the old Right talking point that she would battleax her way into dominating policy. Not feeling they were all that different, I waited. These days I wonder what these Lefties think now? Nary a peep from the "I hate Hillary crowd."

    How has Hillary done over all?

    Other than my obvious problem with both... not bad.

    Not bad at all.

    And I feel the same about Barack.

    So much for the dominating "bitch" label both the radical Left and obscenely radical Right have slapped her with as if she were some unsubmissive wife who dares to ask, "Please don't beat me again."

    But when it comes to not prosecuting those guilty of torture I get off both boats: though Hillary has been mostly: and quite appropriately, quiet on this issue... given her position as serving at the pleasure of the president.

   (Let's not go there... OK?)

    Hillary, I'm sure, knows better than most what's in store for President Obama... no matter how nice, forgiving or "let's move on" he tries to be. That goes back to the Iran Contra crimes of Father Bush that Bill decided needed to be passed on. People made the mistake thinking that only if Hillary had ascended to the White House we would have had a Hell-storm created by the Right. Of course they're right about "Hell-storm..." except the qualifier "only." As the teabaggers and gun lobby have proven, we probably would have had that either way.

    And to quote the Carpenters, "It's only just begun..." My, how "romantic."

    This was never a Hillary, or even specifically a Bill, problem... though he didn't help by any means. It's always been a loud, obnoxious, hateful, group of extremists problem who have been mentally only a half a step behind Timothy McVeigh: at best.

    As of now, we are better off under an Obama administration; with Hillary on board, than we were before. But unless we bring those to justice who have been doing these criminal acts... and been forgiven for them since before Nixon; since at least the days of House Committee on Un-American Activities, we will continue on this more than half a century slide to Right Wing dictatorship. As I have argued many times: they won't stop unless it's made obvious there are consequences for their outrageous misbehavior.

    For those allowed to rule the day through such means will rule: no matter who holds the "pretend" reins of power. Obama taking back those reins and demanding justice is, simply put, acting presidential... and one hopes he has at least one appointee's voice whispering in his ear, "Do it."

    Do I think either likely?

    No.

                                                  -30-

   Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 30 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks and into the unseen cracks and crevasses that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.

© Copyright 2009
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved

   Click on the link if you want to read next week's; Inspection- On Barack, Hillary and Torture, in advance. 

    I wrote: Inspection- The Problem with 24, well over two years ago. My basic assessment has not changed...

    Those who use 24 to justify what is jokingly refer to as "enhanced interrogation" are more than a bit off-base: to be polite. Especially when they use that ticking time bomb scenario to justify using torture which has nothing to do with what they are actually defending: the right to torture... period: not some twice past the twelve scenario. Yet they can't resist...

"But what if we had 24 hours to find a thumbtack nuke stuck under a squirrel's paw..."

    Well, more than likely, no matter who we torture; we wouldn't find it. Not even considering less than sarcastic squirrel-based locations. Even if we beat some actual "Col." Achmed Mustard the Terrorist "bloody" with his own candlestick wrapped up in a prayer rug. Saying whatever translates into "stop" does not auto equal getting anywhere near to the truth; anything we need to know.

    The 24 scenario is also used to excuse dumping of basic principles we have accepted as a free society since our own forefathers fought for them. Doesn't matter whether those we torment are, or aren't, Americans... I'm specifically thinking of Jose Padilla here, amongst others. Washington himself made a point of treating those who battled against us well; even if they were British.

    And as my previous column pointed out, those who use 24-type scenarios seem to conveniently forget that Jack Bauer pays every time: and pays personally, for violating rights. While some join in the action, he is mostly a lone wolf. Why would they skip over this rather obvious part of the scripting in 24 ? Because they're not really defending any Jack-like characters out there who did what they thought they had to as the final minutes ticked by. Instead what they are often demanding: not even asking for, is the right to do this en mass: as officially approved policy: even if it gains little to no usable intel.

    No.

    I cannot put it any clearer.

    No, damn it.

    We are better than this. We have to be better than this. Otherwise we're simply joining the ranks of those who commit terror: doing whatever is convenient to our agenda at the time.

    I do watch 24. It is entertaining, though they're too caught up each year in trying to outdo the last year. That's a common trend in shows that rely on a lot of angst; pushed forward plot-wise by a hell of a lot of twists; driven by an increasing number of deus ex machina big booms. To say it's gotten more than a bit absurd would be a vast understatement... and the point of this edition of Inspection.

    I have spent a lot of time arguing on debate sites with those who defend torment, torture and the necessity of any big change in the freedoms we have here in America that might possibly "protect" us. I have noticed a good portion of these folks use 24-driven arguments are also huge fans of the show. They also have a lot of not so pent up hatred for what they refer to as "Truthers" and "Deniers:" those who question what happened on 9/11.

    I'm not quite in either camp. I do think there are questions regarding 9/11; but the important ones are regarding ignored warnings: intentional or not, and a certain large chunk of change that disappeared into the Taliban's hands shortly before 9/11 with no accounting for it. Did it wind up funding 9/11? I'm guessing we'll never know either way.

    Conspiracy theory doubters have some real good points. If any theory requires a lot of people being quiet and contingency planning, it's probably too complex to be completely true. Probably. I totally dismiss little; except complete theories so convoluted an idiot could see they are, at best, poor scripting.

    Which brings me back to 24. If you've avoided it, let me get you up to speed without a lot of filler. After a few weeks episodes, every year, it always looks like Jack has finally uncovered the conspiracy and all's well.... problem solved! But... (Wow! Wow! Who saw that coming?) ...they had a contingency plan, or someone we didn't suspect was also part of it. And off the conspiracy goes at a right angle, or even a 180 degree spin. Every few weeks that cycle repeats to the point where you have a vast number of people who had to keep it all quiet. And the, plotters have to make a multitude of plans in case plan A, B, C, J, Z or Pi Squared to the millionth power falls through.

    Wait. Wait, isn't this the same damn thing they complain about when they face off those whom they deride as "Truthers," "Deniers," conspiracy nuts and wackos? So they use a program in their core arguments that offers an increasingly twisted, and an increasingly convoluted plot line year after year. All of this would make even some of the most "out there" conspiracy folks scream, "Give me a friggin break."

    Give me a frackin break.

    What does this say about those who are quick to sneer at those who questioned what happened, yet they willingly suspend belief when it suits their purposes? 24 simply is a bad example to base such a major change in how we treat each other on.

    And if you have a problem with complex conspiracy theories, don't use a TV show that specializes in them to support your own arguments. Otherwise you're just another crackpot wearing a big tinfoil hat.

                                                                  -30-

   Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 30 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks and into the unseen cracks and crevasses that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.

    Fiat?

    Fiat???

    In 1958 Bill Carman walked into the car pool at American Maize on Park Avenue. As a representative he had just been given the right to have a new car every two years. Gas bills: paid. Maintenance: paid. Hell, even our restaurant bills were paid. That's the reward when you invent the first successful recipes for now common day staples like liquid coffee creamer, to be handed over without any credit to companies like Richs as if they created them.

    He wanted to know from the head of the car pool; the man who held the keys, of the three offered: GM's Chevy, Ford and Chrysler's Plymouth, which was the best. He had miles to go; both business and pleasure, and couldn't afford to find himself and his family of five and a half stuck between Squimsquat and Podunksville. (I'm counting Gordie, the border collie; named after Gordie the dog catcher.)

   "Well, I wouldn't go near the Fords. The Chevys are OK. But we're getting good reports on the Plymouths for the most part."

    I have mixed feelings about Chrysler Corp., the parent company. We had a new Plymouth station wagon every two years for the rest of the 50s, almost all of the 60s, and half of the 70s. They took my father all over the east coast; to places far enough to drive in a day or two. (For the rest he would fly: well over a million miles a year sometimes.) The Plymouths were mostly reliable and took us, some years, almost every weekend to our camp on Twitchell that soon became home. That's closing in on a thousand miles a week some months not including business, if you add all the running around we did in the Adirondacks.

    Never a break down that I recall. There were certainly plenty of opportunities when I was there to observe.

    Though my family had great luck with Plymouths, the surviving parent company; Chrysler, hasn't fared much better when it comes to keeping me from seeing obvious; glaring faults. Our 55 Dodge Royale was "OK;" kind of blase', but well made. Chrysler does seem to add more "quirk" to their products than the other two, which can be annoying.

    But I suppose with Chrysler it's more company policy that drove me into not driving their product most of my adult life. When we considered buying a PT Cruiser, we experienced first hand Chrysler's (intentional?) hands off the dealers policy. An advertised 17 grand plus change quickly turned into 26, even 30, when greedy dealers decided their company's sales pitch meant nothing. Chrysler backed them up. I noticed on the company website they had a single answer for E-mails and letters from the multitude of outraged consumers, "We don't control the dealers."

    Um, sure you do. Tell them that if they don't sell your cars for something close to the advertised price they'll no longer be dealers. What, they're going to say. "Oh, to hell with that," change all their advertising, all their signs, hire new mechanics, their company name and legal concerns, dump their current inventory and buy new inventory?

    Well, tis Easter-time. Miracles are reported to have happened.

    2,000 years ago.

    Only a year ago we bought our first American vehicle in a damn long time: a totally convertible, four door Jeep. You know, the kind where you lift the windows out. So far... not bad. So I do have some personal interest in Chrysler surviving. But...

    Fiat?

    Fiat???

    OK, they're solvent, or recently so. They do have models with gas savings not featured by Chrysler. But reliability? Well, let's just say they haven't been noted for it in the past, that's for sure. My cousin Theron had a series of Fiats and Renaults during the 70s and the 60s. He agreed with my father's observation who referred to them as, "Two year flip mobiles." He said they were always in the shop.

    I understand that the 60s and the 70s were a long time ago, or so I've been told. My how time slips by when you're having... well, not sure exactly which of the vast multitude of horrid to wonderful descriptives to use here. They all seem appropriate.

    I'm also more than nervous about "partnering." Some of the worst vehicles in American history have been created when, instead of keeping content as much in-house as possible, they became some bastardized collection of outsourced parts. Motorhomes have made this a specialty. I firmly believe, from my experience, all motorhomes are made in Hell by Satan. But there will be partnering here, if Chrysler is to survive.

    But, if there must be... isn't there a better company than Fiat? Why is it nothing I have read treats Fiats as anything close to the kind of reliable vehicles the Japanese eventually turned their junkier 60s/70s cars into? Nothing I have read claims the new cars no longer deserve the reputation. Remember the car that didn't go, Yugo: a joke that would be tiresome if it weren't so true? Based on a Fiat platform. And the final bullet in the Italian engine block: Fiat left America with their tails tucked into their tailpipe.

    So, once again... Fiat?

    Fiat??

    I do understand Fiat is a company with a long history, and I'm sure every Fiat didn't suck its own tailpipe backwards; committing automotive suicide. So, OK, if we must do Fiat, let me make a suggestion: partner with a third company.

    How about International, better known now as Navistar?

    They certainly have had experience in the Jeep-like vehicle field. They made damn good trucks. We owned one of the slant 4 trucks and a good friend had a Scout he beat the hell out of. The Adirondack League Club which has thousands of acres where they use four wheel vehicles year after year over rough terrain and harsh conditions relied on Scouts and Willys. Some days their lives depended on them when an accident cried for a rush to the health center in Old Forge over stumps, deep snow and swamp-like conditions. The International Scout was every bit competition for the Willys Jeep: perhaps better.

    As far as forwards looking... who had an SUV not all that unlike a 4-wheeldrive Element or Highlander on the drawing board that almost went into production; long before the term SUV was widely used? International. Except for making an example for show, it really never left the drawing board and went into production. You see back when the American car companies weren't in this much trouble, IHC decided they would rather go back to what they sold best: semis. It was part of a divesting of many product lines they were into at the time, and they didn't have Big Daddy government demanding what they do it. They had enough sense to do it themselves. Unlike the majors, they knew just dumping their own versions corporate of Olds or Plymouth wouldn't do. That's wise management: something we desperately need so that the American workers in the automotive industry can remain employed. I have no beef with them: but lots with management.

    I do believe that it might help to make a triad here, partner-wise, though I'm not claiming my plan doesn't have some glaring problems. Navistar is more than a few years down the road from being the maker of trucks for the common consumer IHC once was. They have had recent accounting problems, though mostly dealing the government claiming certain forms must be filed vs. what the company they hired (then fired) to do their books thought they didn't have to file.

    But, hey, the decision making of many execs in the auto industry has been far worse. Chrysler is considering divesting themselves of Jeep? You're kidding, right? Your most popular brand that you went of the way to get: taking over American Motors just to dump the rest of the product line so you can have Jeep?

    That really is a bad idea. 

    Now they're also dropping the PT.

    A very popular car. What are they actually keeping, the over-sized 500 that looks like it's about to devour little children, kittens and puppies? You know, then one with that ill-proportioned; uglier than an obese run over possum grill?

    I hope we can save Chrysler, and not just because of our Jeep. As much as I have ragged on GM, and even considering personal promises to myself never to buy a car from any company named Ford that would make something remotely like the Pinto, I do hope all three survive. But I doubt they will, at least in present form. That's why Auto Inspection led to Auto 2 and Auto 3.

    Hell, if I had my way we'd go back to the days when we had Stude, Packard, (Or at least both after they joined), Franklin, Stutz, Pierce Arrow, Duesenberg, Marmon, Kaiser (before or after Willys), Peerless, Willys and Crosley; or just many new companies.

   There will always be failed attempts like Bricklin where it was so poorly designed they seriously considered drilling holes in the floor to let out the leakage, or the somewhat better DeLorean. Then we have Tesla who seems intent on taking electric cars into an era where only the rich can afford them, or Avanti which seems intent on reviving an old marquee as made only for the well to do. And making a car then marketing it is not like the days when you could slap everything together and sell locally. Pollution, safety and gas sipping considerations alone mean one hell of an investment.

    But back to Walter P's old company...

    If they go with just Fiat, I fear one less American car company is what we'll have. Hell, whether Navistar becomes part of the mix or not, I suspect Fiat will eventually be more ball and chain than a help. Fiat has been made solvent and I applaud. But taking that brief success and then acting as if Fiat has always been on the up and up; financially and quality-wise, is like partying with an alcoholic with a full bar in the room while turning our backs. It will take time a long time to see if "solvency" doesn't equal "fluke."

    Are there any competent execs left in the American auto industry? Sometimes... I think not. If you're going to come begging for government funds: and this absolutely goes for the banking industry too, the government has a right to make demands; including tossing the captain to the sharks without any bonus or handsome "retirement" package.

    Of course, if you listen to management and their media-pundit sympathizers, it's all the union's fault. Right.

    The captain of the Titanic was a respectable, talented, man who wasn't warned in time. I wish the same could be said of execs who will probably sink talented underlings down into the depths of automotive history, and probably blame them on the way down.

                                                               -30-

   Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 30 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks and into the unseen cracks and crevasses that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.

    An interest rate on cards at about 28%.

    Well over 10% on, dishonestly applied, late fees.

    Jump the % to 29% or more after a payment is made "late," like when Mr. or Ms. Consumer calls their confusing phone tree that encourages the caller into pressing an option that makes them think they've just payed, but only "promised" to pay.

    On a $500 card balance the late fee for being fooled by that shell game is a little less than $50 dollars. And when such cons are used, why do some always blame the conned and not also the con-er?

    A "help" center that promises dishonestly applied late fee will be subtracted; then... it's not subtracted.

    And this is only their cards.

    Citi is into everything, credit-wise. Chances are if you have a Radio Shack card or any other business credit cards, you're wallet is being Hoovered by Citi.

    So to repeat my question...

Just how much do the execs at Citi suck?

    After all that they're still going belly up and begging for bailouts. Just how bad do you have to be to be using every con in the credit industry arsenal and still destroy your own Butch Cassidy and Sundance-run business? Far worse than just using too much dynamite. Probably more suck than all the Electrolux vacs ever made. But to be honest, probably no worse than all the other corporations "too big to fail."

    Joe and Mary Consumer either miss, or ignore, the tiny print at the bottom of the loan form. They take a loan; over estimating if they can pay the new mortgage. They don't understand that floating interest rates can equal rape. They take a loan that in better; more regulated, times a bank or credit company would not make... especially with Joe and Mary's credit rating; and how much property they have to back up the loan.

    I have some sympathy for John and Mary, though not a hell of a lot.

    But as bad as the the Consumers are, should we have sympathy for failed execs who when bailed out will probably be back for more? (Strike "probably." Some already have.) And unlike the common consumer, who probably wasn't a grade A math student, and certainly didn't get a bonus for their failures, Big Daddy government must save the buns of these high paid biz wizs who most likely went to business school ? And save them again? And again?

    Joe and Mary Consumer at least have the excuse of not knowing better, and not knowing what they should pay attention to, and sometimes being about as dense as granite? But these "biz wizs" execs work harder than everyone else and are justly rewarded for, no failure, but their success by then "free" market: work harder and more than poorly paid teachers, grave diggers, mechanics, sewage process plant employees... or so we're led to believe by the "business is run more efficiently than government" crowd. High pay is ultimate "proof" of this, supposedly.

    Not.

    The Right is busy moaning about that "socialist" Obama.

    With bailing out failed businesses that use that money to reward failure through bonuses, junkets... maybe they'd be better ranting against National Socialism.

    So far, all I hear from them regarding companies like Citi is the silence of what they used to called "being a good German."



                                                      -30-

   Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 30 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks and into the unseen cracks and crevasses that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.

© Copyright 2009
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved

   My wife, Millie, and I were bouncing around Nashville doing laundry one Sunday... yawn... when she looked up at the birds in the sky and said, "That looks like it would be so much fun." My mind did its typical flip and I said, "I wonder if they look at us and say, 'It's so damn boring up here: all blue and clouds; so much down there. They must be having so much fun just walking around."

    To paraphrase David Wilcox; one of my favorite songwriters and philosophers, "If we all learned to fly tomorrow, a few weeks later we'd be walking around saying, 'I'm nothing special...'"

    How does this apply to politics?

    Just a little more than two months since Barack became president the difference between his style and our previous president's seems to have become a big, forgetful, yawn: no matter what the political persuasion. We're being told he owns wars he didn't start. Declarations of "it's over" bounce all over the net, and in the mainstream media, when it has barely begun. It's almost as if he's been president for many, many years.

    Yup. Nothing special. Nothing different. No change whatsoever.

    We look upon our lives with jaded vision; skewed view. You've heard of the frog who slowly boils in water and doesn't notice. Imagine a frog who is kissed by Ms. Fate and becomes a prince. He marries into his castle and, by working hard, he has so much.

    Rich?

    Maybe, but I'll bet he still acts as if he believes...

   "Yup. Nothing special. Nothing different. No change whatsoever."

    No frog turned prince...

    The same face everyday ; same annoying habits, instead of seeing the princess who is still there...

    I do have a similar story.

    I went from someone moved out of a family that was falling apart after Mom died to living in roach infested apartments. I could hardly get a passing glance from the other sex. I worked my way through school in cemeteries and restaurants; mostly as a dishwasher.... I went from all that, to being an entertainer with a tour route from Louisiana to Maine and recording engineer who works with young children. I've been performing since I was a kid, but professionally for 25 years: touring for 21. I've been a sound engineer since 1979 when I studied at Belmont in Nashville. And professionally... with my own mobile recording studio... since 93.

    I've been happily married for 31 years.

    I have a future home in the Adirondacks that qualifies as "camp," and a 28 acre home just outside of Nashville: all paid for.

    I could go on and fill in all the changes, challenges I've met and achievements during those years, but the intent here is not to not to brag or impress. I'm trying to make a point. The changes were slow; two steps forward, sometimes ten quite painful steps back. I am that frog. I often think of myself as not much more than "frog." So to this day I still catch myself acting as if...

"Yup. Nothing special. Nothing different. No change whatsoever."

    The pot isn't always boiling, though we may think it is. Sometimes it gets better, and we often don't notice that either. As my father who was born when cars were just getting on the road, and lived to see computers start to infest our homes; the Mac portable was one year away, said...

"You really don't notice the changes all that much. They slide in so slowly. You just get used to them."

    Of course there are problems to this picture I've painted. Image is never all there is to substance; so my life has problems and unresolved issues. Think I'd be scared if it didn't; as in... "what am I being set up for now?"

    Look up. Here comes the Acme anvil. Squish.

    But that's probably something else, more human, to the perception of "being set up..." Have you ever had a really bad day? Look back at it. Chances are there were plenty good moments during that day: a few things simply took over our perceptions and made us obsess: missing the best of the day.

    Working with children for well over 20 years I am always amazed how; even on even their worst days, they can still imagine and take that leap; even if it means more pain. Children seem to naturally learn from such and then... grow. They have what we have drained out our lives through cynicism, fear and the blase' nature of the passing of many, many days. They have an endless supply of imagination and the ability to channel that unto the future, while pretending to just have fun with it all.

    Yes, "child's play" provides the building blocks of what you will be. I imagine if you spent many days dreaming and imagining who you might be, you probably saw some real results that helped you be a better; more noble, frog; maybe a prince. If you spent it terrorized; being told to grow up: ridiculed for anything you did, you may have seen some results... but the water might always seem hot; then hotter.

    I understand, there was some of that in my own family: especially amongst cousins, uncles, a specific childless aunt that still makes me cringe when I hear the name "Blanche..." an over the top, real life; poorly portrayed version, of the fictional Blanche from Streetcar ...and friends; who in many ways were like family. All families have some of this. Though I hope few have "Blanche."

    But I have known those who have reached beyond the oppressive nature of whom they were; where they had to be, as children. Perhaps we too need to take our worst days and do with our lives what two children were doing I saw on tour in the early 90's at a Syracuse, NY post office. All the adults: bored to death, standing in line at a post office. Where we saw boredom; they saw posts to swing around, a place to play: to imagine. One fell. She cried. Once comforted, she and her brother added it to the story they were spinning.

    Take the worst.

    Use it for the good.

    Fly.

                                                Fly

                   -By Robbie Schaefer...as performed by Eddie From Ohio on their CD: This is Me

I'm kinda small for my age but I've learned to be quiet
Did you know if your quiet enough you become invisible?
Indivisible

Ours is a family of 3
There's my mom dad and me
I'm the only one who's quiet
Wish they'd shut up and try it

But don't underestimate me
I'm seven years tall
and all I need
is a cape and a mask
So I can fly outta here
I can fly outta here (repeat)

I'm kinda smart for my age,
It's only a gift in music,
they don't choose you used choose it
But I choose ordinary
Yes, I'm a very ordinary canary
And my legs don't work too well.
When I was 2 and a half I fell.
And now I'm just a slowpoke.
Momma says keep that an inside joke

But don't underestimate me
I'm seven years tall
and all I need
is a cape and a mask

So I can fly outta here
I can fly outta here (repeat)

There's no one in this world that can tell I'm undercover
They'll all have to tell each other one day one day
I knew him well

So don't underestimate me
Cause I'm seven years
and all I need
is a cape and a mask
So I can fly outta here
I can fly outta here (repeat)
____________________
© Copyright 2004
Robbie Schaefer
all rights reserved

                                                 -30-

   Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 30 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks and into the unseen cracks and crevasses that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.

© Copyright 2009
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved

    I sat down at my computer this morning pondering what I would use for this week's column. Back when I first revived Inspection on the net in the late 90s; after a few years post the last hard copy, I thought I'd start writing like mad in case I ran out of ideas.

    Silly me. Now I keep stumbling over the never animated corpses of unused Inspection columns everywhere: in my bookkeeping books for my business, my creative journals where I work on concepts, on napkins, back of book covers and deep within my computer guarded by gremlins. They seem to delight in messing up; or losing, what I know I had nailed to some great rhetorical wall when I last pressed "save."

    It's magic.

    Magic relates to politics, religion, philosophy and anything we do as humans: especially how we relate to each other.
Read on -- There is more

    For instance; we all know that the magician uses trap doors, secret compartments, sleight of hand, intentional distraction... anything to make his audience go, "Wow!" He, or she, is also a storyteller: and that is far more important than whatever device or method used.

    Yet we too often focus in on "how" rather than "why."

    Jesus performed "miracles." Does it really matter if he knew where the rocks were, or if he had many fish and loaves in some unseen trap door? Many theists would say, "Yes." That makes me cringe because they are like some of the more childish members of my audience I have had to slip, slide and leap over with on the spot alterations of my own script. And it makes me sad because on a rare occasion the "child" is an adult who should know not behave in that manner.

    I often say to my clients that I rarely have a problem with children. It's adults who can be a big pain in their too tightly tied babushkas. Some days I wonder how their brains don't squeeze out of their ears.

    Let's stray away from magic for a moment to make my point. On a rare occasion; when I bring out one of my puppet friends, there's some boy; rarely a girl, who before the puppet says anything starts yelling out, "That's just a puppet, that's just a puppet..."

    In my magic segment the same kind of character will yell out how they think I did it. 99.9% of the time they are wrong. And teachers will usually talk to them. The times they don't make me wonder why those kinds of teachers don't just quit and go make chocolate covered ants for a living, because they don't seem to care for, or want to pay attention to, what they're supposed to be doing.

    I wonder. Would these same children when they watch TV yell out, "That's not an image, it's just a bunch of dots!" They must be real fun at a movie. But I suspect they suspend disbelief in both cases.

    So why does a live performance incur this behavior?

    Easy. Just like adults who don't get it, they think that all this is about is simply an intent to deceive others. They're missing the point: entertainment... and the lesson being taught; the story being told.

    If we passed this attitude on to life we would be deceived less. For instance when I moved South in the late 70s my wife and I stayed in a motel room in Kentucky: just south of Cinci. I woke up early; as I often do, and turned on the tube. There was one of these healing preachers working a deaf person over on stage. Facing her he said...

"I will heeeeeeaaaaallll you. Repeat after me: 'praise the Lord.'"

(She looked puzzled.")

"Praise the Lord."

(Still puzzled... so he spoke slowly: accentuating each lip movement with care.)

"Praise... the... Lord."

With a glimmer of understanding she asked, "Praise the Lord?"

He turned away from her so she couldn't see his lips and said to his flock...

"Praise the Lord, she's hhheeeaaallleed!!!"

She was rushed off stage by stagehands.

    Now an idiot could see what happened here, but as a performer I was angered by just how bad he was.

    Back away.

    Reconsider.

    If we all admitted that what we are watching is a performance and stopped screaming out, "That's just_____," maybe we wouldn't be fooled as much, and fleeced less? Just enjoy. This guy was really, really bad: an unintended comedian. They can be more funny than a barrel of Robin Williams'. And, oh, how his message suffered. But remember; if the performance is good that doesn't necessarily mean the message is. Here's why we should view such things mostly on a performance level...

    Adolph Hitler was a great performance artist, for those who like that over the top: pure histrionics, style. I don't. But the actual content of his message was pure horror. Appreciating talent doesn't mean we totally dismantle our critical faculties. We just don't let them spoil the show either.

    And if we remembered "it's a performance," maybe there would be less comet followers...

   ...less Kool Aid drinkers...

   ...less foam at the mouth, goosestepping, potential pilots for planes headed towards buildings...

    What is the difference between magic and miracles? Believers assume magic is a trick, and miracles are real: from God. Of course, as my faith healer example proves, the difference may not be much of a difference at all.

    If Jesus knew where the rocks were, would that make the parables less important; the lessons he taught null and void? If he knew that Lazarus was simply sleeping but he had been treated as if he had died, would using that knowledge to save him from inevitable death from starvation make raising Lazarus less of a good deed?

    Content should never be treated as a third or fourth thought to method or means. It certainly shouldn't be treated as if it doesn't exist.

    But why am I not surprised in these days of deus ex machina-based entertainment where bigger and more bangs are too often treated as content, that actual content is tossed in the corporate wood-word chipper like an unwanted child? That even our children are yelling out...

"That's just a puppet! That's just a puppet! That's just a puppet! That's just..."

And why aren't these children also yelling at the latest Bruce Willis-like bigger bang movie...

"That's just a model! That's been faked! That's just a blue screen!"

From my perspective, none of this is any more real than...

"You're hheeeaaaaallled!"

Why are our children acting like this?

    Probably because we're not providing enough good examples for them to follow.

It's Magic

by Dave Allen, Tim Bays (as performed by PP&M)

He cut her in half
With a shiny steel saw
He put her all back together
And I was in awe

As rabbits and doves and bandanas appeared
And he pulled a quarter right out of my ear
I turned to my dad, I said, 'How'd he do it?'
And dad, he just smiled, he said, 'There's nothing to it."

It's magic and you don't want to know
Just how it's done, it would ruin the show
You've just got to believe
'Cause believing is what makes it happen
Oh it's nothing but magic

Now I fell in love the first time in 8th grade
And I started shaving the very next day
Just walking her home made me light on my feet
And I promised her things you just wouldn't believe
And when I asked my dad why girls had that effect
He said, 'Go ask your mom, I ain't figured it yet'

It's magic and you don't want to know
Just how it's done, it would ruin the show
You've just got to believe
'Cause believing is what makes it happen
Oh it's nothing but magic

Well the years have been hard, the years have been kind
These last years have taken both parents of mine
Some things you can't change with a wave of your hand
So many things I still don't understand
But, in a hospital gown, standing next to my wife
I'm watching this miracle come into life

It's magic and you don't want to know
Just how it's done, it would ruin the show
You've just got to believe
'Cause believing is what makes it happen
Oh it's nothing but magic and you don't want to know
Just how it's done, it would ruin the show
You've just got to believe
'Cause believing is what makes it happen

                                                               -30-

   Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 30 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks and into the unseen cracks and crevasses that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.

© Copyright 2009
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved

    But now there's change. It's arrived upon our doorsteps. We can read about it in our papers, see it in the depressed looks upon FOX no-news anchors who look like they really want to suck upon a shotgun, hear it in the whine of the radio talk show host. The end is near! The end is near! If we treat Gitmo detainees with a modicum of due process they're going to suitcase nuke our bathrooms! ...have sex with our baby gerbils! And turn America into (gasp!) the United States Socialist Republic.

    Though lessening, we can still see and hear from a few bloggers; the pens and mouths of some of the Left; post election... look there! The sun is coming up! Tweety and Sylvester are buds. Boris and Natasha are planning on sending Valentine flowers to Moose n' Squirrel. Jack on 24 is about to change tactics and hug his various suspected villains into submission.

    Tis a new day.

    Or is all this mostly just balderdash?

    Maybe...

    The inspiration for this column slapped me like wet fish instead of rain falling from the sky as I considered many equally nonsensical events. The pinnacle event: the source of my inspiration; though small and insignificant in itself, was in a Super Dollar General Store. If you don't have one locally it's kind of like a smaller version of Super Wally-mart, only cheaper. I was wasting minutes because for the first time in my life I had ordered Ethiopian food to go. By the time I finish editing this edition of Inspection I'll tell you how good or how bad it was; and how it fit into the day.

    There... up on a shelf. No. Not even those who designed the Edsel or came up with the Dominos Noid had an idea this bad. What idiot decided to design a coffee maker combined with a toaster? OK, I understand, the somewhat annoying hosts at Mythbusters have "proven" it's damn hard to kill yourself by dropping a toaster into a tub. But what moron decided it was a good idea to put two devices that for very good reasons should be kept apart in one single unit? Maybe this is why it's at Dollar General?

    Baffling.

    That morning I had spent my early AM; oh, so "special,""I can't sleep" hours, responding to a reader who decided he didn't like the blurb at the end of Inspection because his Pro-Writing Prof didn't like passive sentences. It's a general description of the column. It's not even the column. But since it describes the column and its origins; what the purpose and intent is, it's best written in a passive voice. And if you happen to be reading this, if you are so bloody concerned, get your own damn friggin column.

    The reader wasn't satisfied with commenting once, he decided to comment over and over again on various editions; never commenting on content... just the blurb. OK, the reader and I disagree. But to just continue to leave personal insults about our disagreement?

    Some days I feel like I'm being pursued by a gaggle of noisy, baffling, immature puppies who are purveyors of balderdash. I wrote back that perhaps he could find a site run by Don Rickles where that behavior is more appropriate. Wonder if he even knows whom I was referring to?

    Why would any one reader decide he had to go only some personal jihad regarding such an insignificant item?

    Baffling.

   That very same morning I was commenting on a debate site I love to visit about a legal case regarding a father paying child support. Apparently a mother was pushing for even more child support and less visitation due to her decision to move far away. She probably would have had child support, uncontested, for as long as it was required, but the father enraged by her new demands, by her insensitivity and his own long held suspicions; demanded a DNA test. All this time: not his child. Still the judge granted her request. I said; unless there's further information we don't know, that's outrageous and...

    ...balderdash.

    It's always interesting when in life you so quickly observe the flip of the coin; the opposite situation.

    I spent a few hours later baffled by a certain hardship case my wife and I have been helping, because he's related. Ah, the things we do for relatives that we would never do for others. If anyone else even asked we'd leave the room giggling in their face and raising an appropriate finger.

    For years he found jobs; quickly lost jobs... moved around, and didn't contact child support about his new jobs or his moves. Avoided child support is the operative term. But, as they will, child support kept catching up with him. He'd mark letters return to send or "no one here by that name." He'd toss them in the trash. He refuses to fill out their forms.

    I'm sure even the ghost of my father who cared a lot for him is shaking his head right now and asking, "Why bother, Ken?"

    Well, after many years and many attempts in a digital world to disappear; be invisible... the money was extracted slowly; more painfully than it would have been in a responsible person's case... his ex-wife "says" she's been paid all the support she needs and was promised, and his boy is now a man: past the age for child support. Of course; since he spent so much time trying to avoid paying, New York State has sanctioned him again and again; many, many years.

    Now: up front... this is all out of his mouth. I do wonder if I asked the other side: whom I have never met, what I would learn. I suspect a lot, because I told him; just before I wrote this, that the reason they keep pulling money out of his check is probably because he's been sanctioned so many damn times and those sanctions: those fines, have built up.

    I tried to explain this when he asked why this keeps happening and he said...

   "I understand that. But who do I owe this money to?"

     I repeated what I just said, simply adding, "You owe it to New York State."

   "I understand that. I've been sanction and that's 'all well and good.' But who do I owe this money to?"

     Slowly back away from a conversation I cannot possibly win.

     Has this guy never gotten a ticket or had to pay a fine? If he were to be stopped for going through a stop sign and fined, would he also say, "Who do I owe this money to?"

    Just how many fathers; and some mothers too I suspect, still don't get that there are consequences for their actions and what they don't do? How many believe their own balderdash? How can they?

    I'm baffled. They are too; but for no good reason. It's like asking why your nose twitches when a big old horsefly is on it, and you invited him to land there.

    That brings us to President Obama's recent decision regarding Gitmo, and those screaming morons who think Osama is going to encourage giant, evil, mosquitoes to fly into buildings killing our loved ones with splattered anthrax-laced bug juice... if we don't torture or if we offer a modicum of due process. If you lock up what could be innocent people without due process and torment some there are going to be consequences. So these consequences mean we should continue the behavior that got us to this point?

    Obvious balderdash.

    Gitmo is painted as holding the worst of the worst. If we're so damn sure of that we should be able to prove it and lock them away for a very long time, or even execute them. If not, we've gone from baffling policy to balderdash of the worst kind.

    I understand what Barack is facing when it comes to arguing with those whose logic is baffling. But I also understand that Obama; like a rhetorical and policy filled baloney sandwich, isn't totally baffle or balderdash free.

    So we leave Ken's balderdash day having found out that "change" in part means that plans are afoot to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan and bomb our way into lessening terrorism. We launched a drone bomb to prove our intent. The Pakistanis were furious.

    Oh, and that Ethiopian food; much like balderdash and things that baffle me, left my stomach more than a little queasy. Plus, why would anyone eat this bland, tasteless, stuff? Why did they give us what we didn't order in one case? And why would I even bother going back when the end result of "tasteless;" like some relatives, turned vile and came back up for a few return visits at 2 in the morning?

    If only the previous day could have been expelled as well. Maybe I could have observed the more odd parts and make some damn sense of it all.

    Instead I'm left baffled and pondering what might be balderdash.

    That was my day.

    How was yours?

                                               -30-

   Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 30 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks and into the unseen cracks and crevasses that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.

    Back again? Need more money to flush?

    My opinion has changed on this somewhat when it comes to American automakers. (If one can really call them that anymore, since they seem to like using offshore and South American parts and assemblers.) I have a bit more empathy since I now know that the government of Japan, for example, has been supporting their auto industry for a long time.

    I said I have more empathy, but I still believe they have proved themselves horrid managers. That's why I stated in the last edition of Inspection on this topic that it would be best they be sold off to companies who have proven they can manage a business based on building cars; but only if that company agrees to continue the brand and build it in the states with ever increasing US content; holding on to as many employees as possible: except CEOs and mid-level management.

    But I was wrong; or at least partially wrong. I have come to realize that the failure of the American auto industry isn't just a case of bad management: but evil management in the form of the usual whittling down of competition by whatever means; no matter what the morality of their tactics. And notice that just like the banking crisis, some use the slogan "too big to fail." Perhaps the real problem is that industry monopolistic practices are so unregulated that they have become too big, and too powerful?

    Even after the corporate die off during the Great Depression we had Kaiser, Studebaker, Rambler/Willies... There were plenty of options for eager buyers, even the upstart Tucker; probably one of the best examples of how innovation and true competition were crushed by anti-competitive forces within and outside the industry. Even the inaccurately named "big three;" inaccurate due to so much outsourced parts and labor, haven't been immune. If you haven't heard how GM's EV1 was literally crushed, rent the movie: or better yet buy it.

    Let's encourage a little competition, shall we?

    Let's offer tax breaks, start up grants and unused manufacturing facilities to those who would start new companies: especially those who might recreate the EV1: corporate ownership be damned. If a company creates a vehicle, then quickly crushes it and refuses to bring it back: keeping control of the tech... in my opinion they've forfeited any rights to that tech.

    Hell, let's follow the advice of Conservative icon Saint Ronald: bring Studebaker back. Well, maybe help them to come back. Last time I checked Avanti; who owns the rights to the Stude name in the auto biz, off-shored their business because GM sued them. You see they attempted to produce the Studebaker XUV, which kind of; sort of, looks like a Hummer. But no more so than a PT Cruiser looks like a Chevy panel van, or the HHR looks like a PT. Gee, GM, where were your lawyers when it wasn't some small upstart company? Oh, that's right, chuckling about their success in crushing EV1s.

    If that doesn't work?

    No money. Nada. Ramp up regulation that makes them improve or go belly up. Then when, or if, they do, sell their bums real cheap to the Japanese and other successful makes, with the stipulation that it's made onshore, American labor with an ever increasing amount of American made parts. It's time for upper level management and CEOs to go away. No golden parachutes for them. Confiscate all of that as payment for what we've given so far: use it to place employees; especially in the very companies that rise out of the wreckage.

    Honk your horns, America, or give your favorite one finger salute aimed at GM, Ford and Chrysler if, you agree.

                                                  -30-

   Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 30 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks and into the unseen cracks and crevasses that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.

© Copyright 2009
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved

   We have two Dogs. My wife, Millie, says: "They're our kids." I guess that's right, but I'm thankful I wasn't there for the birthing.

   One is smart as, well hopefully not as smart as President Obama who seems very smart, because that would be insulting to Barack. But intelligence is part of this collie's make up; as it is pretty much all collies except Achilles: our second collie. Achilles had some unknown birth defect that lowered him significantly in the IQ realm of collie... (not so) ...dom.

   Why "Achilles?" Well, so I could say, "Achilles... heel!" Not that he got the joke for the brief time he was with us.

   Our fifth collie's name is Frankincense. He's been with us since 1999. I have been out changing oil in one of my Nissan trucks and told Frankincense, "I don't know where your Frisbee is." That's because I hid it from Mr. Catch-a-holic collie. A few seconds later he's plopped it down by my oil greased hands, wagging his tail.

   Wiseass.

   Another time I told him, "I don't have time Frankincense, besides it's about to rain and we're both going in." He turns around, walks up on the porch, sits down on the doorstep, and waits there with that annoying collie grin.

   He can almost speak: he mimics human words. When I tease our little dog; collies always being the protecting souls that they are, I swear his barks are a form of profanity that would make Barnacle Bill the Sailor long for a pair of ear plugs.

   I could go on; but you get the point. I've only had one smarter collie amongst the five collies I've had... and Lad was also frightening. I should have known. His previous owner named him "Lad," and his companion, "Wolf," yet knew nothing about Albert Payson Terhune and his turn of the last century book about his quite real collie; Lad: a Dog. She had never heard of Lad's son, Wolf, or the book about his life. If not for Terhune there would have been no Lassie: he popularized the breed. The author of the first Lassie book suspiciously used the same names and similar story lines right after Albert died. Lassie, at best, was a well trained actor.... well many actors. Though his adventures may have been somewhat fictionalized, Lad was real. I've seen his grave. He was also brilliant according to all accounts I've read by those who really did met him.

   Needless to say, in a country run by canines, Frankincense would be Presidential smart; like my Lad was; and Terhune's.

   The other dog, Batmutt, is some kind of cross between a Chichuahua and a terrier, or mini-dob. He can be as dumb as a sack filled with rocks. He barks at moving leaves, tries to chew sea waves, doesn't wait for the door to open and runs into it head first: sometimes two or three times. He's annoying: the only creature in the known and unknown universe who likes his own bark. As I type, the dog who always fails in his endless efforts to bully the bigger dog and the cats... cowers at the sound of distant thunder. He barks at objects that remotely look real: at best, and fumbles over his own bark. He'd never make a public speaker... except he "speaks" all the time: constantly, while people cringe.

    He really enjoys being bad.

    Except he doesn't seem to intentionally try to be bad.

    I don't think just Batmutt would seem to fail as much if he had a corporate owned media infested with shill talking heads and a whole party eager to goose-step at his beckon call; all willing to cover over or excuse his every misstep. Instead a whole army of supporters would also fail while protecting Batmutt. Even a moron could claim he succeeded while failing under that insane situation. He just had "bad intel." His failures excused by a "few bad apples," that actually amount to a parade.

   Did I just describe the past eight years?

   Back to Batmutt...

   The dog named after a humorous comment: "If you put his head on a pair of wings he'd be a big bat," is sadly one of the stupidest creatures I've ever owned. But my wife likes small furry things that seem to "need" her; no matter how mindless they are. Thankfully that's extended to large, "furry" things; like when we first met and I had a full beard and long hair, or we may have never started dating.

   Yet, unlike a certain recently former president, he may enjoy being bad; but it's obvious he wants to be good. He'll come back when called, though he is deaf for a while if some more worthy, impossible to catch, pursuit is in the yard: like a squirrel or a deer. Batmutt wouldn't even think of insisting a huge army of dogs do the chase for him and die while doing it. No, he really does take charge and responsibility; not just he's "the Decider..." for everyone else. If we brought the body back held a service for one of those dogs, I know he'd willingly attend, though his demeanor might seem as callus as certain former top dogs. And though he may not get that he shouldn't occasionally urinate inside the house; our home: where we all live... he will stop for a brief while when told he shouldn't. Oh, and punishing him is an option, though Frankincense does do his best Pelosi-Reid "let's keep that off the table" act. But at least the collie doesn't pretend he isn't protecting some offender who willingly and eagerly offended.

   Batmutt may be a bit arrogant, but he will eventually submit when it becomes painfully obvious his actions inspire anger and disdain. You can tell: he's knows he was wrong and is sorry.

   And while he may torture others with his brainlessness, he doesn't seem to enjoy it in any sense or do it to intentionally bother anyone with an ounce of common sense. He hasn't invaded any countries, or claimed he has authoritarian, dictatorial, unitary powers. He doesn't give asinine reasons for his misdeeds and while he occasionally fumbles when he speaks "dog," annoying: yes, but he's far more apt at speaking his own language than at least one human on this planet is at speaking any language. Like Frankincense, if there's even a hint that someone is going to drive up our driveway, or a plane might fly into our house, you can be sure he'll react and warn us all with a plethora of barks. Oh, and he wouldn't even attempt to ride a Segway.

   That's right: he's smarter than our last president.

   And here's to the hope our current one is smarter in the human sense than my collie is in the canine world.

   We're really, really going to need it... because if our last leader had really been a dog he would have been put down long before it got this bad.

                                                                      -30-

   Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 30 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks and into the unseen cracks and crevasses that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.

    Quite a while ago I wrote an edition of Inspection that predicted an upcoming super Islamic state. Nothing has changed that has convinced me this won't happen. And a lot has happened that convinced me I was sensing the whole scenario correctly: spot on, in fact.

    If you think the American people have the fortitude to slog on through death after death; spending what we don't have by borrowing from the Chinese, and coming up with deficit numbers that match an interstellar trip to a neighboring galaxy... then continue, if you must. If you really believe that there is some magical bottomless well of financial support, well you might want to check into your closest rubber walled room and let them find you some really good mental health help, but I understand your stance. I won't support any of the above alternate versions of reality, because I think the leash on the dogs of war is already quite close to strangling the pooch.

    Simple: it's not going to happen.

    We can cast our net of blame wherever. Bush for mismanaging the war. The graveyard of empires: Afghanistan. Running off to Iraq because some little spoiled brat said Saddam, "Tried to kill my Daddy." And I'm sure some of this is true. Hell, if you must mouth the Right's moronic, yet perpetual, talking point that everything is always Liberals, or Bill Clinton's, fault: have at it. I'll just laugh as each unintentional punch line is delivered. But no matter who is to blame, or what, that's not what this edition of Inspection is about. It's about the future.

    If I'm right then we do have some time to get ready to marginalize the upcoming super Islamic state that I believe will eventually swallow Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and so much more....

    There are certain things we know from the past: Iran and the hostages, failed plots and the towers. So getting our embassies and as many of our people: including citizens, out of the region as possible is important. We certainly shouldn't have been infesting the region with weapons that have already been turned against us. Get them out: sabotage what we can't move fast enough in a way that the tech can't be reverse engineered. Meanwhile the CIA could find brave, patriotic, souls to serve as our ears; our eyes. Their patriotic duty will be an unfortunate lot when found, and even post beheading, we cannot admit to their exact activities or who they are. Though I would also favor a calm, semi canned response: "Yes, we are spying on you. No, we will never tell you who they are. You threaten not only our security, but the world community. These spies are patriots. Live with it."

    Start finding nearby countries we can use as anchors, right now. This goes far beyond the old "Israel vs. damn near every other country in the region" dynamic. Make sure every country approached understands that, and is willing to work with all. I guarantee there are leaders and citizens so scared by this possibility: so familiar with the danger... when framed right... old anger management problems will evaporate. Like how the citizenry reacted in Independence Day; only the danger is clear, here, right now. We don't have to point to the skies or come up with fictional, bad-ass, aliens. Humanity has enough of that without getting all Sci Fi-ish, thank you.

    Now the next sentence is going to expose me for the Liberal I'm not...

    Once the state forms, we'll need to start surrounding the bastards with anything we can to hold them back: including nukes. Response to some offenses would be quick and devastating. Make what we did to Iraq during the sanctions seem like we ran Good Humor ice cream trucks all over the country offering free food and treats for anyone and everyone.

    The planning should start now.

    Or we could become isolationists. But... that won't happen: I'm sure most sane people realize that. I'm not sure, if it could, that the problem wouldn't just come back to kick our door in anyway once we're even less able to handle it.

    But, none of this is likely. Instead what I bet we'll do is continue to flush money, lives and resources until we're helpless.

    If so...

    Perhaps we should just start studying to be good, faithful citizens of an extreme world wide Islamic state, instead?

    Got prayer rug?

    Hijab or niqab? Better hope your friends choose right, or the old poetic "if you can keep your head while others..." will become all too literal.

    And who cares about "the way to San Jose."

    Instead you'd better know "the way" to Mecca.

                                                            -30-

   Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 30 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks and into the unseen cracks and crevasses that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.

© Copyright 2009
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved