Ken Carman,

   Welcome to the Daily Kos action email list. You received this email either because you are a registered member of the Daily Kos community, or because you donated to a Daily Kos operated Act Blue page. To unsubscribe from this list, follow the link at the bottom of this email.

   Today we're launching a campaign to end the filibuster...

                                                          Markos Moulitsas, Daily Kos

Mr. Maulitsas,

    I will not be joining your cause, or signing any petitions to end the filibuster. As I'm sure you know the Republicans kept threatening to do this, over and over, during the Bush administration... usually threatening to do it before anyone even whispered the word "filibuster." Gutless Dems pretty much refused to even consider a filibuster back then, but still the Republicans bragged about considering "the nuclear option:" a successful attempt to preempt even the thought entering some poor, wimpy, Democratic pol's head. Dems pretty much refused to even consider the option.

    Essentially Repubs said: "Boo!" ...and Dems cowered under their legislative beds; refused to consider doing their legislative duty: represent those who brought them to the party. I guarantee you won't get the same response from Republicans who happen to find out about your meager attempt... though I'm guessing there will be a lot of mirth at your expense.

    Like back then, I am against ending the filibuster today... or ever. The filibuster is actually a great concept, when used properly, that prevents the majority from constantly doing a hit and run on any minority, who otherwise would be tied to the legislative tracks by being part of the minority. I believe, correctly implemented, the filibuster strengthens representative democracy because it gives the minority a path by which it can attempt to express itself and hopefully continue to be an influence on society. But true filibuster is not an easy path, nor should it be.

    And that's the problem. No one has to stand hour after hour and drone on and on, doing all they can to tie up the works what they have to do to make a filibuster succeed. That kind of filibuster is incredibly hard: as it should be. And it is the only kind of true filibuster. But that kind of filibuster has been extinct for a long time due to an agreement between the two major parties.

    What we have now is not "filibuster." It should be referred to, at best, as "the threat to filibuster rule," where all they have to do is threaten to filibuster to have the same effect. That is not a filibuster. It is simply a way to enable bullies. In fact it's worse than that. It's as if the schoolyard bully says, "You know, I'm thinking tomorrow I might consider bullying you out of your lunch money eventually, so you might as well give it to me now, and every day from now on..." We have pre-agreed to give him our lunch money if he says that.

    Interesting how that always seems to only work one way between the two major parties, isn't it, Mr. Maulitsas? But even if it did work both ways, it would still be just as wrong, and certainly isn't a "filibuster" in any sense.

  Now, if you want to start a campaign to make sure filibusters are actual filibusters: that they have to stand and talk for hours and hours, just tell me where to find your petition. Without any conditions that would weaken the concept of a return to true filibusters, I absolutely would sign it. I'd write my politicians to promote it. I'd dedicate an edition or two of Inspection to it. I'll even take to the streets to advocate for it. Hell, I'd pitch in something for billboards all across the nation demanding we go back to real filibusters.

    By the way, you might want to reconsider your E-mail and your current petition. As early as 2011, after the 2010 elections, we may need the filibuster back. When will we learn: Republicans, Democrats and other; that when political winds shift any rule change we ask for; like ending the filibuster, can always turn around and take a huge chunk out of our own political ass?

                                                          Sincerely...

                                                                 Ken Carman

                                                                 -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 2010
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved

   No matter what the topic, when we debate, attempt to resolve or start to chortle, should I think, "donuts?"

   As a professional musical storyteller and educational service provider I tend to launch into tales rather easily. Yes, I admit: I tell stories. I seem to come by this naturally... and it also seems to be somewhat of a Carman trait. Get a bunch of us around the table and if someone inserted "have you heard about..." we wouldn't miss a beat.


   One of my favorites is the true story of Dad's donuts. In 88, after my father's memorial service when we held that thing no one dares call a party I was asked to go get a dozen of Dad's favorite donuts. There's a little shop in Eagle Bay, NY that boils up donuts to a delicious deep golden brown where you can practically taste the word "crunch." We used to buy them as kids on the way to and from Twitchell Lake where we lived.

   One of the two sources... "to drool all over yourself... yum," in the little hamlet known as Eagle Bay... the other being The Chicken Hut that served up buckets of broasted chicken pieces the size of dinosaurs. I exaggerate... just a little. No wonder they're extinct. If they tasted that good no asteroid kacked them. They were definitely eaten by aliens, since we weren't around yet.

   Well, The Hut was either just an empty parking lot by the time of Dad's memorial service, or close to, but to this day you can still buy those donuts. So in 1988 I put my new 88 Mazda pickup in gear and drove just a few miles north to the Bay. Pulled into the parking lot and walked up...

"Oh, I remember your father. He used to buy donuts for his dog."

   Dad had diabetes. Donuts and diet should have been antonyms. And knowing my father he probably actually believed the dog ate them not too long after he scarfed them down. Of the few things we fought about, we usually fought about me wanting to talk about whatever actually happened and him avoiding the topic, or making up bits and pieces about what happened that suited his needs. I always thought it was odd, but these days I have begin to wonder if maybe I'm the odd one. The collective memory of folks seems seconds short, at best, and the amount of delusion about as prevalent as bait on a fishing hook, or in trap.

   Barack Obama has spent a lot trying to dig us out of our economic mess. Adding to the deficit is by all means a concern and, if possible, we should figure out how to pay for what we spend. But even amongst close family sometimes I seem to be the unheard voice as they rant about this. Not once during Iraq-aganistan, and unpaid for tax cuts mostly for the rich, did I hear these same folks moan and kvetch about this. When Dick Cheney told us over and over that "deficits don't matter" the silence was... well, silent.

   Selective hearing?

   Selective kvetching?

   Selective hate?

   Maybe all of the above, with far more than "a pinch" of self delusion?

   Did the dog eat their donuts?

  "The professional left." Give me a friggin break. After how many years of the AM band being pretty much an exclusive kingdom: Limbaugh Radio... including more than a few clones... now we're moaning and kvetching about "the professional... left?" While ieAmerica and Air America struggled to stay afloat, while Rupert Murdoch and the dishonorable Reverend Moon willingly, eagerly, lost billions of dollars making sure people the professional right pretty much owned the national media stage, did I hear these same folks who chuckle while also bitching about the professional... right?

   No... and hell no.

   Probably to busy feeding "donuts to the dog."

   Does the Democrat, in the White House who much of the right calls a socialist, actually have active advocates for the professional right working for him? Did he forget that bad mouthing your base, while ignoring the over abundance of those "professionals" who wouldn't give you the time of day, is a terrible tactic? Especially just a couple months before the first election that t ells the world what American voters think of you so far?

   Do he know nothing of this?

   Or is he "feeding the donuts to the dog?"

   So many things this applies to. When I hear my generation: now grandparents and oldsters minus children, rant about kids, did they forget their parents doing the same? Or that an actual tablet has been found with the same claims and how they'd be the end of everything?

   Why do we collectively scarf down fried delights while screaming, "You ate my donuts!!! Bad dog!!!"

   People's ability to lie to themselves, convince themselves of sometimes insane things, seems bottomless.

   Today, as I type this, I drive back through Eagle Bay, on the way home. A couple of weeks ago I stopped on my way out... going back on tour... and bought a donut. I am borderline hypoglycemic and, yes, I do know some medical professionals claim that isn't possible... another story I promise I will tell. I shouldn't be buying a donut: just like I shouldn't tell my mostly left of center readers I used to be a William F. Buckley Conservative, and still respect that dying breed: traditional Conservatives. Just like I shouldn't tell you many other things. But I do. And I just did.

   Unlike my father, and apparently many others, I admit that I not only bought the donut....

   ...but also that the dog definitely did not eat it.



                                                        -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 2010
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved

   If you believe you are innocent, fight, Charlie, fight. Don't quit "for the good of the country," or "the good of the party." If you feel this is pretty much all unfair, or unjust: fight. To hell with what fellow Democrats or Obama thinks. There's something far bigger going on here than Charlie Rangel or any party.

   Yet the topic for this edition of Inspection is neither Charlie, nor the Taliban, or even a confession driven by the threat of death by rape of a boy at Gitmo.

   It is the corruption of basic concepts of American "justice."

   I started writing this edition before news broke that the judge in the court trying Omar Khadr, a prisoner at Gitmo who was captured at 15, has said that his confession to a murder will stand... even though Khadr was threatened with being raped to death unless he did confess: threatened over and over again.

   This is "justice?" Not. Indeed, guilty as hell or innocent, it is the opposite of "justice."

   I would claim to be surprised; but I'm not. Our justice system: or lack thereof, has been being stripped of even the most common and decent vestiges of actual justice for a long time. And what we have been doing with, and to, those captured in our supposed "war on terrorism" is simply a precursor to what any "red blooded American" will be faced with in the future.

   Luckily, since their blood is green, Vulcans will be safe. Wait. They're aliens. Let's gut them and serving them on our dinner tables simply for being aliens. Anyone see an actual Vulcan around here? "Just fiction?" Maybe Leonard Nimoy will volunteer for a somewhat different "roast" than they so often do for Hollywood types?

A few observations...

1. Once we arrest anyone, or try them in Charlie's case, the concern should be guilt or innocence. Period.

2. Plea bargaining for a lesser sentence is, essentially, subverting the system. People in prison already shouldn't be given deals to testify against others: by definition they are unreliable and highly motivated to say anything.

3. Trying anyone as an adult when they are a child because society considers what they did heinous is a perversion of justice, at best. If you want harder time change the laws for specific crimes when it comes to juvenile justice.

4. Killing another via drunk driving is not "murder," unless you can improve intent: intent not just to drive drunk but to kill someone. Once again: beef up your other homicide-related laws if you want harsher penalties for something without intent.

5. Trying someone in civil court after criminal court for anything related to the crime they were found innocent of should be considered double jeopardy because... it is. Period.

6. Trying people in the press or by punditry is the opposite of "justice." It's attempting to raise a mob. It's an attempt to encourage a lynching.

   All this, and more, lets the incredibly guilty off easy and forces the innocent into wrongful incarceration. Why do we do it then? Because it greases the wheels and makes lawyers, pols and judges look good.

   That's not justice.

   We are referring to very basic concepts of justice here.

   But wait, wait, wait... what does any of this have to do with Charlie Rangel?

   (Provide your own amusing attempt at mirth here by adding a trademarked Charlie "grate" to your voice. Don't forget his Mel Brookish accent!)

   We are rapidly moving towards a system of governance where once accused you are guilty by accusation, and Charlie has already been convicted if you listen to Dems, talking heads and pundits. President Obama has as much said Charlie should resign to leave his record and pride intact. Wouldn't resigning do the exact opposite: smear his name forever? Of course no matter what he does that's been achieved mostly by accusation. Hence the necessity of this edition of Inspection.

   I don't know how guilty he is, or innocent. I'm claiming neither. I do know we all deserve to face off our accusers and have guilt or innocence decided by an honest system, not by the media, or those we work with/serve with before the actual trial is done, as in Charlie's case.

   Do you see the connection? They often don't even want to go though all the mess and bother of holding a complete trial, or proving guilty honestly. Why do that when "Charlie should just resign for the good of..." fill in the blank. Why do it when all you have do is convince a kid he'll be raped to death if he doesn't confess? Why change the law when we can simply say we'll not follow the law in special cases?

   We should not be using law like disposable toilet paper: as if it's something to wipe society supposedly clean. Why? Because we have to use it in other cases you or I might wish to actually follow the letter of the law for. If you do you simply spread the filth and poison society by mangling a justice system that you yourself may need one day.

   If you want kids to suffer the same consequences in some cases then change laws that relate to them.

   If you want rape as a method of getting confessions then proudly advocate for that.

   If you want any member just to resign whenever accused then don't even bother having a damn democracy. Let's have a dictator.

   Yes, there are some horrible criminal acts out there. And some very corrupt public figures. Maybe Charlie is one. Maybe Omar is the other. But, even if they are, we get no where any sane person would want to go good by shredding our justice system through special exceptions, or not letting justice take its course.

   I understand there are differences here: protocol in our political system, military justice vs. civilian, the abyss we have created so that we can treat anyone as less than human who someone might think might have the slightest connection to terrorism, or knowledge about it. But the differences here really just underline my point. All this, over the years, has been created, in part, because it is a way to circumvent the ideals we claim to live by: have more prosecution or defense lenient courts... or just lynch someone with little to no trial for being inconvenient.

   One of the odd things going on in the war against terrorism is that many have been relying on the Taliban to decide their cases the past few years. In a Taliban court there's no plea bargaining, or chopping off a head instead of a finger because some in society think one person's crime of the same kind is worse than another. The people go to the Taliban because the results a predictable: you're either guilty... or not. The punishment is what it is.

   Can you imagine the following?

"Wait a minute Achmed, we're not in the right Taliban court. If we judged him in the new court of Uncivil Justice we can cut off his genitals and then his head!"

   Sure. I can imagine that too. But that's not what the Taliban does. I deplore what they do to those found guilty. It's barbaric. But process wise? They are more fair and civilized than we are.

   So as Charlie resists "off with his head" suggestions, and Omar has been railroaded into having confessed through threats of rape, I begin to wonder. Why is it the brutal Taliban can have better system of justice in this sense than we? And exactly what kind of justice system do we have when being inconvenient can mean no trial, no justice, being tortured, resigning instead of being allowed to have a case completely heard, being punished in a manner a crime usually doesn't call for legally? And why must we, as wrongly charged individuals, tolerate a moving, quicksand-like, legal system where you never know when you might start sinking into legal Hell because you are an inconvenience. While at the same time serving as an convenient vehicle for grandstanding pols, and lawyers sometimes seeking to be pols?

   Trust me. Be charged with something you didn't do and you'll see how our system has fallen into that tar baby from Hell: guilt by mere accusation, the desire to exact revenge on someone: anyone, bribes to "make a case go away" or "keep it off your record." At the same time the legally insane demand to get something: anything, that slightly resembles a guilty plea... no matter whether the person is really guilty or not.

   What kind of "justice" system do we have?

   Maybe a justice system by mob rule?

                                                      -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 2010
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved

   Here in Beaver River Station there has been a revolution. At the Property Owners Association one group has been voted out, one in. I'm the kind of guy who talks with both, friendly with both, and can understand their individual perspectives from their viewpoint, well "understand" as best I can.

 

   I suppose this is because, in part, I've never been much of a follower and am a bit contrary. Whether it it be politics, religion, or what to do with the railroad tracks in town, the more resolute and uncompromising the opinion, the more likely I'm going to start leaning the other way. It's a family trait. The Carman family came here from not so merry old England/Wales in part because some of us were burned at the stake.

    And they didn't even have A1 sauce yet.

    How uncivilized.

    Like most of us I've used the phrase from time to time, "It's all a matter of perspective." But when that rule is applied to the extent that civilized family relations, work relations and common sense jump out the window.... like some of those unfortunate folks on 9/11... I begin to wonder, "Is it always just 'a matter of perspective?'"

    Our society has reached a crossroads. We can get along and coexist as best we can, or we can kill each other. In a sense we are heading towards societal suicide if we choose the latter.

    I spent the last few weeks talking with those on the "winning" side, and the "losing" side, though those who have gained power may soon question the application of those labels, if they don't already. "Winning" isn't always all we suspect it will be; especially when it comes to winning the right to handle pressing issues. Losing can be a relief, if we look at it right.

    That's true in Beaver River Station, nationally and pretty much everywhere when power is lost, or gained.

    But what amazed and bothered me at the same time was how both sides told me the tale of what happened. I find it bothersome that they could have such different perspectives on what actually happened that day. It's like they attended entirely different events where they, the heroes or the victims, wound up saving the day; "It had to be done; handled just right..." or, as another partisan claimed, "It was mob rule: a lynching."

    Sometimes you wonder if people were in the same room... or observed the same event.

    Once again, this is not a Beaver River Station problem. It an "everywhere" problem, especially these days. When passion passes by common sense and common decency, when opinion makes one right no matter what, when the end justifies the means, it is no longer just "a matter of perspective." Perspective itself is the problem.

    I'm not a great believer in "truisms." "Government is always corrupt/inefficient" is as bad as "government is the answer." "There is no God" is just as obnoxious and absolute as "There has to be God." As a species we have argued every issue and concept we debate today in one form or another. We've had very intelligent; and often quite brilliant, folks on every side of damn near every issue, yet we persist in pursuing the insane illusion that we absolutely know the answers.  Believing is a beautiful thing, as long as you understand you could always be wrong; just like wanting a railroad to flourish, or be taken out of, Beaver River Station is your right. But shouldn't civilized behavior should come first?

    And if you believe one person, or a few, specifically might be the problem, don't be surprised when those problems follow you like a rabid skunk when you vote them out of office, or they leave.

    This I believe: most people, not all, think what they are doing is the best for their community. They may be horribly wrong; but this alone means some respect and some understanding is due. Not all Republicans, or Democrats, are evil, or atheists, or theists, or...

   Despite the bad press, doubt, without being excessive, is a good thing. And to quote a very smart man I had a lot of respect for, and worked for as a young kid: Barry Goldwater, "excess in the pursuit of liberty" can actually be the worst of vices. Damn near every revolutionary believed their excesses were necessary. Excess, no matter how well intended, often leads to tyranny, oppression and even genocide, as Mao and Ho proved, amongst many, many others.

    The problem is these days partisanship is so one sided, so "me" focused, everyone other than the believer is thought to be irrational and excessive. Clinically that's insane.

    We all have a right to our individual opinions. We even have right to hate each other for them. And, to a lesser extent, we have the right to berate each other for those opinions... though I do believe our slander and libel laws need to be taken off the shelf and applied far more liberally. "Free speech" should not mean "free to destroy others with lies and assumptions," especially when it's for personal, or political, gain. Hence Andrew Breitbart.

    So is it all "a matter of perspective?"

    No, our relations with each other are more important. Otherwise we might as well go back to the caves... assuming of course they were as inhuman, as uncivilized, as those these days who act as if they lived in caves. They certainly carry over sized clubs and apply them far too liberally, far to often.

    I'm not sure even those who lived in caves were this bad, this intent on not working with others; this intent on destroying others by any means because they may not agree: or we would not be here today.

    And if we continue down this path... we may not be here tomorrow.

                                                   -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 2010
Ken Carman
all rights reserved

 I was cruising down route 28 in the Adirondacks today listening to a Sirius NPR stream. The Diane Rehm Show was on. I occasionally enjoy Diane even though her raspy, wavering, voice can be annoying. But it usually is good radio; despite that. Besides, I understand... it's a medical condition.

 

   She had on a panel discussing the Shirley Sherrod story, which should really be the right wing media manipulation story starring Andrew Breitbart, but I'm straying a bit from my point: let's get back on track.

   There were three panel guests. Here is what her web site says...

Guests
David Welna
congressional correspondent, NPR
Jeanne Cummings
Politico's assistant managing editor in charge of Enterprise
Doyle McManus
columnist, Los Angeles Times

   OK, so far. Well at least as far as I know. Not FOX. Not the Moonie Times. Not even National Review; which would be only slightly more "respectable," though these days I hate to have even typed "respectable" and NR in the same sentence.

   The discussion, as it has been, focused on what the Obama administration did wrong. Not what Breitbart did. Not how the media echo chamber made it worse. No one pointed out that in today's media circus the situation was a "no win" from the get go for the administration. Fire her and what happened might happen. Wait and check it out and the screams of "what's taking you so long," "why are you so indecisive," "perhaps Beck is right: the president is a racist" begin. And the talking heads will blather as if it's so obvious what they should have done: like the most dangerous and obnoxious of back seat drivers.

   All this I expected.

   All this I got.

   But then a caller asked a question that made me sit up and take notice, damn near killing a squirrel who crossed my path somewhere near Blue Mountain Lake; making me wish it could have been certain talking heads instead: no names mentioned.

   I'm kidding about the squirrel. The talking heads? Not so sure. 
 
   The caller mentioned that the media acts as if "both sides do this," and asked them to mention a left wing equivalent to the Breitbart case. Attempting to find similar examples they stumbled a bit and then they brought up Vietnam, of course, and how the media "lied" about poisons being spread across the land by us. Hello? Agent Orange? Of course I was too lazy to look up the specific case they alluded to, especially since they did just "allude" to it. Too vague for even a decent Google.

   But the second example was Dan Rather and George W. Bush in 2004, during the campaign.

   Now wait a #@!& minute. Dan Rather did a report including a document that was proven to not be the original document, that's true. But the damn secretary who typed it said it was the right information: just as she typed it, just not the original document. So that's equal to someone who takes a quote so out of context it's just the opposite of what was being said? Equal to using that in a way to destroy a career and tell a lie: a damnable lie?

   No one challenged that assessment. No one said, "Not quite the same." No. Like Andrew Breitbart they edited out the truth and turned it into a lie. And the host let them get away with it without a single scratchy, shakey, whisper.

   Don't think I'll listen to Ms. Rhem much anymore. And I certainly have just lost a whole lot of respect for her and her program.

                                         -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 2010
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved

Columnist's note: If you insist on taking this seriously, please get help. I waited until long after the election to publish it, just to make damn sure you knew I wasn't serious.

   In my beloved small community in the Adirondacks I am a member of a nominating committee for the property owners. We have an upcoming election. I have noticed we are missing something in our bylaws that could be important. I propose that before we nominate anyone we take care of this problem.

   I ask that the property owners discuss assassination. Assassination of leaders, members of committees...

   Since I will be far... far, may I repeat...very, very, very far away from the initial discussion, and the actual election, I believe I am the best member to propose this. And since every topic has two sides, I propose we do what the media giants like FOX do: have three members discuss this; three members who are the loudest and the most obnoxious. Oh, and then one more who is weak kneed, quick to compromise, essentially a "pansy," on the other side. In other words: let's be "fair and balanced" about this. Then we can discuss issues like "adults" do these days.

   Now I am very anti-assassination. But I am willing to admit there's always someone out there who disagrees regarding any given issue, so let's have a "fair and balanced" discussion.

   Maybe we can televise it: look at the great success the networks have had; especially one, putting obnoxious, loudmouths with far right, or left, opinions on shows and finding some soggy-toast punching bag to work with them who wants everyone to "just get along."

   The added bonus is the excitement it will add to our community! Let's take one local issue. Imagine, for example, pro-railroad and pro-trail folks being part of this debate? Neither side will be bored again during those rainy: no fishing, or boating, days... or snow-less; no snowmobile, winter days. They can have "fun" and "have at it."

   Perhaps we could follow ancient tradition and bring in lions like the Romans did? Or do you think the bears will volunteer to take care of any "losers" post-debate or discussion?

   By the way, anyone else in favor of extending hunting season throughout the whole year? I know, "accidents happen." But, hey, where's the fun in playing it safe?

 

                                                   Not So Sincerely,

                                                                    Ken Carman
                                                                    nominating committee member



P.S.- JFY: When I get back home I'll be wearing a bullet proof vest. So aim high.

                                                                       
                                                                    -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 2010
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved

    I started paying attention to my dream this morning when I realized I had been here before. I am the Outer Limits of dreamland. I control the horizontal, the vertical and, if I'm not happy with a dream, I simply change it or wake myself up; if I must. Occasionally I have serial dreams: continuing stories that pick up right where they ended; sometimes many years later, with exacting detail. Location: an estate. There's a pool, rolling hillside. I could tell after a while it looked familiar, though in life it's no place I've ever been. I walk up to the pool and the wife is laying on one of those flimsy outside recliner chairs that looks like it's brand new. You can tell they have plenty of money: lots of rich acreage; well maintained. The house is a mansion, though I've only gone in once during the first dream: a large, one floor mansion that follows the incline of the land, inside, with a series of stairs to many rooms.... well appointed.
    She starts talking to me, "Oh, you're back. Hope all is going well. Feel free to go inside and get something to drink, or use the pool." She tells me where the towels are and what room to change in. She seems very sad.
   Her husband comes over, a tall, thin man with hair that's starting to turn almost silver. They're discussing arrangements for a funeral. It's for her daughter. About this time details start to flood back in from a dream I had well over a year ago.
  "Didn't I meet your daughter?"
  "Yes, you're her friend. She introduced us last time you were here."
    More details flood back in. She was a casual work acquaintance who had invited me over for a causal gathering of friends. Vibrant. Blond hair. Tall and thin like her father. Slightly large nose.
    No wonder I barely remember them but remember the estate. We had walked the grounds: her, other acquaintances and I... chatted in the mansion, but the introduction to her parents and been brief: not much more than socially polite.
  "What happened?"
  "It started simply: not much, we thought it was over with but it came back. She had a blood infection."
    As they started talking again and I started to wander a bit. Then I woke up feeling deeply troubled.
    This spring; just before the Nashville flood hit, I was driving away after a show and my arm started to hurt like hell. I had had a bothersome scab there, from what I don't know, that coats and shirts kept bumping against. It would start to heal and something would open it up. Hardly ever any bleeding, I actually thought it had gone away. I looked down and my arm from my wrist half way down to my elbow was swollen: a not so pretty red and yellow; about an eighth of an inch high.
    Blood poisoning.
    While Nashville greeted the Cumberland River in an all too personal way I suffered from about 100 degree; fluctuating, top temp while antibiotics mostly didn't do their job. Then Doc Gaston, Jr. made me curse as I spent close to 100 dollars on this small tube of cream. I would buy it, and probably still curse at the price, again. The swollen arm turned huge moon crater and slowly started to fill in with healed skin and pus. After a second, less expensive, cream; that ironically has silver in it; or at least in the name, the moon crater started to reluctantly fill in. I still have a small scar.
    Well, we now now know where the "silver" hair, and the blood poisoning, might have come from, right?
    We have many warnings in life. Afghanistan? 9/11? The Russians tried to explain it to us but, as usual, we wouldn't listen. So much easier to pretend the answers are simple and cartoon-ish: the world separated into freedom loving capitalists and those damn freedom hating, drug taking, out of control, perverse Commies. Never you mind that they were far stricter on the "bad" drugs... whatever those are at any given time... and sex: the only "perversions" some seem concerned with, than we were.
    They told us that these were people we simply wouldn't want in power: they were very, very dangerous. But instead we fed, trained and weapon-ized them, making the Ruskies force the farce of something that was a lot like what we once called "Vietnamization" on Afghanistan, leading to the inevitable collapse. Years later these "freedom fighters" took thousands of American lives on 9/11, cut off hands and some our own citizens have been literally handed their own heads on camera. These "wars" have taken thousands, if you include Iraq, of our soldiers lives. Replacing the long since dead Soviet Empire soldiers with new a new villain dynamic: them and us... and to many of our former "freedom fighters" we are now the villains in this continuing blood drenched, non-fiction, tale.
    To quote, or at least paraphrase, a president who, if nothing else, suffered from some odd, fumble mouth, form of microphone dyslexia: "Is we learning yet?"
    Most warnings are fair and often prove how hard headed we are. Not that our leaders pay attention even then. They just pass the ball around until a final fumble allows them to blame... the other party: even if the fumbler was a member in good standing of their own.
    But what about the unfair warnings? We think we've fixed some problem or situation... or it is of little concern... but God, or the holier than us gremlins who follow us around on a daily basis, force us to see we are not in control. While one can blame a lot of pols from either side for lack of preparedness or response... Katrina itself just "happened." Act of God, act of Satan, or act of Gizmo's children: we were not, and really never are, in control. Blame BP or Obama, who as we all know personally rode down in diving bell and sabotaged that Gulf of Mex well, plugging it now is a two Stooge act of, "What the hell do we do now that that 'solution' didn't work, nuke, nuke... nuke?" All we need is... Curly? Shemp? Larry? Barack is clearly Moe: thinking he has "a handle on it..." ...informing us they are telling BP what to do. Oooo... that makes me feel so much better. Which Stooge do I prefer? BP is one of the other three: I haven't figured which one yet. Meanwhile BP is hiding that identity with dispersant: sinking much of the evidence down to the bottom so fewer reporters can take damning pics. The sad news: Squidward and Bob, unfortunately, are dead, and I'd have second thoughts about eating unnaturally "blackened" seafood.
    What do we do when life, mother nature, God, whom or whatever, pokes us in the eye? ...and while we long to laugh at the irony, the pratfall, we also realize it's really not funny?
    The scar looks small and slightly pinkish like it did yesterday, yet I begin to wonder. My dream...  an unfair warning? And what about those two black dots that seem to randomly appear in my vision: only my right eye? At first I thought it was my new glasses but now they tango in erratic fashion sans half rims. Or my aging, erratic, digestive system. Or... Or... Oh, now how about my mental health? Do I need to see yet another professional about my hypochondria? What will that do to my wallet? My reputation? My... Help! Don't get help?
  Which way do I go, Ken?
   It's not as much the warnings, I suppose, but the toughness in interpreting them. And on a... grander? ...scale leaders, pundits, and corporate clowns, mostly just take advantage of all this to second guess each other. Second guess each other while swinging legislative ladders that frequently hit each a lot of us. Maybe they do nothing, essentially dropping the ball, or let it roll back down a steep set of metaphorical stairs, taking out many innocents. Meanwhile pristine beaches are artificially blackened, as well as formerly scrumptious sea food  ruined... wiping out thousands of jobs, and perhaps lives, in the process. And the taste? Might as well take the chance: eat it raw. Put it in the nuke, or a pan, and you might have to call the fire department, or an ambulance.
    Oh, great, now another damn bill!
    Sometimes laughing may be the only sane, mentally stabilizing, option, but a damn near impossible one.
    I woke up this morning after that dream with a numb arm.
    I think I slept on it.

    Did I?
                                                                                                        -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 2010
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved

    "I was just joking. Can't you take a joke?"
    Over the years I have heard this lame excuse spewing from the mouths of right wing pundits and, admittedly, a few... very few... left ones too.  Essentially it means the speaker just got caught with their pants down and they're daring the rightfully offended to call them what they are: liars and intentional provocateurs of hate. But I don't blame Rush Limbaugh or Stephanie Miller...
    I blame Don Rickles.

    Yes, I'm showing my age. For those not in the know, Don was and still is a comedian. Mostly popular during the 60s. His one toot tune was to get on stage and insult everyone. Yes, it made the audience laugh, and because of his success he and the audiences of the 60s, I believe, opened the door to the name calling of this decade.
    Once you watched Don for a while you realized it was an act, but that's not my point. Even my parents; dedicated Conservatives that they were, found him offensive. From all reports he is, in private, a "sweet man." But again... not the point. I have heard Rush Limbaugh is very much the same... in private.
    How we make or living, and how it affects society matters: period... no matter what our actual intent.
    When did we as a culture begin to accept pure insult as "humor?" One might argue that satire and parody were the start, but latter day spoofs like on The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour may have some mean spirited-ness built into the scripts: but they were "scripts." They were play acting. It was obvious. There's a difference between playing the fool who mocks at the king's feet... and actually splattering his face with fresh baby dung and then hiding behind a banner of "it was just a joke." And if it were just kings and queens being splattered I might have less of a problem. No it's everyone who dares to disagree or think differently. Anyone who questions the official story on 9/11 is a "conspiracy nut." Any suggestion of punishing corporate excess, or saving corporations from extinction means you're an evil socialist, Boris or Natasha, no-good-nicks.
    Let me be clear here. I suffer from no illusion that Don intended any of this to come out of his act. I'm certain he never wanted to inspire the kind of vitriol that spews from talk radio today. And, despite my revulsion regarding this form of "humor," I secretly long to see a grudge match: Don Rickles vs. Ann Coulter. My money would be on Coulter because Don, at heart, was a humorist. Ann is not. Ann is a hateful coward hiding behind the banner of humor willing to say anything. If someone went out and blew Barack Obama's brains out, if Don felt any of his words inspired such, he would publicly admit his horror at what had happened. Ann Coulter would find some way to blame it on the Left while making a "joke" of it at the same time.
    Some people do not deserve the term "human," or even "less than human." In my opinion Ann Coulter is one of the few who does not qualify to be considered human on a mental, and moral, level.
    The difference here is a kind, gentle, man who simply became famous for a form of humor he should never have become famous for... and horrid, despicable people who should never be let near a microphone or allowed to be on camera. People who hold so much hate in their heart humanity would be better without them.
      No. That's not a "joke." It's truth.
      And while I don't blame all of this on Don, I think he may have unintentionally fathered more than a few bastard and bitch children who would have been better off aborted before their time.

                                                      -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 2010
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved

    Here at Beaver River Station we're off the grid, and not just power-wise.

   How precious our water supplies are, in these days when my precious Pensacola Beach is threatened by oil vomiting out of the bottom of the Gulf. Since my water pump had a stripped drain bolt, and my new brass bolt I bought last year in Old Forge proved to me the threads are stripped inside the pump, I'm working on solutions while hand pumping water; collecting it from rain water, and out of Stillwater Reservoir.

    I doubt most of us realized just how much water we use. Between propane bucket baths, toilet flushing, coffee, tea and cooking, I'm guessing I use an easy 20 gallons a day. That's a very conservative estimate. Take "just turn your tap turn on" water away from John Q.Citizen and, I'm guessing, he might die of dehydration before he solves his problem. They didn't grow up chopping holes in the ice, bringing buckets back from a spring that also served as your fridge, melting snow or collecting rain water.

    Precious commodity... water.

    Of course we use generators, propane tanks, and I've yet to do but a bare minimum of solar or wind. Not sure either would work all that well: too many still days. There are too many trees I'm unwilling to chop unless I get desperate. I turn the power on about an hour or two a day to save gas. And I have bought the most efficient generators I know of.

    As many know my main residence is Nashville, and recently we were unable to leave home: no power, no phone, road turned into a lake. I did have one of the Honda generators at my disposal, so we were able to watch a little TV... but that home was never set up to run pure gen like our place at Beaver River Station. Think I'll work on that when I get home in the fall.

    John Q. flips a switch. If he doesn't get what he wants he calls the power company which is probably overwhelmed by the time he calls. We had thousands who had no idea what to do. Some died because they didn't know basic survival skills and, to be honest, I might have too. To get back to my wife when the Cumberland quickly went from flooding my road six inches deep to more than four, I screwed up my innate bravery... which actually should be spelled more like "stupidity..." and forded the rushing water. The only difference between me and John Q. is I have had experience, and was taught about, fording rushing rivers when you find it's the only way to get home. In fact I survived doing the same, only when it was minus 20 and I sunk down to my chest. You don't survive long unless you get inside under those conditions, and unless you have some fondness for being found like the Tinman you take those clothes off as fast as you can.

   Survival skills are about as extinct these days as an Stegosaurus. And I'm no Paul Bunyan or survival geek. Put me in a field of mushrooms and I'd probably die. They all look the same to me: the poisonous and the edible. Pictures don't seem to help.

    Precious commodities: power, heat, food....

    Then I heard the news that Al and Tipper are through. 40 years? Millie and I have been going 33 years, not counting dating. If the Mayans are wrong about 2012 being the end of the world, in 2014, if you include dating, we will have been together for 40 years. Of course the Mayans were so all knowing they neglected to predict their own demise; so I suspect we will be around.

    What, after 40 years, Al and Tipper, you both couldn't work this out somehow?

    I look around me and I see John Q. living in a society with disposable people. Disagree with someone? They're scum or worse. Have an argument? Well, that person must not be a good match. While there are websites and companies set up to help you find your "perfect match" I see no evidence that those "perfect matches" survive any longer than us "less than perfect" matches. In fact if we had been looking for a "perfect match" we probably would never have dated.

    It's our differences which make our relationship stronger. It's our similarities that befuddle us and sometimes leave us angry. A couple is like the perfect means to explore parts of life one might avoid like the plague.

    They say with Al and Tipper it's because he's on the road so much. I spent well over 15 years on the road, touring, for as much as 10 months out of the year. At first it was tough. Millie told me it was an adventure to visit the areas I toured through. It brought us closer. Now that I perform more at home more than I tour, once again we have a lot of work to do. Now that's a new stress: but we'll get there; we always do.

    But, I admit, I'm violating my own sense of valuing a "precious commodity." In a time when everything is a soap opera; the public thinks it has a right to not only know about, but second guess, the lives of other; famous, political and just ordinary Joe and Marys, I honestly feel it's none of our damn business, and I include Al and Tipper.

    Who the hell do we think we are? What makes us so damn perfect? Who appointed us judge, jury and executioners?

    Precious commodities: our relationships with each other and privacy; the right to work it all out without nosy busy bodies second guessing motives.

    My parents were in their teens during the Depression. They ranted about baby boomers and how they never would survive without some of what we consider to be basic needs, but not too long ago humanity lived without, and lived quite well, thank you. They felt the same about our "spoiled" children and great grandchildren. They felt we wore our hearts too far out on our sleeves and had trouble handling desperate situations in an adult fashion.

    Looking back? I think they were more right now than I did back then. If we don't both start treasuring our precious commodities and learning how to survive without them... maybe the Mayans might be proven right.

                                                                   -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 2010
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved

Through the woodlands
Through the valley
Comes the horseman
Wild and free
Tilting at the windmills passing
Who could the brave young horseman be...

-Gordon Lightfoot's Don Quixote

Dressing up to do battle in days of old was common. But sometimes some anti-government types who do battle have more in common with Don Quixote during his worst moments than knights of old...

My wife, Millie, works for the government. That's right all you gov hating righties: she's the enemy, though I have begun to believe she thinks of you as the enemy...

As many of you know we live near Nashville, TN, as well as have a home in the Adirondacks where we will go when we retire: move back to. Nashville was swamped by rain recently. We couldn't get out for almost three days: no power for a week; phone out a few days longer. When Millie got back; irony obvious, she had a... flood... of calls complaining about services. Recycle carts floated away, brush not picked up because the street was flooded. Some who call this "help line" are rational and understand... there are limitations and rules. Others are of a different nature.

Millie takes their calls; from the nice, to bad... to the very, very ugly and seemingly mentally challenged... and I mean that as no dig against those who really are mentally challenged: just those who act that way when they really aren't.

Over the years she had worked her way up to office manager, but the budget cuts hit and she was downgraded to office support specialist II. Sound fancy? Not really. She gets to hear all the complaints and questions, which include everything from sane, to not so sane; to those who are either attempting to con their way into service they are not supposed to receive. And, of course, you also have those who seem to simply lack something upstairs; above the neck and the chin: just barely above and behind the nose.

The calls can get pretty absurd... "What do you mean I can't put my dead cats in the recycle bin?" "Why can't I put leaky antifreeze containers out to the curb..." (Maybe why the cats died?)

We were talking about that as I drove her to work during the flood and I had a flash of intuition. Many of her worst calls are understandable from a human perspective, yet I was guessing the worst ones were those who will never be satisfied because, while demanding more and better services...and they also are the same type of folks who demand cut backs and tax breaks that force more cut backs. So I asked...

"Let me guess: the ones that call the most and demand more service; service they've never been promised and service that clearly doesn't fall under Metro guidelines, are often the same folks who think government can't do anything right and should have their budgets cut down to nothing."

"Yup. Those are our worst callers. They don't want to pay taxes but they demand the services anyway. And I know there's going to be trouble and a lot of nonsense after they start with 'I pay your salary...'"

Now bear with me. I'm not slamming all Conservatives, or all Libertarians, or even all teabaggers. Every sane person wants more efficient; a well run, government. We may disagree as to what services should be funded more, what should be funded less, but run well? Who the hell wouldn't want that?

The Knights of Nit... wit.

Remember the old Python skits where The Knights of Nit turned all rational, sane, conversation into nonsense simply by going, "Nit, nit, nit, nit..." over and over? They'd barge in at the oddest moments, adding confusion and stupidity to otherwise understandable situations.

Kind of like insisting the best way to make government more efficient is to "cut, cut, cut," then call up wondering "where the hell is my pickup and what do you mean I can't put dirty diapers in there? Don't you know I pay your salary?"

At least the Python Nits were marginally funny: not the best of all skits they did by any means. Seems like these folks I'm referring to that call are humorless, at best. They raise hell and "can't take it any more." But when the government won't pick up their recyclables at the curb, because the cart is loaded with dead cats, they still demand service right now and no questions asked, screaming...

"Government can't do anything right!"

Maybe your formerly live cats might have thought the same regarding you, before you dumped them in there?

They demand personal numbers, or addresses, for the mayor. They call a Metro Nashville line to yell about something the state or the national government obviously does. Sometimes they call about services Metro doesn't provide, but worse than mediocre' businesses do: assuming it's still Metros fault that they suck at what they do... or don't do but were supposed to. These callers won't take "you need to call the state..." or "the business involved in that..." for an answer.

Millie tries to help the best she can: but sometimes there just seems to be no "help" for some people who charge off to do battle with someone who neither decides policy, or can influence it... or who works for a branch of government that has the slightest thing to do with what they're venting about.

Millie isn't the only one who receives these call by any means. Just before this went to press I was listening to The Alex Bennett Show. A caller complained about how government never did anything right and messed up everything they did. Then, when it came to the corporate oil situation in the Gulf, he demanded the government do something. Alex asked the obvious: if the government messes up everything and can do nothing right, why would you want them to do anything?

"Because it's a national emergency. That's their job."

Does that make a lick of sense to you? You'd think the caller would be hoping they don't do their jobs and... well, let me guess, if they did do their jobs and stepped in where business has failed like in the Gulf, they'd be be screaming about "gov-ern-mAnt inter-fear-ance" in business?

Can you win in that situation?

Welcome to my wife's job, some days.

Then there's the cronic complainers know nothing about how government works. Nada. They call asking for a government approved list of private businesses, locally. But, after all, the have FOX, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Beck; and God only knows how many others, telling them that government has their hands into, and controls, everything. Those kind, gentle, pundits couldn't be wrong or even lying... could they?

Could they???

Nitwits assume that there are always simple answers to problems, no matter how complex they may be. Complexity simply doesn't compute in their dysfunctional, under used, brains. For example: cutting something makes it better. The problem is, as with big business, cutting anything automatically solves nothing. Adding more money also automatically solves nothing.

Now using money: taxes, more efficently? That's a conversation we could and should be having. But that involves the ability to understand something complex, rather than automatically patoo-ing out the spitball of wrath they shoot out of their mouths at everything that annoys them they simply will never comprehend. Their mind quickly becomes an answering service with no beep at the end when it comes to having that conversation...

"Please leave a message after the..."

You can almost hear the battle cry start, which usually translates into doing battle with windmills, or...

"Nit... nit... nit... wit!"

Think for a second. If cutting money made government more efficient the same folks who demand social services be cut would also demand the military, law enforcement and funds allocated to prisons be cut. They certainly would never claim any money: even for Christmas decorations, should go to religion related items. After all: less is more and makes it all better, right?

And if they really understood what cutting funds did they certainly wouldn't complain when they lose brush collection, or trash collection, or... after demanding taxes be cut and claim this same lack of funds "is (still) my damn money."

If you want any services at all, no, it's not your "damn money."

Why is it that those who think the homeless should "just get a job," and that the best government is the least amount of government, and scream "socialism" at the mention of helping anyone less fortunate, are the loudest, most obnoxious callers: often demanding services they aren't owed and that logically would have to be cut if taxpayers decide they shouldn't have to pay taxes?

So, instead, our local knights out to rid government of waste call folks like Millie and, get this: demand services Nashville does not, and often shouldn't, offer, all while frequently... as of late... dressing up in their own Don Quixote costumes either mentally, or for the cameras...

...to attend teabagger rallies, calling Phil Valentine... local rightie/anti-big-gov crank... and writing letters to The Tennessean screaming about "gov-ern-ment wayste n' inter-fear-hance." To battle something they either refuse, or simply can't, understand. To flash their swords of rhetorical anger at certain phonebank windmills.

Hence the add of "wit" to "nit."

 

 

                                        -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 2010
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved

 

Written by Ken Carman

   Queen Isabella to Christopher Columbus...

"I'm sorry. We can't afford that. We'll just toss a note in a bottle and, if
anyone responds, we'll toss in more and maybe start up a conversation.
That's a whole lot cheaper and if there's anything out there worth
bothering with it's more cost effective. Besides: sailors sailing the
seas is too risky."

      Perhaps if we can get Shatner back in the studio we can do another voice over...

"Space: the finalized frontier. Why the hell did we even bother?"

   I have argued this issue for many years and there's absolutely no way to
convince those who hate the space program that there is a need for
humanity to not only dream and imagine, but to go ahead and make those
dreams come true. I swear if they were next to whomever invented fire,
instead of encouraging them they would have stuffed the fire right up
their posterior. I mean, after all, why take all those risks? Rubbing
sticks together to make fire? Ha! What are you gong to tell me next,
that man can find a way to fly? Pshaw! Hunting for flammable material
might get you eaten by a wild animal, it might burn down our forest, or
fill the cave with smoke cave: and no one had come up with the concepts
of a fire department, or cooking food, yet.

   Why not just stay deep in the a cave where it's warmer, or cover yourself with the carcass of some freshly killed critter? Instant warmth!

  
    After all: we already know what fire might do from random lightening strikes. That's all we need to know. Why take a risk? Why even imagine we can harness the awesome power of flame?

  
    Too late? Well, after all, we already know going beyond the speed of light is impossible. Someone came up with a theory that says so. End of story. Why even attempt to imagine beyond what we already think we know?

     
    We already know solar power for the masses is way in the future. Why even try?

   There can be no disputing the fact that if we even attempt to go beyond the speed of sound it would shake any craft we're in apart, right?

   Well, if we had to go by what we knew at any certain time being all that we can know, and all that is possible, we might as well go back to covering ourselves with smelly carcasses or living in caves. But no argument will ever convince those who are the intellectual children of Org who criticized Ugh for even thinking about managing fire that the space program is worthwhile. Not the fact that damn near every life saving device we have right now has the space program to thank for the tech that made it possible. Not that we have a finite time on this planet... and exploring, learning and visiting our neck of the vacuum-based "woods" may teach us something that very well could save humanity: if not on this planet then maybe elsewhere. Not that the cost of the space program is quite small compared with, oh less say, the military; while the return on it has improved; yes saved, lives.

  None of this matters.

  
  Not one bit.

   Nada.

Columbia and her crew launching. Did they die in vain?

   I do understand that budgets are limited. "Time are tough," though only because of those who believe that limited government: strangled in some imaginary bathtub, is the best. But, OK, if we must cut, maybe we should stop using the majority of our vast resources to kill others? We will never kill enough of the right people to have any war that will really end all wars. There will always be more people to kill because we don't agree or they stand in our way. And never guess what: the more we kill the more will need to be killed. We don't need some imbecile with a black cloak and a scythe. Wars serve the purpose very well. And
the war machine we have created is always interested in finding more work; if not creating it.

   Conservative and national defense fans alert!

   I'm not claiming the military has to go. Just the opposite. I'm not saying we actually will be able to end all wars; though certainly invading countries on false pretenses; ignoring the consequences we have been warned over and over about, doesn't help. Creating a massive monetary sink hole instead of just going in to get who hit us doesn't help either.

  
    But disregarding both points for the moment... what I am saying is we don't always need to have the latest toys: especially in the days when one more, or a more powerful, nuke will do nothing to stop terrorism. No, I would like to see less futuristic weapons, then better training, better pay and more diverse duties, for the military. Have them helping America meet this challenge, and our other challenges would be a great idea. And especially stop the incredibly expensive off shoring of the National Guard for the purposes of military adventurism. The National Guard: who should be guarding the damn nation... not off conquering and pacifying populations. I also think we can back off a bit from some of our drug laws and save money there too. We don't need more prisons and more prisoners feeding off the public's wallets. Someone with a few ounces of pot certainly doesn't need to be on the public dole courtesy of idiots who would raise hell if they were on welfare instead.

   There's oodles of money to be saved here, and the money we do save should go
into funding education, solving other problems and having a vigorous: manned (and wo-manned) space program.

   Years ago President Kennedy inspired billions when he launched our space program into high gear. Like millions of other teens, I watched history as it was being made, and marveled at humanity, for a moment, stepping if ever so slightly away from looking at all our parochial earthly concerns had to be the only things that mattered in the universe, and the odd, ignorant, concept that what was out there in Kennedy's "new frontier" was of little concern.

    After that first step we went to the moon a few more times. We never bothered to reach beyond ourselves.Instead we claim that R2D2, or some pathetic attempt to created Robbie from Forbidden Planet is all we need. No, it isn't: if for no other reason than inspiration. There's a reason why the space program went from us baby boomers and parents glued to the tube to, "ho hum, another one," to practically no one paying one damn bit of attention. We abandoned the part of the vision that actually could have taken us to Mars and beyond. Instead manned missions became barely orbital, uninspired and suspiciously military/war-making in nature. They also became spy on our own populace in nature by being very expensive shipping clerks for the CIA and, perhaps, the NSA and any other agency interested in keeping an intrusive eye on the populace. The rest was left to machines that send back fabulous pictures. Incredible.

  
    But the media? Without the human element, the "going where no human has gone before" skew, they would rather focus on the inane and the artificial. Why? Because that human element, and the inspiration provided by real leaders, real explorers, is missing.

   Today we would simply tell them, "Foolish dreamers. Our country doesn't need your worthless services. Go away." Just like we have said the same to much of our manufacturing base.

    No, we'd rather play it "safe."

   I don't mean to pick on the current administration. I know we've been heading this way for a long time. And I know the current Obama policy regarding space is in flux and I appreciate the fact that Barack Obama is willing to adjust when loud protests are heard over a proposed gutting of the human element of the space program. I do think the idea of vending our to business is a real bad idea: think Blackwater. And I think that hitching rides with the Russians is like sending an open invite to more tragedies. "Russian" and "well made" are by no means synonyms. Even our astronauts have commented about this in the past on joint missions.

   But to take the fight direct to a president I still support: from what I've seen so far from a president who promised "change," is little to no "change." The Mars mission he soglibly spoke of is so far in the future he can yammer all he wants and never have to live up to that promise. By the time that year rolls around there will be other presidents to blame... if the public even remembers the dream at all.

   Change? No, instead I have seen an abandonment of dreams and more of the same old, same old.

"No we can't have single payer."
"No we can't have public option."
"Dare to dream, America?
Well give it a rest. Like your industry, jobs and labor continues to be outsourced, at best your dreams will be replaced by machines."

    I hope I'm wrong, But if I'm not, just what are you saying to the ghosts of all the brave astronauts who died while trying to help humanity reach for the stars, Mr. President. I hope it's not...

  "You died in vain."

                                                               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 2010
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved

   Yesterday, as I read Mark Guarino's Christian Science story on The Hutaree and a former prosecutor's take on this terrorist group, I saw I heard Timothy McVeigh's ghost laugh and then say, "Lock and load." "Timothy McVeigh's Ghost" is the sequel no sane person would want to see; unless one is a member of an extreme Right Wing terrorist cell, militia or group. I have a suspicion there have been many sequels since Oklahoma, and a prequel as well.

   I try very hard to write Inspection in advance so the publisher can pre-plan publication. I really do. But there are some weeks, some months, some seasons I have no choice to have the dates shuffled around. News has a habit of grabbing the steering wheel and taking us all for a ride.

   A few years after Oklahoma City a host of a left talk show, I believe it was Peter Werbe, had a guest on from the Southern Poverty Law Center. I had just read The Turner Diaries and I was concerned about right wing driven violence, so I called. The answer I got from Peter's guest was, to me, more frightening even than those who follow the path set out by this book. The guest informed me that these were loose groups, with little power, and we had little to worry about. We mostly had to worry about single individuals.

   I wonder if he feels the same way now?

   The Turner Diaries, for the uninitiated, follow several militia groups that decide that all people of color, Liberals, the educated, immigrants: both legal and illegal, are destroying the "true" America. They succeed by using what can only be described as terrorist and deceptive methods: finding ways to have the carnage they caused to be blamed on others causing more violence and chaos. Also by those in power, and "experts:" such as those like the guest from Southern Poverty Law Center, who minimize and marginalize their efforts. By the end of the book, all across the country, they have every woman, man and child lined up to be shot, hung and otherwise executed who annoyed them even in the mildest of ways: even just for being the wrong religion, born of the wrong color.

   Of course, over ten years ago, they didn't have powerful Republican leaders backing them up by claiming that pointing out violence against anyone who dares to disagree with them is more despicable than the act itself. They also didn't have a major network willing to advertise for free their every utterance as if it came from the lips of Jesus himself.

   I've been wondering about the news coverage of the recent capture of members of The Hutaree. All the indications are there: the attempt to murder policemen and then commit mass murder when they gather for the funeral to "start a war" has all the same indicators the McVeigh/Nichols plot had. They both seemed hatched straight out of The Turner Diaries. Both sets of plotters considered themselves "Christian warriors." They both planned "to levy war against the United States, (and) to oppose by force the authority of the government of the United States."

   There have been a lot of suspicious incidents over the years between the two: churches shot up, a plane flying into an IRS building, anthrax sent to almost exclusively Democratic leaders and odd power plant incidents that the Bush administration said they couldn't explain... but quickly added, "had nothing to do with terrorists." Much of this, especially the last? In the The Turner Diaries. Power plants were part of the attacks; an attempt to disorient "the enemy." Politicians attempted to cover up who did these acts: behave as if it was all just some "accident." In The Turner Diaries they especially like to take advantage of foolish politicians on the right side who they considered ignorant enablers who would go to the head of the line when the mass executions started.

   But let's stick with what we do know. Of course we have the Turner Diaries driven attack in Oklahoma City. Now we have a group whose plots and rhetoric is pretty much pure Turner in nature with all the Christian purity, hatred and violence on the label if it were placed in a can or a bottle. Combine this with all I have mentioned before: some of the ingredients aren't exactly exactly the same, but if you saw it on the shelf in your local store with the labels would you think it unrelated? Buy it and feed it to your kids saying it's probably all unrelated to what's clearly printed on the can or label? If so, how about buying something that looks like it's the same product as Draino and go home and drink it?

   Maybe if you're a prosecutor, or anyone else charged with keeping the public safe, you should? The nation would surely be safer.

   Once again we are making the same mistakes. In Mark Guarino's Christian Science article he explains how one of McVeigh's former prosecutors, Aitan Goelman, says we may need not fear groups like The Hutaree as much as rogue individuals who may come out of such groups. I rarely give anyone with that much gravitas such a slam, or use such words in a column... but is he f%$#ing nuts? Obviously we need to fear both. Does he think there's no connection whatsoever? These groups spew this BS, promote it and when one of them takes action it's just some "rogue" element?

   Of course that was then, this is now. McVeigh and Nichols did this on their own, as far as we know. And the violence and murders perpetrated by Turner Diaries worshipers, a "prequel" to Oklahoma, a murder performed by The Order and plans to murder many others... well, happened long ago: in the early 1980s. But the problem is Goelman is claiming this now, after many members of yet another group: The Hutaree, were caught well on their way to taking action. This is no longer just select "rogue" individuals; even if such a concept applies to those who agree that The Turner Diaries is some map to follow in their war against all who dare to disagree.... especially when they start to gather in small "cells."

   But one of the more interesting facets of The Turner Diaries is that the different cells across the nation not only make sure they are insulated from each other: independent of each other so that if one goes down another doesn't... part of the overall plan includes actions on the part of individuals: McVeigh-like characters. This is part of the plan: an attempt through actions of individuals to keep some of the heat off of individual cells. It's in the book. The hope is between "rogue" individuals and small cells, they can bring a nation to it's knees. And, in the book, this is exactly how they succeed. The more you look into The Turner Diaries and think of all that's happened since Oklahoma City and recently, the more you too might hear the ghost of Timothy McVeigh laughing in delight.

   Has Goelman even read The Turner Diaries?

   If so, then someone needs to ask him; these days, is he less interested in prosecuting and more interested in enabling?

 

                                                       -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 2010
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved       

   Inspection is a weekly column. However, occasionally the author is sufficiently outraged or intrigued by a current topic to write a special, second, edition.

"To use such threats as political weapons is reprehensible."

                                               -Eric Cantor, Representative of Virginia's 7th congressional district

   Why, yes, it is, Rep. Cantor.
   Then why are you doing it?
    In the typical judo move some Repubs; those who most deserve the title "ReThug," attempt to use, suddenly the mere mention of cut gas lines and other actual acts of violence is an attempt to use such threats as political weapons. Given a different context, another time, one can hear...

"How dare you use the gassing as a political weapon? Shut up Jew!"

   One shouldn't be surprised by this obvious tactic. It's like all the angst over Joe Biden and the F bomb. When their VP used it in public they cheered. Whether it be profanity, threats or actual violence, if we could stack all the tolerance and excuses on the Right for their own misbehavior it could be seen from Alpha Centauri with the naked eye.
   Ironically, Rep. Cantor used a bullet some fool shot up in the air that happened to land in Republican territory as a political weapon. Yes, unlike cut gas lines, a fertilizer bomb the blew children into little bitty pieces and 9/11: all actual attacks; unfortunately too often used in a political way, Eric Cantor deliberately, and intentionally lied about this bullet.
   Or maybe his stance is God is a terrorist? I suspect you probably believe he had something to do with law of gravity, Mr. Cantor.
   There's a long list of violence, not just "threats," being used as political weapons on the right. The list of "lock and load" type comments, and attempts to turn Obama into an actual physical target of anger, is rather long. Then we have the past... abortion related murder, marching into a church and committing mass murder, anthrax... and pretend anthrax... mailed out more than 90% of the time Democrats... well, in this sense, Mr. Cantor maybe is right. I'm not going to keep going on and on: turn this column into some screed listing the endless examples. But what I would like to see from Mr. Cantor is their long list of people on the more left side of the equation in the past 40 years committing similar violent acts, sending such E-mails and letters.
    No such list, Mr. Cantor?
    Have to go back to the sixties and early 70s to even get close to an equal list?
    And about those "threats" you claim you've had? Of course every politician receives them, I'm sure, but to equate them with the kind of threats your teabaggers alone are handing out these days? Tell you what, you show us yours, we'll show you ours. Let's have a nice, big, public ceremony. Have the techies trace the E-based threats back to make sure you or one of your followers didn't just mail it out to create a fictional threat. Then let's see if the quantity, and the "quality," of these threats are the same.
   Or are you just lying again: using threats for political gain?
   Of one thing there can be little doubt. Those who continue to try to find ways to shut up those pointing out violence and threats do have an agenda: their agenda is to support those who do violence and make threats. Perhaps Mr. Cantor is just trying to enable an important part of his base...

...murderers and potential murderers.

"To use such threats as political weapons is reprehensible."

-Eric Cantor, Representative of Virginia's 7th congressional district

    Yes, Mr. Cantor, it is. And to repeat: if you really believe that...

    Stop doing it.

                                                                        -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 2010
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved

    I'm sure there are days Pat would rather not be in the same sentence as Ann Coulter, but comparing them would still be a valid concept. Pat can be outrageous and anger others; but as racist and as odd as his comments can be from time to time I have found him generally a fair and honest broker, referring back to last week's Inspection. In 2000 he even went as far as to ask that the votes in Florida misdirected to him be given back to Gore. He can be charming and respectful in conversation: kind of a way the hell over the top Bill Buckley.
    Ann Coulter has not a single one of those attributes. Not a damn one. Ann Coulter calls people names for shock appeal only, insults their heritage for little reason except she considers anyone who dares to disagree with her human scum, spews bigotry with damn near every sentence; then does what the playground bully does when caught... lies: calls it all "a joke." There's nothing funny about Ann. I have heard claims that lefties are bothered by Coulter because she is so beautiful and so opposite them at the same time. Well, maybe if you like toothpicks in the form of a human that quite possibly have non-eating/eating/vomiting/non-eating/eating and vomiting again issues. Seriously. You may laugh at the previous description, but her skin visually hangs much like the Jews that were found in the camps at the end of the war. I think she may very well need help, and I don't just mean for her nasty, hateful, bile filled rhetoric that sounds like an over the top guard at Auschwitz addressing the Jews.
    I have yet to hear a single "joke" from the lips of Ann Coulter. What I have heard is hate that sounds like someone tried to formulate it into a joke format but failed: like some of the worst amateurs at a comedy night club open mike night. An all too easy comparison would be Andrew Dice Clay. But Clay, as much as I dislike his act, doesn't go around doing political events as some supposed humorist-pundit. He does comedy clubs and comedy-based events.
Coulter really has no intent on being "funny:" but she's all to willing to cower behind that playground excuse: "It was just a joke."
     OK, maybe you find it funny. Well, there are all kinds of tastes out there, including cannibalistic. And that's my problem with Coulter: I think her kind of "humor," if you have to call it that, has all the laughs of bin Laden going on TV after planes slammed into the towers saying, "Just joking, America!"

   "Just joking!"

    So now... Oh, God. Do I have to? Really? Damn... I guess I do. I have to defend her to a certain extent. That really, really sucks.
    In one of the earlier editions of Inspection, about 1975, I wrote about Pat Buchanan having been hired as a speaker at PSUC: Plattsburgh State. Yes, even back then some of us called it, "P Suck." He was uninvited: un-hired. ("Invited" is such a imprecise term. These folks are paid, you know.) I wrote an edition of Inspection that made the same arguments I'm about to make now.
    First let's make it clear for all the righties screaming "free speech:" Canada is a different country. You do know that, right? Free speech laws are a little different. And being a Conservative at the time, and more "left" now, I still make the same comments: the same analogies. Just like Plattsburgh State, University of Ottawa can "invite" and "dis-invite" anyone they want... just as Ann can "dis" anyone she wants. "Free speech" isn't "free" unless that axiom applies. It's the same axiom that, when applied to religion: and applied honestly , would state, "Freedom of faith must mean freedom to have no faith or even be an Atheist, or we have no 'freedom' at all."
    While I understand the college's "security concerns," it is unfortunate that they did this. A college: any college, should be a bastion of free speech: even if that speech if incredibly over the top, sounds mentally unstable and quite offensive. In fact, being able to control oneself in the presence of offensive speech should be part of pre-college curriculum, if not elementary. If their students have that much trouble controlling themselves then the college has more serious issues than a momentary visit from one bad mouth bear.
    Yes, I did resist using the other "b" word there. Aren't ya proud of me?
If they're worried about non-students causing trouble, then they also have security concerns that go far beyond a visit by one admittedly offensive pundit, posing as an exceedingly poor comedian.
    The University did itself no favors by canceling Coulter. Notice I don't use "Ms." She doesn't even deserve that much. I would use "Mr." for Pat, however. But still I support the right of such offensive speakers in academia. Indeed I would claim there is a "need" for such. College is supposed to widen your horizons, not narrow it to least offensive, or less likely to offend.
Maybe if Hitler had had a wider forum he either would have been less effective, or been dis-empowered. The fact he was dismissed at first, and allowed to rally his base, says a lot about how he and some of the worst leaders in human history have been able to come to power. When I wrote that edition of Inspection in the 70s we were still in Nam. Maybe if we had had a more open discussion back in the 50s and early 60s: even the late 60s, that affair would have wound up better than it did. I'll allow you to construct whatever "better" scenario suits you. The same was true pre-Iraq and pre-Afghanistan.
    Lesson apparently not yet learned. When we don't listen to those with a cause, when we marginalize them: and instead they focus more on rallying their base, it often comes back to bite one hell of a big chunk our of our collective asses... and make asses of all of us. Rallying a base is part of the freedoms we need to defend. So the only way to actually marginalize and disarm the dangerous is to stop marginalizing them before they talk: allow them to hang themselves and their followers in front of the general pubic... let them display just how absurd and dangerous they are to a wider audience. Indoctrination is not an issue if free discussion and debate is allowed after the talk: before she arrives, while she's there and long after she's gone. Yes, you will always have a few idiots who will follow and be inspired by the most "out there" speakers you can get, but there are more who will follow when you shut them out. Nothing excites some like the forbidden: especially when clever speakers can use that "forbidden" and turn it into "you're being oppressed/denied/marginalized too."
    I would hope the University would reconsider. But they have every right to cancel, though I wouldn't blame Coulter one bit for seeking a cancellation fee. I have one myself for my programs as an entertainer. Pretty hard to enforce, but I do have one.
One last comment: one I didn't make in 75. This discussion surrounds "free speech." I have already pointed out that these concepts also extend to those who decide not to have Coulter speak. But we need to mention the very phrase: "free speech." The college, I'm sure, was giving the speaker money to speak: a "speaker's fee." So maybe we're not referring to what was specifically protected in this country by our Bill of Rights as much as one would think.
    Free Speech isn't really all that "free" if you're paying for it.


                                                                                                  -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 2010
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved

   Orwell and Bradbury have supplied an endless list of authors, pundits and pols with handy schmandy talking points: some accurate, some not, some far less than serious... and more unintended comedy than anything else. Now, as a society, we're not quite at the stage of plunging everything inconvenient down the memory hole. But we're getting there.

    Witness the sometimes worse than witless Birther debates. Recently, over at Huffington, I was busy posting my own conclusions... while observing trolls attempting to discuss and debate topics with regular readers, and regular readers attempting to fend off trolls. It reminds me of multiple-sided partisan debate over at Volconvo.com sometimes: like alien species from opposite ends of the galaxy attempting to communicate. And, like almost all contentious discussions these days, I noticed Birthers use their own fact check sources and cynics of the Birthers use theirs.

    I know: obvious. But maybe not, if you look at this collectively and in a less than partisan fashion.

    I read a while back about those on the Left who were concerned with Right Wing-trolls deleting inconvenient facts from Wiki. Though I have seen no evidence of Lefties involved in the same act of vandalism, let's assume at least some of it has happened. Then last week I was working on a possible future column regarding terrorism and needed a source. I'm not a giant Wiki fan, but it's still better than no source, so I went to a abortion-related violence page I had visited several times before. Every incident on that page that occurred during the previous administration had disappeared. Every single damn... one wiped clean. I've seen similar acts of vandalism on various source-able sites: like deleting possible acts of terrorism under that administration to prevent anyone claiming something similar to the underwear bomber happened under Bush: like the shoe bomber and anthrax attacks.

   This kind of selective editing is vandalism, in my opinion, with the the distinct partisan purpose of providing invalid talking points like this...

   Being countered by...

     One can't help but compare this tactic with the health care debate where opponents were willing to talking about all kinds of gates of Hell would open, consider using any form of slander, even weld the weapons of racism, during the last week. Yet I pick out these examples; not to bash the Right, but to make a point.

    Assuming for a moment that those who might claim this has become a matter of common public behavior on all sides; one would also assume, if one were stupid, that the "fact" we have multiple flavors of partisanship balances it all out. No, it really doesn't. Even if both sides are equally guilty; something I personally don't believe, such "balance" is no balance at all. It becomes a free for all pile on where we never see what's underneath, and only see who gets to pile on last.

    No matter if it's mostly one side of the political equation, or more than one, we need desperately need leaders and members of the general public interested in doing whatever is best... even if it doesn't serve their cause or their absolutist take on anything. We need this to function as a society. Every act of representative government is compromise: even if it's just those opposed willing not to storm the castle because they lost. You cannot have a free society without compromise. Otherwise you simply have rule of the most abusive; those most willing to do, say, anything... commit any crime to gain power. Then, no matter how vile their actions, their words; they are certain to make any criminal act or behavior legal... legal for them, and only them.

   The bad rap compromise gets doesn't serve us well at all. battling without compromise is like being at an old Howard Johnsons restaurant and all those flavors of ice cream being used in some weird war. Instead of "balance" we get some weird football-like pile on where vanilla ice cream buries chocolate so no one can taste it, then vanilla tries to compromise and gets buried again, or retaliates to the point no one gets to taste the finer points of chocolate. And all the other flavors don't have a damn chance in hell of being tasted at all.

    Who is to blame for this food fight?

    More than anyone: media. News isn't entertainment, but they have been intermixed because profit has become so much more important than serving the public; being real journalists. The profits of huge corporations are better served by food fights than Firing Line like programs: more gentle: respectful, fair, discussions.

    And until we tire of "pro-" wrestling like tactics this is all we will get. Until we grow up enough to realize that skipping over inconvenient facts, and understand that "claims" are not "facts," we will continue to live in this hellish Groundhog Day. So, yes, the public is to blame too... except there's no way to present the truth of what's really happening to them without the presence of leaders and powerful pundits willing to go beyond their personal skew. Those willing to consider that Nixon might need to be impeached and, as much as it pains me to type, those willing to consider the same for Bill Clinton. Those with fewer ulterior motives.

    Please remember: I typed "willing to consider," not necessarily "do," in that last paragraph. We certainly need those who will buck a trend, especially when that trend is so obviously a need to railroad, to destroy, for personal and political gain. And if you are really are fair, if you really are honest, you will understand that applies whether someone thinks what happened to Richard Nixon went overboard, or if someone thinks what happened to Bill Clinton did.

    It's a matter of being able to step back and look at something outside the framework of your personal, political or religious skew. These days we seem to revel, as a society, in not being able to do that: in refusing to do that. For example. if you have a talking point, before spewing it, investigate and honestly deal with obvious counterpoints that I suspect you yourself can come up with. If we can't step back: if we refuse... just expect this perpetual tug of war between factions to always be basically dishonest, shallow and self destructive.

   One way we could improve this is by challenging the bumper sticker mentality that seems to have gripped the nation. No matter what the opinion if it can be placed on a bumper sticker it's probably a vast over generalization and so, generally, wrong. One way we could do that is start responding to pat, short, phrases with, "That's bumper sticker thinking..." Just like in 1984...

"War is peace."
"Freedom is slavery."

   Or Fahrenheit...

"Monday burn Millay, Wednesday Whitman, Friday Faulkner, burn 'em to ashes, then burn the ashes. That's our official slogan."

    And to those who simply wish to be left alone to believe whatever bumper sticker slogan they wish, I respond with another quote from 451...

"We need not to be let alone. We need to be really bothered once in a while. How long is it since you were really bothered? About something important, about something real?"

    After all, statements like, "Liberals always respond with insults," and "Conservatives always change the topic," are such vast over generalizations. Pretty much any statement that assumes "all" is a vast over generalization... at best. There are almost always exceptions to everything: anything.

    If you are intentionally involved in deleting and avoiding inconvenient facts one can only hope that there there is almost always another Winston Smith or Guy Montag out there willing to save, unwilling to burn. Yes, one must hope. Because, to rephrase those quotes from 1984...

If you win by denying what's inconvenient, you lose: we all lose.

     A bad bumper sticker, but as close to the truth as such phrases will ever get, I suspect.

 


                                                                                  -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 2010
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved