The hounds may be baying and the horses running, but they're mostly headed away from the real hunt. Normally news services hunt news. Administrations hunt the best way to resolve global and domestic conundrums. Actual foxes hunt safe harbor from baying hounds. But the "hunt" here, however, isn't FOX hunting "news." FOX is hunting anything they can say, do, invent out of thin air, encourage, or lie about. The intent to is, as always with FOX, to bag, gut, cook and serve up anyone, or any group, that doesn't please their Right Wing base: specifically any administration, to that base.

    Politically speaking, FOX has every right to honestly... and that is the issue here more than anything... flush their game and pull up their 12 gauges. Unlike my metaphor here, they have a right to go Dick Cheney on anyone who offends their base or says something they don't like. In hunting that last example may very well be attempted murder. Rhetorical guns are, mostly, protected by free speech. That isn't "news." If FOX "news" wishes to become a political action-based TV show, I have no problem with the hunt, as long as they're willing to be game as well as foul... intentionally using a "u" rather than a "w."

    Yet we have even supposed left of center talking heads standing between the FOX and the hunters.

    Some days I wonder just how much BS some liberals will buy, especially loads of bull dung pushed by the Right itself that enables them. Let's take on the current tiff with FOX. The framing is all wrong, and definitely enables FOX and their sycophants.

    As we all know the administration has claimed that FOX is not a news service, and I agree: it's at best a propaganda network that is anything but "fair and balanced." More like the rabid right using a Halloween custom called "news" and lying about their true intent. Happy Spook Day, Mr. President!

    My reaction is so different when compared to most talking heads on the left...

"What, it took you this long?"

    Let's start by providing the list of right wing talking points I've heard even supposed lefties regurgitate...

1. "Just ignore them. You're making it worse."

2. "The President has a very powerful position. He shouldn't delegitimize any news service."

3. "The best way to deal with bullies is to ignore them."

4. "We have freedom of the press. The President shouldn't interfere with it."

5. "They're declaring war on a network."

6. "It's not smart to go after a popular network."

7. "All you have done is make their ratings go up."

    And of course you have a long list of mostly righties who claim that Barack is out to force the news medium into being a Goebbels like, only pro-Barack, press, and start an enemies list with FOX at the top. If that was even possible; under the command of Decider-in-Chief George W. Bush, the military blowing holes in the hotel where the press was staying during the start of the war on "terra" certainly qualified. Seems the news to start wasn't all positive.

    Start calling me when the shells hit the headquarters or hotel of just FOX.

    But I'm going to mostly ignore the last ones for now because they have no proof, no substance, and are willing to spew any lie. In short: yawn. But the other seven are being parroted by people on the left too.

    So here we go...

1. Just ignore them. You're making it worse.

    How? Has ignoring them worked? No, when you ignore them the rest of the media starts playing join the FOX in the hunt for more lies to tell as "truth." Theses lies are used like a bully uses their fists. Example: death panels. Second example: enemies list. Have you ever noticed when a bully takes over a playground kids start following them? Same rules apply.

2. The President has a very powerful position. He shouldn't delegitimize any news service.

    Only the public can make any final decision to "delegitimize" a network, no matter how illegitimate they may be. And the administration has just as much right to their opinion, and stating it, as FOX, Right Wing bobbleheads, and Left bobbleheads. (By the way; it's obvious that FOX that delegitimizes themselves. The idea that a President can "delegitimize" a network is laughable.)

    This, to me, is really a form of "shut the Hell up." The correct response is, "No." Or if you wish to be more vehement, "Hell, no."

3. The best way to deal with bullies is to ignore them.

    Good God, when will this old chestnut finally rot into nothingness? I actually heard several left talk show hosts using this. Parents have passed on this horrible advice on to many generations of kids who wind up suffering various beatings from listening to it. I can tell you from personal experience it gets you beaten up more, harder and quicker. Sometimes kids just have to get off their bike and beat back so bullies know they don't have control any more. And presidents need to defend themselves too.

    When will the Left learn they have no protective, turtle-like shell? That they can't just pull inside and the predatory Right will just go away? The Left really needs to learn how to defend itself.

4. We have freedom of the press. The President shouldn't interfere with it.

    This has to be one of the most inane talking points I have ever heard. Of course we have freedom of the press, just like we have freedom of speech; or we're supposed to... those those who find such ways to really say "shut up" don't seem very strong advocates of either.

    The president and his administration have as much right to an opinion, and to express it as Glen Beck, O'Rilley, Limbaugh or FOX. The only thing in question here is "truth in advertising," and if they wish to express their opinions collectively or through a spokesperson, they have that damn right. Period.

    How is the President interfering with freedom of the press? Has he attempted to ban FOX, or have their license taken away? The administration has interfered with nothing. They have stated their opinions regarding the legitimacy of FOX being an actual news network. Again, ill-advised or not, they have that right. The public can make up their own minds; to quote a certain network, "You decide." No, what proponents of this idea want is for FOX to decide and the largest portion possible of the American public to comply. It's working all too well.

    But I still type: they can call themselves whatever they want. Doesn't mean anyone has to accept it. Not even the president and his administration. Please find me the section of the Constitution that say an administration is exempt from our basic freedoms like free speech. Take as long as you want, but don't expect me to pay your burial expenses when they find your corpse still looking at the Constitution.

5. They're declaring war on a network.

    Guns?

    Tanks?

    One single friggin water pistol?

    Of course not, though from time to time I'd enjoy a spokesperson from any of the various administrations over the years pulling out a super soaker. I don't think I'd cry much as they soak a few "reporters" who ask the same damn question over, and over, and over, and...

    But if we're referring to a metaphorical war, which is pretty obvious, then the point can be easily made that Rupert Murdoch and his non-news network started the war long ago. Those who push this simply would rather Barack sit back and get assaulted by lies and half truths while a network claims it's just reporting "news." If you're on the other side of the aisle you might claim CBS started it during Watergate and I wouldn't totally disagree with you.

    Surprised?

    But once again: talking point translated...

"Shut the Hell up! Only we have the right."

    Correct response? Well, let's just say a certain "bomb" that starts with the sixth letter in the alphabet, and "you" comes to mind; probably followed by things unprintable one can do with various body parts. But I don't speak for the President, and after typing that last sentence I'm sure the administration would sigh in relief.

    If we're really going to talk "war," where were those who use this phrase when; after a few unfavorable reports, the military shelled where the reporters were staying? Did they even complain on smidge when Helen Thomas was shoved to the back of the press room bus and ignored because she asked inconvenient questions? Did they complain much when Daniel Ellsberg was pursued, or the FBI investigated reporters who reported less than pro-Nam news, that actually was news? Not made up like "death panels" or Barack's "enemies list?"

    No, I'll bet most of them didn't. But the point is: if there is a war, seems it started long before the current complainers started moaning and retching over this FOX issue.

6. It's not smart to go after a popular network.

    Just the opposite. If a popular network calls a program "news," but is deceiving the public, it would be stupid and dangerous not to point it out. Once more this is, "Shut the hell up," with the added, "stop telling the truth." They've just taken that "talking point" from their obnoxious pantheon of talking heads and exported it over a program mislabeled as "news."

    Here come those Liberals who think they're turtles again. No wonder FOX keeps making turtle soup out of pure nothing. Liberals keep offering themselves up as the main ingredient.

7. All you have done is made their ratings go up.

    Of course you will make their ratings go up amongst their base. So what? Ignoring them won't make it go down. This kind of argument is sheer nonsense. Just ignore the man pounding on the podium talking about more living room for Germans. That worked, right? Even Chamberlain didn't suggest that. I'm sure when Roosevelt went to war Hitler's standing amongst his base went up. When Bill Clinton went after George the Senior I'm sure George Senior's base rallied. When the Right went after Bill, we rallied.

   "But Ken! Look at what happened to them!"

    Yes, they were "marginalized" so much they got the both the Senate and the House. They succeeded in keeping the focus off of bin Laden. Remember the "aspirin factory?" Never guess who they were trying to get. Then they successfully impeached a president... success being defined by doing it, not conviction. Then they got the Supreme Court to hand over the presidency. They "failed" so much they have damn near everyone, including the Left, buying into "Clinton lied under oath," even though the question in question was answered correctly, "Is there a relationship..." Phrased in the present tense.

    Damn it all to Hell. I wish I had that "lack of success" in my life.

    Going after popular people, parties and entertainers works. Not going after them does nothing but enable them. If going after them didn't work Dems would have stayed in power and Michael Jackson really would have been the most popular entertainer in recent history for most of his life. The media would have ignored his excesses and eccentricities.

    Let's be honest. Demonizing, lying and creating fake lead news stories about people works. Bad press, accurate or not, works. And maybe that's the point. The Right Wing noise machine via FOX puts out yet another lie that it doesn't work, and talking heads on the left; with more empty in their heads than brains, go, "Yup, yup, yup, yup..."

    Where did these media types/talking heads on the left get their communications/mass media/journalism credentials from, Media R Us U? Wassamatta U.? Or maybe the media defend FOX because they're jealous. They want their own slice of the lie pie.

    Want short term, but meaningless, results? Ignore them. Their ratings may not go up quite as much in the short run. But they will shoot even higher in the long run. It's called "culling an audience."

    The more input we have from all fronts; yes that includes the administration, the better. Letting FOX have their BS image without the administration challenging helps the public decide they are legit. Why should Barack let that standard; more like lack of a standard, stand?

    He shouldn't. Expressing the opposite opinion and then letting the public decide between the two is not only wise, but his duty.

    In college I was a Communications/Mass Media major; with a heavy dose of Journalism. I studied the media, how lies were propagated during the last round of yellow journalism. And we studied the move to objective journalism; true journalism and news reporting... the kind where there is at least a modicum of ethics. Objectivity is an effort: a goal, never fully achieved. But a worthy one for a true journalist and, specifically: news professionals.

    I am less troubled by talking head opinion pushers. While I deeply disagree with the Becks and the Limbaughs; disturbed by their antics, they are labeled as opinion. I would never claim that the more left leaning news media in general has been pure or as objective as it should be, or should have been. And I have always been able to listen to news that seems more left or right skewed: no problem.

    I consider what FOX calls "news" un-watchable. It is in a category all it's own: pure propaganda. I stopped listening to FOX when they first went national because I heard one national anchor turn to the other and say, about Bill Clinton, "He really is an asshole, isn't he?" The response, with a smirk, was, "Why, yes, he is." The use of the profanity alone at that time should have meant sanctions by the FCC and the anchors being fired in a quite public fashion.

    Nada.

    Off and on, when I happen to be somewhere where FOX blather is on 24/7, it takes practically zero seconds to hear some, often obscene, ad hominem spewed; some pure fiction pushed as "news." Last Sunday, as I typed my first rough draft of this edition of Inspection, I had the Sirius POTUS stream on. They went to FOX news in the afternoon. The first thing: first "'news' story," was, "Now let's hear more about Barack Obama's enemies list." I shut it off. Why? Because back when Nixon had an enemies list the claim wasn't made there actually was an actual enemies list until a bloody, honest to God, real solid, enemies list was discovered. At best I heard, "There are rumors of..." but then they went on to real news. Such rumors may have been mentioned briefly, but they certainly weren't the first story.

    A Senator claiming that there may be, there's a possibility of, an enemies list isn't "news." If mentioned briefly as rumor I have less concern, professionally. Worthy of big, all important, news seg? Hell, no. Goebbels must be beaming in Hell with pride at the tactics of his intellectual progeny.

    So people wonder why some consider FOX not "news," but pure propaganda?

    Duh.

    No. FOX brought this on themselves. Scuse me if I shed no tears and cheer on the administration when they beat back. I just wish they'd beat a little harder.

Still not convinced? Here's an expose chock full of links that show how FOX in no way is news. If you're on the Right and love FOX I dare you to go there and click on them. But you won't will you? And why is it that those who represent the loudest, toughest talking, partisan skew in our country are usually sissies and cowards? 

                                                            -30-

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

© Copyright 2009
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved
_______
Not all editions of Inspection appear here at TPM. Check out Ken's weekly column...
http://ltsaloon.org/archives/category/columnists/inspection

  

   Not all Inspection columns appear here at TPM. More Inspection columns can be found here.

     If you think a bit first; reconsider the delusions of some of those who attempt to lead or "educate" us, like the Geico Gecko you'd know better than to stand behind them...

    Afternoons I tire of a screechy hostess on Left Talk and the same old, same tiresome regurgitated talking points over at Con gushing out of marginally different sounding mouths, so I go to POTUS: a stream offered by Sirius. Often it's Pete Dominick. I feel comfortable with him. He doesn't seem to be overly one-sided, or partisan. He's from Syracuse area. I used to hang around Syracuse when I went to college in Utica, NY and met my wife from New Hartford, so I suspect there may be some regional familiarity there. We're both from New York originally. Although if you live south of Harriman; like I did as a youngster before Bill Carman returned to the family homeland known as the Adirondacks, you might pronounce it more like "Nu-Yawk."

    Pete had Newt Gingrich on this last week.

    I don't know if you've noticed, but Newt Gingrich has been doing the talking head show circuit again. Now I feel some regional familiarity with him too, since I hang around Marietta, Georgia occasionally and he, like quite a few Atlanta region-ites, doesn't seem too "South." Seems like he was raised in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Eh, not that far away, culturally.

    Over the years as Newt returned to that circuit again and again, somehow he has retained, and even gained, more gravitas than pretty much any one else from the 80s who went through their own scandals. Newt, a college professor... subject: History... is quite interesting to listen to when he lectures regarding his beloved history, and that's why he's during the tour. He has written yet another book, this one regarding our forefathers. But when he tries to inject religion into our founding documents his professor persona gets swallowed by his obvious partisan skew.

    This separates him not one iota from his "intellectual" brethren and sister-en like Limbaugh, Beck, Malkin, Coulter. Whenever Newt switches to his partisan view of things by conflating his own opinions with the forefathers I keep imagining he's about to enter the chamber in The Fly. He always seems to come out just like that misguided scientist: part human, part fly and all wrong.

    Newt is the kind of intellectual that put the facade of "legit" on the movement so the barn burners can continue spreading accelerants. He knows just how to get Right Wing bobble-heads bobbing, and less sophisticated thinkers to mimic a snagged bass: swallowing his "wisdom" hook, line sinker, pole and fishing reel.

    Newt claims that because the Declaration uses "endowed by their Creator" the forefathers meant God, and only God, gives us rights. When questioned his retorts is, "Then who?" The answer is simple, "No one."

    If we are to believe most of our forefathers and the intellectual-theological skew they had: they exist naturally: part of Creation.

    Being a history professor, and obviously well educated and studied regarding history and especially American history, I find it puzzling that Mr. Gingrich would even suggest such, considering most of our forefathers were deists... unless of course the object is to stroke some religious base that keeps the Right Wing in power and buckaroos.

   Newt would never expose himself by performing that form of political-theological self manipulation in public, would he?

    Would he?

    Hmmm... tantrums because a president won't give him his undivided attention during a funeral, shutting down the government in an attempt to bully a president into anything and everything he wanted, getting rid of a politically troublesome wife who may be on her deathbed for a more politically and financially advantageous one, hiding his own affairs while ranting on about a president's inappropriate sexual trysts...

    Well, maybe.

    All that is so tawdry, so let's get to the philosophical core of the matter. Why would our forefathers have used "Creator" if they didn't mean "God?" I suspect Mr. Gingrich would like us to believe, or at least a portion of the Neo Con base to believe, because they agreed with the Fundamentalist's version of a Christian God.

    Yes, the majority of our forefathers were neither atheist or agnostic. But they weren't even what would be considered these days to be your standard theists. They were deists. Whether you consider deism a form of theism, like I do, or something that deserves its own category like some do, what deists believed is crucial to this discussion, as I'm sure Newt knows. No one I know would claim he's ignorant historically.

de·ism
n. The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

    So Mr. Gingrich is probably being more than a little deceptive with "if not God, who?" The term "endowed" relates directly to design, as in creation and what a Creator would do. Most likely that's why they used "Creator" rather than God, plus "Creator" is more vague and can be accepted by a wider base, faith-wise. You know, like those Mr. Gingrich's religious base might find offensive? But if they meant "God," wouldn't they have used "God," or even "God as represented by his son, Jesus Christ?"

No creation, to the deist, was designed that way. That's how we were "endowed." But the religious right believes more in a Santa like being where everything is a personal gift.

    While this all fits in well with the misguided efforts over the years to spread the wrong headed myth that our forefathers were devoted Christians of the fundamentalistic kind, let's step back from that for a second. It also misrepresents the Constitution and the Declaration in a very politically convenient way.

   The Constitution does not "give rights." Indeed it even explicitly mentions that all rights not mentioned belong to the people. When the Bill of Rights was proposed objections were raised that the "any other rights belong to the people" provision would be circumvented because, get this, opponents said this would make people claim that the Constitution would have to specifically mention a right for it to be a right. Silly opponents. That would never happen, right? But supposedly wiser heads prevailed because it was felt these specific rights were so important they should be mentioned, emphasized, highlighted if you wish, by a Bill of Rights. After all, these were the grievances tossed at a tyrant they wished to be free from.

    Ah, sometimes "wiser" heads are not as wise as they think they are, are they?

    But when making an argument with a King quite public, any deist would certainly use the argument that the Creator designed our rights into creation. Yet even if we went all atheist on this, the logic still applies. Our rights exist naturally. We can do anything we want, until our neighbor decides not.

    Now here's the hard part. Our documents do not give us rights. We are considered to have them even if they haven't been mentioned. Our documents take them away, while limiting how many can be taken away. That's why the Bill of Rights was so controversial. And those who opposed it obviously had a point: they have led to claims made by forgetful progeny that these documents "give rights."

    Any decent form of governance limits rights. Otherwise we might think we have the right to murder, to steal... not that many haven't argued and won those rights. If a CEO makes a decision to market something their tech department knows is toxic or might easily kill, and many citizens die... how many out there expect to see them in a few years with a needle in their arm, at the end of a rope or in an electrified chair. Raise your hands!

     I'm waiting.

    The problem is the majority of the populace either isn't able, or willing, to look under these rocks, to dive deeper into the issues, and understand such things. I don't blame them. I blame people like Mr. Gingrich who spend some time educating, and the rest deceiving for political gain.

    But to be clear, I think we'd have more luck buying religious concepts regarding our forefathers from the Geico Gecko than a Newt.

                                             -30-

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

© Copyright 2009
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved

   I handed her over to a death panel today. Society deems her, and far too many, as unworthy of life: too much of a burden. They are put to death like one might squash a mosquito or step on a spider; only mostly hidden so we don't have to consider our own callous nature.

    She was wandering aimlessly down a road near my house, confused, unable to say anything: especially about what happened to her. She was disheveled and... dare I ask? No I couldn't ask. If only I could have asked... It was as if some bastard had cut her and then pushed her out of the car when it hadn't quite stopped moving. I asked if she needed a ride. She did. I could tell she was hungry so I promised I'd go get her something to eat. Despite her pain... did I see a smile? She was so upset. I knew she wouldn't be able to tell me what had happened.

    Later I did check with a neighbor who lived by the road. Had she seen what happened? The neighbor said she hadn't seen anything and didn't know who the stranger was.

   But the stranger seemed friendly enough. I gave her something to eat and went in to make a few more calls. When I came back she started to threaten me. No matter what I said, or how nice I was, all she did was threatened me even more.

    I told her I was going to go back inside and make some more calls and see if I could find her some help. Still, no one knew who she was. When I came back out she acted as if I was her best friend and savior again.

    Now I knew I was in trouble. I had someone very unstable in my truck who could be friendly at one moment and then, for no apparent reason, turn on me. This happened to me once before, but I had had better luck. I picked up a hitchhiker in the 80s outside of Crossville, Tennessee and a few minutes after she got in she started asking for money. I didn't have any; all I had was a check from my client. So she started pounding on the dash and screaming about her lot in life. I had better luck that time. I got off at an exit I said was mine and she willingly got out.

    This time it would be harder. I knew she was determined to hurt me, or herself, if I asked her to leave. So I very calmly: friendly, said I had to go somewhere. She, happy again, sat next to me when I got in the truck and took her to the other side of the city.

    She never saw those who work for the local death panel coming. She seemed sad: betrayed, as they took her off to a very short future; shortened by one of the thousands of death panels we have had across the country since... well, long before Obama, either Bush or Reagan.

    I'm guessing by now, she's dead.

    Am I a bad person?

    I know that there are no "death panels" in what the President is proposing. I also know that corporate bureaucrats who work for insurance companies may be the closest thing we have to "death panels" when they decide that you, I, or the real Norma Rae, might be better off dead than cutting into profit margins. I know that "death panels" for all its phony politicization of an outright lie, is "at least about humans:" since speciesism is still considered political correct by much of the religiously insane, and admittedly less than insane, elements in society.

    Yet, despite the conundrum: the seemingly mundane fact that we treat our pets both less humane and more humane than we treat each other... it still rips a hole in my heart when I consider how dogs and cats are considered disposable chattel and less worthy of life than humans. They are like the dinner on our dishes we were too full to finish: scrapped into some waste disposal unit and ground into God knows what. As humans we only have one consistent saving grace when it comes to cats and dogs: when it comes to end of life issues we are generally more humane to them.... when there is no hope: when all there is, is pain... than we are to our own mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and lovers.

    But we also use them to satisfy our most sadistic fantasies. Hence Michael Vick.

    I heard an interview on NPR the other day with a former breeder of the kind of dogs used in dog fights. He claimed dog fighters love their dogs. If they do then how can they stand to see them ripped apart in a fight? Do they feel nothing when the other dog is ripped apart, or has to be put down, other than the pleasure of winning? Even the mother of a boxer would scream foul if her son's opponent was allowed to do what dogs are expected to do to each other in such fights.

    If this is "love," then do they pit their all too human lovers against each other in the same way? I'm afraid to hear the answer, because I suspect a good portion of those who fight dogs also beat their wives and their kids: sometimes to death.

    What does all this say about us?

    When I returned to my truck an hour later the pit who that had turned on me so quickly was suddenly all tail wags and licks again; back to shivering in fear. I hoped I had a chance, a window here to resolve the face off. So chucked all my plans to wrap her in a blanket, put a box over her or prod her out with poles into a portable dog kennel. Any of those actions might have made her turn on me again. Last time I was just politely asking her to get out on my property so I can give her some water and food. What would forcing her into a kennel or attempting to cover her do?

    I took a chance. I could have tried to find a no kill shelter, or at least go to the Humane Society's shelter; but that meant getting in and out of a truck, perhaps several times, with an animal that had already turned on me once. So I slid into the truck and drove straight to the pound about 20 miles away, hoping the canine coin wouldn't flip back to mean and angry again. Driving with a dog that might suddenly become eager to bite is not my idea of a good time.

    I excuse my own visit to the death panel today by admitting that this pit bull was unstable and my have hurt my dogs, my wife. Distemper? Rabies? I didn't know for sure. I was told by the pound that no one else would take her in. Why?

"She's a pit bull."

    Yes: a creature we have classified like we classified runaway slaves not too long ago. Or like some faiths classify children: something that we have "been given dominion over," or as twisted it is defined by some: to vent our own unstable natures on. Some may beat them, but at least children are not supposed to be "disposable," though a few of the most fundamental faiths point to their interpretation of certain passages in the Bible to underline their claim that any interference by the State is wrong... even when a child is beaten half to death, or tied to bed with duct tape to "make them behave."

    Much like a short chain, consecutive beatings all with the intent to make a dog that will kill or be killed in brutal ways.

    What the hell is wrong with us?

    I am not guiltless. I know I took her some place that, many years ago, was caught killing off our all too disposable pets by stuffing as many of any size into a single drawer and then sucking the air out. Only sometimes that didn't kill them all, so they repeated the procedure. They seem to have come a long ways from the days when the dog pound/animal control was ironically next to the dump.

    How oddly appropriate. If only I could find it amusing, but I can't.

    I know that some, like perhaps my stray, are very, very dangerous. But I don't blame her or dogs in general for all this. I blame us. I am so damn amazed at how they continue to love us, often without reservation, and feel ashamed that the pit bull I met today trusted me most of our time together: up until the very last moment. It makes me remember a quote. To paraphrase...

"For what you do to the least amongst you, you do unto me."

    Why, 2000 years later, do we continue to drive nails into those we love, whether they be each other or our pets?

                                                               -30-

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

© Copyright 2009
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved

Note: this was published over at LT Saloon a couple days ago. Since then I have been battered by those on the Left who think Polanski is the victim, and been aghast by those on the Left (Dave Marsh, specifically.) who claim that what Polanski did is not only the same as chasing a five year old, but what Bill and Monica did is the same. God, just how did we get this screwed up when it comes to sex issues in this country?
 

   Polanski: Pedophile? Or nasty, criminal putz?

    The case of Roman Polanski has me into more than mere muse as of late over these two skews: ways to frame his crime. When I first heard the news I wondered, "Where the hell has the media been on this?"

    Where the media usually is: no where to be found if it's not sexy or serves the some big corporate agenda.

    What's the fuss is about his cinematic work I have never quite figured out. Even though I've had multiple film critique classes and know amongst many profs his work is well respected, in my opinion his most famous movie: Rosemary's Baby was a big yawn and a big promotional smooch to Catholicism and superstition, for example. I can't remember a damn thing about Chinatown or The Pianist. Good movies hang with me. Polanski's movies twist away easier than Linda Blair's all too obviously fake head. And sometimes all I'm left with is fake puke. Gross? Yes, but not all that interesting, relevant or even good fiction.

    Yeah, I know. Supposedly Baby was supposed to have been based on real events. But I'm enough of a skeptic to only believe that's what really happened like that just as soon as I see the ghost of Harry Houdini who said he would come back if it's possible.

   His movies, as a whole, have neither overwhelmed me, nor impressed me. I do think, like most icons, he's a bit over-rated.

    Though I was not impressed, I have no personal ax to smash into what soon will be mere remains of a towering tree of a career here. What makes him so popular? Stumps me.

    Since I'm not a fan you'd think my first reaction would be to cheer the pickle he got himself into in after using his own personal pickle in a very inappropriate manner, oh, so long ago. No, my first reaction was...

"Why do they insist on conflating statutory misbehavior with being a real pedophile?"

    This has less to do with Polanski than it does my feelings regarding dating and age differences. I learned about this issue early: when I was still a teen, and I also learned I am no fan of older men who date underage girls. I lost a friend in the late 60s/early 70s over this issue.

    Dan was a smarter than your average 16 year old who, more so than most, was hormone driven. (Maybe I should strike "most" and rephrase as "all?") Briefly after we first became friends he started dating Marsha. She was 14, he was 16. OK, problematic, but not something I found offensive. The last time we had a true discussion was when he insisted he was going to date Lisa.

   "Dan, she's a sixth grader. And if you hadn't futzed around all these years by now you'd be a senior like me. It's immature decisions like this that hold you back."

   "But I like her!"

   "Dan, she's friggin 12 years old, you're almost 18."

   "But I like her!"

   "Dan, if you do this, I can't be your friend anymore."

    Well, I'm sure you know where that went. So I'm obviously no pal to those who do such things. But there's something so obviously different when comparing the two. Both are predatory, true, though I believe one is less so. Someone who dates under age; especially with that much of a difference, should be punished. We have to draw the permission line somewhere, and a 12 year old really... most of the time... hasn't the schnock to decide either way. OK, I understand that doesn't translate into "all," but I still go back to...

          "We have to draw the permission line somewhere."

     But a true pedophile should really be more clearly defined: both legally and socially. Why? Someone who chases five-year-old kids is sick beyond belief. So why do we, as a society, shove both dating under age women and chasing little kids into this catchall pedophile category? We shouldn't, because it's like treating assault as the same as mass murder. The two are simply not the same, and they shouldn't be put together on any list: national or local, without at least distinguishing between the two.

    That's what we don't do now. As it stands a 18 year old who gets caught with a 15 year old is pretty much considered the same as the 50 year old who likes to prey upon 3-year-olds. That is flat out wrong.

    Yet, as the story progressed and I learned more about what happened, I became less and less comfortable with my own position.

    She was drugged.

    She was drunk.

    I would assume Polanski had something to do with all of the above. "Jackass" doesn't quite describe my feelings.

    I have read she's still angry over what happened, although even she has said it was long ago and we should let it go. I'm sorry, I can't agree: he had to be in his forties, she... 13. And, to add to the rage, we can't let someone who ran get away with it, even if the judge went back on an agreement.

    But all these issues: the drugging, the alcohol, the extreme age difference... could be punished under separate laws. We could actually punish him worse than a true pedophile if we treated his crimes that way. Yet in their anger people want to conflate this kind of criminal prosecution with those sick bastards who hunt and prey on the smallest and most vulnerable amongst us, much like our laws do.

    There simply is no comparison.

    One type of person needs to be punished, yes, but the other probably needs to kept away from civilized society: permanently.

    Now that's something I might agree to.

                                                        -30-

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

© Copyright 2009
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved

   ...at least not if you continue attempting to please the radical Right. They do not deserve such respect, Mr. President. Indeed it only encourages them to go further down insanity's superhighway.

   For example...

   Have you noticed, Mr. President, all the tongue wagging and shaking heads regarding your use of the media; the many times you have reached out? You do realize, being one of the smarter presidents we've ever had, that if you had done less reaching out to find ways to speak to all of America they'd just go back to calling you an effete' snob like they did during the election, right?

   I can hear it now...

"Look, he won't even go on David Letterman to speak with us commoners!"

"Why didn't he just invite the two to sit down with him and have a beer or something? Why if Joe Biden is so great, he could have make it a foursome. What elitists!"

    Let's consider a side issue here: racism. You have said this isn't about racism. I agree. Though I have no doubt that racism is alive in America, and that racists are being pushed in a dangerous direction by certain pundits and pols, I doubt those doing the actual pushing are doing it because they are racists. No, Mr. President, the truth is far darker, more vicious and perhaps even more evil than that. So what is it about?

 

    More than anything it's about a party and a small, loudmouth, squeaky wheel movement, whose leaders and pundits have intentionally left civility, civilized and rational behavior behind. To them winning is the only thing; winning being defined only as monopolizing and controlling the national discourse. And the extreme Right does that very, very well.

    If using racists works for against their chosen target, that's what they will do. If claiming to be the victims of racism serves their purpose they will suddenly insist they are victims too.

    Lying is appropriate and necessary if it serves the cause, as far as they are concerned. After all, if you keep claiming that Saddam never let the inspectors in, or kicked the inspectors out, enough people will start to question reality or even believe such utter lies. The true "death panels" are the insurance companies that killed the real Norma Rae recently by denying coverage. The enablers of such are those who divert attention by claiming someone else; in this case the government, has death panels planned.

    Yes, pols like Sarah Palin are liars for hire by the Right, paid for by pure purveyors of propaganda like FOX and those who eagerly fund and give plenty of uncritical press to hate mongers. The payment is usually in power, contributions and a place on the national stage.

    But back to racism. I certainly believe that there is an intent to enrage the racists by certain right wing pundits and pols in this country, but this goes to "anything that might allow us to dominate the national stage" mentality. During the Clinton years I remember references to the Clintons that I'm sure were intended to enrage racists. He was, after all, "Holding America hostage."

    ...not Newt Gingrich who shut down Congress in an attempt to force a president to agree to his party's agenda, or Republicans who felt the most important thing was spending massive amounts of money wasting precious time pursuing a President.

    All that time; bin Laden was plotting. Even trying to take Osama out was called "wagging the dog."

Courtesy walrusmagazine.com

    ...not Vernon Wayne Howell; otherwise known as David Koresh, who could have at least let the children go at any time.

    ...not mass murderers Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh, who were so turned on by The Turner Diaries that they murdered enough people to fill a building; including a preschool full of little children. The Turner Diaries: where a heavy handed attempt to control the people, like they considered Waco to be, led to a revolution that had true believers hanging and shooting all the Blacks, all the Latinos: all non-Aryans and everyone who dared to disagree with them. They were literally lined up: town after town, city after city... all across the nation and slaughtered. This is what McVeigh and Nichols sought. This is what they dreamed of.

    ...not mass murderers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold who so admired Nichols and McVeigh that they held school children hostage; then brutally slaughtered them and their teachers off one, by one, by one.

    You won't find one Limbaugh or Beck who will say they support what McVeigh, Nichols, Harris and Klebold did. But you will find them framing issues for the Right to deliberately force feed an anger laced milk teat to this kind of audience, like Limbaugh recently claiming Obama was intentionally leading the country into a dictatorship because no one dares to criticize a Black man. Or Beck calling him a racist... presumably because he's anti-White. Gee, I wonder just how much that tweaked the minds of the next McVeigh or Klebold?

    The purpose?

    Easy.

    Whatever it takes to enrage more people.

   ...especially the least stable amongst us: most willing to follow and not think for themselves.

"I will do your thinking for you."

-Rush Limbaugh

Courtesy gfn.com

   And while these type of pundits and pols may or may not personally be racist to the core, they willingly, eagerly: with malice, play this card... any card to their advantage: even if they have to cheat by sneaking cards into the game. That's what lying is in debate and discussion: cheating.

    They will play these cards whether it incites racists, or uses false cries of racism to beat down a Black woman who is called to testify during the Clarence Thomas mess. If need be, suddenly, they will become defenders of the Black man.

    This switch so easy for them because it isn't racism we're dealing with when it comes to most of these pundits and pols. They are bi-political: equal opportunity abusers of freedom of speech and civility. Doesn't matter who they verbally beat on just as long as they can make you afraid, very afraid, of someone other than them and their agenda.

   Notice the cries of socialism and the listing of bail outs that "prove" Obama's a Socialist almost always include the bank bailouts: the bailout George Bush did, not Obama. They lump that bailout in with others hoping no one will notice: making asinine excuses if they do.

    Don't forget the same pols and pundits were out immediately after 9/11 insisting the Oklahoma City terrorist attack was the work of Saddam: demanding that we must attack immediately... a wet dream they finally fulfilled after Cheney and the oil companies met to divide up the spoils: much like Hitler and Stalin.

     This ability to justify "whatever" is infectious. It's why they and their followers think talking over anyone who disagrees with them, or screaming at a town hall to the point of making the meeting come to a screeching halt, is nothing more than exercising their rights. If screaming fire in a crowded theater served their purposes, you betcha they'd be pushing an amendment to the Constitution right now and cursing the "damn Libural" Court for ruling against that so many years ago.

    The irony is that the movement that once claimed to be "the moral majority" is probably less concerned with their own morals and ethics than any large scale movement in modern times.

Courtesy dummidumwit.com

    To Beck who, along with making statements not unlike ones Osama might support and helping to incite scream and shout down anyone riots, the issue is never him and what he says. No, he always has some lame excuse like... "People are angry."

   Yes, some are. In the same sense that people who listened to Father Coughlin were angry. And for those who would rather we forget, let's remind them: Rush Limbaugh was encouraging his followers to help start riots at the Democratic Convention in 08 like they had in 68. Riots that could easily have taken a lot of human lives. He even spent a lot of time promoting the idea that the Right help this supposed "liberal" organization's attempt to recreate 68 on his show.

    Not one of the many one cells in this giant lake filled with human scum is "Pro-Life." Not one. When it's to their advantage they are Pro-Hate, Pro-Fear and... Pro-Murder: all for the mere purpose of political gain. They just let others do their dirty work by doing anything they can to encourage and incite them, then slyly show their support for murder by claiming "at least there will be one less clinic and fewer abortions."

     And their followers get it. That's why there have been multiple murders of people deliberately assassinated by Pro-Life and anti-Gay drones driven by hate talk.

    A few years ago a doe died on my property mid-fawn birth in the middle of the night. I discovered this horror early in the morning walking one of my collies. When we returned with a shovel to bury it we found a swarm of bugs had come up from the underworld and had already devoured more than three quarters of it in a mere half an hour: at best. Welcome to the kind of world that has been created by right wing theocratic and Neo Con ideology. Prepare to agree or be devoured, for they have little tolerance for civil discourse, and literally no respect for truth. That's why The Turner Diaries folks tune in so well to their message. They share a very brutal and vicious "ends justify the means" mentality.

    When bullets fly they make excuses.

    When the innocent die they blame the dead if it serves what they absurdly call "Pro-Life" purposes.

   They build websites to honor those who hang boys from fences in Texas.

   The likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Tom Delay, Michelle Malkin, Beck, Michelle Bachmann and the rest will do little to discourage, and even tend to encourage, the kind of anger that creates this cesspool we swirling down daily: every week, every month; year after year.

   This isn't Conservative. It isn't even Right Wing, really. It's a "whatever it takes, and whomever we can use, to get more power and threaten those who don't agree," philosophy. Not just "amoral," but intentionally malevolent: in fact gleefully so.

    It's, dare I type... quite Rove-ian in nature.

    You can't win with these folks Mr. President. You can't win when bullies and liars will do and say anything, unless you're willing to beat back: hard. I don't care how much you compromise or give up. You won't win. Never. Ever. You will lose, and so will America.

    Unfortunately?

    I know you'll keep trying.

    Please avoid anything resembling an open limo, Mr. President; for as long as you stay in office... and maybe even after. Remember, as I typed many times... they will use anyone; any group, encourage anger amongst the worst of humanity, just to get them where they want to go. They've done this for many, many years, Mr. President. They know the right buttons to push; metaphorical triggers to pull.

   And sometimes, unfortunately, "metaphorical" triggers can inspire the pulling of real ones.

X marks the spot: Dealey Plaza.

There's a long history regarding the topic this edition of Inspection covers. Here's a link.

                                                                             -30-

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

© Copyright 2009
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved
Picture from Wiki Commons

   Want to see editions of Inspection that may not appear at TPM? Click HERE.

 

               Inspection- Train Wreck: the Final Analysis

 

   This is part three of the series. Since part two never appeared here at TPM, you will notice I have pasted part two and even part one previous to this column. Please feel free to review either or both before you read part three.

 

   I really prefer to write columns that stand on their own. If I feel it necessary to do a two part column, I prefer to go on after that. Any topic, no matter how it's approached, can anger some. I don't know about you, but kicking a sleeping guard dog just once can be too much. Twice not advised. Three times? Jeez, how stupid can one be?

   Yet this is the third part in a series. It will stand on its own for those unwilling to search the archives for part one and two.. I guess that some subjects stick to me like quills after rolling in a bed made out of porcupines. To use an old, outdated, phrase: this subject definitely "sticks in my craw."

   What the hell is a craw? The dictionary definition linked to above seems to lack common sense. As did certain comments at a meeting I went to last weekend and Rep. Wilson's words when President Obama spoke this week.

   Here's how the two relate...

   During the meeting I went to a member of the organization spoke up, "The problem is a lot of folks here hate the railroad people..." a not unsubstantial number of those who attended the meeting are either pro-railroad or have good friends who are. Another said to the president of the organization, "No, the problem is a lot of us hate you."

   Of course we all know what was said to President Obama recently. While addressing the House, a Rep called him a liar; well screamed out actually, regarding the health care initiative.

   While heading out of town I spoke with one of the folks who defended the "we hate the railroad people" comment. "(The leader) needed to hear that." I'm sure the Rep. thought Obama needed to hear that some thought he was lying.

   Let's sit back and think about this rationally for a moment. Does anyone really think that President Obama doesn't realize that some of the folks on the other side may think he's a liar sometimes? In the same sense, my guess is the president of any organization realizes that there's animosity towards her... or him... and when some of the policies that get pushed; actions taken, are hated too.

    So my guess is any advantage to this kind of venting is limited at best: if there's any advantage at all. Another local suggested that such venting will "let it all out so things can calm down... eventually." My guess is just the opposite: such comments make those who agree more sure of themselves and more angry, and those who disagree join forces... and if they weren't angry before; they sure as hell are now.

   Another question must be typed, though I loath to do so. There are some leaders who become such a lightning rod that whatever good they wish to achieve actually backfires. They become the issue. We kind of saw that with Bill Clinton. We saw less with George H W. I don't think we're anywhere close to that with Barack Obama. We were there with George W... but he and his people didn't care.

   There's an interesting line between one who is a dictator wannabe and a true representative. That's when they think what they think, what they want, and whatever agendas they may have, become more important than serving large portions of the public who disagree with them. George was asked when he ascended if he knew that he was to be president of all the people, not just those who voted for him. He said he knew that.

   Did he behave that way?

   Hell no.

   Any leader of any organization needs to constantly assess whether they have become so much the issue that this is a problem, no matter how ill-deserved the situation may be. Is that becoming true of the leadership during my meeting? I don't know. But I do believe this is something leaders must assess themselves. Just be aware that if you ever become more important than those you serve, then you, not what you work for, has become "the problem."

   After eight years under someone who thought their agenda was more important and to hell with what others think, just look at the economy, the wars that supposedly were to only last a few months and pay for themselves, the torture mess and just where the Hell is Osama? Maybe under all those books and stuff that W. laughed about when looking for fictional WMD that Cheney claimed would be easy to find?

   Did he even realize that thousands had died searching for those weapons? One thing that marks some of the worst, most dictatorial, leaders humanity has had is their insensitivity. This "insensitivity" can often be found in their willingness to laugh at and express scorn that's actually directed at the concerns of their subjects.

"Let them eat cake."

    I would hope that Cheney, Bush, Rice and all the fellow former administration members would have rather given the next administration no wars, a booming economy, no torture problems and Osama's head with an apple in it. I wish I could believe that. Let's just say... considering unfunny moments like making fun of the search for WMD: I have my doubts, to put it mildly.

   This is what happens when trains wreck. They go out of control. If we're lucky the engineer: our leader, isn't so callous. Or so busy squabbling... causing in fighting... that they're not paying attention to all they need to. One hopes they're actually paying attention to keeping the train safe and on the tracks. But it also becomes hard... if not impossible... when the passengers and those who work on the train are screaming and yelling; calling names and accusations: distracting the engineer and contributing to the wreck.

   But that is what America is like today. That is also how I felt sometimes during that meeting when I listened to a long "trouble here in River City" talk and people screaming and yelling accusations.

   Do you hear that?

   I think it's a train whistle.

   Run for your damn lives.

 

 

                                    -30-

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

© Copyright 2009
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved

 

 

Inspection- The Great Rhetorical Train Wreck at Beaver River Station... (Part 2)

"We have become a society which argues by extreme; absurd, hyperbole... and that has become the standard for 'rationale' discussion. Those who disagree with us are cast in absurd stage lights while we toss rotten tomatoes: personal insults and mischaracterizations, at them. Many of these comments are no more than mere smears that would make Boris Badenov seem more human: more real. Of course another factor here is the tendency to portray whatever those who disagree with us believe in as always resulting in worst case scenarios, while whatever you believe in will always result in best case scenarios."

"Worst and best case scenarios almost never come true."

   Beaver River Station is a quiet hamlet in what some refer to as "The Central Adirondacks." It's a bit more southwest than "central," but years ago someone... maybe Mr. Cohen or Adirondack French Louie: I'm not sure... started calling the area "central" and it has super glued itself to the region since at least my great Grandfather was a guide.

   There are no roads to Beaver River Station; not since the Flow, as it used to be called, was flooded near the turn of the previous century. But there is a railroad going right through the center of town. On a rare occasion I will see a train, or maintenance crews with railcars: trucks really, riding the rails past my retirement home.

   There also is a controversy surrounding this railroad which is a great rhetorical train wreck on a very small scale.

   When we bought our place there in 05 I longed to return to the peaceful, quiet; "get out of Dodge while going to Dodge City" town I first fell in love with in the early 60s. The kind of place where a stranger: a teen, could sit at a restaurant and play cards until past midnight with the owner's wife and the parents of many locals... some who are now on opposing sides in this train wreck.

   This sometimes rather nasty divide is over whether to rip out the rails and create a recreational trail out of what is used for snowmobiles when the train isn't operating in the winter... or support the railroad's efforts to hopefully have regular passenger service that passes through the Station. There's an added incentive: a necessarily limited ability to ride the rails with a railcar.

   Ever had a controversy where you feel you're on a rack and screw and you'd rather not have one side pulling on your arms, or the other stretching your legs? This is the way I feel about this issue. I can see advantages and disadvantages either way in this debate. But what I do see is what this issue might do to my beloved Beaver River Station. As fellow Beaver River-ite Bill Partridge and I agreed a few years ago...

"This town doesn't need, and is too small, for this kind of %$#@!."

  (I provided the "color" to our comments, to clear Bill of any foul language there may have been.)

   Like all issues, we should return to some rather obvious observations from the previous Inspection...

"Worst and best case scenarios almost never come true."

   Those who favor the train often address this issue as if the railroad will live up to all expectations and regular service will be common. The tracks will never again lay rotting; unused, as they did for many years after the last trains used them.

   Those who favor ripping out the tracks and making a trail point to how the train disappeared, how it competes with local business while using funds accrued through their taxes. They say decisions are being made for the community by people who have other; less than local, fish to fry. They address the train as if all it will do is wind up being is yet another massive drain on taxpayer's pocket and hurt business.

   Worst case scenario.

   Those who favor the trail address the trail as if there would be few problems tearing out the tracks and it will be little but a boon to the area... yet the trail is painted by those who oppose it as if it will automatically bring in an army of Visigoths; the most rabble-ish of the rabble... destroy the very heart and soul of what we all love about Beaver River Station.

   Yet another worst case scenario.

   Does any of this sound like the debate on health care, or Iraq, or...?

   Both are wrong.

   To repeat:

"Worst and best case scenarios almost never come true."

   Both are right: these are concerns that must be addressed.

   Mostly they are between.

   Oh, God... and the more I listen, the more I understand both sides. Why is it so much harder when you care about people on both sides of a very divisive issue? Both have a right to support their own side, of course. It's just unfortunate how such issues divide any community in very personal ways. Being a very tiny, and quite isolated, community we need each other. Walking down Park Avenue in New York City it's easy to come to the false conclusion that we really don't need each other with so many strangers passing us by, so when we disagree being dismissive is obviously easier.

   But in tiny place like Beaver River? I don't understand.

   If the tracks are ever torn out there can be little doubt that there will be abuses. Hell, I was one of those kids who rode the trails with my 125 Harley Rapido in the early 70s: a system of trails established for snowmobiles. Not quite legal, to say there least, though it was quite the adventure traveling back to where my father lived out the Depression running trap lines and living in lean-tos at well below minus zero.

   Just like traveling the tracks takes those of us who can to where old forgotten towns once were and allows us to see sights few do.

   What an adventure; just like my trail bike riding in the 60s and 70s.

   One might say that if we apply the same system used to regulate snowmobiles to such a rail trail: problem solved. Not really.

   During the winter the snowmobiles noisily buzz about and there is an elaborate system of licensing, trail grooming and patrolling these trails. The trains don't use the tracks that time of year. Even given the winter time system enforcement of the tracks and the trails there are still problems, tragedies and vandalism. Irresponsible behavior is very hard to control on any massive wilderness trail network.

   The problem with a rail trail; minus tracks, is similar to the problem we already have with snowmobile trails. The yahoo quota goes up. My uncle; a cop for many years in the biggest Adirondack town nearby: Old Forge, had a large photo book filled with accordion snowmobiles minus the mobilers. You didn't want to see what was left of them. I know at least one family at the Station who has been touched by this kind of tragedy. This past winter there was one specific accident in Beaver River Station area involving reckless behavior and snowmobiling and the tracks... what I think may have been a race out to the Flow where alcohol was most likely involved. (Probably a "I'll get to Scotland before ye" type challenge.) I think it pretty obvious that any rail trail would add to the carnage year round.

   Plus...

   Some trail supporters claim that selling the scrap metal would pay for pulling the tacks, and then some. Some track supporters claim it would prohibitive to even attempt to do it.

   I think the only way we'll know for sure is over the long haul. Despite best of intentions... things, and people, change. There is no perfect, or obvious, solution here.

   But let's bounce back to the other side...

   Railroads are expensive endeavors to fix and maintain, so I can't imagine the trail being as expensive as the railroad, since both have bills the public pays to a certain extent. Will the rail ever pay for itself? I have serious doubts.

   Also, to be honest, one must mention: all of this is dependent upon the whim of those who run the train, and whether the State decides to keep investing. We could, once again, wind up with little more than a rotting track system and therefore useless railcars. Even if the railroad opens up all the way to almost the Canadian border and has no stops and starts as it has had in the past, it could roll right by us if those who run the railroad decide that's best.

   As an aside, I notice there's been a hubbub recently regarding high speed rail in Upstate New York. From my admittedly limited understanding this is more Mohawk Valley/Syracuse oriented. One hopes. I would surmise that high speed rail would most likely limit rail usage by railcars, but other than that it would probably mean to Beaver River-ites comments on the approaching train would sound a bit like the following...

"Here it comes!!!!

There it ggggooooooooooeeeeesss!"

   I think the only way we'll know for sure is over the long haul. Despite best of intentions... things, and people, change. Once again... there is no perfect, or obvious, solution here.

   Is there ever on any issue?

   Either way we are talking about greater access with less control: more lethal accidents...

   ...or less access with, perhaps, too much control in the hands of those who may not always have our best interests at heart no matter howkind those in control may be now. The kind of access that allows outsiders to put up gates that block access to someone's camp... until they relent and give a key to the blocked owner. Or not, if less compassionate and understanding souls are in comtrol in the future.

   Or, on the other side, the kind of access that may create sometimes lethal results.

  (Not that railroads are by any means 100% safe, but there is less of a safety concern for the most part I would think.)

   What bothers me here, though, is how relations at the Station have gone to hell because we are having a problem discussing such things; or at least just getting along when we do disagree. I have been visiting web sites where fellow Beaver River-ites discuss such things and... well, it's much like the content of much of our "debates" these days.

   We have a not so funny, funny, way to discuss issues these days. We paint anyone who dares to disagree with broad brushes then continue on as if our painting is "fact." And what I just typed above pretty much goes for any debate; certainly not just this one.

   We must ask ourselves, again, as we did during part one of this topic, what exactly does strong sarcasm, name calling, and conveniently proclaiming you know the "true motives" are of those who you disagree with, achieve?

   Especially in a small town, will it make relations better?

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

   Will it all escalate?

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

   Usually? The single answer here is...

"Will make it all worse."

   Getting to Beaver River Station always has been... and most likely always will be... an adventure. I think most of us like it that way. Well, actually, love it.

    One upon a time; many years ago, that included the tracks. But if we think the dreams of the pro-railroad group will come to full: complete reality without any serious hitches or snags, we have to remember that there is an obvious history here: many stops and starts; reorganizations. I have recently read that the State has lately been questioning how much, and if, they are willing to continue fund the project. So just how likely is it that service will be regular and a boon to the Station without stops, starts, maybe even being abandoned again? Oh, probably almost as unlikely as the tracks will ever actually be torn out; especially...

"...without any serious hitches or snags..."

   What we have here is an issue that is being argued over much like we argue most of our issues these days. This who hold opposing positions on issues often look at their own stance in a very idealistic way, and very stark when it comes to the other side. And as one poster recently mentioned, it would be grand if we could do all this face to face, rather than via the net: especially when some hide their identity as they tend to do on the net. But this is part of the great rhetorical train wreck that is America, that has careened out of control over and over again.

   I am cursed when it comes to this issue, fellow Beaver River-ites. I truly see both sides, and while I lean back and forth, I believe the true curse is that we can get so damn angry and, sometimes childish, over issues. Insulting someone's railcar or conveniently declaring someone so shallow they would destroy a town for profit, is really neither conversation nor debate.

   It's just emotion.

   And to be honest, having read page after page of such on many debate forums regarding this debate and many, many issues over the years, I find discussion driven by name-calling and personal insult... B... O... R... I... N... G.

   Here is what I wish, I hope, I dream for my beloved Beaver River Station: those who are the most angry would calm the hell down and remember the person who disagrees with you isn't a villain or evil. As my Grandpa Earl said to Adirondack League Club's Mr. Gallagher when he opened the Bisby Gate for him one summer, "Anyone can be wrong. Even I was... once." And, this is harder: the other has a right to be "wrong," and have an opposite opinion... no matter how ill-conceived anyone may think their opinion is.

   But what will most likely to happen, no matter who "wins?" Well, since either way requires action on the part of government... my guess? Though I pray I'm wrong, no matter which way it falls, no one will be happy with how it turns out. It will resemble the south part of that moose who walked north through the Station a few years ago everyone was talking about.

   Finally! Having mentioned this to almost anyone in the Station I have spoken with regarding this issue, I finally found something I think we may all agree on!

 

 

                                                 -30-

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

 

© Copyright 2009
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved

 

 

Inspection- The Great Rhetorical Train Wreck Called America

 

   You can almost hear the wheels screeching, the train horn blow in desperation, the tipping of the cars and the engine bucking at the sudden stop.

   The great rhetorical train wreck called America.

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

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

   It's not.

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

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

   All of this has happened before.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   Will it make anything better?

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

   Will it all escalate?

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

   The answer here is almost always...

"It will make it all worse."

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

   Now that's a professional interviewer.

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

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

   Emotion isn't "discourse."

   It's just emotion.

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

   See? I told you. I claim no purity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                 -30-

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

 

© Copyright 2009
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved

_______

Boy, I really do pick the topics, don't I?

   Here is what I'm not doing...

 

1. Encouraging people to drive drunk.
2. Advocating drunk driving.
3. Trying to get anyone on some "radar" to be stopped more than anyone else.

   This column was inspired by an actual pre-existing program that could serve as a platform on which to build the course. The police in some parts of the country for a few years now have had courses where drivers, who have to have a ride home, get to drive after consecutive drinks on a course in the middle of an empty parking lot. After each drink they drive again. After a while they begin to notice that cones and placard people become easier targets when they think they're paying attention. It's a grand way to teach the ready to boast, "I drive well drunk," crowd that maybe they're not as "talented" as they think they are.

   I would love to see this go nationwide and become a requirement of sorts for the of age drinking crowd. I would also like to see it expanded to showing how drivers can handle emergency situations and tough driving conditions "under the weather." Think I just mean alcohol? No, not really. Trying to drive under the influence can mimic several conditions: being too tired to drive, having a medical condition that makes you respond sluggishly or erratically... It's not perfect, by any means, but at least drivers would get some lessons in, "What if you find yourself behind the wheel and suddenly you realize you may be having a problem. Underline "may." If you know you're having a problem, of course you should pull over... or not even get in if you know that far in advance.

   Personally, I'd rather it be run by professional driving instructors, not police officers. Why encourage paranoia?

"But Ken, that's like encouraging them to drive drunk!"

   Yes, and allowing people to own guns is encouraging them to kill each other?
Allowing access to birth control is encouraging sex?

   OK then...

   Confiscate all guns and arrest anyone as a potential criminal/terrorist who possesses one! To hell with it having been legal, they're a danger and we have a right to protect ourselves! Talk only about abstinence, nothing else. Ban birth control of all kinds.

   We've seen how well either has worked, how likely they are to happen and what kind of regimes push such policies. Simply put, banning most things as the only solution is no solution at all. And unless we get draconian to the point of gutting the "free" out of society, neither does just being "tough."

   The NRA gives safety lessons with guns. I can tell you from personal experience: encouraging them to abuse guns? Not. I have had sex education. I can tell you from personal experience, I certainly didn't run out and have sex, though like every hormone raging teen I was certainly interested... to put it mildly. (In fact, it was usually the boys and girls whose mothers and fathers refused to let them take sex ed; or thought they were too wise to take it, that wound up "missing" a few months of school, or avoiding that girl crying in the hall before she went on "a church retreat" to take care her "problem.") Me? It was quite a while after sex ed before I actually had the, um... pleasure? Ah, first experiences are rarely what we dream they will be. Let's just say I wish I could have offered more... pleasure.

   If educating on a topic "gives a license" to do wrong, or encourages, then we might as well go back or Orc beating the hell out of Ick with rock or stick; then dragging the woman he "won" home to have his way with her. That's back when we had real morals, before education screwed us up, right?

   Drunk driving is a problem. Driving while talking on a cellphone is a problem. As much as it makes me cringe to type this, I would recommend a course on that, or including it in a course called "Driving Distractions" that uses whatever kind of distractions there might be in a safe environment... just like the course the police offer I mentioned... to show how distractions like alcohol and cellphones can cause accidents. But I would also add, "If you do find yourself distracted..."

   Have you ever had a medical condition you didn't know you had that cropped up while driving? I have. Maybe off and on conditions like weather mimic the sluggish response time alcohol offers? Check. I was locked on a shut down interstate once; shut down after I got on it, where there was no exit for miles and sheer ice over the Atchafalaya swamp in Louisiana. Sheer ice coated everything. Despite winding up behind a semi that had tipped and slid sideways, three ice cream trucks that has crashed into several cars at the end of a causeway where one guy jumped into the swamp to avoid being hit while seeing if the guy in the semi was OK... I hit nothing.

   Good driving take patience, judgment and and an ability to drive impaired. Impaired by conditions, impaired by... whatever.

   Distractions happen. No matter how pure a driver tries to be, there's always a chance some otherwise excellent driver will have to face similar conditions. It's time to stop teaching our drivers to drive under less than perfect conditions.

   Hey, I'm not saying it should save anyone from a ticket, or being arrested. But it could very well save some completely innocent person's life.

   Isn't that worth 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 2009
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved

Note: I am not specifically arguing with some classic definition of Libertarianism here, more a few specific Libertarians I have encountered and some glaring inconsistencies amongst these same folks who claim to be Libertarians.


   Oh, boy, as if my limited readership needs to be thinned by ticking off Libertarians? But, hey, I didn't start Inspection 37 years ago to get hugs and deep throated French kisses. Besides, getting French kissed by the actual Deep Throat these days? Ewe.

   I don't know exactly what to call myself politically speaking and I admit I do tend to resist labels. Too much like bad boxes of cornflakes; they may be less than half full, or even full of something you didn't realize was there because you're too busy looking at the label on the box. Seems sometimes these days that's all we see. In fact I would suggest the majority of people that's all they ever see, sad to say. This is why labels are powerful propaganda.

   I consider myself to have some libertarian tendencies. I think, for the most part, what consenting adults do is up to them...

1. When it comes to sex, I would rather not know about the sloppy pig entrails, the light tasering, the knitting needles and God knows whatever that slippery substance on them is, thank you. Very personal things like sex the Government should probably stay out of most the time. There are exceptions, of course. There always are.

2. While I'm not a legalize all drugs advocate, I think our approach to drugs needs to be closer to "what consenting adults do..." mantra and "stop encouraging those who will always profit from making something illegal" concept. That means I'm pro a mild approach to illegality concerning drugs for the most part... please remember my exceptions rule. Drugs are a personal situation, best handled by families, churches, friends, relatives... and any government intervention needs to encourage them to help each other; not be the bloodied ax/hatch job the law and enforcement is right now. These laws; fully enforced, can destroy the individual and hack apart the family by being all draconian far more than drugs themselves do. That says a lot. Drug abuse mangles all the aforementioned on its own way the hell too much, thank you. But what we have now that's supposed to solve that problem doesn't work. It often makes it far, far worse.

3. We should be able to believe (or not) whatever we want, like the Gods are pleased when we sacrifice all Brussels sprouts. I'll even help. They're disgusting.

   As far as how we practice what we believe... well, different topic, but I think the exceptions rule applies here a lot.

   So, as you can tell, I have a few disagreements regarding Libertarians in general and their philosophy... for the most part. But this really isn't about me. It's about you, Mr., Mrs., Libertarian. 

   Can we have some honesty here, please?


   I understand Libertarian mantras about less government. I comprehend that government is often quite inefficient at best. I even agree; when it comes to the personal, individual, end of the spectrum of society that less to no regulation is often the best course.

   Where Libertarianism, to me, falls flat is in almost all other applications...

   For example, if we're going to be honest about this free enterprise does it better and more efficient than government mantra some spout, then we have to stop making exceptions for the military. Now before anyone get all puffed up with anger and angst, calm the hell down. I actually don't think we should. We probably disagree regarding how much and what we should fund, but those are really different topics.

   This, as I typed, is about honesty and to add another qualifier: consistency.

   Then we have the "Socialism" cry that sprouts forth like conversational poison ivy every time there's a mere suggestion we should help the poor, keep the homeless from cluttering our streets or prevent them from jamming up our emergency rooms by providing a modicum of health care. Some of this comes under the category of "taking out the garbage." If we didn't have some services our streets would be lined with garbage, people would be dying needlessly and the baby boom generation might be in danger of becoming the first to be exposed to mandatory euthanasia. (I'm obviously using "garbage" and "trash" in a very wide sense. The first: trash services, in most places, we have. (Damn those Socialists.) The second is already happening. And if you don't think the third might happen... then you haven't been paying attention to job losses, the absence of a safety net and a younger generation who has no tolerance for a vast number of aging boomers cluttering up their lives and society. Mark my words, if we don't do something about it, euthanasia will become not just legal, which in some cases I think it should be, but mandatory. That, I fear.

   But let's just forget all I just typed. Ignore it. Just think I'm "full of it." Let's get back to the military.

   If we're going to get into all this abusive "Socialism is a curse word" blather, what do you think the economic model the military is run on? It goes beyond mere Socialism. We often clothe them, feed them, house them, tell them what to think... well, perhaps "not to think" is the best descriptive sometimes... where to go...

   Hell, that's not "Socialism," it's more like the worst forms of Communism, but there's a reason why we do this: like picking up the "trash," in all its metaphorical and literal: less than metaphorical, forms: we also need to protect ourselves. The Capitalism/representative/democratic models are not good models for the military. Just like allowing anyone to not pay for garbage pickup and then do whatever with their trash is a bad idea. On a small scale no services like fire, police, garbage, water: etc., works "OK," but as a rule for cities and all of humanity... not so well. And if your pro-free enterprise, what do you call a system that forces people to purchase a service? Certainly not "free." 

   So... back to the military as one example of where some Libertarians fall short on honesty.

   If some of you have any desire to be honest about this "government sucks at everything and business doesn't" mantra: defund the military. Let them have bake sales, force states to pay for their own protection if they must rather than just hand everything over to "We Kill For Profit, Inc." Any states that don't fund it or give it all to The Bomb Whomever You Pay Us To Company... hell, I'm sure Osama might not mind a new base of operation. Just let him have it. Of course the states would have to do all this without taxing. Get all entrepreneurial. Be creative! Make soldiers pay for everything; even their weapons, their planes, their grenades, the ships they float around the world in. Sell a few states if they won't cooperate. Hey, Florida has some prime beach property. DC has great buildings. And who the hell wants Toledo anyway?

   Or maybe we could go slow and build up to free market defense. We have KBR/Halliburton and Blackwater do it until some other nation or entity pays them more: since that's what mercenaries do. Admittedly this will be just a rough beginning before turning all over to the wonders of a supposedly "free" market. It worked so well so far, you know. If Osama, or some other whack job, offers more, well... them's the breaks. Makes it all better eventually. All evens out in the long run, right?

   And also consider the marvelous no bid "free" enterprise system! Soldiers got all they needed in a timely fashion and on the cheap, just like they did in Iraq and Afghanistan. No electrocuted in showers soldiers due to shoddy workmanship. And Blackwater's image in Iraq is part Santa, part Jesus. These saintly messengers of mercenary-based "free" enterprise have turned even the insurgents into flag waving, beer guzzling American wannabes.

   Just like having a mega store who can undersell everyone and use unfair business practices. Hey, since the advent of Wally Mart downtowns are thriving all over America!

   Now let's move on to the commons. What an incredible nirvana where prosecutors prosecute only for the money and who pays more, defendants get defended only when they're rich enough, and defended well when they're even richer and well known. Hey, we've almost arrived at that specific part of nirvana already.

   Wait. Almost everything I just typed beyond...

"Let them have bake sales..."

   ...is total litter box droppings. Pretty much 180 degrees opposite of what will actually happen, and in far too many cases has happened. So if you think all of that was a little bit of a Swiftian proposal, well, I would only argue with the modifying phrase "little bit of a."

   Or, if you'd rather approach it more honestly, you could admit that a supposedly free, unregulated, market doesn't always serve everything well. Stop claiming that business regulates itself; naturally: without any "interference." That's about as irrational as claiming public servants always have our best interests at heart. Predatory capitalism does exist, just like Reagan's predatory "I'm here to help you" government bureaucrats do. Neither is "all predatory, all the time."

   You'd also admit that government in bed with business all the time is as bad as government always viewing business as an adversary. Just like people, sometimes business needs a helping hand. Sometimes it needs a watchful eye and even a firm stick.

   Yes, we really do need to have an open, honest, non-"but that's Socialism" blather discussion in this society. There are some endeavors that do well mostly unregulated, some that are best well regulated and and more than one or two that are best left mostly to government. And, as you may have notice, all those qualifiers I just used mean pretty much nothing in society is best all government controlled, or best all business run, or always better totally unregulated, or... yes... regulated to death. This is true honesty, Mr. and Mrs. Libertarian, not this "government is never the answer and business always is" tripe. Such reasoning is as much snake oil as "government is always the answer" would be.

   Yes, this is a better path to honest Libertarianism. Can we take it, together? I hope so. Because some of you who just spout this mindless "government does nothing well and business does everything better" nonsense are beyond annoying.

   You're acting as if you're incredibly stupid. 



                                                                   -30-

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


© Copyright 2009
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
all rights reserved

   Please note: I use exchange, interchange and intersection here interchangeably. I know, that's not precise. But I've heard all three used. I suspect there are regional differences when it comes to what they are called that I am completely unaware of, or have forgotten.

   I'm an east coast kind of guy. I've always wanted to check out the west. Maybe someday. But I can tell you a little bit about intersections here on the east coast. When I say intersections I mean not only specific ones, but specific kinds of designs like rotaries, or suicide swing as I call them. A few years ago Music Row in Nashville, my home base, advertised that they had built the safest intersection possible right in front of Music Row; a "roundabout." When I got home from tour I laughed and told my wife, "It's a bloody rotary."

   Advertising pamphlet read something like this: "Roundabouts can be found all over Europe and, when traffic rules are obeyed, they are the safest kind of intersection that can be built.

   Here's a tiny clue: that's the problem. No one pays attention to the friggin rules. And the less they do the more a rotary; no matter how you relabel it, becomes one the most dangerous kind of intersections in the world. A few years later after bragging about their wonderful "roundabout" they are rather mum about their "safe" intersection.

   I wrote the first version of this Inspection about a year ago and went looking for it this month. After visiting Providence I was desperate to dust it off and try again. Just a sec. (The sound of blowing dust.) Cough, sputter, wheeze... there, that's better.

 

   I guess "wheeze" better get on with it... 

   You see I just went through Providence a few days before I typed this and had to do a few spin arounds to get going towards Mass. When you come off Rt. 6; from the western side of the city, and hit I-95 you used to have less than a thousand feet to swing across six lanes of rush hour traffic to make the interstate heading towards Cod which takes you into Mass. from RI. That's where I've always had to go because I have clients in Seekonk. That's why I used to consider it to be the worst intersection on my tour route which goes from Louisiana to Maine. I'll get back to you once their done if I get a chance for a Siskel and Ebert thumbs up or down.

   Fifteen years ago I actually ran into the guy who designed the one they're now replacing. His wife used to be a client of mine and she invited me over to the house. He had just told me what he did for a living and that he used to live in Providence area, but my clueless nature never made the connection. We got talking about "idiotic designs" and I mentioned, "Hey, and who was the idiot who designed the Route 6/I-95 interchange, anyway?"
Remember I said his wife used to be a client?

   I suspect he designed the Jacksonville, Florida I-10/I-95 intersection, or interchange if you wish to be more accurate, because it used to suffer from the same problem... only no where near as bad.

   Well, when I drove through Providence I was happy to see they're tearing out his horror of a highway exchange that has caused so many accidents, even though I missed my exit because of the work. How many deaths and how much money has been spent because some man earned wads of cash designing suicidal interchanges?

   Plus, I have always marveled at how they keep cutting down the number of lanes as you approach such a major monstrosity. If you are a plumber you don't shrink the pipe where the highest pressures are most likely to occur. And an electrician doesn't intentionally take the location of the house where there will be the most wires and get the grounds, the negatives and the positives as tightly bundled as possible, with little to no protection: not even a coating around the damn wire. That would be like asking for a fire, or a burst pipe... which I assume a lot happened just like that as radiators got smashed and gas tanks exploded in Jacksonville and Providence year after year.

   Let's skip the more personal; body-based, carnage imagery for now.

   Another atrocity is the exchange, intersection or interchange where to go left you have to go right, and right to go left. Even if they warn you in time; which they usually don't, you naturally tend to go the other way. Oh, sometimes they have to do it that way, but most the time it really doesn't appear to be for any other purpose than getting you to curse and others to do radical, insane maneuvers: attempting to correct what they normally wouldn't have done if the damn thing had made sense to begin with.

   I know: they shouldn't be doing that. But everyone knows there are idiot drivers out there, but we certainly shouldn't be designing interchanges and intersections that encourages lunacy.

   Finally, while it's not specifically an intersection, exchange or interchange, let me give a shout out to the morons who man road construction when they do it just over some rise or just around a corner. Yes, I may be talking to you officer, if your the one gesturing wildly and lecturing drivers because they came around a sharp corner "too fast" and found you. Could it be possible that you're too damn close to a rise, a hill or a sharp corner and they can't see you in enough time to react? Do you think the cleaners will be able to get the bloodstains and the tire marks off your uniform after someone who couldn't see you tries to add you to the menu at The Roadkill Cafe? (There really is a "Roadkill Cafe" in Florida somewhere off Route 20: Panhandle region. Saw it a few times while on tour. I'm assuming the cutesy Skunk Sandwich and such are actually "other," meat-wise.... but ya never know.)

   So maybe you all might want to find some way to let people know a little sooner further down the road both ways, huh?

   If you have any intersections, interchanges or exchanges: whatever you want to call them, that you would like to talk about, please feel free to comment here or E-mail me at ken@ltsaloon.org. I'm sure I've missed a lot. But just to be clear, I certainly don't "miss" missing them. I have enough of them to handle as it is, thank you.

                                                            -30-

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

© Copyright 2009
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved

 

   Socialized medicine... gays in the military... "government motors..." ...closing Gitmo...

   So much to be afraid of. So many things we fuss and fume about.

   Or should we just kiss the frog, smooch the toad?

   Old fairy tale. How it usually goes is the frog turns into a prince; or princess if you wish the gender altered version. I suppose we could get real weird with that, but let's just stick to the more simplistic duality of human relations for now. And of course we always have the phrase used during dating with similar connotations: "kissing a toad."

   I think we all have the story a little upside down, or backwards. Like the parables told by Jesus, some miss the message; the meaning or get it all twisted around: more than a bit upside down.

   Almost a month ago I zipped down Stillwater Reservoir in my 16 foot tri-hull called The Freudian Slip Ship. A brief break before the busy summer tour.

   Did I just type "break?"

   I was rewarded upon opening the door to camp with no water; a partially broken hand pump and a generator that seems quite cranky because it had been moved from the tree damaged old shed to the new one just finished last autumn. So... no electricity either, though the propane lanterns did attract some visitors: mosquitoes and blackflies.

   I taped the doors and windows shut with duct tape.

   Bzzzzzzzzzz... swat... bzzzzzz... late at night.

   I taped every 2 by 8 that had a slight crack to it as it passed through the walls.

   Bzzzzzzzzzz... swat... bzzzzzz... late at night.

   I have a habit of going out of my way to kill the little buggers, so I was rewarded with my knees piercing my air mattress. The rest of the visit was spent with my back raising hell.

   So I coated myself with fly dope at nights and therefore got some needed rest, but felt ill most of the time. Gee... wonder why.

   Rain.

   Rain.

   Rain.

   Rain.

   Now I understand what my father meant by "cabin fever."

   The almost two weeks left me feeling a little anemic, but I had gotten into a ritual that made every day meaningful. Late afternoons I'd sit in the back of the Starcraft and watch the sunset play with the clouds; leaving gentle shadows on the hills. I practiced my shows in the morning while watching and laughing at mosquitoes busily buzzing around the fence pleading, "Why won't you let us in?" One of my minor pleasures was hunting the few that were clever enough to find a way. I even began to look forward to the bucket baths. Oh, I could have jumped in the lake if I felt the need to give the blackflies an appetizer, the skeets a buffet and the newly hatched deerflies a tempting dessert. I especially felt no need to become a "confection" while also imitating one of our very, very occasional visitors to Beaver River Station. No, no need to go all chocolate... moose.

   Yeah, I went pretty far to pull that joke out of my hat, and apologies to any offended Bullwinkles out there for the mediocre' pun.

   Considering all I have to do to get here and stay here, why the hell do I enjoy this so much?

   All the fussing we do, like how everything must be sanitary, or whether toilet paper rolls from the bottom or the top. How would you feel if had to boil lake water, complete with pollen, bits of seeds, bugs and stuff just for drinking water?

   Extra roughage and protein!

   How would I feel if I had to face my own gripes about such minor inconveniences if I had just escaped from Auschwitz, or had been kept in a prison for many years without being charged? Compared with much of this my own life is sheer luxury in many ways.

   On NPR, while leaving Stillwater landing, I listened to a story of a large Cambodian family that escaped the Kmer Rouge. They now live in a very small slum apartment infested by roaches. They think it paradise.

   They have kissed the frog; smooched the toad.

   All these issues and minutia we fuss about. None of this is as important as we think. They are parables with multiple meanings waiting to be revealed. They are like that upside down, backwards frog or toad that we think may transform into a prince or princess if we kiss it.

   Maybe it's not the toad, maybe it's not the frog that's upside down or backwards. Like the many marriages dissolved with the comment, "I thought I could change him," maybe it's us that needs changing. Perhaps the toad or frog doesn't need to become wiser, more beautiful.

   We do.

 

                                               -30-

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

© Copyright 2009

Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions

all rights reserved

 

   To provide my own dull wit to a word, why is it whenever I hear "Ockham," I want to say "bless you?"

   From answers.com...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Occam's Razor

Let's see...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   Back to 9/11...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   All the "poof" work of one deity each.

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

   Life is complex.

   Reality is complex.

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

   It's that simple.

   Or is it?

  (Chuckle.)

                                                         -30-

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

© Copyright 2009
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved

You can almost hear the wheels screeching, the train horn blow in desperation, the tipping of the cars and the engine bucking at the sudden stop.

   The great rhetorical train wreck called America.

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

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

   It's not.

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

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

   All of this has happened before.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   Will it make anything better?

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

   Will it all escalate?

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

   The answer here is almost always...

   "It will make it all worse."

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

  Now that's a professional interviewer.

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

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

   Emotion isn't "discourse."

   It's just emotion.

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

   See? I told you. I claim no purity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                              -30-

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

© Copyright 2009
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved

For more Inspection columns, please click HERE.

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

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

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

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

   A patently absurd comparison, content-wise.

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

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

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

   Doesn't matter if electricity was applied to genitals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   Or if "it worked."

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

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

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

   It "was."

   And it "is."

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

                                     -30-

 

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

©Copyright 2009
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved

For more Inspection columns, please click HERE.

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

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

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

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

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

-Bill Press, getting it right

 

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

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

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

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

    Why?

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

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

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

    Thanks, Barack.

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

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

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

    Intentional tactic?

    Part of the plan?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   Right???

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Otherwise I have been somewhat pleased...

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

    How has Hillary done over all?

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

    Not bad at all.

    And I feel the same about Barack.

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

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

   (Let's not go there... OK?)

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

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

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

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

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

    Do I think either likely?

    No.

                                                  -30-

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

© Copyright 2009
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    No.

    I cannot put it any clearer.

    No, damn it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Give me a frackin break.

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

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

                                                                  -30-

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

© Copyright 2009
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved