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 To use an old, outdated, phrase: this subject definitely "sticks in my craw."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
_______
]]>
