LT Saloon

I have yet to hear a single “joke” from the lips of Ann Coulter. What I have heard is hate that sounds like someone tried to formulate it into a joke format but failed: like some of the worst amateurs at a comedy night club open mike night. An all too easy comparison would be Andrew Dice Clay. But Clay, as much as I dislike his act, doesn’t go around doing political events as some supposed humorist-pundit. He does comedy clubs and comedy-based events.

Coulter really has no intent on being “funny:” but she’s all to willing to cower behind that playground excuse: “It was just a joke.”

OK, maybe you find it funny. Well, there are all kinds of tastes out there, including cannibalistic. And that’s my problem with Coulter: I think her kind of “humor,” if you have to call it that, has all the laughs of bin Laden going on TV after planes slammed into the towers saying, “Just joking, America!”

“Just joking!”

So now… Oh, God. Do I have to? Really? Damn… I guess I do. I have to defend her to a certain extent. That really, really sucks.

In one of the earlier editions of Inspection, about 1975, I wrote about Pat Buchanan having been hired as a speaker at PSUC: Plattsburgh State. Yes, even back then some of us called it, “P Suck.” He was uninvited: un-hired. (“Invited” is such a imprecise term. These folks are paid, you know.) I wrote an edition of Inspection that made the same arguments I’m about to make now.

First let’s make it clear for all the righties screaming “free speech:” Canada is a different country. You do know that, right? Free speech laws are a little different. And being a Conservative at the time, and more “left” now, I still make the same comments: the same analogies. Just like Plattsburgh State, University of Ottawa can “invite” and “dis-invite” anyone they want… just as Ann can “dis” anyone she wants. “Free speech” isn’t “free” unless that axiom applies. It’s the same axiom that, when applied to religion: and applied honestly , would state, “Freedom of faith must mean freedom to have no faith or even be an Atheist, or we have no ‘freedom’ at all.”

While I understand the college’s “security concerns,” it is unfortunate that they did this. A college: any college, should be a bastion of free speech: even if that speech if incredibly over the top, sounds mentally unstable and quite offensive. In fact, being able to control oneself in the presence of offensive speech should be part of pre-college curriculum, if not elementary. If their students have that much trouble controlling themselves then the college has more serious issues than a momentary visit from one bad mouth bear.

Yes, I did resist using the other “b” word there. Aren’t ya proud of me?

If they’re worried about non-students causing trouble, then they also have security concerns that go far beyond a visit by one admittedly offensive pundit, posing as an exceedingly poor comedian.

The University did itself no favors by canceling Coulter. Notice I don’t use “Ms.” She doesn’t even deserve that much. I would use “Mr.” for Pat, however. But still I support the right of such offensive speakers in academia. Indeed I would claim there is a “need” for such. College is supposed to widen your horizons, not narrow it to least offensive, or less likely to offend.

Maybe if Hitler had had a wider forum he either would have been less effective, or been dis-empowered. The fact he was dismissed at first, and allowed to rally his base, says a lot about how he and some of the worst leaders in human history have been able to come to power. When I wrote that edition of Inspection in the 70s we were still in Nam. Maybe if we had had a more open discussion back in the 50s and early 60s: even the late 60s, that affair would have wound up better than it did. I’ll allow you to construct whatever “better” scenario suits you. The same was true pre-Iraq and pre-Afghanistan.

Lesson apparently not yet learned. When we don’t listen to those with a cause, when we marginalize them: and instead they focus more on rallying their base, it often comes back to bite one hell of a big chunk our of our collective asses… and make asses of all of us. Rallying a base is part of the freedoms we need to defend. So the only way to actually marginalize and disarm the dangerous is to stop marginalizing them before they talk: allow them to hang themselves and their followers in front of the general pubic… let them display just how absurd and dangerous they are to a wider audience. Indoctrination is not an issue if free discussion and debate is allowed after the talk: before she arrives, while she’s there and long after she’s gone. Yes, you will always have a few idiots who will follow and be inspired by the most “out there” speakers you can get, but there are more who will follow when you shut them out. Nothing excites some like the forbidden: especially when clever speakers can use that “forbidden” and turn it into “you’re being oppressed/denied/marginalized too.”

I would hope the University would reconsider. But they have every right to cancel, though I wouldn’t blame Coulter one bit for seeking a cancellation fee. I have one myself for my programs as an entertainer. Pretty hard to enforce, but I do have one.

One last comment: one I didn’t make in 75. This discussion surrounds “free speech.” I have already pointed out that these concepts also extend to those who decide not to have Coulter speak. But we need to mention the very phrase: “free speech.” The college, I’m sure, was giving the speaker money to speak: a “speaker’s fee.” So maybe we’re not referring to what was specifically protected in this country by our Bill of Rights as much as one would think.

Free Speech isn’t really all that “free” if you’re paying for it.

-30-

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

© Copyright 2010
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved

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

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

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

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

Who is to blame for this food fight?

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

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

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

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

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

“War is peace.”
“Freedom is slavery.”

Or Fahrenheit…

“Monday burn Millay, Wednesday Whitman, Friday Faulkner, burn ‘em to ashes, then burn the ashes. That’s our official slogan.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

-30-

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

© Copyright 2010
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved

“But, Ken, there are still terrorists out there!”

There will always be terrorists and terrorism.

“Al Qaeda” is still out there. Even if we could exterminate them all… some group will take their place. “Will?” There already are such groups and individuals adding to the carnage. The difference between Joe who crashed his plane into the IRS and 9/11 is size and how convenient the terrorists are, or the terrorist is. Joe’s not all that convenient for those who would love to have you hate Muslims.

You cannot make war on an idea. Ideas may change. Ideas may adapt. But ideas will always be out there. If we really were at war with “terrorism” we would be deep in Pakistan: chasing them wherever they go and conquering every country they enter. Essentially we would have to become world conquerors.

Good luck with that.

When arguing or discussing the issue, don’t fall into their sleazy talking point trap. It is an “occupation,” at best.

We are not at “war.” We are occupiers. We are conquerors; even if we leave… once Iraq or Afghanistan’s path suits our idea of “the right direction.” Who the hell are we to decide what path another country takes, unless we be conquerors and occupiers? Occupiers always decide what paths the nations they conquer take. Doesn’t matter if it’s by the populace voting; if the voting is a sham… or not. Voting is something they should decide on themselves without it being forced upon them, because that’s what a real nation does. An occupied nation gets that decided for them.

Maybe it was all with the best of intentions, though the cynic in me says: when it comes to our leaders, mostly… not. Or maybe the object is to claim the country is in a perpetual state of war. Leaders can get away with stripping away a lot of freedom when we claim we are at war. Founding documents are convenient toilet paper during war time, and flushing them far too easy.

Maybe this is all with the best of intentions and noble. I doubt it… but that’s not the argument here. The argument is, whatever you want to call it, stop claiming it’s “war.”

That would be a lie.

-30-

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

© Copyright 2010
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved

A lot of comments and toons I’ve read from the Left contain a delusion, of sorts. While we see the absolute absurdity and hypocrisy of some Republicans, these sources seem to think the general public sees it too. I think less of the public sees it than we think and what support we have is shallow, fleeting. There’s a reason they are abandoning ship and I think many may see the filth that keeps being written on the wall over and over again: talking points like “ram,” and “jam,” or lies about how many Americans are against reforming health care, and I bet they know the public has trouble distinguishing between talking points that are called news and actual news. And I think the public is too easily lulled into believing lies when these same rats, and their media enablers, use lies in the form of talking points over and over again… no matter how many times they are called on it. I also think they see, when it comes to commanding the ship of State, our commander is too easily influenced by a desire to reach out, compromise and get everyone on board to actually help much election time. For example: the sudden “180 degrees hard to port” waffle back to military tribunals. I sincerely think Barack believes such waffles will win elections: be as popular as the Belgian waffles at the NY World’s Fair. Instead I think it will either make crucial voters want to stay home and throw up, or vote for anyone rather than a Democrat. Despite all the hesitation I’ve offered, I do think the public knows one thing about that issue. They know that if Barack were a true leader worth respect at this point: military tribunals shouldn’t even be up for discussion at this point.

Would you trust a commander who would do that and abandon all who supported him before and the more moral stand? I wouldn’t: especially if he does it over and over again: not even include single payer, going from public option to no public option, agreeing to extend the Patriot Act, allowing the criminal enterprises Blackwater and KBR/Hallibuton to feed off public coffers.. All that having been typed I still plan on voting for him in 2012: I guarantee; the Republicans will put up far, far worse and apparently we will never do anything like run off voting to enable other parties. We are stuck between bad and horrible.

So, yes, I pretty much guarantee I will vote for him, unless some teabagger shoots him first. But I may be one of the few, and the reluctant.

If I’m right about why they are leaving I can hardly blame them. Last time this happened a legitimately elected president was faced with a mob that would say and do anything to bring him down…

Vince Foster was murdered by Hillary.
The mail to Socks the Cat was supposedly being used for nefarious purposes.
A failed land deal was corruption of the highest order.
If you don’t agree to testify to anything they dreamed of throwing at the president you wind up in a cell with women who murdered their children: a good way to find yourself dead.
If your wife isn’t cooperative you might die: medication held back until she cooperates.

Ask Susan McDougal what happened to Jim: Ken Starr deserves the harshest application of Rico possible, as do many Republicans from those days.

Despite all these racketeer activities, this evil cabal of thugs, perverts and sex maniacs in their own right finally had to resort to a lie: “there is no relationship” means he was saying “there never was,” to get what they wanted: impeachment.

Post this November?

I expect worse than 1994.

They’ve grown so much more powerful than they were. Our leaders have gotten worse.

And has anyone else noticed that the absolute nonsense about “ramming,” or “slamming,” or “shoving” health care down anyone’s throat is ignored or treated as if it’s the truth by much of the media?

Yet, despite all this, I really wasn’t prepared for the flood of “I won’t run again(s)” and “I will step down(s)” that slammed my box. Maybe I hadn’t thought through what was about to happen, so I clicked on a few at first and gently mused, “If it gets worse the November will be a slam.” I think Politico and other sources of breaking news were listening. It definitely got worse. The more I clicked, day after day, the more nauseous I felt.

We have time. Barack Obama alone might be able to limit this Tsunami. He won’t. Oh, many will claim he did by moving more to the right and being more accommodating, more compromising. But that’s not “limiting.” That’s enabling.

There are those who claim the Right is growing more marginalized and weaker. I don’t buy that totally, but let’s say it’s true. Doesn’t matter. Not one bit. When one side can rally troops with lies enabled by the media and enabled by a president who would rather compromise and abandon away his base, that is a formula for failure. Politicians have to inspire those who might vote their way to vote their way, not make endless changes and appeals to those who wouldn’t vote their way if all life on planet Earth depended upon it. No, not even if Jesus did come back and ask for them to support Barack. Indeed cries for Jesus to be treated like a terrorist would be plentiful amongst this band of pure, evil, deluded scum who have far more in common with Osama than Jesus.

These days I ponder upon a movie scene from Deep Impact where Jenny Lerner, a reporter, discovers we’re about to have an extinction level event. When the end is near she joins her estranged father on a beach to watch a supersonic megatsunami hundreds of feet high come in; spending her last moments with him. I am also reminded of On the Beach, where the hero leaves the sub he commands to spend the last days with a lady he had fallen for before radiation exterminates all life.

In both movies they saw it coming and either couldn’t, or wouldn’t, stop it. Unfortunately I believe this is a case of “wouldn’t.”

When I think of those scenes from On the Beach and Deep Impact, I’m reminded those who are pushing so hard for a return to 8 years of insanity: many who are fundamentalists of the worst kind; hoping that we are really in the “last days.” They are like those who prayed to the bomb from Beneath the Planet of the Apes. These were the same kind of people who considered God wanted them to do anything to destroy Bill Clinton. They publicly pray that God strike down those who dare to disagree with them. The same kind of people who have defended the murder of Doctor Tiller, and flying into IRS buildings. The same people who long to invade Iran and will probably never be satisfied until we go to war with, torture, or toss in some bottomless, no due process, pit anyone who dares to disagree with them. The same kind of people empowered by the second Bush presidency when, as one of their first acts, the administration spoke to Armageddonists to tell them they would do nothing to prevent the final days from happening. I think of them: and I imagine the political supersonic megatsunami they fantasize about in November.

And I get the shivers all over.

-30-

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

© Copyright 2010
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved

I predict the Left, Barack and Obama will lose big: close to as big or bigger than 1994.

There has been a lot of nonsense, in my opinion, published on this. Many claim there’s no Newt like leader, or movement like there was in 1994: a movement that will then cha cha cha its way post election into office after winning. But I don’t think they need that to win, all they need is the all too predictable “us.” So this isn’t about them, and it never has been: not even in 1994.

I don’t think the all too brief and occasional appearances of Barack as he counters talking points will have much impact: if any. It’s like one drip from an eyedropper swimming in a sludge like sea of corrosive acid being put out by the Right.

We will lose it all on our own: easily; as if we wanted to. And seeing how Barack and the DLC are handling themselves the cynic in me says, “Intentional? Possibly.” We will lose mostly because the one lesson the George W. administration had to teach those who could lead us unto victory in 2010 is a lesson they refuse to learn. Something W’s handlers understood all too well. You cannot win elections by being Republican light these days. You will not win them by being more bipartisan, more compromising, more cooperative. You can’t even win elections by bantering somewhat effectively with talking point spewing pols: unless you do it daily; every day, until election time on all networks, including FOX.

Being more compromising and less confrontational these days only pisses away your base. I’m not claiming I like that observation, by any means. But by now it should be obvious 99% of the Right will never vote our way on anything.

Leaders on the right understand this more than those on the left. Why do they understand it so well? Because they are the authors of this new dynamic, that’s why. Purging themselves of moderates has made them stronger, not weaker. Not because the public agrees, but because they are willing to do and say anything to win: no matter how much of a lie it is; no matter how corrupt or how criminal. And most of all, because they are so focused on the task of winning. They and their sycophant media shills are focused on doing everything to frame our every facial tick, uttered word, or breath we take, in the most horrible way possible or even absurdly impossible. Doesn’t matter if “death panels,” for example, is a lie. If they can convince enough people who will eagerly go out and vote: they win.

This is how they win election for them., mostly because our side insists on responding in erratic, haphazard and ineffective ways. And are because our side selects both leaders and tactics that are the least offensive: blase’, soggy toast, all the backbone of the product in a Bill Cosby commercial during the 70s.

When will we get the message: no one wants to listen to or vote for J E L L O.

Now if you think the public is going to be so tired of the intransigent nature of the Right you would be right that they will lose, if Dem leaders would use any of this as a club to beat them over and over in a very public and obvious way. But they won’t, they can’t: it’s not in their nature. Oh, Barack could go around saying, “We can’t get things accomplished because Republicans are lying about this…” but as I type this Barack is talking over the POTUS stream my Sirius radio about getting together with Republicans and listening to their ideas and then moving forward. The first might happen. The second will surely happen. But the third? The third won’t happen even after Hell freezes over, and you can be damn sure… even if it does… far too many on the Right will do their best to make sure we’re so frozen in the ice that they can skate over our exposed genitals.

And they will too.

Betcha.

One more prediction. Once they do win big I bet Barack and others will use this to say we have to move further towards them and those same “them” will boast and claim “this wouldn’t have happened if he had talked with us/worked with us/been more of a centrist/less extreme.” Then they will move even further right. One can be sure the goal post is always moved away from us, and the game will always be one of keep away. Always.

You know this “it takes 60 votes” nonsense? Gone. When Republicans are “in power” it will take 40 or more votes to have a “majority.” This is the new math; and has been for a while. And the MSM, and the Blue Dogs, and the DINOs, are absolutely on-board with it. If I didn’t know better I would suggest Lieberman and company might be Republicans in sheep’s clothing. Actually: I do “know better.” That’s what they are. And most Democrats in power would rather bend over and get rammed than confront them: actually do something about it. Yes, Barack, I am including you to a certain extent. To paraphrase Abe, “If your not going to use your presidency, may those with the balls to do so have it?”

Joe Lieberman alone should have so many feet up his ass he pleads for single payer health care so he can get a foot-ectomy. “But Ken, he already has health care!”

If Dem leaders really were “leaders” they would have as their first unrelenting goal stripping all health care from Congressmen. None. Zilcho. They get tossed into this shark infested pool with everyone else and treated, by law, like everyone else.

As an aside, it must be asked at this time… how much success has this president had when he does get involved, like in Mass.? Uh… not a hell of a lot. Until his last years in office George W. did far, far better.

I am amazed at how some on the Left keep predicting positive outcomes, overall.

Have you ever seen Eternal Sunshine for the Spotless Mind? To me it’s almost like that device really does exist. We can wipe the memories of ex-lovers so they keep coming back without learning what they need to learn. We can also wipe the memories of the general public. We keep believing the same asinine claims; beating our heads against the same walls.

This is the way this has been headed for 20 years and it’s getting worse. And if we keep going this way we will be a one party country with Democrats in office…briefly. And only long enough to keep the country moving further to the right as those who dare to call themselves Democrats move towards them in perpetual attempts to “make nice.” Oh, and Dems may ascend occasionally; if only to pay off a bit of the borrow and spend policies that help keep Republican Santa in power.

Grover Norquist must be in heaven. I know: he’s not dead, except his soul and any ounce of morality he may have ever had… if he ever did.

I’m guessing by now you know I think it’s a damn good bet that the same pattern will most likely be repeated in 2012. Can’t you just wait?

So those are my predictions. If you have a more positive take, are you willing to pony up to the counter and place your bet on the counter? Anyone willing to take me up on my offer? Anyone???

-30-

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

© Copyright 2009
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved

My family has a long history in the Adirondacks. My grandfather Earl, my great… and great, great grandfathers Silas and Andrew were Adirondack guides. So was my father. They would guide hunting parties through the woods and helped find those who lost their way: sometimes in hideous conditions, like when temps dip below -40 and then stay there for a week or more.

This goes back to Stillwater was “Stillwater:” before it was flooded and known as Beaver River Flow, or “The Flow.” Some of us still call it that. Bears would hunt for food, beaver build dams and huts, deer would graze as logs headed down The Flow.

Back then the state and the locals worked together. Even the national government got into the act with CC camps. Despite all these years of cooperation and accommodations, on both sides, suddenly the state is no longer interested in providing some easement for access: access they took away to begin with. We are inconvenient to police and rangers: inconvenient to monitor, to manage.

The most likely analogy here puts the State in a very bad spotlight. Like any oppressor, the State seems to have decided we; property owners: taxpayers who receive damn near zero services for those taxes, are the enemy. We are to be denied access because the state finds past agreements and accommodations made over damn near a century to be “inconvenient.”

There’s a little ruling New York State seems to consider insignificant that decided a national election. It’s called “equal protection.” New York, through their representatives, have decided that Beaver River Station can be singled out as a town unworthy to exist anymore; property owners… taxpayers… have no rights especially when it comes to the value and access to said property, even though the state destroyed access to begin with.

Sounds very problematic when it comes to “equal protection” to me. It’s like they came to your town, cut off all the roads and demanded you stay for only two days even if you do manage to get there. Yet no other town has to suffer from such. Wouldn’t you call that “unequal protection?”

Another claim by the State is the barge can’t be allowed because they are doing business on state land, a claim that disregards this is selective enforcement against the barge. There are other businesses doing business on state land.

If this stands then, essentially, property owners in Beaver River have not just been told to go to the back of the bus; but to give their money to the state and then get the hell off the bus leaving their property value behind. Of what value is property that can only be accessed on a reasonable basis by a rough eight mile trail, seaplane, or train tracks that have a off and on history of usage? Tracks that New York State itself is currently deciding whether to continue funding for and where promised service has yet to serve Beaver River Station: after many years?

The State allows storage of boat trailers and parking so property owners can access their property for many, many years. Then pulls it away. Allows a barge. Pulls it away. Perhaps the railroad might work, if we disregard the lesson Charlie Brown never learns when confronted with Lucy and the football.

I keep hearing that the State can do anything it wants. I suspect the Supreme Court; especially in its current incarnation, may think otherwise. Being one who has disagreed a lot with that court recently, I do think legally this could be pursued to the full extent. I believe the fact that the State keeps claiming it wants to “work this out” means they know they are on legal quicksand. My past experience with state power and property is that if they feel they are on firm ground they simply take what they want: with a sneer on their face.

So maybe it’s time to shove back?

Maybe so, but if not, the next time your somewhere and you hear these words…

“This is a stickup.”

It may be your state holding all the guns and making the threats.

-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

When I really get burned on any brand, I usually never go back. Toyota is one of two brands I have sworn never to buy again. The other is Ford. I owned one of the first Pintos; the one with the Brit engine. Cheap, white metal handles, tissue paper body, Brit tech engine? And nothing I have experienced or seen amongst relatives and friends has convinced me to buy again. Enough said.

Toyota? Well, I owned one of the worst cars ever made, according to my mechanic, car dealers I have worked for and their mechanics: the Toyota Crown. Look into the off and on, off and on, off and on production figures for the Crown. Ewe. But everything I’ve seen and heard since has made me think maybe, just maybe: almost 40 years later, I might eventually go back. My independent mechanic has become mostly a mechanic who works on and owns Toyota… and he’s a hard, very critical, man to convince. Plus I use small trucks for work and he’d rather not work on my previous favored brand: Nissan. He likes my other favorite brand too: Honda. They do make a very expensive truck that has a bed too small for my props and other equipment. Oh, well.

Toyota has had a good reputation, overall. So, yes, I have been tempted.

The recent recall is bad: really bad. The danger obvious and the handling of it is worse. Though I would argue that the kind obsession the media seems to have with the Toyota right now is strangely obsessive, if you look at all the past recalls of car companies we oddly consider “American,” despite actual content.

But I wonder… when’s the last time we heard a CEO of Ford, GM or Chrysler so publicly reply and apologize for the defects and his own mishandling of the situation? When have I heard or seen reporters chase those CEOs around and around, trying to get such a statement? And what about those many, many recalls by, sometimes marginally, “American” (content) car companies? Haven’t there been, occasionally, recalls about defects as dangerous, or worse? I can’t seem to recall Jay, or David, or Conan making them the major butt of their monologue jokes, at least not comments that are on every news service, night and day.

Having fought this battle three times I found response to the previous three auto-based columns was often been filled with ill-informed anger from readers; some who apparently don’t know how to read or like to lie about what they have read. Most of this has been directed at me because I dare to criticize GM. I’m guessing this one will have the same problem.

Regardless of such, it’s hard to deny the success of Toyota, Honda and Nissan, and their success is not based on mythical perception of quality, reliability. Consumer Reports alone makes that pretty damn obvious.

I don’t discount ignorance and hatred. Visiting an old friend near New York City a number of years ago I got lectured on buying “zipperhead cars.” (What the hell does that even mean, and how does it relate to the Japanese? Answers.com tells me “zipperhead” is a person with a closed mind. So who has a closed mind here?) But I really think most of that has nonsense has passed. I would love for us to have true American car companies, but content alone has made the car biz international. Can’t say I’m a fan, but it is what it is.

Time for a curse word: “tariffs.” I know: won’t happen. They’ll keep theirs. We’ll make excuses not to follow suit. “Oh, but they’ll just raise theirs then.” Their tariffs are already higher than ours, but if they do raise theirs well we have the winning hand: the market they want, so we just meet their bluff. If they don’t want our market, well I’m sure GM does, Ford, or… do we include FIAT/Chrysler? With so much car content being foreign, is there really a true “American” automobile maker anymore?

Back to Toyota…

The major problem here; annoying cliche’ that it is, would be “they are a victim of their own success.” Toyota; another cliche’, has “built their reputation on their reliability and quality.” The current brouhaha is a bit like walking in on George Washington fooling around on Martha with King George, and then funding them both involved in an S&M-based orgy. Ouch. Doesn’t quite fit the image, but that doesn’t erase all both did to help create a nation.

And two recalls doesn’t erase the reputation Toyota has earned for quality and reliability.

I think guessing that after all the recalls over the years for what some call “American” car companies the public has become inoculated against “American” recalls. Kind of like living with a bad back like mine: eventually you find ways to adjust and live with it almost as if it’s not there. Almost.

Yet from the Tsunami of angst that keeps slamming us you would think the big three, or two if you wish to count out Fiat’s new acquisition, have achieved perpetual automotive perfection all these years.

Another comparison that shows how over the top this is would be the other 9/11; not one of my favorite cars to speed down the Blue Ridge Parkway with, but our reaction to 9/11/01. Countries all over the world have have many more attacks than we have and some quite huge in nature. But because that attack was somewhat unique and on American soil, there was an obvious over reaction… other countries have adjusted to an onslaught far worse collectively than that single day. But the Toyota reaction is almost worse in comparison. It’s almost as if after 9/11 we all jumped in boats and started rowing away from our native country.

As an aside, personally, I think the reaction to both Patriot Acts should have been more like that, not the reaction to 9/11.

I can’t promise I’ll dip my car purchasing toe into the Toyota big pond again, but if you prefer the brand, don’t jump ship on Toyota yet. I know, I’m probably not the best person to give such advice, since I abandoned Toyota and Ford long ago. Now, Ford? I stand by my decision. Toyota? Well, the current angst has done nothing to encourage me, or discourage me, either way. Maybe I will buy Toyota again, maybe I won’t.

But I understand your reluctance. Once rear ended by your own brand and burned, it’s hard to go back And, yes, that was a Pinto joke.

-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

If we are to have a military, then we want it to protect us, right? From “Don’t ask/don’t tell,” to firing Gay translators during the exact time we needed them the most, we have done more to damage our military than any Gay who may surreptitiously ogle a male organ in a shower; or heterosexual counterparts who might surreptitiously ogle a woman soldier, but otherwise behave themselves.

Word: those go out of their way to make any of this a problem are the problem, not those who fancy men or have different plumbing.

Irony: the problem here is not Gays or women in the military, or showers, or foxholes, or… The problem is soldiers who would rather not do their duty than do it if they know Gays may be in the military, or pursue booty rather than do their duty. The problem is also military contractors who treat rape as if it’s something to be swept under the rug. The problem is jackasses who believe their hormones, their dislikes and religious opinions, mean more than defending the country they swore to protect, or doing their job.

This is an easy one. Discipline and following orders must rule. Simple. Forcing ones attentions or opinions on anyone else; even when off duty, means a soldier is endangering “unit cohesion.” If they make it into a problem then they no longer deserve to be a soldier. Period.

We don’t reward those who hate, or are driven by out of control impulses, by kicking out Jews, Blacks… why do we make an exception for Gays, as long as they are doing their duty?

We shouldn’t.

Trials in NY or Elsewhere

“Danger, Will Robinson! Danger, Will Robinson! Terrorist trials in NYC? Doctor Smith wants you to be very afraid! Very afraid!”

Ah, if only we had Robbie’s nameless Lost in Space progeny on the national stage these days. I might even suggest promoting him to presidential spokes-bot just to point out the irony, though I think Robbie from Forbidden Planet would be a wiser choice. We fight terrorists because “they hate our freedoms,” but decide those freedoms are to be tossed in the trash when convenient?

I also have a problem with trials in NYC for those who may have planned 9/11. Not because of safety, or that terrorists deserve “special treatment:” of the worst kind. No, just the opposite. New York has had plenty of high profile trials and I believe we should respect the freedoms fought for no matter what the nationality of a defendant is; or the charge levied against him. Gassing Kurds and murdering the politically, socially inconvenient is what tyrants do. That’s why due process exists and should be; must be, applied to all… no matter where they come from.

My problem is… how the hell do you even begin to get a pool for a jury who can judge such a case fairly in the city where such a big, tragic, event happened?

You see I believe in our justice system. I think it’s a hell of a lot better than to shoot, hang, cut off a head, electrocute or waterboard and then prove guilt later: if at all. Other nations railroad defendants, or just take them out and shoot them. Other nations pick and choose who should have rights and who should have no rights based on nationality, color of skin, racial purity, religious beliefs or some absurdly narrow definition of sexual preferences.

Such choices always prove politically and socially driven, as we found out when Black “justice” was not even “separate but equal” justice. I don’t claim we have been pure by any means, but I will never defend such “justice” like those who support using it regarding accused terrorists and terrorist enablers.

I am proud of what we are attempting to do, and I only type “attempting” because no justice system is perfect. So proud that if they want to do it here in Nashville then so be it. In fact I’ll help: be part of the jury, whatever.

If we’re not willing to show we believe in our own system by our own actions; except just killing those we find disagreeable, then what the hell are we fighting for, except to become more like them?

I’m kind of sad, though. We missed an opportunity. Teabaggers and Sarah Palin; those who consider themselves brave patriots, were just here. Perhaps we should have held the trial at Opryland Hotel next to them. Let’s see how “brave” and “patriotic” they really are.

And, yes, I would have willingly helped protect them, if asked to. But I probably wouldn’t have been the best choice for that job, for I certainly would have laughed as they twisted their cowardly frilly panties and whined in fear.

So many supposed brave patriots acting like the sniveling cowards they really are? Sorry. That irony I have no desire to apply my wrinkle releasing Sunbeam to. Maybe they might learn how to be true patriots, though I doubt it. Or maybe they’ll choke on it, and the nation will be better off without them.

“Move more to the center?”

Millions of starving vultures ask you to lay down on the shoulder of the road and pretend you’re dead. They promise: they won’t do a thing, and ignore pain you might feel.

Jimmy Jones tells you, “Go ahead! Drink! It’s just Kool Aid.”

When landing on an island island infested with cannibals, is it wise to use a bullhorn to announce, “It’s dinnertime?”

All of the above would be sheer foolishness. So is listening to the advice of those who hate you beyond all rationality, and will never be honest brokers when it comes to compromise. They will never, ever, agree to bipartisanship. Indeed the more we move towards them the further to the right they will go. They have said so. And now that they’ve had their big Mass. victory, why the hell should they?

The irony here is that our Pelosis, our Harry Reids and our Barack Obamas have publicly stated their response will be compromise. Why the man that you are so desperate to hate even gave you a break in the summer so you could gather together and start teabagging. He’s was willing to suspend all efforts so Mr. Brown and his lovely, available, daughters could ascend. Eh, be seated. Early.

How’s that for bipartisanship, something you have no notion how to appreciate and have no interest in, and never have?

How’s that for “change?”

Change, hell. Personally, I think the captain is so determined to make nice that he’s willing to do a 180 and head this Titanic ship of state right back towards the iceberg. The same iceberg the previous captain was doing all he could do to hit over and over again.

Giving rights to non-Americans

We proudly let the French plant the Statue of Liberty in our harbor, yet we show dedication to our own principles by refusing to live by them when dealing with everyone else? What, we believe only the some new version of “true Aryans” deserve rights, and everyone else better shut up or be conquered?

The difference between us and them is we are supposed to live by our principles. We are supposed to be fighting for freedom, rather than casting our principles aside when they are inconvenient. Washington knew this when he demanded his troops treat British prisoners with respect. No waterboarding. No equivalent of live electric wires. No raping of their children while they sit in cells helpless and watch.

The irony here is that those who promote the need for such things would be happier fighting with the other side where they have no problems with the niceties a truly free nation has to deal with. But such irony is usually a great joke that the intentionally blind refuse to see.

If we iron out the wrinkles, will the sightless ever see the error of their ways… the deaf hear the call to be true patriots? Of course not. But, more important, will they win their demand a whole nation must swim ever closer to the sirens who lure us all into the rocks: so we can continue to become more like the most oppressive nations in human history?

Most great and free nations go extinct because they refuse to stay true to the very freedoms: the principles, they were founded on. So that is an old question with few satisfactory answers. Especially when we’re considering where we are going these days.

-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

What, did they expect Joe, the Neo Con Conservative Republican; drunk on power, ego and pure partisanship, to come home and say, “Great speech. Now I realize how bad I’ve been. Sorry. All these years I’ve been beating up on you, calling you names, making fake accusations. I know you weren’t all ‘traitors’ when you challenge the Patriot Act, questioned WMD, or the war in Iraq. Obama’s not some foreign born socialist out to control and own everything. Max Cleland lost his limbs doing his patriotic duty. Hillary didn’t murder Vince Foster. Can I stay and work things out if I stop: become more honest, cooperative and kind?”

Would you believe them even if they did do that? If you did, then you had to have sniffed gasoline after smoking a few pounds of crack first. Or maybe just be one of these “get along at any cost” Dems. Same damn thing. And there are far too many of them these days.

So we wait for the obvious to happen, as it has so often. The pattern seems to be set in concrete: kind of like a Democratic Jimmy Hoffa. We’ll make suggestions. They’ll toss us into the river of unreasonable, baseless, accusations and laugh while we sink in the polls. Sink in the polls because the media will insist on being “fair and balanced:” rarely if ever pointing out the lies, never commenting on their vicious nature.

Oh, we have our own moments of rage, like the recent Supreme Court decision. And that rage will last… how long? Will we organize and take to the streets? Pound on doors? Get arrested? Characterize them in unflattering ways? Do what they do and use every weapon we have to beat back those who beat us so often?

No, for the most part I’m sure we will do what we always do, slink away as soon as the corporate owned media finds a way to distract us. Where’s Michael Jackson or balloon boy when they need them? Oh, I’m sure if something doesn’t happen they’ll just make it up.

My guess is by the time this is published the rage is about to fade into semi-obscurity, just as it has for the most part over torture, no WMD, Bush’s fake National Guard record and and his statements that “Saddam never let the inspectors in/kicked them out.” Remember how Bush’s National Guard problems were all washed away simply because the information, while correct, wasn’t on the original form; using the original font? Why do I hear even lefties claim it was a bogus document when the secretary who handled the original information said the information was correct?

Couldn’t all this be a bit like the abused wife who tells the police, or her neighbor, that her black eye was caused by a doorknob?

Or how abuse over Whitewater turned into abuse over Bill and Hillary murdering Vince Foster, turned into…. and the only thing they got him on was saying “there is no relationship,” when at that time there wasn’t? Now even most lefties claim Bill was convicted of perjury, something that never happened.

“I’m sorry officer. No, he hasn’t been abusing me. Broken arm? Yes, I do need to be more careful in the shower.”

More than a decade later after all that we hoped that would all change, it obviously hasn’t. You cannot have change if you continue to empower those who created the mess to begin with.

The mainstream press eagerly ran with the lies and did little to correct them. Maybe we keep “letting it go,” because we hope to win the next one, make them see, make them understand. Maybe we just hope that the voting public will see how poor little us were victims all this time, not understanding that re-victimizing victims has become great theater.

And maybe we’re just being damn fools, especially when we think a good speech will break the cycle: solve bloody anything. This endless cycle reminds me of the woman beaten at the mere mention of how much she doesn’t want to be berated and abused…

“He balls up his fist and smacks her. She’s left crying in a corner, asking, ‘What did I do wrong? How can I make it better?’”

But she can’t, can she?

Like an abused spouse we wince and cry about what been done. Then blame ourselves. It’s Barack’s fault. Hillary’s fault. If not for Joe Lieberman, or Ben Nelson, or… But actually do something? Toss Joe out the political window as he so richly deserves? Enforce party discipline even one iota, a smidgen, a mere speck? No, no, no. That won’t do. It’s “our fault.” We just weren’t cooperative, understanding or bipartisan enough. We’ve got to move more to the “center,” do everything more like how “he” wants things to be.

But the real question, the real quandary, is will we continue to allow him to beat us? Nothing will ever satisfy him: even if he kills us the media will claim it’s our own damn fault.

Being more cooperative sure isn’t the answer. How much more “cooperative” could we be? Why would even a damn fool think “cooperative” would work with the Right as it exists today; the same Right who cheer on their hero when he claims he wants our President to fail? Who cheer on talk show hosts making vague references to assassination? “Bipartisanship” with that kind of abusive spouse is a death encouraging act.

But instead of realizing this and doing something about it we seem to say…

“He beat me again. I must have done something wrong. Maybe he’ll stop if I just say I’m sorry.”

For “he” always does the same thing: comes home; finds something, anything: real or imaginary, to be mad about and then beats us senseless. He expects, demands, that we try to soften the blows by attempting to please him with that grand make up sex: bipartisanship mixed with compromise. Then he will tell us we’re still being difficult and beats us again, attempting to pound any ounce of independence out of us.

“He” is obviously the Right in this analogy, and the corporate owned mainstream media. And all the compromise and over eager adjustments from our side should be painfully obvious.

Take, for instance, the nice summer opportunity Barack gave them to get their act together on health care; gather the gang to oppose anything proposed, and especially to make up lies, spew spurious, vile, accusations. He could have pushed harder. We could have done the “up or down vote” mantra popular when they were in power. But no… that wouldn’t be “fair.”

So what was their cry after that gift? Oh, yeah, “Democrats are trying to ram this down our throats!”

“He balls up his fist and smacks her again. She thinks, ‘It’s my fault. Why do I keep making him so mad? Maybe I should try to find some way to avoid anything he finds disagreeable.’”

The media cheers and jeers, like the crowd who gathers to encourage a bully on an elementary playground. From not one, single, mainstream media source did I hear them pointing out how much of a lie this “ram” claim was in the face of the obvious summer recess opportunity they were given, the fact that single payer wasn’t even considered, that insurance companies were handed back pretty much everything they already had and offered even more than they had; especially when public option was quickly dropped.

Who pointed out that these facts made “ram” a damn lie? No one. Not MSNBC. Not CBS. Not ABC. Not ABC. Not the Times, the Post, the… not one.

And someone please tell me when Republicans during the previous administration were this cooperative and Dems used any opportunity to come back and beat on the Republicans?

So now Scott Brown has been elected, are we going to try to get health care through before the ax falls? No, that wouldn’t be “fair.” If you listen to his acceptance speech you would think Democrats were refusing to seat him, like Republicans did Franken, as they chanted, “Seat him now! Seat him now!”

Like the husband who keeps complaining that his compliant wife isn’t compliant enough, they know no one on our side would be brave enough to stand in his way. No one is trying to stop Brown from being seated. Indeed we’re paving the way. Not only will he be seated, but the Commander in Chief and Nancy Pelosi insist we “play fair” and wait for him to be seated before we continue the health care circus.

Oh, but we’re “Nazis” for even trying to improve health care? “Nazis” because we know that selling such things across borders means less coverage for the needy as insurance companies cherry pick communities? Yes, I do remember Adolph Hitler making sure even the Jews had health care.

“Just enter that gas chamber over there and you will be taken ‘care’ of.”

The Jews you see, like the poor, had a “precondition.”

Yes, we know who is really acting like Brownshirts, and who supports the true “death panels.”

But, that’s OK, Ken. Calm down. After all, they’ll appreciate the fact we’re waiting for Brown to be seated, right? Everything thing will be puppies and roses now we’ve shown how “fair” we are, right? “He” will forgive us for what “we’ve done,” right? They’ll calmly discuss health care and come to some compromise, or politely say they can’t vote for it.

No, what will happen once he’s seated?

“He balls up his fist and breaks her nose, then says: ‘Serve me what I want now, faster, bitch, not this socialist crap. You’re too slow. You’re my servile slut. Your ass is mine.’”

So what did the President who did so well confronting them the other night according to reports do previous to that speech? Barack promised that once Brown’s been seated the all too thin bill that everyone worked on so hard will be thinned out even more… thin enough that I imagine even Snuggles the Charmin bear will be embarrassed. It will melt in our hands; turn into… a big bonanza for the insurance thieves who brought us here to begin with.

So after all that, will they be thankful?

No…

“He balls up his fist and smacks her over and over again. Her nose is broken, her face is raw. Still she thinks, ‘It’s my fault. It must be my fault. What can I do to make him happy?’”

Nothing will “make him happy.”

Not if we “play nice”

Not if we “play fair.”

Every compromise will lead to more angry demands. Our very compliant nature feeds the abusive behavior.

How far will this go? Soon they will simply demand we all shut up, and be able to make it happen. Think net neutrality. Why do you think the Right Wingers are so focused on this? If they can deliberately slow down access to beyond noisy dial up slow, while provide lightening to the rich, the well connected…. who will have free speech; more ability to be abusive? Combine that with corporate “free speech” and the limitless ability to pump money into pols and causes. Get the picture yet?

And who will have little to no free speech, thanks to the Supremes and intentionally slowing down the net? Who will have all they can buy? With all the money flooding into the system, the politically incorrect, un-bought and unconnected will have “free speech rights” more like this…

“Her teeth are broken. Her mouth is swollen shut and her very existence only angers him more.’”

Maybe someday Dem leadership will wake the hell up. Abused spouses sometimes do stand up for themselves: do what they have to do to kick them out of their positions of power, or at least limit the damage they do: and do whatever it takes.

It’s 2010.

We are at a crossroads.

We can have a repeat of 1994. only worse, or we can energize our own base.

Forget trying to pacify the party of mostly abuse. No matter what they say they’ll never play “fair,” “nice,” or back off.

Or we can follow the advice of those who would rather take the beatings than really do anything about it. The kind of advice that has a spouse who follows it end up in a body bag, while those who gave the advice still blame them.

These enablers would rather us join them than stand up for ourselves.

Excuse me.

Hell, 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

Oh, the coffin for representative government has been being built right under our noses. They haven’t been all that secret about it. From taking a mere footnote written by a misguided clerk that made a Supreme Court decision a ruling on corporate personhood, to corporations with political connections taking our votes, tallying them and handing them back via black box voting, the coffin only needed for the top to be nailed shut so us: the politically dead, might not escape. Attempts to take elections out of the hands of corporations who sponsor candidates like they do race car drivers have all failed.

Now the last nail has been driven. Big corporations can blanket us with whatever propaganda serves their interests and their bought and paid for pols. Even corporations who are under the influence of the most oppressive regimes in human history now have more free speech than you do. Simply put: they have the kind of money to own both the pols and the national podium that we don’t, and never will have.

You know if pols are going to prostitute themselves, the least they could do is campaign while wearing clothes coated with all their sponsorships…

…big defense contractors, companies that tally our votes…

…companies like Monsanto who destroy family farms…

…big meat companies that have no problem with livestock rich in fecal contaminants…

And worse of all: international companies who owe no allegiance to America: none, zip… while relying on, oh… let’s say the Chinese, for their lead laden, poorly designed, products. Like the recent case when strollers for children were so poorly designed they amputated children’s fingers.

We no longer just “owe our souls” to the corporate ruling class. Have you figured that out yet? Soon we won’t even be able to offer an obscene gesture. That option was taken away back when we were in baby strollers. Couple that with the drive to get rid of “nuisance law suits” and maybe they can improve those strollers: offering a decapitation option.

And to think. Ten years ago some thought the most important worry they had was Bill Clinton getting head.

Simply put the Neo Con majority ruled that corporations have every right to buy elections by lambasting Americans with commercials day and night for their bought and paid for candidates. The “minority report:” the dissent, fumed at the fact that, given this ruling, Toyko Rose would have as much right to our airwaves as those who attempted to counter act her propagandistic filth.

Corporations have no brain. They have no liver. They have no heart or soul. They are designed to create profit above all else: even human life. To be blunt, yet as soft spoke as I can, to the Supremes I would scream, “Corporations are not goddamn people. Period.”

That’s the best I can do. It’s crude, but no where near as crude as handing over our representative form of government to CEOs whose bottom line often comes out of China, and worse places. Oh, indeed-e-do, there are worse places.

But a unasked question raps upon my conscience, as it should everyone who loves America for what our forefathers truly fought for. A question for these “patriots” who rally with the cry, “No American rights for terrorists, for non-Americans.”

If you truly believe that, shouldn’t you be raging like I am against the Supremes giving our rights to corporations: many of whom are not American and even closely associated with Communists, as in “Communist China?” You all are going to start raging against that give away of rights, aren’t you?

You hear that, don’t you?

The sound of a pin drop?

Traitors.

-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