 | | | Status: Public | | Entries: 72 (Private: 0)
| Comments: 11
| | Start Date: Nov 24, 2006
| Last Update: Yesterday
| | Views: 4166
|
| | | |
| | | | | Inspection- Lessons Death Has Taught Me | | | Quote:
“You don’t understand; sooner or later I will have to operate on you. But I won’t do it until you come screaming to me that you can’t take it anymore.”
“But… I’m 54. I won’t heal any better when I’m 68.”
“Yes, but when I do it, it will be a life threatening operation.”
| Words no one ever wants to hear. “Terminal cancer” would be worse, amongst many. Yet, I would imagine this would probably be at least second or third on my list of, “Damn, I wish you didn’t have to tell me that,” when I visit any doctor.
The neurologist had been trying to soothe me: not scare the hell out of me, I suppose, when almost two years ago he told me the operation to solve this specific condition would be easy. Until recently I didn't even know this, but I have a nasty condition that is congenital: an odd form of spinal stenosis. It's at the bottom of the spine where most of the nerves have to pass through on their way to other parts of the human body.
Some days I wonder what the conversation must be like between them down there. Do they sip on some kind of body fluid-based coffee while they complain about their closest relatives? “Why, he did what? He has some nerve!”
Of course I could have taken a hard line and ejected this doc out of my medical life; claiming he lied to me when he said the operation would be "easy", but truth does tend to be far more complicated whether it’s in relationships, religion, politics or anything else we do. The operation for that specific condition: just above the pelvic region, is somewhat simple; if that is all that has to be done. They just go in and widen the area. But midst the pull, the tug: and especially the vibration of the drill; things change. A spine is somewhat like what holds a marionette together: the neurologist I go to even has a painting on his wall with a doctor fumbling around; trying to reconstruct a very damaged pile of marionettes, while fat cats sitting behind him burn thousand dollar bills to light cigars and laugh at him. Since it is the base of the spine: or "anchor," or "foundation," for the spine... if you are looking for somewhat more enlightening metaphors... after that "simple" part of the operation is done: every other slight problem that you had can turn quite mean. It’s all connected. Fix one and you’d best do the rest. Which means to do it right he’ll need to peel me back and reconstruct the whole bloody thing, I suppose.
Now to pause for the little boy that's still inside us all, except those with little girls, or little trans gendered. Even he isn't saying, "Oh, joy, can we do it again, and again, and again?" Do they give two for one discounts on this type of operation? Double your pleasure, double your chances for death? Hmmm... guess Wrigley's: or any other gum company, won't be using that advertising variation in the foreseeable future.
Quote: |
“You’re right on schedule. A person with your condition would start to really experience this in their 50s.”
| So at least I can find some comfort in a condition, when the muscles holding up my spine collapsed twice last summer, that I was at least “on time?” Oh, goodie. Can I go ahead and apply that to the rest of my present and past life, please? Then I could have hit folk music at its peak rather than when Music Row treated it as a curse word, for example. Or maybe I’m better off instead of doing a Phil Ochs when folk music collapsed like my spine in the late 70s.
Is it possible that during our first adventures into “correct-o-spine” land he didn’t want to scare me off by mentioning I might eventually become operative snuff-flick material? Still… I wish he had just told me. I prefer my physicians like I prefer my politicians: honest to the point of being willing to tell the truth; even if it means they might never see me again, or get my vote. Of course, one can be too much of anything: hence, the doctor who pulled the stitches out of the foot that had slipped under a lawnmower when I was 14. I asked him how many, he smiled a wicked smile and said... with some excitement and a quick smirk to his lips, “Let’s count!!!” There were over 100: each one painful beyond belief.
Rarely will you observe that I used this kind of language when I composed Inspection… but there really are some people the handy word “asshole” is perfectly designed for. I’m sure it won’t surprise you that this same doctor: the way he seemed to enjoy the excruciating pain with each harsh tug at a stitch, reminds me of George W. Bush. Oh, did I mention he loved to put his arm around little boys in a way that made me feel very uncomfortable? Kind of reminds me of W when he thinks he's being "funny."
Now Hillary and Bill remind me of many southern politicians I've both known and met: some of whom I was paid to work for as a rather low level consultant many years ago. They say what the audience wants to hear, or what they think will be best for the moment. They also remind me of that neurologist. I understand why they do it and I’m not sure any politician would ever stay a politician for long if they satisfied me with their honesty. The few that have come close; like Barry and Eugene, have been shot down.
My problem this political year is I don’t find Barack different in that sense. He certainly parsed his words around Wright while his supporters seemed to say in unison: “He’s just trying to be ‘nice.” But isn’t that what supporters would say; especially when they are trying to punish anyone who even slightly criticizes their candidate? No, he was trying to spin his way out of a spider web made partially out of his own parsing, and it just ensnared him even more. There's further evidence he's not quite the honest broker others claim he is. He hired Daschle to help run his campaign while claiming to be the only one of the candidates who was always, and still is, against the war. Daschle voted "for," by the way. And Barack also "voted for" by voting to fund... unless you wish to cut him some slack politically for doing so. I do. I tend to cut those who did vote and then decided the war was wrong some slack. Barack’s use of that issue would only be fair and honest if he had had to make the same decision they did, did go around hiring those who did vote for the same bill as Hillary did to head his campaign, and had to vote "for" or "against" under the same conditions as all the other highly placed pols did. Voting “against” could very well mean you’d lose your rather highly placed position in any upcoming election. It was no accident that the vote was placed close to 04. Barack didn’t have to make that decision, luckily.
Just like any doctor has to decide between when to treat, not to treat or what to say.
As I mentioned: this kind of politician I will vote for. I will also repeat what many of my critics have yet to hear no matter how I phrase it: I am neither a Hillary supporter or defender. I'm not a Barack supporter or defender. When I think what others are perceiving is correct I will say so. If I don't, I will tell them I believe they are wrong. Neither are "my type of politician." And I'm very much against all this speculation about Hillary's, or Barack's, true motivations that, to me, are little more than personal, political, "rub yourself raw," masturbation. If you insist, I can't stop you, but please point that weapon of sheer, smear, destruction elsewhere.
Another similarity I find here is how his supporters will do all they can to find the worst meaning possible in words used that do not make their candidate look good. So far I haven't heard a damn thing said by either side that rises even close to the level of offense found in some statements. It seems to be almost a sickness: as if they are driven to do anything to find evil intent. Yet when other people point to what Barack, or his minister, or anyone connected to him, says and screams "foul," they do the same thing. It was “taken out of context,” or "blown out of proportion," or intentionally made into something it was not. Honestly? Most they're usually right, just like Hillary supporters are when they marvel at how outlandish and politically driven some Barack supporters reinterpretations are.
Ah, if only “irony” were made by ACME and land as hard as it does in the cartoons. Maybe people would be a little more ginger when handling the words of others, and a little more critical when looking at how their own candidates speak and handle controversies.
But, of all the comparisons, the tendency to smear the "true motives" of others is far worse than anything I've mentioned in what some may consider a long medicine vs. politics screed. Imagine if, when the doctor tells us what he needs to, we all responded back with, “You’re just saying that because…” No, instead we just go elsewhere for a second opinion like I will in the Fall. I have nothing against my neurologist: he seems quite talented and able to talk with his patients. But "life threatening" almost requires a second opinion, in my own, rather limited, perception of medicine.
But what if we treated our health, and our doctors, like we do each other politically? Would we ever be cured? Wouldn’t we venture even further down this personal path to Hell we are walking? This is what insisting we know the true motivations does to us all: we’re referring to discussions about cancer, spine reconstruction, or politics.
I guess it’s probably a good thing I’m not a neurologist. Or I’m not the physician who had to tell my father that my mother had inoperable, terminal, cancer… or the doctor who had to tell his sons that my father was going to most likely die: piece by piece as the combination of diabetes and third degree burns over 90% of his ravaged body took both his life and whatever pride he had left. I’m really, really relieved to know that I’m wasn't the doctor that had to tell my uncle that he was going to bloat to the point that all he could do is lie down and hurt until he died. I’m also glad I wasn’t a politician who had to choose between giving George Bush an option that he could: and obviously did, misuse and abuse… or losing the next election. Damn near everyone who said “no” did lose.
I view both Hillary and Barack as "doctors" in this sense. I value both of their opinions, hoping they will say what they need to when they can. Judging that is a lot harder than any of us think, and assessing evil motives far too easy.
There's always a question of how much "truth," and how much "spin." When my father was dying we had two doctors: one who came in and kept talking in low; depressing, tones, about how it was inevitable that Dad would die... and another who said, "Well, Bill, it's going to be really tough; the outlook isn't good, but let's try." And we need to pick the one we each; individually, will be more positive overall for the nation, because I am sure, like me, the whole political system has to be reconstructed and maybe die on the table. Many say that's Barack. Maybe. Maybe not. I'll vote for either.
But for now, sooner rather than later? In regard to a very personal decision I must eventually make.... I think I’ll opt for the knife. I can think of: I personally know of, far worse ways to die than under medication on an operating table. I sincerely hope: whoever enters the White House in 09, that they will be able to be the best doctor: and the best surgeon, they can be. I hope the patients make the right choices and that Barack; if elected, really will bring us all together as his supporters claim.
So far? Even if I were the most avid of all the Barack supporters: or Hillary; or McCain… I still think that my back will have a better chance. The past eight years may have done far more damage than the depressing attitude my father's doctor ever could have done; or we can imagine politically and socially. But hey: no matter who runs... "it's going to be really tough; the outlook isn't good, but let's try."
-30-
Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over thirty 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. |
| Inspection- On Lying and Big/Tiny Wins | | | This edition of Inspection has been updated since the first draft to include my observations regarding North Carolina and Indiana.
I've been pondering a region; a gulf; a canyon so deep; so wide, that the Grand Canyon would be a skunk's footprint in comparison. How fitting to use a skunk: because this same divide is far more odiferous and seems set on permanent spray mode. I, of course, am referring to the O'Bama/Clinton divide that still lingers despite cries of, "It's over..." which have been spouted practically since the first caucus.
At least they're a little more reality-based right now. Well, a lot more.
I know, its all BillHillaryGeraldinesWrightsBaracksupportersBlacksWhites fault. If you wish, take whatever simplistic slice you want out of that non-word and go ahead... cast your slimier than fish bait blame. Then leave me alone, because I find simple answers only satisfy simpletons with big egos and empty peanut shell minds. Truth is usually far more complex than this "evil vs. good" meme' which seems to thrive inside the human cortex.
Do I really mean, "Go away?" No, not really. Some wonder why I go on debate sites and engage those I deeply disagree with; or even defend those who I am not that fond because I believe it's the right thing to do. I enjoy it, I really do. Kind of like being on the receiving end of an old fashioned bully beating... only to be able to spin around and slam my toes into some far less than "intellectual" ranter's exposed crotch.
If you haven't guessed it by now, I've always hated bullies. Some might claim I should be frothing at the mouth about Hillary then, but frankly... as you will see, I feel "bully" would be over statement at best. But if "bully" fits, then Hillary is just more in your face. Barack is more "let others do it for me."
Indeed: and this will enrage some, I don't think "bully" fits at all in any sense. While I have had a few minor problems with what has been said by her and those in her campaign, I have actually found the reaction more problematic: far over the top in relation to what was actually said. Indeed I have come to the conclusion that anything said will be turned into the most horrific construct possible by adding words, phrases and concepts poured straight out of the fertile imagination of the accusers. Yes, and I do mean the kind of fertilizer for the imagination: if it could be used for crops, would make you roll up the car windows if you were passing by a farmer's field.
Since I enjoy such abusive banter one of the most happier times I have spent; net-wise, was on a site called Political Pulpit that changed names and, eventually, went dark. (Maybe a lighter shade of grey since its creator: David Allyn, still prowls the net attempting to at least respect other opinions, if not offering an actual home to them. Like all of us: he succeeds... sometimes. Surely these days of Barack vs. Hillary he probably feels his task with me is approaching Job-ian.) At the Pulpit: a meeting place for unlike minds... which if you think of it is all we really have, I learned and grew as much as I debated. This is a process that started in my family who drove Mom crazy arguing, but still getting along after the debate temporarily dies down. ("Can't we have a peaceful meal once?" We eventually just read at the table and, when she complained, "What, would you rather hear us argue politics?" She usually got real quiet after that.)
Now I do most of my debating over at Volconvo.com. Except as of late I find myself giving off the image to some that I'm defending someone I'm not the biggest fan of: Hillary. Let me clarify. She's simply not my kind of pol. But I don't find her to be the vile piece of human waste, or even some conniving wench who will say or do anything. Too many of the portraits I find being drawn these days: the framing if you wish, contain cartoon images that only satisfy those who think cartoons are anything but a slight representation of reality. Like any human: especially politically driven ones, she has big problems. Anyone who has that much drive, and is willing to be a punching bag 24/7, certainly has some problems underneath it all. How they deal with their problems: take it out on those they disagree with, or pour it back into their work; and then endeavor to do better, makes the person, and the politician... and then affects the nation. Hence the Clinton administration. Hence Bush II. I'll leave it up to you which one fits in which category, though I'm sure regular readers know my opinion.
It's more all about the kind of candidate I prefer. My historical heroes, politically, are Eugene McCarthy and Barry Goldwater. They both said what they believed and were shot down for it. It's probably best my kind of guy, or gal, has never attained office in my lifetime: they'd never get a damn thing done.
Those who might claim either Hillary or Barack are that type of candidate, well... sorry, I disagree. They're both very talented pols in some ways, in other ways not. They are both alter what they say, and how they say it, and even their goals, according to conditions and who they are talking to. Any Barack supporter who would claim otherwise must have had their headphones on Heavy Metal, and high, as Barack squirmed around the Wright issue. I fear that non-controversy made soap opera has yet to come close to "final episode."
But even if they were "my kind of politician": that is not what we need this election cycle. We desperately need anything, anyone, who has a chance of winning and will start running, walking or even baby stepping away from the all the precedents set during the last eight years. How much; how fast, which ones first, are almost unimportant. Even a little bit; turtle crawl speed, is better than staying where we are or going further down this dark, bleak, death and torture-filled road we are on. We desperately need someone who, when hit, will hit back: hard... even if the hit has to be out of bounds and unfair. In my opinion we have been run by an administration of bullies deluxe; headed by one of the worse bullies in recent U.S. history: and McCain has abandoned his straight talk express to follow same the yellow stained, crooked road, of Bush. You can't win by just talking: as John Kerry proved. Being a better talker isn't the answer. The most crucial thing here is winning: nothing else is more important.
Do I think one has a better chance of winning than the other? No, I don't: mostly because of factors that have nothing to do with either of them like stolen elections and the media who seems content to enable the worst on the Right. Doesn't really matter how many skeletons either have in the closet, or how much they're hated... what isn't there will be made up by Swifties. So let's just leave it at I'm more than very nervous about November.
I was a Dennis supporter. Neither Barack, or Hillary, tickle my brain cells in the sense that, "Oh, boy I get to vote for..." Once again I'm stuck with voting for the less annoying, the less bothersome and the somewhat more palatable: a common experience I think most Americans loath... but I feel is simply a sign the process is flawed, and probably always will be; and has been, to some extent.
I actually am not quite sure which one of the two I find fits the "less evil of the two" profile... yet: although I came a tad closer after Indiana/North Carolina. Still the difference between the two is, and always has been, for me slight in this sense. If Barack had more meat on him due to being on the national stage as long as the Clintons, maybe I might. Anything previous to "national stage" is interesting, but doesn't prove much. One can do a lot of marvelous things on smaller stages one cannot do: should not do on a big one. I know both aesthetically, and professionally.
But still the accusations flow... and not out of just one camp, or one group of supporters...
This week, on a thread over at Volconvo, I once again read that; because she was "the only one on the ballot," Hillary claiming Michigan as a win is a lie; an example of dirty slime-filled tactics... well, I could go on with the usual barrage here but either you agree with them or, like me, you say, "Wait a damn minute..."
So I did a simple Google.
I shouldn't place all the blame on the posters at Volconvo. I heard the same point I just mentioned being slathered over ears of listeners to Sirius Left, on the various sites I write for, and in other... more mainstream, media. Mike Feder was sub-ing this past week on Sirius Left and they: host and callers, were going on and on about her being the only one on the ballot in Michigan, and how the Dems were to blame for Florida. I called and explained that "the only one on the ballot" simply wasn't true and that, in Florida, it was the Republican legislature who broke the rules: decided the primary would be early. (Yes, unfortunately, they do get to decide that in Florida. No one I know of has ever claimed that since Jeb ruled the state hasn't been royally screwed up when it comes to elections.)
A caller to the same program later claimed I was only half right, but somehow never got around to explaining what half was "wrong." Well, unless you accept "Democratic Party operatives wanted an early primary too for a while" in any sense proves my points "wrong." If saying "for a while" the Democratic Party "wanted" anything means we should punish them, this nation would be throwing people in detainment camps/prisons for doing nothing wrong except maybe; possibly; according to others "wanting" something, and nothing else.
Gulp. Maybe I'd better back off from that point.
Gulp, maybe Barack supporters should back off from that point too least they become too much like the reprobate they hope Barack will replace.
The caller didn't even bother to address the fact: absolute fact, that Hillary wasn't the only one running for the Dems in Michigan. Maybe he didn't know: after all Barack supporters have repeated this "no one but Hillary was on the ballot" fiction so many times I think they believe the lie is true.
"Lie?" This brings up a valid point here... since we know that is wasn't "nobody," but Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel too, how could I respond to those who claim so? Well, I could respond like this...
Quote: |
"Why are Barack supporters lying to us? Why is Barack sitting back and letting his supporters: his surrogates, lie to us? Is this the plan, to lie about Hillary and destroy any chance she has? And what about Barack... to let others lie for him... How filthy, how cowardly. It's worse than Nixonian, it's Rovian, It's..."
| I think you see where I'm going with that nonsense. I'm actually referring to how we frame the debate here: frame those who are in our way. Such framing has little to do with truth and far more to do with partisan agendas. Intra-party it can be pure poison, and please don't write back pretending I think Hillary hasn't done it too. She has. She just doesn't claim to be following some "high road" while supporters do it for her.
Then we could go all minister on him. What, so many years and not even hear a whisper of "God damn America?" Not one hint heard that it had been said? Hell, I could even support to how his supporters seem, and I do mean "seem," to serve as attack dogs while Barack" framing him as a "coward," stays above it all. Has to be intentional, right? I could go on the web and blog, somewhere...
Quote: |
"Why that vile piece of human waste, at least Hillary and Bill have the decency to do most (Please remember: "not all.") of their own attacking!!!!!!!"
| Yes, using these examples, and many more I'm positive I could dredge up with a circus like "greatest of ease," I could start screaming, moaning and accusing along with the worst of the Barack supporters. Since one poster started his comments out with "your bitch is going down," wouldn't be fair for me to use the same phrase only add "n" to it, if that kind of attack is "appropriate?"
But, you're right. No, it isn't. And way too many in the Barack support community... (I keep typing "Barach" instead and correcting, so an odd mix of notes from Bach and Burt Bacharach's This Guy's in Love with You keep swimming in my head, musically. I desperately want to drown either so I can listen to just one.) ...don't understand their over the top rhetoric serves their cause, and their candidate, poorly.
Now, here's what I think is really happening...
We have spent so many years under the thumb of these tactics we have forgotten civility, we have forgotten how to fight and disagree without becoming Rove, Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly... Even under the other Clinton: Bill, we had to put up with it because it was the same tactics used against him.
To make myself clear: no one is "pure" here. Not Barack. Not Hillary. Not the supporters. No one. And playing a game of "who is more pure" loses elections.
I don't want anyone to switch from Barack, or Hillary... though I'd sure love if people would switch from McCain, that's not the purpose here either. Of course, once again... many are dancing on Hillary's grave and going as far as claim this to be "the end of the Clinton era." It's most likely the end of her bid for the White House in 08, and probably beyond. No matter what happens she's still a senator and someone Barack or McCain will have to work with.
Maybe that's the whole point behind this edition of Inspection. It's a plea for all sides: please step back. Neither side has been saintly: and it's always far too convenient to think your side is. Please think about the rhetoric you and your fellow supporters are using. And, yes, think about the rhetoric your candidate is using too. But, most of all, think more rationally about the rhetoric the other candidate is using: don't attempt to do whatever one can to turn it into what it isn't, or may not be. We will get through this. Whether we're damaged to the point of four more years of disaster isn't really up to either Hillary or Barack, no matter what either, or their supporters, says or does. It's up to us, for now: we still have six months: in politics that can be a millennium.
Once we're past election time it will be too damn late. All of this "it's BillHillaryGeraldinesWrightsBaracksupportersBlacksWhites fault" won't mean a damn thing: except we're all screwed.
Barack's Big, and Hillary's Tiny, Win
I've never been someone with a lot of friends, and often people take a disliking to me for no apparent reason. Some days I wonder, "Do I smell bad, is there a curse on my family name, or some do I have some fatal character flaw I'm unaware of?"
Then, some days, I realize that last nugget is true except "unaware" and that I don't view it as "flaw;" as much as being as honest and fair as I feel I can be in any given situation. Being human I would never claim I'm always correct in my assessment, but of course neither is anyone else. Taking that position in life can be hell when political correctness amongst those who are close to you politically, theologically, or just "close," runs amuck.
For instance: after the last primary cycle I have come to the conclusion that I'm pretty sure I really don't trust, and possibly don't like, Barack O'Bama... and perhaps even less than I trust Hillary Clinton: someone who has never been the highest on my list in that regard. Oh, I'll vote for him, but that's all. And expect criticism to keep flowing from the various PCs I visit, and my home Mac, however long he remains this high on the national scene. Despite my misgivings I do hope he attains his goal and far, far more important than that: I hope he proves me wrong. One thing is perfectly clear: any option other than O'Bama is pretty much off the table. That's mostly just fact. The reasons why it's "fact" I could, would debate: and have debated, with Barack supporters. But this is not why I'm typing this into this library screen right now.
To explain myself I'll provide one: quite recent, example...
Barack and his supporters have kept claiming that he's trying to "follow the high road." While I've had a few hints that he's not quite as high on that road as he claims to be, my real complaints have been regarding his supporters from whom I've read on the various sites I debate on... "bitch, c#@t, sl!t, whore, witch..." and so many variations on the Reich Wing's trick of telling me they know exactly what's in someone else's head I've already filled my toilet mentally several times trying to vomit them back out. I don't like it any more when "elite" is tossed around.
But on to my singular example... Barack's most recent ad campaign ad during the Indiana primary has brought me to the point of seriously questioning just how much "change" he really wants, or if the claim that he wants to travel the "high road" is nothing more than pandering to those who would eat him up even if he slathered moose piss on him as long as he says he'd never do that.
On NPR's Morning Edition, just before the primary, they were playing examples of recent political ads. They played Hillary's ad first. Basically it was another "I'm the better candidate and the most likely one to answer the phone." Every candidate says "I'm better," in one form or another. To be honest, it wasn't a very good ad in the sense of "effective," in my opinion. But Barack's, well it was damn strong and quite effective... and very damning. Ominous music. Snapshots of turmoil and tragedy. After mentioning 9/11, gas prices, the economy and the other various versions of eight years of hell the Bush/Cheney team has brought us, the tag on the end said that Hillary claimed she could do this better and then...
Quote: |
"Isn't it about time we had someone we can trust as President? Isn't it about time we had someone who will tell the truth as President?"
| Maybe you believe Hillary is always a liar and Barack will always tell the truth. Maybe you believe she can't, and Barack always can, be trusted: ever. That's you're right. Personally I would never even come this close to claiming either. But there's one simple and obvious fact: this ad is not in any way, "the high road."
The ad underscores a possibility I've suspected all along: Barack's running a campaign while claiming to be on "the high road," while his supporters do the dirty work. Hillary does her own, with the help of Bill and friends. (I have found most: not all, of what Barack supporters claim to be less nasty than... oh let's say this piece which claims Hillary is intentionally courting racists. The responses are somewhat vile too.) In the mean time I find his supporters (not "all") sometimes feel free to follow the lowest damn road they can find. Anyone who thinks a candidate can't be held responsible for what supporters say is probably in for a pretty damn rude awakening come the Fall, just like Ms. Ferraro and Rev. Wright found out when their words were twisted into something they weren't.
In other words: it's already happening and political vampires who greedily suck on such vile filth haven't even hit the main course yet.
To be clear: I'm not happy with either, but I would never vote for McCain. There's far more going on here than Hillary, Barack or any nasty business between the two of them. I just wish Hillary, Barack, and their supporters would be more cognizant of that before they spew more accusations and hate.
-30-
Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over thirty 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.
|
| Inspection- A Depressing Thought for Our Times | | | I tend to do my personal speculation somewhat backwards. I think that's why I somehow manage to baffle most point "A" to point "B" thinkers. This edition of Inspection will be no different...
The Great Depression... was it intentional?
I was observing the horrific economic trend we are in right now. If we were to enter a depression: as bad or worse as the 20s, who would benefit? Could it be the very same interests who are herding us towards that outcome? I understand the late 20's "banker who jumped out the window" historical semi-fact. Fact: "yes." Over told story that makes the actual carnage seem worse that it was? Well, also "yes."
Yet most of these suicidal few were not those who actually drove us there. They may have been in the front seat of the station wagon, but they weren't in the driver's seat.
It's also a less known, but absolute, fact that many got quite rich during the Depression.
I know of no studies; no proof, showing what I am suggesting. Not because it isn't true, but I don't recall anyone studying the concept. I'm not sure it's even possible because it would require identifying who was to blame first for the Great Depression, then investigating what happened to them after. If you've ever done such research and analysis using standardized methods you know that's the exact opposite of how one does this type of research.
I wonder...
...are most of us getting ready to be tossed over the economic cliff so those in control: like George Bush and his corporate owners, can live in luxury off our monetary corpses? My father trapped for furs so that the rich could live in more luxury during the thirties. He told me that many of the rich buyers were the same as before the crash: only a lot richer.
I'm not sure any of us will have that kind of opportunity my father had: make even that kind of meager living after the next crash, unless...
...that's why the new prisons Halliburton/KBR are being built? And if anyone can be jailed, and kept there, by mere accusation or because some president says, "Make it so," not one politically incorrect person is safe. Hell, prison for the poor might be the next wave of, "Things have changed since 9/11."
So maybe most of us can look forward to the joys of slave labor? We're not only allowed the privilege of killing our own pets with Chinese made dog food, poison our children with their toys... soon we'll be part of our own prison-slave labor camp. Let's race! I bet I'll get there before you!
Ah, life is good.
-30-
Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over thirty 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.
|
| Inspection- On Inflation and Plausible Denial | | | This week... early AM; Sirius news reporting, the price of food has soared "double digits." Some people may be mad, but still not mad enough to unhook themselves from the imbecilic umbilical cord: TV. Meanwhile, gas prices have exploded. If we could build a combustion engine fueled by the rise and fall in fuel prices we'd have a perpetual motion machine.
Today's news is brought to you by, "Bleaties:" now with less flavor than Wheaties minus the wheat, and less nutrition than chewing on paper. Good for feeding the empty sheep-like minds of the Mildred Montag masses with anything but intellect. And, yes, I admit the gas prices comment was somewhat of an over statement. Somewhat.
I go to the gas pump more than others due to business, and I do that Louisiana to Maine. I've seen how they're playing with gas prices. State taxes don't seem to make much of a difference anymore. Oh, they add to the price but Kentucky and especially Atlanta, GA, which used to be cheap... New York and Connecticut: expensive... are often the same, occasionally the states with lower taxes have higher prices. It makes no sense, except I have noticed there seems to be an odd, yet seemingly plausible connection between states that "vote" for pro-industry candidates; tolerate voting machine/election chicanery... and those who resist the "trend." You guessed it: lowest for the first; highest for the second. I'm including states, like Ohio, where obvious fraud has occurred. Localities where precincts had to be shut down so Republicans can shove everyone else out the door so they can count the votes; or play with the machines, wind up on the top of the pricing totem poll. Once upon a less price fixing time; while motoring I-75 between Dayton and Cin-city, for example, one would to see prices dip quite a bit: stations competing.
All a coincidence? Obviously; just like lipstick using pigs gliding with birds in the sky would be "coincidence."
Of course where once I left the store with a fatter wallet; it's getting thinner, and thinner, and...
If only I could say that about my gut. Could we get these folks into the dietician biz and out of ripping us off, or would that be a Kevorkian wish?
Is it time to call it raging inflation yet?
Wait. Someone's calling me. Um, OK. Gee, thanks. Never mind. The media-industrial-military-Bushco complex has told me I can't say that. Makes our loving, gentle El Presidente look bad. Besides, how can they possibly steal it for McCain if the truth gets in the way? Oh, you say they don't care about truth? Hmmm... when you're correct, you're correct. Or I'll just offer a little bow with my head like the villain in Demolition Man and say...
Plausible Denial
Our next topic may have little to do with hunting for (Wesley) Snipes, but a little to do with "sniper fire."
This week, setting up and tearing down for my show, the staging area, which also is used as a rather large classroom, had the following lesson in "responsibility" up on the board...
Quote: "Where are you living?
Responsibility
Freedom
Power... (means your living a life of...) Ownership"
"Lay blame (no control)
Justify (excuses)
Deny (I am a liar)
Quit... (means you're living the life of...) Victims."
| Ah, a flash from the past, or is it that LSD I never ingested coming back to blow my cortex with a bad trip? The pseudo/play-acting psychologist says you should admit to something that you didn't do. You tell them the truth: you didn't do it. So they point and say with a smirk...
Quote: |
"You're living in denial."
| If anyone "is living in denial" it just might be those who make such smug claims so easily. Yes, people lie to themselves. But catch 22's doth not truth, fairness... or honesty make. So let's be honest here: people are accused of things they don't do. It happens. Sometimes people who do things accuse others of what they did, or are doing. Denying does not a liar make. And quit? What else can you do when people insist that guilt by accusation is good enough?
What has this to do with anything going on right now? You're kidding, right? How often have we entered the media driven portal of Hillary or Barack did/said something and all the wagging pundit's tongues start with, "If they'd just apologize... if they'd just admit..." Anyone else notice if they do decide to take the easy way out and apologize for something they didn't do, or what wasn't really said, or would take too much explaining... it never ends it? The same people who claim it would are right back at them the next day.
And is this any surprise in the days when Gitmo, and turning an American citizen into an ear of corn using only multiple: false, accusations as justification, is treated by the media with a big yawn? Damn it! They have real stories to get to, don't you know that? Maybe O'Bama knows someone, who knows someone, whose half-ex-brother-in-law loaned a cigarette to someone who considered taking revenge for his Iraqi cousin who soldiers killed by mistake. Barack's a terrorist sympathizer!
And when, oh, when... when the hell will we hold the blamifier, the deny-inator, the blame everyone else in-Chief, responsible for anything he's obviously done, responsible for? ...like approving torture he once claimed we didn't do? ...for claiming he would hold the leaker who exposed a CIA agent responsible, then refusing to? ...for mocking dying soldiers with his "can't find WMD here, or here" vid? ...for lying about Iraq: as in "Saddam kicked the inspectors out," at one moment, and then "wouldn't let them back in" damn near in the same breath? For something? Anything?
To repeat myself, when "lipstick using pigs glide with birds in the sky."
-30-
Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over thirty 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.
|
| Inspection- Shoe of Brian: a Short Vignette | | | This edition of Inspection: using a vehicle called fiction instead of some pompous rant, is a commentary on the Pope's visit and Bush's comments regarding that visit..
Some believers find faith a way to expand their minds. So did Barack O'Bama mean "all" when he offended the far too easily offended: a current mental condition infecting both sides of the Democratic Party divide right now? But I don't believe he meant "all" use religion, or guns, as some crutch or to excuse themselves for their bigotry, their hatred and intentional narrow-mindedness. And he was right: unfortunately too many people are looking for some simplistic formula they can cling to: a hatred they can hang their hats on. They want to be told something, anything, anyone: certainly not themselves or their own social group, is "the" problem; and that something, someone, some group, some weapon, some faith can solve this problem. Then they interpret what they have been told for their own purposes: so they can turn that "weapon" on others they find disagreeable. They arrive at their own personal "who or what is at fault" formula, one might say. These "formulas" are usually "discovered" by over reliance on out of context quotes, or one section of one part of a theological text, or political screed, one organized religion, one leader; or "the Pope." Then they bleat when whenever their icon tells them to "bleat;" even if that's not what their icon meant at all.
What if the dead icons and deities expressed how they feel about what their followers have done, and said, in their name? This explains one inspiration for the following vignette. Another is a quote from none other than George W. Bush who was speaking to the Pope and those who had gathered to witness his visit: the church hierarchy from the U.S. and other followers...
Quote: |
"When you give your heart and life over to Christ, and accept Christ as a savior; it changes your heart and your life."
| Shoe of Brian
Quote: |
"Did you hear what he said? What changes? What changes? The snippy, sarcastic comments are still there. The willingness to let others be killed with his approval. I wish he would pray to me just to tell me how he thinks I ever approved any of this: even just the using of nicknames to humiliate others... even his closest advisers. I called Peter, 'The Rock,' not a 'Rockette...' His obvious hatred for anyone who dares to disagree with him... And what about my supposed 'representative' and his 'awesome' speech? He who spoke with 'compassion' about the children whom priests raped, but before he was pope he helped move them around to avoid prosecution, and pushed a rule that nothing could be done to these rapists until after the children turned 28 when the statue of limitations was over? He's using me. They're both using me. They're all using us. We tell them how to lead the best life possible and they use us to excuse the very things we preached against..."
| -Jesus; the Lord; YHWH, Joshua, or "he's not just 'Josh-ing'"
The tears filled the speaker's eyes as Buddha, Jesus, Vishnu, Mohammed, Allah, God and all the other various deities, sat at a table. It was a meeting of the minds. Actually it was a bitching session about their misguided followers. The conversation had been depressing until Jesus started to continue his rant, "You know what really drives the nails in my heart about my followers...?" And before he could answer his own question God: his father, raised a shoe and said, "shoe of Brian?"
Everyone started to laugh: even Jesus. As an ice breaker they had played the movie before the meeting had started, so the connection between joke and movie was obvious. Hari almost committed "kari" as his many arms swung dangerously due to his laughter. It didn't help that Guan Yin was sitting next to Hari and her arms became tangled with his. Mohammad was chuckling so much he didn't mind when Zoroaster took a picture of him: photoshopped it with a mustache, and said he was going to sell it on some celestial version of E-Bay, but broke up mid sentence... because he too couldn't stop shaking with laughter.
Henceforth they met every third Thursday, Earth-time: 2pm EST, at the interfaith-afterlife cafe' called the Vestial Virgin Coffeeshop and Holy Host Bakery. They called themselves "The Deity Club" and spent many, many meetings comparing notes: laughing and crying about how some cup had become an all important search, or how they thought praying to one of them assured success for baseball games or murdering 'the enemy:' as if they were simply genies in some holy bottle ready, able and willing to grant any wish... or how directing one's veneration towards some wall was anything but a waste of time unless done with humility. As Mohammad said...
Quote: |
"It's not the wall. Why do they think it's just the wall? It's how you're doing it: what's inside you, what you do after..."
|
The wall wasn't the point. The cross wasn't the point. Even all the totality of the various scriptures, ceremonies and such weren't the point. The lessons, the words, the teachings were. So every time an example of humans being anal and overly physical about what they worshipped was offered, the members of the club would... as if something had cued them, raise a shoe and say, "shoe of Brian!" Any time they talked of the words, the lessons, the compassion for others their worshippers had missed, or intentionally avoided: they cried, and comforted each other.
We don't really need to know about this one outcome to their meetings and the movie they watched: the forming of the club also assured one thing... Mel Brooks will always have a place in any heaven, will achieve nirvana, and be given a membership in any after-life realm of his choosing.
However, the rest of us are in still in deep trouble: especially the president and the Pope who spoke that day.
-30-
Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over thirty 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. |
| | | | |  | | Recent Debate Activity | | 45 Replies, 231 Views | | 47 Replies, 288 Views | | 13 Replies, 92 Views | | 28 Replies, 249 Views | | 0 Replies, 2 Views | |
