Log in


Oct. 25th, 2016

01:56 pm - Inspection- Hulk Smash v. Status Quo

 I think it started during the Johnson/Goldwater campaign, and I am absolutely willing to admit it was the Democratic side who started it on a national level with the little girl, the bomb and fear mongering. But there must be a caveat here: I wasn't as politically cognizant during the 60 Kennedy/Nixon campaigns.
 Previous to that was such a different time we know less than we should about those campaigns. History teachers rarely cover the fact that Eisenhower ran on a peace platform and why he did that compared to more current Republican campaigns, or why Franklin went from the far more conservative Democrat that he had been as governor to the far more liberal president he became. Then we have how we went from less than pro-corporate Roosevelt to Clinton and Obama who were all about "free" trade and enabling corporate power.
 Call it Comparative Political History, American or World.
 Frankly I think teachers should go to such depths, but maybe the reasons I never had a teacher, or professor, who headed that direction is the controversy it would cause, and more important: loss of a job. Probably the closest to this I ever had was a 9th grade teacher who lasted barely a year. Too many people demand the status quo: offend as few as possible. Damn tough in this society.
 I fear today we have reached a political position as a nation now where we have one party pretty much pushing the status quo, with very minor advances heralded as major accomplishments, and the other party basically behaving like that clichéd TV character: "Hulk SMASH!"
 If you have a radical agenda: at least as compared to the status quo, "Hulk SMASH!" is a cynical, deceptive, yet clever, tactic. You smash things as they are: like the post office. Make them pay in advance for benefits to be paid to workers not even born yet. Then when the predictable happens you blame the other side, and go back to smashing while offering solutions that make things worse. Don't bother rinsing. Just repeat. A classic, current, example of this is claiming the "next president" should appoint the justice to replace Scalia, then turn around and say if the democrat is elected she won't be able to appoint one either.
 Hulk SMASH!
 This is a "the means justifies the goal" philosophy. Sometimes it's a politic form of terrorism.
 Democratic leaders, on the other hand, seem to have settled for what they eventually decided not to settle for when I grew up: the status quo. Before anyone points to Obamacare as "big" change, let me remind them that improving health care has been the goal of Democrats since at least Roosevelt. The goal kept being watered down to where there isn't even a public option: just corporate care. We got, not Obamacare, but Romneycare; the same type of insurance company-based health care that screwed up health care to begin with. Well, screwed it up even more than it already was.
 Maybe the new wave started by Bernie of supporters running for office will change all this and, if that happens, I look forward to that. Bernie wants to take his revolution beyond the 2016 campaign. A President Hillary may dampen that some, or not, but a President Trump will go beyond "dampen." We have Trump and his surrogates making statements like one who insisted Trump should rule more as an authoritarian. People who think congress, or anyone, might successfully stand in his way are historically short sighted. Before Bush II torture was pretty universally viewed as unacceptable.

 "Oh, but Ken! That was after 9/11."

  My response to that would be...

  "So, you REALLY think such a politically convenient event couldn't happen again?"

 Another response to all this I find worse than useless is, "Well, if the dems lose they'll learn this time."
  Please tell me how many times this has worked historically? Pretty much never. If pols learn anything it's either to ignore an "autopsy," or pretend to have paid attention just to get elected, then do whatever the hell they want. The reason: it's a duopoly, a two part system.
 Still the movement I voted for during Tennessee's primary: the one started by Bernie movement, is our great hope Maybe, eventually, we can successfully counter, "Hulk SMASH!" Roosevelt became a threat during one such Hulk SMASH! era that was almost punctuated by the military coup stopped by Smedley Butler. I suspect President Hillary might have a similar, or worse, challenge. Not because she's any Roosevelt, but because "Hulk SMASH!" has become so much of their pervasive strategy, not just when it comes to anyone with the name Clinton: with anyone who isn't one of them. "Obama" sure did have his share of, "Hulk SMASH!" And I see little evidence it won't get even worse, as it has been over the years... unless they lose far more than the presidency. The chance to un-gerrymander all that's been butchered, is a ways off, for sure.
 The idea that one person; yes, even Bernie, would have changed everything without being blocked is, again, historically naïve'. Real change will take time. And in a two party system the most a third party can usually do is hand power to those would really shouldn't even be dog catchers. I do think one way to help change that dynamic is to empower third parties to have more influence election time with something like run off voting. That way neither "Hulk SMASH!" or status quo will be as viable. Making it so other views are more influential would cut back on both. A Stein, or a Johnson, may never win, but they'd have enough pull to affect real change. Both major parties would have to consider their stances too to rank high enough to win this time, and the next. Ignoring them would be less of an option.
 In the meantime, is there any new pill coming onto the market that might increase and sharpen voter's memories? We really need that. Sometimes I swear even the public's short term memory has been decreasing down to less than a day.
 Let's just hope something happens to divert us from this path. Because when it comes to just SMASH! vs. quo politics, SMASH! will most likely win eventually because, to quote that movie source for intellectual thought: Spaceballs...

 "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb."

Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 40 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under 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 2016
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
all right reserved

Oct. 13th, 2016

04:47 am - Inspection- That $#@! Political On/Off, Either/Or, Switch

 This edition has been written in as non-partisan way as possible because I believe having an actual, decent, representative form of governance should go far beyond party or political skew.

 Let's start here: I am not trying to "shame" anybody into voting for anyone, Do whatever the hell you want: that's the freedom we're supposed to have.
 Our forefathers were wise... in some ways. Arguably not as much on others? (3/5ths?) They were not all that fond of political parties, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find most of them being strongly in favor of as much of a pure two party system as we have these days.
 What our close to pure two party system has developed into, essentially, is an on off switch, or if you prefer, "an either/or switch." I willingly admit, sometimes, there's not a hell of a lot of difference between "either," or "or."
 Stare as hard as you want, refuse to use it, an on/off switch will still be an on/off switch. Try to force it to be something else and the results could be even worse. And, these days, it's intentionally set at either "stupid" or more "stupid:" as in using base emotions like fear, hate to win via smearing the other side. It really not able to to work well via respect, love, or honest debate and discussion. Like any switch it's generally thoughtless, brainless and only "works," if one can call it that, via manipulation.
 It's convenient in the sense that the switch does only one thing: the job those who belong to those two clubs of exclusivity desire. But it doesn't work all that well for those who have to live with the results.
 I simply don't understand why every election season people moan and kvetch about the switch. It does no good, except to motivate people to do stupid things, like not vote, or vote for those who don't have a chance in hell of winning. I know that last seems harsh. Reality can be. That is one of our biggest problems as a nation: those who might be able to actually solve the nation's problems haven't a chance in hell of winning. And those who will only make it worse have almost an exclusive opportunity to make these problems worse, offer a solution that makes it worse, then offer an even worse "solution" for a situation they helped create. And, to make it even more appealing, they get to profit off of making it worse.
 None of this is an accident. It's the way the system our forefathers built has been redesigned.
 And we've lost so much due to this on/off switch. If you thought Perot was right about that damn sucking sound, what did you get? More suck. If you thought Nader's right about corporate influence, what did you get? You're getting the drift: more corporate influence. I voted Anderson years ago and I too was unhappy with the results.
 Each and every time the shtick spouted by those eager to punish parties for poor choices is, "Well, if they lose big, they'll learn." But "they" never do. People may yack for a while, but the winners go on and do what they planned to do anyway. Next election the "other" party's candidate may spout similar popular talking points, but once the balloons have dropped, the inauguration party is over, the candidate simply chucks such promises. They served their purpose. Yet we know if we head in the other direction that party is even worse.
 This is how the switch works, and if you ignore how the it works the switch directs the "train" so it will run over you. It's really not Cruz's, or Bush's or Clinton's fault that Trump won, Bernie lost. Super delegates, or no supers, the defects in the system go far beyond any of that. No amount of big pep rallies or imagined scenarios that keep the switch as it is will change how the switch is designed NOT to work.

We need to work on solutions after elections, not moan and kvetch about the switch late in the election cycle. One I favor is run off voting, perhaps you have another?
 For those not in the know, run off voting is where we rank candidates, not just vote for one. Like Bernie? Choose him as number one if you wish. Jill Stein next? Put her as #2. Like Cruz? #1. Jeb next? And on it goes. At the bottom of the heap goes whomever you wouldn't want on the most charbroiled day in Hell. If your candidate doesn't get the most votes, then your vote goes to the next candidate on your list: the one who has enough other votes they can win.

 "But wouldn't that take too long, Ken?"

 Yes, it will take long. But true representative governance is worth it. After the election let's meet and plan to advocate for changing how we do elections. Otherwise we're stuck with a marginally two way switch. And, historically, so often that's been one hell of a big turn off, no matter which position the political on/off switch is in.
Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 40 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under 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 2016
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
all right reserved

Oct. 4th, 2016

03:05 pm - Inspection- Claims are NOT "Proof"

 It would seem a simple concept, and I suspect those who push it know that. They just have the mistaken, rather simplistic, idea that those they disagree with must be simpletons. Which of course is a conceptualization worthy of a simpleton, but now we've come around full circle, haven't we?
 "Yes, smart people of all ideological flavors too often view those who disagree with them in simplistic ways," saith the cannibal with a boiling pot full of partisan nuts.
 The show: Thom Hartmann.
 The caller was challenging Thom on his claim about a lack of Iraqi WMDs. He... claimed... to have been to Iraq. He... claimed... to have been there when massive amounts of WMDs were found. When Thom balked at that the caller bounced with a tactic I have encountered many, many times on debate sites and Facebook...

  "I offered you 'proof,' why won't you accept that?"

 Thom, the almost always eternal gentleman... hey, there's limits to everything when dealing with rude, nasty people using cheap tactics: especially if they may just be lying... simply said, no, he didn't, and even tried to walk his way rhetorically around the caller's claim. Not being a talk show host, I have no such personal limitations.
 Straight off: the caller offered no "proof." I would say "anecdotal evidence," but it's not even that. Callers and posters are, often, anonymous. We have little, to no, evidence they are who they claim to be: especially if they use what ham ops, then CB, called a "handle." What they provide in such cases are claims: "claims" we have no way to verify, especially in that fast moving on air, or online, stage production called debate.
 One must note: except a shell filled with aged mustard gas we knew he had and was on the list, there was no parading of said "proof" by Cheney, Bush, Rice, Rummy, etc. of said proof. You bloody well know they would have dragged this out in the full light of the press, especially having access to that right wing free BJ media machine called FOX. If anything of such significance had been found the Bushies never were shy about such.
 I've experienced this so many times before. The debater thinks he... and while occasionally a "she," most often it seems to be a "he..." has an easy way to "one up" who they are having a discussion with. One specific case was a poster named Daniel on a friend's Facebook page. The debate was about provisional ballots, which I called placebo votes. Apparently he wasn't fond of that usage so one of the first comments out of his digital mouth was a personal insult, that I didn't understand simple math, then made the claim they were counted if the election was close.
 Daniel was not happy when I responded with a barrage of questions, questions like: what evidence does he have this was ever done? ...in every district, at every polling place? ...and if they really do this then doesn't this negate the very claim that these voters shouldn't be voting at all?
 Of course we went right back to insult city, and more claims that he claimed were proof, all decorated by more insults because he knew better than me since he had worked elections, and with election officials. Essentially I was to consider myself his inferior and I should just bow down to my lord and master.
 Chuckle. OK, he didn't exactly say that, though one might infer. But that would be just another "claim."
 What Daniel didn't know is I too have worked elections, and worked with election officials. Having worked against electronic voting, I have also experienced the machines in both Tennessee and New York. Through research, talking with those who speak and educate on the topic, as well as personal experience, I know there's a world of difference between the various voting systems and how they are counted.Help America Vote created an even worse system when it comes to equal protection of the vote. In Nashville it's all on a cartridge that poll workers have no access to, and in some cases, nationwide, votes put on a hard drive or a cartridge, go straight back to the politically connected corporation. Or they get sent to servers in places like Tennessee to be laundered... um, "corrected," then counted. Amazing how machine break downs seem to happen at such convenient times.
 Do you think I too am "making claims?" Stay tuned, gentle readers!
 Another claim made, followed by another insult, was basically that the only ones who got provisionals were those who had no proof they had a right to vote. Of course I knew that was a crock too. Especially in districts where one side wasn't likely to win, politically connected poll watchers have been sent out for years to challenge those who most likely won't vote the "right" way. These poll watchers are often armed with bogus lists, like the ones culled from Texas to challenge supposed Florida voters with similar names.
 Whether the voter had ID, or not, therefore means little in such cases. The list provides a bogus claim that in one state: Joe A. Smith, has no right to vote because Joe Q. Smith in another state is a felon. Names changed, or not mentioned, to protect, um, those having had their right to vote stolen, and those out to rig the vote in their party's favor. Besides, having met a few of these "folks" they tend to want to stay anonymous so those who find out about their antics don't get the torches, or spread tales regarding their vote stealing activities in case the public gets angry.
 Again I ask, "Do you think I too am 'making claims?'" Yup. And that's the point. I can make claims just like Daniel can. Look into it yourself, and never just accept what anyone says, or... claims.
 Finally I tired of Daniel's grautitous, mindless, insults and told him as far as his insults go, in graphic terms, to just go... well, I'll be polite. "Polite" kind of like I wastrying to be with him many times before I finally "released" the well deserved, obscenity "Kraken." Then I attempted to reason one more time with him. Of course I got no response. I doubt his ego let him get beyond the first sentence, or my last: both of which just tossed his insulting nature right back into his digital face.
 But just so you're aware, gentle reader, if you haven't noticed it yet, this is one more cheap tactic being used in an arsenal of BS-based tactics by self righteous partisans who think they're being "clever." You know: like loudly trying to talk over someone when losing an argument, or claiming someone challenging them is "yelling," or "angry." It's mostly crap, and mostly just tactics used to distract you when they know they have a weak argument.
 Just like insisting a claim is "proof."

Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 40 years.Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under 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 2016
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
all right reserved

Sep. 27th, 2016

07:06 pm - Inspection- The Immense Power of the Asshole

 Are we underestimating the asshole factor? In a country started by a lot of brave people running from a-holes, but maybe at least as many people who headed across the Atlantic because they wanted their "God given right" to be the biggest a-holes around, have we underestimated Trump's drawing power? With a history of lynchings, whippings, burnings of inconvenient women, masters who delighted in the worse aspects of slavery, prison wardens who used used to be slave owners renewing their abusive nature with gusto on former slaves, business owners and clergy who delight in declaring Jesus empowers them to teach, preach and enforce hate, just what exactly is the a-hole factor among Americans. Is it as high as 1 to 10, to 5, to 3?
 Once again I'm rereading Twilight Eyes by Dean Koontz. I've lost count of how many times I've read this intriguing explanation for the worse of the worst evil humanity has to offer. Disguised as humans goblins live amongst us, a warrior species we created during a forgotten time when humans got really good at genetic manipulation.
 A fanciful, imaginative, solution to the likes of Jeff Dahmer, Adolf Hitler, the Kmer Rouge and so many other, supposedly, human masters of damn near pure evil.
 One book I had trouble finishing was written by an absolute asshole: Max Tucker. Yes, he even calls himself that. Tucker delights in being an "asshole." Has made a ton of money writing about his assholery in his book I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell. Another book he wrote is Assholes Finish First. He would delight in sabotaging parties, dates, classes: anything and anyone. Playing the game of doing the minimal he has to to have sex then dumping his date in the worst of ways is apparently one of his greatest joys. Amazing how much of what he did was tolerated, how little legal problems he's had for all he's done.
 My premise here is simple. Since I was very young I have been aware of people who can only be described as assholes. They're easy to recognize once you become familiar with the mutant breed of inhumanity they represent. Donald Trump is a bully, and certainly an asshole who so many less powerful assholes have cheered on. Take, for example, well known bridge closer, attitude filled prima donna; Chris Christie. If you've ever watched bullies gather a gang on a playground, lesser bullies become the bigger bully's bitches. Instead of defending the bullied, children on the playground either sit by silently, or cheer them on. It kind of like revelers at a dog fight cheer on the stronger dog who slaughters the beloved, obedient, pet snatched from private property to be a chew toy for a fighter in training.
 Right wing pundits like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc., delight in shouting over people, panning them down while they talk over them, calling them "pinheads," doing something they consider "debate" that's no more than accusation, name calling and framing: like making up diseases and afflictions their opponents have. All while cheering on what are the modern day versions of wild beasts at the Colosseum.
 Question being, election time 2016, are we underestimating the a-hole factor? So many uncles, some aunts, parents, strangers who think getting in anyone's face regarding their own opinions is perfectly acceptable. (Assholes.) So many foam at the mouth all over their lounge chairs while kids and spouse shrink in terror. (Assholes.) So many who are like those who follow the playground bully and long to join Donald's gang: like those who assault others at rallies. (REALLY big assholes.)
 Are there enough to elected Donald? Good god, covered with extra greasy goose gravy, I hope not. With so many blacks, Hispanics and women, I have serious doubts. Of course one of the unique talents of the bigger bully is he's able to sideline others, or even turn them into marginal supporters. But on a national level? To repeat...

"Good god, covered with extra greasy goose gravy, I hope not."

 His enablers are so many, from the obvious to those who think themselves "clever:" posing as Bernie or Hillary supporters, doing anything to sheer off as many votes as possible on social media. It's an old tactic that, in my opinion, has been at a political pandemic level this year, even compared to previous presidential years. It seemsalmost unimaginable enough will be cowed into submission, that enough will be wrongfully tossed off voter rolls for false reasons. Almost.
 But if the 2000 election and 9/11 taught me anything it's that sometimes the unimaginable does happen. And too many damn people fall in line like kids on a playground won't challenge the bully.
 And I suspect that has something to do with the immense power assholes.

Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 40 years.Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under 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 2016
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
all right reserved

Sep. 15th, 2016

04:59 pm - Inspection- There is No "If Only..."

  Anyone claiming that Hillary, and/or her campaign, have made no mistakes would be foolish; not only because even she has admitted she has made mistakes, but I suspect there has never been a campaign, a war, or any human activity minus a mistake, or two, or three or...
 God knows Donald, and his campaign, have made no mistakes except... do I really have to list them?
 In fact the ease with which Hillary, and her campaign, admit to mistakes could possibly be the biggest mistake being made this election. I guessing the concept here has been to admit and move on, even if there really was no mistake. I don't think the concept is working, but I do believe that could be the concept.
  One example is her apology for her negative comments regarding some, not all, Trump supporters. Now, during a campaign where I believe this has become the norm for one side, even I was surprised how quickly the apology came. Does anyone think that apology was accepted, or that apology changed anyone's perceptions to being more positive? Do you think the comment will turn off people who already have doubts about Sir Donald, or piss off dedicated Hillary voters? If so, may I ask... how many Brooklyn Bridges do you think you own, and when do you expect those investments to bring in those vast riches you've been waiting for? (And waiting... and waiting... waiting... soon you'll look like the bones left by Fry's dog who waited for him to return in Futurama.)
  By the way, why is it always the Brooklyn Bridge? You'd think; by name alone, there'd be more attractive deeds like ones that say "Golden." Patriots might invest in NYC's Washington, NYC area suburbanites in "Zee" bridge and only might make money when they bet which folks may jump off of it next. Hey, but who knows, I hear the state is even rebuilding it. How nice of them.
  Maybe all you eager "stockholders" might see the buckaroos roll in yet.
  And I repeat: "waiting, and waiting..."
  Of course, when it comes to roughly half of Trump's supporters, she's probably right. She didn't even come close to claiming "all," and was rather generous concerning the rest. There can be little doubt that David Duke followers, Klan, skinheads, armchair racists, flat out racists, many militia-types, extreme right wing terrorists inspired by writings like The Turner Diaries, and those simply quite Nazi-like: all for whom media has desperately been trying to rebrand with the more user friendly term, "alt-right..." (Again, "how nice of them.") ...are certainly being energized by his campaign.
  Of course right wing pundits, followed closely by purists on the left, eagerly swept in with various versions, "If only..." she had said something else, or simply not said it at all: and then followed up by the all too easy to make "perception" accusations.
  Oh, and top that off with more yada, more blah, a sprinkle of yak droppings and a big old splash of camel puke.
  Here's the truth: politically, especially in an election year, there really is no "if only..."
 One of the best, most current examples of this is the two day lull in us being told about Hillary's bout with Pneumonia. Closely following that unfortunate event was a gaggle of silly goose comments by the usual jackals intending on framing it yet again with an accusation of creating poor perceptions.
 This is easily countered with, instead of saying, "Why didn't they release findings in two days?" ...they had said, "Very professional folks! Making sure you know just how serious this was before prematurely releasing anything; in case it develops into something else, is very responsible. Otherwise we might be accusing her, and her handlers, of trying to milk the sympathy vote. Kudos for doing what's right!"
 Imagine now the avalanche of "if onlys" that would have followed if they had released immediately and it had developed into something else.
 Imagine if they had focused in on ginning up hyperbolic concern and even tried to blame this on Trump.
 Imagine if they hadn't whisked her away and one of her spokespersons gave a speech on how hard she worked, how she cared so much she drove herself into heat exhaustion, then invited reporters to follow and report on every second of this "crisis;" essentially using this as an attempt to grab the news cycle.
 Imagine if they had countered with over the top accusations if any of those options had backfired. And we know they would have backfired unless, well, you're Donald Trump and the media has a desperate interest with constantly Monica-ing you.
  I love the imaginary "if onlys" Most of the time not one "if only" would have worked. Many times those options would have been worse: the framing would simply have shifted to being negative in a different way; because pushing negative perceptions is the true intent behind so many "if onlys." Please don't even attempt to claim it's kindly advice. The intent is to put suspicion and doubt into weak minded listener and viewer; people who have trouble doing their own thinking, people who would rather some pundit, or pol, "do their thinking" for them.
  You know, like some of the followers of the purveyor of that catch phrase, Rush? I guarantee, after this, these Limbaugh worshipers will not vote for Hillary. Of course they weren't going to anyway. Just like many Hillary voters, when they heard this comment, probably mentally unleashed some version of the catch phrase, "You GO Girl!" Those between most likely don't trust either anyway. So where's the loss here?
  But let's assume some of this is honest speculation. "If only" is the Butterfly Effect of the poltical world where following that alternative timeline would probably go wrong anyway. Those advocates who oppose a candidate, and talking heads who profit from creating controversy, bad framing, will find a way to do it. Since "news" is now entertainment-based, and big corporations profit from ginning up this empty headed gunk, you know they'll do whatever they can to ensure people pile on.
  Oh, by the way, I do find it the height of snide con-based rhetorical artistry when those who say "this creates the perception of..." are so obviously trying to create "the perception of." And "two days?" Hell, most of the puppy dog media is sitting, obediently, waiting on Trump to release his taxes. Most never bothered to question the fact he never released any of these "amazing" facts about Obama and Kenya that his... fictional? ...investigators had supposedly found so many years ago. Now there's an interesting "what if:" "what if" the MSM were actually at least as focused on "what if"-ing the Donald as they are Hillary?
  It all creates the perception of...
  See what I did there? See how I spun it around and pointed the tactic the other direction? You can do the same with Donald Trump. You can do the same with any candidate. Obama didn't release his birth certificate. But he did. Oh, that's the short form. "That creates the perception of..." say those interested in creating exactly that perception.
  I promise you, no matter what Hillary did: or any candidate getting a constant barrage of "if onlys," does, that action, those words, those actions, will be too late... too early... not enough... too much... And so I repeat...
  Blah. (With even more yak and camel condiments.)
  "Creating the perception of..." should be laughed off the stage of public discourse because it's a cynical, snide, barely disguised, way to try to "create the perception of..." It places on the stage of public discourse a claim that can't be disproven unless we immediately run out and take a un-biased, non-partisan, poll, or unless we could run back time backwards then revise what was done.
 Let me retract the first option. I think we can be sure that unbiased poll wouldn't be accepted by the very same "what if"-ers.
  Let me retract the second option. Alter the timeline and the only real rhetorical change would be a slight shift in the "what ifs." After all the purpose behind "what if" remains: to create negative perceptions.
  Hey, I have an idea! Let's talk policy; talk about where Trump, or Clinton, or Stein, or Johnson, or... want to take the nation. Then let's discuss how we each percieve their plans, not the individuals. Instead of framing the person in politically convenient ways, let's discuss how their actual plans and policies might actually play out, where they might take us, or will they complicate our problems. Those kinds of "what ifs" I support. Those individualized perceptions I think are valid.
  No? Too politically inconvenient? Requires too much thinking, too much maturity? Demands we listen to each other rather than demonize?
  Yup. Yup. And a big fat... YUP. So I guess we'll all have to put up with more, "If onlys," for now. But maybe now some folks are a little wiser and can see through the constant drip of extra gooey "what if" guano.


Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 40 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under 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 2016
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
all right reserved

Sep. 8th, 2016

03:10 pm - Inspection- Dear President Hillary

 OK, Madame Maybe President, I understand I am jumping the gun, the shark, Bullwinkling the Moose, oh, let's just say, "Getting ahead of myself." But, despite polls, unless Trump can get a hell of a lot more women, hispanics, blacks; or his minions can cage a one gigunda, billions of garbanzos worth, of non-Trump voters, It Will be AMAZING Man is going down.
 I could be wrong. I was... once.
 I suggest your first act, like Teddy Roosevelt did in his time for other businesses, should be to do whatever you can to facilitate breaking up the media. Do what you can to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. Make sure broadcast media; like they had to at one time, provides actual news rather than commentary and entertainment labeled as "news."
 I know we have a lot of serious issues as a nation, but as the coverage and treatment by supposed "news" "professionals" you and Bernie received has proven, we're going nowhere as a society but sheering more and more rightward unless this changes. "Going to get nowhere" unless media is brought back to providing actual news, unless media personalities assigned to do debates, or quorums, are selected in less partisan ways. And selected not to be shills for whatever the corporatocracy wants, not be lemmings following whatever the right wing advocacy networks do.
 When Obama took office his people did what was the right thing: tell the FOX Propaganda Network that they're not welcome among those at least marginally trying to do actual journalism. What a rude awakening when they found out those marginals line up behind the great news pretender.
 Shoot forward eight years latter, shaming father's somewhat better reputation, Chris Wallace says he won't fact check the candidates. Want to bet the smirk filled anchor will break that vow, but only with Hillary? And the latest shot across the bow of anything representing non-pure partisanship-based hosting: Matt Lauer's constant interruption filled grilling of Hillary, while letting the Donald ramble on and on. Maybe his wife had something when she divorced him and, at first, claimed "cruel and inhumane treatment."
 Has Matt become Trump's Monica? Or is it just in his
abusive nature?
 You know how this goes Hillary. Doing your best to do what you can to save your marriage is framed as "wrong." Want to bet if you had divorced Bill the media accepted frame would have been that that was wrong too? Telling Susan and Jim their books were bad was ignored. Just being there meant framing you for the Madison mess. And in the latest outrage, since you have far more experience that means you have to be held to a higher standard while the bar is lowered deep into an old outhouse's bowels for Trump.

 "The more to smear you with, my dear."

 Please, Maybe President Clinton the Second, if you win do whatever you can. Otherwise four years latter the bar will be raised even higher for you, if they don't simply impeach you as big corporate media cheers it all on. You can be sure they'll start working on impeachment even before inauguration. And, of course, the bar for the other side will go even lower.
  The initial key to short circuiting this is breaking up the media and the return of actual news, journalist, standards.

Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 40 years.Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under 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 2016
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
all right reserved

Aug. 31st, 2016

05:18 pm - Inspection- Stupid Sleeping Positions

 There are a lot of quotes that surround this theme, like "extreme times call for extreme measures" and Goldwater's "extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice." As with all quotable comments there are variations. But does being forced into going to the extreme create even more stupid extremes?
 Life is a pendulum, and when someone, or something, pushes hard in one direction, the opposite reaction is damn near inevitable. I think we're seeing a lot of this this election as rhetoric gets more guttural, sewer-like and even resembling what should have been flushed long ago.
 Yes, sometimes life itself forces us into stupid positions, like I have been over the past 20 years.
 As a kid I slept on my back all the time. I used to have occasional, terrible, dreams about extreme lower back pain. My parents bought us new mattresses and the dreams stopped. Oh, how I wish I just had those dreams now.
 I started touring in 1988 with my shows and was fine until the mid to late 90s. I admit, I was pushing myself into performing increasingly active, intensely choreographed, shows: all to thrill my young audiences. I was also promoting my shows while riding a 650 Suzuki from customer to customer many miles, all day long. I was jogging close to an hour a day. That last one is even more crucial. Apparently with the congenital back condition I never knew I was born with, that no one I know of in the history of my family has ever had, jogging is one of the worst exercises one can do.
 Flash forward to the next decade and I was sleeping on an orthopedic wedge. I had Tempur-Pedic mattresses on every bed except the tour bus which had soft red couch cushion that was almost as good. Better in some ways. "Better" because with the wedge I often wake up every other hour and have to switch the wedge to different positions, or just take it off the bed. Depends on what the body wants, and you can be damn sure my body will tell me. And if I guess the wrong thing I wake up to pain that's not unlike when a parent wakes because the baby alarm goes from soft cry to ear splitting scream. My body increasingly forces me into stupid sleeping positions.
 I wish I had those earlier times back when it was just that. Really.
 This winter they discovered; due to stenosis, the spine in my neck had collapsed in on the nerves. Surgery provided metal braces in my neck that seem to be more of a problem than the almost symptom-less collapse. I won't bother you with all of it, but to say the stupid sleeping positions that help with one condition make the others hurt. Add to that an unrelated foot condition that demands other positions. Now I sleep with a foot brace that won't stay on, or with my right leg way above my head so when I wake up I'll be able to walk without extreme pain.
 Right now I think I have it somewhat figured out, with the emphasis on "right now." It can all change tomorrow and I have to go into reassessment to figure out what my body wants this time. There's never any perfect, or even slightly close to perfect, solution.
 Yes, I know all too well that "extreme situations call for..." But some situations sure do add unneeded stupidity.
 It has been claimed that JFK was seriously risking national security by unwittingly sleeping with a spy. Perhaps. Yet are we all that better off now every indiscretion has become more important than the very issues we need to be discussing, we need to be solving? Are we all that better off now everything person on one side does, or says, brings an over the top, hyperbolic response that inspires even more over the top? And sometimes it's in response to what was never said, done or meant.
 What one does in one's personal life isn't always carried over into public life. In fact I would say not all that much. Bill Clinton was actually doing work when he had his most famous scandalous moments. Newt Gingrich was working on getting Bill Clinton when having an affair then divorcing his wife damn near on her death bed. And pursuing them has solved nothing.
 Here's the important difference. There can be little doubt that the 60s, and for that matter the McCarthy-driven 50s, were extreme times. Yet deals were cut, compromises made and government functioned... somewhat. Sometimes those compromises forced pols into certainly what could be metaphorically referred to as, "stupid sleeping positions." Yet I fear a drive for moral purity simply creates more scandal that takes us away from issues we need to address today. I also fear that the stance to never compromise encourages even more "stupid sleeping positions."
 Gotcha politics inspires more gotcha, until that's all we have.
 Then you have the off years. Even during the non-election years social discourse increasingly resembles some Frankenstein's "monster"-like, lynch mob, storm the castle, mentality. Words that are intended to inspire anger, hatred, towards whole groups of people replace issue discussion. The media loves this, encourages it: even the somewhat less ideologically driven media. It drives up ratings.
 I look back at the past 26 years and I see society increasingly being forced into metaphorical stupid sleeping positions. All societies are dysfunctional to some extent, but what we have now is way beyond "dysfunctional." An election solves nothing when the losing party refuses to lick their wounds, do what they can to work with those who won, and wait until the next election to go for the prize. We're even at a point now that, rhetorically, no one can "win." The constant spin is if the other side won it must be because they cheated.
 There are ways to solve that, but to me it seems neither wants to solve it. Inspiring even more anger over "stolen" elections is more politically convenient, even if the anger just makes discourse worse, more rude and possibly headed towards violence.
 When a president can't even have his proposals debated in Congress, when the duty to at least consider an appointment is denied, when national security, or our troops, are at risk, should a president simply bow to that? Careful how you answer: that should apply if your candidate became president too, unless your only interest is in a single party dictatorship.
 Increasingly, as this great partisan do little to nothing divide grows, we are forced into more stupid positions. We tolerate no compromise, forcing a whole nation into even more stupid positions. Compromise is consider nothing more than weakness, even evil. We chant chants that put us into the stupid position of demanding the end to the very rights our forefathers fought for, like due process. Guilt by accusation increasingly becomes the new standard, followed closely by unequal protection where one is selectively prosecuted, persecuted, for what others did.

 "Lock her up! Lock her up!"

 And the worst thing about these tactics is it doesn't work in the long run. The blow back just forces society into even more stupid "sleeping positions."
 OK, now that the basics of this brainstorm that started flowing through my head once I was in too much pain to sleep at 2am have been digitally written down it's past 5am. Time to get up and walk stiffly back to my torture device, um, bed. Occasionally I use pain killers, even then mostly Tylenol because I hate that I'm hardly here, don't give a damn, fog that more powerful pills provide. I only do that when I finally find my hatred for the drug addled haze has become less powerful than the pain. Guess I'm not in that bad shape... yet. A lot of the time the meds get so old I have to toss them.
 So the only question left now is...

 "What stupid sleeping position will I be forced into now?"

 A more metaphor-based question that might be asked of a nation's political future.

Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 40 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under 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 2016
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
all right reserved

Aug. 22nd, 2016

10:08 am - Inspection- Loki Cokie Roberts

Is Ms. Roberts actually Loki in disguise? You know, Loki: legendary troublemaker and bad advice giver? Or maybe one of the Bad Idea Bears from Avenue Q who tell you to do what you shouldn't?
 Wouldn't be the first public figure who leans rightward to take on that role, Rush Limbaugh being one of the most famous. Why anyone would take advice from someone determined to sabotage you I have no idea.
 If you Google you'll quickly find many people on the left who think she's a right winger, many on the right who think she's a leftie, very Hillary friendly. As to the last, not from what I've heard.
 For various reasons I've taken to listening to NPR's Morning Edition before my guilty comedic pleasure: Stephanie Miller, chuckles me even more awake via my XM radio. I'm half awake listening to ME, often typing on this laptop. The show provides mostly background noise.
 Yes, and I'm well aware that NPR has been more than just tilting right over the past 16 years. Seems the trend started when Bush put a, now long gone, right winger at the helm. "Long gone," but I suspect Bush achieved the desired results considering just this morning's report included so many tiresome reruns of any supposed scandal the right, and some leftward purists, keep trying to pump regarding the Clintons. They've become like wayward Jehovah Witnesses who refuse to stop banging on your door and arguing with you.
 I am at the point of prove it, prosecute it, or shut the hell up. And no anything goes prosecuting, ala' I'm embarrassed to have the same first name Starr. Otherwise it's just more BS.
 Meanwhile the segment about Trump during this morning's brainstorm session, that included Ms. Roberts, was puff piece-ish. In other words they mostly managed to gush about how the public may be wrong about the current beloved of racists, women haters and Hispanic bashers. Why, perhaps Trump might be as cuddly as a teddy bear! Well, they didn't actually say that, but I swear Cokie was so coked up on her obvious partisan skew she wanted to say that.
 Then Ms. Roberts dropped a bombshell. Well, it seemed a pretty big boom to me when it comes to obvious bad advice. Really, what are you putting up your nose, Ms? You really think it such a great idea for the Clintons to simply obliterate the Clinton Foundation? Never you mind all the good it does. I know righties, if they could, would love to send the needy off to concentration... um, reeducation... um, "somewhere else but anywhere near us..." if they could.
 Damn political correctness.
 So, just for the convenience of discussion, let's just skip the fact that many righties don't give a diuretic flying turtle damn about those the Foundation helps.
 But, despite that... in an election year, Cokie, do you really think it would good to take out the Foundation? You do know it would be perceived as an admission of guilt, right? You know, the kind of "guilt" that no one has proven should exist, but can kill a candidacy?
 Well, at least this Loki has a job, other than the usual one. Radio's a great way to cause trouble, as the Reich has found. I just always thought Loki was a he. But I'm in no way interested in making sure he is a she. No, Ms. Roberts, no matter much you beg I will not look under the dress to check the plumbing.

Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 40 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under 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 2016
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
all right reserved

Aug. 16th, 2016

02:19 pm - Inspection- On Trump Inciting Murder

Now we're on to the next outrage. Anyone who has sat back and just observed the past 20 plus years knows the talk show format. Say something even more outrageous. Wait: let the rage build, double down... then shift to claiming it's a joke, sarcasm, misinterpreted by dullards, or that old right wing chestnut: the mythical "Liberal" media. Then say something else outrageous. But as far as all those "claims..."
  Hey wait. According to current conservative mythology, isn't it liberals who overdo nuance, excuse behavior with logic twisted explanations, over explain and argue about meaning of words like "is"?
 Well as least "is" is present tense-based, and hence that was truth-based. But moving on to dunking the political heretic was so much fun and always so damn convenient to the Reich wing's demand for their kind of political correctness.
 When being accused of lying, Trump hasn't even got "the meaning of 'is'" going for him given his take Hillary out comment. The ISIS/ISIL comment must seem safer ground, in comparison. He had his spinsters spinning his sentences into what they never, ever could have meant. Then he used a version of that playground fecal nugget used by a bully when he's caught, "I was KIDDING," in this case a very late, "It was SARCASM." Timing so bad in this case it fools no one except those who are in on the "joke:" keep trying to play those not really fooled as if they were fools.
 Most of what needs to be said has been said about what wasn't even close to mere dog whistle. Even if "sarcasm," it still qualifies as an open invite to assassination.
 Luckily this kind of rhetoric has made Donald's polls sink faster than a mob boss given cement shoes... for now. But this kind of rhetoric is no surprise, and not only because it's Donald Trump. The competition for pundits and pols to say the next, even more outrageous, thing has been longstanding... long before Trump stood up and started calling everyone names to work his way up towards being the name calling president in chief.

I know the military, I like the military, but the military didn't get all those new Gitmo prisoners to confess. Yous a buncha LOSERS! LOSERS! What LOSERS you are!"- what to expect from a President Trump, 2017.

Here is where we start looking under the rocks of a topic, looking at what no one seems to be discussing...
 When does free speech so endanger the rights of others it should no longer be legally acceptable? Where's the line? When does free speech actually negate freedom?
 Like when discussing guns, this is where I get myself in trouble with what should be a simple, common sense, premise: no right is absolute.
 You can't argue with irrational people is a given. Gun rights advocates usually respond to these kinds of questions with insults. Free speech absolutists usually respond to these kinds of questions with insults. I try to start a rational discussion by giving examples; admittedly extreme ones: like obviously we agree machine guns have no place in the hands of prisoners, or a defendant in court while on trial for murder, or no shouting fire in a crowded theater. They never, ever, have responded to those examples of limitations. They just offer more personal insults. Of course responding would have been easy: just point out these are extreme examples. They never do.
 I think they don't respond because I would follow up with, "That's my point. Absolute claims met with extremes prove absolute rules really don't work. There are exceptions to every rule." Then I would go to the more logical approach, "What those limitations should be is the real discussion. Arguing as if there are none is a non-starter, because obviously there are."
  Inciting others to commit murder, or threatening to do so... Well, at one time I thought both were illegal.
Actually they are, but you'd never know it sometimes. Enforcement seems highly selective, at best.
 You may notice when the rare times someone's prosecuted for threats it's only the little guy who get prosecuted, and usually it's threatening the president. Pundits and pols who threaten or incite? Well, it's supposedly all part of the game. At best they may, I repeat may just get a visit from the Service.
 Why is it I imagine the content of said meetings may go like this...

"Oh please, pretty please, Mr. Trump, be little more careful. You make only going after the rabble harder."

Now, if Donald Trump was led away to be prosecuted maybe we might take our threats and inciting murder laws more seriously. Why has threatening the president often become the exception to this incredibly lax view of threatening the lives of others, or inciting? And even with the forementioned "rabble," why is it ex-husbands too often get the chance to murder their ex-wives after many threats, but a woman obviously standing her ground against a husband who threatened to kill her several times ends up in prison for endangering her children? WHO was endangering the children?"
 Notice even when the rabble catch a break it's men?
 Seems there's some tiered level of who must obey the law, and who slides.
 Oh, wait, I live in the US. Duh.
 Diving in deeper, is there some constituional right to this? Free speech makes enabling a murder OK?
 I think if people who threatened to murder someone became high profile targets of enforcement maybe we'd become a safer, more sane, more civil society.

 Of course this is where the insults come.

Go back a read your Constitution, stupid!

OK. Guilty as charged. I remember now. The Constitution is pro- murder. First amendment: "The right to incite or threaten to kill shall not be infringed." This being covered by free speech is not unlike how a violent prisoner's "right" to have a steady supply of submachine guns is covered.
Again: "no right is absolute."
 But for those who still insist on hanging on to their free speech/2nd Amendment constitutional claims, let's go here... someone threatening to commit murder, or encouraging others to, is threatening to deny life, liberty and the pursuit. That's pretty damn basic. We can either have threatening and inciting as exceptions, or not. But we don't even have that. Instead we enforce unequally.
 Once again...

"Seems there's some tiered level of who must obey the law, and who slides."
 "Oh, wait, I live in the US. Duh."

 Yes, there's is a constitutional phrase for this: unequal protection. As with all things there are always exceptions. But I vote for far, far less exceptions and far more enforcement. I vote for having a saner society where; no matter what one's racial, sex, social or economic status, when threatening the life of others, or encouraging others to commit murder, one gets prosecuted, assures, when convicted, they lose their freedom.
 And, since unequal protection in most cases negates any truely sane definition of freedom, we would be a more free society for it.

Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 40 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 2016
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
all right reserved

Aug. 7th, 2016

06:15 am - Inspection- The Base Based Politics of Ugly

  Old Forge, NY, library... I sit type... type... typing... this column, and then a gentleman strikes up a conversation with me: apparently one of our more extroverted neighborhood conspiracy theorists. We dive deep into Rothschild conspiracies, well... he does. I offer patience and a listening ear. Contradiction will get me nowhere. According to him if that... curse word deleted... Hillary... is elected the Rothschilds will rule the country, eventually the world. I've heard all this before: the Bilderberg conspiracy, how Obama/Bush will never leave office and become dictator for life, Birther claims and that alien cattle anal probes are actually the work of creatures from planet Ericcartman...
 Conspiracy theories always seem to flare up election time.
 I only contradict him when; promising to send me his book for review before publication, he asks...

"You're not a DEMOCRAT, ARE YOU????"

  He spits out "Democrat" as if it's an infected, rotted, tooth.

"Well, you'd probably consider me left of center."

 Before that he had asked me to review 800 pages of what I suspect would have been some version of publishing slush pile hell. Oh, golly, gee, now I guess this will be another missed opportunity? So sad.
 In comparison, that was a very civil conversation, unlike some during elections these days. Unlike the random ranter who just has to tell me; a stranger, how much he hates whomever, whatever. How about the Facebook poster who was so determined to convince me provisional ballots ARE counted, but only after it gets close, who insists on adding personal insults with his every comment? Does that make him think I'll change my mind? Or his insistence I should just bow down to his vast superior wealth of knowledge will alter my opinion while he tags it with the odd claim I don't even know basic math?
 Claiming they only, and always, count provisional ballots if the election is close isn't "basic math." It's a basic contradiction of the whole premise behind provisional ballots: not letting people vote because there's something supposedly questionable about their claim to that right. If the claim is they actually don't have that right, saying you might count it anyway is, basically, a placebo statement meant to make the potential voter go away, but go away "nicely."
 And who gets to decide when, and if, it's "close enough?" What standards are used? Is there any attempt to make that a bipartisan decision? No partisanship involved in the initial decision?
 In response to all these challenges his basic answer was some variant on...

 "I know better that you, you stupidhead idiot, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah."

 Of course I did try to tell him none of his comments proved his claim, or even mention I have worked at polls and with election folks too: and my take away was quite different. But, as always, it did make me think about how we got to this point, where people think that insult and claims: no proof, should convince anyone.
 Example: I mean, who the hell would be convinced by someone who uses the phrases "Crooked, cooked Hillary" over and over? Or for that matter constantly calling Trump a Nazi, or a narcissist?
 Apparently, a hell of a lot of people.
 Making claims then insisting that makes them facts seems the main method of discussion and debate these days. Oh, then followed up by some version of "idiot," as if that does anything but reflect poorly on the points being made.
 It's really no surprise. Our national discourse has been heading this way a long time. Once radio talk shows became the rage, taking over AM, increasingly using a kind of format we'd all recognize as insult-based, where we are today seems a logical progression. Did I type "logical?" Well, the progression is, content and concept... not so much.
 Another reason is the over reliance on the basest of base based politics. All that matters is serving your base. But politicians should represent all their constituents. Dictators, kings, emperors, despots... well, if they represent a good size base: by no means a "majority," they can usually stay in power. But that's not true representation in any sense of being a representative of a state, a county, a parish, a nation.
 And no way in hell is any of this good for our nation.
 It's become surreal. As one republican said, if the parent of a soldier gets up at the other convention and challenges your candidate due to the loss of that son or daughter during war; civility is the best answer. Making insulting insinuations about the nature of his wife and their marriage, their religion, is not. It's as simple as that. This is no "both parties do this" scenario. Yes, both parties use the unfair tactic of pulling at the nation's heart strings in a way to challenge the other side's candidate. And I suppose if Mr. Trump had simply challenged content without personal insult combined with insinuation I might have never typed what I'm typing now.
 But he can't resist. It's pretty much all he has when responding to those who challenge him.
 When did we pass the point where too many damn folks shrug at mocking those whose conditions make them stutter, have odd facial expressions and movements? When did we reach the point when lying about doing that doesn't matter? This is different compared to claiming to land under fire in a war zone where, yes, there was lots of "firing" going on... elsewhere. As humans we tend to embellish and remember things wrong. But to outright try to humiliate a grieving father or mother for political purposes... that's beyond non-presidential behavior. That's something we punish misbehaving children for.
 Was it when it became acceptable for Bill O'Reilly to constantly interrupt, talk over and call people pinheads? Was it when Limbaugh spent days basically calling Ms. Fluke a whore, a slut and worse? Maybe it was Michael Moore getting himself invited to Heston's place and rudely wandering around private property to get his "story" that helped start us down the path of outright rudeness? I only chose that to show I am not claiming "only one side does it," though since the right is king of talk these days and aggressive rhetoric, and has been for a while, they certainly have helped lead the charge into this horrific abyss.
 We need to decide as a nation if bullying people is proper, if the victim of bullying is always to blame: or even if that matters. We desperately need to get out of this rhetorical pit from hell we've dug so deeply.
 There's something desperately wrong with a portion of the electorate, and I believe it has to do with how we view each other. Those who disagree are perceived as the enemy, to be mercilessly defeated, humiliated, conquered, destroyed.
 Our politics of base based ugly is truly reaching out towards 1930s Germany-like territory where there was enough hate driven politics to create one of the worst societies ever to exist in modern times. And there are too many people out there who would have little problem with that kind of leader ruling a nation.

Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 40 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 2016
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
all right reserved

Navigate: (Previous 10 Entries)