Inspection- Recount! Again???

Yes, “again.” And I don’t feel an ounce of pity or empathy for those who have angst over this “rinse and repeat” problem we keep having. We should have fixed this damn washing machine long ago, but like little kids in the bodies of adults we keep kicking each other instead of fixing the problem.

Minnesota, or “Mihn-Ah-Soat-Ah,” as some seem to prefer, is into a recount of the Franken/Coleman race. I swear, some Inspection columns write themselves, and in most cases, I have no idea why or how. In this case I do: it’s an issue I have been concerned with for a long time and I have no rabid dog in this hunt: I don’t like Franken, and I don’t like Coleman.

Coleman’s tactics and methods are beyond debate: they suck on the level of the worse “B” grade movie vampire, they’re Rovian and he’s more than one Oreo Cookie shy of a full package one needs to be a decent human being. But this political battle is like one dreamed up out of the bowels of Hell. Franken, on the other hand, while I often agree with him politically, is the occasionally unfunny master of the ad hominem attack who thinks he’s a comedic star on the level of Robin Williams. Perhaps closer to some of the worst years of SNL?

Oh, that was so cruel. Cruel… but true.

If Coleman went “bye, bye,” I’d be happy. If Franken walked the plank, I’ll be just a tad less so, but this pot has been sweetened by his tendency to insult and talk over anyone who thinks electronic voting and all the other issues surrounding it might be problematic.

Wonder what he thinks of the issue now? My guess? He still would behave that way and only consider it important for himself. That rather irritating side to his personality was obvious shown for all to see during his Air America days, when he couldn’t even hold on to his fellow female host because… well, working for a guy like this probably really sucks.

Let’s admit it, my fell… no where near as “low” as these two guys, Amer-ri-cans, when it comes to sucking these two candidates make Monica look like a faithful nun.

(I had to add “faithful” to the sentence structure because, well, you never know for sure if you just type “nun,” and to a far greater extent these days, “priest,” right?)



I admit I just accused Mr. Franken of being the master of the ad hominem attack and followed it by a plethora of admittedly enjoyable ad hominem attacks. But I’m neither debating Mr. Franken in public, nor expounding my opinions on the mass media level of a O’Reilly or a Limbaugh. I am simply telling you my perceptions, and why I no longer am willing to listen to anything coming out of his multiple level, wedding cake sized, cakehole. Kind of like why you are never willing to go over to your Aunt Blanche’s place anymore because she’s an utter bitch, though in this case you’re willing to let your Democratic family drag you over there from time to time rather than be forced to go to some unrelated, bigger bastard’s house.

Ah, that was so cleansing for me to type: kind of like when my wife and I secretly use our words to beat up relatives, or when we bather about each other to those same relatives. (Yes, I did “know what you did last night,” my Dear!) Now on to just a tad more respectable, more Inspection like, observations.

Be aware.

I really meant, “just a tad.”

Where in hell did we get this idea that recounts are wrong, always corrupt, and always an attempt to steal an election? Oh, we know where, it’s a meme’ pushed by media and pols who, in one case, have an inadequate male’s idea of the perfect sexual approach to politics: “a quick in and out,” and the media who loves to promote, once again; ad hominem attacks because it sells and provides great ratings.

Plus, it doesn’t help that major media outlets are owned by politically connected families; controlled by one sided, highly partisan, CEOs.

Kind of like the electronic voting machine makers, and those who offer services to certify them and keep them “accurate.” In the case of “accuracy:” too often in the middle of an election. In the case of “certify;” too tempting to “just slap the ‘label’ on and claim it’s ‘certified.'”

After 2000 we tried to solve this problem. And like most, if not all, “solutions” during the Bush II era when the “adults were in charge…” laughter not only allowed but encouraged but at this point… it made it all far, far worse. I personally don’t care how long it takes to count, or recount, an election: as long as it’s above board, honest and fair. The only way to do that is the spirit of cooperation we had when Democrats and Republicans had something physical to looked at, sat in a room together and assessed the nature of the actual votes. They counted votes together, quibbled; quarreled and finally decided which way to count, or not count, what had been provided by the voter.

I have never been so proud of my fellow Americans, when others claimed to be ashamed, before.

Electronic voting doesn’t automatically provide accuracy unless you wish to claim that those who program, build and maintain such machines will always be honest, fair and the whole process above board: not proprietary.

Strike one, strike two, strike three… but we insist the batter keeps swinging. Kind of like Blackwater and Halliburton/KBR were allowed an infinite number of strikes. Anyone else see a pattern here?

Recounts aren’t always easy and certainly could be unfair. There’s a way to solve that: get together and in the least partisan way possible: Republicans, Democrats and “other…” do our damnedest to make sure the whole process is…

“…honest, fair… above board: not proprietary (as in the control of some company; or any single party.)”

But given my opinion of the personalities involved in this race, my guess is no matter how it comes out in the end, the candidates will have checked “none of the above.”

Ah, if only we had that “none of the above” option every time we voted: we probably wouldn’t have to deal with the likes of either Mr. Coleman or Mr. Franken.


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.