JonBenet Ramsey Suspect Confesses
The person arrested in Thailand for the murder of JonBenet Ramsey publicly confessed at a news conference in Bangkok in front of the press. John Mark Karr said he did not kill her intentionally, but by accident.
The American suspect in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case said publicly Thursday he was with the 6-year-old when she died and called her death "an accident," a stunning admission that will help answer 10 years of questions in the unsolved murder case.
"I was with JonBenet when she died," John Mark Karr told reporters in Bangkok, visibly nervous and stuttering as he spoke. "Her death was an accident."
Police said Karr, 41, admitted to the killing after he was arrested Wednesday at his downtown Bangkok apartment by Thai and American authorities.
Karr will be taken to Colorado within the next week where he will face charges of murder, kidnapping and child sexual assault, Ann Hurst, Department of Homeland Security attache at the American Embassy in Bangkok, said at a news conference in Bangkok.
Karr, speaking to reporters after the news conference, declined to say what his connection was to the Ramsey family or how long he had known JonBenet. Wearing a blue, short-sleeved shirt, he appeared ashen with an expressionless look on his face.
Well, I just can't wait to see the gyrations his defense will make after that little shocker. Of course, the other thing is, how do people who have been claiming the Ramsey's were involved apologize? How do you apologize to Patsy Ramsey now that she is dead?
By CharlieJ, August 17, 2006 @ 5:37 pm
THE *KEY* to answering the guilt question will be a comparison of the DNA found under JonBenet’s fingernails and in her underwear with that of John Mark Karr. What about a picture of Karr in the surveillance tape taken at a local hardware store where police said the distinct cord used to strangle JonBenet was purchased? Also, a match of the shoe print and/or handprint found in the basement would be huge. BUT, if the DNA doesn’t match, he is most likely NOT the killer.
Some folks — including the new domain registrar for PowerWurks.com — are speculating on a link between John Mark Karr and the John Karr who once owned an organization called PowerWurks. The domain for PowerWurks.com has been re-registered in the name of someone who obviously thinks the two men are one in the same. However, there is ZERO evidence offered by anyone (at this point) to link John Mark Karr and PowerWurks.com.
Earlier today, I watched part of the AP news broadcast with John Mark Karr — including his verbal statements that were quoted by most news sources. Karr is mentally unstable — which is also clear from the video interview (unless he was drugged). It’s also clear to me that this guy is gay. Therefore, he wouldn’t have fallen “in love” with JonBenet Ramsey, nor would he have drugged her to have sex with her — which, btw, doesn’t fit crime scene evidence nor autopsy results at all.
I’m going to go ahead and prematurely conclude that John Mark Karr is NOT JonBenet Ramsey’s killer. However, he probably is guilty of other crimes — such has child molestation, being a purveyor of child pornography and possibly the kidnapping of young boys for the purpose of sexual abuse. The presumption of innocence until proven guilty applies. I just don’t think he will be proven guilty — or even tried — for the murder of JonBenet Ramsey.
There is LOTS more on my blog (linked above)! THANKS for your efforts. Keep up the good work.
By Jason Leary, August 26, 2006 @ 2:03 am
EVIL, THY NAME IS AMBIVALENCE
Evil –thy name is ambivalence , thy name is ambiguity . Evil thou refuses to qualifty arguments —thou seekes the middle ground/ the balance . Evil thou has REFUSED to overnalyze . Thou hatest extreme precision /hatest clear boundaries . Evil, thou are known by refusing to be single-minded !
The voice of evil has a message and if we care about what Plato called :THE GOOD (and we should care) and if we care about Beauty (and Beauty is NOT in the eye of the beholder) if the beholder does NOT gaze rightly –i.e. does NOT think rightly) , then we should reject the message that tells us to embrace double-think .
The voice of evil has a message and the message it tells us is : “Don’t be so single minded†and we should indeed always REJECT that message .
The voice of Good (if I may use that rhetorical phrase) has another message. The voice of Good tells us , ‘ DO be so single minded ! Always be single minded ‘ .
After all ambivalence–the tendency to balance what is intrinsically virtuous with that which is intrinsically crass –is the ESSENCE OF MEDIOCRITY . Intrinsic virtue we should always seek to take to extremes , ladies and gents !
And the worst sort of mediocrity —is respectible mediocrity !
Yet all such discussion ought to reflect on the particulars of what is happening in our neighborhoods –what is happening in particular to our civilization –lest it should seem like a mere “academic discussion “to be thought on found interesting for a while and then the same shuffle of people going back to their daily lives of day to day mendcaities where people ask , ‘what’s on t.v. ?’
WELL IT’S WHAT’S ON T.V. THAT’S THE PROBLEM FOLKS !
I .SOULLESS SPECTACLES AND TOLERANT SELL-OUTS
What’s on t.v ought to show everyone who hasn’t come around to insight just how ROTTEN the sensisbilty of that weird, mediocre , pusiilanimous , pansy-effeminate thinking called relativism (or postmodernism, anti-foundationalism–or what funky new name they are calling it lately) which is that “conflicted†tendency of thought to respect beliefs or so called “points of view†regardless how crass , unfounded or otherwise skewed such beliefs are (i.e. selling out) …how pathetic it is !
What’s ON T.V.IS THE APPARENT MURDER AND RAPE OF A LITTLE GIRL IN COLORADO TEN YEARS AGO BEING TREATED *AS IF * IT WERE SOME SORT OF ENTERTAINMENT !! !! Hello people if there is anything that ought to show those who still have some shred of caring for some semblance of wholesome sentiment towards how life should be lived it is that , and hence if there is anything that should show people that the whole ever so weird insipid tendency to respect opinions — (or even partially respect them) no matter how crass those opinions are –and this present weird decade of might-boggling crassness –is TOTALLY WRONGHEADED AND WORTHLESS it is the disgusting news and entertainment media circus that treats the rape and murder of a child as something to have fun gossip about .
If there is anything that show the stragglers that still want to be tolerant and respect points of view and “look at it from different perspectivesâ€/ be conflicted –want a balance between the light and dark —and all similar insipid garbage ideology –who still have some portion of nurturing feeling towards other living beings left –to wise up and promote that nurturing feeling single-mindedly and with a robust intensity (and say politically correct tolerance be dammed ) then it should be that : seeing that so many have become tolerant of journalists gossiping about the rape and murder of a child like it were some entertaining thrilling spectacle to gossip about . These days the postmodernist/relativist crowd has tried to mislead us into thinking that we somehow shouldn’t have an us versus them approach. Well the us versus them approach is Good . The vindication of Truth, Beauty, Justice and all that is Good demands an us versus them approach !
Ladies and gents, news has become entertainment and entertainment has become news and that ugly sordid trend has been going on for 12 some years now and building and getting more and more sordid each month !
What we are seeing —and it is indeed totally contrary to the enterprise of philosophy and hence the concern of philosophy with the Good of civilizations is a trend that should be best called CULTURAL ENTROPY .
Before the phrase culture entropy is explained –it is best to turn attention to the four golden axioms which sooner or later we should always return in thought to and keep in mind . These glaringly obvious axioms should have been fessed up to by everyone long decades ago .
AXIOM 1 : *NOT* every belief –including not every belief regarding matters of morals and/or esthetics is mere opinion . There
AXIOM 2 : NOT every opinion deserves any respect .
(How unspeakably bizarre it is that so many people in this present era , speak AS IF the mere fact that some people –or even many people –express a belief is somehow grounds for giving a belief some ad hoc respect. Would you respect, say, the belief where someone expresses the notion that having an interest in sordid celebrity gossip is even partially okay ? IF SO that is pathetic !)
AXIOM 3. The beliefs that a person expresses are NOT at all part of the person. Such beliefs are NOT at all a part of their identity. Merely because they have some relation with the self doesn’t mean they are a part of the person’s self . (Though if a person supports ugly beliefs long enough , they can take on a rather ugly demeanor though) .
AXIOM 4 . Since beliefs are NOT part of a person –therefore, there is nothing at all un-compassionate or un-loving about telling someone that the belief they support is totally wrong, without a shred of merit , and worthless . One of the better acts you can do for a person is belittle the opinion they’ve expressed if that opinion is crass, lazy minded or otherwise murky . There is certainly nothing un-compassionate , nor rude (provided one avoids phrasing the terms in a personal manner) about doing that . If MTV told you otherwise then they told you wrong folks .
(Always keep in mind that judging a belief that someone has /condemning the belief is NOT necessarily the same as judging or condemning the person who supports it . It is good to always keep that in mind –lest some relativist should quote the adage, “judge not that ye be not judged†*out of context* as I’ve often seen them do . Furthermore, the part about , ‘he that is without sin let him cast the first stone’ –applies to real physical stones–it does NOT apply to verbal criticism . )
Us versus them is good . It is helpful even to the them, as well as to Truth, Beauty, ect .
II CULTURAL ENTROPY
With those four golden axioms in mind let us turn attention to the term cultural entropy . By entropy I am NOT specifically referring to the thermodyamic context of the word entropy –but I am referencing what Webster’s On-line Dictionary apparently lists as
3. CHAOS , DISORGANIZATION
Such chaos is NOT liberating . It is certainly not to be confused with the far separate creative ferment and unbouding energy of the freewheeling artist eccentric . Such chaos is NOT that –so its important that noone should equivocate , for such creative artistic ferment is NOT chaos –as some refer to it . By chaos I’m NOT referring to fractals so don’t equivocate off onto that tangent . By chaos , I’m NOT referring to the primordal stuff in ancient cosmoganies either–so don’t equivocate off into that separate topic .
The CHAOS of cultural entropy is a meta-theme that subtends the various interrelated themes of death –and the glamourization of death , breakdown, dysfunctionality, polymorphous perversity, hype , fractious modes of living and thinking . In this present yuppie influenced, media -saturated era (and the yuppie subculture , by the way, is pervaded by the characteristics I just previously described and it is they who provide much of the supply and demand , in this present news and entertainment saturated state of affairs )…morbidity coupled with crass and tacky, sex- laced kitch has become the dominant motif .
According to Erich Fromm , Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza once wrote of two contrasting/opposite dispositions (that a culture or a person could support). The good one to support was apparently called the biophillic . The biophillic disposition was life affirming it was enamored of living organic beings and was interested in the ferment of ideas –one would imagine vital ideas ones that were characterized by a mood of vigor of inclination .
The necrophillic disposition , in contrast, was enamored of death . It was morbid …death affirming rather than life affirming . If memory serves righly, it was also pervaded by a venal liking for monetary wealth (the mystification of wealth)
The collective pop culture mood fostered by the mass entertainment and news media–which has creeped into many households in this present weird yuppie decade and desensitized a lot of people into partially accepting vapid, unwholesome, dysfunctional modes of thinking and living)…is necrophiilic .
After all –WHY IS THE STORY OF JON BENET RAMSEY BEING RAPED AND MURDERED FEATURED ON A PROGRAM LIKE ENTERTAINMENT TONIGHT ? Jon Benet Ramsey was NOT a Hollywood actress —and it’s bad enough they make sordid, weird unwholesome gossip about actual hollywood actresses that were killed or experienced tragedies –but she wasn’t even a hollywood actress nor was she a rock star ! Here is a social phenomenon so bizarre that so nmany treat AS IF it were some normal par for the course affair. Just 20 years ago , It’s a safe wager, that if Entertainment Tonight had aired a story about a little girl being raped and murdered — many of the media pundits would be dripping and spewing with shock and so would much of the general public ! 40 years ago if a t.v. entertainment show had tried to peddle lurid voyeuristic trash that gossiped about a little child being killed–it’s a safe wager that there would be so much outcry that it would be the last show such a program ever did –and the producers would have to look into chapter 11 pretty darn quick ! The proverbial frog in the kettle is already half cooked . Now creepy shows like that grotesque skanky yuppie-minded Nancy Grace Show on CNN go swimmingly in this present creepshow of a decade !
And don’t believe any postmodernist pip queak who even implies that that trend is some sort of progress it isn’t .
III .THE MOST DERISIVE ADJECTIVES SEEM AN UNDERSTATEMENT .
I could churn out derisive adjectives like , HIDEOUS , FIENDISHLY VAPID, SOULLESS, DEPRAVED, MEDIOCRE , SKANKY …and a host of other off the charts vehement adjectives enough to fill a giant almanaac and keep on deriding the worthless opinions of those that think it’s okay (or even almost partially okay) to bandie about sordid details of tragedies, like the Jon Benet Ramsey case, till what might seem like the 12th of never , and yet lately even the most vehement adjectives and descriptions at ther most caustic level seem like an understatement—even seem NOT nearly hard enough on these ugly worthless opinions of those that support the ugly society of the spectacle .
IV .WARNING SIGNS
No sooner than someone single-mindedly denounces the ugly opinions expressed by those that support the status quo of sordid sleaze and mediocrity of t.v. saturated suburbia –then all so often one or several people will play the pipsqueak and respond with these typical of this present era but no less weird, pod people responses , like saying …â€well that’s just your opinion†or “don’t be so judgemental†or “look at it from another perspective†or “another side†—and similar limpwristed comments all of which are just euphemisms that try to get the person to sell out /to settle/ to accept/ to embrace the mediocrity by balancing light with a little darkness .
Here are some warning signs that the person who is responding has gone over to the dark side …some tell tale phrases that evince the ugly worthless ideology called relativism . Some phrases , statements , and questions that are indicative of relativism are : the use of the term “self-righteous†to lambast those that aspire to be single minded about principles and, hence, REFUSE to sell out . Someone asking a person “are you ever wrong?â€, when that person they ask is making a single-minded claim as to some value , is another warning sign of the ugly ideology of relativism being near. Someone who speaks or posts AS IF “always being right or always “having to be right†were somehow bad, is another warning sign ! Someone speaks of “finding a balance†or any sort of balance–if they speak or post of such balance with approval– on some issue where there is some crass tendency happening . Someone who speaks or posts claiming “that there is another side†on some issue or claiming that allegedly there is somehow more than one side –to an issue . Someone referring to being “preachy†AS IF being preachy were somehow undesirable is another warning sign . Someone referring to so-called “shades of grey†and claiming an issue is not black or white is another warning sign . Someone claiming that someone else is allegedly “arrogant†or “pompous†because that other person that they (falsely) accuse of being “arrogant†REFUSES to sell out/REFUSES to respect opposite beliefs , is another warning sign that the person communicating that is a relativist .
Another warning sign is if a person uses the word “totalize†AS IF totalizing were something bad–which postmodernists often do . Describing people who are single-minded in outlook as “fanatics†or “fanatical†is another warning sign . Referring to being rigid AS IF it were somehow bad to be rigid (it’s NOT bad to be rigid) is another warning sign . Another warning sign is if the person accepts being conflicted as if somehow it were okay. “Learning to accept †or “learning to adapt†or “adjust†–when people approve of such terms being applied to crass activities is another warning sign . Another warning sign is the weird tendency of some people, in recent decades, to claim “life is give and take†and apply that to even situations that are sordid, crass, or otherwise unjust.
Another warning sign is the unwholsome weird tendency to refer to someone living a “sheltered life†AS IF living a sheltered life were somehow bad .
Often the implicit message of speaking of the “sheltered life†AS IF it were somehow bad is to suggest that if a person hasn’t learned to accept and adapt sordid, weird thinking and ways of acting as “part of life†that there is allegedlyt something wrong with the person. The truth is those that have learned to accept sordid , arbitrary, coarse crass modes of acting –they are the one who has something wrong with them . The truth is: everybody ought to live a sheltered life. The sheltered life is good. It is weird that the sordid now has become treated as the yardstick for guaging what is tolerable .
V .PEOPLE WHO DEFEND WHAT THEY COMPLAIN ABOUT .
In this weird present era–there are a lot of people that don’t like superficiality , don’t like sordidness and want to foster a more nurturing , life -affirming culture , but weirdly enough among some of those people there are what might be called the ‘ambivalent progressives’ or ‘ambivalent humanitarians’ who have embraced the weird ambivalent “conflicted†outlook that is tolerant of ambiguity . Such an outlook doesn’t want to get rid of superficiality, sordidness in human affairs altogether but instead wants to settle for a sell out “balance†between what is noble/life-affirming ect, and the opposite: that which is sordid . They don’t want to get rid of the sordid altogether they just merely want to tone it down . Such a weird ambivalent ethos often wants to accept sordid modes of thinking and acting as “part of life too†. They want to ameliorate the intrinsically bad- but *not* try to get rid of it altogether . They want an ameliorated good and an ameliorated bad . They want a lukewarm , diluted middle ground between the inherently good and inherently bad .
That ever so weird an weirdly automatic tendency to ameliorate the good and ameliorate the bad instead of maximizing the intrinsically good and getting rid of the intrinsically bad–that ameliorating middle of the road tendency- characterizes the spirit of this present weird age .
Virtue requires that when it comes to intrinsic virtue WE SHOULD EITHER FISH OR CUT BAIT .
Aside from the ownership fallacy which is also equally depraved and ridiculous , the most ridiculous notion in human history is the ever so bizarre notion that seems to think as if somehow a virtue somehow becomes a vice when taken to extremes . It does NOT ! Intrinsic Virtue when taken to extremes does NOT become a vice .
Taking an intrinsic virtue to extremes means …MORE VIRTUE . It truly is that simple !
LET US THUS REFLECT ON TWO OTHER AXIOMS .
AXIOM 5 : An intrinsic virtue when taken to extremes does *NOT* in any case become a vice . When an intrinsic virtue is taken to extremes it results in ….MORE VIRTUE !
The notion that an intrinsic virtue (and that is different from a mere extrinsic sort of virtue) when taken to extremes becomes a vice is a false cockamamey notion people .
AXIOM 6 : Rigid consistency in mentally supporting intrinsic virtue in thought and belief is always right . That is concurrent with axiom number 5 .
Yet these present days there are the ambivalent humanitarians/ the ambivalent sorts of caring people who defend what they complain about ! These people often enough often express a lot of passion and outrage and campaign for good causes —but then they wax weirdly ambivalent in thought and say stuff “well there’s another sideâ€, and “let’s have a balance†and speak of going beyond the us versus them, and thus want to sell out by respecting, or partially respecting, the opinions that are CONTRARY to good causes /contrary to an edifying society .
Again an us versus them approach is GOOD –provided it is NOT based on illicit violence (and an us versus them approach does NOT always habe to lead to illicit physical violence ) Loving ones enemies does *NOT* to any extent involve respecting the wrong opinions they express ! i’m reminded of a young man I knew in the autumn of 1997– who was a member of an animal rights group I was a member of –that in typical ambivalent MTV genration relativist fashion made the squishy namby-pamby statement to the effect of, ‘animal rights is right to us , (but for the person that supports killing animal for the sadistic fun of it ) that was somehow allegedly “right to them†! IF SO then why bother .
It is not just important that we have the right actions that support the right cause. We should also NOT be *duplicious* in belief towards supporting inwardly the right ethical causes either . Duplicious thinking betrays good ethical causes in a way that is far more fundamental in terms of meaning –then actions that do not fit the cause .
Though hypocracy in terms of actions is bad–duplicity in belief is often ultimately worse –and a worse betrayal of the ethical or esthetic goal one is supposed to be striving for .
The problem, by the way –is not in the complaining–the problem, by the way, is in people defending what they complain about . Complaining can be good–but don’t defend what you complain about . Be consistent .
To respect the opinion of those that intentionally support that which is crass or murky , if one is to any degree disappointed by the situation supported by that opinion –is DEFENDING WHAT YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT !
(In deriding the ugly tendency of people to respect opinions they do not agree with , I am not by the way referring to the civil right of someone to express that opinion . There is a difference between respecting the civil right of someone to express an opinion no matter how worthless that opinion is –and the separate matter of respecting the opinion itself . respecting the right of somebody to express an opinion does NOT to any degree involve respecting the opinion itself . It is high time that the MTV Generation –by the way–stop glossing over that difference !)
IIV .NOT A MATTER OF GOING “OVERBOARD†.
Relativism is totally worthless and a culture that accepts the creepy portrayal of the rape and murder of a little girl as fodder for gossip and entertainment evinces that worthlessness . It is NOT a matter that relativism has gone overboard since relativism is intrinscally worthless and, hence, never had any good points to it to begin with . Another factor in this present era that is all so disgusting is even among some of the people that express some disapproval of relativism —there is an odd ambivalence where even some of these people want to find a middle ground between absolutism (with its high ethical and esthetic standards) and relativism.! Ladies and gentlemen, there is NO “too much †absolutism . Such finding a middle ground between relativism and absolutism is selling out .
An all or nothing approach towards the evil of relativism (and the pop culture soulless kitch it tolerates and often subtly fosters ) is long overdue. We should not talk like relativist pod people once in a while, or for a few minutes on Thursdays, and then be resolute about values the rest of the week . We should go the distance on high standards all the time. The author of this present text often is quite disgusted with himself in the past for not being resolute at times in the past, so don’t presume (as relativists sometimes weirdly do presume) that he holds himself above reproach .
It is quite jarring to see even *some* people who are– in the main sort of absolutists– weirdly enough make those weirdly automatic statements about so-called “different perspectives†and, occasionally (at odd intervals) get ambivalent and want to respect “points of view†…We should go all the way with absolutism, go the distance .
Ugly sordid opinions that endorse crass activities like media gossip , racism , wife-beating , watching something on t.v. “because there’s nothing else on†, and other murky tendencies should NEVER be respected at any hour of the day .
All so many people these days have lowered standards /have “learned to accept†to be “realistic†in accepting sordid , crass situational reality .
Like the men in the Dylan Thomas poem (who the poet with apparent sarcasm says and one would most likely imagine uses the term wise men –sarcastically) “know dark is right because their words had forked no lightening†, they accept /resign themselves a little …to mediocrity .
We’ve got to ‘ RAGE , RAGE AGAINST THE DYING OF THE LIGHT .’
Piss on the tolerance and acceptance that allows tragedy as fodder for media gossip . Away with the respectible mainstream mediocrity of those who have learned to settle for the so called “different perspective†of duplicity .