Neil E. Clement's Blog
April 9, 2016
Censorship
White Lake (MTCC Newswire) 9 April 2016 EDITORIAL by and Copyright © 2016 Neil E. Clement, All Rights Reserved.
Many television broadcasters have taken to the practice of ‘blurring out’ any part of any picture of any scene that they deem is offensive, and if necessary, the sound will also be damped or altered in some fashion, clearly violating the intent of the original author. Programs that have been on the air for decades and once perfectly acceptable to most viewers are now officially deemed as unacceptable and therefore must be censored (or heads will roll).
Amendment 1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I try to imagine what it would be like to try to read and actually follow the storyline of any book that has had major sections ‘redacted’ or even altered from the original (which is worse than redaction), the very same thing that is currently happening to film, but the image fails me. I suspect we don’t have long to wait for this to occur, and particularly in our educational publications; if, in fact, this process has not already begun.
The people that want to censor everything you see and hear on any public broadcast station, based on their notion of what is offensive, have managed to pass federal laws that do exactly that. Congratulations! The Orwellian future has officially arrived. Freedom of speech is officially a thing of the past. Whether or not it becomes a thing of the future is up to us but at this point I have serious doubts.
“But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever.”
John Adams (1735-1826), in a letter to Abigail Adams, 1775
What should be illegal is the ability to make money broadcasting censored pre-recorded programs unless it is specifically and clearly noted in every frame of the broadcast that this is what is taking place.
The strange thing about this situation is in how one goes about defining just what is ‘offensive’ and what is not. All the evidence would indicate that practically any kind or level of violence is entirely permissible, even encouraged, while a woman’s breast is completely taboo and any hint of such a thing must be hidden from the viewer. Even behind clothing. Especially behind clothing. No areola shadows or nipple points allowed! Abundant cleavage, on the other hand, appears to be just fine, depending.
‘Nasty’ language is felonious and must be blocked, by altering both the sound and the speaker’s mouth.
Various hand signals are now totally verboten. It makes me feel bad for all the people who can’t talk without moving their hands.
It seems simple enough to me. If you don’t like something, don’t watch it. The stuff that people have no interest in will just naturally fall by the wayside by the simple process of elimination.
Official censorship is a dangerous step in the wrong direction as it only serves to silence the people and stifle innovation.
Many television broadcasters have taken to the practice of ‘blurring out’ any part of any picture of any scene that they deem is offensive, and if necessary, the sound will also be damped or altered in some fashion, clearly violating the intent of the original author. Programs that have been on the air for decades and once perfectly acceptable to most viewers are now officially deemed as unacceptable and therefore must be censored (or heads will roll).
Amendment 1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I try to imagine what it would be like to try to read and actually follow the storyline of any book that has had major sections ‘redacted’ or even altered from the original (which is worse than redaction), the very same thing that is currently happening to film, but the image fails me. I suspect we don’t have long to wait for this to occur, and particularly in our educational publications; if, in fact, this process has not already begun.
The people that want to censor everything you see and hear on any public broadcast station, based on their notion of what is offensive, have managed to pass federal laws that do exactly that. Congratulations! The Orwellian future has officially arrived. Freedom of speech is officially a thing of the past. Whether or not it becomes a thing of the future is up to us but at this point I have serious doubts.
“But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever.”
John Adams (1735-1826), in a letter to Abigail Adams, 1775
What should be illegal is the ability to make money broadcasting censored pre-recorded programs unless it is specifically and clearly noted in every frame of the broadcast that this is what is taking place.
The strange thing about this situation is in how one goes about defining just what is ‘offensive’ and what is not. All the evidence would indicate that practically any kind or level of violence is entirely permissible, even encouraged, while a woman’s breast is completely taboo and any hint of such a thing must be hidden from the viewer. Even behind clothing. Especially behind clothing. No areola shadows or nipple points allowed! Abundant cleavage, on the other hand, appears to be just fine, depending.
‘Nasty’ language is felonious and must be blocked, by altering both the sound and the speaker’s mouth.
Various hand signals are now totally verboten. It makes me feel bad for all the people who can’t talk without moving their hands.
It seems simple enough to me. If you don’t like something, don’t watch it. The stuff that people have no interest in will just naturally fall by the wayside by the simple process of elimination.
Official censorship is a dangerous step in the wrong direction as it only serves to silence the people and stifle innovation.
March 18, 2016
Is Supergirl a Bully?
White Lake (MTCC Newswire) 18 March 2016
EDITORIAL by and © 2016 Neil E. Clement, All Rights Reserved.
Frankly, the new Supergirl television show on CBS, which appears to be specifically targeted to a juvenile audience, and its reliance on extremely graphic violence to ‘entertain’, goes far beyond disturbing and enters into the strange world of deviant mental illness before dipping into the realm of what can only be described as unwarranted psychological conditioning.
From where did we dredge up this desire to portray young women as bullies of the first order?
Where exactly did we develop this need to teach our children that viewing an invulnerable pubescent female joyfully beating the living snot out of other invulnerable demigods while majorly tearing up the landscape and in the process somehow eventually magically subduing the supposedly evil itinerant or getting double-whomped-on instead, when in fact invulnerable beings cannot be subdued in this fashion at all, that this clearly hostile, excessively violent behavior is somehow a good thing?
This type of bullying stereotype doesn’t work any better for women than it does for men.
And NO, Supergirl DOES NOT “lose her powers and need periodic recharging just like Superman (as everyone knows)”.
And YES, I do believe in empowering women, just not like this.
What possible rationale can one use to explain this travesty of science fiction? Supergirl as a role model? Hardly. More of a nightmare. And thus this insane behavior is inculcated into our society by unthinking cretins. Is there so little real violence in the world that we must actually add to it with this tripe? I find it hard to believe that delivering this type of mindless brutality as popular entertainment is helping us somehow.
Are we really so detached from reality that we must teach our youngsters this bizarre bullying behavior as a form of ‘entertainment’, then sit back and wait for the rave reviews to roll in and act surprised when crazy shit actually happens instead?
This whole business of a violence-centric society needs a rethink. That we should need to be or that someone thinks we need to be overwhelmed with this type of barbaric BS over the airwaves is deeply saddening.
This same mindset of the “over-the-top, seemingly testosterone-charged, generally rude” young female taking charge of every situation, kicking ass, shooting up the area with a vast assortment of weapons and just generally wreaking havoc with impunity, but whose excessively violent behavior is often overshadowed by the “has large breasts and always wears low-cut t-shirts revealing abundant cleavage, and, boy, isn’t that distracting? but don’t you dare bring my sexuality into the equation, I’m just a poor girl doing a tough job syndrome”, seems to be taking hold as a ‘normal and apparently expected’ form of ‘entertainment’ now so obliviously obvious in many new, hopefully short-lived cop shows. The sexually repressed Supergirl, on the other hand, with her ultra-conservative clothing, has never revealed any cleavage that I am aware of, although, I will grant you, I have not seen every episode.
How long must we suffer the indignity of being exposed to ordinary citizens being used and abused by ‘legal’, ‘law-enforcing’ bullies hiding behind a badge and more than happy to tell ‘the perp’ how many times s/he will be raped if sent to prison (so cooperate, eh)? This is entertainment? On whose terms?
Are we certain sure that teaching our children that anyone with a badge is immune to consequences and can do anything they please while everyone else must pay the price for their actions, that this situation is right and normal, and the way things are supposed to be?
For the record, be it man, woman, child, animation or what have you, official or unofficial, any portrayal of this type of brutally crazy, uncontrollable and vicious behavior; this over-the-top, in-your-face, “I’m the baddest bully there is and I will stomp you and there is nothing you can do about it” attitude, this reflects poorly on our society and the so-called values of truth, honesty and the American way that we are theoretically supposed to be living by.
I am appalled that this type of disturbing caricature of undesirable alpha behavior for both men and women passes as ‘harmless entertainment’ in this and other countries, and I am outraged that these misleading and violent stereotypes are being presented as actual role models for young people, and that this travesty should be labeled as ‘entertainment’. I am quite certain that the entertainment industry can and should do better.
We need to be teaching our people that goodness and decency, not repressed rage and immature anger ending in violence, is the ticket. But I guess that won’t sell any tickets. Unless your name is Disney.
White Lake (MTCC Newswire) 18 March 2016
EDITORIAL by and © 2016 Neil E. Clement, All Rights Reserved.
EDITORIAL by and © 2016 Neil E. Clement, All Rights Reserved.
Frankly, the new Supergirl television show on CBS, which appears to be specifically targeted to a juvenile audience, and its reliance on extremely graphic violence to ‘entertain’, goes far beyond disturbing and enters into the strange world of deviant mental illness before dipping into the realm of what can only be described as unwarranted psychological conditioning.
From where did we dredge up this desire to portray young women as bullies of the first order?
Where exactly did we develop this need to teach our children that viewing an invulnerable pubescent female joyfully beating the living snot out of other invulnerable demigods while majorly tearing up the landscape and in the process somehow eventually magically subduing the supposedly evil itinerant or getting double-whomped-on instead, when in fact invulnerable beings cannot be subdued in this fashion at all, that this clearly hostile, excessively violent behavior is somehow a good thing?
This type of bullying stereotype doesn’t work any better for women than it does for men.
And NO, Supergirl DOES NOT “lose her powers and need periodic recharging just like Superman (as everyone knows)”.
And YES, I do believe in empowering women, just not like this.
What possible rationale can one use to explain this travesty of science fiction? Supergirl as a role model? Hardly. More of a nightmare. And thus this insane behavior is inculcated into our society by unthinking cretins. Is there so little real violence in the world that we must actually add to it with this tripe? I find it hard to believe that delivering this type of mindless brutality as popular entertainment is helping us somehow.
Are we really so detached from reality that we must teach our youngsters this bizarre bullying behavior as a form of ‘entertainment’, then sit back and wait for the rave reviews to roll in and act surprised when crazy shit actually happens instead?
This whole business of a violence-centric society needs a rethink. That we should need to be or that someone thinks we need to be overwhelmed with this type of barbaric BS over the airwaves is deeply saddening.
This same mindset of the “over-the-top, seemingly testosterone-charged, generally rude” young female taking charge of every situation, kicking ass, shooting up the area with a vast assortment of weapons and just generally wreaking havoc with impunity, but whose excessively violent behavior is often overshadowed by the “has large breasts and always wears low-cut t-shirts revealing abundant cleavage, and, boy, isn’t that distracting? but don’t you dare bring my sexuality into the equation, I’m just a poor girl doing a tough job syndrome”, seems to be taking hold as a ‘normal and apparently expected’ form of ‘entertainment’ now so obliviously obvious in many new, hopefully short-lived cop shows. The sexually repressed Supergirl, on the other hand, with her ultra-conservative clothing, has never revealed any cleavage that I am aware of, although, I will grant you, I have not seen every episode.
How long must we suffer the indignity of being exposed to ordinary citizens being used and abused by ‘legal’, ‘law-enforcing’ bullies hiding behind a badge and more than happy to tell ‘the perp’ how many times s/he will be raped if sent to prison (so cooperate, eh)? This is entertainment? On whose terms?
Are we certain sure that teaching our children that anyone with a badge is immune to consequences and can do anything they please while everyone else must pay the price for their actions, that this situation is right and normal, and the way things are supposed to be?
For the record, be it man, woman, child, animation or what have you, official or unofficial, any portrayal of this type of brutally crazy, uncontrollable and vicious behavior; this over-the-top, in-your-face, “I’m the baddest bully there is and I will stomp you and there is nothing you can do about it” attitude, this reflects poorly on our society and the so-called values of truth, honesty and the American way that we are theoretically supposed to be living by.
I am appalled that this type of disturbing caricature of undesirable alpha behavior for both men and women passes as ‘harmless entertainment’ in this and other countries, and I am outraged that these misleading and violent stereotypes are being presented as actual role models for young people, and that this travesty should be labeled as ‘entertainment’. I am quite certain that the entertainment industry can and should do better.
We need to be teaching our people that goodness and decency, not repressed rage and immature anger ending in violence, is the ticket. But I guess that won’t sell any tickets. Unless your name is Disney.
White Lake (MTCC Newswire) 18 March 2016
EDITORIAL by and © 2016 Neil E. Clement, All Rights Reserved.
November 10, 2013
Reflections #0003 Pet Insurance Scam
Two dogs and two cats live in my house. You can read all about them in my Missygirl the Calico Cat series.
Veterinarians can be quite expensive! Especially when surgery becomes mandatory.
My vet bills this year were quite high so I just naturally had to look at and even try Pet Medical Insurance, of which there are a handful of companies. The one I chose was supposed to be the best in the marketplace. The sales pitch is a real heartstring tugger: you don't have to give up your pet because you can't afford the vet bills that accidents or 'unexpected' medical complications can generate.
Ultimately I ended up paying for both the insurance and the vet bills until I cancelled the 'insurance', making my overall pet expense much higher than it needed to be. Why?
Well, my experience, while only with one company ('the best'), indicates that the major function of such companies, aside from collecting money on a regular basis, is to find ANY 'pre-existing' condition that may have contributed to your pet's current condition. And I do mean ANY.
They do not pay when there is a pre-existing condition.
These conditions are easier to find than you might imagine. The net result, at least for me: they turn down virtually every claim no matter how preposterous the pre-existing condition may seem.
In one case I was turned down for knee surgery for my big girl (torn ACL) ($4,200.00) because of my own statement to a vet two years previously that she grunted when getting up, obviously a clear indication that she had knee problems all along.
You can 'appeal' their 'decision' but this is just a typical kangaroo court maneuver on their part.
Veterinarians can be quite expensive! Especially when surgery becomes mandatory.
My vet bills this year were quite high so I just naturally had to look at and even try Pet Medical Insurance, of which there are a handful of companies. The one I chose was supposed to be the best in the marketplace. The sales pitch is a real heartstring tugger: you don't have to give up your pet because you can't afford the vet bills that accidents or 'unexpected' medical complications can generate.
Ultimately I ended up paying for both the insurance and the vet bills until I cancelled the 'insurance', making my overall pet expense much higher than it needed to be. Why?
Well, my experience, while only with one company ('the best'), indicates that the major function of such companies, aside from collecting money on a regular basis, is to find ANY 'pre-existing' condition that may have contributed to your pet's current condition. And I do mean ANY.
They do not pay when there is a pre-existing condition.
These conditions are easier to find than you might imagine. The net result, at least for me: they turn down virtually every claim no matter how preposterous the pre-existing condition may seem.
In one case I was turned down for knee surgery for my big girl (torn ACL) ($4,200.00) because of my own statement to a vet two years previously that she grunted when getting up, obviously a clear indication that she had knee problems all along.
You can 'appeal' their 'decision' but this is just a typical kangaroo court maneuver on their part.
November 6, 2013
Reflections #0002
Our most advanced viewing apparatuses tell us that only 5% of the stuff in this universe is ‘visible’. The biological viewing sense we have been gifted with can only detect a very, very small amount of this 5%.
The actual percentage of the amount of light visible to humans in the entire electromagnetic spectrum is a ridiculously small number.
Our own senses, all six of them including time-sense, actually tell us very little of this place where we live.
Practically everything else in our universe is either too big or too small for us to be able to perceive directly.
This means that just about everything of any actual significance is invisible to us.
And yet, up until the beginning of the twentieth century, virtually all of the accumulated knowledge of the human race was developed within this miniscule frame of reference.
One has no choice but to wonder just how accurate any conclusions, customs or traditions derived from this incredibly narrow perspective can possibly be.
Insufferable Indifference – The Mocking of America
The actual percentage of the amount of light visible to humans in the entire electromagnetic spectrum is a ridiculously small number.
Our own senses, all six of them including time-sense, actually tell us very little of this place where we live.
Practically everything else in our universe is either too big or too small for us to be able to perceive directly.
This means that just about everything of any actual significance is invisible to us.
And yet, up until the beginning of the twentieth century, virtually all of the accumulated knowledge of the human race was developed within this miniscule frame of reference.
One has no choice but to wonder just how accurate any conclusions, customs or traditions derived from this incredibly narrow perspective can possibly be.
Insufferable Indifference – The Mocking of America
November 5, 2013
Reflections #0001
As we go about recording history we have to ask ourselves how we can explain to future generations not just why certain groups or even individuals were allowed to manipulate the population at large into making often grotesque and extremely expensive far-reaching mistakes in general policy causing many unnecessary planetary-wide problems but more importantly we must explain why the majority was unable to prevent this decidedly inappropriate behavior from happening repeatedly in the first place.
