Censorship Must Go!

Censorship of so-called ‘bad’ language is both rampant and pointless. Everyone knows exactly what those so-called ‘bad words’ are, including and especially those who rant against them, and are in favor of censorship in the first place!

When you see a TV show, and the ‘bad words’ are bleeped out, no one is fooled. Anyone watching knows perfectly well, or can make a reasonably good guess as to the exact word(s) that were bleeped!

The same goes for the written word in cyberspace. There are oh, so many internet sites that ‘do not tolerate’ what is termed as ‘foul language.’ No matter. There are a myriad of work-arounds, and again, most everyone knows them, and no one is fooled.

“Oh, hell,” is probably one of the most common and least offensive of the lot. But who among you does not know perfectly well that seeing “h-e- double hockey sticks,” or “h-e- double toothpicks.” is exactly the same thing? Ass is another that is frequently seen disguised as “a**,” or, if the entire and usual phrase is intended, then “A-H” is a common substitute, as is “A-hole.”  In any event, it is the use of the word that is in error, and no fault of the word.  An ass is a donkey,  while the original (from British origins) term for one's derriere is 'arse.' 

I’ve been in chats at sites where they censor the most ridiculous things, and instead of just 'blocking' the so-called 'bad word' and leaving a blank space, or "...." they substitute a 'correction,' as if to say, "we're sure this is the word you really meant!" One such chat room, (if someone should be so "horrible" as to type out the entire a-hole word),  inserts in its place, "...fantastic whole." 

This more often than not alters the entire meaning of the sentence or statement, e.g.,  "That man is an asshole," has a fundamentally different--(polar opposite!)--meaning than, "That man is a fantasic whole."  Not to mention the substitution does not actually make any sense.  This truly is an insult to folks' intelligence! 

(Besides, this is not a site used by kids--we are all adults there!  [No, not "that kind" of adult site], but one where you are responsible for carrying out your end of a contract made with a buyer, so must be over 18 to do so.)

In this same chat room,  I once thought I had made a typo, because “dorkens” came up on the screen. HUH? I tried again, being very careful. Nope. No typo. Same thing! Hmm… so, I was not allowed to make the statement, “I had a dickens of a time….”   it came out, "I had a dorkens of a time."  There is no such word.

Apparently, the internal censor picked up on the first four letters in the word. Well, excuuuuuuse me!  Have the programmers who decided to flag that never heard of the author, Charles Dickens? Are they unaware that ‘dickens’ is an alternate of ‘devil.’ (I could have as easily said that I’d had “the devil of a time…” ) Do they not know that “Dick” is a legitimate man’s nickname? Yes, it is. In fact, I had a geology professor whose name was Dick …. and no, he did not go by “Richard,” or “Rick.” (WHY ‘Dick’ evolved as a nickname for Richard, I’ll never know, and is not the point of this article), but it is in the mix, and the "workaround" is "D*ick."  Pretty lame, eh?

It is no one’s fault today that someone long ago decided to use the personal name as a euphemism for a part of the male anatomy, and thence to an insult applied to calling someone out by that term. The name was there first. Ergo, it should not be subjected to such silly censoring! 

Among the newest work-arounds that easily sneak by is “WTF,” found in wide circulation on the internet and in text and instant messages. Virtually everyone knows what it stands for, yet the ‘propriety programs’ don’t catch it. See what I mean? You cannot see that set of letters without your brain filling in exactly what each individual letter stands for. So much for censorship: might as well have spelled it all out.

We also hear about "f-bombs" as the latest euphemism for that well-known word.  Again, everyone knows exactly what word is meant, so what's the point of using the euphemism?  Now, before I get accused of being someone "...who wants to hear or see that kind of language," no, I'm not in search of it.  I simply don't care.  I don't let it bother me. I say it myself if the occasion demands (such as when striking the thumb with a hammer). There are more important things about which to get incensed.  I do not, in fact, enjoy a steady stream of so-called "f-bombs." 

Years back, I went to see a movie that was supposed to be a comedy, titled, White Men Can't Jump.  There was not much of a plot.  Instead, it seemed to be an exercise in how many times the writers could cram "the f-word" into a single sentence, almost every sentence, throughout the movie.  Was I offended?  No.  What I was, was bored.  It was stupid, and made the writers and characters appear stupid for having no more extensive vocabulary than that.

If the whole point of censoring content is to ‘protect’ overly-sensitive people from seeing/hearing ‘objectionable’ words, that goal is in vain, precisely because of all these well-known substitutes.

As far as ‘protecting’ children? Oh, please! Most kids hear and see far worse at school (yes, even at private schools), and could actually educate their parents as to new vulgarities!  My 13-year-old grandson let slip with one just recently. He referred to a world-traveling slut well known to all males by the name of “Palmula Handerson.” I’m sure you can figure it out!  And that was actually mild. Many people would be shocked to learn of what their kids actually know, and at what young ages they know! Those pro-censorship folks live in denial, (and I don't mean a river in Africa).

We need to wake people up, and learn to live and let live. Some people are going to say words others don’t like. Too bad! Get over it! They are just words, and can do no harm. Remember the antique saying, “sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me?” It’s the same exact principle. If the dialogue in a TV show offends, we can change the channel ourselves. It’s easy--we have remote controls these days--we no longer have to get up and walk across the room to do so. If the website or chat room contains language we don’t like—it’s as easy as a mouse click to escape;  no need to hang around posting rants and raves about it--just leave!

Having rules and regulations and laws to “protect” people from things they can very well do for themselves is both cumbersome and counter-productive. It is a waste of energy, resources and money that could be far better put to use elsewhere.  This so-called "protection" is actually an erosion of our first amendment right to freedom of speech.

To expect the government, or any of its agencies (in the case of TV shows, the FCC is the guilty party), to prevent anyone from hearing already well-known words and phrases is not only dangerous, but the height of laziness. Remember what has been said: “A government big enough to give you everything is big enough to take it away.” Let’s not give up our freedom of speech to those who like to live in a bubble.

To sum up, in the end, any attempt at censorship of ‘bad language,’ ‘bad words,’ vulgarities, or what have you, is a ludicrous exercise in futility.

 I go into a bit more detail on the FCC role in my article on Hub Pages: (click here)

Fixing the Electoral Process

Our electoral process is broken. People are staying away from the polls in record numbers. From being willing and eager participants who once thought they had an actual voice, they have now come to a place of feeling disenfranchised and stripped of that voice. Too often have they seen their vote amount to naught as the government does as it wishes despite the electorate--that populace which put them in office in the first place. Getting into office has become the bastion of the wealthy--ordinary citizens need not apply. For shame!!

Contrary to popular belief, it is not too complex to fix. In fact, it is broken precisely because it has been made far more complex than it needs to be. You have to work hard at it to make things as complicated as they have become. Remember the "K.I.S.S." (Keep It Simple, Stupid!) principle? That is all we need to fix what has become an unwieldy and unworkable system.

First of all, there should be no attempt whatever made at salvaging the process as it now stands. Simply discard the current process and start all over again.

Here's how it would work:

1) All candidates for any elected office whatsoever, from the smallest city or township to the president of the United States itself, shall be placed under oath, and that oath is sworn at the time the papers to file intention to run for office are taken out. This means that politicians must not indulge in fabrications of "what they think the public wants to hear," when those statements may well be 180 degrees from the candidate's actual intentions or opinions. Simply put, if that candidate gains office, and proceeds in an opposite direction from campaign promises, they shall be ejected from office and charged with perjury, the office then being awarded to the runner-up. Such a diversion from promised course is usually easy to spot within a matter of weeks.

2) The problem of bribery and "buying" a candidate is the easiest problem to solve. Instead of worrying about campaign contribution caps, disclosures, and trying to decide if some tangible item was a 'gift' or 'contribution,' and must or must not be disclosed, simply relocate the focus.

If you instead place a cap on campaign spending, then any attempt to raise more money than the spending cap is an obvious violation, and besides would be patently useless.

3)The spending cap will work, because in addition, it will have a concomitant regulation requiring broadcast media in the pertinent markets, or national broadcast corporations, in the case of nationally elected offices) to provide each candidate with a one-minute PSA (Public Service Announcement) free of charge during which they may state their message. This message must air 2 times in each segment of the broadcast day (i.e., early morning, drive time, daytime, prime time, etc.), not more than 3 times per week in a one month period. Hence, no need for fancy fund-raising dinners, etc. Candidates may use their campaign funds to purchase one, and one only, additional message to air a single time at their choice of time slot and timing prior to the election.

Each candidate shall likewise be provided with a 2-time opportunity to make their case in print media in the large daily-circulation newspapers for each major metropolitan area. The print message shall be printed once at the beginning of the month, and once at near the end. However, all candidates' print statements must appear in the same edition on the same day in a grouping. Each statement shall be limited to 5 column inches. Candidates may use their campaign funds to purchase one, and one only, additonal print message ad to appear in their choice of print media and at their choice of timing prior to the election.

The candidates (including campaigns for various propositions) shall also be prohibited from flooding the nation's mailboxes with political advertising. They will be limited to a single mailing each, and if a mailing was their choice, it would count as the additional 'print media' ad which they would be allowed.

4) The entire campaign advertising and electioneering period shall be limited to a period of time not to exceed three months prior to any given national election, and two months prior to any local election. Therefore, because of new regulations (3) and (4) as just outlined, each candidate will want to be certain to make their message count, and concentrate on their own platform, and not waste their resources bad-mouthing the opponents, mud-slinging, and making slanderous or libelous statements about the other candidates. (They would be wisest and best served to not even mention the other candidates at all.)

In other words, the citizens do not give a rat's patoot about a candidate's opinion of his/her opponent; they just want to know where that candidate stands. They can find out about the other candidate in the same way!

5) For presidential elections only, the national broadcast media shall be required to televise a single debate amongst the candidates. All candidates to be included, regardless of status in the polls, political party, or any other criteria currently used to decide which will be "invited" to debate. This broadcast shall be paid out of funds currently being collected through the income tax system under the "check this box to contribute to campaign finance" action.

6) The national primary elections to establish who will be the final candidates in the general election shall be held all at once on the same day, just like the general elections in November. This works in conjunction with the limits on advertising as stated above. No longer will the population become jaded, bored, irritated and ultimately apathetic from listening to endless campaign advertsing lasting 6 months or longer. No longer will candidates need to spend months on the road trying to keep up with the varied elections schedules. Under the new system, candidates must make their message concise, to the point and make it count.

Better yet...scratch that!! Instead, along with #7, below, do away with the primary election altogether! At the end of the campaign period, the election is held, and the outcome is final; (with the exception of any legal challenges which may arise). This further shortens the time the populace must put up with endless political advertising.

7) The last, but certainly not least fix: in fact, it is probably the single most important revision of all. ABOLISH, DISMANTLE, ELIMINATE and forever ban the "electoral college" system. One citizen, one vote, and that is how it is to be counted. Period!! No haggling over 'districts' and 'pledges' to vote for this or that candidate. Simple majority or 2/3 majority...but one-to-one citizen votes only. One citizen, one vote, one count. Done.

Reading..Make that REQUIRED Reading....

At the moment, I am reading a very interesting book. It should be required reading for all citizens who wish to be intelligently informed about the choices they make, and how this country of ours came to be, and how all things political, governmental and corporate really work.

The title is: Secret Societies of America's Elite
From the Knights Templar to Skull and Bones
by Steven Sora

This book will inform you, probably anger and shock you, perhaps send you into fits of dismay and hopelessness, but ultimately, it will empower you. I have been studying about some of the revelations made in this book for some time, so I was less shocked than the rest of the mainstream public may be. Nonetheless, it has served to confirm what I have already learned, and in more depth. The author reinforces his credibility and proves his rigorous research with a prolific appendix of source notes.

Was I shocked in any way? Oh, yes...I was very surprised to see some family names from my own ancestry show up! Even though these names are on a "sideways" branch, such as distant cousins, rather than direct lineage, it was still a bit unnerving.

I do highly recommend this book as well as another along the same lines, but which goes into more depth on one specific secret society. That book is:
The Hiram Key by Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas.

Welcome

Greetings, everyone!

This blog is a collection of random thoughts, idle musings, sudden flashes of brilliance, re-writings of rules as they should be and general societal commentary.

It will have, most likely, a jumble of unrelated topics, observations and comments, the majority of which are the sole opinion of the moderator. I make no apology for that: that is what blogs are about.