Our media don’t report crimes,
our media commit crimes,
and “report” whatever the sponsors want advertised.
Knatz.com had media comments galore, the menus imperfectly categorized, incomplete. I’ll gather stuff here, and try to streamline the organization.
2017 04 11 For years I boycotted YouTube, refused to see one minute of it, in protest of how the fact, the concept plagiarize the facts and concepts of my FLEX. I should be paid royalties, back royalties and punitive damages, then paid additionally to watch it: paying in turn if there’s a balance. That rebellion ended a couple of months ago: now I watch YouTube regularly, love it, wish people would see how it displays so many of the benefits FLEX offered the world. Now additional watching has commended to annoy me. Here’s an example:
The site is brilliant at using past visits to predict current interests: if he asked for Bogart last time, let’s offer him more Bogart this time, and some Cagney. I asked for Robert Mitchum, somehow it spread to watching Bruce Lee, Bruce Lee lead to Steven Seagal: and now, God help us, YouTube fills my monitor with offers of Caine / Grasshopper / Kung Fu. I think I’ll puke.
Caine wanders the West: a Sir Gawain. He examples moral lessons to Don Johnson, to Jodie Foster, then he kicks the shit out of some meaning.
Do you see what so offensive? Bruce Lee offered TV a kung fu series. Bruce Lee could himself honestly conceive the story, fight the fighting, honor his ancient culture. What did Hollywood do: steal it: cast a Carradine as Bruce Lee, keep the chinks out of it. Gag, puke.
But if it wasn’t plagiarized, how could it be TV? how Hollywood?
Robots My Fault
2016 09 15 The phone rings. It’s not Jan, she called late last night. Ooo, I hope it’s Carole, offering to taxi me to the dance tomorrow. No, it’s the friendly-sounding recording: “Hello. This is the call back that you requested: from an ad that you saw on TV.”
I requested? I saw on TV?
How many lies are in those few words? First, it’s not a call back. I didn’t call them. I didn’t call anybody. And I didn’t request this call back, don’t pretend that it’s my fault, that I asked for it.
And I didn’t see any ad on TV. I can prove it: I didn’t watch any TV, I don’t have a TV! I follow news day and night, but on the web; not on TV. Even my sports, my tennis, I follow via IBM’s slamtracker: just test, like teletype used to be: I don’t see the point, I imagine the action: ’cause I know the players, very well.
How much would I have to pay how many lawyers to sue them for wasting my time with lies? How much do they pay the judge who won’t listen to me even when my turn finally comes in court? No, Judge Rittenauer: I’m not talking about you: you’re merely the most recent in a long line of judges who don’t listen: and who wouldn’t understand if you did. You’re on the bench because your hand is out, but you’ll hold it out for a long time before you get anything from me: except bvy the extremest of coercions.
And your pro bono assistant doesn’t listen either. There’s a diofference though: the recording phoning me isn’t a robot but it isn’t a human being either: it’s a recorded ready to switch to a robot depending on what I do next.
My representatives in this democracy don’t listen either, but at least they do pretend to have a human who theoretically might understand English hidden somewhere amid the randomly dialing, randomly lying programs.
Grand TV Parent
2015 12 10 The tele-surveyor just asked me if I thought I should have a say in what my grandchildren watch on TV. That’s like asking John Milton if he supported regal censorship. But she doesn’t know that she go her job in a world that had already successfully thwarted all my attempts to deliver gods’ messages about freedom amid the chains of civilization. She wouldn’t know I founded the Free Learning Exchange IN 1970: wouldn’t know that that was the broadest deepest offer of independence from coercion the world had ever seen. She and her bosses didn’t understand the offer in 1970 (or they would have accepted it), don’t understand it today.
What could I have communicated with this woman, had I been able to understand her: she spoke at the blitz of telegibberish. I totld her I didn’t have my hearing aid in, had hopped the call was from my girl friend, I didn’t understand 10% of what she said: she wanted me to confuse censorship with freedom …
Wait, can I phrase this succinctly?
First, know: I don’t have a TV: that is, my TV isn’t plugged into anything. when my grandson is here, like his father before him, he’s welcome to read anything in the house: Chaucer, Shakespeare, Darwin. Were the TV connected he would be welcome to watch anything there. And it’s my grandson who would be explaining today’s TV to me, not me to him.
None of the universities I was ever affiliated with asked me to decide what books in the library should be available to library users: the easy answer is “any of them”. What about the porn? What about the porn?
What parts of the Bible should kids be allowed to read? How about the good parts? How about the true parts?
Are there any true parts? good parts?
what a mess
If I’m one of history’s leaders in being against censorship, what do you expect me to want to censor?
My seventy-seven years have been largely devoted to scholarship; but what made this caller think I thought myself competent to rate TV material? I don’t presume to understand any of it. And I don’t want to watch any of it, I don’t want to test my theories about it: the truth or falsehood of my theories about TV content are a matter of complete indifference to me. Get out of kids’ way, don’t supervise them, especially where you’re entirely ignorant.
As a teacher I know that little is communicated from God to Moses, from Moses to Jews, from Jews to Christians … Just leave us alone, God will know what to do with us at Judgment. Actually I think Judgment is over, accomplished: we poisoned ourself, we stupided ourself: now, take the consequences, enjoy.