Archive for May, 2017

Memorial Day

Posted: May 29, 2017 in Social Commentary
Tags: , , , , , , ,
0

By R.C. Seely

WHY DO WE CELEBRATE MEMORIAL DAY? IS it more than simply a Monday holiday? Yes, actually and it’s a tradition that goes a long ways back. 

    Despite being an American holiday the traditions go further back–before America–or even before Christianity. One of the earliest known accounts of honoring the fallen soldier was in 431 B.C., when the Athenian General Pericles delivered a speech that marked the dead of the Pellonesian War. The ancient Greeks and Romans performed similiar observations for their fallen warriors; with festivals, feasts and adorning the markers. 

    Even in the US, those who died in battle were honored with unofficial days of rememberance. The first organizers were the recently freed slaves. The particapants sang hymns, distributed flowers on the graves, and performed readings, dedicated to the “Martyrs of the Race Course.”

    The founder of the holiday–originally called “Deorations Day”–was the commander-in-cheif of the Union, John A. Logan, who issued a decree on May 30, 1868 that a nationwide day of rememberance should be observed for the 620,000 dead of the Civil War. On this “Decoration Day” flowers were to be placed on the graves of the war dead, same as today. 

    It’s speculated that Logan got the idea from the women’s groups who were already adorning the stones of Confederate soldiers. Even with all this, it was not marked as an official holiday until 1971 and at this time period it was somewhat controversial of a move because of the antimosity of the Vietnam War.

    No matter how you may feel about the cause, or the politicians promises that they will stay out of a war or the lie of it being “the war to end war”, it’s important to show respect for those offer the greatest sacrifice–their very lives. They put themselves in harm’s way because they view it as what is right. They do it for honor and they do it for freedom. The war or police action, might not be right, but the solider is as long as he conducts himself to protect others and deserves our respect. If you want to learn more check out, history.com “8 Things You May Not Know About Memorial Day”.

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. He has also written books about pop culture, his most recent, Victims of Wnite Male: How Victim Culture Victimizes Society is available at Amazon.

Net Neutered Strikes Back

Posted: May 25, 2017 in Social Commentary
Tags: , , , , , ,
0

By R.C. Seely

THE SPRING, WHEN FLOWERS ARE IN BLOOM the animal kingdom is searching for their mates and with the human race our thoughts turn to–internet censorship? Yes, it’s that time again, the debate on Net Neutrality has surfaced once more and with a vengence. In an email from Demand Progress.org, “Comcast and Verizon may have won this battle, but they have not won the war.” Fight for the Future (FFTF) echoes the sentiment in their email, that in this struggle for the internet “the FCC just fired the opening shot…” And the FFTF will do “whatever it takes” to win.

Same hyperbole as last time; that the law is the only thing keeping the internet free and open, and Comcast and Verizon are nothing more than disgusting and greedy. That the “fast lanes” are tantamount to suppression of free speech, problem is it’s not true and it’s not necessarily the internet service provider that wanted the fast lanes, it was those they serve. God forbid, they offer paying customers a greater service, than those utilizing the free options. This website isn’t free, I pay a yearly subscription fee to have it listed, it’s a business expense and when the number of followers expands it will have been justified. If that doesn’t happen, then at least I can say I tried and had the autonomy that came from having an internet provided by the free market, which offers choices.

Truth is internet is free and equal, no one forces you to use their service and most offer free options, if you’re not satisfied check out the competition. That’s another way the internet is free and ahead of any public utility version the net neutered supporters desire. The patrons decide what they want to see under the current system and that’s why we should keep it this way. If “equal time” has to be dedicated to ideas the internet consumer doesn’t like, the internet could end up suffering technological stagnation, just as the telephone did under the Fairness Doctrine. This is hardly progressive. Americans​ for Prosperity sent an email out as well, briefly touching on that. This is a part of their email:

“Back in 2015 the Obama administration decided to subject the internet to an archaic regulatory scheme designed in the 1930’s to regulate telephone monopolies … and the results have been predictably bad. Investment in internet infrastructure declined for the first year ever, which means less innovation and less value for consumers.”

I think Open Media.org forgot about that in their online declaration that Net Neutrality is “the founding internet principle that keeps the web open, and ensures all content is treated equally” and abandoning it would make it so ISPs “will be able to engage in discriminatory practices” with regards to internet content. Maybe they were out sick the day in history class that the telephone monopolies were covered, when they also claimed that in order to “protect Net Neutrality … Title II–the part of the Communications​ Act of 1934 that safeguard Net Neutrality,” are necessary.

“The reason we can stop this plan is because gutting net neutrality is massively unpopular. So many people have made online comments against this plan that the FCC’s website crashed,” Demand Progress also asserts in their email. Just because they followed the Progressive crowd doesn’t mean they actually know what they are getting. One thing does confuse me, however, the FFTF claims they have “mobilized dozens of groups and millions of people to stand up for net neutrality,” yet there were only “… 1.2 million comments … [that] the FCC received demanding that the net neutrality rule stay in place.” All this is extremely reactionary and is really nothing more than a pause so the FCC’s head Ajit Pai can get input from the public. If you like Net Neutrality, then by all means comment, if you don’t–and feel like I do–follow this lead and comment.

According to Eric Boehm, of Reason.com, all this is overblown at this point and “it’s not the end of the debate over net neutrality, and it’s not the end of federal regulations for the internet. Instead, this is a first step towards eliminating a nonsensical legal justification for giving the FCC the authority to regulate internet service providers in the first place.” This coup is another attempt to demonstrate the supposed inequality in capitalism demonstrated by CREDO Action.com: “FCC Chairman Ajit Pai just announced his plan for the FCC to give up it’s role in protecting internet users–instead asking companies to voluntarily police themselves.” Ah yes, we can’t possibly function as a society without big brother making sure we all get along. Get ready for “free speech zones” and “safe spaces” on the web.

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. His recent book, Victims of White Male: How Victim Culture Victimizes Society, is available on Amazon.

Obama’s French Connection

Posted: May 15, 2017 in Uncategorized
1

By R.C. Seely

ONLY RECENTLY LEAVING OFFICE AND BARACK OBAMA is again in the news, this time because of his influencing the French presidential election. While his presence as president started waining his influence here in the states and Democratic elections were actually hurt in some areas by his campaigning for the candidate, apparently in France they still love him, even petitioning to alter their Constitution to allow him to run in their elections. A feat no other foreigner has been offered. For now, however, the French people will have to settle for the Obama pick Macron. 

    According to the Hill, Obama’s glowing endorsement for Macron went something like this:

“I know that you face many challenges, and I want all of my friends in France to know how much I am rooting for your success…. Because of how important this election is, I also want you to know I am supporting Emmanuel Macron to lead you forward. En March! Vive la France!”

    It’s interesting to see how progressives compartmentalize their desires, the call for Hillary Clinton was to have “elected the first woman president,” at times saying it doesn’t matter who it is. Obama himself, for some voters at least, won because of the “making history by electing the first black president.” But when he has the chance to endorse a woman president for France, he passes, now it looks to matter. Is Obama putting his political beliefs above the progressive identity politics goal, and do these contradict each? Hard to say. At times you’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t, and this could be one of those times for the former president. Is putting the progressive identity politics to the side of the road and embracing a steward of complete progressivism, make him more devoted to their greatest goal or is this a misstep? Is this to be commended or not, he appears to be taking the high road, but why?

    Zack Beauchamp–of Vox.com–had this to say on the matter: 

“The endorsement is highly, highly unusual … but it makes a lot of sense.

…Indeed, Obama is popular in France–84 percent of French voters said they had confidence in him … in a 2016 Pew poll.

This kind of intervention by a US president in a foreign election would be almost inconceivable if it weren’t for Le Pen (Macron’s immediate challenger), who is explicitly opposed to everything that Western leaders like Obama traditionally claim to stand for–integration, tolerance, and international law.”

    Le Pen was running on abandoning the EU and her National Front movement was allegedly funded by Russia, two claims that only further energized her critics, fueling more comparisons of Le Pen being a “female Donald Trump.”

    What makes Macron so special to Obama? Well “he has stood up for liberal values” and “put forward a vision for the important role that France plays in Europe and around the world,” Obama added. 

    At first glance, Macron seems an odd choice for Obama–considering Macron’s pro-business legislation during his earlier political role, as Minister of Economy, industry, and Digital Affairs–but dig a little deeper it makes more sense. The former investment banker and civil servant, was a member of the socialist party from 2006-2009. He has been labeled a centrist, a liberal, and a populist, depending on who you talk to. Macron himself seems fine with such claims and says he is “neither right nor left” and instead advocates for “a collective solidarity.” He presents himself as a “liberal … if by liberalism one means trust in man.” At least that’s the case in his book Revolution. When entering the campaign under his progressive party En March!–meaning In Motion–during his speech he called for a “Democratic Revolution” and pledged to “unblock France.” I didn’t even know France had been “blocked” it certainly wasn’t by Obama.

    Another point to consider: How in touch with the American public is Barack Obama? In order to have a successful endorsement he had to do so in a foreign election. When he campaigned for US politicians a lot of them lost–he ended up being the “touch of death” for his party instead of the golden touch. Honesty if France wants him so badly, they can have him and please don’t send a postcard.

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae and ALTV. He has also written books about pop culture, the most recent Victims of White Male: How Victim Culture Victimizes Society is available on Amazon.

Property of the Party

Posted: May 3, 2017 in Political, Social Commentary
Tags: , , , , , , ,
0

By R.C. Seely

IF YOU SEARCH THROUGH LIBERTARIAN GROUP PAGES on social media sites one of the most common openings from trolls would have to be the question: “What is the libertarian stance on…” You don’t often see this on duopoly pages and it’s not only odd but demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the party by the online passerby, or is drive by a more accurate description? Usually those who post such comments are not looking for a discussion, but to cause trouble, libertarians do this all the time as well, so I’m not condemning the behavior simply find the common socially accepted opening extremely amusing. It’s at a level that would be even less than sophomoric. Which also appears to match their understanding of the movement they so eagerly mock.

A far more effective phrasing would go along the lines of: “From your understanding of libertarian principles​, what is the party’s stance on…” or even better “What is your stance on…” Not only is it more respectful but demonstrates an understanding of those being addressed and the desire for an actual exchange of ideas.

The manner in which you conduct yourself both online and in person is entirely up to you, but if you want to have an actual discussion, statements such as “that’s a typical response” will get a typical–and well deserved–response of hostility. A piece of advice is simply don’t do it. If it would offend you, why do you think it wouldn’t offend others? And yet, they are surprised by the lack of engagement from the other person–go figure!

Critics of online social commentary claim that the anonymity makes them more brazen and hostile–and what’s your point? Of course it makes us more daring, it also spreads ideas and views that are contrary, and protects us from unreasonable consequences of rogue government agency enforcers. Just because we have the freedom of speech, doesn’t mean that those in power–who in general are not exactly advocates of constructive criticism–won’t enact laws to censor that said right. The law of Civil Disobedience for one, think it’s a coincidence it is open for interpretation? Or the Seditions Acts that have been introduced, and reintroduced, and reintroduced. Or how about the future laws from the current administration and social media compliance to curtail “fake news.”

What those who make their drive-by remarks don’t seem to grasp is they are not wrecking havoc on the libertarian party, in fact they are probably helping. Yes, there will be many who react to the intruder, but others will actually answer and engage, even when it’s clear the one who posted has fled. The libertarian prespective is less one of a collective view and more principles with an open dialogue to get back on the road of limited government. Some see that as keeping the death penalty, others abolishing it; some are pro-life, others pro-choice; some want a strong social safety net, others want it completely dismantled. Some are hard core environmentalists and feminists. Some voted Gary Johnson, others Hillary Clinton, and others Donald Trump and they are not any less libertarian for it.

The libertarian Party is not one that believes in ownership of the individual in any fashion, that’s why the common views are the draft is tantamount to slavery, why “taxation is theft”, and the wall is more of a tool to restrict movement than protection for the citizenry. That also means that the party doesn’t own the libertarian and the question “what is the libertarian stance on…” is a logical fallacy, it can’t really be answered, because that makes the implication the party owns you and you have to fall in line with their political dogma. So what is the libertarian stance on that? I don’t know but this is my stance.

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. He has also written books on pop culture, the most recent Victims of White Male: How Victim Culture Victimizes Society is available at Amazon.