Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Food Recycling

Posted: October 18, 2017 in Social Commentary

By R.C. Seely

FOR THE MOST PART, you won’t hear much raving about either recycling or Europe’s policies on food from this website. 

   Parts of Europe have bans on certain foods that make the most ambitious transfat ban in this country seem tame. And as for recycling, unless you’re a large corporate reselling your cardboard, there’s not even enough of an incentive economically to justify the energy and time wasted. 

   But if you put the two together–food programs and recycling–you do get something that does make sense, Food Recycling. In parts of Europe this initiative has been tried and in my opinion, it’s a good program. 

   Basically it works like other recycling programs for non-consumable products. The United States have adopted food recycling programs as well and has competing companies that it, the most well known being Waste Management services.

    Food Recycling has three different ratings that are used to figure the best way to utilize the recycled products; the highest is for human consumption (because the modern human has a more sensitive digestive system), then feed for livestock and lastly if deemed complately inedible and unsafe for consumption it is used as fertilizers. The first, is basically best left to company like Waste Management but if you have your own livestock, pet dog or cat, or for fertilizer you can take care of it yourself. 

    However you look at it, this is one of the few recycling intiatives that can benefit everyone involved. Recycling in general doesn’t really offer much ecologically but it can economically, usually only if you have a large scale operation, though. With Food Recycling, you can save money on both fertilizers or food staples for animals, if done through Waste Management and deemed safe for people it could be an alternative to federal food stamps programs. That would safe us all money. 

    In the state of Utah, these programs would make even more sense, since they have as part of their policy on alcoholic beverages that you have to order food with your drinks. How much food do you think is tossed out at restaurants because of this law? I’d guess quite a bit and if it can be better used, then might as well. 

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

By R.C. Seely

“THE ENTIRE END CITIZENS UNITED team is heartbroken by the senseless loss of life in Las Vegas. To those grieving, please know that we are with you. Even in the face of such tragedy though, we must resolve to identify a new path forward. 

    At ECU, we believe our role in this fight is to call out the undue and devastating influence of the gun lobby in America . We all know the big money in politics corrupts our Democracy and nowhere is more clear than in the rejection of commonsense gun laws that could help our communities be safer.”

    That was a declaration made on October 2nd, 2017, shortly after the Las Vegas shooting by The End Citizens United campaign. This is common sentiment among those in favor of gun control. 

    The Progressive Turnout Project referred to not immediately advancing more strict gun laws as “ignoring the will of the people” and excoriated the Republican Party saying “tragedy after tragedy, the GOP has done nothing absolutely NOTHING but offer ‘thoughts and prayers’ to victims of gun violence.” Joe Biden called out the Republican Party for their “inaction” after the shooting.  

    Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Gary Johnson had this to say:

   “It is an unspeakable act causing unspeakable pain. As we would expect in this great country, the stories of horror and death are accompanied by inspiring stories of Americans doing what Americans do: Strangers saving the lives of strangers. First responders going into harm’s way. Thousands lining up for hours to donate blood, and millions of dollars pouring into funds for victims and their families.

 But sadly and predictably, the partisans on each side have already retreated to their respective trenches. Some laying blame on gun rights activists, and some of my fellow supporters of the 2nd Amendment refusing to even engage in a conversation.”

 

   I agree with that but it’s difficult to have a conversation with those who only offer demogogery. It doesn’t sound like they want to engage in a conversation. The activist group Some Of US, at least has a point, commenting about the recent push to deregulate gun silencers.

“Silencers would prevent a gun from making a loud popping–making it harder for the average person or even law enforcement to know when and from where shots are being fired.”

 

   I will give them credit for at least critical thinking but all the arguments against deregulating silencers are also valid ones in favor.

    If a gun owner at the scene had a silencer on their firearm and choose to act and ended the shooter’s life they would be more encouraged to do so. Say they took a shot and missed or only wounded the shooter, and another shot was necessary to end it. That anonymity would be a comfort in such a situation. The shooter would only want anonymity so they could get away and cause more chaos, and there has not been a recorded account of a shooter using one. A shooter wants chaos and a loud gunshot would provide that, these are not snipers remember, and many don’t care about hiding.

    The shooter having a silencer wouldn’t be as much of an asset as postulated anyways, the sounds of gun shots are not the best method for determining the location of the shooter. The visual clues, such as the blast from the muzzle or the trail from the bullet, are far more accurate. At best, it’s a pointless law but more than likely it’s causing more harm. 

    Many have been trying to determine the rationale for the violence. Was it because he lost big at the gaming tables? Was he slighted by a member of the hotel staff?

    The Las Vegas shooter scouted locations in Boston and Chicago as well, demonstrating a clear determination to kill multiple people and it didn’t really matter where. This was about ending as many lives as possible and making a name for himself, making him a clinical psychopath and making motivation a moot issue. Notority was all the motivation he needed. He also was planning more than the single incident–including a bombing similiar to the Oklahoma City bombing–but wasn’t counting on the efficiency of Las Vegas Law Enforcement. 

    Many criticize the media in all this, to a degree they are correct. If the media didn’t over-cover these tragedies it wouldn’t entice these glory-seekers of violence to commit such atrocities. On the other hand, such coverage probably saves lives too. Visitors and residents of Las Vegas knew to stay away from the area and they called loved ones in the city to make sure they were all right. Maybe limiting coverage wouldn’t be such a bad thought.

    Tougher gun laws are the answer and can make things worse and the control freaks in Washington know this, they have the CDC study on gun violence which was later replicated by Harvard University, and both had the same results. The largest source of deaths by guns are suicides, then the criminals and last the victims. 

    They are also ignoring the FBI statistics on violent crime, violence is at an all time low–even with the spikes during the Obama administration and this first year of the Trump administration. So what is going on here? 

    If legislators have access to all this data, why proceed do a pathway of obsolete laws? Because they are control freaks and they want you dependent on government services. But consider that a lot can happen between the time you call 911 for law enforcement or the ambulance. If you have the chance to end a violent shooting, you should do so rather than running like a scared rabbit. Otherwise this predator will treat you like a scared rabbit! If you can assist someone else after an accident, you should, or their death is on you. What’s more you have the right to buy a gun and you shouldn’t have to ask permission.

    We have to stop those with mental illness from getting guns though, is the most common response. Fine, I’ll discuss that, to start off we need to make sure that this is established as a case by case basis and strictly defined. According to many gun control advocates, even the desire for a gun is a mental illness. Sounds like they are unbiased and able to set realistic and fair laws in this issue. Mental illness is the problem but more strict laws on that demographic won’t do anything either, psychopaths and sociopaths generally are the most difficult to diagnose, they are exceptionally intelligent and easily manipulate others. Many doctors don’t even know they are being conned by them unless specifically trained to deal with them. Yet again, the laws would harm those who are innocent.

    Gun control has been tried many times in the United States, in different scales. The earliest attempts were simply cities, many in the mining and cattle towns during the heavy romantizing “Wild West” era. As the name implies, it wasn’t very successful and the criminals ignored the laws. Same as they do today. 

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

The First Female Candidate

Posted: October 4, 2017 in Social Commentary

By R.C. Seely

AFTER HAVING THE FIRST BLACK president in the United States, the identity politics Progressives wanted to break the next milestone–the first female president. They threw everything behind Hillary Clinton, in an effort to demonstrate to the world that America is all about change. 

    The campaign made it sound like Clinton was the only option for this, dispite the GOP offering Carly Fiorina and Michelle Bachman. Or green candidate Jill Stein, who would have also satisfied another first being the first third-party president. This is by no means an endorsement of any of these former candidates and I didn’t support any of them because of their stances on the issues.

    Even before 2016 there were female presidential candidates but they were all third-party candidates. The first was Victoria Woodhull, running under the Equal Rights Party in 1872. The first to receive an electorial vote was Libertarian Party Vice Presidential candidate Toni Nathan in 1972. The first to be on the ballot was Lenora Fulani in 1988, under the New Alliance Party. She would have been not only the first third party female president but the first black president, where were the progressives then? Cynthia McKinney was the first female candidate from the Green Party, beating Stein in that honor.

    That was third-party and many don’t care about them anyways, Clinton was the first duolopy candidate right? No, to that as well. The first there was encouraged by Dwight Eisenhower in 1960, but Oveta Hobby declined to run. In 1964, the Republican Party nominated Magaret Chase Smith. Smith qualified in six state primaries and got 25% of the vote. Not bad for the “victim” candidate.

    The Democratic Party doesn’t really care about advancing women in any way. It’s about maintaining control in the political climate. It’s agenda is to keep the country in a coin toss decision of which party rules, heads or tails, and nothing else. Yes, they support their women Senators and toute that up, but would turn on the in an instant if they didn’t stick strictly to party lines. Gender, race, sexual preference, still comes second to that no matter what they claim. 

    Minorities got the “right to vote” before women, since Obama beat out Clinton, apparently race still beats out gender.

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.

By R.C. Seely

“HUGH HEFNER WAS A CREEPY old pornographer. So why is the left celebrating him,” that was an article from conservative Ben Shapiro, shortly after Hefner’s passing. A little bit of an exaggeration there, Ben. The Washington Post‘s article covered the “darkside of Playboy” and the Time magazine headline “No, Hefner didn’t love women” doesn’t sound like the adoration they had of President Obama. Even Hitler was treated more amiably by Time getting the status of “Man of the Year.”

   Going through the articles about Hefner’s passing it was more of an accurate account of his life… or hit pieces. Not exactly the collective demonstration of support for the deceased life’s work. I find amusing and noteworthy is this bizzaro world level shift of perspective, by both sides. 

    Shapiro is generally a defender of Capitalism and at odds with radical feminists, but here he is on the same side. That’s curious. Oh, that’s right, it’s that whole personality morality versus Freedom of Speech thing again. As long as Shapiro sticks to moral preening I really don’t care, it’s if he calls for action that concerns me. If you look at porn, it makes no difference to me; if you find it degrading to women and disgusting, that’s fine with me too. It’s when the line gets crossed and another prohibition is suggested that I care–because such things are so effective anyway. 

    And they are, when it comes to increasing government control but sooner or later the censorship bleeds over to an area of expression that will affect you. That’s how it works, for a moralist conservative a prohibition on porn is the “crisis that can’t go to waste.” Did you find a seat next to Gloria Stenim? Maybe the two of you can have a nice little chat about your children or how all men are evil and deserved to be forcibly castrated. Expect her husband or the chosen “breeders.”

    I’m all for working with allies who you differ with on other issues but Shapiro and other moralist are on the wrong side of this issue, if not why would he have written an article with such hyperbole in the title alone. 

    At best, they considered him a Titan of Industry in his field, a statement that one would expect from Shapiro about anyone else… as long as they don’t violate his morals. The “leftists” for once are giving the businessman credit and the “consersative” is berating him. Stand back for a minute and think about that, it’s funny. 

    This is not a recent fight either, the struggles between the theocratic officials and expressives artists, was raging in Europe during the Age of Enlightenment and earlier. The leaders of early Christanity wanted to add blackbars to the greatest works of art because back then it was viewed as scandalous, not much has changed but this is America not Europe. We have the right express ourselves, all of us. The artists, the theocrats and the social critics–such as myself. 

    Anyone who tries to censor either side in this is in the wrong, I don’t know if Ben Shapiro would support such efforts. I would like to believe he wouldn’t but moralists rarely support freedom for those they disagree with. He supports restrictions on abortion (not just the ones on partial birth and ending federal funding, as I do), he supports the war on drugs, he supports licensing for marriage, and I’d imagine would support restrictions on sex and violence in media. Hey, Hillary Clinton supports that kind censorship, Sharipo can have a long talk with her after he’s done with Stenim. Just stay on topic or you’ll get the cold shoulder like John Stossel.

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

By R.C. Seely

DONALD TRUMP SENT OUT A DIGITAL warning to any holdout Republican Senator that if they voted against the Graham-Cassidy healthcare reform bill, they could be branded as “the senator who saved ObamaCare.” He also singled out my first choice for President in the 2016 campaign Rand Paul in the tweet. 

    At times, I have to give credit to those who act in a manner that I approve and this is one of those few exceptions that Senator McCain may have done the right thing.

    I’m no fan of McCain and ObamaCare should be repealed–but not replaced–and McCain voted no. He voted against bipartisanship, for once, and not with Senator Lindsey Graham but with Senator Rand Paul. Graham even cosponsored the bill and McCain still couldn’t vote for it. His rationale was kind difficult to follow, claiming it’s not enough of a compromise, but kudos for doing the right thing for once. And going against both his friend Senator and his party, a point that Trump hammered him on Twitter. He “voted his conscience” as he replied to the president’s Twitter guilty trips.

    Two other Republican Senators join Paul and McCain on Trump’s naughty list, Senator Susan Collins of Maine and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska have also said they would vote no.

    Tom Price, Health and Human Services Secretary, told Fox News that this isn’t over yet and a deal could still be reached before the September 30th deadline. If this plan doesn’t get passed, repeal is not dead anyways, another option by Senators Lamar Alexander if Tennessee and Patty Murray of Washington and is also bipartisan.

    Senator Paul has always stood behind a “repeal only” stance, Senators Collins and Murkowski are probably holding out because it would defund Planned Parenthood (when did the GOP allow radical feminists in?) and Senator McCain wants everyone to get along. In a statement McCain said he “believe[s] we could better working together, Republicans and Democrats, and have not really tried.” 

    Senator Paul seems to be the only one who recognizes the consumer is the one that should making these decisions. The Graham-Cassidy plan would at least put the funding fully in the hands of the state’s but is that enough? Not really, if the government wasn’t subsidizing Healthcare to begin with, the prices of medical care wouldn’t have spiked to begin with. 

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

By R.C. Seely

AMERICA IS THE LAND OF OPPORTUNITY, if you aren’t afraid to get to your hands dirty and work for it. That’s not good enough for some people. Not only do they disagree with the idea of “equal opportunity” being fair, they believe we need “equal results” and in the world of safe spaces and free speech zones, they can end up suppressing the discussion. 

    In come the opportunists–proponents of the progressive agenda–to aid them by further reinforcing their feelings of social inadequacy and impotence. You are the victim and due. Theres even a social buzzword for it: Microaggressions. Besides the clear violation of freedom of speech, as an entrepreneur, I find this repulsive and insulting. 

    Here’s why: I went to trade school, while working during that year. It also included about 600 clinical hours and having to take both a national and state exam, which required going out of state to take. That was only the beginning–after that the work of building a clinetell list and my career began. It wasn’t easy and it didn’t go as planned. Because of the local market, I abandoned the job after putting my all into it. 

    Since then, I have picked myself up and tried this writing thing. It’s unclear if it will pay off or not, but at least I’m trying it. I’m making sacrifices and paying my dues, because that’s the responsible thing to do. But it’s what I enjoy doing and has prospects. There’s no safety net however, so if it fails, it means getting up again and trying something else. That’s what an entrepreneur does, but when working for others it could still be necessary to pay your dues.

    There are days that you get discouraged and consider throwing in the towel and sticking with that day job. It offers a degree of security but also the risk of being terminated. The risks if occupational self-sufficiency is worth it for those who possess the grit to see it through to the end. The euphoria felt after each accomplishment does outweigh the feeling of defeat from the failings. And each time you falter you will learn from it. 

    This acquiescence to the wave of Microaggressions is hurting this country, not only is encumbering speech but in discouraging others from even trying. Why go through the heartache of entrepreneurship, when you can have the same thing guarenteed without the effort? Because the effort is what truly matters. It’s what makes the results worth it. 

    The land of opportunity is still alive in the USA, dispite the Microaggressions. It’s made the road a little rockier and unfortunately disenfranchises others who will now be less inclined to start a business. Thing is that they are needed as much–if not more, thanks to the information age economy. The traditional businesses have proven to not be “too big to fail” and have been shrinking instead of growing.

    The economic impact from Microaggressions has been covered, now on to the censorship. The era of Microaggressions have made sure to make everyone dependent on government, while silencing it’s opponents. Even saying the phrase “Land of Opportunity” is considered hurtful and a Microaggression. And since what’s deemed offensive is subjective, it’s difficult to have an open discussion on any subject. Many people are sensitive to social pressure, and being called out as culturally insensitive or politically incorrect is all it takes for them to concede, it’s an effective plan of attack. 

    It’s a problem that is rampant in the two-party system, Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly are as bad–or worse–than any of their “tolerant” progressive counterparts. 

    Progressive groups called to have Last Man Standing pulled and the Media Research Center petitioned to have Dan Savage’s sitcom The Real ONeals canceled. Both were in the wrong. A petition from progressive groups was sent to MSNBC to have their the conservatives from Fox News fired, while the push for Net Neutrality, which would force them to hire progressive commentators. 

    Microaggressions are having a determental effect on our nation–both in the area of free speech and economics. It’s not worth trading freedom for security, because whether it’s in a battlefield across the ocean or in a classroom across the road or a political discussion across the room, security is at best fleeting and can be used against us when the individual relinquishes control. Security can be achieved with Freedom but Freedom is generally suppressed with security.

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

By R.C. Seely

CHINA HAS DECIDED TO IMPLEMENT A new prohibition in it’s “efforts to combat climate change” to phase out gas and diesel engine automobiles. While still in the planning stages, the projected timeline to no longer manufacture the vehicles is 2040. India, the UK and France have also signed on to similar policy changes. 

Then there was the Hand-in-Hand hurricane relief fund raiser. This is a good thing, using a free market approach to help others, but they had to ruin it with their environmentalist lectures. Stevie Wonder called climate change skeptics “blind” or “unintelligent.” Insult them and lecture them on how brilliant you are because you follow the crowd, and you’re surprised they don’t respond in a positive manner. Go figure. 

This is why I can’t support the Green agenda, the activist policy-makers see a problem and come up with a solution that will only make it worse. Not only is the ban on gas vehicles not going to solve the problem but the increased manufacturing of electric cars will make it worse. The manufacturing of an electric car creates more emissions than the gas vehicle would in it’s lifetime. And while the fundraiser did get $44 million how much could it have raised if they had kept it about the hurricane survivors and not the Green agenda? A GoFundMe effort got $6 billion and many other charities also totalled in the millions, all without the lectures.

So what is the proper course? Go to the free market; eliminate all energy subsidies and lift the restrictions on alternative fuels. Let the energy sector figure out the most efficient model of fuel production. Getting rid of gasoline cars is not the answer, a viable alternative fuel market is.

Lastly, stop with the attacks on those of us asking questions. With the money and power to be gained from supporting Climate Cronyism, it’s not irresponsible to doubt the “good intentions” of those asking us to sacrifice, especially when they appear to not be willing to do so. Pope Francis recently said that “man is stupid” in reference to those asking questions. Spoken like a true theocratic Authoritarian. Quit talking down to those you disagree with and try listening to them for once. Since a few of the policies of the green movement make sense from an economic standard, they might be surprised.

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.