Robocall Restrictions

Posted: May 2, 2018 in Uncategorized

By R.C. Seely

SOCIETY HAS GOTTEN SO used to having big government ridding them of all life’s problems that now activists need to invent causes. An addition was brought to my attention via an email petition.

From the Change.org petition:

“Let’s stop the minute-to-minute annoyance of unsolicited calls constantly coming through to our mobile phones.
Calls when we are in a meeting, calls when we are with our children, calls when we are having dinner, calls when we are going to bed – when does it end?
Ten a day, then 15, then 20 – it just doesn’t stop.
We need the FCC to make the necessary regulatory changes on their end and then to start this mandate of the phone carriers.
Many of the hundreds of millions of calls are originating overseas. Companies and scammers are using computer technology to dial literally millions of numbers a day. With the push of a button millions of calls go out through the network at one time.
Furthermore, they are using ‘spoofing’ technology to have those calls come through to our phones as a local call by showing a local area code to try and fool people into picking up.
It is time for the FCC to require phone carriers to develop and implement technology that can detect when a flood of calls are coming through the networks and prevent those calls from ever making it to your mobile phone.

Seriously… The FCC isn’t involved enough in our lives with Net Neutrality, it’s deemed necessary to “protect” us from annoying phone calls as well as different views.

This is especially absurd since there’s already a system in place for this. A little thing called “the no-call list.” But let’s get real what this is all about, it’s one more progressive anti-capitalist stunt. A false bravado to attempt to demonize capitalism. Of all such demonstrations, this could be the most pathetic.

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. He has written books on pop culture and has an upcoming new release–Confused Yet?: Understanding the Utterly Incomprehensible

Return to Laissez Faire

Posted: April 24, 2018 in Uncategorized

By R.C. Seely

THE NOTION THAT A LAISSEZ FAIRE SYSTEM wouldn’t work since previous attempts didn’t work is common consensus among capitalism critics. To be fair, the earliest attempts didn’t go as well as hoped and they do have a point, at least to a certain degree. In the US the two attempts were during the Industrial Revolution and the other in the “roaring” twenties.

The Industrial Revolution had its benevolence that is rarely acknowledged–such as Rockefeller’s saving the whales be eliminating the US dependency on whale oil to light our homes–and instead the history books look to be have been written by the labor unions who despise the industrialists because of their anti-union stances.

The struggle at the Homestead, Andrew Carnegie’s steel manufacturing plant, is considered one such opportunity to give one of the Industrialists a figurative black eye. it was labor anarchists that were in fact the ones wreaking havoc in the steel mill. Carnegie’s partner Henry Clay Frick, did play a large role in it, that’s true, but ultimately it was still labor that was responsible and drew first blood (literally) with the assassination attempt on Frick’s life. Another was when in 1884, the miners of New Straitsville, Ohio, started an underground fire–a blaze that was still burning in the 1930’s and didn’t calm until shortly before World War II. Noted by journalist Ernie Pyle, “you wouldn’t believe that hell is only a few feet underneath [the grounds of Ohio].” The estimated damage from the fires was around $50 million.

The other era of laissez faire was during prohibition. Yes, you read that right. Prohibition gave birth to one of the only eras of a “hands-off” economy is US history. It was the direct result of prohibition, in fact, the rise of the mafia. Even though they were publicly hounded by law enforcement, in reality organized crime was mostly left alone, at least prior to the St. Valentine’s Day massacre.

Point is, laissez faire in the US has only been a reactionary side effect to intrusive government and labor actions. What if it were tried because of because of government inactions?

Government advocates claim that a hands-off economy would lead to bedlam and that capitalists are too inhumane to give them such autonomy. Shabby treatment of their employees are expectations, since it did happen previously, but things have changed. During the previous eras of laissez faire, sentiments about human life were far different and inferiorities against minorities and migrants was common. Now it’s not. Now we have a strong ethics in business and society at large and see value in human life.

This is to say that such attitudes are entirely gone but are have eroded. Signs of this new valuation of human life is demonstrated after a shooting. Whether the actions are right or wrong, the impulse is clearly showing that human life is considered precious by many, even if that’s not the greater goal. The protests against what Hillary Clinton called “the new normal” shows that America still has its best days ahead, although applying logic to these outbursts wouldn’t hurt. Add logic to the respect for human life and we could just end up with that almost perfect society that the world eagerly covets.

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. He has written books on pop culture and has an upcoming new release–Confused Yet?: Understanding the Utterly Incomprehensible.

 

By R.C. Seely

JUST WHEN THE GUN control insanity looks like it can’t get any worse, the well goes deeper.

A thirteen-year-old, Ethan Sonneborn, is running for governor in the state of Vermont. And his entire platform seems to be getting rid of guns. Referring to the Florida shooting as “a good opportunity to make change.” During the same CNN interview, he also expressed a feeling of a lack a “national dialogue about how we move forward” regarding guns. And that while he respects the prominent hunting culture in his state, “if it’s … between letting my friends have a good time at the firing range and them possibly being involved in a school shooting, I’m choosing legislation to protect them from the school shooting.”

Of course, the Democrat Party isn’t going to let this “opportunity” go to waste and state’s executive director of the party, Conor Casey, eagerly aggrandizes Sonneborn. Saying he “really did embrace the gun issue early on” and he’s “representing the younger people” and “a good voice for them”

Obviously, his candidacy has complications, like high school and no driver’s license. “He’s dependent on other people for rides to statewide events he speaks at,” Casey tells CNN. Thanks to the idiocy of Vermont’s not having any age requirements, the state could be saddled with a prepubescent politician.

Even Casey had his doubts at first of Sonneborn, thinking this was a part from “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory” but he claims, “that’s not the case.” More than likely it’s simply because he has the same maturity level as the child governor.

Children feeling strongly about issues and encouraging them to express themselves is good, it makes them confident in expressing themselves as an adult, but they also need to get used to backing up arguments with facts. Otherwise we end up not going forward and going by his statements on CNN he is well on his way to turning into a typical Democrat. All emotion, no logic.

Learning hard work and the beginning stages of a career will help a child transition into adulthood, that is true. And child labor laws make it more difficult for families to make ends meet, at the same time protecting union members jobs. But no child should have such a job that puts them in a position of power, we already have enough adults acting like children in Washington D.C.

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. He has written books on pop culture and has a new upcoming release–Confused Yet?: Understanding the Utterly Incomprehensible.

By R.C. Seely

IS BURGER KING THE king of burgers? Hard to say since the Burger industry has so many choices. And the king has decided to go social activists rather than focus on their product.

Starting with a misleading video on Net Neutrality, the chain now introduced an anti-bullying PSA.

Now what’s wrong with that? You might be asking. It could be nothing, but it gives the impression that they care more about social justice than their customers.

Take the new ad, they have teen actors pretend to bully another teen and send their customers “bullied” burgers, and record the reactions. Will the customers be more upset about the burgers or the bullied? If it were me, I’d be furious that they care more about catering to activists than to paying customers.

I don’t go to Burger King often, so losing my business would be imperceptible to their bottom line but that they value their customers, so little is troubling. Especially when the market has so many options and burgers, are not their only competition. Fast food and restaurants are a demonstration of the success possible in the free market.

If examined, there are probably already signs of distress within the company because this. Keep in mind this merely speculation on my part.

Besides the willingness to dismiss their customers, the causes they are advancing, and the marketing campaigns are baffling. So far, Net Neutrality and bullying are their causes. And both campaigns have issues; the Net Neutrality one is blatantly wrong in their analogy and the bullying one is inviting a lawsuit.

Either they don’t understand Net Neutrality, or they are on the wrong side. To do their concept accurately it would have to be, the customers getting more than the asked for. Net Neutrality using their burger analogy would be the customer orders a a burger and they are served the burger and a chicken sandwich, fries, a chocolate shake, a dessert and everything else off the menu. Or they never get the burger at all and only get everything else that you don’t want.

As for the other ad, I’m confused exactly what they were expecting the customers in their establishment to do. Verbally confront the “bullies?” But what if the patrons turned violent on the actors? That’s not even all that unlikely given how passionately people have gotten on the issue. Or worse what if one of the patrons were armed? Is the little impromptu theater worth the life of one of these actors? It’s not the patrons’ responsibility to make and keep a safe environment, it’s the business owners.

However you look at it, this idea by Burger King management is asking for trouble, starting with that it appears both ads are online only. The chain could have put these ads online and on TV, a plan that would make more sense. Maybe it’s just my skeptical nature, but when things don’t add up, it generally is because of the worst case scenario. In this case, I suspect they are trying to reach a specific demographic, the youth. Those passionate youth, that will cause “the next social revolution” and won’t question these causes. Can we just get the fries and hold the social justice, please?

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. He has written books on pop culture and has an upcoming new release–Confused Yet?: Understanding the Utterly Incomprehensible.

By R.C. Seely

AS PERPLEXED AS I GET from Democrats who vehemently hate Trump or the Hollywood Republicans that continually dismiss his faltering there is a group that confuses me more than both combined. The Hollywood Republicans who hate Trump. Most of them seem confused on the Republican part.

The two most noteworthy are Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Both are confused about guns in the party platform. Stallone calling for an all-out ban that makes Michael Moore sound reasonable. He adopted this attitude shortly after the death of Phil Hartman. Arnold’s not much better but has a far less benevolent justification saying he’s a “peace loving kind of guy.” If that’s true, then start by leaving us gun owners alone.

This is not the only issue the “Terminator” is confused on, he’s also a hard-core environmentalist. And he’s eager to take on the oil companies with full force. He charges that the oil companies are intentionally and without regards “killing people all over the world” by providing manipulated data on environmental change, and he’s determined to take them to court currently meeting with private law firms.

From The Hill:

“Former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) is planning to sue oil companies, alleging they are ‘knowingly killing people all over the world.’

‘This is no different from the smoking issue. The tobacco industry knew for years and years and years and decades that smoking would kill people, would harm people and create cancer, and were hiding that fact from the people and denied it. Then eventually they were taken to court and had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars because of that,’ Schwarzenegger, a global environmental activist, said.

‘The oil companies knew from 1959 on, they did their own study that there would be global warming happening because of fossil fuels, and on top of it that it would be risky for people’s lives, that it would kill.’

Schwarzenegger accused oil companies of being irresponsible and vowed to go after them.

‘It’s absolutely irresponsible to know that your product is killing people and not have a warning label on it, like tobacco,’ he said.

‘Every gas station on it, every car should have a warning label on it, every product that has fossil fuels should have a warning label on it.’

He said he hopes to spread awareness about the harmful effects of fossil fuels.

‘I don’t think there’s any difference: If you walk into a room and you know you’re going to kill someone, it’s first-degree murder,’ he said during the interview.

‘I think it’s the same thing with the oil companies.’ “

I don’t put stake on the opinions of celebrities when it comes to the issues anyways but this idea of “labeling all fossil fuel” consuming products and taking out companies is particularly absurd. That will cost them massive amounts of money in a pointless Kabuki theater for egotistical means.

Schwarzenegger may believe what he claims or he’s simply trying to get attention, I don’t really care his goals, I do care that if he succeeds this will cost the consumer at the gas pumps. I care that he’s not using his influence to privatize the energy market, giving the consumer better access to alternative fuels. Getting rid of the federal subsidies on energy would force them to listen to the consumer and start manufacturing products that are more environmental friendly. Because that’s what the consumer demands.

When Trump cut the funding for social services–Meals on Wheels and after school programs–Schwarzenegger stepped up and started his own charity program to aid them, I applaud him for that. But why not do that for other issues he feels passionately about?

Instead he would rather side with the environmental activists and Trump haters. Parroting the “Russians make him say certain things” and condemning his failure to call out racists after the Charlottesville shooting.

Trump and Schwarzenegger have been having a very public feud for quite a while now on Twitter. It’s covered both men’s shortcomings, and both have had bruised egos. It makes sense that Schwarzenegger is holding a grudge but get over it and start researching.

He derides Trump if he wants to bring back more coal mines that it would be detrimental to the since it’s “dirty energy.” Actually, it’s not, and majority of our energy is coal. Our energy sector is based on a system that utilizes fossil fuels, changing that takes time and money, a cost that taxpayers shouldn’t have to burden. Environmental activists are the ones concerned, they should be the ones to take the burden. The “warning signs” of environmental calamity have been going off for hundreds of years, there’s no excuse for letting it reach critical.

The Republican Party is supposed to be about limiting government, not limiting personal choices. While the party has a history of faltering on that, the stances these two Hollywood “Republicans” have taken are even worse. They don’t understand the consequences of what they propose. What they want will hurt people and leave them less safe. It hurts those that haven’t done anything wrong, takes away their choices and makes them further subservient to federal government.

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. He has written books on pop culture and has a new upcoming release–Confused Yet?: Understanding the Utterly Incomprehensible.

By R.C. Seely

ONE TERM THAT IS A favorite one amongst collectivists is “human rights.” It’s a term further advanced by the United Nations “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” initiated by Eleanor Roosevelt, a former U.N. member. Problem is “human rights” don’t exist and those rights in question are either “natural rights” or free market products and services that they are trying to claim for their agenda of control.

That aside, there is the question of efficiency as well. The legislative actions of those in power have given valid cause of concern.

One such question is the concerns with health care. Should health care be conducted as a free market concern or government one.

I have had limited need for health care services at this stage in my life but have seen the differences when being there for family members. This is the observations I’ve made with health care: primary care is altogether superior to hospital care. It’s easy to see why too. You are treated as an individual, not a number. You have to set an appointment, you’re generally in faster and given more personal care.

Keep in mind this is not an indictment of the service providers but the nature of the business. The service providers I think do care and it’s not they who are not at fault. The business side of hospitals is inefficient and similar to the assembly line. Your done and on to the next one. It’s also not to say that hospitals are bad or unnecessary, emergency care is a needed social service–it could be provided in a better manner though.

Why is this relevant? Because big government pushes out the primary care competition. If they had their way all medical care would be done at the hospital. That would be a bad thing! Prices for services would go up exponentially and quality of care would be atrocious. Think the soup kitchen lines during the great depression.

The U.N. has even made it a goal to indoctrinate the children to misunderstand human rights by including educational materials, so they “understand” human rights and their importance. The most important thing we can do with human rights is avoid them.

We have something better, we have “natural rights.” The right to speak our minds, believe what we want, defend our selves in the manner we decide and private property rights and all not by an authority figure. Even the United States Constitution doesn’t grant its citizens it’s right but simply defines those rights.

Other concerns are dealt with by consumer discretion. Through boycotts, word of mouth and online ratings; the world is far more efficient and safe than any federal consumer protection agency or health and human services could employ.

Before we give the United Nations full governing power in our daily lives–the environment, gun rights, free speech, health care, foreign policy, etc.–the cost of adopting “human rights” over “natural rights” should be examined.

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. He has written books on pop culture with an upcoming new release–Confused Yet?: Understanding the Utterly Incomprehensible.

By R.C. Seely

FROM THE MOMENT Trump was declared president, the Democrats have been apoplectic and undeterred in their claims if fraud or impropriety. This imbalance is nothing new and the worse started with with George W. Bush. Commentator Charles Krauthammer referred to it as “Bush Derangement Syndrome.” Then it was “Obama Derangement Syndrome.” Now, as the logic would follow, we gave “Trump Derangement Syndrome” which seems the most extreme.

It has gotten so bad that even those in Hollywood have come out to defend Trump. Tom Hanks said that he “hopes Trump does so well he would vote to reelect him.” Both Mathew McConaughey and Jeff Bridges pleaded that Trump should be “given a chance.” Morgan Freeman takes it to the next level stating the president,”has to be a good president. He can’t not be.”

The leading criticism of Trump is the declaration of collusion with Russia and Vladimir Putin, to win the election. Most media sources covering the claims already agree with anti-Trump crowd. But not all are so bias.

From the Washington Examiner:

“The House Intelligence Committee has released findings from its upcoming report on the Trump-Russia affair–and its main conclusion is that it has discovered no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election.

‘We have found no evidence of collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians,’ the committee said in a one-page summary of its findings released…

In addition, the committee took issue with the Intelligence Community assessment of Russian motivations in the 2016 election. The committee agrees with the assessment that the Russians did, in fact, try to interfere… (but) the committee disagrees with the Intelligence Community judgment that Russian leader Vladimir Putin specifically tried to help Donald Trump win the election.
The committee’s findings say investigators came to ‘concurrence with the Intelligence Community Assessment’s judgments, except with respect to Putin’s supposed preference for candidate Trump.’

The collusion question has been the most basic, and the most contentious, of the entire Trump-Russia investigation. After this or that revelation — the emergence of the Trump dossier, the June 9 meeting, the plea bargain of George Papadopoulos, the activities of Carter Page, the analysis of Facebook ads — partisans on both sides claimed that collusion had been either proved or not.

Republicans released the findings in bullet-point form. They were condensed from a larger report that will not be made public for several weeks.

But the question of collusion remained a key issue for the committee, as well as for the other two big Trump-Russia investigations, by the Senate Intelligence Committee and special counsel Robert Mueller. And Republicans and Democrats have differed sharply on whether collusion did or did not take place.”

“We found no evidence of collusion. We found perhaps bad judgment,…” commented Republican Representative Mike Conaway, who ran the committee’s probe.

“But only Tom Clancy or Vince Flynn … that could take this series of inadvertent contacts with each other … and weave that into a some sort of fictional page-turner spy thriller,” Conaway added.

“There is already, in my view, ample evidence in the public domain on the issue of collusion if you’re willing to see it,” Democrat Representative Adam Schiff reported.

It appears the Washington Examiner was spot on when the Democrats “will come up with their own version of events” and the results of the investigation “are sure to be disputed.”

This is the conclusion that rationale people came to from the beginning. There was nothing to suggest voter fraud and Russia didn’t help Trump, Putin had nothing to gain by it. Trump is an unpredictable lose cannon, not a schemer. While I don’t doubt that he would have no qualms about committing such volations of ethics there’s never been anything to suggest he did.

Neither Trump or Clinton are ethical and both have blood on their hands from personal and professional dealings. But Putin acts in his own best interest, which does not seem to be having Trump as president.

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. He has written books on pop culture and has a new one–Confused Yet?: Understanding the Utterly Incomprehensible–soon to be released.