Posts Tagged ‘americanus libertae’

P.C. in P.F. (Physical Fitness)

Posted: June 16, 2017 in Social Commentary
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
0

By R.C. Seely

THIS YEAR I MADE THE DECISION TO improve myself and went back to the gym. It had been awhile, so I have been going for the high intensity workout and the results have already come quickly. I’ve also learned some lessons about athletes. To outsiders they may appear vain and self-absorbed–some simply are–but it’s also more pride in their accomplishment. Getting yourself to your prime physical condition is hard work–in my case a couple of hours at the gym, 5-6 days a week. So when the topic of “body-shaming” comes up, I don’t see it as a harmful thing. 

    Even before my rededication to a more healthy version of myself, I never really bought into the idea that body-shaming was all that bad, but in fact it can be beneficial. 

    Shame is a powerful social tool that should utilized and some people are just plain lazy. I’m not addressing those who work and work, spend their available time at the treadmill or elliptical, and have no results to show for it. That can be frustrating, and to them I say don’t get too discouraged; the world is full of superficial people. Don’t waste your time or energy on their opinions. What I don’t consider an acceptable excuse is when someone claims they have a lack of time for exercise, everyone wastes time, I do as well. We have more time to spare than other generations, just like they had more spare time than their previous generations, that’s what happens with technological advances. And that’s a cycle that is sure to continue.

    I work a full-time job and run MOJO Publishing alone, sometimes writing a couple of articles a week  and researching subjects for future articles and books. I joined the gym, in part, so that I could do this more easily. This gives me more time to use for practical purposes. But let’s look at the “lack of time” argument a little closer. With a full-time job, you work 40 hour weeks, 8 hour days (generally speaking) that only takes away 8 out of 24 hours in your day. Don’t want to do a two hour workout? Fine, let’s go a modest fifteen to thirty minutes. Even with the longer workout you still have most of your day available. Include sleep for–if you’re extremely lucky 6-8 hours, you still have a few hours left, if you wanted or needed a second job or simply wanted your “leisure” time. So time is not a real factor, what about desire?

    A lack of desire is the other leading excuse. The culture also makes sure to lessen desire by dismissing it with a claim of victimhood. One of the more tame was from CNN, citing, “These days, any signs of body imperfection, particularly being overweight, will bring down the wrath of society.” These days? We are told that our society is difficult for little girls–because they are constantly being bombarded by images of “the perfect woman” everywhere they look. On TV, in movies and magazines. That’s valid, or is it? You ever checkout the Men’s health magazines or clothing products packages? It’s men in their prime condition as well, so are men just more secure? And if so, why? Are women being handicapped as little girls by this well-meaning agenda to end body-shaming? Another demographic reportedly susceptable to this cultural epidemic is that of the gay community. Apparently the same issues of suicide attempts and bulemia affect them as well. So the same questions apply.

    Who knows, I don’t. What I am sure of, is that the current course of action in fighting body-shaming isn’t the right one. When former Playmate Dani Mathers was involved in an “invasion of privacy” incident, the internet considered it a “body-shaming case.” Mathers was wrong and she admitted it but her crime was secretly recording an elderly woman in the shower of the gym. Let’s keep that in perspective. I get worried about that when the attorney handling the case, LA City Attorney Mike Feuer, says in an interview with KTLA: “This case is really important to me … Body-shaming is humiliating. It devastates its victims. It tears down their self respect.” It’s feeding the idea that those who can improve themselves shouldn’t even bother, because you might hurt another’s feeling. It’s another push for a participation award. It encourages jealousy of others, rather than individual determination and drive. Instead of trying to shield little girls from these images of physical perfection maybe it would be better to tell them–work hard and you could have it. If you’re willing to put in the effort, and if not feel good that you tried. Failure is a part of life, and it’s always an option but it is what happens afterwards that truly defines us.

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

Monopolies and CONs

Posted: June 16, 2017 in Political, Social Commentary
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
0

By R.C. Seely

NEVADA JOINED THE STATES TO FULLY LEGALIZE marijuana at the state level and it’s already seeing a problem come up, one that is very old and common–the monopoly. 

    From the Las Vegas Review Journal:

“A Carson City district court judge … refused to dismiss a lawsuit brought by liquor distributors against the Department of Taxation over the distribution of recreational marijuana to pot dispensaries…. One of those disputes involves the Department of Taxation’s intervention in a licensing process by liquor distributors in Clark County who were seeking to participate in the distribution process.

The decision could delay the start of recreational marijuana sales originally set for July 1 via the existing medical marijuana dispensaries operating throughout Nevada.

Issue is whether liquor distributors have the first right to distribute marijuana from grow facilities to the dispensaries.”

 

  According to the alcohol distributors the law clearly stipulates they get first shot and a temporary restraining order was issued against marijuana distributors from a lawsuit brought on by the Independent Alcohol Distributors of Nevada.

    It should be mentioned, that the tax agency had concerns of lack of interest by the alcohol distributors in the marijuana business–spokeswoman for the Department of Taxation, Stephanie Klapstein stated there was only one liquor wholesaler who applied for a license at the time the restraining order was issued, and it came the morning of the lawsuit–the attorney for the liquor distributors, Kevin Benson, claims five have applied for the licenses. It would be difficult to not see this as suspicious. But let’s leave Nevada for a moment and go to Iowa.

From Reason.com:

“In Cedar Rapids, Iowa, there is a fully outfitted outpatient surgical center that could be used to treat patients with eye problems and improve their vision.

It sits empty, unused, a monument to government imposed artificial restrictions on the supply of medical care.

The prohibition has nothing to do with Dr. Lee Birchansky, who owns the surgical center and the doctor’s office next door. He’s allowed to operate on patients at nearby hospitals, but he can’t do those same surgeries in the facilities that he owns.”

 

   So what’s the problem? The doctor has been the victim of a CON. No, not a scam artist, but a state sanctioned scam. The con in this case is Certificate of Need, so literally a CON. Essentially it’s a license that some states require the business to obtain demonstrating the need for the business or for the industry to expand in the area. It’s used by large companies to keep out competitors. “It is ridiculous that I have an outpatient surgery center that is … ready to go, but I have been denied a certificate of need four times because established hospitals do not want competition,” said Birchansky.

    In order to reopen Birchansky would need to obtain the CON from the Department of Public Health, which he would have to file another application and a $21,000 fee.

    All is not lost for Dr. Birchansky he has help. On Birchansky’s side is the Institute for Justice, a law firm noted for challenging such laws. “Patients and Doctors–not the government–are in the best position to decide what medical services are needed,” said Joshua House of the Institute. Also joining Birchansky in the right is Governor Terry Bradstad of Iowa, who fights to reform CON laws in the state. As for the marijuana distributors of Nevada, right now it appears they are stuck in legislative limbo. For now, the medical marijuana dispensaries will be serving as recreational distributors while all this gets sorted out. When going up against the monopolies, even a single victory is a great one and in time, maybe the Nevada Department of Taxation will see through the smoke.

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

Bring Me the Head of Donald Trump

Posted: June 8, 2017 in Social Commentary
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
0

By R.C. Seely

RECENTLY COMEDIAN KATHY GRIFFIN MADE a serious faux pas with a pictorial depiction of herself holding the severed head of Donald Trump and she unleashed a massive amount of backlash for it. Surprisingly it has not only been ardent Trump supporters to voice their disapproval but those who despise Trump as well. Chelsea Clinton, daughter of Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton referred to the picture as “vile and wrong.” In a Twitter post she went on to say “It is never funny to joke about killing a president.”

    CNN Communications tweeted “CNN has terminated our agreement with Kathy Griffin to appear on our New Year’s Eve program.” And this is not the only job opportunity rescended to Griffin, the company that produces the Squatty Potty–a line of toilet footstools, if you were curious–has also dropped her. In part of his statement, chief executive Bobby Edwards declared, “It was deeply inappropriate and runs contrary to the core values our company stands for.”

    It’s not only her career that could be in jeopardy for this stunt that Griffin admitted, she “went too far.” This has attracted the attention of the presidential body guards, the Secret Service. Tweeting that “threats against @SecretService protectees receive the highest priority of all our investigations.” Would you mind telling where the actual “threat” is? Griffin never said she was going to commit the actual beheading of the president, the picture could be loosely interpretive to that, but even that’s a bit of a stretch. And a statement of the death of political leaders in effigy is part of this country, even before the country in fact. To rally support of independence dummies of England’s King were basically tortured and “killed.” An act like this is at least partially responsible for the founding of this nation. Apparently the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) doesn’t see it this way. VFW Commander Brian Duffy, argues that it “was not humourous nor should it be protected speech or expression.” Well, the first part I do agree but not the second. I’m not going to dispute how much of an “incredibly revolting attack on the President of the United States,” as Duffy puts it, that this picture represents. It’s his right to say that and I support and defend that right. This is what Griffin’s critics get wrong, that because “their guy” is being figuratively assaulted that amounts the same thing as an actual assault. Did you know that you can get 10 years in prison for threatening the President? For threatening him! A bit excessive for a statement I’d say. I get it, the death–especially a successful assassination–of the President would send the nation into turmoil but this still seems extreme. And no matter what, if an assassin is truly dedicated to “getting rid of the tyrant,” they will find a way. Many in the past have sent letters to their intended victims before hand, but generally it’s been multiple volumes, not a single ill-advised letter or picture.

    Much of the criticism was aimed at how grotesque and not humourous the image. This Griffin admitted in her apology on Instagram, “I’m a comic. I cross the line. I move the line, then I cross it. I went way too far. The image is too disturbing…. It wasn’t funny. I get it.” Thing is, it was never really supposed to be funny. It was a satrical piece that was intentionally provocative. That’s​ why she collaborated with photographer Sheilds who has made his mark in the world of art through similar pieces. His comments confirm this, “she [Griffin] said, ‘I’d love to do something political. I’d love to make a statement.” Congratulations, Kathy Griffin you did just that.

    With freedom of speech comes the acceptance that, at times there are consequences. Some are valid like losing a job, others not so much, like losing your freedom because of a strictly hypothetical “threat.” Griffin and possibly her co-conspirator, Sheilds may have to suffer both. The first is simply part of the free market at work, second is part of the authoritarian state flexing it’s muscle. No one who truly believes in the First Amendment should be applauding the possibility of Griffin facing incarceration. It’s Sheilds that puts it the best, “I love the idea we have freedom of speech. The fact that I’m allowed to make an image like this says a lot. To me, that’s a powerful thing … nobody’s killed me for this image.” And hopefully it never comes to that.

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

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.

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.

 

Ousting O’Reilly

Posted: April 26, 2017 in Political
Tags: , , , , , , ,
0

By R.C. Seely

“MR. O’REILLY’S DISMISSAL AMOUNTS TO AN enormous shift in cable news … the move has the potential to open up a cable news war that for more than a decade has been dominated by Fox News, ” reported the New York Times. Their analysis also suggests that Fox News is hardly social roadkill, and “that Fox’s viewers are loyal … [they] certainly will not be switching over to CNN or MSNBC.” The New York Times was the source that reported the allegations of sexual harassment charges against O’Reilly and the millions in settlements.

    Former CBS News president Andrew Heyward, had similar comments, claiming “Fox News is vulnerable with O’Reilly’s departure” and because of the circumstances “there will be resentment among his loyal base.” You mean the same ones who voted for Donald Trump, who isn’t exactly a paragon of virtue? Mr. Heyward does concede, however, the news network serves as an alternative to the majority of TV news, which could let it ride out the storm. 

Presidential contender John Kasich denied seeing anything inappropriate at Fox News or in O’Reilly’s previous conduct. “It was fine. If it wasn’t fine, I wouldn’t have stayed, ” Kasich said in an interview with Business Insider. Kasich does have knowledge of the environment of Fox News, having hosted his own show “Heartland,” but that was in the early 2000’s and a lot could have changed since. O’Reilly himself adamantly denies the charges, calling them “completely unfounded claims.”

The Sleeping Media has been doing all it can to neutralize and silence Fox News for years and jumping on this yet one more feeble attempt to return to “the good old days of media.” When dry, crotchety windbags told us we can trust the government. If O’Reilly shifted his capitalist stances just a little, he might have been welcomed. If the goal of the American progressives was to get rid of O’Reilly, they truly failed miserably. Early this week he did his first podcast and is considering his other options, among them; Newsmax, the One America News Network, The Blaze and Sinclair Broadcasting. He’s not going anywhere and that’s actually a good thing. I can’t stand O’Reilly and have never hidden that, but the only worse action, is muffling his voice. I doubt he would reciprocate but I stand behind O’Reilly’s right of free speech. That’s the libertarian way, I don’t​ have to agree with you to defend you.

Attempting to restore the media safe space vacuum is not the only way this is a black eye for progressives, it also clearly proves capitalism works and they are nothing but hypocrites. O’Reilly wouldn’t have been fired if sponsors hadn’t pulled their financial backing due to his violations of moral standards. O’Reilly’s viewers more than likely would have stood behind him and even tried to dismiss the allegations, there was little risk for the sponsors. They put principle over profit, exactly what the critics of capitalism claim they never do. The progressives, on the other hand, demonstrated they care only about your rights if you’re on their side, by pushing the highly organized and effective campaign against the commentator–with little to show for it, I might add. This will have little impact on Fox or O’Reilly, and won’t swell their ranks. By all measures the culture war is once again going to the culture warrior on the right.

Heyward and the New York Times are right in their analysis that Fox News will be fine without O’Reilly, yes, there will be some “resentment among his loyal base,” but that comes with being a moralist commentator accused of impropriety. Probably the most accurate prediction is from the New York Times piece, that the viewers won’t being going to CNN or MSNBC anytime soon. They might abandon O’Reilly or Fox News but that doesn’t mean they will turn into so-called “liberals.” Most likely they will look to the Constitution Party, Libertarian Party or other independent alternative news sources. They might even check out this one and you are more than welcomed here.

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 on Amazon.

Older Entries