Posts Tagged ‘libertarian’

By R.C. Seely

COLIN KAEPERNICK CREATED a sense of notoriety for himself when he decided that he wouldn’t stand for the national anthem. Since then, the NFL and many of the owners have sanctioned the idea and made it the new policy.

Besides the original protests, Kaepernick joined with the Native American “Unthanksgiving” movement. There has been enough discussion on this matter, so I won’t further engage in it (besides at this point I find it simply boring). Critics of Kaepernick and the other players have called him ungrateful, which got me thinking about gratitude … What is it? How does it affect us?

Author Melody Beattie, has this to say:

“Gratitude unlocks the fullness of life. It turns what we have into enough, and more. It turns denial into acceptance, chaos to order, confusion to clarity. It can turn a meal into a feast, a house into a home, a stranger into a friend.” 

    

As appealing as that literary declaration is, does it have anything more substantial to back it? According to a Forbes article by Amy Morin on the subject, yes it does. Here’s a sample:

… In fact, gratitude may be one of the most overlooked tools [for improving health] that we all have access to every day. Cultivating gratitude doesnt cost any money and it certainly doesnt take much time, but the benefits are enormous. Research reveals gratitude can have these seven benefits: 

1. Gratitude opens the door to more relationships. Not only does sayingthank youconstitute good manners, but showing appreciation can help you win new friends, according to a 2104 study published in Emotion

2. Gratitude improves physical health. Grateful people experience fewer aches and pains and they report feeling healthier than other people, according to a 2012 study published in Personality and Individual Differences. Not surprisingly, grateful people are also more likely to take care of their health. They exercise more often and are more likely to attend regular checkups with their doctors, which is likely to contribute to further longevity.

3. Gratitude improves psychological healthGratitude reduces a multitude of toxic emotions, ranging from envy and resentment to frustration and regret. Robert A. Emmons, Ph.D., a leading gratitude researcher, has conducted multiple studies on the link between gratitude and wellbeing. His research confirms that gratitude effectively increases happiness and reduces depression

4. Gratitude enhances empathy and reduces aggressionGrateful people are more likely to behave in a prosocial manner, even when others behave less kind, according to a 2012 study by the University of Kentucky

5. Grateful people sleep better. Writing in a gratitude journal improves sleep, according to a 2011 study published in Applied Psychology: Health and WellBeing

6. Gratitude improves selfesteemA 2014 study published in the Journal of Applied Sport Psychology found that gratitude increased athletes selfesteem, which is an essential component to optimal performance

7. Gratitude increases mental strengthFor years, research has shown gratitude not only reduces stress, but it may also play a major role in overcoming trauma…”


     Kaepernick and the rest of the NFL need to learn a lesson about gratitude, being grateful for their audience. That’s what the major issue has been. Other celebrities have done their protesting at inappropriate times, on the audiences time, and paid the price for it as well. Linda Ronstadt did an anti-bush tirade during a performance in Las Vegas and was booed. That’s not giving gratitude to those who came to hear you sing. Then there are bands like Metallica and Avenged Sevenfold, who can get away with it, but why? It’s more acceptable because both have social and political activism built into their songs. It’s a part of the show that the audience paid for.

    More specifically to the NFL, they not only disrespected the audience, but demonstrated they’re out of touch with them. Many sports enthusiasts are conservative patriots, who view such actions as intolerable. Yes, the players have a right to free speech but at times expressing your views does have consequences. 

    If the NFL wants to gain back the support of their audience they will have to demonstrate they are willing to listen them and the sponsors. Others wise it appears they don’t appreciate them and aren’t dependent on them–which they are! For starters, publicly apologize and don’t let the players protest before the games, save that for their own time.

    As for the issue they are protesting, this is not an effective way to reach people; when a group of rich athletes do a stunt like that they appear out of touch. If they want to demonstrate they truly care, they have to donate their money and time to make those areas of economic turmoil better. Or use your assets to fight against the laws that keep those who live in squalor out of modern slavery–policies such as, the “War on Poverty,” government run Indian reservations or the social welfare programs. 

    I don’t know if Kaepernick, or any of the NFL protestors for that matter, are doing this for themselves or to help others. Fighting against police brutality is an admirable cause but not if you alienate those around you. If you don’t see what you have to be appreciative, you can’t see clearly how fix problems in your life, let alone the world. Gratitude clears your mind and body, making everything better. If Kaepernick had been more grateful he wouldn’t have dropped the ball in his career or his activism.

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

WHEN A “CRIME” OR SIN, was committed in a Puritan commune, the punishments were severe and inhumane. Probably the most tame was having to wear a sign with a crimson initial–the Scarlet letter–of your transgression where ever you went.

But that was a long time ago, surly we have moved past all that, right? Apparently not. Starting with Hollywood mogul, Harvey Weinstein, we have seen a litany of allegations of sexual abuse and harassment. Weinstein has suffered the worse of it, with many actresses claiming he took advantage of them to advance their careers.

What’s also interesting is how the claims are being prioritized. Those made against Mariah Carey by her body guards have gotten little attention.

Not to sound callous, but the nature of the showbiz industry is not exactly a big secret. You fall in line and do what your told or you move on. This is not to say I condone it, just saying you know what you’re getting yourself into. And now is it possible to change it? Doubt it.

It’s not just Hollywood that has to be concerned, this has affected politicians as well. The two most suspicious ones are the allegations against Judge Roy Moore and Jeff Sessions. The timing is just too convenient. Moore is running for office and Sessions is on the verge of getting replaced. Dirty politics at play here? Very likely. No matter how you feel about those accused of such things, you should be worried. This silences the voice of the voters.

Another politician who has been marked is Senator Al Franken but this one is different. For starters, the accuser–Leeann Tweeden–is not asking for any form of retribution, simply trying to empower of legitimate victims of abuse. Joe Biden too, has been accused of having “friendly hands” by the Senators children.

Inevitably, President Trump has been marked, in yet another attempt by the Democrats to “dethrone” him as Commander in Chief. With numerous claims of impropriety weighing on him, how can he possibly be deemed a valid sitting president? Ask Bill Clinton how he handled it. Or one of the many other previous executive office holders before him.

In yet another lie by the Sleeping Media, during a press conference one reporter asked why the administration called out Franken but not Moore. In a tweet, Trump said that if Moore did do what he was accused of he should step down. And there is photographic evidence to back up Tweeden’s claim against Franken. While Trump is being accused of playing politics, it appears he’s the only one not guilty of that.

Such acts of assault are the worst kinds of power and control over others, and should have hefty consequences if found guilty. But should the false accusations of harassment and those do happen. It’s not even uncommon; sometimes the claims are intentionally malicious, others simply a misunderstanding. Even the harassment accusations can ruin lives and should not be taken lightly. More than that, such laws and work related repercussions are ineffective and many times useless. Think about, basically you’re asking an irrational person to act rationally. So the innocent and rational person will comply and the one capable of such acts will find an easier target. What could help with that is a more clear concise definition for harassment, one less open to interpretation.

It might seem misogynistic but asking for scrutiny of the accusers is not invalid. It’s routine in every other crime but is being scaled down in harassment cases and that’s because of the feminist movements protestations. That’s not to say they didn’t helped changed things in a good way either, by shaking up the “good ole boys” clubs but have taken it too far. There has to be a third route of reason, away from the “good ole boys” and the radical, man-hating feminists. If calm discussion can’t be held, this will one more time when the solution is more bravado than substance. At the moment the current environment feels eerily similar to that of Salem, so who’s the next to hang.

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

I’VE ALWAYS BEEN AN OPPONENT of Socialism and recent events are one of the biggest reasons why. A few days after Halloween, Rene Boucher, brutally attacked Senator Rand Paul at his residence in Kentucky. The attack has left the Senator in extreme pain and he has five broken ribs from the encounter, which could end up life threatening.

Even with the continuing feud between the neighbors, the motive for the attack was reported as political by the FBI. Boucher is a Bernie Sanders supporter who took his passion to an action and a reprehensible action at that.

This is not a condemnation of Sanders supporters, not all are like this and the ones I know personally wouldn’t do this. But this is bigger than Sanders, it’s about the inherent violence in a Socialist society.

Violence as a source of control is part of the movement because people–such as myself–will never succumb to it any other way. If this is the path to establishing Socialism, what would the Socialist society of the United States be like? Pretty much like Venezuela or Brazil. A state of limited resources and a constant authority presence. A state where basic needs, like toilet paper, are as valuable as gold because of their scarcity. Where innovations are gone and prices are sky high.

And violence has truly become the “new normal,” not from an armed assailant but from a federalized police force. In other words, the violence that anarchists used to institute their beloved social order of collectivism is nothing compared to what is to come if they succeed in the agenda.

Fellow supporters of the cause dismiss such actions as their passion getting away from them. I’m so sick of hearing that! While such heinous acts do happen from the right, they are not common; from the left, they are part of the playbook, literally. Saul Alinsky, author of Rules for Radicals, not only didn’t shy away from violence but encourages it. Neither do Unions, another vessel of Socialism. Or race activists or feminists. Or environmental zealots. It’s difficult to find activist groups of the left that dont advocate or at least tolerate violence for the cause.

One could argue that such violence was used by the nation’s founders, that these attacks are valid now. The acts of violence back then was a response to violence already used against them by the representatives of the King. Rand Paul was mowing his front lawn while beaten. Does that sound like the same thing to you? Does the Senator seem the monarch that stripped his neighbor of his rights? Violence during a revolution is at times necessary but it only holds validation when in selfdefense, which far too often is lacking by Socialism’s advocates.

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

IT’S A STORY THAT HAS BEEN told from history–“it was a dark and stormy night in 1815, when Mary Shelly and her hosts started telling ghost stories, that night she had a dream which inspired her take and the book Frankenstein was born.”

    That’s not all there is, however. One thing that influenced the story was her activist roots. She was rather born into it, her parents being suffragists and her father making sure she lived up to those feminist ideals of her mother who died in child birth.  Oh great he’s going to go into another anti-feminist rant. Actually no, she was a feminist in the same vein as Lucy Ball and Camilla Paglia, not Gloria Stenim. But her activism is cause for concern. 

    She wasn’t just a feminist, she was also against the age of enlightenment, specifically when it came to Medical technology. Basically she had a similar attitude then as those who still oppose Medical marijuana today. It doesn’t matter if there’s a benefit to people or they should have the option of utilizing a treatment, it’s said it could be harmful so it’s not worth the risk.

    The monster was an analogy of the idea of technology unrestrained but it was a fear that has always been unfounded. There have always been ethical concerns and debates in medicine and as the technology improves so do the debates. Did Mary Shelly have anything to do with that? Maybe, but not intentionally, she didn’t want the technology to exist at all according to the history books. 

   And think she would be appalled with how pop culture has adapted her story. The 1931 Universal Pictures classic adaptation of Frankenstein, altered the monster from a homicidal killer without remorse to a victim. The victim notion opens up the debate of whether the technology still is valid for research. It was simply as mistake that time maybe if it’s repeated it could be done right. 

    The 1935 classic Bride of Frankenstein also makes an odd prediction of the future of the technology. The doctor to enlist the assistance of Doctor Frankenstein in his experiments, explains that he grew his miniature people from “seeds” rather than stitching them from corpses. These “seeds” that he was discussing sounds like a rudimentary understanding of stem cells and genetics technology. We are seeing the early stages of this science right now, as it develops we will have the option to routinely use the cells from our own bodies to grow healthy replacement organs for transplants, guaranteeing a successful surgery. And no need for the donors to put themselves at any risk at all.

    The concept that makes more sense came from the late author Dr. Micheal Crichton. He claims in his books that while treading carefully would serve most prudent, research into the Medical technology and sciences is still best for all mankind. And he does have a little more knowledge on the subject.

    While authors such as Stephen King and Mary Shelly sit back and postulate the most outlandish and unlikely worst case scenarios to dissuade their readers from supporting possibly life saving sciences, those who understand it best says proceeding tentatively is the right course. Who ends up the real monster then?

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

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 trans fat 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 completely 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 initiatives 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 demagoguery. 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. Notoriety was all the motivation he needed. He also was planning more than the single incident–including a bombing similar 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 romantized “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.

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 “conservative” 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 expressive artists, was raging in Europe during the Age of Enlightenment and earlier. The leaders of early Christianity 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.