Posts Tagged ‘libertarian’

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

By R.C. Seely

APRIL 22ND HAS BEEN DESIGNATED TO BE yet another holiday an evergrowing list of pointless identity holidays–Earth Day. A day specifically put aside for environmental activists to remind us what horrible people we are, not like the other 364 days of the year, when they are so silent. As I’ve made clear in previous written works–in both articles and in books–I have little respect for the current pop culture variety of the green movement, in no small part because of its take over by groups like the EPA. At one time these organizations did perform legitimate acts of public service and make the environment cleaner and safer, with regulations that made sense, now it’s all about creating division and maintaining power. The extremists​ in the movement have taken control. Green Peace, the Sierra Club, EPA, were on the right track at least, others like, ALF and ELF have always been essentially eco-terrorists. 

    Then we have celebrities in Greenism, Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, John Kerry, Barack Obama and Micheal Moore, as only a small sample of environmental profiteers. The ones that would demand the rest of us live green but demonstrate an aversion to it themselves, I applaud activists such as Ed Beagley Jr and Darrell Hannah for living their principles even though I disagree with them. Not only does not doing so make the others hypocrites, but it appears the sense of urgency is entirely manufactured for them. Live according to your principles or sit down. This year the green elite have a new platform as well, in the March for Science, a “nonpartisan” March for environmental justice–but you’re not invited if you support Trump, real “nonpartisan!” On the website March for Science displays this loudly stating an “American government that ignores science to pursue ideological agendas endangers the world.” And what of an organization that does the same? The group says support “evidence-based policy making” and government funding for scientific research, so essentially state sponsored scientific endevours are the only ones that will considered valid. Maybe another round of eugenics​ will be in the budget as well, getting rid of the deplorable critics of Greenism. A 2010 editorial in Nature magazine calls attention to “a growing anti-science streak on the American right” and it needs to be cured, which “depends on more education, science and technology,” all taxpayer funded too, I’m sure. In an article for Scientific American, author Shawn Lawrence Otto comments that “it is hard to know exactly when it became acceptable for U.S. politicians to be anti-science” since so many of our previous presidents and founding fathers were men of science. Many were also men of freedom, and a few of the men of science, who occupied the white house were borderline Authoritarians. To be fair Trump did call climate change a hoax, promised to continue with the Keystone Pipeline, and gutted Federal agencies involved in environmental issues. 

    Headlining the March for Science are Bill Nye, Mona Hanna-Attisha, and Lydia Villa-Komaroff, none of which are climate scientists. Nye is a mechanical engineer, Hanna-Attisha is a pediatrician​, and Villa-Komaroff is a molecular and cellular biologist, so their opinions on the matter are no more valid than yours or mine. NASA on the other hand, is full of experts on the climate and there is no common consensus on the human impact on the planet. 

    Whether they truly believe it or not, all of them are missing an opportunity, the chance to be more effective and return to the path of sane, rational environmental policy. Make the movement more about economy than ecology, capitalize on green capitalism. There are a few environmental policies that can save the individual, and in certain circumstances whole companies, money such as certain recycling programs. Control seems always be the agenda, whether it’s controlling how we live or population control. That’s what many also advocate in the environmental movement, lower the population, like they have the moral authority to do so.

    While researching this article, I saw a glimmer of hope from earthday.org with a common sense suggestion for activism–reforestation. “Trees for Earth… it’s goal is to plant, or inspire the planting of 7.8 billion trees worldwide… one for every person projected to be on earth,” is one of the proposed initiatives on the site. Finally, pushing an agenda that makes sense and encourages individual effort. Unfortunately they couldn’t help but cater to the extremists: “The scientific evidence is clear and irrefutable–human activity is causing our planet to warm at an alarmingly high rate. Not only is this warming climate trend happening right now, it could have serious outcomes on our food supply (especially if they want to outlaw GMOs), lead to mass migration and conflict, and without being an alarmist, it may very well threaten the future survival of the human race.” That doesn’t sound like an alarmist. Oh, by the way don’t forget to donate. Also it seems they want to silence their critics, but Earth Day was created for the zealots. Starting out as a United States holiday it was proposed by peace activist John McConnell in 1969 and sanctioned by the U.N. in 1970. A month after that, Wisonsin Democrat Senator Gaylord Nelson, founded a separate Earth Day and started a tsunami of new environmental activism. He could have started a green capitalism movement but that wasn’t his goal, which he made clear when he said that “the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment, not the other way around.” What? That’s absurd, the economy is the key to human culture, no matter what form it takes. It’s also the methodology to get a green economy, many corporations went green because their customers wanted it and went beyond the EPA guidelines, at least if it didn’t hurt their company. That’s all the EPA does anymore really, create economic stagnation but that’s what happens when the agenda is control and not prosperity.

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV and has written books on pop culture. For more on environmental issues read Unconventional Wisdom: Behavior Modification For the Modern Age and Victims of White: How Victim Culture Victimizes Society both available on Amazon.

By R.C. Seely

LAST WEEK SOCIAL MEDIA WAS IN AN UPROAR over the forced ejection of a passenger from United Airlines. Dr. Donald Dao was removed from the flight by police after he was asked to leave due to overbooking and was offered $800. The doctor was not the only passenger asked to leave but he was the only one who refused to do so. Many critics of are using this incident as “another case of the evils of capitalism.” Are they right or is the story simply inaccurate?

We all know how reliable the initial reports are, full of accurate details that aren’t rushed or incomplete… if only. Point of fact the initial reports are generally full of obvious errors and entire narratives that are incorrect. Take the 1999 Columbine shooting, the first reports didn’t get anything right. The police and media got the number of shooters and victims wrong, the accounts of what happened wrong and the motive wrong. There was no connection to Satanism, violent video games and movies, or the NRA. Both assailant’s families were normal and vanilla Rockwellian, who raised their children as many of us do. Everything was considered except for the most obvious–they were just a couple of mean violent teens with no respect for human life.

Could that be the case here? Yes, and as the details are coming to light, the images of the good, dedicated Dr. Dao is starting to change.

From a Daily Mail article:

“An official report detailed the findings of medical exams performed on Dr. Dao and spelled out concerns over his mental state. A court case brought by him would inevitably have to consider whether the documents could be used by United.

Among the findings were:

Dr. Mary Gannon ‘noted that Dr. Dao “lacked the foundation to navigate difficult situations, both interpersonally and in a complex profession”. Dr. Gannon noted a need to control, avoidance, withholding information and magical thinking as problematic.’ 

The report went on: ‘Dr. Montgomery noted that Dr. Dao appeared to have difficulties with information processing. Neuropsychological screening did not suggest gross difficulties. 

‘However, in reviewing records, it was noted that Dr. Dao tends to have poor decision-making despite his overall level of ability. 

‘His choices have resulted in significant consequences over the years yet he continues to function in this manner. 

‘He is generally not forthright regarding details of events unless challenged and at times he will tell different versions of a story to different interviewers. ‘

Later in the report it found: ‘As far back as April, 2002, Dr. Brady notes ” … he would unilaterally chose to do his own thing’. 

‘This remains a concern to this day and without a high degree of structure and accountability he is at risk for further boundary related practice issues.'”

    Along with his propensity towards bad judgment in general, he has had charges of ethics violations from patients, including sexual assault charges. Normally I would agree that these are immaterial, but in this case it does question his state of mind at the time of the incident. Why didn’t he take the money like the others? Do the airlines have a right to remove you in the case of a voluntary transaction–such as this–as long as you are compensated? And where does the fault go as for Dao’s injuries, with the airlines or the police? Or possibly with Dao himself for resisting, since that is how he was injured.

    Before judging the airlines to harshly, you might consider the report of Dr. Gannon, it sounds like Dr. Dao was a possible risk to the other passengers, that should be in the discussion as well. Not everyone with mental disorders are inherently dangerous but Dao sounds like he could have been. Thankfully the Daily Mail wasn’t the only outlet to raise the question of the doctor’s past. TMZ, The New York Daily News, the Washington Times and the Chicago Sun Times are only a few that did, and they should. It’s all part of the story and the only way to state an unbiased report.

    Dao will need extensive reconstructive surgery, suffering a concussion, a broken nose and missing teeth, all from the trauma of hitting the headrest in front of him. He said the incident was “scarier than fleeing Vietnam.” United has lost $800 million in market share and will continue to lose business because of the negative publicity. It’s unclear if the police will be included in the lawsuit, but United will be and will surely settle. At this point it probably won’t do them much good.

    All this is bad enough but it’s what to follow that is really scary. Already there is talk about government action, Chris Christie has already proposed legislation making overbooking illegal. Christie is not alone and there will more than likely be further calls to “fix this problem” to come. Of course, all the calls will be federal intervention and not free market solutions, so don’t expect any positive results. If you like the way the TSA handles things, that’s the future if this goes that way. Such incidents are rare and occur because a lack of competition, something that only seems to get exasperated by government.

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