Posts Tagged ‘Unconventional Wisdom’

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

THE 2016 ELECTION CYCLE HAS ALREADY begun and early on it took the turn of one authoritarian progressive versus another authoritarian progressive, with the only major noteworthy distinction being one is a Republican and the other a Democrat. Is that even a big distinction anymore?

With the populist fervor surrounding the Donald–while the “extremist” Rand Paul was practically ignored, by all but his few supporters on Fox Business–it looks like it is becoming more and more immaterial. Maybe an update from the “Party Of the People” and the “Grand Old Party” is in order; how about, for the Democrats the “Party Of the Progressives” and the Republicans, the “Grand Old Populists”. This has not been a recent change in standards by any means, but not all the candidates changes in policy platforms have been either. Most of Trump’s have been, yes, but many of Hillary’s started in college. In college she fell in with her hippie, progressive, popular kids crowd and meet a man who would change her life, George Soros. Soros is a sick a demented human being who enjoys playing God with nation’s economies, simply because he can and has done so many times.

He put the U.S. in his crosshairs when President Bush the Second was in office. He feared the “reckless Texas cowboy” would bring the world endless wars… Ok, so he got that one right. That doesn’t give him the right or moral authority to intervene, especially when his new puppet politician is going around criticizing the Republican candidates for the same thing. Hillary gets money from many different big corporate donors, as did Obama, Soros being a huge donor to both campaigns. They also get lots of money from unions and environmentalists groups, and the (gasp!) Koch brothers, who donate to both Republican and  Democrat campaigns. To the credit of Bernie Sanders, at least he is honest on not receiving corporate donors.

This is not the only common cause for Trump and Clinton, neither are exactly tolerant of free speech. The Donald wanting to revive the Sedition Acts–a set of laws that journalists could be jailed for being critical of politicians or their policies–an idea that Hillary would no doubt support for the Democrat elite. So we should take these candidates at their word, they won’t railroad the general public with a tsunami of new pointless legislature? Yeah, that has worked well in the past. Hillary has her own set of censorship laws to answer for as well, going after “gangsta rap” and trying to give the government the right to decide the content of what is on the air. She pushed for laws to give government entities carte blanc disclosure over the ratings system on TV programs and movies. The past showed how well that worked, when the FCC  was in charge of the enforcement of such guidelines for radio, it nearly killed the industry! Because such guidelines have never been used to protect people from objectionable content, just objectionable ideas, both that are open to interpretation. Making any laws of this kind dangerous.

Besides a labyrinth of confusion, trying to find out where these two candidates stand on the issues, comes their propensity to drift with the “winds of change” of populist opinions. Most notable, Clinton’s support of gay marriage and Trump’s pro-life stance. Trump’s odd defensive of funding Planned Parenthood and Eminent Domain laws, demonstrates a clear sense of cognitive dissonance when it comes to the Constitution in both the parties. With no evidence to suggest that Clinton would be any different, it looks like the most wasted vote would be for one of the duopoly candidates.

If you Liked this article get my new book, VICTIMS OF WHITE MALE: How Victim Culture Victimizes Society, or any of my other books at Barnes and Noble.com, Amazon.com, or other online stores.

By R.C. Seely

WHEN I WAS IN TRADE SCHOOL FOR MASSAGE THERAPY, I took a class on living the “organic lifestyle”. It covered how avoiding caffeine, redmeat, and eating only organic foods are best, which on the surface makes sense but is it true? Not necessarily. As I did my own research on the subject, I found out that the organic market has less to do with improving peoples nutritional needs and more to do with taking away our choices. I’ll cover that later; first, let’s cover the arguments and proposed need for organic and raw foods over GMO and gluten laden food staples.

WHAT ARE GMOS? GMO is an acronym for Genetically Modified Organisms. Essentially foods products that are modified using hormones or the entire genetic code is reengineered. This is done for either aesthetic purposes or to increase the size of the product or the whole crop yield.

WHAT IS GLUTEN? Gluten is a binding protein used in many of our foods.

THE PROBLEM Many people have disorders that have caused allergic reactions or make them ill after they ingest gluten, eggs or milk. Some conspiracy theories surmise there is an increase in the percentage of Americans with such allergies and GMOs are responsible for it. The evidence for such claims isn’t very convincing and are rife with incomplete data. None the less, it has gripped the nation with a deep phobia of any and all things GMO or gluten. This is a big problem. Our contemporary – on the go – society is built on these forms of food preservation and production.

Because of our genetic modification our food is plentiful, inexpensive and safe. Thanks to genetic modification, we can grow food almost anywhere on the planet – no matter how infertile the soil. Through the utilization of genetic modification our meat is also safer, weeding out serious disorders in the bloodlines of animals making the meat healthier, leaner and more flavorful.

More than that with the evidence being so sketchy, any form of government intervention would be irresponsible. There are consequences to regulating GMOs and those costs have hurt everyone. Those without allergies suffer increased prices on consumables to have them comply with the regulations. This is immoral as well, since they receive no added benefit for the cost. For those who do have conditions causing these food allergies, they have increased costs through the lack of options in products. The time and funds that should go to research and development of alternatives to gluten, eggs, milk, or GMOs, are going to complying with the regulations.

According to Dr. Fasano, director of University of Maryland Center for Celiac Research, the percentage of Americans with gluten allergies is only 6% or 7% of the populace and those with celiac is even lower. Other researchers claim it’s a lot higher at over 50%, but there are conclusive tests at this time. In the end this is another scam to take another choice from the manufacturer and place it in the hands of a federal agency. That’s the real reason for this, the organic farmers want to push out their competition and they are using regulators to achieve that goal. Do you think congress can create better gluten-free products? Or the president? Or regulators enforcers? No, it will be companies like Monsanto, but only if they are left alone to do so.

By R.C. Seely

“It’s all over but the shouting: Obamacare is working,” states Eugene Robinson, in his op-ed piece for the Washington Post. That’s all I can tell you about the article. Because that’s as far as I got, judging from the title alone “Obamacare ready for a victory lap,” it wouldn’t be too hard to fathom the contents of the piece. Another example of school-girlish worship of Barack Hussein Obama. More God worshipping of Obama, more self congratulations for having done his part for the “Obama-nation” and more “where the hell are those nasty Republicans in all this” style of rancor. Okay, we get it – enough already! This is no longer beating the dead horse, but beating it to a throw rug.
Besides writing something that is nothing but tooting his own horn – which makes it boring – it’s also wrong. It’s very assumption is wrong. Obamacare is not working, it hasn’t been fully implemented yet, so stating unequivocally that it is currently working is beyond inaccurate. That’s like building a city in the middle of nowhere, it could thrive but you’re operating on blind faith. Is that really how we want our government to operate, on blind faith? We should be asking more, as is, we ask for more from our cell phone than from our federal government. Instead of “asking can you hear me now,” we should be demanding “you will hear me now.”
Instead of stating that Obamacare is working he should be stating that it will work, but will it? Very doubtful, seeing as when other countries tried it the end results was chaos in their healthcare system. Right now we simply are not at a point where we can measure the success of the law, except for the problems. Six million – and counting – kicked off their insurance, unprecedented spending and unprecedented power. The “success” of the law is based on an unsubstantiated eight million enrollment number, that administration doesn’t won’t explored. There are speculations about the source of those numbers, including adding Medicare and Medicaid to the Obamacare enrollees tally sheets. Such claims are admittedly highly speculative, but not less so than a pundit claiming a law a success before it’s full implementation. Check back with Eugene at the end of the year and see if he stills thinks it a success or if it’s simply that tingling he gets from Obama. To sum it up, Eugene Robinson is jumping for joy, on the optimistic premise – that in the end the venture will wind up an unprecedented success for the unprecedented president.

Did you like this article? Get UNConventional Wisdom: Methods of Behavior Modification for the Modern Age by this author. Also check out his other books all available at Barnes and Noble.com and Amazon.

By R.C. Seely

Before I begin, I must confess that I didn’t watch the State of the Union last night. Frankly the thought of sitting through another self-servicing gratuitous evening speech made my pizza dinner want to make a spectacular return. However, what I do in this company is political science, so to remain silent is not an option.
If I had been employed by someone else it would have been required that I at least watch the dreaded event, if unable to physical attend it fortunately for me that’s not the case. I’m a highly ethical person, though, so in order to give an accurate rebuttal I did have to familiarize myself with the speech somewhat. So to remedy this I watched the highlights on the Wall Street Journal channel of my Roku – it featured the parts when he admired that in this country any one could be anything if they worked for it, giving special notice to his colleague Speaker John Boehner; then the officer who had been injured in the line of duty. How moving, maybe I was wrong about the president and maybe I will start cutting him some slack. Don’t count on it though, from the comments of others who did watch the event it was nothing new. He griped about income inequality, immigration reform (which I do think we need, but not the kind up for discussion), and how he was stuck with a not-doing-a-damn-thing congress. He also apparently continued with his “magic pen” soliloquy, threatening that congress better play ball, or else. Or else what? What can he do to them if they don’t? – Nothing, this is not a real threat with real consequences and all he is calling for is going to hurt the population.
It sounds like the same old rhetoric from the past with the exception that he’s running out of things to mettle with. He hasn’t learned from his errors of judgment or even admitted them. A more refreshing and honest speech would have gone like:
“My fellow Americans, I release this out of character for a politician and might be arguably tantamount to political suicide, but since this is my term in office as president, that matters little. Even if that wasn’t the case I see that my course actions have caused detrimental harm to the office, the Democratic party, but more important the nation.
“Starting with my signature legislature, the Affordable Care and Protection Act, the millions who have lost their insurance is on me. The many countless others who have suffered the unintended consequences in the economy because of it, that too falls on the leader of the nation. While I will not make abortion illegal I can discourage it by cutting federal funding for it, making the individual responsible for paying for it, or finding an insurance company who will cover it.
“If not for my actions young men, like the one in the stands who will have to life with the consequences of ‘Nation Building’ is on me as well. I could have changed course, from those of my predecessors, and actually promote peace as I advocated as senator.
“My federal ‘Go Green’ environmental efforts and healthy lifestyles initiatives have gone too far, with very little substantial evidence to support such reactionary, expensive and intrusive actions. Letting the free market come up with the answers, unhindered by pointless and inefficient restrictions has set back the progress we all yearned for. I will curtail only the most modest and proven efficient restrictions.
“I rein in my social welfare programs and institute a system to follow up to see who needs really in need and who is scamming the system (authors note: With the advances of technology and the information I came across complete elimination of these programs would be the best conclusions, but for the sake of the discussion setting them up in a responsible manner would be a step in the right direction). The attitude of unrestrained spending on these programs has been a violation of the public trust, encouraged irresponsible actions within the government and encouraged dependency on the state. The minimum wage should not be expanded, but instead abolished. It’s effects on the economy and business, violates both the businessman rights to do business in their own way and the states’ rights. Immigration reform does need to be simplified, and the complaint that our current policies give negative incentives by offering illegal immigrants ‘freebies’ to come is valid. Changing the social welfare system so that abuses to it are minimized will affect those who illegal enter the country, natural born citizen or immigrants will no longer get a free ride on the backs of the taxpayers.
“Finally, the federal position on drugs has to change. I advocated abandoning the federal policies on drug enforcement as a senator, with the power before me – as president – I have not acted on my principles, I will now set policies that honor these promises. As with all the other issues mentioned, and others not mentioned, the best way to solve them is for the federal government is to isolate itself from the problem. As we proceed into the future, we must explore not only new technological advancements, but also advancements in political theories. As other countries have been abandoning authoritarian political constructs, this country pushing the failed agenda of more control. We should take heed of the changes toward a free market system that former socialist nations, and ask why are they making that change? No longer will I push for federal intervention with regards to; guns, abortion, marriage, drugs, immigration, health care or other issues that are the states’ or the individuals’ responsibility. I have learned that government’s place in all this, is on the sidelines.”
This is a speech that I don’t hold my breath about hearing anytime soon, but the candidate who does make such a speech is the kind that we need.
Like this article? – Read more about how federalism has failed us in my new book, UNConventional Wisdom: Methods of Behavior for the Modern Age.

uncon

In this book R.C. Seely examines how the federalist stance – that everything has to be managed by the government has messed up our country. Are we any safer with a preemptive strike policy? Is the drug war keeping drug usage down? Is the green movement really about saving the planet? Are whistleblowers a threat or protectors of our nation? Are the third parties dividing us or fixing the country? So has federalism worked or has it failed, read UNConventional Wisdom and find out.