Burying Tamerlan Tsarnaev The Boston Bombing Terrorist

Posted by Modern Day Machiavelli on May 10, 2013
Posted in: politics. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , . 1 comment

I’m going to make this one short and sweet. First and foremost I am the Modern Day Machiavelli, and that being said I am known for saying things others won’t say, being crude, and being especially controversial. I guess this one is no different, but in this case It may be of a surprise to some who know me.

Those that know me, know that I love to read online news articles and comment on them, I sometimes even engage in lengthy debates in the comment sections after articles on major news sites. That being said, I have been astonished and somewhat appalled by the attitude towards the burial of the dead Boston bombing terrorist. For those of you that don’t know, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the Boston bombing suspect’s body has been hanging around for weeks after his death. First it was held for investigative purposes, then when it was available for release to the family there was a delay. Then when the body was claimed, it was stuck at the funeral home because there was a huge dilemma about how to dispose of the body for it’s final rest. Sometimes it seems as though notorious criminals in recent history were cremated but because of muslim practice, cremation was not an option. The general consensus among most Americans is that he should be returned to his native land, but for a myriad of reasons that didn’t seem to be an option either. So the logical thing to do is bury the body somewhere relatively close. This option seemed to be some form of blasphemy or even worse….

Now this brings me to my point at hand. I have several problems with the way some Americans, even government officials are acting towards “disposing” of the remains of this terrorist. First, when the funeral director preparing the remains first mentioned he was having trouble finding a burial place for the body, people hit the internet cursing his body and demanding and suggesting that everything be done to the body except burial. The funeral director stated that people were driving by the funeral home yelling obscenities and that some people gathered outside to protest.

First of all, I’m not sure what people expect to be done. Are we barbarians? You would think so from what has been suggested over the last week or so. Remember one of the key elements that separate us from muslim extremist and other terrorist is that we are a civilized society. I am almost ashamed of how we, as a collective, have conducted ourselves over the several weeks. I expect that kind of behavior from a select few, but from what I have seen of a good portion of people, as well as members of our local and state governments, I stand bewildered. Now don’t get me wrong, I have no sympathy for Tamerlan Tsarnaev or his brother. As a matter of fact I was somewhat tickled by the way he died, and could care less if his brother died in a similar fashion. But when they’re dead they’re dead, bury them and be done with it. Now I’m not saying there should be a dignified funeral and some kind of “pomp and circumstance”, just dig a hole, throw his ass in, cover it up, and be done. Finally, today he was buried in Virginia but officials stated that they are going to try to find some legal avenue to “undue” the burial. I find this sickening and somewhat ridiculous.

You must also realize that the longer we prolong this, the more we are making him a martyr to the terrorist and sympathizers he represents. Remember we are the civilized ones, we are a better culture, a better society, and damn sure a better country. Are we also going to set some kind of precedence? What happens when Charles Manson dies, are we going to refuse to bury him as well.

The bottom line is that burying this worthless piece of dung is not about him, it’s what we are.

I could give a damn if he ever rest, but I think it’s about time to put this to rest.

Want to debate, I’m begging you because I’m the Modern Day Machiavelli!!!!

Now That The Academy Awards Are Over Can We Get On With Life??

Posted by Modern Day Machiavelli on February 25, 2013
Posted in: Current Events, politics. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment

This one is going to be short and sweet folks. I’m not real big on pop culture, but I am indifferent of its coverage. I don’t really get into the media hype surrounding the pop culture but to each his own. Very seldom do I even pay attention to these types of stories, I think they are a little over the top and way to much attention is paid to things that have very little relevance in everyday life, but “to each his own”. My attitude has changed though over the past week or so. The past week we have been inundated with ridiculous, over the top, and useless coverage of the 2013 Academy Awards.

It seems each year gets worse and worse considering the media coverage, but this year seem much worse than any. One thing that seems to be of great importance is the host. Once the host is named, there are countless stories about the host pertaining to his attributes, his talent, whether he will be a success or failure. It seems as though the choice of host is more important than the event itself. Then comes the countless and pointless side stories about the pre-parties, what everyone will wear. This year I saw a story completely dedicated to Jennifer Lawrence and the dress she wore that revealed “side boob”. It seems there are enough people in this world who are interested in “side boob” that we write stories on it that make the front page of major media sites such as MSN and Yahoo News. Honestly, I had no idea what “side boob” was and I had to look it up. For those of you that don’t know side boob is when a woman wears a top or dress that reveals, not the nipple, but the side of her “boob” when she isn’t wearing a bra. In the case of Jennifer Lawrence, all you could see was the bottom of the side of the “boob” where it rested against her chest. Basically is was just a fold of skin and wasn’t all of that attractive to me personally. I’m not saying everyone, but I would think that a significant portion of the people interested in that story have some type of fetish or even perversion. Now that the awards are over I sat down in front of my computer and what do I see, two articles about the Awards show that really have nothing to do with the awards show. First one was another article about Jennifer Lawrence, this time tripping on the steps to accept her award and the second was about Daniel Day Lewis being tired and needing a break. The Lawrence story was about her tripping up the steps to accept her Oscar and the big deal was that she almost said the “F-bomb” when she tripped.

Now I understand in today’s technological world that there is so much space for information on the web that it has to be filled with something. I also understand that the way internet news sites are constantly fed information and news that sometimes you have to fill those spaces with information that maybe somewhat irrelevant, but when I go to sites like MSN and Yahoo and the feature story is Lawrence “almost” using the “F-bomb”, I can’t help but shake my head at the way our society is allowing itself to be “dumb-down” with such irrelevant nonsense. It’s like I’m living in a real life version of the film Idiocracy.

To be honest I was hoping that maybe after the Oscars, we would be able to pick up a paper, click on a news site, or turn on a television without being overwhelmed with minutia surrounding people who have no concept of reality, but the way things are going it will be at least another week before the media is back to normal.

What say you!
Let me know, I’m The Modern Day Machiavelli!

Does The Loyal Opposition Exist Anymore?

Posted by Modern Day Machiavelli on February 12, 2013
Posted in: Current Events, Government, politics. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment

When I first began my quest in politics we referred to the opposing view as the loyal opposition. According to most experts the loyal opposition refers to the opposing party, usually the one not in power, in a two or more party system. This term originates in the parliamentary system in Great Britain but has evolved to include other systems of government where power is shared or routinely transferred between parties. Now it’s used to refer to the opposing party and how they can oppose the parties ideas and policy, but remain loyal to the government and country. It’s usually an endearing term used to describe a political adversary. When I think of loyal opposition as in the history of our country, I think of the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist. These were people who were loyal to the government and the country in which the represented, but disagreed on the course it should take. Although each vehemently disagreed with the other, each new that the other had the best intentions for the country. There are many other examples throughout the history of our country, but I think you get the idea.

What I’m wondering as I write this, does the “loyal opposition even exist anymore”? I’m not sure it exist at all and if it does it is very small. There was once a time in my life where I believed the majority of the left could be considered the loyal opposition, while only a select few on the left did not have honest intentions whether they were right or wrong. Believe it or not, I would defend the left and refused to admit to anyone, or myself, that the Democrats and the left did not have the best intentions. Over the last 20 years it has become mor and more difficult to defend the vitriol, the actions, and even political platforms in which the left put forth. I guess the first time I noticed the left and their sadistic method in which they try to destroy not only the politics of anyone opposing them, but the person was the confirmation of Clarence Thomas. The manner in which Clarence Thomas was personally attacked was unconscionable. They didn’t attack Justice Thomas’ politics, they attacked his character and integrity in an attempted to smear him so bad that he would never be confirmed. Fortunately it didn’t work, but it wasn’t for a lack of trying. The people who attacked Justice Thomas was not part of the loyal opposition. Unfortunately it has gotten progressively worse over the years and there are no signs of easing.

The reason I bring this up now is the State Of The Union is scheduled for tonight and therefore Marco Rubio has been chosen to give the response. Instead of using allowing the President’s address to speak for itself, the DNC has chosen in on organized fashion to discredit Marco Rubio before the SOTU, and before the response. The only reason you would want to do this is to attack Rubio personally and discredit any platform in which Rubio is putting forth. I think this is a tactic that would not be used by the “loyal opposition”. If the DNC and the left believed that the President address was what was best for the country, and was genuine, why would they feel the need to discredit Rubio before he ever speaks? Because to the left it’s not about laying your ideas out there for the country to decide.

Yep, the loyal opposition to conservative ideas is a thing of the past, and it’s because I have come to the realization that the left is honest and genuine with their ideas anymore. They are putting their own self-interest above that of the country. The DNC and the left have “shown their cards” and it’s not the best interest of the country. They have two goals using entitlement programs to “buy” votes and discrediting anything the right has to say, and this prebuttal of the SOTU rebuttal is a perfect example. It is not about the exchange of ideas anymore, it’s about doing anything and everything possible to stay in power. I have said for years that the defining difference between the left and right is that the Right believes in country first and everything else second while the left believes in party above all else. The perfect example of this is the way minorities are treated who are conservative or right leaning. Two quick examples that come to mind are Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain. Because they don’t fall in line like the left thinks they should, the have been torn apart by the left. Instead of respectfully disagreeing with their politics and praising their achievements, the left has done everything to destroy these two individuals. That is why I believe, without a doubt, the left hasn’t been the loyal opposition for some time. Therefore its time to treat them like the enemy they are.

Have a different Opinion? I’ll debate anytime – anyplace.

I’m the Modern Day Machiavelli.

The U.S. Postal Service, Saturday Delivery And Are Their Days Numbered?

Posted by Modern Day Machiavelli on February 7, 2013
Posted in: Government, politics, Uncategorized. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment

I’m sure by now everyone has heard the news the United States Postal Service has made the big decision to cease saturday delivery. It seems they have been threatening or considering the move for some time and there was even question as to whether the USPS had the authority to make the decision or was that a decision only Congress could make. I hear that some Congressmen disagree with the Postal Service about the authority but nonetheless, they have made the decision. The only question, is stopping Saturday delivery enough to preserve an institution such as the postal service? I’m wondering if stopping Saturday delivery will even begin to correct the problems associated with the Postal Service. It leaves me wondering, can the United States Postal Service be fixed or has it’s time come and gone.

The first time I really remember noticing the Postal Service was in the early to mid 90s. I noticed that the Postal Service was sponsoring the Olympics and Lance Armstrong’s cycling team. I thought to myself, why in the world does a government entity have to employ a marketing strategy that includes multi-million dollars sports sponsorships and endorsements. I found this particularly odd. The Lance Armstrong deal was worth $10 million or so a year. Also the USPS signed on as a major sponsor for the 1992 Olympics at the tune of around $90 million dollars. After five years and $140 million of taxpayer money to gain sponsorships and endorsements usually reserved for Fortune 500 companies you would think it made a positive difference. Not exactly, the revenue of the USPS dropped approximately $13 million by 1996. They say “hind-sight” is 20/20 but I think this was one of the most ridiculous and ill-managed decisions in the history of the United States government. I would have thought there would have been some public outcry about the need (or lack there of) of the endorsements and sponsorships. It begs the question, “why would a government agency need a campaign that marketed a service in which the government had a monopoly”? You see the USPS has a monopoly on most, if not all mail. Unless someone can prove me wrong the USPS has a statutory monopoly on first class mail and other small enveloped mail. Packages are another issue. USPS wants you to believe that their package shipping is cheaper and offer these gimmick “if it fits, it ships” deals where anything can ship for a flat rate if it will “fit” in one of their predetermined size boxes. What I have found is that the boxes seem intentionally odd sized and very few things I have tried to ship will fit in them. Also they seem cheaper than their competitors but by the time you add the “bells and whistles” such as insurance and tracking that come standard with UPS, the cost is usually more. Even if the cost was a wash, anyone who has had any interaction with the Postal Service knows that their customer service is an ABSOLUTE nightmare. So if the cost of shipping is anywhere near the same, most people are going to avoid the USPS altogether.

Also as they cease Saturday delivery and continuously raise the price of a stamp, the USPS states that it cost the USPS around $1.50 per mail item. What I would like to know is how much of that $1.50 is the result of absurd union influence on employee pay and benefits? I know, I have seen a federal employee benefits chart and postal employees benefit packages are separated from other employees and are somewhat better. For example comparable health insurance for postal employees is approximately 15% cheaper than any other federal worker. It puzzles me as to why the USPS workers are entitled to be required to pay a smaller portion of their premium than other federal employees. This is just an example of government unions and how they are just not compatible with federal service. If someone has a different opinion or believe I wrong, please let me know.

For years I lived in a very rural area that had a local Post Office in the community. The office only had one full-time employee and she was the postmaster. She had been employed by the USPS for years and was paid well. The crazy thing is the postmaster lived about 30 miles from the post office. The lobby hours extended past the service counter hours so they had to pay someone to lock the lobby every night. So instead of hiring a local person who was not a postmaster, and much cheaper for the USPS , they over paid a postmaster to travel 60 miles a day plus a local person to do nothing but lock up. The bad part about it was the fact that when the local person was not available the postmaster would lock the lobby when the service counter closed, without notice, denying mail to a majority of the community. Later they announced that only the lobby would be open on Saturday and that the service window would be closed. So afterwards every Saturday the postmaster would drive the 30 miles (one way), sort and post the mail, and then sit there behind the service counter until the lobby closed and then locked the doors and left. You could walk into the office, check your mail, and wave to the postmaster on the other side of the closed glass window. If you received a package or something registered you could show her the notice through the window, but she couldn’t help you because she was “closed”. It was one of the most ridiculously stupid things I have ever seen. Why would you cut service without cutting cost. Someone please explain that one.

Remember earlier when I was talking about customer service. Have you ever heard of those UPS Brown Stores? For those of you that haven’t they are “store faces” owned by UPS that offer shipping / package solutions as well as a place to receive packages to be held. These locations also have PO boxes they rent for a premium price. As a matter of fact the last time I checked the monthly rent on a UPS/Brown store PO box was almost as much as the yearly rent on PO box at the local Post Office. Yet, the last time I checked, almost all of the boxes were currently being rented. What?? Why in the hell would someone pay that much per month when you could get one at the post office for a fraction of the cost, or for that matter delivered to your home for free? You see the way these boxes work, the postal service delivers the mail to the UPS store who in return place it in the customer’s box. The only reason I could understand why ANYONE would do this is level of service and convenience. Which is almost non-existent at your local post office. Again, please someone tell me I’m wrong.

Now some of you are probably saying that all I am doing is complaining without offering any solutions to the problem. First of all I’m not sure the postal service can be corrected and if so it will take compromises by both citizens and postal employees. It would take monumental changes to create any real difference. One thing I have always wondered is why do you get mail delivered to your house for free (regardless where you live) yet you pay to go where they sort the mail anyway. Does that make any sense whatsoever? Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Any other service would be the opposite, personal service at your home would involve an extra fee. So maybe we should look at charging a yearly fee for home delivery and if you don’t won’t to pay then go pick up your mail yourself. Depending on how far you live from an incorporated area should determine your yearly fee. I currently have my mail delivered to my house, not because I don’t won’t to pay for a box, but because any way to avoid the circus they call a post office is what I want. If the box was free and delivery was with a fee trust me I would be paying. Another way would be to alter the way “junk mail” is handled. First of all junk mail should have its own class such as first class, media mail, and others, except it should cost a premium. That would eliminate the needless BS bulk the Postal Service is responsible for and the ones thinking it was important enough would pay more. Maybe that would generate more revenue, I’m not sure. It would be worth consideration. These are just several suggestions that could help get the USPS on the right path

Now as I’ve stated earlier I’m not sure anything could repair the disarray that the postal service has become. Sometimes I wonder if one day our children will talk about the United States Postal Service like the Pony Express. Don’t get me wrong, I like the fact that my mail is delivered to my door six days a week (soon to be five) for absolutely free. I very seldom use the mail myself so a book of stamps last me longer than it takes to raise the price of a stamp. I’m just afraid that the time may have come and gone for the United States Postal Service.

What say you.

I’m the MODERN DAY MACHIAVELLI!

The Great Traffic Scam Our Local Government at Work

Posted by Modern Day Machiavelli on February 6, 2013
Posted in: Current Events, Government, Justice, politics. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment

Everyone seems to have reservations about the government these days. Between the threat of banning firearms and being overtaxed there is now, more than ever, reason to be untrusting of the government. The largest and most wide-reaching conspiracy doesn’t involve Washington, it’s not a product of the CIA, its much more local than you would ever think. They involve the counties and municipalities in which we live and socialize.

Yes, traffic enforcement and ticket writing are one of the biggest scams, rackets, or whatever you want to call it in America today. Forget all of the “legitimate” reasons you hear for traffic enforcement because most of it is BS. The real reason for writing tickets and the issuance of traffic citations is much more deceptive and self preserving than you could imagine. As a career law enforcement officer on various different levels I learned this first hand.

One thing that I feel the need to clarify before we go any further is the difference between a traffic officer and a patrol officer. In very small departments there may be little, if any difference between the two, but in larger departments there is a significant one. Both are what we refer to in the profession as uniformed officers, but the difference relies in the duties in which each has. Patrol officers for instance answer “calls for service”. They usually patrol a specific assigned area and respond to 911 calls as well as other incidents within the assigned beat. Traffic officers on the other hand do just that. They enforce traffic laws, parking laws, and respond to accidents. Just something I wanted to make people aware.

First of all the only presumption in traffic enforcement is not the presumption that you are innocent but the presumption that you will not appear in court. Most traffic officers issue more citations than they could possibly testify to in court. Therefore the only way they could possibly do this is the presumption that the vast majority of people issued a citation will not take the time or hassle to challenge them but simply take the easy route and just pay the fine. Some studies suggest that less than 5% of drivers issued citations challenge them. That gives traffic enforcement a 95% chance that they will never be questioned about this ticket. When some officers issue more than 100 tickets a month, that officer doesn’t have the time on duty, nor mental capacity to testify to that many tickets. When you do challenge a ticket the real “racket” begins.

As I’ve clearly stated above, most officers presume, hope, or “bank” on the fact that you will not challenge a traffic citation and that you’ll not inconvenience yourself in traffic court. If you are one of the 5% that do, be ready for an experience that is very conducive for the officer and as much a hassle as can possibly be for the defendant. In most jurisdictions you are given a court date and this date is not actually a court date but more or less a deadline in which to pay the fine. When you pay the fine, you are pleading guilty prior to the court date. If you don’t want to pay the fine, a phone number and point of contact is usually provided on the citation. Once you inform the court you want to challenge the citation you are assigned a court date. You will be required to be in the courtroom at that date and sit through the entire day’s court cases until your case is called. Once your name is called you and the issuing officer will be asked to testify before the judge. This is where it gets tricky. First of all, as I stated earlier most officers presume you won’t appear, some even have that presumption after you plead not guilty, so there is a good chance the officer will not be there for the first scheduled court date. I’ve seen some agencies that discipline officers who do not show for court, but the agencies who encourage, or even condone, officers that issue unrealistically numbers know they cannot be at every court appearance. This is where the judge will lose credibility in my opinion. Some judges, not all but most, will ask the clerk to postpone the trial until the officer is available and give you another court date. Remember, an officer writing 100 tickets or more a month doesn’t do so by testifying in court. But what is really unethical on the court’s part is the biased way in which they give the officer a way out for not appearing in court. If a lawyer were to represent someone in the same court, the case would more than likely get dismissed if the officer doesn’t appear and worse if the defendant doesn’t show, at the very least, the court would find you guilty and access the fine PLUS court cost. I have seen some jurisdictions that issue bench warrants for failure to appear in traffic court. Yet the officer gets the unfair benefit of “hey this person is serious about challenging the ticket”, and usually the officer will appear the second date. In extreme cases I have seen officers who will not appear regardless and they just play the percentages, 95% is definitely in the officers’ favor.

Now there are numerous credible stories on the web involving law enforcement agencies, including municipalities, counties, and state agencies instituting quota systems among their traffic enforcement officers but that is not the real travesty. The real travesty involves the direct correlation between revenue and citations. There have been many credible studies that show a direct correlation between the two. It seems when local governments run low on funds, citations increase to generate revenue for the local government. There have been many documented cases where municipalities have relied on citation revenue for approximately 50% of their budget. Randolph, Missouri, a small town not too far from Kansas City, relied on citation revenue for approximately 3/4 of their municipal budget. Even though a law had been passed 15 years prior by the Missouri legislature stating that only 35% of a municipal budget could be generated through citation fines, the small town was targeting out-of-town traffic to fund their city. City and County judges rubber stamp these practices, and condone these unethical policies, with unrealistically high conviction rates.

To make matters even worse, these unethical practices by everyone from the police to government administrators lead to much more serious violations of citizens rights. The traffic stops and citations are used by officers to conduct unlawful searches of persons and vehicles on a routine basis. They use tactics such as intimidation and promises not to issue citations if a search is allowed. Sometimes they threaten to detain motorist for hours until proper warrants are obtained if they refuse or fail to consent to an otherwise unlawful search. What about the DUI/DWI? Police use false premiss to set up DUI checkpoints and arrest motorist with absolutely no probable cause whatsoever. Can you imagine the revenue that DUI’s generate? Now I’m in no way condoning driving while intoxicated, but even worse than that is gross violation of civil rights. In my first few years as a patrol officer, our department had one DUI officer assigned to each precinct. The one assigned to my precinct set the state record for DUIs in a year with around 600. He was recognized and given an award by the department of public safety, but what no one talked about was the fact that how many of those DUIs were dismissed or had a not guilty verdict. But that didn’t matter because it didn’t fit the template.

Now I know a large percentage of the readers will think I crazy, some will think I’m insensitive, and members of MADD think I have my opinions because no one close to me has ever been hurt by a drunk driver. None of that is the case. I think it is imperative that this gross injustice be known to the public. What if everyone who received a citation this year pleaded not guilty? I know it would never happen but if it did it would throw the municipal and county court system into disarray. There should be a distinct standard when issuing a citation. The standard should be that for every citation issued, that officer should be prepared and physically able to testify in court. Today that is just not the case. If you remember anything from this, remember when you are issued a citation it’s not the presumption of innocence but the presumption that you won’t challenge the ticket.

Have a different opinion, think I’m crazy, or want to challenge me, I’ll welcome any and all to debate this anytime.

Just “dos centavos” from The Modern Day Machiavelli.

Does Everyone Deserve An Education???

Posted by Modern Day Machiavelli on February 4, 2013
Posted in: Current Events, politics, Uncategorized. Tagged: , , , , , . 3 comments

I have so many issues with our college education system I’m not sure where to begin. I’m not sure there is an institution that is in more disarray, or is in worse shape than the college and university system in the United States. The cost of education, the enrollment numbers, and even the common everyday perceptions of what the education system is what it is for is skewed beyond belief. The other day I was having lunch with a friend of mine, a very liberal guy, and the subject of education began. My friend stated that everyone deserved an education. I asked didn’t he mean to say that everyone deserves an opportunity to get an education and reiterated no, that every American deserves an education and a country that is as great as ours should ensure that everyone gets an education.

First of all we, as a society, have created this notion that everyone in this country deserves an education. Nothing could be further from the truth. I hate to be the harsh and realist that I am but not everyone is college material. Everyone who graduates from highschool should not be expected to go to college, much less graduate. I think we do our young adults a disservice by implying that they are required to go to college, be successful, and graduate. For example, I worked with a guy several years ago who had a college degree and worked in an environment that required a college degree. He struggled in his position and admitted the position he held was not for him and the he would much rather be operating heavy equipment or something similar. He stated that family pressure influenced his decision to attend college and now he felt that if he worked a job that didn’t require a college degree he would have wasted the years he spent and college and that it would have been a total waste. I’m not going to say my coworker was unintelligent, but he was a very simple-minded “country boy” who would be much happier driving a bulldozer or some similar heavy equipment. Ironically our employer had heavy equipment operators employed and he applied for a transfer several times, but was turned down because of his resume. What’s even more ironic was the fact that the heavy equipment operators were paid a better salary than the position my friend had. In other words, my friend made effort to get a degree (that neither wanted nor needed) that did not benefit him at all. This brings me to my next point.

I know some of you are thinking that since he graduated and obtained the degree he obviously was deserving of the degree and should be able to secure a career coinciding with the degree, but I disagree. Because we lived in a society that pushes everyone deserves a college education, the pressure does not rest on the students alone. Colleges and universities are under pressure to turn out these kids as fast as they can. Our college and university system has become less of an institution and more of a business, and when it becomes a business it’s about enrollment numbers. It’s more about quantity than quality. What makes this such a conundrum is that it floods the market and work force with college graduates applying for jobs in which they “perceive” a college graduate should have. This causes a huge problem for employers who can’t tell the difference between college graduates and people with a college degree who are pushed through for society’s sake. That’s why we have job websites and job openings flooded with applicants, who probably had no business applying for the job to begin with. This where it causes problems for college graduates who deservedly have a college degree, they get lost in application process. How can businesses adequately go through a hiring process when so many people are applying for every single job? I applied for a position one time recently that I believed I was highly qualified but I didn’t get the job. I was so bewildered by not even getting an interview that I called the person in charge of hiring and just asked him why. His honest answer was that it was just impossible to go through everyone that applied for the job, so they developed a system to organize the applicants and sometimes good applicants were excluded. He stated that the system was not perfect, but it was the best they could do. When we created the culture that everyone deserves a college education, we created a culture and expectation that everyone deserves this grandiose job with all of the bells and whistles. Nothing could be further from the truth, for more on this watch the video . Because of this mindset, society has made it seem less than successful to have a skilled labor job or learn a trade or a vocation that doesn’t require a degree. The ironic part of all of this is the lack of people learning trades, vocations, and skills, has driven up the salaries of good skilled workers and tradesmen. In my close circle, I have friends with bachelor degrees, several of us even have graduate degrees, but the biggest earners in my group of friends are one with trades and vocations. I have one friend who has nothing more than a high school education, but is a very successful small business owner as an electrical contractor. But the one who tops them all, the most successful one in my circle only completed the ninth grade. This guy dropped out of school when he was 15, he has told me numerous times that school just wasn’t for him. When he dropped out of school he learned a trade and then eventually purchased the business in which he is employed. This friend of mine easily makes over six figures. I know, before you say it, these examples are purely anecdotal. Maybe so but look at the trends and wages of these types of workers in certain areas and tell me there’s not a correlation.

Another point that really puzzles me is the cost of a college education. Why should all college degrees cost the same? If you go into a restaurant is a 20 oz rib eye steak the same price as chopped steak? of course not, but why is it when you enroll in college is the cost of a degree in physical education the same as a degree in chemical engineering? How do we as a society justify going thousand’s of dollars in debt for a degree where the starting salary isn’t much above the poverty line or even that much different from a skilled or vocational worker who paid far less for his knowledge and skill? When you quantify it in that way it really makes you think, doesn’t it? How many people go to college as soon as they graduate from high school for no other reason than that is what their family, peers, and society tell them they should do, only to get a degree that gives them no benefit or edge whatsoever in the workforce? Another aspect is you can look around your office, circle of friends, or whatever and just see exactly how many people with degrees actually do what they studied in college, or many people’s degrees are directly related to their job. Unless you work in an environment with people who have professional degrees such as engineers, chances are not very many.

Now I’m not against college, I love going to college and have taken classes in some form or another since the day I graduated from high school. What I don’t like is how our society has cultivated a mindset that tells our younger generations that they aren’t successful unless they have a formal college education. College is a government endorsed “racket” that is teaching our young adults very little while putting them in serious debt during a very important time in their life. When responsible young adults should planning a family and buying a house, too many have the stigma of outrageous student loans hovering over their heads. Listen up, every damn kid in the United States doesn’t DESERVE a college education. Every child born in this country does deserve the same chances in life, and to roll the dice and let them land where they land. Some make decisions that put them on the track to be doctors and other make decisions that lead to other less desirable professions, but it’s life. There is nothing wrong with the electrician working, making an honest wage at a respectable profession. We’re not all Wall Street investors remember that. If I had it all to do over again, knowing what I do now, I might have just learned a trade or a vocation.

Can You Remember Where You Were Super Bowl Sunday?

Posted by Modern Day Machiavelli on February 3, 2013
Posted in: sport. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment

As Super Bowl Sunday fast approaches, I have seen so many articles from Super Bowls gone by. Each time I see one, I think about where I was and in what atmosphere did I watch that Super Bowl. Now this Super Bowl will be more than 40 I have been on this Earth to witness and some I remember and some I don’t. The funny thing about it, I’m not really sure how many, if any, Super Bowls I have missed, but the only one’s I distinctly remember are just a fraction of the 40 or so I have seen. As I recall my past Super Bowls, I challenge you to do the same even post a couple of memories in the response.

The very first one I can remember is Super Bowl X. You see, being born in the early Seventies is was required that every kid not born in a football city to be a Dallas Cowboys fan and I was no different. So when the Dallas Cowboys made it to the Super Bowl, I was there directly in front of my TV. Just a few weeks prior I had received a Cowboys uniform, including helmet, from “Santa Claus” just a few week prior and I was ready to go. I watched that game from kickoff until the last second rolled off the clock. What I remember most was the feeling after the Cowboys lost, I guess that was my first taste of defeat. I can also vaguely remember (but not as well) two years later when the Cowboys one the Super Bowl not near as well the X when they lost. I guess that tells me that the agony of defeat is memorable to me than the thrill of victory.

The next one I distinctly remember is Super Bowl XX between the Chicago Bears and the New England Patriots. Growing up I loved Walter Payton and he was very well thought of in my circle of friends and family. There was also I lot of hype leading up to this game. The personalities involved (Jim McMahon and William Perry just to name a few), the Super Bowl Shuffle, and they way they dominated the regular season made it easy for me to remember this Super Bowl. Seeing Walter Payton win makes this easily one of most memorable ones. Again I watched this Super Bowl, with my parents in our living room.

The next one I distinctly remember watching is Super Bowl XXII between the Redskins and the Broncos. I have always pulled for underdogs when I can and Doug Williams made it easy to be a Redskins fan. Growing up in the South I was familiar with Historically black colleges and the SWAC so I was familiar with Williams. By this time I was a teenager and was out from under my parent’s thumb. My best friend had moved about 100 miles away and his dad had bought a house that had a “mother-n-law” suite in it so I went to his house for the weekend to watch the game with him. We invited a few girls over and we had my first Super Bowl Party. I really wanted Williams to have his day, but became extremely nervous when Elway and Denver jumped out to a 10-0 lead. Then came the second quarter, which is probably the most one-sided quarter in Super Bowl history.Doug had his day and in now a large part of Super Bowl history.

I can also remember Super Bowl XXIII. How can you not remember Jerry Rice and Joe Montana, if you’ve read my previous blog you know what I think of Jerry Rice. I remember I watched this Super Bowl with the Youth Director at my local church. Our youth group had a party and I enjoyed it. As a teenager, my youth group was filled of good-looking, popular, young girls. That alone made memorable, but the fine young girls definitely added to it.

The next one I remember is Super Bowl XXV, I was in the Army and it was just before Desert Storm. I remember the Kick, The Giants, and the Bills losing. I watched the game with a girlfriend I had at the time and a girl I was seeing on the side was also there. Juggling that is what I remember the most. The only other one I really remember watching from my time in the Army is the next years Super Bowl. I watch the game in Europe with a unit I had just been transferred to. The thing I really remember the most is watching the game at a very odd time, not knowing anyone in the room, and the commander giving everyone the next day off.

The next one I remember is Super Bowl XXIX between the 49ers and the Chargers. I remember the game because Steve Young “got the monkey off his back”, and Jerry Rice won another Supper Bowl, but I remember this one mainly because my girlfriend and I had a party at out house and invited a bunch of people. My little brother and one of my childhood best friends (coincidentally the one I watched XXII with) were there. Soon after the game they got into a wrestling match and my little brother slammed my friend on the floor. In doing so they left a mark on the wall and my girl friend complained about it for a month.

Super Bowl XXXI started a new era for me, because of personal connections as well as connection made in the military, I found my new team, the Patriots, in the Super Bowl. I watched the game with the same girlfriend from the previous Super Bowl, but we watched it at my house. I remember this game because mt team, adopted while in the Army, lost in the Super Bowl, but also because me and my girl friend broke up soon afterwards. I miss her.

Well that misery wouldn’t last too much longer because the Patriots made their way to the big game again for Super Bowl XXXVI. The Patriots were vast underdogs and Brady wasn’t the star he is now, so I didn’t feel my team had a chance. Regardless, I put on my Bledsoe Jersey (the same one I wore in the previous Super Bowl) and my Patriots hat and watch the game with my family at my house. Winning that game was one of the greatest thrill I’ve had from watching a game, of any sport, on television. I still have that jersey, although it is retired, and I still wear that Patriots hat on some game days. The other two Super Bowl wins were awesome but none gave me the thrill I experienced that day. Since that Super Bowl the others have kind flown by in a blur, I remember the other two Patriot wins, but I also remember the losses equally. The loss that stands out though is the first loss by the Giants that ended the Patriots almost perfect season. If the win in Super Bowl XXXVI was the biggest thrill then the loss in SBXLII would be the reciprocal.

Those are my Super Bowls from times gone by. They are the ones that stand out in my memory. Some of the reason have to do with the game and some have to do with circumstances surrounding where and how I watched the game. Please take the time and give me a Super Bowl that stands out in your memory and explain why. I would love to hear it.