Archives

All posts for the month February, 2013

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

Posted by Modern Day Machiavelli on February 25, 2013
Posted in: Blog. 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: Blog. 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: Blog. 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!