The Great Traffic Scam Our Local Government at Work

Posted by Modern Day Machiavelli on February 6, 2013
Posted in: Blog. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . 3 Comments

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.

Advertisements

Does Everyone Deserve An Education???

Posted by Modern Day Machiavelli on February 4, 2013
Posted in: Blog. 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: Blog. 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.

Randy Moss What??? The Best…….Really

Posted by Modern Day Machiavelli on February 1, 2013
Posted in: Blog. Tagged: , , , , . Leave a comment

Although I am a hardcore, avid sports fan I really try to stay away from commenting on sports. Occasionally I will respond to a comment I see after an article or call someone out that says something that they really had no business saying, but never did I think I would find myself writing about it. When I heard what Randy Moss had to say during the media frenzied Superbowl Week, I felt I had no other choice but to take action.

First of all I’m going to give Moss the benefit of the doubt, I can only imagine how much hype, pomp and circumstance is surrounding the week before the Superbowl. Besides all of the hype, the media loves to put clebrities and athletes in a position where they will say something silly or over the top. Over the top doesn’t even begin to describe what Randy Moss said. No matter what the hype, no matter what type of uphoria is surrounding the situation, what Moss said was absolutely absurd. As I arrived at the office this morning my friend and coworker’s first words were, “Did you hear what Randy Moss said?”. Yes I did.

For those of you that don’t know Randy Moss stated he was the best wide receiver to ever play the game. His exact quote was, “I really think I’m the greatest receiver to ever play the game”. I was so flabbergasted by his comment, I wasn’t sure what to say. For one there are many positions in the game of football, who the “greatest ever” in each position is up for debate, but unfortunately for Moss, receiver is not one of them. Hey, you can argue who was the best quarterback. Some will say Montana, some will argue Favre, but when it comes to receiver there will always to be, without an argument, a concensus. So everyone reading this knows exactly who is the greatest, and who I’m talking about. I could give you stats of THE GREATEST and tell you how he came from a small Mississippi town and how he had to go to a small historicaly black college because no major institution offered him a scholarship. I could tell you how THE GREATEST was part of possibly the greatest quarterback – wide receiver tandum in the history of college football. I could also tell you that THE GREATEST played every down like his spot on the roster was in jeopardy and his offseason training regiment would make an Ironman blush. I could tell you that the three time Superbowl Champion and Super Bowl XXIII MVP was a first ballot Hall of Famer who has more records than a 1970’s disco radio station. But I don’t have to, because anyone with “sense enough to walk around” knows Jerry Rice is the GREATEST WIDE RECEIVER to ever play the game. I think even Jerry’s response to the quote epitomizes his career. Jerry Rice said, “I feel like my body of work, it speaks for itself, and what I was able to accomplish on the football field. I pretty much leave everything up to the fans. If they want to say I was the greatest receiver to play the game, then that’s okay. If they want to say I’m the greatest football player to ever play the game, that’s okay. I never felt like I had to say that, and those words are not going to come out of my mouth”. Your exactly right Jerry, and everyone with sense enough to get out of the rain knows as well.

Let’s take things even a step further. Even though Randy has played on six different teams he is mostly known for his time on the Minnesota Vikings. You can argue that one season in New England may have been his best single season to date but his best years of consistent play was while he was in Minnesota. So that bring’s me to my next point. Randy Moss should for starters worry about being the best receiver on the team is known for. It is up for debate whether Moss is even the best receiver in the history of the franchise for which he is most known. A good argument could be made that Cris Carter is a better receiver than Moss. Take it one step further he may have not been the best receiver on the team he is most known at the time he was on the team. Remember for two or three seasons, Moss and Carter were on the roster together. Now that may be a stretch because Carter’s career was ending as Moss’s was beginning but you understand my point. How can Moss argue he is the best ever if one can argue the above.

The last point I want to make concerning his ridiculous claim is the platform in which he did it. We all know who was the greatest ever and where did he play? Yep, for the San Francisco 49ers. Moss had the audacity to get up in front of the media and make his claim while wearing the same uniform that Jerry Rice wore! I don’t see how anyone was able to keep a straight face, including Moss, while making this ridiculous claim. Jerry Rice is not only the greatest ever, he is also the most gracious as well. Jerry should have responded by saying that if Randy Moss even dreamed of saying he was the best receiver ever, he should immediately wake up and call Jerry and apologize.

Just my dos centavos.

I am The Modern Day Machiavelli.

The Fake Hug

Posted by Modern Day Machiavelli on January 30, 2013
Posted in: Blog. 3 Comments

How many times have you been in a restaurant, theater, or anywhere else and noticed two people hug. Whether it’s two women, two men, or a man and women, it seems more and more I see these fake, disingenuous “hugs”. Everyday it seems that I see them more and more and I kind of get tired of seeing it. It’s not that I’m some “macho man” who doesn’t believe a man should show any type of affection in public, I just believe that hugs are somewhat of a personal thing and most of the time these “hugs” seem extremely superficial and disingenuous.

The ones I notice the most are the hugs between two women, who are usually friends, that see each other in a public place. They smile, put there arms around each other and pat each other on the back without really touching. A significant portion of the time one of the two seem to not be totally comfortable about the experience. What’s worse is when you see two men give the “bro hug” in public. They usually run up to each other, bear hug, and then do a triple fist bump on the back. I bet it even sounds more ridiculous to you hearing it explained doesn’t it? As I stated earlier, I’m not against “public hugs” or what some would call PDA, but to go around hugging everyone you see is just a little over the top. Maybe that’s just me, maybe I’m over-analyzing it but I really want to say something to the people I see, maybe ask them if they know they look a little ridiculous.

As I stated before I’m not totally against hugging someone, male or female, and I do on occasion hug someone in public. I guess it’s just the fake and disingenuous nature I see that really gets me. If I see someone who is special to me then I have no problem with a true genuine hug. My daughter, who is a preteen, lives with me and I hug her all of the time. Just the other day a friend of mine, a female, returned from Afghanistan and I haven’t seen her in about six months. The first thing I did when I saw her is give her a big, warm genuine hug. I’m not sure why I have this mentality, maybe it goes back to my days in the Army. I joined the United States Army just before Gulf War I and I was constantly being deployed somewhere. Although I was single at that time I had family, friends, and significant other who were very important to me. I gave a lot of hugs to my loved ones when I was leaving and when I returned. These hugs were genuine and meaningful and they had purpose. I’ll never forget the hug I gave my girlfriend right before I stepped on the plane to deploy to a combat zone for the first time. I hugged her, held as tight as I could, for as long as I could, and I told her I loved her. Now that was a genuine hug.

I would like to hear what you think agree or disagree.

Common Misconceptions About The First Amendment and Public Speech

Posted by Modern Day Machiavelli on April 12, 2012
Posted in: Blog. Leave a comment

Unfortunately so many people out there with a voice have a severe misconception of the First Amendment and Public Speech it makes me sad. Many times people say things publicly that bite them in the rear, and people come out of the “wood work” to defend them in the name of free speech and the First Amendment. Most of the time it is usually a public figure who says something that most people find wrong , or even offensive. Other times it happens when people speak an unpopular opinion on a privately controlled forum. Believe it or not these two examples really have nothing to do with the First Amendment.

The obvious example on everyone’s mind right now is Miami Marlins Manager Ozzie Guillen. Several days ago Ozzie said some things in a Time Magazine interview that could be considered somewhat “unsettling” to many Marlins fans. He seemed to be very pro Castro, even going as far to say “I love Castro”. immediately people began to debate the topic, but when Ozzie’s suspension was announced, people came to his rescue in the name of the First Amendment. One of these defenders (not to pick on anyone) is Jen Floyd Engel, a columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Ms Engel seems to think that Ozzie and his five game suspension by the Miami Marlins is a First Amendment issue. Actually nothing could be farther from the truth. The subtitle of her article says it all, “What Ozzie said was bad, but Marlins’ disregard for First Amendment is worse.” I have to take issue with Ms. Engel’s article altogether. First of all the First Amendment protects against two basic aspects of speech, the ability to voice or “express” (see Texas v. Johnson) speech and protection from what is known as prior restraint. The First Amendment in no way provides protections from private entities such as business and individuals, it is intended to keep the government from prohibiting speech.

How about a more obvious scenario. Let’s say Acme Widget Company is a leading producer of widget’s and is a very well-known and popular company. During an interview with a business magazine one of Acme’s executives states that the widget’s produced by the company are substandard, cheaply made, and just aren’t worth a damn. He goes on in the interview to insult the people who purchase the product and alienates them. Does Acme Widget Company have the right to terminate this executives employment??? Your damn right they do, and you wonder why? Because the First Amendment protects individuals from government infringement on speech not repercussions from business and social contracts throughout a person’s life. That executive had every legal right to say what he wanted to say without the exercise of prior restraint and fear of government action. Just as the Acme Widget Company has a right to protect its image and somewhat control the image it wants to project.

What about another example that has recently been a hot topic in the national media, and is mentioned in Engel’s column. Rush Limbaugh caused an avalanche of trouble for him and his radio show
sometime back when he referred to a woman, wanting subsidized birth control, as a slut. The national media responded with an uproar, calling for Limbaugh’s head and asking for him to be removed from radio. What happened next was the fact that several of Limbaugh’s major advertisers severed ties with the show and denounced what he said. Did this hurt his ability to project his message? Only time will tell. Did the advertisers violate Rush’s First Amendment Rights? In no way whatsoever. Although Rush has a right to say whatever he wants, he doesn’t have a government protected right to say what he said and be provided with a venue to say it.

Ozzie Guillen expressed his thoughts without any prior restraint (although Ozzie may have wished they had) or fear of government reprisal concerning his opinions and that is what separates our country from Cuba and Ozzie’s home of Venezuela. But as I’ve said before the First Amendment doesn’t shield or shelter the speaker from business and/or social repercussions. If the Miami Marlins feel that Ozzie Guillen has damaged the Marlins product, they have every right to terminate his employment. By allowing anything but that, we violate the Marlins and their owners the right inalienated in every human and explicitly protected by our founding government.

There are two points I want to close with. First of all, I understand that not everyone understands the First Amendment, what it protects, and from what entity (the government) the speech is protected, but I find it sad and disheartening that career journalist and columnist do not. People confuse the right to say or express their opinion with the right to a venue to express that opinion. If no one picks up my article because my opinion is not popular, if several major media outlets “refuse” to publish my column, are my First Amendment Rights being violated?? What do you think…

I would apologize for being blunt and somewhat harsh, but then again I am the Modern Day Machiavelli.

Standards????? What Standards……..

Posted by Modern Day Machiavelli on April 11, 2012
Posted in: Blog. Leave a comment

For those of you who don’t know I will briefly explain. An FBI applicant, recruit, or whatever was dismissed from the FBI training because he failed to do 30 untimed pushups as part of a follow up physical test. He agrees that he only did 29 of the 30 required but filed a lawsuit against the FBI saying that women were allowed to contiune training after only being required to complete 14 pushups, far less that his 29. Does the recruit, Jay Bauer, have a legitimate case? I would say no, but there are thousands of others that may. I agree that Bauer has no case and should have been dismissed from the training, but your simple dismissal and wannabe “Freudian” explanation doesn’t get it.

First and foremost there are reasons for the physical qualifications. They don’t just simply and arbitrarily pull them out of the air. Men have been told for years that there are concrete reasons for physical qualifications only to let females achieve the same status with less physical qualifications. Shouldn’t they be the same?? I will elaborate more on this in a minute.

Bauer has no legitimate complaint, but the thousands of male agents that did the 30 pushups, only to serve with women who are required to do less, do have a complaint. If 30 pushups is an agreed standard, then 30 pushups should be required regardless of age or sex.

Let me give you a “less watered” down example. In 1995 I joined a major Fire Department in the South who had very “physically demanding” requirements. They were directly associated with the job such as carrying a “charged” hose up 5 flights of stairs, carrying a 150lb dummy 100 feet, and other demanding activities. Very few women were able to complete the physical entrance test. There were a few, and they were good firefighters, but there wasn’t very many women on the FD. The Justice Dept. stepped in and decided that there wasn’t enough female FF and made the city lower the standards for female applicants. Naturally soon after the quality of the Fire Companies in the city deteriorated, but that ‘s not the end of the story. Once word got out that the women were being admitted to the Academy without completing the requirements, some male applicants sued and so the city throughout the physical entrance exam altogether. Now the quality of the FD and fire protection for this city has dropped significantly for the citizens of that area.

The bottom line is that standards are (and should be) there for a reason. Set them and if they can pass those standards, male or female, fine if not choose another profession. Jobs known as “public service” are called that for a reason, the serve the public and most in very impotant ways. Therefore if standards are set for legitimate reason they should not be lowered or adjusted for any reason.

GUIDE ON!