MPO: VENEREAL DISEASES

venereal disease

I have been very lucky in my life to never have contracted a venereal disease, or VD, mainly because the women I dated were beautiful decent women that cared about themselves. That being said, I have had some, let’s just call them mutual short relationships, and we should all be wary and stay safe. I think that if a person has a venereal disease, it should be listed on their license. Right along with height, weight and eye color, there should be a VD category that should state a type or state at least if they have something that is incurable.

ANECDoTE!

beyonce

I spent the night at my girlfriends house, really just a room she was renting from a friend, and she woke up first. She asked me to go get breakfast and I told her that I was tired. She rattled off a litany of spanish words, pretty much asking who was the man in the relationship in the longest possible way and I told her that we would make a deal, the first person to get out of bed goes get breakfast and the other pays. She said alright and sat up on the bed staring at me, I looked at her and pushed her off the bed and told her my wallet is over there and repositioned myself to the middle of the bed with my arms spread out and a silly little grin on my face, (after I looked to make sure she was alright). Then what you are viewing happens. She rose up, sat on the bed, pushed me with her feet, on my face, stomach, hips (I covered my nuts) legs until she pushed me off, me hitting my noggin. I got up and she has this look on her face, with her hands over her mouth of I hope I didn’t hurt him. After seeing I was alright, she put her arms on her side, lowered her brow and then she said your wallet is over there. I guess it was my turn to get breakfast.

 

I SMELL OPPORTUNITY

opportunity

China just hit us with some awesome tariffs and the stock market and if I had an IRA, just took a major hit, but all I can think of now is opportunity. If someone had the money to take some of these boarded up factories, like in my home state of NJ, and would invest or even if the SBA would give out loans to start up a tech factory and if the people that started the business would give wages and were not looking to be overnight multi-millionaires, get rid of that greed, all I see right now is opportunity to start up an amazing high tech electronics factory that can grow into something massive. The biggest point here is not to be greedy, to do it right. Pay good wages and have good happy workers. How does the old saying go “someone’s mess is someone else’s treasure”. That’s not it, but you know what I mean. There’s opportunity afoot, lets see if someone, that isn’t Amazon, goes for it. I’m not a supporter of any political ideology, I am one of seeing people getting paid good wages.

COLLEGE SCAM AND WHY THE PEOPLE THAT ARE FIGHTING IT OUT IN COURT ARE RIGHT

college scam

Why this is what everyone is talking about and not Williams beating Hurd for the super welterweight title is beyond me. I’ll weigh in on this matter because I really have nothing better to do. The biggest thing in this case is privilege or wealth getting things or favors that people that don’t have those lofty means can get. Loughlin and others paid money to fake transcripts and/or make sure that their kids were able to get into a really good school. Lets be honest, if I could make sure that my son would get admitted to a school that would benefit him in the future by donating money, I would do it. We all love our kids and we all want to make sure that their future is as set or as favorable as we can make it for them, even the people prosecuting this case. The problem with this case is not that these people were wrong for what they did, it’s because you want to jail them for loving their kids. Do they deserve jail time, I don’t think so, they do deserve a large fine and to have their kids take the appropriate steps to be readmitted into the school. What ever ends up happening, I think that Loughlin and the people that are fighting the charges are right and not because they didn’t do anything wrong but because the prosecutors are flexing muscles that they shouldn’t be. What they are saying is they can get up to 40 years of jail for not hurting a single person but because they didn’t just do what the prosecutors wanted them to do. This was never more evident when they didn’t take the plea deal and the prosecutors decided to add money laundering charges, which by the way is a stretch because money laundering is used to charge people that got ill gotten gains and decided to put into the world and then have it returned to them in a legal manner, i.e. drug smugglers that use a laundromat, bodega or any cash business to say that their money was legally obtained. Since the defendants in this case never had the money come back to them or earned their money in a fraudulent way, money laundering seems to be a huge stretch, but I’m not a lawyer or play one anywhere so we’ll have to see what happens. If I had to guess, Singer would be the money launderer and the people that paid him would unwittingly be co-conspirators in that that scheme. I think that the prosecution would have to show proof that these defendants were aware that was Singer’s intent when they paid him or whatever charity he was affiliated with.

I personally think that jails are for people that are a danger to other people and society, not for people that wanted to put their kids in a good school, no matter how rich or privileged they are. Singer is obviously a predator and deserves jail but these defendants, I opine, just made a dumb fucking mistake, albeit a serious one. They deserve to pay a hefty fine and forced to open or donate to a scholarship program for underprivileged youths that would otherwise would be able to attend such schools but don’t have the means to do so and add community service, what, 500 hours seems fair. If the prosecutors had decided to impose that punishment, the defendants would have surely agreed and everyone would have benefited and they would have helped intelligent under-privileged families to boot. They, the prosecutors, would have been the good guys with a moderate approach and solution to a problem and would have sent out a message that this would not be tolerated by Singer types, the people you are really trying to dissuade in the first place. They instead chose to focus their fire power on the rich folks, not that us poor or lesser means folks wouldn’t be glad to see rich yuppies go to jail, just not for loving their kids. The problem here is if these people were poor and had done the same thing by taking out a second mortgage, thinking that I’m going to do whatever I can to make sure my kid has a better chance in life, would you be as upset? The crimes are exactly the same, except one is rich and one is poor, and if you said I wouldn’t do that to a person that put a second mortgage on a home, then you shouldn’t do that to a person just because they didn’t have to do that. That’s the law, you shouldn’t punish someone because they are rich just like you shouldn’t punish someone because they are poor.

Speaking of being poor, do you know how many times poor people had to agree to plea deals because they had no representation or couldn’t afford one, this is why I am happy these defendants are fighting this case. These cases, these fights, they help the poor and people of lesser means. You might look down at Loughlin and the other defendants but I hope they give the prosecutors one hell of a fight and force them to be reasonable in their sentencing because when I sell everything I own and go live in my car to bribe someone at Harvard or Princeton to put my son’s name up a notch, just enough to be accepted, I want to do community service, not go to jail for 40 years. I’m joking of course, but this case is about checks and balances, because some poor family out there is going to get taken advantage of, either for school admission or admission into this country, and the punishment should be fair and even handed and the sad truth is that these rich folks set precedents in cases just like this, that limits the abuse of authority that prosecutors sometimes wield. These rich folks will help us poor folks fight battles that we wouldn’t otherwise be able to fight. They are not the good guys, or even the bad guys, but I offer that neither are the prosecutors, at least not in this case. Not one soul was injured and you want to lock them up, why? Because they are rich, not a good reason. And if your thought is that it happens to poor people all the time, then you should be rooting for these defendants so we have case law to prevent it from happening. I look at things a little differently I guess, but I consider the adding charges when they didn’t appease the prosecutors a little bit of a crappy move on their part but that happens all the time to us poor folk, I would like to see it stopped.

My opinion is mine alone and I’m assuming that no other person was hurt or kept out of the school due to these activities. If there were, then we’re in a different ballgame altogether.

I do have a couple of questions for you

Would you send a student to jail if he got caught cheating on a SAT test at a SAT test site?

Would you send a student to jail if he lied on his application for college about things they did or sports they played in?

Those are the exact same crimes but I don’t think that you would file charges on those students and it happens and they have been caught, why would you jail the parents? Singer was an opportunist that approached these parents because of their wealth, he is the criminal and you shouldn’t equate Singer’s actions as equal or the same as the parents’ actions. Read the story of Sam Eshaghoff. He basically did the same thing as Singer and got community service and the students that paid him, well, they received no punishment that I read about. The amount of money paid is not the same and I believe Singer to be a scam artist and should receive jail time but, if you are going to be fair across the board, then the parents should have gotten the same deal as Sam, who was more liable then the parents.

WTF!

WTF

I went on a date to a club in NYC and was dancing with my girlfriend, later to be my wife. Some drunk guy started to dance behind her and she kept dancing away from him. He didn’t get the message and started to grind on her. I yelled at him to back off and his friends who were laughing said, “leave him alone he’s drunk”. So now we’re suppose to give drunk idiots a pass to rub on a woman because they are drunk. I don’t now how he ended on the floor.

BOXING SCORING

Canelo-v-Jacobs

The tag line for this picture was that the scorecards proved that Canelo built an early lead, my tag line would have been “How the F**k could these scorecards be so different”.

The one thing that I got from these scorecards is that something is definitely off. There is something wrong here, when three capable judges disagree so much. They disagreed on 5 out of the 12 rounds. They disagreed on over 42% of the fight. How can you get a clear decision when that happens. That was a statement, not a question, ergo the absence of a question mark. That is a failing grade in any other event on this planet. The problem is not the judges, it’s the commission. They haven’t done enough to evolve to settle these problems. Boxing is the only sport that has not tried to figure out ways to improve these disparities. I can give a few right off the top of my head

  1. Put the judges at a better vantage point. They should be at the same level as the fighters or higher. When the fighters are at the corner further away from a particular judge, the nuance of slip and counter are harder to realize when you are looking up. They are lot easier to notice when you are viewing down. I know that this might obstruct some of the fans but that’s why you have the jumbotrons for the spectators. We prefer that anyway
  2. Make all decision fights, especially title bouts, provisional decisions until confirmation by the same three judges and three separate judges.. Meaning that that all decision fights would be reviewed by a panel afterwards to confirm. Can’t tell you how many times I watched a fight on TV, from a better vantage point then the judges, and wondered what the f**k (that stands for fuck) were these judges viewing. This gives a cushion to change a bad decision without having to do the silly appeal stuff and give the appearance of the sport being less fixed for the superstars, ahem, clearing my throat, the Byrd decision in the first GGG v Canelo fight is a great example why you should implement that rule, you can even call it the Byrd rule. Don’t mean to be to harsh on the lady but she got it wrong and most likely because of her vantage point.

These are just two thoughts off the top of my head. Whatever they come up with, I’m sure would be better than the current 57.5% grade that they got on this fight. One thing is for sure, they have to do something. First of all, the 7th and 10th rounds were definitely Jacobs rounds, not doubt about it. If you go by Moretti’s scorecard for the last two frames and you scored the 7th and 10th the right way, not doubters for Jacobs, then Jacobs is the victor. My scorecard is on an earlier post, but I had the advantage of replaying the fight and confirming the right call, which in my opinion was a draw. Come on boxing, even slow ass baseball has instant replay and a replay home office to review calls. You need to evolve with the times and figure out a better way to make the sport a little less controversial and a little more simpatico, what a funny word…. simpatico, anyway back to the point, fix it. Come on Nevada, you are suppose to be the superstars and megastars of boxing super bouts, because if New York does it before you, if they become boxing innovators before you, you will be in second place before you can say supercalifragislisticexpialadocious and that would be atrocious.