Month: October 2019

Nationals’ Trea Turner out on controversial interference call; manager Dave Martinez ejected in Game 6

astros vs nats

Not that it mattered that much, this call, but it might have, so for the sake of argument lets just see who was right. Trea Turner hits a slow roller towards third base, Peacock,  the pitcher, then scoops it up and tries to throw out the speedy Turner. Turner books up the first base line, a foot or so outside the lane, towards the infield, and gets there as the ball gets there. They called interference on the play and they called Turner out. My opinion, it was a bad call. That Turner ran outside the first base lane had nothing to do with the throw, since the throw was coming from third base side. The throw, which got their after Turner and hit him in the back of his right leg, which at that time was inside the first base lane, should have hinted that there was no way that Gurriel would have been able to get to it without impeding the runner. The truth is that it was a bad throw by the pitcher and Turner should have been safe. When the ball got there, Turner was right on the line, with his right leg inside the first base path. To me it seems simple, but in a big game atmosphere, maybe the umps over analyzed the situation. I’m a Mets fan, so the Nats winning while the Mets are at home scratching their bellies isn’t my favorite outcome but fair is fair. To quote Teddy KGB from the movie Rounders (sort of) “He beat’em fair and square, give that man his base”.

Lets hope that there is no shenanigans going on here. I just read how they made a movie about an NBA ref who intentionally made bad calls to cover the spread on bets he made, lets hope that these umps aren’t vying for a movie deal.

MAYER v. ZAMORA

mayer v zamora

Last nights ESPN+ bouts were pretty good. One of my favorite fights of the night was Mayer vs. Zamora. These two ladies were good fighters, with pretty impressive skills. Mikaela Mayer, the taller fighter and former Olympian, used her size and range to knock down Alejandra Zamora in the first round. Zamora got up and continued and traded punches with Mayer. The two fighters showed an impressive grit and endurance and were fun to watch. In the end, Zamora’s cornerman stopped the fight prior to the sixth round. The corner, Zamora’s dad, reasoned that they had lost every round and that taking further punishment was unnecessary. I will say that Zamora was impressive but you can tell that she is two weight classes to high. Mayer, for her part, did exactly what she was supposed to do. She used a long rangy jab and let her hands go when in close. Mayer used that strong right hand to punch down on her opponent, giving her extra added power to her shot. Mayer, with her height and long jab, is going to be someone to be dealt with in that division. Zamora, if she drops down to 118 or 122, could actually make waves in those divisions. Zamora is too small for the 130 pound division. She had some really good skills and moved well and her timing was impressive but she will not be able to overcome the natural disadvantages at the higher weight. If she cuts down to 118, Zamora looks like she could reign at that weight.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY

utilitarianism-n

Good things don’t always come in quantity. If society could choose for themselves then why make laws. Capitalism is the opposite of utilitarianism, unless you think 99 percent of people think that 1 percent of people should have the majority of the money.

Video shows Oregon coach disarming student then embracing him before police arrive By ELLA TORRES and KARMA ALLEN Oct 20, 2019, 4:04 PM ET

school-01-as-ht-191019_hpMain_4x3_992

This is one of the reasons why I teach my kid to box. I rather he defend himself or take the problem outside then be hurt or hurt anyone seriously. Whatever demons this kid had whispering stuff to him, he probably had no other outlet that he could see. If he had more tools in the toolbox, he could have handled the problem better. Obviously this coach is a brave and a selfless individual.

Boxing showed me restraint and taught me how to walk away from confrontations. It also showed not to hate the other person because at the end, you always shake hands, whether you got the better or if you got the worst of the match. It taught me to control my emotions and not to get overly worked up. If you ever watch a boxing match, you will see that the person that comes out to emotional and overly hyped will usually lose, there’s always an exception to the rule. More importantly, boxing taught me that getting punched in the face is no fun and that I would like to avoid that. This young man did not know how to box and this is what he tried to do. The bad thing about boxing is that any words that were misspelled or any grammatical errors might also be due to boxing but I didn’t really box enough to blame the sport for being a dumb dumb.  Link

Democratic Debate – Ohio

Ohio Dem Debate

After watching the Demo debate in Ohio, I can see why people voted for Trump. It was dizzying with the same message in prior debates. It’s blaming Trump, it’s blaming corporations (which is not totally untrue), it’s blaming billionaires without a practical solution. We had a Demo President prior to Trump and none of those issues were fixed. We had plenty of Demo Presidents prior to Trump, all who made the same promises, and none fixed the problem. How do we pass these ambitious goals through congress and a senate who make money off of these problem makers? That’s what I want to know. I like all your ideas, I love your ideas but how do you get it through the legislative body? Pork, not the other white meat, but the lobbying firms that persuade law makers to see things their way, is the biggest problem. If I was on that stage I would call you bullshitters because you are not addressing the real problem. You can’t enact anything when it goes against the interest of the people  that are suppose to enact it. I did not hear one person mention lobbying firms or pork (except Bernie). To me, while your goals are benevolent in its nature, I think are almost impossible to enact. I have my personal opinions but they are opinions of a person that has no experience in politics.

  1. If you can make a wall a national emergency, then you can make national healthcare a national emergency. No one is dying because of a lack of a wall but people are dying in droves from poor or non-existent healthcare. AND, no one logical person believes that a private insurance company that thrives off of profits would do better than a non-profit or government agency where profits are not their goal. Are you effin crazy? Everyone invokes the Former President (Obama) in their debate, but they fail to realize that his goal was to have the best national healthcare plan not necessarily his plan. What he did is move the needle in the right direction, an amazing feat given the political climate, but I’m sure he would say that he would want you to do better. President Obama gave us a push in the right direction, it’s time now to finish it by pushing it further, which in my opinion is to have affordable care that covers everything, which is what Bernie Sanders is proposing.
  2. How do you fight pork, have your Justice Department file in federal court against lobbying firms being able to exist in the form it is presently. You have to find a way to keep big corporations out of the decision making process.
  3. How do you make corporations pay a living wage and stop them from fleeing the country due to higher taxes? Don’t raise their taxes, lower them when they meet specific criteria like paying everyone that works for them a minimum of $20 an hour, lower it more when they meet a criteria of how many people they hire in the country, lower it more when they donate to communities. If they don’t meet that criteria (just examples), then impose a tax that would make their heads spin. If they flee, then impose a tax that only goes to companies that don’t employ anyone in the country. You need to incentivize cooperation, the carrot or the stick, Teddy Roosevelt had it right. Honestly, I wouldn’t care if they didn’t pay a penny in taxes if they paid the money to their workers that would allow us to pay for all that good sh*t you guys want for us. If they leave, then promote the companies that stayed, make it easier for them to get their products to be sold. It might sound nationalist, but we are a diverse nation that is supposed to be blind to race, color and creed but we don’t have to turn a blind eye to companies that would usurp our national values and harm our economy for the love of their bottom line.
  4. I think you guys have a great foreign policy.

You see what I did there. I put out solutions that most likely won’t work because I’m just a silly blogger but not one of my answers blamed President Trump, billionaires or big corporations (sort of). They tried to address what is wrong with the system and find a solution. To me, it’s like trying to finish a puzzle and you can’t find a particular piece and you start blaming the guy that couldn’t finish the puzzle before you instead of trying to find a realistic solution like finding the missing piece or seeing if your kid brother just ate the piece, little bastard.

By the way I think Bernie is right because I believe that when he blames big corporations he is blaming their lobbying firms and their self interest in the bottom line.

I liked Gabbard’s bravado. The criticism laid out by the media, how she has support by the Repub voters, probably insured that she will be a vice president nominee if she doesn’t win the nomination. She obviously has cross over appeal. They did her a favor.

Sen. Sanders seems to be the person with the right game plan and the one that is willing to fight.

Sen. Harris is right, keep your fucking hands off of women you perverted fucks. I know that’s what she was thinking. Justice shouldn’t be delved out by your social position but by the crimes you commit and the laws you break.

Yang is intelligent, practical, logical and realistic. His chances aren’t very high to get the nomination (just due to name recognition) but if he got the nod, he would win.

And holy shit, Mayor Pete is significantly qualified, just the fact that he wants to give away power of the office in depoliticizing the Supreme Court is amazing, letting the justices decide who should serve on their court, instead of having someone that can’t do the job make the decision. Mayor Pete has the right answer. Why would someone that is not qualified for a job, hire or promote someone that is. That would be like me hiring a rocket scientist when I can’t even figure out how to finish a Lego set or fly a kite (I’ve been told to go fly a kite a lot). Mayor Pete just showed that he knows his limits and figured out a solution on how to fix it. That makes him a problem solver, exactly what a President should be.

Don’t be afraid to agree with you competitor cohorts because the person that believes that they are the only ones that have the right answer and the other person doesn’t, isn’t the person for the job. If I wanted someone that thought they are the only one that can do the job, then I would move to a communist country. The fact is there are lot of qualified candidates, from Mayor Buttigieg, Mr. Yang, Sen. Harris, Sen. Sanders, Congresswoman Gabbard, pretty much all the candidates. It isn’t the person that thinks that they have all the right answers that impresses me, mainly because they’re wrong, but the person that recognizes the right answer when it is presented. It doesn’t have to be your idea or solution, it just have to be the right solution. Set yourself apart by saying that I like her/his idea, I’m going to take that idea because it is the right way to go. Bill Clinton did and he got elected.

SHOULD THE USA TAKE OVER MEXICO

usa mexico

Should the U.S.A. try and acquire Mexico? That sounds funny right. In this day and age, one country acquiring another seems like a funny and even crazy idea, but is it? Do you know most of our problems are do to imaginary lines, borders. Wars are fought over these lines, walls are being built because of these lines, poverty is in large part because of these lines and how someone is perceived is because of these imaginary lines. If you were to get rid of these imaginary lines, you would get rid of almost every problem we have, maybe even climate change, which is not because of these lines. It is my opinion that this is the next logical step in the evolution of our world, to become a one country (which would not even be the right word for it because without borders there would only be a world). Now, I am definitely not saying invasion, alright Turkey, I am saying coming to an agreement that would be advantageous to all parties involved. I’m thinking less early 17, 18, 19th century and more future globalization by mutual acquisition, like AOL and Time Warner, Dow and Dupont, and Heinz and Kraft. The thought of countries merging to become one sounds funny, maybe ridiculous, but I feel that it would solve almost every problem we have. I wrote a blog about discovering a new planet and then posed the question what would we do if it came to be. Would we put borders up and separate people or would we just inhabit the world as one people? A borderless world would no longer see endless wars or any wars (saving a crap load of money on building nuclear missiles), it would not see famine (hopefully) and it would not see racism (I mean, that would have to fade away with the older generation). I know what you’re thinking, how would we hold an Olympics without borders, while that does pose a dilemma, I’m sure we can figure it out. So here’s to taking over the world one small country at a time, lol, sure as heck doesn’t sound right but if done the right way, democratically, it would benefit everyone. While everyone balked at President Trump for wanting to get Greenland, I don’t know what his reasons for trying to acquire it were, the premise of becoming one world without borders is not that crazy. The election for whoever would become President of that World would be interesting, we wouldn’t have to worry about foreign interference anymore, so there’s that, look another problem solved. There would be no more foreign terrorism just domestic and there would be no need for money exchanges.

I watched the Daily Show last night and saw Sen. Rand Paul. He spoke with the host Trevor Noah and the topic was socialism vs. capitalism. Let me say that the Senator was my choice on the Repub side for nominee in 2016. His arguments though for capitalism and socialism aren’t far off from a moderate candidate. Socialism doesn’t work, he is right, but he is mistaking communism and authoritarian regimes for socialist republics, they are not. True socialism puts the power in societies hands and not an individuals hands, that’s individualism. The regimes the Senator spoke of were faux socialist republics or only socialist republics in name but not in practice. Socialism works like this. Everyone puts all their money in a pot and then it is redistributed equally among everyone. Then the government asks for money from the people and society as  whole then decides to say it is or it isn’t a worthy cause or reason to give that money. The regimes that the Senator spoke of would take your money and then take their part without asking society and then redistribute what’s left as they, this individual, deemed fit. That’s a pyramid scheme disguised as a government. The problem with true socialism is, it lacks incentive. Why become a doctor if I can be a janitor and get paid the same. That being said, capitalism is better to a point. The problem with capitalism is that it’s a wider form of communism. The CEO’s now become heads of their own entity and they redistribute as they see fit. That’s why they move their companies to countries where labor is cheaper. They pay their workers but if they can pay them less, they would and do. This is where being a borderless world would actually be most useful, greed would be put in check because now we can force a living wage to everyone in the world, no matter where you move your business. Capitalism would be put in check and there would be no socialism. Minimum wage would be the same and earnings for any particular profession would be in par all over the world. Then we can cap yearly earnings to a billion or two with the rest being forced to be taxed at a 100 percent rate to be redistributed to people all over the world as tax rebates.

SUPREME COURT WEIGHS IN ON WHAT SEXUAL ORIENTATION MEANS AND IF IT INCLUDES LGBQT RIGHTS

lgbtq

The Supreme Court weighs in on LGBQT rights in a case that will define if Title VII represents the gay community. I’m not a legal scholar nor am I a lawyer nor do I play one on TV but I have represented myself in court and I lost horribly but I did learn a few things, number 1, hire a lawyer and number 2, the courts are not really about common sense but interpreting the laws that are already in place, some of which make no god damn sense at all. I’m going to try and see if I, as a failed pro se litigant, can make sense of what is going to happen. The nine justices are going to interpret whether or not sexual orientation under Title VII of the civil rights act pertains to the gay community. There are two ways to do that. The first is to figure out if congress meant to say that sexual orientation was originally written to cover gay people when implemented, the second is to read the law literally and ask does the words sexual orientation actually means who you are attracted to sexually, whether hetero or homo in sexuality, or what genitalia you were born with. The good news for the plaintiffs, the gay community, is that the law didn’t specifically say one way or the other what it meant. Orientation is a real fluid word that can be interpreted as to mean that whomever you are oriented to be attracted to, thus fitting the definition of sexual orientation. The other good news is that gender is represented under Title VII. In 2012, the EEOC ruled that employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity or transgender status is prohibited under Title VII. The decision held that discrimination on the basis of gender identity qualified as discrimination on the basis of sex whether the discrimination was due to sex stereotyping, discomfort with the fact of an individual’s transition, or discrimination due to a perceived change in the individual’s sex. The plaintiff’s have previous case law and enforcement on their side. This doesn’t guarantee them a win, as a matter of fact, the case is being brought forth because of those cases. The prevailing thought is to feel that discriminating against anyone for any reason that doesn’t harm you, just your sense of religious right and wrong, and even that’s questionable, isn’t a good reason to fire someone but that’s not the Supreme Court’s mandate in deciding this case, it’s to decide or decipher what congress meant when they wrote the provision for the Civil Rights Act. The court has some leeway here, since sex or sexual orientation is such a broad term and can include LGBQT, the justices could just conclude that it is part of the Civil Rights Act, they can also ask congress to clarify the provision without making a ruling (I think), or they could say that it was not the original intent and shoot the case down, which would be disastrous and set the country back some 30 or 40 years by forcing people to hide their true nature just to gain employment. The thought that a person that is gay can be fired just because he/she is gay is obviously flawed and their should be protections for such discriminatory behavior. The fact is that it would be taken up by congress if the plaintiffs failed in their bid (I would hope) and give protections to these people. The prudent and just thing, now this is my opinion, is to have the justices rule in favor of the plaintiffs and give them a much deserved and common sense win, since the law is so broad and open to interpretation, because it will eventually happen and why make these people wait for what we all know is the right thing to do. The ruling will be saying love who you want, it’s your choice not your bosses. Now that makes sense, doesn’t it?

MPO: ELLEN WRONGLY TAKES HEAT FOR SITTING NEXT TO GEORGE W. BUSH

eg gwb

You have to admire Ellen and President Bush, they get to sit in a box seat and watch the Dallas Cowboys. The story wasn’t how the Cowboys blew a game to Aaron Rodgers and the Packers, it was that she sat next to the former President. They are labeling her a traitor of some sort and that we she did was wrong. I disagree, all misconceptions and/or wrongful biases are only changed through conversation. I think it’s great that Ellen is sitting next to President Bush. She is obviously a very intelligent, charismatic lady with many wonderful qualities. If anyone can convince a person that they are wrong about something, it’s Ellen. If you think that you can change someone’s mind by yelling, trying to humiliate them or arguing or fighting, then you really don’t get the big picture of how things really work. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and the only way you can change that opinion is through conversation and good deeds. I’m Hispanic, do you think that I can change the mind of someone that doesn’t like Hispanics by fighting them or cursing at them, no, I have to show them that their biases are misconceived notions brought by fear of the unknown. I try to show them that I’m polite, hard working and care about everyone regardless of their biases. I think what she did was an amazing testament on how to handle yourself and how to be a grown up in the digital/social media age. Ellen doesn’t need to apologize, she needs to be applauded. Haters have to hate, I guess, because if they didn’t, they would cease to exist. Everyone criticizes the former President for some of his stances and refuse to look at other advancements he made in civil rights. It’s one of those things that some people can only see the bad and none of the good because of his political affiliation. These are the type of people that if you bought them a house but accidentally ran over their dog, the only thing they would say about you is that you killed their fluffy, who was a real bitch by the way.

GGG v Derevyanchenko

ggg v dv

It was definitely an edge of your seat fight and not the reason why you would normally think in a GGG fight. GGG came out with little urgency, under control, and finished the same way, with little urgency, no energy. Derevynchenko (DV) came in thinking upset and, in my opinion, clearly got it. The old saying about fighters getting old before your eyes, well, it looks like that’s exactly what happened to GGG. GGG looked gun shy, he looked soft in the midsection, he looked like he wanted a way out. DV was pressing the fight, landing the punches and taking the chances. It just seemed like DV just wanted it more. GGG looked old and like his legs were stuck in the mud with his shots falling short, missing and he was just not pulling the trigger when it seemed warranted. It seems like he over trained. I felt like that GGG was robbed against Canelo, well, they just put some of that robbery back into his account because DV was just robbed and GGG was the beneficiary. In truth, GGG is 37, even though he looked 100, and it is his call on what he should do, but, if he feels that he made enough money in his career, retirement from a rough and tumble sport like boxing prior to suffering any real damage doesn’t make him look weak but intelligent. GGG should go out on top, he has nothing left to prove, he has proved more than most in his sport. I will say one more thing, Canelo gave up the title instead of fighting DV, so there’s that.