joshua v ruiz II

What a fight, ehh, boxing match. It really was a good fight for people that love pugilism. I thought the fight was good, even though non-purists will probably call it a stinker. Joshua did what he should have been doing all along in every fight, he used his physical gifts to outclass his opponent. I do think though he should have took some chances here and there to try and secure the knockout or at least a knock down, but that style will make him a more formidable opponent for all other contenders. When Joshua mixes his old style of fighting (me break you now) with his new style of boxing (float like a butterfly and sometimes sting like a bee) he will be a devastating fighter. Joshua just needs the right mix and realize when his opponent is hurt.

For Ruiz’s part, Joshua could not have shown him more respect. Ruiz still has fast hands and heavy shots, you could tell with the jabs he landed to the body. Ruiz was buzzed a little and he took it well. The problem Ruiz had was his game plan. He should have made the big man chase him by backing up all so slightly and moving in with a high guard and quick combos when his opponent moved forward, this would have closed the distance twice as fast. It was, after all, Joshua’s job to come and take the belts and Ruiz’s job to retain them. Ruiz stalked the big man and grew frustrated when Joshua wouldn’t stand and trade. Ruiz, for his part, was humble in defeat and said he has only himself to blame but we all know he was thinking that Joshua didn’t really man up but boxing is about hitting and not getting hit, so Joshua stayed disciplined, didn’t fall for the bait, didn’t let his machismo get the better of him and walked away with a solid win from a really good fighter in Ruiz, who by the way would have destroyed Buster Douglas on his best day even if he were fighting two of them.

To compare Ruiz to Buster Douglas would be like comparing a Pinto hatchback, remember those, to a Cadillac Escalade, without the spinning rims, he did lose the belts, so, no spinning rims. And, no offense to a really good fighter in Joshua, but Mike Tyson in his prime was a better fighter, not by much, even though Mike may not say it, he was. So the upset of Buster over Iron Mike, was a way much more upset then Ruiz over Joshua. I found it completely insane, the comment that it was as a big as an upset as the Tyson v Douglas fight. I hope that Joshua does give Ruiz another run at it, maybe not the next fight, but the one after that. I would like to see the adjustments both camps make and how the fight would go.



As the ongoing impeachment process turns its wheel like a soap opera straight from the day time writers, one thing is evident, there is no neutrality. Both sides made arguments that could be seen as correct and both sides are holding to their respective arguments like security blankets. As I listened, I tried my best to be impartial and what I learned was that I was not even remotely qualified to make a decision on whether impeachment is the way to go. After it was all over, I was more confused about the legitimacy of the proceedings then before it started. This article is not, though, about impeachment but how could you fix a problem that seems to be over the common persons ability to decipher and obviously does not belong in the realm of partisan politics. The answer seemed extremely obvious, at least to me. You need an impartial and neutral arena.

The government, for better or for worse and as a flight attendant that I once dated would say, is what it is. The questions that were asked by lawmakers seemed to be both relevant and irrelevant at the same time. A perfect example is the question about donations to political parties to the legal scholars arguing whether impeachment was the proper avenue to take. It was a real relevant question as it seemed to hit a bias right on the nose, the problem is though that the person that was asking the question, for better or for worse, probably did not contribute to his opposing party either and he is being a staunch defender for his side, making the question almost irrelevant. These questions are a two way street and they seemed to bog down the testimony. As I was listening to the legal scholars, I would think they are right, then I would hear the opposing view and think he is also right. Both sides can’t be right unless both sides are also wrong, it is what it is, thanks Kimberly.

So how do you get past this impasse? You need a third and neutral referee that could make that decision and they would also have to be legal scholars so they can get into the minutia of the argument and decipher the elements of the case and come up with a just decision. Wait, we do have a third part of government, the judicial branch, who happened to be experts on the law. How lucky. Or is it? This is why in past silly blogs that I have written, I expressed my concern on how judges are chosen and why they aren’t chosen by the branch of government that they work for but chosen by the two other branches of government whose fate could be ultimately be decided by them.

This article is renewed effort in trying to fix a problem which can be seen as glaring in circumstances like these. It is my belief that the judicial branch should pick their own members (judges), have the executive branch choose from one on the list and then have the legislative body confirm them. This would almost erase any conflict of interest that could come up in cases like this. While I feel that the judicial branch is as neutral as it gets, some will still argue and have argued that some judges are or were bias due to who appointed them. The phrase Obama judges and Bush judges and Trump judges have taken a toll on the impartiality that once prior seemed unquestionable in the judicial branch.

The constitution is over 200 years old, if my computer was over two hundred years old, it would definitely need updates. Maybe the constitution, which I always held was a living document because its writing affects living lives, should be resuscitated and given some new life. Our forefathers did their best to think of every scenario possible and they were pretty smart people, but as times roll along, their might have been problems that they did not foresee and that should be addressed. I believe giving the judicial branch more autonomy should be on the top of that list, at least in who should be hired to represent them.

What I am ultimately saying is that impeachment, a extremely powerful decision, should fall to the people that have nothing to gain or lose by the verdict, which should be the judicial branch and that’s why they should be free of attachments, as much as possible, to the other branches.