Author: mlampaz

WEATHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT

This is not an article on what you think it is about. Do you think it’s going to be about climate change? Then it might be an article about what you think it’s about, but just partially. It’s going to focus on my uneducated opinion on how to fix it, which has nothing to do with Thanos and him snapping his fingers, mainly because he isn’t real, but on how to slow the degradation of our atmosphere. I’ve been right about a lot of stuff, 2+2 is 4, but I have also been wrong about a lot of stuff, Ostrich farms in Alaska are not a good idea. My opinion on how to fix this problem is to hasten the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy, alright I stole that idea from other people, but it isn’t going to electric power or promoting EV’s, who still have to get most of their power from carbon emitting sources, but to hasten the employment of hydrogen fuel cells and to make power plants that run on this abundant material. There are several reasons why I, the guy that got stuck in a turnstile, believes that this might be the solution.

The first and probably the most important reason is because the only emission from Hydrogen fuel cells is water, not sure if it’s spring, tap, or maybe sparkling? or even if it’s drinkable, but it isn’t climate harming and I’m pretty sure it won’t kill the vegetation. We’re in a time where I read story after story about how lakes no longer exist or how they finally found Jimmy Hoffa after one disappeared or that’s where my car was (at the bottom of a former lake) and maybe pretty soon we will be able to walk on the Titanic instead of dying in submersible subs that some guy bought from the Colombian cartels at a discounted price. While hydrogen, itself, is climate harming, when used in fuel cells and properly administered, it is completely harmless…. according to ChatGPT. Okay, not only ChatGPT, but also the same scientists that are warning us about climate change and that, prior to that, said smoking wasn’t harmful…. Hmmm… so they’re not perfect either, but as the world breaks heat records year after year and the duration of those heat waves last longer and longer, I think something should be done. Here are the benefits of Hydrogen:

  • Clean energy: Hydrogen is a clean and flexible energy source that supports zero-carbon energy strategies
  • Reduced emissions: Hydrogen can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, CO2, particulates, and NOx emissions
  • Renewable energy: Hydrogen is a renewable energy source that’s abundant in nature
  • Highly efficient: Hydrogen is more powerful and energy efficient than fossil fuels
  • Safe and non-toxic: Hydrogen produces water as a byproduct, making it a safe and non-toxic fuel
  • Can be used in mobile applications: Hydrogen can be used to power vehicles and mobile power packs
  • Can be used as a heat source: Hydrogen can be used as a heat source
  • Can be used in space vehicles: Hydrogen is an ideal source of energy for space vehicles

While these positives look great, there are some negatives… but none that should really stop the advancement of Hydrogen as a main source of power. I mean I heard something about how it can ignite or explode, but what can’t. Put anything in a microwave and it will explode, except an ice cube. So, hydrogen is highly flammable and explosive, huh… That doesn’t sound to great Well, nothing comes for free. We’ll have a better climate and will lose half the population in hydrogen mishaps until we can get the formula right… See, we don’t need Thanos. Obviously, there will be safe guards in place and the infrastructure that controls natural gas, which is, guess what…. highly explosive and flammable, should provide the necessary guidance and solutions on how to make sure we don’t go boom. Also, Hydrogen is inherently safer than conventional fossil fuels. All advancements come with there trial period where people blow up… Space travel… Nuclear weapons… COVID immunization… We’ll eventually get it right and we’ll save the planet from complete annihilation at the same time. Also, with the advancements of procuring this abundant resource that is not free flowing, as it attaches to any molecule it sees, much like Harvey Weinstein and any lady part, and must be physically separated, again, like Harvey Weinstein, by means of green resources are quickly growing. Lets be real here…. What are our options?

I seriously don’t want to leave my kid a dehydrated planet.

ANECDOTE: RUMOR MILL: NY METS ARE PULLING OUT ALL THE STOPS

I know this one is going to come back to bite me in the rear end but here we go and I hope everyone takes this in the spirit it is intended. The new rumor is the Mets are trying to shore up the starting rotation and are giving Pedro Martinez a contract for 200 million for three years. If that one fails, they are looking at Randy Johnson and Greg Maddux at the same rate. If none of those pan out, they’re going to court to excavate Tom, just in case.

WHAT MAKES YOU HISPANIC?

Debates over who is Hispanic and who is not have often fueled conversations about identity among Americans who trace their heritage to Latin America or Spain. Most recently, the 2020 census has drawn attention to how Hispanic identity is defined and measured. The once-a-decade head count of all people living in the United States used a new approach to identify who is Hispanic and has provided fresh details about how Hispanics view their racial identity. This passage was written by the Pew Research Center.

The law is pretty clear as to whom may identify as Hispanic. You must have been born or derived your heritage from one of the many Spanish speaking countries around the world. This country is unique as it is compromised of a mix of a variety of races and ethnicities. People identify themselves as they see fit but you must have a connection with that identity, somewhere down your genealogy, as people have tried to identify as another race or ethnicity to gain some kind of recognition, for whatever reason. That leads me to the question: how far back can you go to identify as this other race and or ethnicity? I mean, they say that all life started near the river Nile, can I now say that I’m African American? or Middle Eastern? Probably not…. pretty much “no”. So how far back can you go? 100 years… 1000 years?

For conversations sake, lets discuss the plight of Puerto Rico and the Puerto Rican people. Are they Hispanic? Spain lost Puerto Rico to the United States in the Spanish-American War. In the Treaty of Paris of 1898 that was signed by Spain and America. There were some stipulations that compromised the treaty. Some of them were that Spain had to cede control over Puerto Rico, Cuba, Guam and the Philippines and that Hawaii would become a territory of the United States, just like Puerto Rico. Since Puerto Rico was never a sovereign country of its own, always occupied by a foreign nation, what are the Puerto Rican people? At this point, could they be considered Hispanic? There are many great Puerto Rican people and it has produced many great stars… boxing in particular is one of the areas these warriors excelled in, but are they Hispanic? After essentially being under American control for 125 years and the people being born American citizens for all that time, wouldn’t they be American? I believe it’s an important question.

Now lets look at Guam, who was colonized by the Spanish from the 16th Century until the U.S. gained control in the same treaty. In this case, the people of Guam, called Chamorros, a Spanish word, do not identify as Hispanic. They have their own language but with many words being Spanish or derived from from Spanish. In a country where identity has become such a major issue, America, and there is a box to check every time you apply for something to make sure that there isn’t any discrimination, I think these questions are important. So how far back can you go? To identify yourself as something other than the country you were born in? What’s appropriate?

NY METS PROVING THAT MONEY ISN’T EVERYTHING

I love my NY Mets, well… not mine per se, they belong to the ultra rich Steve Cohen, by I borrow their images on my TV when I’m feeling too happy so it can bring me down back to earth. But, this is my team, in the good times and… now. The Mets went out to prove this year that money doesn’t mean a damn thing in baseball because you can pay people what you want, they can still lose on a regular basis. They’re not losing big, most of the time, they’re losing by one run in a game where they were up by three or four, but still stacking up those ticks on that L column. What the Mets are teaching is us is that… wait I know this…. they’re teaching us…. I got it… that winning isn’t everything! or maybe that winning is for losers while losing is for winners? or maybe that incentive based contracts are better in sports, especially when you have an owner that pays big, because if you pay up front, there is no getting those hundreds of millions back. The Mets, in 4th place and 18.5 games back with a 38-46 record, still haven’t figured out what to do to turn things around. Well, at this point, the Phillies, in 2022, who made it to the World Series last year, were, let me check… above .500 at this point, huhhh, I thought maybe they weren’t, but no, they were. Well, it isn’t too late for the Mets to do something Amazing! like, bringing up Vientos and/or Mauricio so they can get some big league experience and get rid of Vogelbach and send Danny Mendick down. Rotate them in the DH spot with the starters so they can get field time as well. The Mets need some youth if they need anything. They’re a walking Ben Gay commercial, Geritol shows their games on their channel, Metamucil is one of their sponsors and delivers to their clubhouse, the players wear a medical alert bracelet just in case they dive for a ball and can’t get back up, they have a stairlift chair from the bench to the clubhouse. I think you get what I’m saying… they’re the oldest team in baseball by average age. They need a shot in the arm and I don’t mean a B-12 shot to stave off dementia, they need some unbridled enthusiasm even if its hopeless. I don’t know what Eppler is doing besides collecting paychecks but he needs to get these young ready players up in the majors even if they fail miserably. Lets do something here… If you’re going to fail, then fail big… don’t just fail. What do you have to lose, I mean your job, but you’re going to lose that anyway, might as well enjoy watching these young hungry players try their best. I love my NY Mets….

Oh, yeah, I put a pic of the current best NY Mets….

SHARED NEWS: Professor who made students remove shirts created ‘hostile environment’, investigation finds SHARED NEWS: As Reported by USA Today Story by Isabelle Butera

A Maryland professor who instructed female students to remove their shirts during class created a “hostile environment” and violated Title IX, according to an investigation by the U.S. Department of Education.

Investigators said the instructor at the Takoma/Silver Spring campus of Montgomery College in Maryland required female students to remove their shirts and wear only their sports bras to demonstrate a “medical assessment.” Some students put on lab coats for modesty and the professor instructed the students to remove them. He then commented on the students’ breasts, according to a letter from the Office of Civil Rights to the college. 

Manny’s Blog: So, white students, and rightfully so, complain about this harassment and get an investigation from the government. That’s good and also interesting.

THE SUPREME COURT WRITES THAT YOU DON’T HAVE TO WRITE GAY

The Supreme Court has released a litany of litigious liabilities. It has ruled on affirmative action, student loan relief, sabbath’s, State power over federal elections and now the mysterious case of don’t write gay (if you don’t want to) in a first amendment challenge to Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws. Of all the cases, this case is the most troubling for me because I don’t have the capacity to understand it. The other cases have some basis under the law but this one, in my opinion, has a very murky connection to the first amendment. Leeettt’s review….

A Colorado web designer challenged the State’s anti-discrimination laws by stating that her religious beliefs would not allow her to write “gay stuff” for wedding websites, that she could make the website as long as it doesn’t have words that promote same sex marriages. The web designer brought the suit to the court only on the sole basis of same-sex marriages and not on any other applicable religious grounds, like I can’t write for Jewish or Muslim religious ceremonies or I can’t write for atheists. That she singled out the LGBTQIA to Z but no S community and leaves every other aspect of the religion out of it, is, on its face, discriminatory. In Christianity, you believe in Christ to reach the kingdom of heaven and if you don’t then you are departing from the religion’s core belief, so would this web designer design and write for a bar mitzsvah? Wicca gatherings? Ramadan? Well, that is promoting different beliefs from her Christian beliefs, isn’t it? It goes against the Christian core beliefs but her lawsuit didn’t mention this aspect because I’m assuming she wouldn’t have a problem with it. I’m surprised that this topic didn’t come up in the hearing or wasn’t brought up by the defendants of the anti-discrimination laws. To state that I will not serve gay people on a religious belief but will serve other people that, by all accounts, are sinning the same under the Christian doctrine by not believing in Christ or following his teachings, is simply singling out a particular aspect of a religion to further your discriminatory behavior. If your only problem is with gay people and not anyone else that doesn’t conform to your religion, then you are just using religion as an excuse for your bigotry.

Religion, if it does anything, teaches compassion and understanding. It also says that the Lord would be the arbiter of any sins committed, not web designers. It also states that you must treat all people the way you would like to be treated and that no person is absent of sin. To pick and choose which passage of a religious doctrine applies or you want to follow and which one doesn’t or don’t have to follow is like allowing the government to choose which laws they will enforce and which ones they won’t dependent on demographics and/or socioeconomics and/or any other factor. If you are going to rule on Religious beliefs then you must rule on what the whole doctrine says, not just the parts you like. Just like the government must rule on the entirety of the law not just the laws they like.

Golden Rule, precept in the Gospel of Matthew (7:12): “In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you. . . .” This rule of conduct is a summary of the Christian’s duty to his neighbor and states a fundamental ethical principle

I hope this makes sense….

And please stop attacking my Christian religion with your crazy interpretations… A lot like the Title VII, everyone is welcome in the Christian faith without bias to any race, color, religion, sex, sexual preference and national origin. Only God reserves the right to judge.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ISN’T AFFIRMED

Affirmative action has taken a direct hit by the Supreme Court as it applies to college admissions. The court, voting along party lines, never a good thing, decided that using race to keep people out of college is a bad thing (personally, I believe that if a ruling goes along party lines, it should be re-argued). Is that right, using race as a deciding factor is bad? Well, they decided that using the fact that just because people are Anglo and Asian is not good enough reason to keep them from being admitted and that being any other demographic shouldn’t be used for preferential treatment. Where was this Supreme Court in the 1800’s and early 1900’s, am I right? It reminds me of when my older brother used to beat the crap out of me until I turned 17 and then I got the better of him and then he said, fighting is wrong. Well, no shit… to both things. I agree that using race as a basis for inclusion or seclusion is a horrible idea, no matter the race, but affirmative action was set up because of the seclusion of minorities to a good education. A good education not only in colleges but also in primary (grammar) and high school, which leads up to the reason why minorities needed affirmative action in the first place. Inner city schools are woefully understaffed and using books prior to World War 2. I found out the allies won by watching Saving Private Ryan. That’s an exaggeration. Our books were old and students were close to 40 per class, in some classes, which made it difficult for the teaching staff. Inner city schools are the product of generations of racism, where inner cities did not get the resources afforded to our suburban counterparts by the State. Money was short, classes were crowded, the teachers were well intentioned but frustrated, and most of them actually tried to teach something. Kids had to go home to no parents who had to work two jobs to survive because the well paying jobs went to college grads from Harvard that were mostly Anglo folks. So, when affirmative action was implemented in 1961, it started to create diversity, not only in colleges but also in wealth distribution.

We are now 70 plus years, is that right, inner city education, 60 years plus from the implementation of Executive Order # 10925, Affirmative Action, signed by JFK prior to his assassination, I’m guessing because my school books didn’t get to that part, but my intuition tells me that if it was after the assassination, congress wouldn’t have allowed it, even though there are no laws forbidding Zombies from being President as there are no laws forbidding felons from being President. Just for reference, I started H.S. in the mid 80’s, 1980’s, not 1880’s, like my son says. That Executive Order had a profound affect on minorities, especially the intelligent and talented minorities who only needed a chance to show their brilliance, unfortunately, it didn’t help me at all. But any measure that uses race as a basis for its existence will and should come to an end at some point or the action itself was worthless. At some point, we need to progress as a society, to the point where someone’s race or ethnicity is no longer a factor or what was the use of promoting equality if it was never going to be achieved? The only question that needs to be asked is if we are there yet? The Supreme Court,  (Of the 116 Supreme Court Justices, only six were not white men in more than 230 years of the court) has decided that diversity and equality has been achieved. That’s an opinion, and whether we agree with it or not, it’s the law. I am an admirer of the Supreme Court and also an admirer of the Supreme Taco from Taco Bell, which has nothing to do with it, except it’s delicious… the taco, not the court. Even though I understand the ruling, it doesn’t mean that I have to agree with every aspect of the majorities decision, but I do have to abide by it. Does that mean that affirmative action is dead? I don’t think so.

The court decided that using race as a basis is against the constitution, but affirmative action was always meant to provide the lesser socioeconomic class with an opportunity and since socio-economics is a raceless class, it could take over as the basis for affirmative action. The thing is that a large amount of minorities fall under the lower socio-economic class model. If Harvard and UNC changed their affirmative action position from race to socio-economic opportunity for the underprivileged, they would achieve the same results without violating the current Supreme Court ruling. It’s a solution… maybe, right? Because if this is just an argument over rich white and asian folk against rich minority folk wanting to get into their first choice of college, then this whole thing is just bullshit and the most screwed up way to end affirmative action. Well, like someone once advised me to do, I’m going to Taco Bell, the Burrito Supreme is calling my name.

And, you have to remember, that while the Judicial Branch is suppose to be a neutral arbitrator of the law, they are still just human, as far as I know. I don’t know how far AI has come but I’m pretty sure it hasn’t hit the android stage yet. Their ruling isn’t wrong in it goes with the letter of the law, but maybe not the spirit of the law. I’m pretty sure they wrestled with the decision but it sure doesn’t help that liberal news orgs are constantly looking for issues with the conservative justices and then can’t understand why they follow the letter of the law to the detriment of liberal point of views. I will say one thing….

iacta alea est

Let’s see what repercussions the latest rulings have on the political landscape….

JUDICIAL BRANCH AND WHY NO ONE THINKS THEY ARE A SEPARATE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT

With a major case, the first of its kind, on the way, the government has gone Cyndi Lauper… in it has shown its true colors. The criticisms of Judge Cannon have picked up and the DOJ wants to move the case to NJ. It seems that Judge Cannon should put “Trump appointed” on her name plate next to her name. During the former President’s reign in office, President Trump stated much of the same, claiming Obama appointed judges were out to sabotage his policies, with a sharp rebuke coming from Chief Robertson when he tried, to no avail, to set the record straight by outright stating that the Judicial branch is a separate part of government and does not get persuaded by politics. With the right going to a judge in Texas and the left going to the 9th circuit to get favorable decisions, the public is left wondering what judges can they go to to get a fair and neutral decision, I’m partial to Judge Mills Lane, if you can’t come to an agreement you can always duke it out and Judge Lane was one of the best boxing referees of all time.

Judge Cannon is under scrutiny because she, a female Hispanic Judge, appointed a special master to oversee evidence. I’m guessing her thinking was to keep things apolitical and neutral. The DOJ disagreed and challenged her decision and the 11th circuit reversed her decision. The DOJ then celebrated by appointing a special prosecutor so they could keep things apolitical and neutral. But even the appointment of the “special” people were criticized as having political leanings. I have no idea what’s up with these “special” people, but where I came from, if you were called “special”, you rode on a short bus and weren’t given any sharp items to play with. I don’t think this is the same thing. Either way, the Judicial branch isn’t only being criticized by the public, it’s also being attacked by the institutional people (where I lived, those were the ones that rode the short bus and never came back, again, I don’t think it’s the same thing). So, if the public doesn’t trust the Judicial branch and the institution, the other two branches, don’t either (is it don’t?, doesn’t?, don’tdoesn’t?, donesn’t?) anyway, how can we get a fair and neutral outcome? What is it that we can do to fix this problem?

Luckily, I have the solution, we use a Ouija board… No, maybe….. No. What we do is we let the Supreme Court decide who can be a judge. We let the experts pick qualified people and not the people that were voted in that used to work at Hooters, because wet T shirt judges are much different and a lot less sober than Judges that practice law… most of the time. The other two branches can than make a final selection of the chosen judges and confirm these qualified people. What you will have then is people criticizing neutral judges and not politically chosen ones. What are they going to say, this Supreme Court chosen Judge….? The solution seems like a no brainer, it has to be because I thought of it but the chances that they implement this plan and give up power is the same chance of me winning the lotto twice on the same day while just being missed by lightning. Because if I hit the lottery twice in one day, I am definitely getting hit by lightning.

A lot of people think the courts are an extension of the Justice Department as in a lot of the current federal judges used to be prosecutors for the Justice Department. This makes a lot of sympathizing for one side. It’s no wonder that they have a 97 percent winning record. I don’t even have that kind of percentage in spelling my name right. But if you add that advancement to a higher court depends on the same branch that the Department of Justice is in, that winning rate makes a lot more sense. That’s why advancement should be left to Judicial Branch, where advancement depends on you not forgetting to bring your boss coffee. At least it gives the illusion of the separation of powers.

TAYLOR vs. LOPEZ

In what is sure to be a very entertaining fight, Josh “The Tartan Tornado” Taylor puts his undisputed title and the WBO belt on the line against a fierce competitor in Teofimo “The Takeover” Lopez. This fight, which is not on PPV, will be shown on ESPN+, which by the way is worth every penny just for the fights alone, I hope Bob Arum lives another 30 years, is going to be a Canadian wildfire…. huh, throwing in a little current events in there, could have said barn burner but what’s that compared to a cookout in the Canadian woods, that’s a crap load of smores they can make with that blaze. Anywhooo…. getting back on subject… The two fighters are going to put it on the line in a must win situation for both fighters. The last two outings for the pugilists saw them barely hold on to get another notch on the W column keeping them relevant. Taylor’s match against Catterall saw Taylor win a split decision victory and there were many who agr….. and there were some that agr…. and there was one who agreed and his name was Josh Taylor and that’s a maybe. In Lopez’s last outing against one of my countrymen, Sandor Martin, Lopez was knocked down and pulled out a squeaker in similar fashion as Taylor, by split decision. That fight was a little less controversial even though some thought that Martin, pronounced Marteen and make sure you roll that r, with his slick boxing might have given him the edge. I saw the fight and it wasn’t a robbery to give Lopez the decision, I mean they didn’t stop the fight while Martin was punching Lopez like in some other fights …Tony Weeks… And Lopez was landing the more telling shots, when he could land, mainly because Martin isn’t a power puncher. That being said, these two dualists must win convincingly, there can’t be controversy. Let’s break it down….

We’ll start with the Champion and betting favorite, Josh Taylor, who sports an undefeated record in Scotland, just joshing, everywhere. Taylor (pictured above yelling for more crumpets, both versions) sports a record of 19 wins no losses with 13 big wins coming by KO. Taylor’s biggest asset is his good hand speed and ring IQ as well as being a southpaw with real good foot movement. His other plus is that he is very confident, which can turn into a negative if you don’t take an opponent serious, but I think that’s what happened in his last fight so he had that moment and I’m pretty sure he learned from it. His biggest win is against Prograis, another world champion and damn good fighter, when he isn’t fighting Taylor. Taylor (pictured above screaming for tea with those crumpets) has a good chance of beating this version of Lopez, what I will call the electrical version or electric Lopez. Taylor has to maintain his distance, use that right jab to keep electric Lopez from setting up big shots and then sneak that left hand in when electric Lopez is trying to place his feet. Taylor’s biggest weakness, besides his, we’ll just keep naming it over confidence, is that he gets too close because he likes hooks, which means that he gets in range of his opponent. With fighters like Catterall, he might get away with it because Catterall doesn’t pack big power, but if the dynamic Lopez shows up and not the electric Lopez, it will be a short night and a quick nap in front of millions for Taylor.

The challenger in the red corner… blue corner?… the other corner is Teofimo Lopez who has an impressive record of 18 wins with 1 defeat, to a tough Aussie, with 13 big wins by KO. Lopez (pictured above wondering if the Scottish alphabet is the same as the American alphabet) is a naturally gifted boxer, when he is dynamic Lopez and not electric Lopez. Lopez (pictured above screaming at the wall for just standing there and doing nothing) is what you will call a 5 tool boxer; speed, agility/athleticism, ring IQ, power and force. There are only a handful of other boxers that have all those qualities at a high level; Davis, Inoue and Crawford. I know some might disagree with my assertion that Lopez belongs on that list but before he became electric Lopez and was dynamic Lopez, he was definitely on that list. Lopez is, maybe now we can say was but can still be again, hopefully, an elite boxer. He, along with the other fighters mentioned, were, some still are, must see fighters. For Lopez to be considered that again, he must win and if he wins in impressive fashion, then he just joined that list once again. Lopez has his work cut out for him due to Taylor’s height and reach, sort of, 1 inch advantage. The first thing that has to happen is that dynamic Lopez has to show up and not electric Lopez, but that’s not something he can control. Then Lopez must must be quick and show lateral movement and get the angles, keep turning Taylor to make his jab useless. Then he has to take out the body, chop down the tree, and then go on top. He can’t get hyper focused on the chin of Taylor because the Scotsman is quick and slick. The obviously funny thing about my assessment, that I stole from the real pros, is that dynamic Lopez did all those things, the electric Lopez comes out too fast and tries to take out his opponent with one punch and then just stands there and takes unnecessary punishment or leaves himself open for counters. In all honesty, the best version of Taylor, even the uhhh… supremely confident and best prepared version of Taylor, would not be able to beat dynamic Lopez and would most likely get knocked out. The latest version of Lopez, electric Lopez, will most likely lose to Taylor. So for Lopez, the fight hinges on electricity… and dynamics.

Best of Luck to both combatants and may the best man win.

On a side note… some reporter was outraged at Lopez’s statement of “I’m going to Kill Taylor”. Well, I believe that Taylor’s goal was to decapitate Lopez, which he didn’t bring up, so, somehow, decapitation isn’t as bad as killing someone, because I guess you can just pick your head up afterwards and sew it back on? The selective outrage by the reporter is unnecessary and shouldn’t have been reported on. If you gave me a dollar every time a boxer used the hyperbole of making their opponent deceased in one form or another, then I would be hanging out with Elon Musk or Bill Gates or Steve Jobs… not Steve Jobs, he is actually deceased. He stated it was the worst thing he ever heard a fighter say… ridiculous, this must be the first fight he ever covered.

UPDATE: Dynamic Lopez showed up. It was a really good fight. Taylor gave a good showing but Lopez was too young, too quick, too slick, too strong and too much for Taylor on this night. The one thing I did notice is that Taylor was hurt on a couple of occasions and Lopez backed off. There is no doubt that the criticism levied at him about his comments by some reporters made him pause when he should have stepped on the gas. It is worse to take prolonged punishment then to take one shot that knocks you down. Lopez shouldn’t worry about knocking someone out, his concern should be for him not to get hurt and to win in emphatic manner if at all possible and secure a good payday for him and his family. His opponent knows the risks and is trying to do the same thing thing, win in an emphatic manner. I will say that at the end of the 12th, Lopez backed off with about 5 seconds left after he hurt Taylor with a good right hand, maybe was an alright move if he didn’t think he could get the knock down. But as the scores showed, that round decided the fight and if he could have gotten the knock down and decided to back off because of some asinine comment by a reporter and they gave Taylor that round, Taylor would have went home the Champ by majority decision draw. I would also like to say that both fighters were classy at the end of the fight. Taylor made no excuses and Lopez gave Taylor his props. You see, all the disparaging remarks by both fighters was just hyperbole, like in every other fight ever made. I’m disappointed at how this was reported prior to the fight… I’m going to go eat a honey bun. Big ups to the broadcasting, they were on point.

And just to harp on it some more…. what do you call that instinct? The one when you have someone hurt and you go in for the knockout? It’s called the killer instinct and all great fighters have or had it. What the hell did I do with that honeybun, that’s my killer instinct.