All the training in the world and not one class on how to deal with a woman scorned.
Author: mlampaz
When are Accidents not Accidents
I have seen some horrific accidents in my time. They have claimed life’s of people and their loved ones. I have been in a couple but have been lucky enough to escape without any serious injury. The CDC has the following on mortality rates:
Number of deaths for leading causes of death:
- Heart disease: 633,842
- Cancer: 595,930
- Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 155,041
- Accidents (unintentional injuries): 146,571
- Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 140,323
- Alzheimer’s disease: 110,561
- Diabetes: 79,535
- Influenza and Pneumonia: 57,062
- Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis: 49,959
- Intentional self-harm (suicide): 44,193
As you can see, accidents is number 4 in a list that is filled with natural causes and the last one is for people that have bad dreams or whom I refer to as the murder god. I ask myself if there was anything that could have been done to prevent these deaths. They’re unintentional, seemingly. These stats are yearly, making the total deaths from the above incidents at, where’s my calculator, 2,013,017 deaths per year. Of those roughly 190,700 were preventable or 9% of the deaths yearly. What can we do to prevent some of these deaths, well, for the natural causes, eat right, exercise routinely, at least 20 to 30 minutes 3 or 4 times weekly. That means you have to actually sweat, not pour water over your head or walk in the rain, even though I used to love jogging in the rain on a nice summer day. Stop smoking and using illicit drugs, fall and stay in love, actually proven to help your heart, laugh a lot, even (especially) at yourself, don’t take life too seriously, especially politics, don’t fret over money or things you don’t have control over and watch a comedy.
As for the accidents, check to make sure you tires are safe. That has been my biggest problem over the last couple of years. For some reason my tires have come off while I was driving (almost, one lug nut was left and on it’s last thread) and I had a blowout while driving, luckily my family wasn’t in the car. I have been in a couple of accidents but I have been lucky enough to walk away even though my air bag seems to have failed to go off in 3 of them. I had a close head to head call around a bend with a dump truck, I’m going to thank my boxing training and quick reflexes. Don’t drink while driving you may spill your drink and don’t drive tired, particularly on shitty tires. Drive slow on snowy roads, or you’ll miss everyone spinning out when they think that their car is the car that can drive on snow like on a regular day and be a considerate and attentive driver meaning, don’t be that guy, you know, the guy that sees a person that wants to come into your lane before they get stuck on the exit lane and you purposely stay right next to him so you can frustrate the person and then watch him give you the finger. Don’t tailgate
because road rage is real and some people are nuts. If you are late to your appointment, don’t try to make up time by playing frogger or pole position with your car, you don’t have three lives. Don’t take a zero tolerance on us idiots that drive badly, show some charity and let us go ahead of you because you will almost be sure to pass us up a mile down the road arguing with a cop about everyone else speeding and why are you giving me a ticket. And most of all, be happy, because you don’t make any money not being happy and it feels so much better to be happy.
Some other good hints are yellow means proceed with caution, not free hamburgers if you make it across and Stop, while self explanatory, people tend to see it only as a recommendation. Here’s a story I like to share, I was driving with my girlfriend and I ran a red light, she said you just ran a red light, I said don’t worry, my brother does it all the time, I ran another red light and she said you just ran another red light, I said again, don’t worry my brother does it all the time, I stopped at a green light and she said, what are you doing, it’s green, I said, I’m just making sure my brother isn’t coming the other way. Hopefully I made you laugh and added an hour to your life.
The Zero-Tolerance Debate
The latest rage is a zero tolerance policy that has both sides of the country pitted against each other, oddly enough, not completely both sides of the political aisle. I don’t know what to make of it. It’s both bad and good. Where do I start, the Dems feel that the policy is abusive and meant to single out immigrants that are trying to escape war torn countries and countries that are run by cartels more than their government. The Repubs, not a name for a bar or a place to get a black and tan but short for Republicans, feel that the rule of law should take hold and that zero tolerance would prevent abuses, here. What can I say, they’re both right. There is a list of cases that have entered court about people being coerced due to their immigration status. The people that hold these items over your head for the purpose of sex and money are predators and they have no heart. The Dems have largely ignored these abuses. On the other hand , to turn people away from our borders so they will meet their or their families certain demise and say it’s not our problem even though we like to use them for cheap labor, well, that’s just as bad. We can’t identify ourselves as Christians, Buddhists, Jews or Islamists and say at the same time, we aren’t going to help you. Those are two completely opposing ideologies. I don’t remember any verse that said go forth and block your fellow man from entering and send them back into the pits of hell for we don’t help anyone except ourselves. Are we or are we not a global community? Isn’t it up to the most powerful nation in the world to try and find a solution? To come together with our neighboring nations and work out a feasible plan? How can we attack Assad or ISIL and claim human right abuses and not find a way to eliminate the drug cartels that are much closer to our borders. Aren’t they a more imminent threat to our national security then Assad? How does the old saying go, “It only takes one rotten apple to spoil the bunch”, well, these cartels are in the same bushel as us, how are you going to ignore that rotten apple?
I’m glad I’m a blog, barely anyone reads me, so sad, but I can put my thoughts on this page because I’m sure the cartels won’t read me and if they did, I’m a blogger with 7 followers, I’m not changing policy. They’re a scary bunch and I’m not Superman. So, who is right and who is wrong? To me, like I have said many times before, zero-tolerance and sanctuary cities are extreme measures on opposite side of the lineal spectrum. We have to find a way to meet in the middle.
Canelo v GGG
The fight and the war of words is on. Both fighters are ready to get in the ring but they are going to have to wait until Sept. 15th to settle matters. I listened to their interview via facebook on July 3rd and they both look in fighting shape. I then watched their first fight without sound. I know that GGG might be the favorite because of all the hype of how everyone thought he won the first fight, and I was one of them, but now I’m not so sure. I saw Canelo, who everyone said ran, fight a superb fight. Canelo was quicker, more mobile, more elusive, landed the cleaner shots and avoided the big punchers heaviest shots. All in all, Canelo was the better boxer and maybe the better man for the first half of the fight. GGG, well, he’s a wrecking ball, and when you are used to be a wrecking ball the other nuances of boxing, that Canelo did so well, are absent or not worked on as much. They say styles make fights and this might be to the detriment of GGG. Canelo is the overall better boxer, the only equalizer is GGG’s power and reach over Canelo. Canelo shouldn’t change a thing except maybe work on his stamina, which is why GGG brought the numbers to even towards the end. Forget the hype, this about winning the titles and like any other sport, you have to play to your strengths. If Canelo does a little better version of his last fight and leaves GGG frustrated, he will walk out with those belts. I believe that GGG’s team is aware of this and that’s why they are using the “you ran” psychology on Canelo. They are questioning his heart and machismo and it might work if his trainer doesn’t see through this tactic. Canelo is the better boxer and he proved that. Now, let’s see if he lets his manhood gets the better of him because that’s the only chance GGG has unless he gets back to his roots of using a strong jab as his main weapon. Since GGG does have the reach, the only real way to nullify Canelo’s superior boxing skills is to keep that stick in his face and body. GGG is a savvy boxer, he’ll know when to unleash that right hand. If GGG uses that jab, like in the Lemieux fight, and works that body in the early rounds with viciousness, he might be able to offset Canelo’s movement. In the end, it’s still really a 50/50 fight. I wish I had the money to watch it but I’m going to have to watch the replay.
My prediction for this fight, unless there is an outside magical influence, you know who you are, I think I’m going to change it, someone will win or it might be a draw again but two people are going to be punching the hell out of each other.
Healthcare Reform
Please check out this story. Click on the link and read what people will suffer not to go to the hospital. If this isn’t a testimonial that we need to separate healthcare from profit than I don’t know what is. I have written before that healthcare should be a socialist program tied to a capitalist endeavor. That is the fix, if someone felt like caring enough about the issue, of course that someone would have to be filthy rich and not mind taking up the endeavor. The idea is simple, start a gym, charge $300 per member and offer them free healthcare with the membership. Figure out the particulars along the way. You would have to buy out existing gyms and claim their membership but the decrease in health insurance in members would most likely offset any departures from the increase in dues. It seems simple.
Roe v. Wade
Like my last couple of posts, this is not a boxing match, at least not a traditional one. This is about if we, as a nation, have the right to dictate what a woman can or cannot do with her own body. Roe v. Wade is a 1973 Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of abortion. The left, Democrats, say it is a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body while the right, Republicans, say that aborting a fetus is murder. The dilemma is no easy one. Both point of views are captivating and have some merit. Personally, for me, what a woman does with her body is no one’s business but her own. If she chooses to have surgery done than it’s her decision and she has to live with the consequences of that decision. I could never ask a woman to abort a fetus, especially after becoming a father, I wouldn’t be able to live with myself. The funny thing to me is, if you have an abortion, you are most likely a liberal or a moderate because conservatives are against abortions. So why do conservatives care so much? Why does it bother them so much that a liberal is aborting a fetus that will most likely vote against their policies? It’s a really odd situation. Politics is so polarizing that people literally hate each other over it, shoot each over it, set themselves on fire over it, why is it that they feel that this particular issue is something that they must triumph over. I think it’s a cause that they lost in court and maybe they are sore losers because honestly, they hold rallies on how much they dislike the left, they insult them from the moment they are born to the day they die. Politicians want to jail other politicians from the opposite side of the aisle for any inconvenience and you are telling me that they really care that their political opponents choose to have an abortion? The logic is not there for me, I would think they would be ecstatic. The hate, as you can see in every news outlet, in every talk show, in every newspaper, is real. These people honestly hate each other. There are no kind words, no good jobs, no well done, there is only she wore a a jacket that said something or this person has a low IQ or attack your political opponent when they go eat. This is ridiculous. Who would want to raise a child in this environment? Politics has become so nasty that the new policy for both sides is do the opposite of what the other side is doing. I mean, come on, are you telling me that there isn’t a policy that both sides agree on? It seems that all votes these days are along party lines and that’s disconcerting. Can we agree on anything? We should at least agree that choice is the most important thing, it’s what separates from all the other animals, not that all our choices are good ones. When you start removing people’s right to choose, that’s from abortion to guns to where I can hang my hat, then you might as well let Kim Jong Un run our country.
For those that aren’t familiar with the case of Roe v Wade, like me when I started to write this article, it’s a very interesting read. Roe, who’s real name was Norma McCorvey, was trying to have an abortion of her third child. She was 21, single and had prior legal problems. Wade refers to Dallas County District Attorney, Henry Wade. In Texas, at that time, abortions of any kind were illegal except in cases of medical emergencies and possibly rape or incest. The case was heard by Federal District Court which found that the restricting abortions was illegal. The case was then appealed and it made it’s way to the Supreme Court. In deciding the case, the Supreme Court stated that the rights to abortion had to be weighed with the State’s right to protect its citizens. This gave way to the ruling stating that an abortion of a non viable fetus, a fetus that could not live outside the womb on its own, was the decision of the woman and trying to regulate or make a law otherwise violated some very good laws, including privacy laws. This ruling seems to be just in its face meaning that it doesn’t go to far and it doesn’t take away from individual rights. There are a lot of people that say this ruling was wrong because it has nothing to do with constitutional rights but I disagree. If you can tell woman that she can’t have an abortion, and you agree with that statement, then you should be able to tell a woman that she can’t get pregnant. They should then make it where you have to apply for a license just to get pregnant and have the government decide if you will be a fit parent. I feel that this case is not only constitutional but it is an exemplary illustration of a really good decision. To say that States can regulate your choices but the United States can’t regulate the States is absurd. In other words, if a State can make a law, then the United States can determine if that law is constitutional. There are no independent State laws and no state is immune from the United States. While conservatives attack Roe v Wade under the pretense that it allows abortions of late term pregnancies, that case is actually Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). So when you see people yelling at women going into an abortion clinic and yelling that their baby is old enough to survive outside the womb, then you are actually complaining about Planned Parenthood.
Just to note, in PP v Casey, 6 of the Justices were Republican nominees and one of the Democratic nominees had previously voted against Roe originally. In hearing this case, they had a chance to overturn Roe but didn’t because ultimately, when you are a spectator, you have the luxury of saying their wrong but when you are the one making the decision, you have to think about the decision and you can see what voting against Roe would lead to. This is why I think, can’t be absolutely certain, that it doesn’t really matter what Justice gets the nomination, at least in terms of overturning Roe.
An additional note, if you are a politician that asked a girlfriend to have an abortion so your wife wouldn’t find out or have had a wife have an abortion and no qualms with doing it then, voting against Roe makes you a hypocrite that only desires power and you shouldn’t be in office because you are only there for yourself, not the people. I’m talking to you former Idaho congressman.
Wilder v Joshua
What can you say about this fight that hasn’t already been said many times by commentators, news articles, pro fighters, the promoters and the fighters themselves. On one side you have Wilder who is ready for this fight and ready to unite. His supporters are taking notice of Joshua’s promoter and manager Eddie Hearn opting to fight Povetkin instead of Wilder for the next fight. They are saying that Joshua is scared and that his own team doesn’t have the confidence in him to overcome the challenge presented from the WBC champ and his bazooka right hand. That the best way to keep the titles in England is to stay in England. My personal belief is that it was smart for Joshua to take Povetkin first. Povetkin is no push over for anyone and at 34-1 with 24 wins coming within the distance, he’s the perfect opponent to give you the tenacity and momentum to fight the best in the division. Wilder just dispatched Ortiz in impressive form and is riding the high. Hearn is trying to slow the roll of the Tuscaloosa tormentor and put his confidence of that win in the rear view mirror as long as Joshua wins his fight against the Russian, it might be a good strategy. It goes to the old saying, you’re only as good as your last fight and Joshua didn’t look exceptional against Parker while Wilder, well, he looked like a world beater. If you look at it like that, fighting Povetkin is definitely the right move.
On the other side you have Joshua supporters that say that Wilder is a one trick pony and if you take that trick away, all you have is a phony. That Wilder, with all his ballyhoo (old English for hype), is the one that doesn’t want the fight. Hearn says that all Wilder has to do is sign on the dotted line but he refuses to do it. That Wilder is more like a noise pop than a bazooka. My personal belief is that you are not going to find more one punch power in any division than the Tuscaloosan Titan and that’s one hell of a trick. That pony will take you to finish line first almost all the time. Taking out Ortiz in the manner he did, when no one else could even dent the Cuban, was definitely eye opening. Wilder is on cloud nine and deservedly so, like Joshua was after beating Wladimir by TKO. If you had asked Joshua to fight Wilder after Wladimir, he would have jumped at the chance, again, you are only as good as your last fight and that was one hell of a fight. Joshua’s confidence was through the roof and sometimes that is the determining factor. So, if Joshua disposes of Povetkin in fiery fashion, look for the his team to make the fight against Wilder.
My prediction for this fight is that the champ will win. For Wilder, it’s simple, keep your distance and work the body early and then let that Tuscaloosan Tomahawk loose to the chin. For Joshua, it’s simple, stay in his chest, don’t give him room, put your weight on him and beat him like a rag doll.
Good luck and I’m glad it’s not me in there. You must be crazy to fight either one of those behemoths.
CANELO V TRIPLE G II
The fight for middleweight supremacy, aptly titled SUPREMACY, is on for Sept. 15th, 2018, now why it says 2017 on the poster is unknown to me. I’m pretty sure that I pulled up last years advertisement but it’s still fitting. The fight is on the 15th of September and it should be a barn burner. With all the hoopla leading up to this fight, the combatants are sure to make a good one. I think there is some real animosity, not really hatred, but dislike for each other. I’m 50/50 on who is going to win, GGG is a year older and looked vulnerable against Martirosyan, relatively speaking for the amount of time the fight actually lasted and Canelo is coming off a suspension that saw him derided by his opponent. My prediction is someone is going to win this time. We’ll see. I don’t know what the event will be called but maybe ANIMOSITY. I used a thesaurus for supremacy and found maybe DOMINANCE could be it. Maybe ABSOLUTION would fit the bill, since the winner will be forgiven for everything and they will be absolute rulers of the division. There are many words or phrases that will describe this fight, I hope fight of the year or worth the money are the ones used to describe it. Good luck to both combatants, may the best man win.
Jesus was a Socialist
You ever heard of the term selective hearing? Well, when reading and quoting the bible, people tend to have some selective reading and interpreting. That anyone would ever use a defense of religious freedom to defend not treating someone like they would treat themselves is ludicrous. That anyone would believe that Jesus would be a right wing conservative is also nucking futs. If Jesus were to come down from his perch in almighty heaven, I don’t think that right wing activists would be his chosen people, at least not the extreme ones. Jesus’s politics, if you had to choose which one he would most likely resemble, would be Bernie Sanders. That’s no joke. Jesus, god bless him, would not be impressed with billionaires nor would he impressed with the gadgets on your Lexus. No. I’m guessing Jesus would more or less be more impressed by the immigrants crossing the borders trying to give their children a better life. Maybe the politicians that stand up to the cartels in Mexico and paid with their lives. Definitely Bernie, as Jesus pokes in the ribs about not believing in him in the first place, you see, Bernie is more Torah, less good book. Since I never met Jesus, Bernie could be right, but we’re hypothesizing here as if Jesus were to pay us a visit. While Jesus is anti-abortion, he is definitely pro choice. It was God that gave us the power of free will after all, if you are religious person and not an evolutionist. Another thing he would be would be fundamental socialist. While I don’t necessarily agree with socialism, I do agree with some of the principles of socialism.
While socialism was changed to replace the word people with government in today’s version, it was really meant to be the people’s control. Once you add a leader to the equation then what you have is communism. To have a few control the many is not really the way that socialism was meant to be. Capitalism is also a little defunct as it empowers the few, just not in the government. What you really need is a hybrid of these two concepts, it is really simple but maybe impossible to implement. Let’s see if you can follow me on this:
- You take all the billionaires and tell them that they have to give their billions away, not all of it, just so they are left with between 1 billion and 2 billion and not to the public or to the government but to a relative or someone of their choosing
- The person that gets that billion must start a business, it isn’t meant for their personal use, and employ people, therefore creating jobs. If the business succeeds and they make more than a billion in profit, once they hit two billion, they must now give it to someone, again, not all of it, just 1 billion
- If the business fails and they lose a majority of that money, then they can go ask again or take the couple of million they have left and live happily ever after while the original billionaire, who was probably smart enough to make another billion in profit chooses someone else to bestow this grand endeavor\
What you have here is a recirculating of cash into the public and no one individual becomes, well, Bill Gates, no offense to him but he is just the most well known billionaire. Money keeps going back out into circulation and what you have is a capitalistic social program that would work because you are still extremely wealthy but not stinky rich. The re-circulation of capital is the most important thing to a capitalist society. Hogging the pork, while a little redundant, is anti-capitalism.
To do something like this though would mean to get every single democratic country on the planet to agree to enact a cap on how much you can profit, not earn. That’s were the socialist aspect enters the picture. But if you think about it, you would probably have less poverty, less crime, less health care problems and less borders.
I write, I read it and I know I’m not the first person to come up with this solution or the first person to think of this but I like writing it again, it’s kind of my philosophy.
Weedmania Is Facing Roadbloacks
I don’t know what you want to call it. Sixth sense or ESP without the N or just plain common sense but this was foreseeable. In an article by Bloomberg, the news outlet is reporting that marijuana farms are starting to go under. That there are too many of them and with the new rules and regulations, like you can’t sell to kids, and with the taxation, most people are starting to head back to the illicit market. The other problem is that you just can’t get a prescription from your friend who plays doctor with his girlfriend anymore, you need a real medical reason. With real rules and taxes placed on the businesses, the rage of weedmania might be heading for a dip in the market. I blogged about this exact thing prior to it becoming legal, here and there (just click on the links and it will send you to the articles), saying that the fad of legalizing marijuana is akin to prohibition. Once you make something legal, it will almost be impossible to make it illegal again. With marijuana, it was better to keep it as one of those illegal substances. You’re not going to make that much money on it, you will send a message that an addictive narcotic is ok to use and when people start getting low on cash, they’re just going back to the person that sells it cheaper, the person on the corner without the overhead. The narcotrafficantes, that’s Spanish for scumbag smugglers, are aware that all you’re doing is letting people, that might have not used prior, get a taste of their product. These guys are buying stores and putting up fake licenses to sell and never pay a dime in taxes and they are underselling the real businesses, So, ATF or MATF, you have work to do.
This is just my opinion. I thought that weed and automatic machine guns should be viewed the same, item non grata. Also, I believe that you would make more money confiscating illegally obtained funds with drug busts then you would from the taxation of legalizing the wacky tobacky.
mannysblog.com 