JACOBS v CHAVEZ
In a test for Danny Jacobs, the former middleweight champion fought JC Chavez Jr. in a super middleweight bout. Chavez (51-3-1) is a good fighter and real test for Jacobs who is making his debut at the 168 pound limit. To Jacobs credit, he decided to keep the fight on after Chavez came in heavy. Jacobs was more on the defense in the first round and used his movement to offset Chavez’s aggression. As the fight went on, Chavez slowed, maybe due to the broken nose, and Jacobs pot shotted and landed the heavier and more telling blows. This fight would end in the 5th round when Chavez called it a day due to the broken nose, say what you want, a shattered nose will make you do just that and also his inability to breathe wouldn’t let him recuperate between rounds. Jacobs was, in my opinion, on his way to a decision win because even though Jacobs did land those telling shots, he was never in any serious trouble.
Chavez is a durable fighter that went 12 rounds with Sergio Martinez when Martinez was at the top of his game. Martinez, a true middleweight, hit Chavez with everything and couldn’t get him out there. For Jacobs, who I believe clearly drew with Canelo Alvarez, his game plan for this weight class should be more of something he is well equipped to do, that’s to fight smart and set traps. Jacobs is by far one of the smartest fighters in the game today, if not the smartest. When it comes to Ring IQ, he is the Einstein of the boxing world and he is going to need every bit of that IQ because that weight class is loaded with big punchers and granite chinned beasts. You have Benavidez, probably the best at 168, Smith, the English version of Canelo Alvarez, Canelo Alvarez, pound for pound challenger along with Crawford at 147, and Saunders, an undefeated fighter that can make anyone look bad and Caleb Plant, the quick handed American champion that has a lot of passion for the sport. It is not an easy weight class to dominate but he definitely can do it, if he keeps his wits and uses his best asset, his boxing IQ.
Maine Mom Was Murdered by Her Teen Son and His Friends During Argument Over Marijuana
By all means, make marijuana legal. It seems to have that make you smarter affect on the human intellect. Read story here.
DEMO DEBATE 12/19/19
Let me start by saying that Demo debate was different as in that it had less people on stage than the number of cousins in my Hispanic family for the first time, that’s saying something. Most debates looked like a family gathering minus the Spanish and sangria, alright, a small family gathering minus the Spanish and the sangria and either salsa, merengue, bachata or cumbia music in the background. And of course in the debates only one person spoke at a time while, which is also a little different.
All candidates are very deserving of being on that stage and would make great leaders, in my opinion, but like in all gathering either debates or fiestas, there is always a couple of standouts. In the fiestas it could be a good thing or a bad thing, my ex-wife who could dance salsa and mesmerize you or the guy that left most of his sangria on his shirt. In these debates it’s the person that commands the stage with a mix of humor, logic and poise that leaves you wondering why this person isn’t the logical choice for President. Unlike other times when I went into a more in depth blog about these candidates on the topics, I’m going to point out some factors that impressed me and underwhelmed about these candidates. In no particular order, actually, the order you see in the picture above, I’m going to address them.
Biden –
Con: Joe might rely a little too much on his predecessor. He needs to distinguish himself or set himself apart even if he has the same mindset. Small gaffes aren’t hurting him now but in the sure to be heated debates against Trump, Trump will put pressure on him and he has to be able to maintain clarity and be quick witted, which he did show in this debate. His experience, being in Washington too long can sometimes desensitize you. No military experience.
Pro: Joe has conviction and if anyone on that stage can work with both parties, it’s him. He would be the most likely candidate to get the most bipartisan support from the congress and senate. This means that things might actually get done. His experience, being in Washington that long, he made some friends and learned a few tricks. Also, I feel that Joe would actually punch you in the nose, you noticed that I put that on the pro list. He has a backbone, like Teddy, he gives you the feeling of the kind word while carrying a big stick analogy.
Buttigieg-
Con: Pete, being as young as he is, can’t really point to too much national experience. People might worry that he will have problems dealing with the Senate or if the Senate will try and bully him because he is so young, similar to what they did with Obama.
Pro: Pete is poised. He came under fire and didn’t blink, didn’t seemed fazed, never lost his swagger, returned fire and stood his ground. Pete is also measured, he doesn’t put plans forward that he believes won’t have a shot of making it through legislature. He is ambitious but not overly ambitious, which would be a con. Pete is progressive, he has bright analytical ideas that only come with people his age and intellect. He isn’t relying on what worked twenty years ago, he is relying what would work now and in the future. Military experience, who else put their lives on the line, thank me all you want, and I appreciate your thanks, but remind people that you put more skin in the game then anyone else there, you actually put your skin on the line for what you believe. Pete is electable and he listens to the science.
The one thing I would say to Pete, we are all on a first name basis in this blarticle (a combo of blog and article or just a blah article, your decision) is next time someone questions you about your experience or touts their experience in Washington, you might want to take that opportunity to ask them if they are happy where Washington is now and if they aren’t then obviously the people there aren’t the solution and if they are then obviously they would like four more years of what they have now. Let them make that decision and then remind them that people, ordinary people, think that Washington is the problem and that they have been there for a while and call it a home away from home while your intention is to be a temporary fixture to clean things up and to get the hell out of there. I think it was a missed opportunity when Sen. Klobuchar challenged you on your experience, my answer would have been that or, noting where Washington is today with these debacles, it might have been I have no experience fucking sh*t up, just fixing stuff, maybe not in such salty language, but you get the gist. Then I would have added the part about wanting to be a temporary fixture. That was my first thought when I heard the criticism as an answer that would have gone to the heart of people touting there Washington experience, then I would have gotten the sangria from the bottom of my podium and sang “El dia de suerte”,…… maybe don’t do that.
Klobuchar –
Con: Her voice is a little shaky, she seems like she wants to yell but is holding back. No military experience.
Pro: Amy has a bunch of pros. She is a fireplug. She is funny. She has no awkward compunctions about getting in your face and telling you exactly how she feels, even though I feel she has actually been holding back a little which, if she lets those feelings out, might turn into a con. Amy points out that she has not lost an election to date. Amy is strong willed and seems like a person that gets sh*t done. Of all the women candidates left, she is the most electable and has the best chance to get elected.
If the stories are true about her throwing stuff at her employees, I was hoping that she would throw a clipboard at one of the moderators, I really don’t know that if that would hurt or not, it depends on what preceded it. One of my favorite teacher used throw chalk or erasers at students that used to fall asleep and he was a great teacher. Maybe her staff was falling asleep, and if so, that’s what you get, toma juevon, despierta!! That means please wake up. Sangria anyone??? Amy is only 59, 60 if and when elected. Young enough to go those 8 years and old enough where those clipboards just won’t have that uumph when they hit you, that they would’t hurt that much.
Sanders –
Con: Might sound ageist but, we all know where I am going with this, his age. No military experience.
Pro: Bernie is the person that started the revolution, say what you will, most of the other candidates except for Joe, are feeding off of the Bernie blue print. His experience is only a plus, unlike Joe, because he seemed to have the wherewithal to get it right the first time around 99 percent of the time. He is the father of this movement and Bernie stays the course. Bernie is also fair minded, he would take both aspects of the argument and criticize both sides equally as needed. Bernie is tough and he is fair, he is this political arenas Mills Lane.
Steyer –
I’m going to pass on Tom because I just don’t know enough about him, he was a little late to the game, or as we like to say “los que llegan tarde no toman sangria”, (really does not translate to this situation) but that is a personal decision, but he says all the right things and seems like the genuine article. It’s actually los que llegan tarde quedan sin sillas which means those who arrive late are without seats, also maybe, not the best analogy, since he was on stage.
Warren –
Con: Like Bernie, her age. No military experience. Doesn’t seem to have that punch you in the nose we’re going to war if needed mentality, meaning that against her opponent, in a debate that would undoubtedly turn nasty, I can see her get a little rattled, and unfortunately, that Pocahontas remark is going to come up.
Pros: Extremely smart. A excellent debater. Steady as a rock in her ideologies. Took 100,000 selfies. Took the Bank industry to task in a show of force Patton would have been proud of. Selfless and devoted to the country. Wants to do the right thing, will do the right thing.
Yang –
Con: Experience in Government. No military experience. Might hesitate to go take bold action against a foreign government, meaning that he might be too nice.
Pros: Experience in Government. Funny. Probably the most analytical and out of the box thinker of all the candidates. Relatable. Should be the nominee in a perfect world but we live in this one. Andrew is a remarkable talent that seemed to take this challenge on a dare but damn it if he isn’t what might exactly be needed. Andrew has moxie, (stole it from Bernie), and courage to say things that at first people seem to laugh at but then, after the sangria hangover wears off, you say, he is exactly right. But like being on a sangria hangover or stupor, most of us won’t realize it until it’s too late. President Yang, has a good ring to it.
Andrew is also the candidate that will, if not nominated, say “I told you so”, because he is right, it’s that simple, and if you don’t heed his advice, you will probably fail. Andrew is right about why the Demo’s lost in 2016, why this country will flounder if we don’t start becoming the leaders in future technology and why the economy will falter if we don’t take steps to level paying wages and force these big tech companies that utilize robots to pay a stipend or force them to hire a person for every robotic arm, even if it’s just to sit there and look at this robot do everything.
Congresswoman Tabbard’s Present vote
This might sound silly but the Congresswoman’s present vote seemed to me the fairest solution that anyone running for President could vote. Congresswoman Gabbard realizes that any vote, yea or nay, would be self serving due to her aspirations of running for President and also realized that her vote would not affect the outcome, so she did the honorable thing and chose to abstain from making a decision one way or another. I know she will be called out for it but I think that she made the smart move. It shows character and wisdom from a person so young. The number one motto should always be “to do the right thing”, I think the congresswoman showed that in this instance, others might disagree.
DEPORTED VETERANS
This article is going to be short. I notice that most, if not all, deported veterans are of Hispanic descent. I understand that coming into the country illegally is wrong but if you wanted to deport these brave souls who put their lives on the line for our country, wouldn’t it have made more sense to have done it prior to their enlistment and their service to our and their country? What no news article has ever researched or reported on is how many illegal citizens have died in these foreign wars for us. When I served in the military, joined during the first gulf war, they checked my immigration status. The military found me legally able to serve, doesn’t that automatically give these people the right to stay in the country when an arm of the government finds them lawfully able to put their lives on the line? Isn’t a DD-214 just as good as a green card? It’s unseemly to be seen as a country that doesn’t fight it’s own wars and battles. It almost looks like we kidnap people from other countries, make them fight our wars and then kick them back out. We should give these people their citizenship and then, if they break a law, treat them like someone who has broken a law, not an a foreign intruder or enemy combatant.
Other countries that allow foreign fighters offer these soldiers citizenship after a certain amount of time of service, most notably the French Foreign Legion who offers these soldiers French Citizenship after three years of service.
PRAISE v. SHAME
In the era of the shaming culture, pointing out perceived flaws in people to have them conform to your views is incredibly dangerous. I read some of the news articles where famous people are shamed for different things that they do, these things, all of which the shamer is being petty and nit picky and am sure has done much worse, are relatively silly funny things. As I read these articles, I start to wonder why people try and shame someone? Is it because they are so devoid of a real life that the only way they can be happy is to try and belittle someone else? Or is it that they want to feel superior to someone that they truly want to be like? It could be that they were shamed all their lives and now they have found a way to let their frustrations out. While ironic that my thoughts seem to shame the shamers, I am actually looking for the root cause. One thing is for sure, shaming is a movement that has taken hold and won’t be going away any time soon.
In the old days, and not when I was a kid as my son would like to say “the old days when you had to dodge the dinosaurs” but when this country was in its infancy (I wasn’t around then either), people would create a village by building one house at a time. Everyone would come together and help build their neighbors house, then they would help build another house until all the neighbors had a home. This constructive team building, a term I’m sure you heard in your job, was something people aspired to. Neighbor always had a positive connotation and meant something good.
Now, in the days of social media, where you can be somewhat anonymous and don’t have to confront a person that you disagree with, people become emboldened and say things that they would not normally say. I’m sure that this was not the intention of social media when it was thought of but it is what it has become.
Psychology has taken a turn to using shaming as a technique to try and bring people into conformity and to teach humility. I believe that to be an ineffective method to teach a lesson and should only be used as a last resort, if at all. Praise used to be the preferred method to bring people together and to show unity in common beliefs, but those methods don’t seem to be relevant anymore or are not talked about or highlited the way they used to be.
The problem with shaming is that once you are done with one person, you are looking for the next person to shame and it becomes an addiction to humiliation. That’s disgusting, you’re sick, what a weirdo… blah, blah, blah. This ongoing and downward spiraling method of trying to bury people under your feet instead of picking people up on your shoulders seems to be contagious.
It used to be that if you didn’t like what someone did you expressed disappointment in private, had a conversation eye to eye, voiced you opinion, listened to theirs and then decided to either break off communication with the person (what people now a days call ghosting) or you would say that it was not important enough to end a friendship or relationship and forgive and forget.
Praising always seemed like a better method of communicating. Telling someone what they did right or what you found impressive about them to fortify that train of thought seemed to have a better result that would lead to better communities. I’m not saying that you can’t express disappointment when warranted, this isn’t Pleasantville, people do do stuff wrong, what I am saying is that shaming should be used sparingly and only in private.
While I understand that shaming is a type of psychological warfare used on battlegrounds, trying to shame, lets say a political figure, a congressman or congresswoman who have their constituents, is worthless and only seems like bullying. The people that voted for them and the people that will have a voice in their election are the only people that should have a say in their political ideology and that say will come in their next election. This also goes for regular people, famous people, basically all people. What good do you get from shaming someone, absolutely none. You get more from praising their good actions, as they will most likely repeat them.
Now, if you make money from shaming someone, if people are paying you to shame a person or group of people, then I can see…… that you are hard up for cash and should find a better job. In the end… In the end it is my solemn belief that God will judge you for you actions and telling him that shaming got you that brand new TV set with the Ultra High resolution that was 72 inches is not going to go over very well or that new white SUV even though you already have two cars, probably won’t work either.
This article is in response to the person at the gym that believes that shaming is how to shape politics. It wasn’t a great conversation.
JOSHUA vs. 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.
THE DAYS OF REASON HAVE LONG BEEN GONE
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.
MARIJUANA ON THE BALLOT
‘so
In last weeks debate, Joe Biden says he would not make marijuana legal until further studies are done and he was met with criticism by Sen. Booker. I’m not sure that Sen. Booker’s criticism was appropriate (I’m not saying that Sen. Booker’s stance is wrong, I’m only opining it). Marijuana is a popular drug that most people see as harmless and should be legalized. I think that they couldn’t be more wrong. I think that marijuana, if legalized, would destroy the middle class and poor people. Cheeseburgers and pizza are harmless but yet we have the worst obesity problem of any nation, do you know why, because cheese is mildly addictive and acts on the same neuro-receptors as heroin. BRB, making a myself a cheese melt (I’m not).
Marijuana is much more addictive than cheese and the problem will be more exasperated by the fact that this country doesn’t run on Dunkin but on compulsion. All these ads on every single electronic device are meant to make you want. They flicker, they’re bright, they’re shiny, they grab your attention and they’re repetitive (that should be illegalized). There is a prevailing thought that people that get addicted are people that have weak minds, that is a myth. Addiction has no boundaries and while some people will try it once only and some might do it in their college years and not really inhale, others will become addicted even though they might have strong minds. Just because it didn’t affect you that way doesn’t mean that it won’t affect someone else in a more dangerous manner.
The other problem of note is playing in courts today. Juul is defending themselves against State Attorney Generals because they targeted minors in their adds and because they made flavored vapes that would appeal to minors. The States are contending that Juul acted irresponsibly, which they did, in my opinion.
Lets add another wrinkle to this, people have died from vaping, but not from vaping nicotine but marijuana. They vape the same two products with the same two external additives, the only difference was the nicotine and marijuana. The people that vaped the marijuana became really sick with some dying while the ones vaping nicotine, did not. The news has reported that vitamin E might have been the culprit but it is my belief that came at the urging of the marijuana lobbyists, that also is an opinion.
The fact is that marijuana is a money maker. Marijuana has produced large amounts of income and some people will overlook the side effects, if they can rationalize it, to rake in the income that comes with the legalization of marijuana. That’s sad and it’s also greedy. Marijuana addicts roughly 10 percent of the people that try it (and that’s a rough estimate given by the NIH, it could be higher because studies are limited, but it won’t be lower), legalizing the product would mean that up to 30 million people could use the product. That would mean that 3 million people could get addicted to the product. If we play Russian roulette with addiction, we can say that about 80 percent (2.4 million) of the people that would end up addicted would come from the middle to lower class (poor). That addiction would eventually lead to these people to lose their homes, jobs and their families would be irrevocably harmed, but its ok, because you made that extra revenue that you are now using to treat the problem. You can also honestly say that some, couldn’t give you a number, of those people only did the drug because you legalized it.
I say, keep marijuana illegal. Reduce the sentencing guidelines for the users and force them into rehab. Make the penalties for pushers stiffer and go after the cartels. If, in your heart of hearts, feel like that marijuana is safe and would boost the economy (it won’t) then have a designated place like an Amsterdam. Maybe make it legal just in Las Vegas, hell, almost everything else is, and split the proceeds with the 50 states equally. I think that would be the responsible thing to do.
In a good note, cigarette use is down to 278 billion cigarettes from a high of 631 billion in 1980. The difference was that politicians and activists started to say that cigarettes are deadly. They prohibited television ads for cigarettes and raised the age to buying cigarettes to… 21? …18? One of those and they also started school programs depicting the use of these products as extremely harmful. So what I say is, if you are going to legalize marijuana, at least you have the game plan to reduce the consumption to a couple of hundred billion blunts when it starts ruining our country.
Don’t choose money over morals, you’ll forever regret it.
Let me add that it won’t stop illegal sales of marijuana, it will increase it. That dime bag that costs $50 at the legal dispensary, will still only be a dime bag at the corner. You are going down the same path as cigarettes but with more profit for the illegal vendors and the cost of stopping the illegal distribution, which will also come from the legal dispensary back doors, will cost you more than you will profit. It is not a worth while endeavor, it seems that learning from past mistakes is not a thing that we do. Cigarettes are an anchor in our society that create more problems and costs than the tax can cover, why would you think that a more addictive substance would prove to be the answer to your problems. Your adding another element to a shit sandwich, BLT – blunts, lard and tobacco. Our healthcare system is already overridden with problems from the lard and tobacco, which produce cancer and heart problems, you now want to add a third element in order to fix it? Doesn’t that sound crazy?
More importantly, I told my son it’s not Ok to do that shit, and you’re telling him it is, so, stop it, stop it right now.
And this not a referendum on Sen. Booker’s decision, their are plenty of politicians on both sides that feel legalizing the “green gold”, “purple haze”, “pinner”, “pacman”, “Nixon”, “Maui Wowie” or “juana”, “maria”, “mota”, “yerba santa”, “queso verde” (I just made that last one, lets see if sticks) is an appropriate way to feed the tax man, it isn’t, again, in my opinion.
mannysblog.com 