TaN: The much-hyped “Battle of the Century” sure turned out to be a big disappointment. I am sure glad I am one of the minuscule few — most of who make up the greater part of the 99% who are so poor they cannot afford it — who was not taken it. I did not waste my time — AND MONEY — watching an event involving two “macho” men punch each other.
And contrary to most everyone, especially the gullible who paid exorbitant amounts just to see two grown men — an alleged wife-beater and an over-rated defeater of old-champions — punch each other as if they, the spectators, are the ones actually in the ring doing the fighting. “Battle of the Century” it is not, especially this early in the century and it is even much less “Battle for Greatness”. There is nothing great about fighting, especially when it is all about the fortune (and the fame). It is in refraining from fighting where true greatness lie.
And all these media and sportscasters and sports analysts and expert wannabes are party to this pitiful farce who ramp up the hype as high and as feverish as possible in order to be stooges of the organizers and promoters and high-rollers who make the killing — including the communications media who deliver the event to the viewers as they rake in all the wonderful cash while providing an already-paid for communications infrastructure. Likewise included are all the advertisers and businesses who shamelessly capitalize and ride on the hype even when it has nothing or very remotely to do with their product or service — like the deodorants (I seriously doubt of body odor is a major concern during the fight), the fast food chains (junk food is not the best of regimens for anyone, much less an athlete), the pain relievers (okay, I will grant that there is pain in boxing), the clothing and apparels (this is stretching it because obviously they cannot be naked in the ring but consider how scant the garments), the bars and restaurants (which is purely to attract customers ergo for self-interest only), the (electronic) social media (showing and vindicating the shallowness of most people because most of the content is gossip and rumors), and especially the ticket scalpers, among others.
It is finally over, or is it? Looks like, as expected, they will try to milk it for all its worth — a rematch, which will further rake in all that money. Let us see if they will (eagerly and readily) agree and talk about another fight if there is no purse involved. The truth is, it is just all about the Manny, er I mean Money. [As far as I can determine, Floyd never hid nor deny that he is in it for profit. In fact, Floyd is said to also go by the alias of Money.] Come on, announce it that the next rematch fight will be only for show — i.e., the two will get not a single plug cent or centavo out of it. Let us see if they will be as ready and avid in their agreement for a rematch.
Moreover, they could even repeat what they have been doing (prior to this “fight”) — i.e., agreeing to a rematch and take-backs — and continuously keep everyone guessing whether there will really be a rematch or not. This strategy drives up the hype and mania and consequently the purse. Amen to capitalism and gullibility.
TaN: The law used to be about justice. It used to be that a law was enacted to ensure that justice is served, that the less fortunate or less abled or capabled or the disadvantaged will be given equal opportunity and treatment in society. It used to be that the law dispenses justice, that those whose rights (and freedoms) have been violated or have unduly been deprived of or prevented from the free and unfettered exercise of one’s rights (and freedoms) will get compensation, reparation, or otherwise receive some kind of satisfaction from the injustice suffered.
Today, the function of law has evolved — more like manipulated and mangled — and has morphed (i.e., its function) into providing harmonious co-existence between and among members of society. It was once said in an episode of The Practice that (and I paraphrase because it has been so long): the law is not about what is right and wrong…it is about technicalities. In other words, it is (now) about who knows how to “play by the rules” better and not so much about justice anymore.
This so-called “evolution” was brought about by necessity. Necessity because cultures and differing societies
So, do not be surprised that there are and will be resolutions by way of a law that does not end or anything to do with the dispensing and receiving of justice, like the enactment of laws involving women, children, and the LGBT community — aside from the obvious, as in laws creating cities, naming streets, declaring holidays and honors, granting franchises, enactment of the national budget and appropriations, and many others. Now, before the women, children, and the LGBT community crucifies me, permit me to explain my statement.
Having taught ethics for a short stint, my research into it in preparation to teach, has opened my mind to the various injustices that have been erroneously “corrected”. In truth, a greater injustice has been committed.
When laws are enacted to favor a particular sector or group or interest in society, it automatically disfavors the rest of the population. In my humble opinion, laws that pertain to human behavior should be made with the general population in mind — in other words, every person or humanity. When we say that women should be given equal rights with men, it inadvertently gives women an advantage over men. What should be done is to enact laws that cover all genders, races, ethnic groups, religions, and whatever equally. The law should be applicable to every individual and not “magnifying” a particular segment.
Of course, there are special instances where it is not possible but these instances should be handled carefully and with all sincerity and absence of malice. And should an “injustice” be discovered or revealed after or during the effectivity of the law, it should be addressed at once.
Let us take a concrete case to further elucidate and expound what I mean. Let us first take the case of an “unjust” law — laws pertaining to abusive acts against women. The argument is: Why? Are there no men being abused by women? What about hen-pecked men? Do they not deserve a law protecting them also? And when we make distinctions, the danger there now is that ever smaller groups within the women’s sector may not be adequately addressed by existing women’s laws. When this happens, another law will have to be enacted to addressed it, and so on. There will be so many laws that there will definitely be overlapping and contradicting boundaries.
It would be far simpler and less complicated if laws address all concerned instead of focusing on a particular slice of society. Pass laws that treat people as people, as people should be treated, regardless of gender, race, religion, ethnicity, etc. Let us be fair. Take our cue from the teachings of Jesus Christ. He never made distinctions. His teachings apply to all.
As to the other case where distinctions and difference treatments cannot be avoided, let us take the case of toilets. It cannot be denied that men and women are structurally different. As such, toilets will have to be designed to address these differences. However, to extend this to the LGBT community — I am sorry say and I have no ill-intent nor malice — is going too far. LGBTs are no different from men and women — structurally — therefore they can make use of existing toilets for men and women. Men, women, LGBTs…that is the reality so DEAL WITH IT!
One of the main reasons why we tend to enact very specific laws targeting only a certain segment of society is that, in the interpretation of the law (its rationale), we frequently “philosophize”. When this happens, there is malice involved and often it is because we are trying to avoid and evade guilt and responsibility or liability, that we are circumventing the intention of the law in order to gain or benefit or to escape punishment.
Finally, I have nothing against the “evolution” of laws enacted to dispense justice to those enacted to ensure harmonious relations and co-existence with others — after all, there are so many cultures and none is superior to another — hence the need and natural “morphing” of the purpose of laws. Let us just ensure that laws be kept simple and easy to understand, and that they are intended to benefit all of humankind — justly, ethically, and truly.
TaN: There is no doubt in my mind that Mr Barack Obama is a (true blue) Republican at heart. As far as I know about the politics of the USA (United States of America), Democrats are for more government involvement and Republicans want less government — and I can be wrong, so very wrong.
Anyway, whenever there is a Republican president, the USA seems to be more “warlike” (like Mr Reagan and both Mr Bushes) while a Democrat president seems to be more “conciliatory” (like Mr Carter) — but there are exceptions. There will always be exceptions because of extenuating circumstances beyond our control, like in the case of Mr Kennedy during the Cold War and the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
However, in the case of Mr Obama, he seems to have done a bang up job. He not only continued the programs of his predecessor but even topped it. His record of transparency is dark and sinister, his record on security (global and national) is deplorable, his record on peace is all a-shatter, and his record on healthcare is pitiful. He is behaving more like a Republican than a Democrat. In fact, in an Internet radio show hosted by David Knight, at InfoWars.com, in the April 22, 2015 episode, it was mentioned — and I had suspected as much years ago — that there is a connection between Democrats and Republicans. For one thing, someone found that virtually every president of the United States of America since Woodrow Wilson (because it started or was established during his term) had been a member of the Council for Foreign Relations. How coincidental!?
And I would not put it passed Ms Hillary Clinton to top what Mr Obama did and how he performed. To make things worse, Mr Obama’s term is not yet over so there are lots more “damage” that can be done.