Run Floyd Run: Pacman is the Best

“I don’t know how you all see it, but when it comes to the children, Wu-Tang is for the children. We teach the children. You know what I mean? Puffy is good, but Wu-Tang is the best, Okay? I want you all to know that this is Ol’ Dirty Bastard, and I love you all. Peace!”


That pretty much sums up how I feel about Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather Jr.  Manny is for the children. He is there to teach the children how to dish out punishment in a classy manor. Manny pretty much stop fighting after his most recent foe, Antonio Margarito had his face look like this:

Manny was looking at the ref asking why they wanted him to keep destroying Margarito.  The answer was clear - Margarito is one tough MF + he's Mexican = Fight to the death. Freddie Roach would have had to put in a Mortal Kombat Finish Him code for Pacman to try to put the 165lbs Margarito down. Say what you want to say about Margarito and his plaster hands, he put up about as valiant an effort somebody could possibly have while getting the beat down of the year. 


What does this mean for Floyd? At first I found myself taking jabs at Floyd and saying he is scared and the such. I have to retract my statements. I have come to my senses. Floyd is brilliant. Floyd is revolutionary. And beyond that, he is scared for the right reasons. Why would you subject yourself to this type of punishment?

Or what about this? Who wants to sleep in the ring at night? 

Pacman is special. Extremely gifted. And the best boxer I have seen in my young life. He has the ferociousness of a young Tyson with the flare of a young Roy Jones Jr. Factor in the humbleness of a nerd, there is  no way I would want to fight this guy. Poor Ricky Hatton was never the same. Hatton had his life fall apart after this episode, lost his family, and is now in rehab. I can't blame Ricky. I have never been in the fight with a crazed Spyder Monkey and the lasting effects have to be unrecoverable.  


For the fight that we will never see, I still contend it wont be a walk in the park for either fighter. I maintain that Pacman would have to bring the same A game that Floyd would need. But I still believe Floyd has not seen this level of talent and a person who is as fast (or faster) and stronger (way stronger, drugs or not) and for 12 rounds. Pacman doesn't get tired. He is vulnerable, he did admit that Margarito hurt him. Margarito was catching him on a number of shots the entire fight, but the flash and flare of Pacman made you forget about them instantly.  As far as the testing, lets put the BS aside and make the fight the last 7,000 fights have been made prior to the Mayweather Keep Boxing Clean campaign aka the Tea Party Bullshit of America campaign for boxing.  Pacman a rare talent that needs to walk through one more door of greatness. 


Now watch this teashot. This is one hell of a car.

How Much Does It Cost You in Wages if You “Sound Black?”

Fascinating new research by my University of Chicago colleague, Jeffrey Grogger, compares the wages of people who “sound black” when they talk to those who do not.
His main finding: blacks who “sound black” earn salaries that are 10 percent lower than blacks who do not “sound black,” even after controlling for measures of intelligence, experience in the work force, and other factors that influence how much people earn. (For what it is worth, whites who “sound black” earn 6 percent lower than other whites.)
How does Grogger know who “sounds black?” As part of a large longitudinal study called the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, follow-up validation interviews were conducted over the phone and recorded.
Grogger was able to take these phone interviews, purge them of any identifying information, and then ask people to try to identify the voices as to whether the speaker was black or white. The listeners were pretty good at distinguishing race through voices: 98 percent of the time they got the gender of the speaker right, 84 percent of white speakers were correctly identified as white, and 77 percent of black speakers were correctly identified as black.
Grogger asked multiple listeners to rate each voice and assigned the voice either to a distinctly white or black category (if the listeners all tended to agree on the race), or an indistinct category if there was disagreement.
Then he put this measure of whether a voice sounded black into a regression (the standard statistical tool that economists use for estimating things), and came up with the finding that blacks who “sound black” earn almost 10 percent less, even after taking into account other factors that could influence earnings. One piece of interesting good news is that blacks who do not “sound black” earn essentially the same as whites.
(It turns out you don’t want to sound southern, either. Although pretty imprecisely estimated, it is almost as bad for your wages to sound southern as it is to sound black, even controlling for whether you live in the south.)
So what does this all mean?
The first question to ask is whether the impact of speech on wages is a causal one. It is possible that there are many other characteristics that differ between blacks who do or do not “sound black” that Grogger cannot control for in his regressions. It does seem likely that the biases at work would make his estimate an upper bound. (Although it should also be noted that his estimates are for young people, and the importance of speech may become important with age, in which case his results might underestimate the long-run effects.)
If one believes Grogger’s effects are causal, then investing in the ability to not “sound black” looks to have a huge return — roughly of the same magnitude as getting one more year of schooling.
Of course, there is the issue of one’s identity. There may be personal costs associated with being black and not sounding black. But these costs would have to be pretty large. (When I have Asian Ph.D. students go on the job market in the United States, I tell them that I think there is rampant discrimination against non-English speakers and encourage them to adopt Americanized first names for the job market. Very few of my students choose to do so — either a testimony to the identity cost of pretending to be someone you aren’t, or possibly their lack of faith in my assessment of the amount of discrimination.)
I was talking with one of my colleagues about this study. He thinks it will be a very important and influential one.
My response, “Tru dat.”

Hyprocrisy at it's best

This is the statement issued by Bob "I got money" Johnson, founder and CEO of BET.

Billionaire businessman Bob Johnson, a close Clinton adviser and friend, said on CNN's "American Morning" on Wednesday that Obama could best forge party unity by offering Clinton the vice presidential slot.

A day after the final two primaries in South Dakota and Montana, Johnson sent a letter to House Majority Whip James Clyburn to lobby the Congressional Black Caucus to endorse Clinton as Obama's running mate. Saying Clinton would "entertain the idea if it's offered," Johnson said, "This is Sen. Obama's decision. If the Congress members can come together and agree as I do that it would be in the best interest of the party to have Sen. Clinton on the ticket, they carry that petition to Sen. Obama." "This is not a pressure. This is elected officials giving their best judgment," said Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television.

Johnson's letter to Clyburn says, "You know as well as I the deep affection that millions of African-Americans hold for both Senator Clinton and President Clinton."
It continues, "But most important, we need to have the certainty of winning; and, I believe, without question, that Barack Obama as president and Hillary Clinton as vice president bring that certainty to the ticket."

I find it ironic that now, after the Clintons and "The Black Caucus" have gotten their butts whipped, they expect full cooperation from Obama and his camp. This is the same Bob Johnson that:
1. Insinuated that Obama was a drug dealer of some sort.
2. Called him an uncle tom: Johnson went on: “That kind of campaign behavior does not resonate with me, for a guy who says, ‘I want to be a reasonable, likable, Sidney Poitier ‘Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner.’ And I’m thinking, I’m thinking to myself, 'This ain’t a movie, Sidney. This is real life.'"
3. Said Obama was only in his position because he was black.
4. Is this the same guy that held a closed door meeting to try to sway "The Black Caucus" to switch to Republican alliances in order to better the "Black" community?

My problems with Bob Johnson and BET and the Black Caucus.
Bob Johnson - Please don't tell me that you are in tune with the Black community. There are very few billionaires that I would say fully understand the "Black" experience today. That is not to say that they have not struggled or overcome to get to where they are at, but it is a new day with a whole new set of problems.
BET - If you want to do something, stop showing music videos and re-runs for 16 hours of the day. What happened to the BET Nightly News, Tavis Smiley? Give me a political show on BET regardless of if the network takes a hit on ratings. Then I would believe that you are about change and not just about making some change (dollars).
The Black Caucus - This election will be interesting. The Black Caucus when I use the phrase refers to the "Old" Black leaders whom are supposed to lead us to the promise land but seem to be so tied to "Old" White leaders (CLintons for example) that they seem to miss the boat. Jesse Jackson, Sharpton and the like need to be progressive in their attacks, not just the same old fight.

So if I am Obama - I say hell no to a Clinon VP. Who wants the 3am Lady in the background saying no do it this way, or promoting her own agenda. Could this be the winning ticket because of the Black Caucus ties to Clintons? Possibly. But this can't be the only winning formula. If it is, Obama better run for this hills if someone yells..."Get your hand outta my pocket."

You know what grinds my gears???

There have been many recent 'scandals', especially at USC. Mayo, accused of receiving a possible 30k over the past 18 months dating back to high school and Bush, accused of receiving considerably more during his time at USC. But lets look at the underlying theme here: Should these athletes, mostly basketball and football stars, get paid or is the "scholarship of free education" compensation enough?

Here are the rules by the major sports:
NBA - Under the current rules, implemented in 2006, players must be 19 years old to be eligible for the NBA draft.

NFL - Rules state that a player cannot enter the draft until his high school graduating class is at least three years removed, which is after their junior year or after a redshirt sophomore season.

NHL - Players who turn 18 by September 15 and are not older than 20 by December 31 are eligible for selection. In addition, non-North American players over the age of 20 are eligible. A North American player who is not drafted by the age of 20 is an unrestricted free agent. All non-North Americans must be drafted before being signed, regardless of age.

MLB - All the ins and outs of transactions are covered, sometimes in excruciating detail, in a large loose-leaf binder titled, "The Official Professional Baseball Rules Book," something completely separate from the "Official Baseball Rules" (which cover only the game on the field). Unfortunately, Major League Baseball doesn't make that loose-leaf binder available to the public.

Tennis/Golf - No age limits but highly selective and equity barriers to entry.

The two areas with the most strict regulations are the two that covet the highest minority participation, and ironically the most room for error. Some college football teams carry up to 85 athletes, basketball another 15. Coincidence, probably not. But the problem lies with the flip side of the argument. Who benefits from the athlete or coaches that do the right thing? What happens to the coach that blows the whistle on the program for wrong-doings? Check here and see Bruce Pearl. What about the athlete that blows out there knee trying to improve their position in the draft? What about the athletes that are just trying to do the right thing for their country?

My thing is the regulation is not accessing the true problem. Colleges are benefiting from these players in more situations than not. It is a farm system with strict regulations and sanctions on players, but not on coaches whom can jump schools with only a monetary fine. Players in most cases aren't going to major in Biology as top tier prospects, especially in the case of basketball. There aren't any Manhood 101 classes taught either. Sure, the average athlete does not play professional sports, but the common sense classes are not their either. People are going to chase their dreams (or the dreams that others have forced upon them) no matter what the cost. How is that different from a young entrepreneur who bypasses college and creates the next Facebook/Myspace/Napster? The difference is that these people were already equipped with the skill sets that made them famous before they stepped foot on the college campus. GM's and CEO's are always looking for that next big thing. They are looking so hard and drafting and scouting on 'potential' that they may miss out on the true gem of the draft. Potential, as described in physics, is a field defined in space, from which many important physical properties may be derived. This sort of effort exists only in relevance to other matters in space. The one problem that usually derives from this, money changes all people. Like Deion Sanders said, it can change my car, my zip code, and my wardrobe. But can money change the hunger to reach potential? Only the individual can answer that.