Election 2012: Spineless News Reporting and Media Spin.

There must be a clear line drawn between what is a lie and what is the truth. When you have no clear lines drawn between what is right and what is wrong, what is false and what is truthful, what objective and what is subjective than we begin thinking and living in an unreal world. Our perception of concepts, ideas and reality itself are clouded. Chaos becomes the norm and reality becomes warped! How can we make proper decisions with bad information and erroneous data? We can not and will not!

Much of the media (the news networks) are seemingly spineless in their approach to politics. When they know that someone is clearly lying they will in most cases act as if the person lying as valid reasoning for making false statements or they will act as if the person lying is not lying. They will use language which is misleading to the listener. This language will leave the listener with false impressions! That is dead wrong! For example, when someone makes a false claim like "President Obama has caused job loss" instead of saying directly that it is a lie. They will say something like "...but what about the good job reports?" and then allow the liar to reply. What happens here is that they are giving the lie some credibility instead of stopping it dead in its tracks. Now when the liar replies "well the job reports do not take into consideration those who have stopped looking for work"they are allowing them to inject an imaginary factor into the equation.
 What is happening is many reporters are hold back on the truth so they can give President Obama's opponent, Mitt Romney a better chance to beat him. This is not the first time I've seen them do this in an election.
Now please read the following report so you can see how the media will allow irrelevant and untrue stories to thrive and survive. Not only that they will push them out and force them on us.

Posted at 08:00 PM ET, 06/03/2012

Stop waiting for and start paying attention to our first black president

By Jonathan Capehart

Over the last three and a half years, there have been three silly political storylines that have driven me absolutely nuts because it was plainly apparent that they were not true. One was that author, reality television star and former half-term Alaska governor Sarah Palin was going to run for president in 2012. Another was that President Obama would swap out Vice President Biden in favor of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. And the most irksome of all is the complaint from African Americans that Obama ignores their concerns.
The latest manifestation of the Obama-doesn’t-care-about-black-people whine comes from Fredrick Harris. In a piece for The Post’s Outlook section headlined “Still waiting for our first black president,” which was adapted from his new book, the Columbia University professor makes a stunningly false argument.

Obama has pursued a racially defused electoral and governing strategy, keeping issues of specific interest to African Americans — such as disparities in the criminal justice system; the disproportionate impact of the foreclosure crisis on communities of color; black unemployment; and the persistence of HIV/AIDS — off the national agenda. Far from giving black America greater influence in U.S. politics, Obama’s ascent to the White House has signaled the decline of a politics aimed at challenging racial inequality head-on.

Those are all important issues. They must be addressed. The problem for Harris is that they are being addressed by the president. Not in the theatrical way Harris would like. But in the actions-speak-louder-than-words way of Obama.
Criminal justice disparities
In August 2010, the president signed the Fair Sentencing Act. This long-sought legislation reduced the glaring disparity in punishment for those charged with crack offenses and those with powder cocaine offenses. “For the past three decades, those arrested for crack offenses — mostly young, African American men — faced far harsher penalties than the white and Hispanic suspects most often caught with powder cocaine,” The Post editorial pointed out then. “A person found holding 500 grams of powder cocaine would face a five-year mandatory minimum; crack offenders would have to be in possession of a mere 5 grams to face the same obligatory sentence.”
That brings the glaring disparity in sentencing between crack cocaine and powder cocaine from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1. And it is perhaps the clearest example of injecting more fairness into the criminal justice system, particularly for African Americans. That Harris didn’t even acknowledge this is surprising and shortsighted.
The foreclosure crisis
Just last Thursday (May 31), SunTrust Mortgage Inc. and the Justice Department announced a $21 million agreement to settle a lawsuit brought by DOJ. Between 2005 and 2009, the suit alleged, the mortgage lender “engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination that increased loan prices for many of the qualified African-American and Hispanic borrowers who obtained loans.” According to DOJ, SunTrust’s discriminatory policy affected more than 20,000 black and Latino borrowers who were hit with higher fees and interest rates than non-Hispanic white borrowers, “not based on borrowers risk, but because of their race or national origin.”
Last week’s announcement came five months after DOJ announced a record $335 million settlement with Countrywide Financial Corp. The department alleged that “Countrywide discriminated by charging more than 200,000 African-American and Hispanic borrowers higher fees and interest rates than non-Hispanic white borrowers in both its retail and wholesale lending.” In addition, “Countrywide discriminated by steering thousands of African-American and Hispanic borrowers into subprime mortgages when non-Hispanic white borrowers with similar credit profiles received prime loans. All the borrowers who were discriminated against were qualified for Countrywide mortgage loans according to Countrywide’s own underwriting criteria.”
And let’s not forget Obama’s risky move to recess appoint Richard Cordray as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Overseeing mortgage companies is one of CFPB’s primary functions. Considering African Americans have been hit hardest by the discriminatory practices of mortgage companies, this should have been cheered by Harris as a win for black homeowners and their families.
Black unemployment
This is the one area where Harris has a point. But only up to a point. As we are painfully aware, when the national economy catches a cold, African Americans get knocked out with pneumonia. An untenable situation that won’t improve with unemployment ticking up to 8.2 percent for May and fears of a global economic slowdown, weighing heavily on the markets.
Here’s something else we should be painfully aware of. Whether Democrat or Republican, the president of the United States has no control over the economy. The best he can do on the downward slope of the economic cycle is hold on tight and pray he isn’t thrown out. Still, presidents can do their best to help encourage business put people to work. And that’s what Obama has been trying to do (belatedly) with the American Jobs Act and “to-do” list.
But Congress has been aggressive in its unwillingness to move on either initiative. In our representative democracy, Obama cannot act unless Congress sends him legislation to sign. So, while Harris is right to focus rhetorical fire at the Oval Office, he would do well to aim his ire at Republican congressional leaders who are more concerned about denying “a win” to Obama than giving one to the American people.
The persistence of HIV/AIDS
Harris argues that Obama has not paid enough attention to the HIV/AIDS epidemic ravaging the black community. To argue this point is to completely ignore The National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States released two years ago next month. And it means completely ignoring the incredible policy shift that continues to guide this effort.

Not every person or group has an equal chance of becoming infected with HIV. Yet, for many years, too much of our nation’s response has been conducted as though everyone is equally at risk for HIV infection. Stopping HIV transmission requires that we focus more intently on the groups and communities where the most cases of new infections are occurring.

As the national strategy shows, African Americans and particularly black men who have sex with men (MSM) are bearing the brunt of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. According to charts on page 10 of the report, while those men are second to white MSM in the numbers of annual HIV infections (10,130 compared to 13,230), the risk for infection among black MSM is off the charts. For them, there were 1,710 infections per 100,000 compared to 344 infections per 100,000 for white MSM. It should be noted that heterosexual black women are a lot better off in this calculation. There were 47 infections per 100,000.
Since July 2010, the Office of National AIDS Policy has been implementing the strategy and must report its progress directly to the president every year. You probably didn’t even know such an office existed or that such work was happening. But that gets to my larger issue with Harris and others who think Obama isn’t doing anything to specifically help African Americans. Not every policy change or program requires or gets the attention it deserves.
By searching for marquis moments, Harris and others appear not to care about the myriad actions Obama has undertaken that affect the lives of all Americans, yes, but also of African Americans more directly. And I certainly don’t advocate for Obama to burst into the East Room clad in Kente cloth and brandishing a definable “black agenda”or whatever else so many blacks seem to want from him to prove that he cares.
Someone who started his career on the south side of Chicago, whose wife is also from Chicago and who also has two young black daughters, doesn’t wake up one day and say, I don’t care about African Americans. That’s why it bothers me to no end that those who are “still waiting for our first black president” seem unwilling to pay attention to what the first black president is actually doing.

By Jonathan Capehart  |  08:00 PM ET, 06/03/2012

Capitolism: Will Greed Consume Us?

  I am going to draw a contrast between a few types of business/corporate models. As well I want you to understand the historical significance between the workers (drones), the supervisors, managers, corporate executives, and C.E.O.s
 In an article entitled "Why Starbucks succeeds in China and others haven't"
by CNBC.com contributor Shaun Rein we read the following: About 14 years ago, I met an entrepreneur who wanted to open up coffee shops around China. I never thought the coffee business would work there. The Chinese would not easily give up their tea-drinking culture for a bitter, overpriced drink, I told him.

Starbucks has proven me wrong. Howard Schultz, the CEO of Starbucks (SBUX), announced that China will soon become its largest market outside the United States. It has opened over 500 outlets in the country, which are more profitable per outlet than in the U.S. even though sales per outlet lags its U.S. counterparts considerably, according to the chain's chief financial officer, Troy Alstead.

What did Starbucks do to succeed in a market where so many other Western food and beverage brands such as Dunkin Donuts, Krispy Kreme, and Burger King have failed to live up to their own expectations? What Starbucks did right in China is a textbook case study in how food brands can succeed despite rising labor and real estate costs and increased competition on the Mainland.

 Instead of trying to force onto the market the same products that work in the U.S., such as whip cream-covered frozen coffee concoctions, Starbucks developed flavors, such as green tea-flavored coffee drinks, that appeal to local tastes. Rather than pushing take-out orders, which account for the majority of American sales, Starbucks adapted to local consumer wants and promoted dine-in service.

By offering comfortable environments in a market where few restaurants had air conditioning in the late 1990s, Starbucks become a defacto meeting place for executives as well as for the gathering of friends. In other words, Starbucks adapted its business model specifically for the Chinese, rather than trying to transplant everything that worked in America into China, as so many brands such as Best Buy and Home Depot have done. Such approaches often proved shortsighted and ill-fated.

The challenge with pushing dine-in service in large, comfortable outlets rather than take out is that revenue per square meter is less than in the U.S. The average revenue per outlet in China is one third to two thirds of what it is in the U.S., according to Alstead, the CFO.

Starbucks offset the relative lack of revenue in China's outlets by positioning the company and its products as aspirational purchases. The average coffee sold in China is far more expensive than in the U.S. Carrying a Starbucks cup is seen as a status symbol, a way to demonstrate sophistication and the capability to afford a personal luxury for the up-and-coming middle class in China.

Starbuck's high pricing strategy of specialty drinks allows it to have its Chinese outlets be more profitable per store in China despite the lower sales volume. Overall in Asia, its operating margins are 34.6% in 2011 versus 21.8% in the United States. Too many brands are willing to push for market share by cutting prices in China. In reality, they should aim for fatter margins.

Not only does Starbuck's premium pricing strategy fit market demands but it also allows it to regularly roll out higher-margin specialty products, such as gift sets that offset rising commodity costs. If you think Starbucks is pricey here, imagine what you'd pay in Shanghai. Still, it will be an ongoing juggling act for Starbucks. As China's urbanization rate nears 52%, Starbucks and other companies there need to implement strategies to offset the impact of rising commodity costs.

Meantime, Starbucks has done an amazing job at recruiting, retaining, and training employees. Annual turnover rates 30% or higher are common in China, according to data compiled by my firm. Yet, Starbucks has far lower turnover than the industry average by offering good compensation packages, work environments, and career paths.

One barista who has been working at Starbucks for five years told me, "I feel taken care of by management. I enjoy my job and I enjoy working here so I expect to stay longer." That is a rare comment in a country where job hopping is the norm among younger workers.

Starbucks' service is on par if not higher than many five-star hotels. In interviews with several hundred consumers in Shanghai, the majority of them told my firm they actually preferred the taste of products from competitors but continued to go to Starbucks because of the service.

Far too many multinational companies treat their Chinese employees as second-class citizens with little career development. Their senior management ranks are full of foreigners, Taiwanese or Hong Kongers without any mainland Chinese representation.

Starbucks understood that the value proposition it was offering Chinese was different than in the U.S. They were able to adapt their business model to fit China while keeping their core values. So far, it's working pretty well.

Copyright 2012 CNBC.com.

 Next up is Aldi's business model.

Spooked by the gravest economic crisis in decades, Americans are curtailing their spending. They're making fewer trips to supermarkets and migrating from grocers like Albertson's and Whole Foods to deep-discounters like Aldi and Save-a-Lot. And it's not just retirees like Chernova. These spartan bastions of private-label goods are looking a lot better to a broad range of shoppers. "Prior to the economic slowdown, we were prospering. But now we're seeing customers looking to save money, and our foot traffic has increased," says Jason Hart, president of Aldi US, based in Batavia, Ill. "There seems to be more demand for our stores, and people don't want to sacrifice quality." Aldi arrived in the U.S. in 1976, hoping to replicate a business model that proved successful in Europe. With U.S. food inflation then in the double digits, the company's timing couldn't have been better. Aldi was one of the first so-called box or no-frills stores, grocers that featured rock-bottom pricing by offering a limited inventory and squeezing out all unnecessary costs, from coupons to butcher shops to fancy displays.
For starters, Aldi stores are typically just 10,000 sq. ft., far smaller than the 80,000-sq.-ft. stores grocers like Whole Foods have recently opened. The relatively small size has helped Aldi penetrate urban markets, where real estate is generally more expensive than in suburban locales, and also allowed the company to carve a niche in neighborhoods that supermarket chains neglect. Operating costs are as spare as the rest of the place. At any given time, there are fewer than five staffers inside an Aldi store. On a recent afternoon at a location on Chicago's North Side, for instance, there were just two cashiers, an employee replenishing milk shelves and a security guard greeting customers. Customers are encouraged to bring their own shopping bags, reducing the need for plastic bags, which are sold at 10 cents apiece.
More fundamentally, Aldi concentrates on selling core, high-volume grocery products, like ketchup, cereal and coffee. Want a choice? Forget it. By offering a single brand, usually a private label in a single size, Aldi executives say they can substantially undercut conventional retailers on 90% of the products the store sells. Nor do customers have to make any trade-offs in buying private labels. Consider the sleek, dark 16.9-oz. bottle of Ariel Extra Virgin Olive Oil ($4.29). Or the 13-oz. box of Fruit Rice cereal ($1.69). "You wouldn't be embarrassed to have that on your counter," says Bill Bishop, a retail consultant.
The time appears ripe for deep-discounters, and Aldi is on an expansion tear. Last year, Aldi generated some $5.8 billion in U.S. sales, up from $5.3 billion in 2006, according to Supermarket News, an industry journal. It now has about 950 stores in 29 states and plans to open more than 100 stores in the next two years in Connecticut, Missouri and Texas. The company will have opened 100 new stores by the end of the year, double the number opened last year. Aldi is also making a big push into central Florida, including cities like Sanford. The city's economic development director, Robert Tunis, tried for years to lure grocers to his city, about a half-hour's drive north of Orlando. Sanford's demographics are attractive: its population grew 27%, to about 50,000, between 2000 and 2006. Within a few miles of downtown, Tunis says, are households boasting annual incomes of $30,000 to $250,000. That's partly what has attracted retailers like Target, Wal-Mart and Lowe's. "You name the retailers, we've got them," Tunis says. "But we've been underserved by grocers."
Aldi has solved at least part of that problem. Tunis was among the first to arrive at the grand opening of an Aldi store in downtown Sanford, next to one of Seminole County's largest shopping centers. Now he's hoping other grocers will follow Aldi's lead. "There's really no equivalent at the moment," he says. Deep discounters like Aldi can challenge both conventional supermarket chains as well as Wal-Mart, America's largest grocer. Indeed, Wal-Mart ultimately found it too hard to compete in Germany, where deep-discounters are firmly entrenched, and left. "Both Aldi and Save-a-Lot are winning big-time," Bishop says, "because they have an extreme value proposition — which is appealing at a time like this."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1854348,00.html#ixzz1vlu2Lxlb

What I noticed about Aldi is that they do not get caught up into products which spend millions on advertising. Therefor they can charge very little for most of their products and they can afford to offer more as starting pay ($12.10 in NYC) to their employees. Most chains in New York start their workers off between 7 and 8 dollars. The bottom line is that here there is a lack of greed. The company makes profits but not by dogging the common person which are the consumer and their employees.
An Aldi recently opened in the Northeast Bronx and by word of mouth they are doing great. Quality and taste are not compromised. Their products are exactly the same as their so-called name brand counterparts.

...Still under construction... 

Same Sex Marriage: To Be Or Not To Be!

Same Sex Marriage: To Be Or Not To Be! 

By Malik Shabazz 8:20 PM

 Can a person be morally opposed to gay life style while supporting same sex marriage? My answer will be given later so as not to spoil the body of this post.

Obama; Can We See Him Objectively?

NBC's Gregory Defends Obama Mideast Policy Vs. Santorum, Defends Election Win by Muslim Brotherhood

By Brad Wilmouth | January 01, 2012 | 13:11

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2012/01/01/nbcs-gregory-defends-obama-mideast-policy-vs-santorum-defends-electio#ixzz1uA4Zz7jx

On Sunday's Meet the Press on NBC, as guest Rick Santorum criticized President Obama because he refused to support a democracy movement in Iran that might have weakened the anti-America radical Muslim government of Tehran, but, by contrast, supported a democracy movement in Egypt directed against a pro-America government - which resulted in an election that recently handed more power in Cairo to radical Muslims - host David Gregory accused the GOP presidential candidate of being "patently contradictory." (Video below)

As he moved into the foreign policy portion of the interview, Gregory brought up a recent speech in which Santorum accused President Obama of engaging in "appeasement" against America's enemies,  and then the NBC host defended Obama's foreign policy:

How can that possibly be accurate if you've taken an objective look at the foreign policy of this administration? What on Iran specifically separates the approach that President Obama has taken and that of President Bush?

Gregory notably has a recent history of arguing that GOP presidential candidates may have difficulty going after Obama on foreign policy because the President is seen as "very successful" in that arena.

After Santorum criticized Obama for not voicing support for pro-democracy demonstrators in Iran, Gregory cluelessly injected, "What would that have done specifically to disarm Iran?"

As the former Senator pointed out that President Obama had ignored the pro-democracy government that wanted to topple an anti-America government in Iran, while supporting a movement in Egypt that wanted to overthrow a pro-America government, the NBC host admonished Santorum for being "patently contradictory." Gregory:

First of all, that's patently contradictory. If you say you support democracy, there was a democratic movment in Egypt, and the Muslim Brotherhood got elected, so how could you be for democracy in some countries and not others? Which is inconsistent.

When the GOP candidate argued that the Muslim Brotherhood's rise to power in Egypt would not bring democracy, Gregory mocked him: "They're popularly elected, I think. Isn't that what democracy is all about?"

After Santorum then complained that the Obama administration had not been aggressive enough in confronting Iran, the Meet the Press host made excuses for President Obama. Gregory: "The reality is, there is no good option to disarm Iran."

Below is a transcript of Gregory's questions from the relevant portion of the Sunday, January 1, Meet the Press on NBC:

DAVID GREGORY: Before you go, I want to ask you about foreign policy. You've been very critical of the President, particularly on the issue of Iran, which has been a big issue of debate here in Iowa. Let me play a portion of that.

RICK SANTORUM, AT THE REPUBLICAN JEWISH COALITION CANDIDATES FORUM, DATED DECEMBER 7, 2011: This President, for every thug and hooligan, for every radical Islamist, he has had nothing but appeasement. We saw that during the leadup to World War II, appeasement.

GREGORY: How can that possibly be accurate if you've taken an objective look at the foreign policy of this administration? What on Iran specifically separates the approach that President Obama has taken and that of President Bush?

SANTORUM: Number one, he didn't support the pro-democracy movement in Iran in 2009 during the Green Revolution. Almost immediately after the election - I mean, excuse me, like within hours after the polls closed, Ahmadinejad announced that he won with 62 percent of the vote. Within a few days, President Obama basically said that that election was a legimitate one-

GREGORY: What would that have done specifically to disarm Iran?

SANTORUM: Well, I understand why the President would understand that, you know, someone announcing the minute after the polls closed that he won. I mean, he comes from Chicago, so I get it.

But the problem is that this was an illegitimate election, the people in the streets were rioting, saying, "Please support us, President Obama. We are the pro-democracy movement. We want to turn this theocracy that has been at war with the United States, that's developing a nuclear weapon, that's killing our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq with IEDs," and the President of the United States turned his back on them.

At the same time, a year later, we have the same situation where Muslim Brotherhood and Islamists are in the streets of Egypt opposing an ally of ours - not a sworn enemy like Iran, but an ally of ours in Mubarak-

GREGORY: Sir, the question I asked you-

SANTORUM: -and he joins the radicals instead of standing with our friends.

GREGORY: First of all, that's patently contradictory. If you say you support democracy, there was a democratic movment in Egypt, and the Muslim Brotherhood got elected, so how could you be for democracy in some countries and not others? Which is inconsistent.

SANTORUM: No, first of all, the Muslim Brotherhood is not about democracy. The Muslim Brotherhood are Islamists. The Muslim Brotherhood are gonna impose shariah law-

GREGORY: They're popularly elected, I think. Isn't that what democracy is all about? But I asked you about disarming Iran. There is no material difference in terms of how the Bush administration sought to disarm Iran and what the Obama administration has done. [SANTORUM]

GREGORY: The reality is, there is no good option to disarm Iran.

SANTORUM: Yes, there is.

GREGORY: The Bush administration knew that, this administration knows that. Tell me what you would do differently then. [SANTORUM]

GREGORY: Which is already being done, Senator. You know that. There's covert activity to set back their program by the Israelis, by the United States. [SANTORUM]

GREGORY: So you would lay out a red line, and, if they passed it, airstrikes by President Santorum?

SANTORUM: Iran will not get a nuclear weapon under my watch.

GREGORY: Well, two previous Presidents have said that. You would order airstrikes if it became clear that they were gonna? [SANTORUM]

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2012/01/01/nbcs-gregory-defends-obama-mideast-policy-vs-santorum-defends-electio#ixzz1uA3XzTVo

FEBRUARY 2, 2012 9:00AM

WHY I AM SUPPORTING BARACK OBAMA!

 

I just responded to a comment rwnutjob made...and I really do not want it to get lost, so I am repeating it here in a new thread.

 

  Frank Apisa is, unfortunately, like most Americans these days. As long as they are OK, then they can't let facts get in the way of reality. When the economy totally collapses and some of our big inner cities explode into horrific violence, then he may get a clue, but by then it's too late. 

 

RW…I am not avoiding facts—and may, in fact, be assessing such facts as exist with a bit less ideology than you. 
America did not get to where it is right now because of what Obama has done or not done. We are here after almost 45 years of relentless CONSERVATIVE domination of our economy and politics. From the day LBJ left office, almost every facet of American life has had CONSERVATISM as the dominant drive…and it has lead us to where we are. Liberalism and progressivism virtually died in the mid-1960’s. 
So…I advocate for lessening the influence of CONSERVATISM on the American political landscape as a means to finally break the cycle; and I see the re-election of Obama over the election of the eventual Republican nominee as the preferred move. 
If you do not see that, RW, I respectfully suggest you are the one refusing to let the facts get in the way of reality. 
But there is one thing we apparently do agree on. The only way people who are oblivious to the reality will ever wake up is when catastrophe occurs. The economy IS going to collapse, RW…and I am certain our big inner cities will explode into horrific violence. At that point, maybe the conservatives of this country will finally “get a clue”—because I expect that most of the anger will be directed at CONSERVATIVE excesses and shortsightedness. 
Whether it will be “too late” or not…neither of us knows. 
I might add, our choice of president will not do much more than delay the inevitable. Obama, Romney, Gingrich, Hillary…none will actually stop the slide. We need systemic change in the economic model to correct our dire predicament and we are not going to get that systemic change from a president. 
The sad fact is, we probably won’t get it without that catastrophic collapse we both see looming. 

If you have any response or reaction to my remarks, I hope you have your say over at RW's thread or here in this one. 

 

Below are some comments concerning who should win the next presidential election.

Comments

• Post a comment

This is a no-brainer. A Romney or Gingrich admin is unthinkable. r.

Jonathan Wolfman

February 02, 2012 09:03 AM

But we have another choice (besides me!! I know, wouldn't that be awesome if I was elected!! What? STOP ROLLING YOUR EYES!! :D)

An old wet sock found in the streets of DC!! According to ABC Polls, it has the best chance of beating them all, a third party, direly needed to combat the two horse dealers posing as Politicians for Whomever!!!

:)

Tinkerertink69

February 02, 2012 09:27 AM

Jonathan…the thought of another Republican administration truly is a horrible thought to contemplate. Thanks for stopping in.

Tink…the possibility of you or any other third party is (to put this as kindly as possible) remote. The “reality” as I see it is a choice between the nominee of the Democrats and the nominee of the Republicans. The nominee of the Republicans, in reality, WILL BE MUCH more conservative than the nominee of the Democrats…and since I see American conservatism as being very much at fault in our current predicament, I opt for the Democrat, Barack Obama. Thanks for commenting.

In any case, the reason I gave for supporting Obama up above, is only ONE OF THE REASONS I continue to support him.

As I have said in many threads, I also feel he has gotten done as much as possible considering the toxic political climate in which he has been working—and the political realities of the moment.

Just wanted to be sure that point be made.

Frank Apisa

February 02, 2012 10:00 AM

I am totally on your side of the fence! Obama is not perfect, but he is far better than any of the alternatives. As for those who would vote for a third party candidate ---lets get real! Any vote for a third party candidate on either side, gives one less vote toward the lesser of the two evils!

Kenny1948

February 02, 2012 10:28 AM

I am not convinced that the economy will tank, only I think it is much worse and we are being given the rosy glasses and ....

I love Obama, but I agree. Bandaid. It'll take another 40+ years of new leadership local, state and national and the conservatives will not give it up. I think we are in a sever STALL economically and the 1970 stall will make this one look SEVER. Maybe when my 17 year old is my age- the economy and Conservatism will loosen up.

Love this post. Love your job. Really what a great benefit package!

Mango Sherbert

February 02, 2012 10:43 AM

I agree with Jonathan. If there's one fatal flaw in liberalism it's that so many adherents have an all or nothing attitude. In fact, that's a flaw with most all idealists, no mater which wing of the political spectrum they identify with. With right-wingers it's less a problem because the "values" they hold dear are more id derived, easier to sneak in under the radar of conscience.

Chicken Mãâàn

February 02, 2012 10:46 AM

"As I have said in many threads, I also feel he has gotten done as much as possible considering the toxic political climate in which he has been working—and the political realities of the moment."

Don't get me wrong, I'll be voting for Obama in 2012 as well, it took GW 8 years to start the ball rolling into the ground, Obama has only had less than four years to try and push it back up.

My brother and I were talking and he believes that Obama, in his second term, may become what the Change was all about, no worries, no fears about getting back in for a third term, tell those Democrats bickering among themselves to get aboard the O-Train or get kicked in the nuts! :)

I hope so, seriously, I do...

The Republicans would be funny if I didn't think they actually mean the stuff they say!! ~nodding~

Tinkerertink69

February 02, 2012 11:00 AM

Kenny…thanks for the comments. Glad we are of one mind in this area.

Mango…I think the economy is in much worse shape than you do…primarily because I see less and less reason to pay people a decent wage to do the kind of things most people can do. People are being replaced by the billions and billions of slaves represented by our advanced technology…the machines, computers, and robots. We’ll see.

As for the job…well, I played golf yesterday and the day before with just a light sweater on. The weather here in New Jersey is incredible considering we are in February!!!

Chicken…glad you see things as you do. I hope the liberals finally wake up and see that many of them are considering throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Frank Apisa

February 02, 2012 11:03 AM

Like you, I hope Tink. But I think this ball is rolling down a steep hill...and already has too much momentum to be stopped or reversed. I will be delighted if Obama can continue to slow the speed as he did in his first.

We'll see.

Frank Apisa

February 02, 2012 11:04 AM

I just wish that there were a viable alternative. And failing that, I've got to stick with Obama.

Walter Blevins

February 02, 2012 11:25 AM

Well here is one we do agree on Frank. People don't seem to remember that the worst of the depression hit after a four year pause while Wall Street skimmed as much as they could before the banks failed en masse in '33. 2013 might give us that total financial collapse and the blame can go at the feet of Reagan and his disciples. This one will be all the worse since Reaganomics allowed us to go from manufacturing to investment economy and let those corporations have false profits by way of selling off the U.S. industrial plant. Without industry to revive our nation we will end up either being wealthy offshore investors or the people who serve them drinks and cheeseburgers. Would you like fries with that?

bobbot

February 02, 2012 12:28 PM

I like Obama.

He inherited a busted economy. He inherited two idiotic wars.

I'm not going to apologize for anything the man has done.

Nick Carraway

February 02, 2012 12:46 PM

Tink, I'd actually love to see you as President. Love , drugs and sex for all!!!!

No one who takes an objective look at Obama can like him,but if I were on the far left, I'd still have to pick him over the sorry ass choice of either Romney or Gingrich. I'll probably hold my nose and vote for Romney. Such poor choices-----has it really come to this?

rwnutjob

February 02, 2012 03:29 PM

You claim to be ASSessing facts, a claim you've brayed incessantly for over three years, yet you continue to say NOTHING about the heart of RW's post, which was:

"- Signed the NDAA - an indefinite detention bill - into law
- Waged war on Libya without congressional approval
- Started a covert, drone war in Yemen
- Escalated the proxy war in Somalia
- Escalated the CIA drone war in Pakistan
- Will maintain a presence in Iraq even after "ending" war
- Sharply escalated the war in Afghanistan
- Secretly deployed US special forces to 75 countries
- Sold $30 billion of weapons to the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia
- Signed an agreement for 7 military bases in Colombia
- Touted nuclear power, even after the disaster in Japan
- Opened up deepwater oil drilling, even after BP disaster
- Did a TV commercial promoting "clean coal"
- Defended body scans and pat-downs at airports
- Signed the Patriot Act extension into law
- Continued Bush's rendition program"

You alternately, sloganize that obama is a good and decent man, and without substantively addressing any of the above, blame his malevolence, alternately on the opposition or "professional liberals.

You unashamedly admit that you smoked FIVE or SIX joints a day for a long time, but ALWAYS took a day or two off a year; one of the most ASSinine admissions I've ever heard anyone make on OS.

You, also brag that YOU LOVE TO argue and are PROUD to have been banned from three boards.

You are a sick passive aggressive sociopath with few neurons left.

One more time:

"Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his (obama) acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - "Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", May 7, 1918

How prescient of Mr. Roosevelt to imagine a cretin like fRANK, mr. base, servile, unpatriotic, and morally treasonable.

Morals are NOT a genus of mushrooms, nor do principles run schools, sycophant.

In one of your frequent bouts with transference, you accused someone who wrote a similar critique of what obama has done (NOT what obama has said) of being a lemming.

The "Urban Dictionary" defines lemming as: "1. lemming A member of a crowd with no originality or voice of his own. One who speaks or repeats only what he has been told. A tool. A cretin."

I notice that of recent times, you, of all people, have been prefacing some of your comments with the utterance "yo."

markinjapan

February 02, 2012 03:59 PM

Hey Walter, thanks for stopping by. Glad you are sticking with Obama. The alternative is pap.

Bobbot…good to see you here. I voted for Reagan in 1980. I was sorely disappointed in Carter…and wanted to teach him a lesson. “What harm could come from Reagan getting in?, was my thought.

Boy, did I find out! We are all still paying for that mistake.

Nick…well said. I like him also…and considering the environment in which he has been working, you are right on saying there is nothing to apologize for.

RW…thanks for stopping in. The thoughts I expressed in your thread prompted this one. Looks like there is going to be some “nose holding” on both sides of the aisle. But I truly think your side will win, because most on your side will hold their noses and vote for the Republican…while I think a huge number on the left will go through with their threats to boycott the election or waste their vote on a third party candidate. I remember how determined I was to do that to teach Carter a lesson…and I see the same situation brewing right now. MY GUESS: Same result. The Republican gets wins.

Frank Apisa

February 02, 2012 04:27 PM

Ditto to Nick Carraway's comment. ~r

Joan H.

February 02, 2012 04:45 PM

Joan, thank you. And I agree...Nick was right on the button.

Frank Apisa

February 03, 2012 05:42 PM

I have to wonder if anyone actually thinks we would have been better off with McCain/Palin. Really?
I also question whether anyone wants more of what happened the last time liberals and independents did not turn out strong to vote: Rick Scott, Scott Brown, Nikki Halley, Joe Walsh and on and on and on...
r./

onislandtime

February 03, 2012 06:41 PM

Frank I think you check and mated RWnut but what do I know, I actually read and don't use FOX or Rush to interpret the world in which I live. I know the difference between reality and fairy tales too. That being said attempting to have a civil discourse with someone who doesn't know those differences, ends with them thinking they can bully you into believing what they believe.

 The next article will show you how far ignorance can take us backwards. And they had the nerve to call this objective.

An honest and objective view from a Non-White Non-Black American

Reader comment on item: Was Barack Obama a Muslim?
in response to reader comment: 20 years in church and never heard

Submitted by Big Bang (United States), Mar 17, 2008 at 17:48

I am not a white Caucasian and I am not black, either. But I am a patriotic American who cares very much about the future of our country. I am fully supporting Ms. Geraldine Ferraro's comments on Senator Barack Obama, i.e., if he were a white guy, he would never enjoy so much approval and support as he is having now.
Far from being myself a racist, I think white Americans are overly too sensitive on racial issues, which is mainly driven by guilty feeling about the past history of slavery. While it may be true that many black Americans are still suffering under racial discrimination, a selected few of them do enjoy positive discrimination, like Senator Obama currently does.
This is merely because a whole bunch of hypocritical white Americans are eager to show the world that Americans are no racists, and that America has ultimately overcome its past history of slavery. It is to be emphasized, Americans who are non-white and non-black do not share the same guilt of slavery. We've never got benefit from slavery.
Thus, we refuse to carry the same psychological burden. Inasmuch as we reject negative discrimination, we also reject positive discrimination based on race, since it, too, is nothing else but racism. Racism can never be eradicated by counter-racism, but only by anti-racism. Support for Obama from blacks is based on some sort of vengeful counter-racism, which is itself also a form of racism. On the other hand, support for Obama from whites is driven by an almost-psychopathic desire to finally get rid of the history-based, world-wide prejudice of white Americans being bigots and racists (slavery, Ku-Klux-Klan, Neo-Nazism).
Such hypocrites are eager to signal their "open-mindedness" to the world. As a matter of fact, such hypocrisy is as skewed and as reality-distorted as racial prejudice itself. As a matter of fact, Ms. Ferraro's controversial comment is not too far away from New York Times Op-Ed of 3/9/2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/opinion/09kristof.html?ref=opinion, saying that "Barack Obama's skin color may cost him some working-class white voters, but it's also winning some votes among blacks and among whites eager to signal their open-mindedness". Unlike most of us, who came to USA with a firm belief in an opportunity for better life, for ourselves as well as for our children and decendants, both of Obama's parents did not share the same ideals, if not even the contrary, i.e., full of discontent with, if not even hatred to this great country.
As a result, Obama grew up with a desire to CHANGE. Any change. The true reason behind his desire for change is, Senator Obama feels highly uncomfortable with our European culture and our Judeo-Christian value system. Now he finally gets the opportunity to CHANGE it, if necessary by destroying it, with massive support from vengeful blacks and hypocritical whites. Such a change (from within) is just what the Islamic fundamentalists and extremists have been always dreaming of. Senator Obama has never demonstrated any skill, whatsoever, to be our President, let alone our Commander in Chief.
Obama's opposition to Bush's decision regarding Iraq war was not at all an indication of virtue. More than half of Americans also opposed the war. Some hyposcrite may say, Obama has a good "judgment", meaning his judgment on the Iraq war was correct. BIG DEAL! Some eighty percent of my colleagues also predicted a negative consequence of the war, readily before it was begun. It is thus absurd to say, they ALL have the skill to become US President!
Why does Obama want a change? Because Obama does not share our European & Judeo-Christian value system. Instead, he is adhering to the Black Value System conceptualized and adopted by his church, the Trinity United Church of Christ, http://www.tucc.org/black_value_system.html
Just listen to Obama's pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright inflammatory rhetoric of hate in http://www.youtube.com/watchv=iPjVp3PLnVs&eurl=http://redstate.com/.
Rev. Wright has been Obama's spiritual mentor for more than 20 years, as contended by Obama himself in his autobiography "The Audacity of Hope". Obviously, Senator Obama can not be trusted as commander-in-chief, either, because his loyalty is not to America, but to Africa. On top of all these, Senator Obama demonstrates no patriotism by showing no respect to our National Anthem (no hand over his heart): http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Obama_doesnt_put_hand_over_heart_1022.html
All what Senator Obama carries to his Presidency is just "hope" and a promise for "change" without ever defining what kind of "change" he is trying to make. This is a very dangerous preposition. It would deliver us all into the hands of Islamofascists who are aiming at conquering the whole world under the banner of Islam. Senator Obama's judgment on Iraq war was, and is, totally (self-) deceptive. If implemented, it will result in catastrophe, not only for America, but for the whole world. As such, the allegation of him being the Anti-Christ might not be too far fetched.
Big Bang

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Mayweather vs. Cotto Live

Round-by-round live blog: Mayweather vs. Cotto

PHOTO: Floyd Mayweather Accompanied To Ring By Justin Bieber, 50 Cent

The rumors were swirling around the Internets like wildfire for days leading up to the much-anticipated Cinco de Mayo showdown between Floyd Mayweather and Miguel Cotto. Would Justin Bieber be in Mayweather's entourage? Wouldn't he? Why would he in the first place? Mayweather is known as being one of the athletes with the most "street cred," but with Bieber in tow, would that be threatened?
That last point remains to be seen, but, along with 50 Cent, who was by Money's side when he took on Victor Ortiz last year, Bieber was there in all his moussed-hair splendor. Picture via @jose3030:

Holding not one, but two of Mayweather's belts, Bieber was there and featured prominently, alongside 50 Cent. WWE star Triple H joined the duo later in the walk to the ring.
The only question that remains: if Manny Pacquiao-Mayweather happens, who gets added to the entourage? At this point, the only step is the resurrected corpse of Elvis Presley. Or Tupac's hologram. Or the Dalai Lama.

Mayweather Vs. Cotto Results Live - Round 1

The HBO pay-per-view main event fight between Floyd Mayweather and Miguel Cotto kicked off with an opening round that saw Cotto looking to come out and take the center of the ring while Floyd, calm as ever, looked to pop out his quick punches and stay on the outside, controlling the moments of engagement. Floyd's jab was working well early in the round, and he did try to start getting his right hand lead working as well.
Cotto did land occasional punches to the body and head but there was a clear speed differential with Floyd being much more quick. Mayweather's quick punches were likely enough to win the round, but at the end of the round, Cotto landed a nice three punch combination with Floyd against the ropes. Not the mismatch some expected, but still a Mayweather round.
Round: 10-9 Mayweather
Fight: 10-9 Mayweather

Mayweather Vs. Cotto Results Live - Round 2

Round two of the HBO pay-per-view main event fight between Floyd Mayweather and Miguel Cotto had Cotto needing to do a little bit better than he had in the opening frame. An interesting moment transpired with Cotto and Mayweather locking up and Cotto lifting him well off the ground before setting him down and patting him on the head.
Mayweather was looking to land looping overhand rights in the round, rather than a continued reliance on the jab/straight right. Cotto was able to keep Floyd against the ropes and actually do good work to the body and head. Floyd returned fire with power shots of his own, making for a better action fight than most Mayweather fights. Cotto had a nice left hand but he needs to focus on the body going forward.
Good round, but still slightly in favor of Mayweather in my eyes.
Round: 10-9 Mayweather
Fight: 20-18 Mayweather

Mayweather Vs. Cotto Results Live - Round 3

In the third round of the HBO pay-per-view main event fight between Floyd Mayweather and Miguel Cotto, it began to shape up to be a good bout. Cotto was able to get off a jab early and keep trying to defend the head and work to the body. Mayweather was able to return a counter right hand off the Cotto body work though. Cotto did a good job of trapping Floyd against the ropes again this round.
Cotto had a good moment of taking a right to the body and then going right upstairs with it and a hard jab as well. Another hard jab by Cotto was met with a right hand by Floyd. The jab continued working as the round went on for Cotto and he did mix in a right hand also.
This was the first round I saw as a Cotto round.
Round: 10-9 Cotto
Fight: 29-28 Mayweather

Mayweather Vs. Cotto Results Live - Round 4

In round four of the HBO pay-per-view bout between Floyd Mayweather and Miguel Cotto, the two superstars were competing in a good action fight. HBO's Lederman had the fight a shutout for Mayweather to this point. Mayweather started to land the hard right hands early in the round, stinging Cotto a little bit. The overhand rights were coming also for Floyd and Cotto stopped moving forward for a bit.
The momentum seemed to be changing this round with Cotto having far less effectiveness while Floyd was getting his power shots in at a higher clip. Cotto did do a little work against the ropes again later in the round but he was at a significant disadvantage in terms of power shots in the round, making for the easiest round to call of the fight to this point.
Round: 10-9 Mayweather
Fight: 39-37 Mayweather

Mayweather Vs. Cotto Results Live - Round 5

Floyd Mayweather and Miguel Cotto continued their fight into the fifth round with Cotto needing to do something big and change how Floyd was fighting. Cotto attempted to do that by pushing Floyd into the ropd s and working him over there. For the most part, it was Mayweather managing to be the one landing the bigger shots.
Cotto continued to try to dirty it up on the inside, but the slickness of Floyd defensively and his right hand were the story of the fight. Cotto landed a thudding left and refused to back down. Cotto opened with combinations and tried to keep making Mayweather fight and Floyd's punches did look a little bit more like arm punches by the time the bell rang.
Cotto is doing well competitively but still clearly losing the fight.
Round: 10-9 Mayweather
FIght: 49-46 Mayweather

Mayweather Vs. Cotto Results Live - Round 6

The HBO pay-per-view main event fight between Floyd Mayweather and Miguel Cotto saw round six unfold much the same as the previous rounds. Cotto was able to land some good shots, including a solid jab that continued to have blood coming out of the nose of Floyd.
Mayweather was able to still do decent work, but Cotto got in a hard shot of his own as Floyd tried to get out of the way of a shot. Floyd has started to try to be the one coming forward now, jabbing and firing the right hand. Floyd is starting to look tired though, possibly because he's not fully comfortable and possibly because of Cotto's dedication to body punching.
This was the second round I scored for Cotto and he's certainly not there to play opponent.
Round: 10-9 Cotto
FIght: 58-56 Mayweather

Mayweather Vs. Cotto Results Live - Round 7

Round seven saw Miguel Cotto looking to take over the fight a little bit as Mayweather faded a bit from the body work. Floyd appeared to still be up in the fight, but Cotto was making him fight the whole way though. Cotto was also able to pick off Floyd's punches with his gloves with a bit more reliability.
Cotto worked Floyd back to the ropes at one point and dug hard to the body twice. Floyd came back with a nice three punch flurry of his own before Cotto backed him off with a jab. Floyd kept popping with the jab a bit more as Cotto tried to push him back to the ropes.
This was a good round for Floyd to try to stem the tide that seemed to be turning Cotto's way.
Round: 10-9 Mayweather
FIght: 68-65 Mayweather

Mayweather Vs. Cotto Results Live - Round 8

Miguel Cotto was able to push Floyd Mayweather back into the ropes early in the eight round of their fight with Floyd firing hard shots back. Cotto got off some good shots to the body and head. Cotto worked very well to the body this round, as Floyd tried to push off the ropes, Miguel forced him back.
Floyd landed a left hook and an uppercut and does it again but Cotto wouldn't let him off the ropes. Mayweather has done a very good job of starting to rely on the uppercut a bit more, but Cotto fired several body shots and a hard punch to the head to follow.
Hard left to the head landed for Cotto and a flurry against the ropes and Floyd's eyes looked a little bit "off" as he got hit.
Huge round for Cotto.
Round: 10-9 Cotto
FIght: 77-75 Mayweather

Mayweather Vs. Cotto Results Live - Round 9

Floyd Mayweather came out with a good right hand early in the ninth round of his fight with Miguel Cotto, knowing he couldn't allow a repeat of the eight round that saw Cotto do great work.
Mayweather went back to hard right hands and uppercuts while Cotto wasn't really able to get the room to work for the first half of the round before he landed a big left hand. Mayweather eventually allowed himself to get trapped against the ropes. Cotto with a big left hand against the ropes and Mayweather with a hard shot of his own before having return shots by Cotto fired back.
The two men are going blow for blow this fight and it's making for a hell of an action fight that is testing Floyd in ways he's never been as a professional. Right hand lands by Floyd and he misses a few at the end of the round.
Good round for Floyd.
Round: 10-9 Mayweather
FIght: 87-84 Mayweather

Mayweather Vs. Cotto Results Live - Round 10

Miguel Cotto came out needing to make some big moves over the final three rounds of his bout with Floyd Mayweather. To do so, he looked to get inside and go to the body as he had during his best rounds of the fight.
Mayweather looked to work the lead hand while Cotto tried to get in and did do a little body work. Cotto was able to do the work he needed in the first half of the round and pushed Mayweather into the ropes yet again but Floyd spun out. Hard left hand lands for Cotto as Floyd was going backward.
Cotto with a nice combination to the body and head that was partially blocked, but certainly did look good. Cotto landed a nice flurry at the end of the round that stole it in my eyes.
Round: 10-9 Cotto
FIght: 96-94 Mayweather

Mayweather Vs. Cotto Results Live - Round 11

Floyd Mayweather asked his corner if he was winning the fight before the eleventh round against Miguel Cotto. This was unbelievable given how easy fights have been for Floyd's career, so him asking if he was winning speaks to the effort Cotto was giving.
Cotto came out and did get inside again and tried to work inside again, landing a left hand against the ropes. Mayweather looked to get back outside and circle his way to be able to jab and land right hands. Cotto trapped him against the ropes again and landed a hard combination, which Mayweather met with a combination of his own.
Cotto got back to working his jab and body shots, slipping the punches of Mayweather. Cotto did fade late in the round, and Mayweather looked to likely have taken the round.
Round: 10-9 Mayweather
FIght: 106-103 Mayweather

Mayweather Vs. Cotto Results Live - Round 12

Floyd Mayweather and Miguel Cotto came out for the final round of their HBO pay-per-view fight having put on a hell of a show, standing toe to toe, throwing hard punches back and forth.
Cotto was almost certainly down on the cards coming in, but he had made a case for far more rounds than almost anyone gave him a chance to take heading in to the evening. Cotto did go back to the body, Floyd returned a right hand and hook. Floyd lands a hard punch that wobbles Cotto badly but Miguel was able to recover a bit.
Floyd stepping it up again with some power shots and Miguel is hurt but may have recovered with 30 seconds left.
Cotto tried to chase Floyd down with the jab. The fight ended with the two men embracing and Mayweather going to the ropes to celebrate a decision he feels he won.
Unofficial scores:
Round: 10-9 Mayweather
Fight: 116-112 Mayweather

 

Chris Mannix>INSIDE BOXING

Floyd Mayweather (left) is scheduled to make at least a record $32 million for his fight against Miguel Cotto on Saturday.

Craig M. Durling/ZUMAPRESS.com

LAS VEGAS -- Welcome back, Blog readers! We're at the MGM Grand Garden Arena (again) for a Floyd Mayweather fight (again) that is not against Manny Pacquiao (unfortunately, again). Mayweather's opponent tonight will be Miguel Cotto (37-2), the WBA junior middleweight champion regarded as one of the top-ten pound-for-pound fighters in the world. A few housekeeping notes before we get started
• There was plenty of intrigue in the junior middleweight title fight between top prospect Saul Alvarez and Shane Mosley, with some (OK, just me) even predicting that the 40-year old Mosley would prove to be too much, too soon for Alvarez. Instead, Alvarez put on a boxing clinic, doling out a cringing amount of punishment in a lopsided decision win.
Mosley, simply, has nothing left. It's his fourth subpar performance in a row and likely his last on a big stage. We saw his speed and reflexes disappear in back-to-back blowouts to Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao; against Alvarez, his power went too. Mosley's shots were pillow soft and Alvarez walked right through them. Mosley still has a great chin, but he can't score points with it.
This was a big win for Alvarez, who is now in prime position for a big money fight. He has been mentioned as a candidate to face Mayweather later this year. If not, a title unification matchup with Cotto -- rekindling the Mexico-Puerto Rico rivalry -- would be a war.
• Two members of Mayweather Promotions stunk up the undercard Saturday night. In the opener, fringe 154-pound prospect DeAndre Latimore was knocked out by journeyman Carlos Quintana. And Mayweather's protégé, Jessie Vargas, who has become a staple on Mayweather's undercards despite no power and a virtually unwatchable style, won a lopsided decision over professional sparring partner Steve Forbes.
• It's been a relatively uneventful fight week. Besides a brief barking match at the weigh-in on Friday, Mayweather and Cotto have been respectful towards each other. Cotto isn't much of a trash talker anyways, but he has made sure to steer clear of any mental traps Mayweather has put down for him.
• Mayweather's purse for this fight: $32 million. According to Keith Kizer of the Nevada Athletic Commission, that's a state record. Cotto's guarantee is $8 million and both will likely earn more once the Pay Per View receipts are counted.
----------
11:44: Mayweather headed to the ring, accompanied by 50 Cent and yes, Justin Bieber, who is wearing two of his belts.
11:47: Lukewarm reaction from Mayweather, who got a similar so-so reception at the weigh-in. Part of it is that a majority of the fans hear are Cotto fans, part of it is that Mayweather has so cultivated this bad boy, love me or hate me, I don't care image. But Cotto is en route to the ring and this crowd is behind him.
11:50: Should apologize to Blog Favorite Cheapo Tony. Finally convinced him to dust the cobwebs off his wallet and plunk $50 down on Mosley, a 5-to-1 underdog. As Cheapo Tony is easily the stingiest, alligator armed, duck-out-of-all-bar tabs friend of mine, I know this one hurts. My fault, Cheapo.
11:52: Fighter's are introduced, crowd is buzzing: Here we go!

Round 1: Cotto looks a lot bigger in the ring. And he comes out swinging a wild left. Nice uppercut by Mayweather, first clean shot of the night. Another half uppercut by Mayweather. Cotto pressing. Mayweather ties him up. Lot of wrestling in the ring in the first. Mayweather dodges a Cotto combination beautifully. Sticks Cotto with a right. Decent round for Mayweather. 10-9 Mayweather.
Round 2: Now Cotto starts to jab a little. Mayweather tags Cotto with a nice 1-2 combination. That's his bread and butter. Cotto covers up. Cotto trying to be physical with Mayweather but he's not throwing a lot of punches. Now Cotto gets going a little bit in the corner. Floyd deflects most of them. His defense is, as usual, brilliant. Nice little flurry by Cotto at the end, but give this one to Mayweather. 10-9 Mayweather.
Round 3: Not sure I like Cotto's strategy. He wants to bully Floyd but he's not throwing enough punches to do it. Mayweather snaps off an unasnswered flurry. Now Cotto pins Mayweather in the corner and throws a combination. Straight right by Cotto gets through, Floyd smiles. Cotto now boxing from the outside. Still, it's Mayweather's punches that are cleaner. More active Cotto in this round, but I'm giving another to Floyd. 10-9 Mayweather.
Round 4: Mayweather teeing off on Cotto. Cotto covers up. Nothing flashy, just a series of 1-2 punches that hit home. When Cotto throws, Mayweather catches or, at worst, deflects many of them. Good round for Mayweather. 10-9 Mayweather.
Round 5: Cotto comes out aggressive, pins Mayweather in the corner. Lands a couple of good shots. Mayweather ties him up. Floyd fights back from the corner. He is excellent at fighting in the corner. Thudding combination by Mayweather! Cotto pushes him back into the corner. Hard left hand by Cotto! Mayweather felt that. Mayweather not doing a lot of body work in this fight. Good round for Cotto. Give it to him. 10-9 Cotto.
Round 6: Cotto starting to dictate the pace and style of the fight. He's pushing Mayweather to the corner right from the bell. Floyd works back to the center of the ring, eats a good Cotto jab. Another Cotto hook lands. Cotto bouncing on his toes more, looking more confident. Good straight right by Mayweather. He's moving in on Cotto now. Goes to the corner. Cotto keeps moving, avoids any shots the rest of the round. Cotto gathering momentum in my opinion. Give this round to Cotto. 10-9 Cotto.
Round 7: Mayweather comes out more aggressive. Hits Cotto with that 1-2 that has been working for him. Neither fighter looks tired. Cotto moves forward, wings a couple of shots that Mayweather gobbles up. Close, but I give this one to Floyd. 10-9 Mayweather.
Round 8: Big right hand from Floyd opens the round. Have to wonder if he senses the urgency. A flurry from Cotto gets the crowd in it. But Mayweather eats a lot of those punches with his gloves. Nice uppercut from Mayweather. Another. And another. Cotto lunges with the jab. Strong flurry by Cotto! Mayweather shakes his head at him, but Cotto scored good points there. He stole that round in the last minutes. 10-9 Cotto.
Round 9: Mayweather has to know he is in a close fight. Floyd desperately trying to keep the fight in the center of the ring. He reaches in with that uppercut. Cotto is staying very disciplined. Mayweather is laughing in the ring, but it's a nervous-looking laugh. Cotto shoves Mayweather back in the corner, Clubber Lang style. There has been a suggested blueprint for how to beat Mayweather and Cotto is implementing it well. Mayweather tags Cotto with a few rights as the round dwindles down. I think Floyd squeaked by in that one. 10-9 Mayweather.
Round 10: Mayweather back in the center of the ring. This is where he wants to fight. He drops his shoulder and holds his ground when Cotto tries to body him to the ropes. Crowd erupts when Cotto tags Mayweather with a right. Floyd snaps Cotto's head back with a good jab. Slower round than the others. Cotto not as aggressive for some reason. Good flurry by Cotto before the bell. That might have stolen it for Cotto. But I think Mayweather did enough to win through the round. 10-9 Mayweather.
Round 11: Cotto backing Mayweather up with cobinations. They aren't clean, but they count. Mayweather is fighting a bad fight. He cannot be on the ropes this long. He has to move. Cotto clubs Mayweather with a left, refuses to let him out of the corner. Cotto looking good in this round. Floyd showboats after a clean 1-2. I think Cotto got this one. Floyd just didn't do enough. 10-9 Cotto.
Round 12: Cotto shoves Mayweather into the ropes. That fires Mayweather up. He comes out swinging! Hammering Cotto with shots all over. Cotto is not hurt but he can't pull the trigger. Nice uppercut by Floyd dazes Cotto. Good round so far for Floyd. He has Cotto reeling now. Tied up in the middle of the ring. Exccellent round for Mayweather, maybe his best of the night. 10-9 Mayweather.
Scores: Scores are 117-111, 117-111, 118-110. SI.com scored it 116-112. Cards were right on. Amazingly, this was Floyd's toughest fight in years and he cruised on the scorecards. Very impressive win.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/chris_mannix/05/05/mayweather.cotto.live.blog/index.html#ixzz1u3u4GFe6

Mayweather Vs. Cotto: Results And Post-Fight Analysis

I should start by pointing out just how nice it is to have nothing but good things to say after a boxing pay-per-view involving either Floyd Mayweather or Manny Pacquiao for once. In Mayweather's last fight he knocked out Victor Ortiz while Victor appeared to be having some sort of mental breakdown and before that it was his drubbing of a lifeless Shane Mosley and then not even bothering to make weight before beating up on the far-too-small Juan Manuel Marquez.
Pacquiao's last fight, against Marquez, was great action, but for the third time it seemed like the judges gave Manny some questionable scoring to give him the win and before that he too engaged in punishing the shell of Shane Mosley and post-handwrap controversy Antonio Margarito.
For once, we got to see one of the best in the world step into the ring and leave without controversy or disappointment. It's quite a nice feeling.
Now, on to some random thoughts from the evening:

• I'm not exactly sure why Larry Merchant can't just tone it down a bit. I've gotten a kick out of his act in the past, but when he interviewed Floyd after the fight, he started it with a discussion about how Floyd apologized for their confrontation after the Ortiz bout and then immediately took a negative tone with his questioning. Mayweather was in a great mood though and managed to just smile through it while speaking highly of Cotto.
• Floyd Mayweather had said in the build up to the fight that he has it in him to brawl if he has to, and he was forced to at times during this fight. Cotto was relentless in pushing him into the ropes and trying to work the body, and Floyd responded by cracking Cotto with heavy power. There was a moment in round eight where Floyd actually looked "worried" when being hit in the corner, but he came out in round nine and stopped the momentum that Miguel had going. It was a special performance by a special fighter.
• On Floyd's jail time: he's sentenced to 9 months, but expect him to serve 6 in a fairly easy stint. I know it's popular to think of movies where Floyd is sharing his cell with a hardened criminal and having to worry about being shanked, but it's much more likely that he spends a bunch of time away from general population, being kept safe and probably watching TV and reading his days away.
• If there was any doubt over Cotto's credentials as a hall of fame level fighter, they should be erased now. The only two men with legitimate victories over him are Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather and he pushed both men hard. Manny was able to wear Cotto down late and take the fight over, but one wonders if Cotto's new trainer (who seems to have gotten Miguel's conditioning in a better place) might be able to help him not fade so badly. Floyd had to actually bust his ass to win the fight, meaning Cotto may have a legitimate case for the third best fighter of his era, especially given that he has a clean win over Shane Mosely at a time when both men would be considered "in their prime."
• Speaking of Mosley, if he does decide to call it a career after taking a beating at the hands of Canelo Alvarez, he'll be a guy deserving of the deepest respect boxing fans can give. Mosley was a true elite competitor for years and years, putting on memorable wars, picking up marquee wins and carrying himself like a true professional. While he did pick up yet another loss tonight, he came to fight, unlike the shell of himself that showed up against Pacquiao, Mayweather and Sergio Mora. He didn't have enough to win, but he had enough to at least go out on a fight he can be proud of.
• Canelo Alvarez is a treat to watch fight. He throws everything with seriously bad intentions and would have stopped almost anyone on the planet with the shots he landed on Mosley. Shane's chin is just freakish and able to deal with getting cracked by huge shots without him being KO'ed. Canelo has a bright future and central to that is just how much he loves the fight itself. He's fought 41 times and is only 21 years old. He suffered a bad cut early in the fight, but showed maturity in not freaking out and just continuing at the same exact pace, with the same exact intentions. He has that "something special" and is going to do huge things in and for the sport of boxing.
• Jessie Vargas isn't particularly interesting to watch, if he had a bit of punching power he'd have something to look out for, but instead he just picks apart guys like Steve Forbes. I'm not sure how high the ceiling is on Vargas at this point. Scott Christ of Bad Left Hook seems to think that he can get to the championship level (since it's so easy in today's boxing climate to earn a title) but not be an elite fighter. That's probably fair, but he's going to need the right opponent to be a great TV fighter.
•  

  Mayweather Vs. Cotto Full Fight Highlights

  Miguel Cotto put in a spirited effort against Floyd Mayweather, forcing the undefeated Mayweather to actually step up and brawl at times rather than coast on his pure athletic gifts. It was a refreshing moment where a major boxing pay-per-view delivered action without controversy.
  We explained how the fight went briefly in the immediate moments after the 117-111, 118-110 and 117-111 scorecards were read:
  

  Cotto was able to trap Floyd against the ropes much of the fight and dig to the body, and eventually that opened up hard shots to the head that did draw blood from the nose of "Money." But in the end, it was Mayweather's ability to get his hard right hands, uppercuts and jabs in with enough regularity to take most of the fight.
  

Floyd Mayweather's Next Fight: Wants Pacquiao, Canelo Out, Cotto Rematch Possible

It wasn't exactly a shock when Floyd Mayweather said that he wants to finally get a fight with Manny Pacquiao made following his great win in a tough fight over Miguel Cotto. It also wasn't a surprise when Floyd evaded actually answering the question when HBO's Larry Merchant asked if he would be willing to budge on his prior statements that he wouldn't give Manny a 50/50 purse split.
The fact that Floyd isn't likely to ever agree to a 50/50 split with anyone, and Top Rank, Manny's promoter, isn't likely to ever agree to anything less, is going to always stand in the way of that fight. And if it isn't the 50/50 split, it'll be something else.
Coming into the evening, it was believed that Saul "Canelo" Alvarez, who drubbed Shane Mosley on the undercard, would be put into the next Mayweather bout. But HBO's broadcast team said that they were told by Oscar De La Hoya, Canelo's promoter via Golden Boy Promotions, that Canelo wasn't quite ready to take that step. Given that Alvarez is only 21 years old and is already basically a cash cow for Golden Boy, it's not surprising that they're not quite ready to rush him into a fight that is probably a little over his head at this point.
The most attractive option may be a rematch with Cotto. Miguel was able to put on a tremendous challenge, doing enough to convince much of the live crowd that he deserved the victory. In the end, Mayweather did deserve the decision and it wasn't controversial in the least. But Cotto is still a superstar and he made Floyd fight like no one has in a long time, actually getting a great fight out of the usually cautious Mayweather.
There are a few other options, like facing the winner of Andre Berto vs. Victor Ortiz, but I don't think a rematch with the mentally fragile Ortiz does much for business and Berto isn't quite on Floyd's level.
The Cotto rematch would give Canelo a bit more time to get to where Golden Boy wants him before throwing him in to the deep end while still having a huge fight for Floyd. This makes it the best option and certainly a lot more likely than a bout with Pacquiao.
Of course, Floyd has a bit of jail time to serve before he's really worrying about who he will step into the ring with next. So it may be a little bit before we know what's next for sure.
Regardless, Mayweather left us with a great fight that will have boxing fans very excited to find out what comes next.

All photos by Tom Hogan/Hoganphotos-Golden Boy Promotions