blueollie

Quite a knock out…

Last night’s Friday Night Fights featured two 8 found middle weight matches as part of a boxing tournament (Boxcino). But to me: the (scheduled for 6 round) heavyweight match prior to these fights (which WERE good) stole the show. Nate Heaven was an underdog to Donovan Dennis and Dennis appeared to be winning round 1 when this happened.

heavenknockout

The middle weights: yes, Brandon Adams beat Raymond Gatica by a split decision which, well, puzzled me. On my card, I had it 79-71 Adams (too many big shots) but the judges had it: 78-74, 78-74 Adams (which I could understand; some rounds WERE close) and one had it…77-75 for Gatica (????)

In the second bout, Willie Monroe “upset” the favored Vitalii Kopylenko (not sure why Kopylenko was favored); I too had this one 79-71 for the winner. The judges saw it 79-73, 79-73, 78-74. These scores, IMHO, were more reasonable. Kopylenko did land a couple of very hard shots but was mostly beaten to the punch all night long.

April 19, 2014 Posted by | boxing | | Leave a comment

Outliers and society

I think that this is common in this day and age: I have some students who are struggling in our “elementary conceptual calculus” course. They come to class, but work a large number of hours at a job in order to make ends meet. So…they are often left with very little time to study.

And yes, IN THIS COURSE, most of the students need to study quite a bit in order to have a chance at even a “C”.

In short: most students need to have a certain number of hours in order to sleep and to study..in addition to making the classes and their part time jobs.

Now, some might say that this is nonsense.

I remember a professor I had at the Naval Academy. He said that when he was an undergraduate he studied very little for his math classes as he paid his own way through school by waiting tables. He made up for it by PAYING ATTENTION IN CLASS.

That is well and good…..but then remember that he had an earned Ph.D. in mathematics from MIT.

Most of us don’t have that type of natural ability.

Yes, Mohammed Ali could break the conventional rules of boxing (dangle his arms, lean away from punches):

But most, including most other professional boxers, don’t have that kind of ability.

Yes, there are people who can run a 2:15 marathon on 35 miles a week of training:

Following the 1976 trials he trained by running 35 miles per week and ran “a 2:14:37 for second place at the Nike-Oregon Track Club Marathon in Eugene in 1978. After that, he ran 2:15:23 for 15th place in the Boston Marathon in 1979.”

But most of us aren’t that gifted (this was Tony Sandoval, cowinner of the 1980 US Olympic Trials Marathon)

Yes, some can make a successful film while being stoned on marijuana, but most of us aren’t as talented as the Beatles.

The list can go on and on. The bottom line: you can gain inspiration from the incredibly successful, but you won’t be able to get away with taking the short cuts that many of them got away with. Neither you nor I are outliers.

Public policy should reflect this. Yes, it is great that a tiny minority of people might strike it very rich. But MOST WILL NOT. It is unjust to orient society that way.

February 25, 2014 Posted by | boxing, education, marathons, social/political | , | Leave a comment

Fighting a Ghost: Chambers vs. Mchunu, part II

I did a short “live blog” of the fight here.

You can read other accounts of the fight

Here (Boxing News)

When Chambers would come in punching range, Mchunu would pot shot him with jabs, right hands and straight lefts. Mchunu looked like a heavier, more muscular version of Floyd Mayweather Jr. with the way that he was able to dominate Chambers with pot shots and counter punches all night long.

Chambers looked frustrated in the second half of the fight, as he kept getting nailed by Mchunu fast shots over and over again, and there was nothing he could do about it because he didn’t have the hand speed or the skills to compete against the little known Mchunu.
This Mchunu looks for real at cruiserweight.

Here (Bad Left Hook):

Mchunu (14-1, 10 KO) won on scores of 99-91, 99-91, and 97-93, the latter score closer than anyone else had it that I was able to see on Twitter or on the site here. BLH had it 100-90 for Mchunu, finding no pity rounds to give Chambers (36-4, 18 KO).

The 31-year-old Chambers just never got out of the starting blocks in this one, as he looked bewildered by the southpaw counter-puncher from South Africa, as if he had no real game plan and was just there to wing it and see what happened. Several theories were offered during the fight: Chambers’ usual speed advantage was gone, Chambers didn’t know how to fight a southpaw, Chambers ate bad Subway pulled pork, #FAMJUICE is definitely not a PED, and so on, but really, he just got outboxed and outfought for the entire fight.

and here (Super Sport: South Africa)

Mchunu had hardly any trouble in keeping the experienced American at bay and picked his punches well throughout. Rated seventh by the WBC, Mchunu probably put himself in line for more lucrative bouts against good opponents.

He improved his professional record to 14-1, with 10 knockouts. Chambers dropped to 36-3, including 18 short-cut wins.

The 31-year-old American had fought the likes of Samuel Peter, Wladimir Klitschko and Alexander Povetkin. He fought at heavyweight for most of his 13 years as a professional but recently dropped to the cruiserweight division.

Mchunu, a 24-year-old southpaw, had never fought outside South Africa before taking part in this Fight Night tournament.

Chambers lost to Klitschko and Adamek in his previous three fights and had been inactive since June last year. But he was expected to use his height and reach advantages to beat the little-known South African.

If one wants to look at all aspects of this fight, one has to give Mchunu credit for a fine performance. He was very well prepared and he shone; he fought a very smart, disciplined fight.

But I am approaching this as a Chambers follower/fan.

So here is my fan’s opinion (which, by definition is probably a mostly uninformed one):

Here is what went wrong: (follow for the first 2 minutes):

Wait: this was over 3 years ago, right? (March 2010)

In my opinion: Chambers was 35-1 coming into that fight, with just a UD loss to Alexander Povetkin. Losing to Klitschko made him 35-2. Then, after recovery, he had a sort-of lackluster (but earned) UD vs. Derric Rossy (a guy he had previously knocked out) and a controversial UD loss to Tomasz Adamek; Chambers tore a bicep muscle early in the fight and fought on anyway, and in my opinion (and in the opinion of other observers), actually out landed Adamek (causing visible damage) but lost on the score cards because Adamek was busier.

In short, Chambers has lost 3 of his last 4 fights, albeit to top competition (current champion, past champion and top ten contender, top ten contender).

But, it appears to me that he has lost something; 40 professional heavyweight fights vs. people like Sam Peter, Wladimir Klitschko, Tomasz Adamek, Alexander Povetkin and Alexander Dimitrenko will take something out of you.

I wonder if it is time for him to start thinking about *owning* a gym rather than training in it; right now his mind appears to work pretty well. He has had an excellent career.

As far as last night’s fight: Chambers has got some rather negative remarks on the social media.

This reminds me (vaguely) of what happened to me my freshman year at the Naval Academy. I had wrestled in high school and had beaten a couple of other guys who wrestled in high school. So when I took the “place out of PE wrestling” test, I was matched against someone who was recruited for the wrestling team and who had WON varsity matches as a freshman.

When I went against him: total joke. I’d try a move and …he wasn’t there anymore…he was constantly a step (or two or three!) ahead of me the entire time. I looked pathetic; as if I had never wrestled a day in my life. I failed the “place out test”.

The two guys that I had beaten (easily): they wrestled each other and BOTH placed out. Later, I wrestled both again, and had no problems; I could beat them. But I couldn’t beat a ghost.

Obviously, last night’s professional fight was at a much, much, much higher level, but I know the feeling of making a move (punch in this case) and the target being long gone and ready to counter. You get frustrated, tentative and discouraged, and that is what I saw last night.

August 4, 2013 Posted by | boxing | , , | Leave a comment

Eddie Chambers vs. Thabiso Mchunu: live blogging

Round one: boxers feeling each other out; both land jabs; Mchunu landed the harder shots. 10-9 Mchunu, but it was close.

Round two: not much; both fighters are cautious but Mchunu landed a bit more. 10-9 Mchunu.

Comment: it appears as if Chambers is surprised at how quick Mchunu is. No one has gotten hurt.

Round three: like the first two. 10-9 Mchunu.

Comment: it is weird to see Chambers in the ring with someone that is quicker than he is. But that appears to be the case, at least so far.

Round four: just like the first 3. 10-9 Mchunu. It is cat/mouse; not a lot of exchanges and very few connects by either fighter. Chambers doesn’t look comfortable, at all.

I hate to say it, but this looks like a fighter on his way up versus one on his way down.

Round Five: crowd boos; Chambers falls further behind. He appears to be in with someone who is too quick for him, at least too quick to fight this style. Can he brawl?

But after 5: 50-45 Mchunu.

After 6: Chambers is getting frustrated and Mchunu is taking advantage. Again, no real damage but Mchunu is landing more. 60-54.

Chambers needs knockdowns or a knock out; he needs to take risks.

After 7: nothing changed. 70-63 Mchunu. Again, the punch difference is maybe 6-7 more per round. No one is hurt, but Mchunu is outlanding him.

Round 8: same old. Chambers can’t land; Mchunu counterpunches. 80-72.

The speed advantage that Chambers is used to having is gone; it might be the drop in weight division, and it might be…age.

Round 9: 90-81. Not close at all; Chambers is not hurt but is getting outboxed. Then again, this is his 40′th fight…and he hasn’t really been the same after the Klitschko knock-out.

Round 10: same. I have it 100-90, Mchunu.

Chambers: he trained and he tried. But this is his 40′th professional fight and he is in his 30′s; unless there is something going on that we don’t know about, he is on the downside of his career.

But he has had an excellent career.

Official scores: 97-93, 99-91, 99-91. Oh Eddie, you had a rough night. But it takes guts to put it all on the line for all to see and you did that.

August 4, 2013 Posted by | boxing, Uncategorized | | 1 Comment

Keyboard Krugmans and Klitschkos

I was a bit amused when I read the following Tweet from Lennox Lewis, a former world heavyweight boxing champion:

Screen shot 2013-05-24 at 8.30.14 PM

Someone made a comment about “Keyboard Klitschkos”; it is sure easy to puff out the old chest and talk trash to someone you will never meet in the ring.

In terms of boxing: I had to box for PE at the Naval Academy. I made a B (86); they didn’t inflate grades. Basically, an “A” was someone who was at the level to box in intramurals, from which the boxing team was drawn. Going head to head with someone who could compete at that level was both a painful and humiliating experience.

Never mind a competitive amateur or a professional!

This internet principle holds in other arenas. On the internet, an average person can provide “corrections” to a Nobel Laureate economist. Paul Krugman talked about “pulling rank” (e. g. two economists are arguing over a policy, and the more lauded economist argues “hey, I am more successful than you are therefore….”). Paul Krugman thinks that is not a good thing to do. But he goes on to say:

Do I do this myself? Probably on occasion, when I don’t catch myself. But I try not to. I would say that commenters who begin with “I can’t believe that a Nobel prize winner doesn’t understand that …” might want to think a bit harder; mostly, though not always, I have actually thought whatever you’re saying through, and the obvious fallacy you think you’ve found, isn’t.

In other words, if YOU think that he missed something basic in economics, it is highly likely that you are wrong.

And of course, there are the untrained who think that their “common sense” observations (e. g. the heuristics that makes sense TO THEM) constitute something useful to the discussion of a complicated topic. It doesn’t:

In the nicest possible way and with great respect, could I make two suggestions to would-be commenters, based on past experience when this topic has come up-

Please pause before offering your own common sense view. There are topics in science, of which this is one, where common sense is not a good guide. If it were, professional biologists would not have been arguing about it for five decades. There is a large back literature in which the likelihood is strong that whatever commonsense view you put forward has already been proposed and exhaustively discussed. As an analogy, common sense is notoriously misleading when we try to understand quantum mechanics. If you could do physics by common sense, we wouldn’t need physicists. To a lesser extent, something like the same thing applies here.

I admit that the folks I just talked about are in the elite ranks of sports, economics and science.
I am NOT in the elite of anything, though I am competent in mathematics; I do get a few references in mathematical literature:

Screen shot 2013-05-24 at 8.57.17 PM

And even I get tired of dealing with cranks. I can handle it when people know that they don’t know what they are talking about. But, in many cases, people really don’t realize that there IS a body of knowledge out there and that “this makes sense to me” is NOT evidence of anything!

If an expert in a field is doing something in their field that seems counterintuitive to you, just remember that the chances that you are right and that the expert is wrong is very, very small.

I hasten to point out that having a blog or being a writer about a topic does not qualify as being an expert. :-)

May 25, 2013 Posted by | boxing, evolution, internet issues, science, social/political | , , | Leave a comment

Meowhammed Ali

(title was shamelessly stolen from a comment made by Redscout3 at youtube)

Note: my back is a bit more sore than normal. I have to stretch it really well; perhaps do some yoga and a light jog.

March 7, 2013 Posted by | boxing, humor | , | Leave a comment

Cicada Walk

I slept in a bit and didn’t start walking until 8:30 am. I walked the lunch course plus two 3 mile Cornstalk out-and-backs. There was some traffic but not that much. The cicadas (perennial ones) were singing their hearts out.

Speaking of athletics: here is a biochemistry professor’s discussion of latic acid and endurance.

Olympics

Boxing

Note: I am watching Olympic boxing on television; I am shocked that the referees got a call right.
Well, the judges just made a questionable call…again in a Satoshi Shimizu fight. This time I thought that is opponent Mohamed Ouadahi (from Algeria) won…but the score was 17-15 and his opponent got a 2 point penalty. But then again, this was an opinion and not gross incompetence.

I just watched a good fight between BETERBIEV from Russia and Usyk of the Ukraine. Usyk won though I had Beterbiev winning on my card. Interestingly, Usyk nailed Beterbiev with a body shot that resulted in an 8 count (like a knockdown) but then….got a warning from the referee? The action in the ring was pretty good though.

The Perlata (Argentina) vs. Pulev (Bulgaria) match was good; somehow Pulev got the decision though Perlata nailed him with repeated bodyshots in the last round. I had Perlata winning…go figure.

Now we had ANOTHER crappy decision….

Another note: The boxing association overturned a verdict against American Errol Spence; his Indian opponent held him repeatedly and wasn’t called for it. Spence advances to the next round and has an excellent chance at a medal.

August 5, 2012 Posted by | boxing, Olympics, training, walking | Leave a comment

Who is winning this fight?


From here

Magomed Abdulhamidov was knocked down SIX times by Satoshi Shimizu in the last round alone, but was never given a single count. He was only told to get up. After the fight, he had to be helped to the dressing area. Yet he was “given” the victory.

Fortunately the Japanese team filed a protest and the protest was correctly upheld; Shimizu should have been given a knock-out win after the third knock down.

Frankly, I think that the referee should have stopped the fight after the second knock-down, but what the heck.
See the above link for more photos.

There are more videos and stories here.

In other action, Joseph Diaz fought well against World Champion Lazaro Alvarez but lost a decision that I thought was too wide; the judges gave Alvarez a 4 point win in round 2 that I just didn’t see. I can see Alvarez getting the decision, but this was a grueling, competitive fight.

There were a couple of other questionable decisions:

Iran’s Ali Mazaheri cried foul when the heavyweight was disqualified after being warned three times for persistent holding against Cuban Jose Larduet Gomez despite leading by two points going into the second round.

I really didn’t see much that warranted Mazaheri getting DQ’ed.

Then: superheavyweight Joshua Anthony was given a decision against Cuban Erislandy Savon that I didn’t quite understand. Anthony was head by 2 points going into the final round which Savon won by one point; on my card Savon won the last 2 rounds by 3-4 punches each.

Also in the super heavyweights, Zhang Zhilei of China knocked out Johan Linde of Australia with a huge right hook to the head. Zhilei can hit.

August 2, 2012 Posted by | boxing, Olympics | Leave a comment

Olympic Boxing and Arrow’s Theorem

Workout notes: walked to the gym; ran 2 miles on the treadmill (21 minutes), then ran 2 more on the track: 16:18 (8:24, 7:53) Ok, the second mile was 1 second slower than last week, though the overall time was 10 seconds faster. (this equates to about a 26:08 5K, but I did this run solo). I then walked .5 miles and ran 2.5 more (10:30 pace)

Then I went outside to walk 3 more miles to get to 10 total.

Olympic Boxing and scoring

I am enjoying the Olympic boxing matches.

However, these are scored differently from the professional matches that I currently watch and used to watch.

In a recent light heavyweight boxing match, US boxer Marcus Browne had a lead going into the final round, but was overcome in the last round to lose 13-11 to Australian Damien Hooper.

The Olympic matches are NOT scored on a round by round basis. Basically, when the five judges think that a scoring blow has been landed, they click a button for the boxer. Then at the end of the round, the “3 similar” scores are tabulated and averaged and that is the score at the end of the round. If no 3 scores are “similar”, then the high and low scores are discarded and the middle 3 are averaged and rounded.

In other words, individual punches are what are scored.

On the other hand, the professional matches are currently scored on a “10 point must” system; that is, the winner of a round gets 10 points and the loser gets 9 or fewer (ties are allowed). Typically, 3 judges score the fight round by round in this manner and typically, if there is a knockdown (or standing 8 count), the judges will score the round 10-8. Or, if one boxer is unusually dominant in a round (say, has the other boxer in serious trouble), then the round might be scored 10-8.

So which system is “more fair”?

We’ll lets see. Suppose we have a professional system and the blue boxer barely wins the first two rounds, only to see the red boxer dominate in round 3..but fail to score a knock down. Then under professional rules, the blue boxer wins 29-28; the extra dominance of the red boxer in the third round could not overcome the first two rounds.

On the other hand, in the Olympic system, the blue boxer won the first 2 rounds by, say, 3-2 each and therefore had a 6-4 lead going into round 3. But then the red boxer dominates and wins the last round 4-1; that gives the red boxer a well deserved 8-7 win.

On the other hand: Suppose red and blue are tied going into the final round. Then during the round, the blue boxer lands 4 decent but unspectacular jabs. The red boxer lands, say, 2 jabs but then lands a crushing hook which drops the blue boxer but doesn’t knock him out.
Under Olympic rules, the blue boxer wins the last round 4-3 and wins the fight. But under professional rules, the red boxer wins the round 10-8, which means a 29-27 victory (assuming it was 19-19 going into the 3′rd round). The professional outcome is clearly more fair in this case.

So which system is better, or is there a perfect system?

The answer is….neither is better than there is no perfect system!
The statement about there being no “perfect system” is not a “common sense” observation but a consequence of what is known as Arrow’s Theorem in mathematics. Arrow’s Theorem says, informally, that in situations are aren’t a simple “head to head” one time contest (say, runner A runs against runner B and we see who wins) there is no perfect way to obtain a “fairest” ranking from a ballot that allows for 3 or more choices.

How does this apply to boxing? Well, in boxing you are really trying to add up results on a ballot that includes rounds of varying degree of dominance or punches of a varying degree of effect; hence here, the ballots really consist of ordered pairs (c, d) where c is the color and “d” is the degree of dominance of either the round, or the punch.

July 31, 2012 Posted by | boxing, Olympics, running | Leave a comment

Fast, Furious, Ridiculous

Workout note
yoga, then 6 hot and sticky miles; 31:42 for the first 3 measured miles, 10:00 for the last one, 1:03 total. I didn’t feel the effects of the blood donation; not directly anyway.

Boxing: some of the current scandals (judging) has attracted the attention of the United States Senate:

Giving voice to the outrage over Timothy Bradley’s controversial split decision over Manny Pacquiao, two senators introduced legislation Monday that would create a special boxing commission to oversee all matches in the United States and restore integrity to the sport.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who boxed while at the U.S. Naval Academy, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., a former middleweight boxer, are pushing the measure establishing the U.S. Boxing Commission, an entity that would carry out federal boxing law, work with the industry and local commissions and license boxers, promoters, managers and sanctioning organizations.

Speaking on the Senate floor, McCain evoked the words of former sportswriter Jimmy Cannon, who called boxing the “red light district of sports.” He said the recent dispute stemming from the welterweight bout between Bradley and Pacquiao “is the latest example of the legitimate distrust boxing fans have for the integrity of the sport.”

There are other problems besides bad judging. There is the problem of getting a license to box; what happens if someone is not only caught cheating, but caught cheating in a way that can seriously damage his opponent?

The hand wrappings confiscated from former world welterweight champion Antonio Margarito minutes before his scheduled title defense against Shane Mosley in January contained calcium and sulfur, two of the primary elements of plaster of Paris, a state Department of Justice laboratory reported in documents obtained by The Times today.

Hardened gauze pads that were inserted inside the wrappings around Margarito’s knuckle area were seized Jan. 24 after Mosley’s trainer Nazim Richardson objected to their use.

Margarito proceeded to lose his title in a ninth-round technical knockout by Pomona’s Mosley, and the California State Athletic Commission subsequently revoked the licenses of the Tijuana fighter and his trainer, Javier Capetillo, and the pair will likely not be allowed to fight in the U.S. until next year.

A Department of Justice senior criminalist who inspected the wrappings under stereomicroscope and X-ray flourescence spectrometer reported calcium and sulfur were discovered, noting the elements make plaster of Paris with the addition of oxygen. The report was dated March 19. “The commission’s decision appears to be supported by that report,” said Karen Chappelle, the state supervising deputy attorney general for licensing who urged the California commission to revoke the fighter and trainer’s licenses. “The only things that are allowed in hand wraps are gauze and tape and those items aren’t gauze and tape.”

Chappelle said Margarito and Capetillo have yet to appeal their revocations, although Margarito promoter Bob Arum has said he’d like the boxer to return to the ring in Mexico later this year.

Arum had no immediate response to the findings, saying, “I’d have to see [the report].”

Margarito was subsequently given a license to box…in Texas.

We also have the case where boxing safety rules differ from state to state….and what about the case in which a boxer gets knocked out in one state and then gets a license to box again…in another state…before he would be again eligible to box again in his home state?

There are serious problems.

If the government intervening in a sport seems strange, remember…Teddy Roosevelt forced college football to reform itself.

Social
I grew up among people who thought this way:

Pity these types aren’t limited to medicine that was around 2000 years ago.

Politics
Fast and Furious Yep, President Obama somehow managed to start this in 2006 in an effort to bolster a policy that he has yet to introduce or talk about introducing.

Political Ad

Ok, what are the facts? Yes, he did raise fees. That is clear. Revenue must come from somewhere. But about the millionaire stuff: (note: this Fact Check.org article is about a different ad, but deals with the claims made in this particular ad)

The ad’s claim that Romney “cut taxes for millionaires” isn’t as black-and-white as billed. Romney opposed a plan to impose a capital gains tax retroactively, insisting on delaying the hike eight months. That’s different than pushing for a tax cut. [...]

The ad claims that as governor, Romney “cut taxes for millionaires like himself.” Like many political claims, there’s a grain of something here, but it’s not as black-and-white as the ad suggests. More accurately, Romney delayed for one year a proposed retroactive tax hike that disproportionately hit the wealthy. We’ll explain.

In 2002, before Romney became governor, the Legislature enacted a package of tax increases to deal with a deficit crisis. The package included a capital gains tax that was slated to go into effect in May 2002. But that tax was challenged in court and the state’s Supreme Judicial Court ultimately struck down the tax, ruling that it was unconstitutional for the tax to go into effect halfway through the year. That left the state Legislature with two possible remedies: have the tax kick in on Jan. 1, 2003 — and refund eight months’ worth of capital gains tax revenue — or make it retroactive to Jan. 1., 2002, adding another four months’ worth of tax revenue. The Democratic Legislature decided to make it retroactive to the start of 2002.

The Boston Globe reported that as a result, 48,000 taxpayers got a tax bill seeking the additional four months’ capital gains taxes, retroactively. The amount owed was an average of $4,200 each. About $78 million was owed by just 278 wealthy people who would have to pay an average of $281,000 each, the Globe reported. So that’s where the ad’s claim about tax cuts for millionaires comes from.

Romney argued it was unfair for people who made decisions, like selling their home, based on the tax law in place at the time to be forced to retroactively buck up. Romney argued that “the state made a mistake, and in all fairness, we have to make sure that people are not taxed retroactively.” He proposed that anyone who paid the tax in 2002 get a rebate.

The Boston Globe’s editorial page said it was simply the right thing to do. The nonpartisan Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation also urged the state Legislature to refund the 2002 money.

The Legislature was inundated with angry letters from folks who got notices of their retroactive tax bills. And in December 2005, Senate President Robert Travaglini and House Speaker Sal DiMasi, both Democrats, said folks could ignore those tax bills.

According to the Boston Herald, “Travaglini and DiMasi said they weren’t caving to public outrage over the issue — just trying to right a wrong.”

“It’s based on fairness,” Travaglini said.

Romney promptly signed legislation to refund any increased tax paid in 2002 and have the tax hike begin in 2003, and he vowed to donate anything he received back to charity. And, we should note, the tax was still in effect from 2003 forward.

What about this one:

Now the Washington Post slammed this ad. About the call center claim:

This concerns Romney’s veto of a bill that would have prohibited Massachusetts from contracting with companies that outsourced the state’s work to other countries. Lawmakers were especially concerned about a $160,000-a-month contract with Citigroup to operate a system of electronic food-stamp cards that included a customer phone service center in India.

Both the liberal editorial page of the Boston Globe and conservative editorial page of the Boston Herald urged Romney to veto the amendment, saying it would cost the state money. Romney agreed, saying the measure did not protect state jobs — the call center might have moved from India to another state — but “had the potential of costing our citizens a lot more money.” The Democratic-dominated Massachusetts legislature did not override his veto, even though it overturned 117 others, suggesting that there was little real support for the measure.

Ok, busted. As far as the “shipped jobs overseas”, the WP Fact checker notes that only one of the times this happened when Mr. Romney was leading Bain. But it did happen…and even better, Mr. Romney defends these practices IN HIS OWN BOOK (No Apology).

I’ll write more about that later; I am 75 percent done with the book. The label “Corporate Raider” is probably technically incorrect; “corporate engineering without regards to the workers and employees” would be more accurate. They aren’t the same thing though.

June 21, 2012 Posted by | 2012 election, Barack Obama, boxing, economy, Mitt Romney, Political Ad, politics, politics/social, republicans, running | Leave a comment

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 645 other followers