The Manny Pacquiao vs. Timothy Bradley fight outcome
A lot of people were angry over last weekend due to the split decision win awarded to Timothy Bradley. Many (including myself) thought Manny clearly won that fight, and it seemed that even Bradley felt he had lost until the winner was announced.
A lot of people feel that this will sound the death knell for the proposed Manny vs. Floyd fight, and to be honest I kinda hoped it would. I'm tired of hearing about this fight that, in my opinion, will never happen. I think Floyd doesn't want the fight, and I think Bob Arum doesn't want the fight. So no matter what concessions are made on each side, the other side will sabotage things.
MORE AFTER BREAK
That said, I actually kind of wonder whether or not a Pacquiao loss here actually helps the fight get made, presuming that the two sides genuinely want to fight. I mean a loss means Pac can't really expect to get a 50/50 split, which allegedly is what is currently holding up the fight.
They already agreed on the drug testing (of course they also already agreed on the split in the past supposedly, so....) and all the other little things, and supposedly this is the only thing holding it up. So if they truly want the fight, Pac should be willing to take less money, considering he's coming off a loss, no matter how bogus, and Floyd should not have any more excuses now that the drug testing and money split would be out of the way.
That taken care of, I think that if any other issues come up, you'll see quickly who is responsible for not wanting this fight.
Of course this all goes out the window if Pac's side stands strong on their sense that they don't think that this loss should impact his 50/50 split stance, because everyone knows it was a bullshit decision.
Personally I don't care if the fight never happens. I've lost interest in it a long time ago when it became clear to me that neither side really wanted that fight.
Modern Music In Period Piece Movie Trailers
Recently the movie trailer for The Great Gatsby, starring Leonardo DiCaprio and directed by Baz Luhrman (who also directed DiCaprio in the remake of Romeo + Juliet) was released online and in the opening moments of the trailer, it featured the song "No Church In The Wild" by Jay Z and Kanye West.
This follows the trailers for the film Red Tails which featured dub step music in it, and caused a mini-uproar on Twitter over the nature of featuring current songs in trailers of films set 50 years ago or more.
To me, I see the frustration that some feel about it, but to be honest I don't think it's that big a deal. It's not putting the songs in the movie, it's using it in promotion. Seriously, would the Great Gatsby Trailer be attracting the young people that the studios crave if they're using only music from the time period that the movie actually takes place?
To those who complain about The Great Gatsby trailer having that song in it and saying "They didn't have that song back then!", I just have to point out, you know what else they didn't have back then? Leonardo DiCaprio. Yet he's in the trailer AND the movie. Tobey Maguire wasn't around back then either. Get over it, it's not that big a deal.
Washington State parents flip out over Sex-Ed, compare Sex Ed to Rape.
This story just caught my eye today, and it highlights something that I think is a problem all over. A school in Washington State was holding a sex ed class for 11 and 12 year olds and they were talking about STDS and whatnot, and a student asked about oral and anal sex.
Now clearly that's an uncomfortable subject for anyone much less kids, but the teacher answered the question, and when the parents found out they were outraged about this, with one parent saying that it was like "rape", only it was raping the innocence of the child.
My thoughts on this are pretty clear. Sex Ed needs to be taught in schools. Studies have shown that the less a person is taught sex education, the higher the chances of those people getting exposed to STD's and unwanted pregnancies.
I understand parents being uncomfortable with that subject, but sticking your head in the ground and wishing it away, does not protect your child. Many parents feel that eleven and twelve year olds are too young, however I don't. They are going to be going to middle school soon and do you think they're going to never be exposed to these things from the kids they are around?
I'd rather have my (non existent) kids learn about it in a setting where they are getting proper education on the risks and so forth, than to listen to some numbskull friend of theirs that is getting their sex advice from their older brother who doesn't know much more than the younger brother.
Too many parents have this fear of broaching sex, and I get that. It's not an easy topic to discuss. However the dangers of not properly educating the students in the risks of sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies are way more damaging than the embarrassment of a sex talk.