Manny Pacquiao was beaten by Floyd Mayweather Jr’s perfect form. Mayweather won like mongoose does with a cobra. I thought Mayweather had slowed just enough, but he defied age and time and was too cagey for Manny’s fists. Mayweather, as sports star and later legend, will forever overshadow Manny Pacquiao’s fearless assault in the ring. I’ve long thought that a man steps into a ring or field and his reality shrinks to the ropes or lines. His allotted time begins to audibly tick. His life struggle is simplified to the rules of competition. The yards gained or lost, blows struck or received of every play or round are felt as profoundly as life’s jolting tragedies and joyous triumphs. He knows the game, match, or race can make a humble man bold, a sinner a saint. He grits his teeth for the finish line, the goal, the last bell, the checkered flag. All along spectators cheer or jeer and he knows he’ll walk off the field, or be carried off, a loser or a winner; though, either way, he’ll retain his pride only if he fights like the game is a real struggle of life and death. And in the end, if he’s more than just an athlete, he’ll know to leave his blood and ego on the field, because men don’t gloat or point fingers, they walk away tall, content they tried, knowing they’ll strive again on and off the court. I see that in Manny’s charisma and style in the ring. I hope he retires now. I hope they both do. Only a rematch could reignite the flame, though even then it wouldn’t burn as hot.
For more see my article at Forbes.com.
The day after Buster Douglas knocked out Mike Tyson in 1990, Floyd Patterson said to a bunch of us who trained in his gym in New Paltz, New York: “Some fighters just have their day.”
Now I think Manny Pacquiao is about to have his day. The Las Vegas sportsbooks disagree with me. They have Floyd Mayweather Jr. as the favorite to defeat Manny Pacquiao on Saturday, May 2 at the MGM Grand Garden Arena in Las Vegas. As this was being written Bovada, for example, had Mayweather as the -225 favorite. They said Pacquiao is a +175 underdog for the bout that will reportedly make well over $100 million. (Meaning that for every $2.25 someone bets on Mayweather to win they can win $1; and for every $1 someone bets on Pacquiao they can win $1.75.)
Okay, Mayweather has a 47-0 record with 26 knockouts, while Pacquiao is 57-5-2 with 38 knockouts. It’s hard to bet against a guy who has never lost.
The bookies also say that this high-money bout isn’t going to be a quick knockout, as Mayweather doesn’t have a knockout punch. They say it’s going the distance—as in 12 rounds. As this was being written the odds from Bovada were 33-100 for the fight to last the full 12 rounds.
Fight promoter Eddie Hearn even Tweeted: “I know he isn’t a huge puncher, but I’ve had a feeling all along Mayweather wins by late stoppage.”
Here’s why my money is still on Pacquiao.
A year ago, Mayweather’s scorecard-win over Marcos Maidana showed Mayweather is slowing. CompuBox, a computerized scoring system, has tracked 38 of Mayweather’s 46 professional fights. According to Compubox, the 221 punches Maidana landed were the most leather any fighter has ever gotten through Mayweather’s defenses. Mayweather still lived by the old boxing adage “hit and don’t get hit” but not as much as in previous fights.
Maidana was busier. He threw 858 punches over the 12 rounds and landed 26 percent of his punches. Mayweather threw 426 punches—half as many as Maidana.
Though Mayweather doesn’t throw as many punches as many other fighters—and not nearly as many as Pacquiao—he is and has always been very accurate. According to CompuBox, Mayweather landed 41 percent of his punches on average over a 10 fight period ending with his win over Saul “Canelo” Alvarez in 2013, while his opponents hit him with just 17 percent of their punches.
Click here to read the rest of the analysis at Forbes.com.
If you read thrillers you’ve probably come across some by Stephen Hunter. If you picked up one of his Bob Lee Swagger thrillers, which follow a fictionalized Vietnam War sniper loosely based on the real Vietnam War sniper and U.S. Marine Corps legend Carlos Hathcock, then you’ve no doubt noticed that Hunter knows his guns. Even if you don’t read thrillers, you’ve likely come across the 2007 film “Shooter” starring Mark Wahlberg. That movie is based on Hunter’s thriller Point of Impact.
The thing about Steve though is he is so much more than expectation.
Steve has the look of an aged professor who is about to call you something you’ll have to look up in the dictionary. When I first met him I thought he was an accomplished curmudgeon, but then I found he is brimming with youthful mirth. He’s cynical and sarcastic. His amusement with human nature flows from his persona and is on all the words he carefully but joyously chooses. He cheerily tells me he was once a “leftist hippie with the long hair and all that” and that “he moved by proportions of honesty to becoming a gun owner and shooter.” He says this in such a likeable way I think even ABC News’ Diane Sawyer would be smiling and approving.
Even the Pulitzer Prize committee picked up on his mirth.
In 2003, while he was working for The Washington Post, he won a Pulitzer for movie criticism. The Pulitzer committee said Hunter “is forever suggesting that art can be a good, lusty, happy thing, that doesn’t always have to be an immersion in a new level of human misery.” They got Steve exactly right.
Steve’s final transformation into a full-bore gun enthusiast came one fine day in 1985 when he saw an ad for a gun—a bright and lovely stainless Smith & Wesson Model 645 to be precise. He found this semiautomatic pistol to be intriguing, beautiful, and he wanted one. This contradiction within himself needed a final resolution. After some self-evaluation, he decided: “There was something fundamentally dishonest about my anti-gun views.
He told me this when I interviewed him in 2014 for my book The Future of the Gun. We were sitting in the pressroom at the SHOT Show, the annual trade show for firearms manufacturers, at the Sands Expo and Convention Center in Las Vegas.
I asked him to back up a second. I wanted to know how a kid from a suburb of Chicago, a kid whose parents didn’t own guns, who deplored guns, became a gun owner and shooter. Steve’s father was a professor at Northwestern University. His mother wrote children’s books. Neither wanted anything to do with guns.
He said, “When I was a boy the notion that guns were bad stuck in my head. My parents, teachers, and the suburban Chicago culture I was in told me guns lead to violence. It took me a long time to move past the notion that owning a gun would corrupt you, that a gun can somehow whisper vile things in your ear until you become a worse person, maybe even a sociopath. I thought that a gun has an aura that acts like alcohol to an alcoholic—that step by step it would make me a bad person.”
He shook his head and smiled at what an ignorant kid he was. “There is, of course, an aura surrounding guns,” he said. “There are real, deep reasons why Hollywood glorifies the gun even as many of its producers and actors want guns banned. This feeling comes from holding a gun, from shooting a gun; you get a feeling of a power; you know this mechanical wonder explodes in your hands but when used right won’t harm you even as it can do real damage down range. This is why guns are a great responsibility and require a lot of maturity. This is also why Western films resonate. Out there, in the exposed open, is a man with a gun, a true individual who can take care of himself. The gun doesn’t make this cowboy good or bad, but it does make him potentially lethal and very independent. That’s intoxicating. That’s a big part of the reason why all those journalists who oppose gun rights keep losing battles. For generations they had almost full control of the messaging, but still they lost because people are drawn to the gun. When you shoot a gun safely and responsibly you can’t help but get this big grin on your face.”
Click here for the rest of my article at Range365.com.
Even if you don’t happen to live in Vermont you need to hear this story. It’s a sizzling tale that reveals much of what’s to come from Michael Bloomberg’s anti-Second Amendment group Everytown for Gun Safety. Everytown engineered a “sting operation” in Vermont—a state that is statistically among the safest in the nation and that has never required a license for someone to carry a handgun—in order to push state legislators into passing gun-control laws. The data Everytown used from its undercover operation quickly crumbled as bad lies do.
Now, this isn’t a new thing for Everytown. Politifact.com has twice reported that Everytown’s claim about the number of school shootings is “mostly false” and Factcheck.org has accused Everytown of “spinning statistics on school shootings.” Everytown is also directly connected to the group that read off Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s name—yeah, one of the Boston bombers—at an event for “victims of gun violence” in Concord, New Hampshire. When they did this several people in the crowd shouted, “He’s a terrorist!”
The fracas in Vermont probably started like this. Somewhere in an office building somewhere in New York City on an undisclosed floor in an off-the-record conference room—Everytown keeps the address of its New York City headquarters secret and will not be interviewed by media it thinks is unfriendly to its agenda—there was likely a meeting of its anti-gun minds. Everytown’s leadership might have been fidgeting in their swivel chairs when someone said, “He’s coming.” Bloomberg might have then walked in hidden between his troop of corporate yes men and sat at the head of the table with his yes men perhaps lingering with bland expressions behind.
This would have been a heady moment for them. Everytown had slashed away American freedom in Washington State. After spending millions of dollars from a few well-heeled individuals they’d convinced enough Washington State voters that they really, really need a so-called “universal background check” law even though criminals, by definition, will bypass the universal part.
Bloomberg might have begun by asking, “So team, what’s our next move?”
Maybe an Everytown person said, “We need to go East Coast to make this a national movement before the 2016 election.”
“I like that, but what state?”
“Well, New York, Connecticut and Maryland are all stirred up after their gun bans passed. People there are paying too much attention for us to dupe them, so maybe Maine?”
“No,” might have said Bloomberg with a Napoleonic wave of his hand, “they just voted down a ban on bear hunting with dogs and over bait. Those yokels would vote it down.”
“Good point,” might have said one of the Everytown team. “I guess we also have to rule out the South—they cling to their freedom down there. But how about Vermont? The state of Vermont neither issues nor requires a permit to carry a handgun openly or concealed. We need to take away that freedom.”
“I like the way you’re thinking, but how?”
“With a sting operation. You know, we’ll do a study on how many criminals buy guns in Vermont because they don’t have a mandatory background checks for private sales.”
Everyone might have laughed a moment as they thought of Mark Twain’s line about the three kinds of lies (lies, damned lies and statistics). But then someone might have said, “But isn’t Vermont like the safest state in the country?”
“That’s true,” might have said another, “but we’ll have the media behind us to tell Vermonters they’re the ones supplying guns to criminals in other states; you know, like we say about Chicago.”
And so they did. Only they found out that facts actually matter. Especially when the facts are so easy to find and when there are a lot of people out there who cherish their American freedom. Here’s what we know happened and what this means for 2016.
Everytown placed fake gun ads from fictitious private sellers on various websites. Ed Cutler, president of The Gun Owners of Vermont, says, “Everytown grabbed some ads from gun dealers in Vermont. They cropped off the names of the dealers and posted those ads as if they were from private sellers.”
Click here for the rest of my article in America’s 1st Freedom.
Dr. James Kerr had this epiphany about he can help save and study Africa’s storied species. Dr. Kerr is a scientist. He’s a professor Texas A&M University’s College of Veterinary Medicine. He’d spent years taking DNA samples to understand how America’s bison genetically managed to recover from being nearly shot into extinction—from 30 million to about 200 animals. Inbreeding among survivors should have been their end. He wanted to understand how they’d survived. He wanted to use this knowledge to help other species in trouble.
We’re taught that a few surviving bison were found in what’s now Yellowstone National Park and that these few seeded the hundreds of thousands now on public and private lands. What actually happened, says, Dr. Kerr, “is a handful of ranchers from Texas to Canada had saved a few calves after buffalo hunters had come and gone. They wanted the bison to breed with their cows, as they wanted to give their cattle immunity to local diseases and parasites. This experiment didn’t work, but when the U.S. government began looking for animals to repopulate the species, they found these ranchers with bison from different regions and therefore of different genetic stock.”
Jump passed those years of research and the 40,000 genetic samples Dr. Kerr had taken and cataloged from bison and you find him confronting a new and more pressing problem. He wanted to study the wild leopard’s genetics to see how susceptible they are to diseases and to use this research to help other felines. But no one was going to give him funding to trap or kill the 200 leopards necessary to take DNA samples. That’s when his big aha moment came. Dr. Kerr has always been a hunter. In fact, he’d hunted in Africa a bunch and knew quite a few professional hunters (PH). Why not have hunters take DNA samples? And why not expand this idea to all of Africa’s game species. This would create repositories of DNA that could be used to bring back a species and to study them in ways now impossible to predict.
Being a Texan and a hunter, he knew which groups to turn to. He presented a grant proposal to the Dallas Safari Club (DSC), a group known for funding wildlife conservation projects. DSC has since donated $65,000 to the DNA program. Other groups have given about $120,000 to get this project started.
Thanks to Dr. Kerr and his extensive travels to meet with Africa’s hunting organizations, PHs in 11 African countries are now taking DNA from trophy game with kits made available by the study. The PHs and their hunters simply take hair samples and smear some blood on provided cards. They also fill out detailed sheets on where the animals are killed, the species and a lot more. When they send the samples in this information is uploaded to a secure website maintained by Texas A&M. The DNA samples are housed in universities, museums and sometimes a PH’s headquarters in the countries they’re taken in. This growing international database is being made available to researchers all over the world to help scientists and hunters preserve and understand everything from rhinos to lions to kudu.
Dr. Kerr says, “We’ll be able to use a technique called ‘DNA barcoding’ to highlight and study the genes responsible for horn size and other traits. In some cases we’re storing live cells—this has to be done in liquid nitrogen—this will give researchers other options. We’ll also be able to better understand genetic diversity in a given species and so much more. In sum, we’re creating an insurance policy for the future of Africa’s wildlife. And we’re able to do all of this because of hunters here in the U.S. are funding this program and because of hunters in Africa participating.”
Dr. Kerr thinks that the program will eventually become revenue neutral as researchers from around the world are charged a nominal fee to access the hunter-provided DNA from all of Africa’s hunted species. (For more, check out Dr. James Derr’s Facebook page: facebook.com/james.derr.58)
Also, see my article in Outdoor Life on this topic.
Gun-rights groups are in an uproar over an ammunition ban proposed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The ATF says it wants to ban M855 ball ammunition, a .223 (or 5.56 mm) rifle bullet that has been used by American citizens for decades. The ATF says it wants to ban this popular bullet because it is “armor piercing.”
The law at the basis of this debate is the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA). As amended, the GCA prohibits the import, manufacture and distribution of “armor piercing ammunition” as defined by a few terms Attorney General Eric Holder’s Department of Justice (DOJ) is attempting to broaden.
The definition for what constitutes “armor piercing” reads: “a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely … from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium.”
Now, to be as nitpicky as the law, the M855 ball ammunition the ATF wants to ban as “armor piercing” doesn’t have a core made of the metals listed in what legally makes a bullet “armor piercing.” The M855 actually has a lead core with a steel tip. Also, the M855 is traditionally a rifle cartridge and the ban only covers handgun ammunition. The DOJ argues this doesn’t stop them because the law stipulates they can ban a bullet that “may be used in a handgun.” And, after all, any cartridge may be used in a handgun.
Still, the definition has another condition. According to law, when ammo is made for “sporting purposes” (hunting, recreation shooting and so on) it is exempt from this ban. According to the DOJ the “GCA exempts ammunition that would otherwise be considered armor piercing if the Attorney General determines that the specific ammunition at issue is ‘primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes.’” So, according to the DOJ, they simply get to decide on this condition.
The “sporting purposes” caveat is an important exemption, as every bullet designed to ethically kill a deer or other big-game animal (whether from a pistol, rifle or shotgun) will also shoot through a bulletproof vest.
Click here for the rest of my article at Forbes.com.
Cops aren’t heroes simply because they’re police officers, but the role itself should be heroic. A law-enforcement officer should be held to an ideal—and must constantly try to fit that heroic ideal. But today people don’t believe in ideals. Too often police aren’t even given clear role models to become. If a cop loses his or her temper, makes a grave mistake or even breaks a law, it can be difficult to hold them accountable to the ideal they’re supposed to embody. Police unions, at times, protect individual officers from even basic censure. Meanwhile, too many people also aren’t behaving as mature and upstanding people—sometimes because they simply haven’t been given role models themselves.
To begin to solve this in a very simple and practical way a group in Akron, Ohio, worked with a local police force to make “You and the Law” information cards for young adults. The cards, which are being given to students, list 15 points—control your emotions, answer questions about your identity, put your hands on the steering wheel in plain sight…. The flipside of the cards informs students how to report police misconduct. The youth group is Akron PeaceMakers.
One student told NPR: “I’m not saying that all cops are bad, but there are cops that are drunk on their power, I would say. So I think that it holds them responsible so they can stay in line. They have to obey the law just like we do.”
Body cameras on police officers can also hold anyone—cops or civilians—accountable for misbehavior. These are good practical solutions, but we also need a national discussion on what a police officer should ideally be. We must then hold them accountable to the selfless, potentially heroic and tough role they’ve chosen. As we do we must also hold ourselves accountable.
The U.S. federal bureaucracy doesn’t often admit wrongdoing. This time it took a change in the political landscape, many businesses threatening legal action and a congressman with a background in banking to force the bureaucracy to admit to misconduct and to stop financial attacks on legal businesses that the Obama administration deems to be politically incorrect.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) published a statement saying they are instituting changes to stop Operation Choke Point’s discriminatory practices against legal businesses. The U.S. Justice Department still contends that Operation Choke Point is an initiative designed to reduce unlawful fraud by “choking” illegal players out of U.S. financial institutions. However, under direction of the FDIC, Operation Choke Point also affected the banking relationships of many legal businesses, including those of gun stores and other firearms-related companies. Some law-abiding businesses had their long-standing banking relationships terminated as a result of threats from the FDIC to censure financial institutions that do business with gun stores and other firearms-related businesses. Some examples of legal businesses being harmed were included in a report by the House Oversight Committee; still more examples were documented in research done by The Heritage Foundation’s The Daily Signal.
Click here for the rest of the article at Forbes.com.
An elevator door opens on the 20th floor of a Las Vegas hotel and, for a few breaths of fresh air, the barrier between those who own guns and those who don’t slides away.
A middle-aged woman is saying to a man of about the same age: “I love my Glock 42. I carry it—” She pauses and looks at me and three others standing quietly on the elevator. The man and woman step on and turn robotically toward the front. They seem ready to remain politely silent with strangers on a moving elevator, but just after the door closes a twenty-something woman to my left says, “I like Glocks too, but the 42 is a .380 and I think 9mm is light. So I’m excited about the Gen4 in 10mm.”
The woman who’d just stepped on turns around smiling and nodding. She says she sometimes carries a Smith & Wesson revolver chambered in .357 Magnum, but that it all depends on what she’s wearing. She says she just can’t hide the .357 in a dress.
Everyone is laughing then and speaking at once about the guns they carry. A man in a gray suit says he carries a Sig and that he likes the new modular P320 MHS and hopes it’ll be sold commercially. Another man, this one is a flannel shirt, comments that the Kimber 1911 Ultra Carry II in .45 ACP is his style.
Everyone is clearly in Vegas for the SHOT Show (The Shooting, Hunting, Outdoor Trade show). We are all wearing these placards provided by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for firearms manufacturers, around our necks like exclusive passes into the gun community. So we feel comfortable speaking openly with strangers about the personal choices of what guns we carry. Why not? Just then there were a lot of gun people in Vegas. The NSSF says 64,000 attendees came from over 100 countries to buy and sell guns, ammo and related items last week.
Click here for the rest of the article at Forbes.com.
Last month The New York Times ran a story with photos of men caught “manspreading.” Manspreading is defined as man who sits on a public bus, subway or park bench with his legs splayed open. Some men who do this take two seats on crowded public transportation. The Times said, “It is the bane of many female subway riders. It is a scourge tracked on blogs and on Twitter.”
There is also “mansplaining,” a term UrbanDictionary.com defines as: “delighting in condescending, inaccurate explanations delivered with rock solid confidence of rightness and that slimy certainty that of course he is right, because he is the man in this conversation.”
Now TheAtlantic.com tells us about “manslamming,” a term coined to describe men who don’t step out of other peoples’ way (especially women) on crowded sidewalks.
Some call these actions “microagressions,” a form of unintended discrimination that has the same effect as conscious, intended discrimination—in this case, men discriminating against women in what they might soon call: “managressions.”
Perhaps the most heinous microaggression (though it could also be outright aggression) are men who call women “bossy.” This would be a “microagression” if the man doesn’t think too deeply (being a man) about how aggressive a woman might perceive this label, but it would be clear aggression if he did.
Hmm, are the people coining and using these new words tacitly agreeing to the premise that some large percentage of men are guilty of talking down to women, shoving women out of the way on sidewalks, demeaning women by calling them “bossy” and refusing to give women space on crowded public transportation? Might this same logic then lead people to surmise that, by comparison, women much less often spread out over two seats on a bus or subway (or put their bags on the seat next to them), talk down to men (don’t these new words talk down to men?) and commit other microaggressive acts?
Click here for the rest of my column at Forbes.com.