On-line poker causes unimaginable stupidity

Just about everything I've seen or read about the death of internet poker has made me long to fall asleep and hope to never wake up, or perhaps I should long for the reward of a crown of gold. The first thing I've read was from my friend bartcop who has blamed Obama for this, as he blames Obama for just about everything. Bart's a good guy, and I honestly like him a lot, but on this he's just wrong, since how internet poker died is explained here and if you don't feel like reading it, the short story is, the guy who invented the system by which the major on-line sites were flouting the laws against money transfers for gambling was stealing from the websites, they called the FBI and had him picked up, and he flipped on them and exposed there scam. Obama was not sitting in the Oval Office, gently brushing a white cat while talking on the phone demanding that internet poker be destroyed.

But Bart's very incorrect railing against Obama killing off internet poker (Ignoring that UIGEA was a bill passed by a Republican controlled House and Senate and signed into law by George W. Bush) was merely the misinformed ranting of somebody who was upset about the fact these websites had been shutdown, today Grantland posted one of the most mind numbingly stupid things I've ever read, a column by one of the producers of rounders where he states that the shutting down of internet poker, while awful, is good because it makes poker 'cool' again.

If you don't feel like clicking through, here's the true money quote of this bunch of myth making bullshit.

In a time of 10 percent unemployment, the Government has taken away tens of thousands of jobs. And good people, like online pro Shane Schleger, have lost their livelihood without warning. This is wrong on every level, and I cannot wait for the absurdity of it to be over so that pros like Shane and his cohorts, and donkeys like me (and you), can get back to playing the game we love in the comfort and privacy of our own homes. But in this dark moment, I have found one, small bright spot: Poker is, like Slick, finally back in the shadows, where, mythically at least, it belongs.

There is so much wrong with this that I don't even know where to start. First of all the internet poker sites that got shut down were, according to the charges against them, committing fraud, using dummy corporations to mask where people's money was really going. This is against the law, the idea that somehow high unemployment is somehow a reason to not enforce the law is absurd. Can you imagine some lamenting 10% unemployment as being a reason why we should stop arresting drug dealers? "In these harsh economic times, some of us need to sell a little meth on the side to make ends meet, who is the federal government to say that's wrong?"

Then he does a quick little lament for his friends who have been screwed out of their source of income, which is right of him, because these people have gotten a raw deal. Once he's done with that however, he gets back to what matters, that poker is now 'cool' again. While he does say that this is 'one small bright spot' in this otherwise awful situation, this is just such a moronic statement. He has just stated that people have lost money, tons of money, people with six figure on-line bankrolls just got shut off from their prime income stream, lives have been shattered. I as a poker dealer with lots of friends in the poker community know all about this, and well, while that's happened and it sucks, hey at the very least poker is now somehow edgier and gritter then it was before Black Friday.

The truth is poker will never be back in the shadows, it will never be 'cool' again, Jennifer Tilly will still make horrible plays, random D-Listers will still crash and burn on Day 1 of the Main Event. TV shows featuring poker will still air, the genie is out of the bottle. Black Friday was nothing but a horrible moment in the history of poker, and no amount of spin, revisionist history or longing for a yesteryear of backroom games and larger then life hucksters will change any of that.

I really hate Mitt Romney

I do hope the Good Reverend gets the 2nd half the debate blog taken care of and I live in envy of his comment about the hairless cat, I will say that of the two of us, he is far more tolerant and forgiving of the GOP then I am. While I a wack-job libertarian on social issues, I have no use for the economic policies of the right wing or their plans to dismantle Medicare/repeal any and all attempts at health care/slash taxes for the rich. George W. Bush was a nightmare for this country and the party he represented has moved even further to the right since he's been out of office, having any Republican in the White House would be devastating to this nation.

Which brings me to Mitt Romney. He is the emptiest of empty suits, Mitt Romney stands for everything, which means he stands for nothing, each campaign he runs is tailored only for that election, the things he says only meant to be held to him for as long as it will get him a vote. This is a man who told the good people of my home state of Massachusetts that if they elected him to the Senate that there really wouldn't be a dime's worth of difference between himself and Ted Kennedy, except for the fact that Ted Kennedy was now old and senile.

That was Mitt Romney in 1994, running to replace the "Liberal Lion" of the US Senate, and vowing to be pretty much the same guy, but just more with it mentally and a bit tougher on crime, but he still was OK with women having the right to have abortions and all that jazz.

Then when he won the governorship of Massachusetts once again reassuring the state that he was socially liberal, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, just another Bill Weld style republican who was tolerable to the Massachusetts electorate.

I really feel like Romney just wanted the gig so he could put it on his resume because he wanted to be able to say he'd been a governor or a senator before he ran for President, which was his goal the whole time, he just wanted to be able to be addressed as "Governor Romney" or "Senator Romney" before he made his play for the White House, so he got his one term of office and he was all set.

Now he's a social conservative, now he's pro-life and working to re-install DADT, now he's against the same health care bill he was for when he signed it into law in Massachusetts. He has changed his mind on just about everything he's ever done. They called John Kerry a 'flip flopper' for his supposed shifts on issues, Romney requires the English language invent new words to explain his spineless jumping around the political spectrum to back up whatever his current point of view is.

Mitt Romney is a fraud, plain and simple, the man will say or do anything to get elected, if the man thought eating a kitten would get him one more vote, then little fluffy would be his dinner that evening. I truly hate this man, and the fact that he's the only legitimate guy the GOP has just goes to show what depths the party has fallen to. T-Paw's gutless refusal to attack him last night leads me to believe he's running only to be Mitt's Veep, and if he's not, he's to big a coward to win this thing anyhow, so it's Mitt's to lose, and we're stuck with such a horrible economy and broken media that this man could be our next President.

We're right and truly screwed as a nation if this man wins.

CNN/NH Rebublican Presidential Debate: The Good Reverend's Live DVR Blog, Hour 1

In an online world wrought with inane Facebook status updates, Chocolate Rain, TMZ, and the Friday Song, it can be problematic when trying to discern the fact from the fiction, the substantive from the silly, and whether or not whatever random weblink or news story is a worthy distraction from yet another round of Angry Birds or a fifteenth consecutive video viewing of a hairless cat, meowing to the tune of a Soulja Boy hook in 4/4 time.

Perhaps the worst offender in this cesspool of misinformation is the blogosphere, its seemingly endless legion of self-appointed journalists and social commentators, and their perpetual stream of ill-informed, unresearched observations on everything from porn to politics to the cover-up of Paul McCartney's apparent death in the late 60's.

So with all of that said and the internet being as it is... welcome to our blog, eh?! Honestly, with the textual assault on reason already in full effect, what's a couple more loons blogging? And what better way for said loons to pop the proverbial blog cherry than by making like John King and getting our debate on? Last night was the second in a series of primary debates between the prospective candidates for the Republican presidential nomination, and while it may have lacked the fireworks of past debates, Donald Trump and Sarah Palin were nowhere to be found, so things aren't all bad, right?

Submitted for your approval, here are some thoughts on the event as it unfolded, viewed through my unapologetically Libertarian-tinted shades:

It was disappointing that former New Mexico gov. Gary Johnson was excluded from the debates, but I can't fault CNN for having their criteria and sticking to it.

I know this is standard fare for these debates, but Herman Cain is a master of saying a lot, and doing so in a way that has people praising his "plain-talk, no-nonsense" approach, without really saying anything at all. The first question is from a retired college professor who asks what Mr. Cain, as president, would do to create jobs in this tough economy. The pizza mogul responds that the economy is like a train stalled on its tracks and that the private sector is the fuel that will get it going again. That's a cute little metaphor, and I'm one that thinks the private sector can do a better job than government in many instances, but no elaboration on what specifically would be done is offered.

After more wrangling about the economy, Michele Bachmann has the floor and announces she has filed papers to officially seek the nomination, with her formal announcement to come in the near future. In lieu of discussing the announcement of an announcement of a foregone conclusion, and putting aside some of her wacky ideas, I've got to say... in the right light, Bachmann ain't bad to look at. She has kind of a Lynda Carter thing going on. I'd take a ride in her invisible jet any time.

First audience laugh of the night comes when Ron Paul is asked if President Obama has done ONE thing right by the economy since taking office and is thoroughly stumped. He then talks about unwinding the Keynesian bubble that's been going on for 70 years, the need for sound money and shoots on the Federal Reserve. Paul has spearheaded the bi-partisan effort to audit the Fed (you go, girl!), so this is par for the course for the (ceaselessly awesome) Texas Rep.

In a backpeddle move, Tim Pawlenty is called out by our esteemed moderator, Mr. King, on his "Obamneycare" comments made the very day before the debate. With Mitt Romney now standing at a podium a couple of feet to his side however, TPAW is in full retreat mode, claiming the comment was a paraphrase of the President's statement that Romney's healthcare mandate in Massachusetts was one of the blueprints for his national healthcare plan. Yeah.... that's what you were saying...

The topic of Tea Party influence (and the ability of candidates to maybe filter it out at times for the greater good) comes up. Rick Santorum touts his record on big issues and goes on to commend the Tea Party as a "great backstop for America." Bachmann shares his enthusiasm and claims that the Tea Party features a "wide swath of Americans coming together," including disaffected Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, and Republicans. I'm not one to hate on the Tea Party, and it is true that all of those groups are represented in its ranks, but I'm not sure that "wide swath" accurately describes its membership.

On the audience-introduced topic of returning manufacturing jobs to the United States, Pawlenty takes the opportunity to inform us that he is from a "meat-packing town" and that members of his family belong to various Unions. This isn't the last time he'll utter these anecdotes in this debate, but he didn't sledgehammer them into responses quite as often as he did during last month's Iowa debate (which, in addition to back-peddling and flip-flopping on issues and pieces of legislation that he had previously attached his name to that are now politically damaging in the primary election, was how he directed most of his responses in that debate.)

During discussion about labor, Unions, and Right-to-Work legislation, Newt Gingrich hits the National Labor Relations Board for dictating where Boeing can or can't set up shop, keeping 8,000 jobs out of South Carolina where it had planned to build a new plant. I'll have to agree that this really is one of the most overtly egregious acts of this administration and is akin to fascism. Yes, I know.... it's Boeing with the stench of The W (of the presidential variety, not the so-so Wu-Tang Clan effort) and Dick Cheney still lingering, but c'mon now. We can't pick winners and losers in the economy and job markets.

And now for something completely different, the first in a series of silly, lightening-of-the-mood questions directed at each candidate. Leading off is Santorum and his question -- "Leno or Conan?" His answer? "Probably Leno." So let me get this straight - he hates gays, supports torture, AND picks Leno over Conan? I think we just hit rock bottom.

Romney is called out on a piece he wrote in '08 citing potential auto bailouts as death for the auto industry and the fact that since the bailouts actually happened, General Motors and Chrysler have both rebounded. He was right when he said it was a 17 billion dollar burden on American taxpayers that shouldn't have come to fruition, but clearly it wasn't the end of the auto industry. His statements were misdirected, but rather than cop to that fact or propose what would have been a better alternative, he stubbornly insists he wasn't wrong.

There was talk about TARP; Santorum and Bachmann fought against it. Cain supported it initially as a businessman, but disagrees with how the funds were distributed by the Administration(s). A lot of agreement here as was the case for most of the night. This debate was mostly about going after Obama. Candidates didn't really take each other on, which is unfortunate.

Question for Gingrich - "Dancing with the Stars or American Idol?" I'm probably not the only one, but I LOL'd when, without hesitation, he firmly fired back with "American Idol." I wonder if he voted for Sanjaya? After a commercial break, Paul was asked to choose between the iPhone and the Blackberry. I'm about 90% sure Ron Paul doesn't have the foggiest idea what these contraptions are.

The subject of Newt's initial criticism of the Paul Ryan plan (he called it "Right-wing social engineering.") and insta flip-flop only days later after criticism from mainstream conservatives was raised, and I just have to say... it's really a shame he backed down like that. Sure, you don't want to alienate your party during primary season, but his initial appraisal of the plan was accurate, and the whole situation has killed his campaign. It's too bad really; if you can get past the random acts of buffoonery and the fact that he wasted taxpayer dollars going after Bill Clinton, he has a good idea or two.

And thanks to the magic of DVR, I can pause here and go grab a giant, grease-laden burrito from one of Ray Beto's fine dining establishments (you can never say I hate illegal immigrants). Stay tuned for my thoughts on hour two, and welcome to the blog!