Wednesday, April 05, 2006


I have 2 little things that popped up randomly today that I wanted to write blogs on. I figured I might just as well do them both.

BLOG 1: Wanna Bet?

A bill currently being debated in a Committee in Congress is the “Internet Gambling Prohibition Act.” This act would make transferring money via credit card, checks or electronic transfer illegal while enabling law enforcement with tools to restrict access to the site completely. This is by far one of the most shocking and disturbing laws I’ve heard about in a long time. Just when you thought Republiturds couldn’t possibly get any Holier than Thou, it turns out at least a few of them recently had some extra Holy Water shoved up their asses.

I am hoping that this is merely an election year gimmick by certain members of Congress to reach out to their core constituencies: the Ultra-Conservative Christians that think being a good Christian is telling everybody else what the fuck to do and hating them in return if they don’t do it. That’s my hope. I’m fairly comfortable with the idea that this proposal has no legs. Besides the previously mentioned faux-Christians, this bill would also be heavily supported by Indian tribes with gaming interests. I can at least understand that. But I doubt they have enough pull to really sway passage one way or the other.

First off, of all the things that are illegal right now, the first 2 things I would legalize under government control would be sports gambling and poker (for those playing at home, things 3, 4 and 5 would be pot, prostitution and removing mattress tags). I understand the sentiment that government control would essentially lead to chaos and a certain doom of the program. I’m a little more optimistic than that. I think with proper regulation, these sorts of things would work. We’re not talking about drug benefits here. They would be relatively low maintenance operations.

Next, as most of you know, I love me some gambling, so I’m automatically biased on this one. But the question is this: what in the hell is on-line poker and sports betting doing to society that it must be stopped? Has there been a startling increase in on-line crime at homes where there is on-line gambling? Do homes that partake in on-line gambling attract other illegal activities like on-line prostitutes and on-line drugs? You see, there isn’t a single rationale other than some faux-Christians not thinking it’s virtuous so now we all have to be miserable and self-righteous. Again, Indian gamers supporting this, I get. I also understand, to a lesser degree, the idea that these sites aren’t being taxed, so the government is losing money. That’s a shame, but it’s not an excuse to kill the sites.

For the record, I understand that some people get in deep debt through the on-line gambling, but we still have alcohol and more people have more problems with that.

Lastly, any Representative that has ever supported a Lottery or Horse Racing in his home state and votes in favor of this obvious infringement on the privacy and rights of other Americans is a total and unbelievable hypocrite. Playing the Lotto is no less stupid or gambling than playing poker. Betting on horse races is no less risky or stupid than betting on a football game. And these are 2 heavily regulated gambling activities that do worlds of good for the states in which they are legal. You think people would stop playing poker if the government took 10 cents from every hand played? You think the poker halls wouldn’t still be able to take their piece? You think people wouldn’t place a bet on their favorite team if the government took 25 cent off that bet, along with the bookie’s standard vig? YOU’RE CRAZY if you don’t think any of those things wouldn’t work. And I feel bad for you if you don’t think that passage of this bill wouldn’t be yet another example of the faux-Christians trying to revert the United States pack to the 1950’s.

BLOG 2: Kids say the darndest things!

I got this from the White House Briefing on the
Dave Goldiner writes in the New York Daily News: "A new online poll conducted by Scholastic magazine says more than 80% of kids don't want to be the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth.
"Amazingly, that's a nearly total flip from 2004, when 75% of the elementary and middle school children did want to rule the roost from the White House. . . .
"Scholastic editors say they have no idea why kids' opinions have changed so dramatically about the nation's top job. They don't necessarily believe it is linked to President Bush's growing unpopularity."
So what’s going on there? If they don’t think it’s linked to the Village Idiots unpopularity, they’re not trying to figure out the problem very hard. Get on board the Paul Logic Train!
The Village Idiot’s approval rating is around 38%, which means 62% don’t think he’s doing a good job. Of the people that support him, and unbelievable majority are from his own party. The above survey is of young kids, who you would assume have relatively young parents. Common thought says you get more conservative as you get older. That means the parents of these kids are slightly more likely to disapprove of the job the president’s doing. These kids are going to hear their parents talk about what a complete buffoon the Village Idiot is. They are probably more likely to associate the buffoonery with the general term “The President” than realizing it is an isolated incident directly related to the Idiot we have in power now. They want their parents to be proud of them and certainly don’t want their parents to think they’re idiots. Therefore, they’re going to shy away from a job which their parents associate with an Idiot (actually THEE Idiot). BOOM! 80% of kids don’t’ want to be president. Factor in the 2004 numbers were likely inflated due to the fact that it was an election year, which is exciting and would glamorize the postion.

In reality, I think a fairer question would be to let the kids know in advance that they don’t necessarily have to be THIS president. In fact, it should definitely be discouraged.