My thoughts for Hillary Cinton as President
Internet Gaming Laws
Poker player Annie Duke goes to Washington
The Jena 6 - my thoughts
Do you know that the USA needs?
MY THOUGHTS FOR HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT
First off, if anyone thinks that she would make a good President, you're joking right?? While I have nothing against a woman as President - it's just not the right time and even if it was, it shouldn't be her. You all know that she only ran for Senator of New York as a catapolt to try for Presidency. She was senator for only 1 term and she's done nothing for the state of New York. Oh wow, she's got virtually every woman following her. But seriously, name me 3 things that she's done FOR the state of New York - YOU CAN'T!!! She's a lame duck Senator that's only out for herself. She doesn't care about New York or the citizens of the USA.
As for overseas relationships - you think things are bad now, just wait! How many countries don't even respect women? Let's count them shall we - Korea (who by the have nuclear weapons now), Japan, most of China, Russia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia & Pakistan and that's just to name a few. Most, if not all of these countries won't even talk to her if she's President. If they won't even talk to her then the relations would go down hill - not that they are good anyway. In a sense, you can see my point right?
INTERNET GAMING LAWS
My big Argument is simple. If we all accept that poker can be addicting for a minute, then why do stores sell us alcohol for private consumption at home. Same thing isn't it. We'll call bars that serve alcohol the casinos. Both are legal to do. Yet the Government wants to keep US citizens from playing online poker. Some argue that its addicting and bad. Well Stores sell the alcohol that we take home and use at home. So what if the Government one day said 5% of US citizens have a problem with alcohol abuse and 80% of all deaths related to Alcohol are from store bought and private parties. Then they decide its ok to drink at a bar (CASINO) but your not allowed to buy alcohol and supply it in your home any more (INTERNET). How many outraged citizens would we have if we were all told because of a few people we can no longer have that right.
Why do we need the Government all over this? Just like Why do we feel the need to have Schools raise our children. I dont get the society that as parents go into a school when theres a problem and want to know what the school is doing about it. On issues that should be delt with at home and not in a class room. As a society we have accepted that the government or other large institutions need to "Step in" and take care of our lives. What ever happened to RESPONSIBILITY?
I had a friend once tell me that they were glad to hear that the government finally stepped in to stop people that cant control themselves and lose their house and lifesavings because of internet gambling. I am not going to say any names but this person works in a field that saw people lose their homes literally cause of problems like online gambling, drugs or alcoholism.
Sure its sad to hear that, but what I don't understand is why and when did we ever need the Government to step in and take on the roll of family and friends. Isn't that person that had the gambling problem responsible not the online casino, Aren't we as the fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, siblings, and friends have a responsibilty to those that we see with warning signs of having a problem whether it be alcohol, drugs, eating disorters or gambling. My point is with the argument is why do we as a whole need to suffer for the actions of a few and why cant we take more responsibilty in helping out our friends with addiction and less wanting the government to forcefully control it? Why can't we be better people? Why can't we blame ourselves?
ANNIE DUKE GOES TO WASHINGTON
The following are pieces of an article I got from a pro poker site, Kickasspoker.com. I expecially love the ending. These are the law makers and the voices we elect into power. This is dated from Sunday November 18th 2007.
"Did you hear that there was a hearing in Congress this past week about Internet gambling? The hearing was called by the head of the Judiciary Committee, John Conyers (D-MI), and its intent was to look into allegations that last year's UIGEA (Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act) was an example, more or less, of bad law. Despite the fact that the hearing received very little advance press, both sides brought out an array of their heavy hitters in an attempt to get their thoughts on the matter before Congress.
When all was said and done, the hearing provided several signature moments. Department of Justice official Katherine Hanaway was forced to place herself in a verbal Catch-22 regarding the legality of online poker (short version: it is); a representative of the Family Research Council was more or less outed as being a fringe element, and out of a strong lineup of prominent voices testifying on behalf of online gambling, it was Annie Duke who received some of the highest marks. While often a lightning rod for comments from other players and fans, the outspoken Duke has been one of the loudest public voices in efforts made against the UIGEA. Duke spoke as a representative of the Poker Players Alliance.
Duke cited, among other arguments, the concern over civil-liberties violations: "Having the right to continue to pursue my profession, wherever I might choose to pursue it, is very important to me from both a financial standpoint, but also from the broader perspective of freedom, personal responsibility and civil liberties."
Duke had plenty of support on her side of the argument, of course. Among those also testifying from a general "pro-gambling" viewpoint were Congressman Shelley Berkley (D-NV), who as a legislator from a pro-gambling state railed against the hypocritical, discriminatory nature of the UIGEA, and Michael Colopy of Aristotle, Inc., a leading designer of software algorithms designed, among other things, to prevent underage play. Colopy testified about the capabilities of modern identity-verification software, indirectly contradicting the lines often peddled by anti-gambling fanatics about underage players running rampant with their parents' credit cards were likely unfounded. (Again, the short version: The technology to effectively block the vast majority of underage players not only already exists, but if sites were properly regulated, it would most certainly be used.)
In a similar way, Joseph Heiler, from New York University's Hauser Global Law School, gave expert testimony on how badly the UIGEA serves the U.S.'s international trade responsibilities; not only is the U.S. already in violation, as was determined in the WTO decision with Antigua, the UIGEA flagrantly compounds the problem. He noted that the U.S.'s announced plan to withdraw its WTO commitments regarding the gambling sector was a dangerous precedent, in that it gave all other countries (notably China) good cause to similarly ignore international trade judgments.
Perhaps the best moments, though, were those offered from the other side. Rep. Bob Goodlatte was on hand for another of his surreal outbursts. As picked up by several outlets, Goodlatte declared that there was no wagering in fantasy sports and that's why America's youths are allowed to participate in it. In what, fantasy sports? Sports in general? Another great Goodlatte moment occurred when he stated that the U.S. never intended to included online gambling as part of its WTO obligations, despite ample evidence to the contrary. This revisionist history is the party line that's been spouted by the U.S. Trade Representative throughout the entire WTO process.
Hands down, though, the best moments went to Bob McClusky, the Family Research Council's vice president of governmental affairs. A solid piece of Salon.com replayed this exchange between McClusky and Rep. Steve Cohen:
COHEN: Do you think that horse racing and dog racing and lotteries should be legal in the United States?
MCCLUSKY: Are you asking me?
COHEN: Yes, you personally.
MCCLUSKY: The Family Research Council does believe that such things should be illegal.
COHEN: So it is really not the Internet you are against. It is gambling in general. Is that right?
MCCLUSKY: Yes, that would be true, or at least unrestricted gambling such as we have with the Internet or other.
COHEN: But the lottery is restricted. You can't play if you are a child. Same thing with horse racing. But you are against that, are you not?
MCCLUSKY: Yes.
COHEN: So restricted or unrestricted, you are against it?
MCCLUSKY: Yes.
COHEN: Is there any fun that you are for?
That says it all, doesn't it?
THE JENA 6 - MY THOUGHTS
For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to the "Jena 6" let me set the scenario for ya: In Jena, Louisiana at the Jena High School, there is a lot of racial tension. Anyways, a black student was sitting under a tree when a white student came over and said something to the fact that "this is a white tree". Racial tensions heated up and the white student called the black student 'nigger'. More racial tensions heated up and the white student ended up getting assaulted by a total of 6 black students.
The white student survived the attack and the 6 black students were arrested - 1 has already been found guilty but not sentenced at the time of this writing. The Reverand Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and a few other people organized a march in protest asking for the release of the "Jena 6". Their main 'march phrase' was "Hey hey ho ho rasicism has got to go" which is fine.
The problem I have is: why should these 6 people be released? They assaulted a student... granted the white student was in the wrong, but so was every single black student. These students acted criminally and should be sentenced to serve some type of time. Am I standing up for the white student because I am white? No! Am I turning this into a black/white thing? No!
Let's just flip this around for a moment shall we? Let's just say that the tree was a "black tree" and 6 white students assaulted 1 black student. I will still stand my point that the 6 students acted criminally and should serve time while Al Sharpton & others would be calling for every single one of the white student's heads served to them on a platter! This is what's called a racial double standard in the country and in every case, it's wrong but yet we put up with this day after day. Yes I agree that rasicism has got to go - but this is not the way to make that happen!
DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE USA NEEDS?
Now that I got your interest :) The one thing that the USA needs right now is a good old fashioned serial killer. Yes you read that right - A SERIAL KILLER. Not one that kills kids of course like John Wayne Gacy... but one that kills just randomly - striking fear in not only thier city but across America... one that is on the news almost nightly.
However, this new serial killer must not only kill at random but the murders have to be abolutely bloody or dismember bodies - something like what Ed Gein did or maybe have someone like a Richard Ramirez (Night Stalker) or Albert DeSalvo (Boston Strangler) or fuck, a mad-cult leader like Charles Manson ordering killings... but there has to be two conditions - don't just concentrate on just women or just men or just blondes - or just any certain group - have to be total random - no adult is safe... a total phsychopath - one that drives the police & FBI absolutely crazy... the other condition is that the body count must be over 10... what would help is that this killer leaves clues or in a way, taunts the media & police - something like what the Zodiac Killer did...
Now, I'm not condoning violence or mass muredering - but something like this would definately break up the monatny (sp) of the evening news instead of the old mundane Iraqi War, Gas Prices, Dow Jones, etc etc etc bullshit bullshit bullshit - at least now you would have some excitment to watch for - "how many more have been killed", "What's the new clue?" or "did they catch this person yet?" etc...
Yes I DO have a sick mind - but this is shit that I think of when I'm driving long distances by myself... but hey, I'm just looking for some excitment & entertainment :)