“President Bush signed into law a bill that... seeks to [ban] online poker and other forms of gambling.”
You bastard. You scum. How could you? How could you think that banning online poker was the proper, American thing to do? You barf-licker. You douchebox. You twerp! How many ways can I say it? You suck. You blow. I can keep going. You prick! I've got the time. I've got the space.
I love online poker! I play online several times a week. It's one of my favorite things in the universe, next to beer pong. And, oh, how it scorches my innards to know that once again the watchdogs of morality have stripped me of an activity I adore.
According to Forbes.com, “Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist tacked the [gambling] measure onto a port security bill in the final minutes before Congress recessed before the elections. The bill was passed by a vote of 409 to 2.”
You creep! You fiend! You snuck it through? You lowlife. You slime. You consumer of barnyard porn! At the last minute, you tacked the gambling measure on to an anti-terrorism bill knowing full well that any congressman who voted against it would be lobbing a meatball to enemy political-attack-ad makers:
The camera zooms in on a terrorist planting a bomb in a cargo container while a dark-voiced political-attack-ad narrator says in his dark, attack-ad-narrator voice, “Congressman X voted against the port security bill. That's because Congressman X wants the babies to die. Save babies-vote Congressman Y. (Paid for by Americans Who Don't Want the Babies to Die.)”
These weasels! These ass-jackals. These dirty birds.
Frist states three reasons for the anti-poker measure: protect the gambling addicted from ruining their lives, abate the negative social impact and, of course, protect the children.
It's amazing the miles of justification you can still get out of saying, “for the children.” It's such a tired justification that it has even become cliché to bag on how tired it is.
As for, “protect the gambling addicted” and “negative social impact”-what are you, an eejit?! If I am truly a gambling addict (actually, I'm borderline), then I have no choice but to seek other gambling options. And since garage games are difficult to assemble, the anti-online law forces me play the casinos, where I will easily spend 10 times more money than if I could just log on and play at home. Retard! Nincompoop!
Online, I usually play the $5, no-limit table. Five dollars will easily last me an hour or two. I can even buy in for as little as $1. Online, I rarely spend more than five bucks on any given night. Not so in a casino. I play at Pechanga (one of the cheaper joints), where the lowest no-limit buy-in is $40. If you get a couple of bad beats, you could easily be down $120 before the first hour is up. Factor in gas, dinner, booze and blow. Then there is the Pechangover the next day to consider (always much worse than your typical hangover), which means decreased productivity, poorer workmanship-none of which is any good for society, the gambler or my kid's college fund (the children, the children!).
You brain-canker. You dicksore. You boil on the ass of all that is right and good.
The bill, Forbes adds, outlaws “credit-card and money-transfer companies from accepting payments to gambling websites.... Exceptions have been made for online horse wagering and state lotteries.”
It's no wonder Frist, a conservative Republican, had to backdoor this thing through Congress. He knew it would never withstand the scrutiny of public debate. The talking points are so obvious they're hardly worth mentioning:
Like what a huge step it is toward a Big Brotherocracy, since the banks are required to regulate credit-card transactions thereby turning bankers into-egads!-policemen.
Like that conservatives are supposed to reject excessive government intrusion.
Like that you're never gonna stop online gambling. Newer poker sites and banking sites have already figured ways around the law while the current sites that haven't are going under. Bottom line, Frist's bill is just a redistribution of the wealth-another ideal that is supposed to offend conservatives.
Like the glaring hypocrisy of exempting horse betting and state lotteries, especially when studies have shown lotteries to be among the most addictive forms of gambling. And isn't horse betting equally potentially harmful to the addicted, and the children?
Like that America has a long history of favoring one type of gambling over another, which means it's really not about gambling at all. It's about game preference.
Like that whatever it is, whatever activity or pastime you can think of, there is someone who might become addicted to it. I'd bet dollars to dog biscuits that somewhere out there, right now, someone is on a four-day knitting binge, strung out on Red Bull and blue yarn, not sleeping or eating.
Like that anything can be potentially harmful. I'd bet Hummers to Hondas that somewhere out there, at this moment, somebody is accidentally plunging a knitting needle into some poor kid's eye.
Oh, the children!
Or like that it's all a gamble: horses, Lotto, the stock market, even opening a goddamned coffee shop is a crazy goddamned gamble.
Whether it's a gamble, addictive or potentially harmful, everything in the universe falls under one or two or all three of those categories, so we'd better start banning them: alcohol, caffeine, tobacco, the Internet, television, music, exercise, reading, swimming, flying, snowboarding, beer pong, eating, rowing, fucking, performing rescue operations, running, walking, skipping, singing, jumping, drinking, not drinking, working, not working, trick or treating, chess (yes chess), candy, French fries, wine, flipping baseball cards, operating a lemonade stand, disc golf, playing football, watching football, telling lies, telling the truth, driving, biking, sailing, writing, climbing, fishing-I can go on. I've got time. I've got space.
Reminder: Barzilla Book Release Party on Nov. 15 @ Winston's, 1921 Bacon St., Ocean Beach, 619-222-3802. E-mail ed@edwin
decker.com and editor@SDcitybeat.com.