Unleash Hell

"Find them, bind them, tie them to a pole and break
their fingers to splinters, drag them to a hole until they wake up naked --
clawing at the ceiling of their graves"

November 18, 2006 may lack the historical import of November 7, 2006, but the battles that will be waged tomorrow will be no less fierce, the combatants no less determined.
Just as good stomped evil two Tuesdays ago, tomorrow promises to a joyous day for white hats. The #2 Wolverines, with their fearsome front seven and top playmakers, will shock top-ranked Ohio State. The Buckeyes haven't played an offense with so many skilled players all year (their win at overrated Texas came before the emergence of prodigy Colt McCoy). And they won't be able to dominate the line of scrimmage. In possibly the biggest game in the history of this great rivalry, Big Blue will win it for Bo.

The nightcap will see the Bears maul the hated Trojans, thus delivering a double death blow to our favorite spoiled retarded right-wing OC babies. Last week, the Bears lost a heartbreaking fluke of a game in which every bad call and bounce of the ball went against them. It won't happen again. The Trojans woke up after their loss to Oregon State but the Bears will make two or three big plays that will break the back of the boys from Troy. Look out for USC cheerleader retardation after DeSean Jackson runs one back in the 4th. Also, good job Stewart Mandel.

My review of a movie entitled The Science of Sleep

Quit crying, you whiny-ass duckface.

Achtung baby

I've long been fascinated with that period during which a particular culture is on the cusp of extinction, holding on for dear life as the inevitable tide of history is set to wash over it. A culture's death rattle, I call it. That's at the core of my romanticization of Weimar Berlin, which, along with Paris in the Sixties, NYC during the Jazz Age, and Shanghai before the revolution, rests in my imagination as a place out of time, pausing to party before the horror erupted. And it was quite a party. The myth of Berlin in the 20s is a magical city where you swig whisky at a cabaret while chatting with Walter Benjamin about Proust. Art, sex, and ideas flourished, as did crime, poverty, and discontent. The underlying reality was something much uglier, with the gruesome paintings of George Grosz prefiguring the totalitarian "solution" to come.

I'll be setting foot in Berlin in nine days. From what I've heard and read, Berlin today is a city fueled by intense creative energy and yet paralyzed by inertia. Designers and artists have flocked to East Berlin for the cheap housing and bohemian vibe. Dance clubs rage until dawn and exquisitely designed boutiques line the streets. Yet unemployment remains high in East Berlin. As in the 20s, Berlin is again an artist paradise beset by structural economic problems. (Thankfully, on the whole the German economy is fine shape, so we won't likely see a significant Fascist re-emergence.)


In any case, I'll be in Europe for ten days. If anyone has any recommendations on where to go in Berlin, or surrounding areas, please drop a comment. And if anyone can help me out on my Prague v. Vienna v. Budapest dilemma, I'd appreciated it.

Alternative theory on the poker ban (updated)

I usually think the simplest explanation is best, but the following idea is less reliant on Frist being evil incarnate and seems to make a bit more sense. News reports are surfacing that the American-based casino and World of Series of Poker owner Harrah's has been approached with a buy out by a private investment group. On 2+2, there've been suggestions that the buy-out is contingent on the online gaming ban going through. The ultimate plan is for Harrah's to begin buying out smaller online poker sites in an effort to gain entry for the inevitable legalization/regulation of online gaming.

Before you dismiss this as too fanciful, consider the facts: Harrah's, which has no presence in Tennessee, nonetheless gave Frist a crapload of money through the years, and so should have a direct pipeline to the kitten killer's chambers. I can't imagine Frist pulling a parliamentary maneuver like this to sabotage one of his biggest contributors. So assume Harrah's is benefiting from this legislation. Then there this article, which hints that PartyGaming and smaller off-shore sites may be gobbled up by American companies. Why would American companies take over an industry completely crippled by legislation?

You can see where I'm headed. But I'm not actually gonna get there and say that the online gaming ban is an elaborate conspiracy cooked up by Frist and Harrah's in order to devalue PartyGaming et al. for an American takeover. I do think, though, given these facts, that somebody had a strong financial interest in getting this bill passed. And Frist did that "somebody's" bidding.

Conspiracy theories are often rationalizations for people who fear a world without pattern or meaning, which is why I don't usually buy them. They're too neat. I'm not sure there's a neat explanation, but I have to think someone's gonna make out with some money here. In politics, something is done: (1) to benefit a preferred interest group; (2) for political advantage; or far less frequently, (3) because it's in the public interest. Almost every piece of legislation passed by Congress will fit into those three boxes, usually the first two. On its face, the online poker ban meets none of the criteria. If Frist wanted to stoked the fundie base, there are many more hot button issues that would do a better job. It can't be for political advantage, since this was snuck into the port protection bill with almost no publicity -- the Republicans did not want to publicize this. And this bill won't really stop online gambling the way it's written or generate tax revenue.

Billion-dollar business are also assumed to be rational actors. And what most arouses my curiousity is this strange immediate surrender of PartyGaming, which has the most at stake here. They're cutting off American customers without a fight. Considering how difficult it will be to enforce this legislation, it's not clear why Party Gaming would concede hundreds of millions in profits annually without so much as a whimper. You would think they'd want to wait-and-see or threaten litigation or something.

Something's going on here. Somebody must be making out here. But whom? How about the American casinos, who may have figured that the short-term increases in poker/gambling addicts outweigh the long-term danger of a growing online competition. They want to snuff it out before it gets any bigger. Or they might want to gain entry into the marketplace on the cheap, which would happen if the legislation turns out toothless or if subsequent legislation legalizes and heavily regulates online gambling. This pattern apparently occurred in Italy, where a brief ban was lifted in favor of a regulatory scheme. There, though, the online casinos fought. Why wouldn't PartyGaming fight here, when the entire viability of their business may be at stake?

Party's behavior doesn't make sense unless something has already been worked out. Harrah's getting bought-out, and is tight with the Senate Majority Leader. Are Party and Harrah's linked somehow? Or maybe Party's announcing a pull-out from the US to show prudence to shareholders, but then will buy out the outstanding shares and become closely-held again so that they can resume the risk of taking US players?

Who knows. I'm confused. In trying to synthesize the more plausible ideas and germane data points posted on 2+2, especially the ones posted in this thread, into something like a coherent political narrative, I'm hoping to make some sense of this situation. But it assumes that, given the amount of money involved, all the participants have to be fairly rational actors and have either expected or at least have some plan in place for this contingency. The alternative, obvious explanation is that Party is just as idiotic as they appear, Frist is demagoguing, and Harrah's is just an innocent bystander to the whole thing. This time, for once, the latter seems more far-fetched to me.

Update: Theory has found support in the media! Both MSNBC and the London Telegraph have articles offering the same type of explanation, that this bill is likely aimed to help American casinos by driving out the existing infrastructure as we move towards eventual regulation of online gaming. Also, this theory from a poster on 2+2 seems somewhat plausible, if overextended.

slight correction and apology

In the vulgar post immediately below, I called the Republican Party "douchebags." I apologize. Douchebags, of course, can be useful, though the perceived benefits are disputed according to Wikipedia. In any case, I won't besmirch the good and fine douchebag users and manufacturers by comparing them to the Republican Party, who are more like genital warts, unhealthy, unsightly blights with no possible benefit to society.

As if (updated)

there is another reason to hate the fucking Republican Party, the evil, incompetent, hypocritical douchebags that they are.

These fuckers snuck in language banning online gaming into the port security bill. The leading poker site, Party Poker, has just announced that it will not allow US players to play money games. Poker Stars, the second biggest site, is expected to follow suit. For more, check out the threads here.

Thanks Bill Frist, you maggot-brained, money-grubbing, insider-trading, TV-diagnosing, moron pandering, sheep-fucking turd.

It's pretty trivial compared to, say, squandering billions of dollars, causing tens of thousands of people to die, ignoring environmental disaster, etc. But I guess this one stings me personally more than most. Whatever the case, can we get these fucking bitches out of power? Now?

Also, PartyGaming, you dumb fucks. You have billions of dollars and a motivated base of people. You guys are printing money. Your opponents, the religious right, regard this as a low-intensity issue. How in the fuck did you get gamed by Bill fricking Frist, a man who can be outmaneuvered by a cement block? Nice way to squander billions of dollars.

Update: This write-up by Bloomberg is the most comprehensive article on the legislation that I can find thus far.

Burning the Constitution

Five years down the line, people will look back on the last two weeks and the passage of the Right of the President to Detain and Torture Whomever He Pleases Act and shudder at what could have been if it had not been repealed two years later. Or we'll look back and take note of the delicious irony that this bill, so ardently championed by the far right, legally justified President Hillary Rodham Clinton's order to round up a number of fringe right-wing militia members and detain them indefinitely. Don't believe me? Check out the frightening analysis from one of the country's foremost constitutional scholars, Bruce Ackerman. We're slouching towards fascism, one compromise at a time.

For more, check out Sully or Greenwald. Here's Sullivan's take:

How do I put this in words as clearly as possible. If the U.S. government decides, for reasons of its own, that you are an "illegal enemy combatant," i.e. that you are someone who

"has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States,"

they can detain you without charges indefinitely, granting you no legal recourse except to a military tribunal, and, under the proposed bill, "disappear" and torture you. This is not just restricted to aliens or foreigners, but applies to U.S. citizens as well. It can happen anywhere in the U.S. at any time. We are all at potential risk.

As for the way the Dems played it politically, I'm not confident in taking a stand. Kevin Drum, not a reflexively confrontational guy, thinks the Dems blew it. Liberal stalwarts like Ohio Senate hopeful Sherrod Brown have disappointed the rank & file by voting for this odious bill. It's dispiriting, but I see the rationale of appeasers like Brown: win back control of one or the other chamber and the days of Bush/Rove's power-grabbing are over. Vote against this bill now and immediately you'll be faced with a flurry of ads accusing you of putting "the rights of terrorists above the security of the American people." Is the fear of getting "Max Clelandized" justified? Polling data from the beginning of time has shown American people don't go to bat for abstract rights. Majorities are perfectly willing to sell out constitutional guaranteed principles if they don't think it applies to them (separation of church and state, Fourth Amendment rights). Having waged highly successful campaigns attacking Democrats' concern for "rights of criminals," the Republicans understand the American mentality very well. Until white, middle class Christians get detained for no good reason by authorities, the GOP can always cast their attack on civil liberties and the Bill of Rights as a battle between middle America and unpopular groups. Vulnerable GOoPers are already charging that Dems care more about the rights of terrorists and illegal immigrants than the security of the American people. Given this context, I'm not sure it's entirely wrong to try to avoid a political battle where you put all your chips on the enduring need for the writ of habeas corpus.

On the other side, this is a crushing degree of cowardice. We have the values of the country at stake here. And one reason the Democrats have been losing election after election is their habitual fear of being outplayed by Republicans. The Democrats, in poker parlance, play weak-tight. Always on the defense, the quivering Democrats play their cards with the assumption that Republicans are holding the stronger hand. Instead of taking control of the table, they will meekly call a couple of bets before folding. They don't play up Bush's failure and lack of effort in catching bin Laden for fear that Karl Rove will pull Osama's decapitated out in an October surprise. They don't want to come out against the trampling of the Constitution for fear of being tagged weak on security or "more concerned with the rights of terrorists." Only when they're holding a monster hand will they start playing aggressively.

Actually, weak-tight dudes are often winning players, but they're easily manipulated by good aggressive players, who are the ones taking control of the pot and the betting. And to be fair, the Democrats have been trying to control the debate a little more. Bill Clinton's Fox News outburst and the party's ever-mounting attacks on the Iraq debacle are two hands that are being played right -- or at least aggressively. But overall the Democrats are still folding the best hand way too much.

In this instance, I'm not sure pocket 7s is a hand you want to reraise with. But when you see the player fold good hand after good hand to big bets, you kinda start hoping that player will make a stand somewhere. Maybe on the very next hand the Dems will pick up pocket aces and trap the Repugs for all their chips, but being a poker player myself, I wouldn't bet on it.