John Has An Interesting Point

So, John was up in Janesville this past weekend and, as we are wont to do, we were discussing topics that are current in today's political climate. We avoided the unimportant (Israel v. Huzbulleh) and the mundane (the relative merits of George W. Bush as the leader of the free world) and went straight to topics that are important to every youngish-middlish-aged males - internet gambling.

If you are unaware, and I may (or may not) have pointed this out before, the state of Washington has already passed, and the US Congress is about to pass, a bill that would ban "internet gambling." Basically, they want to ban online poker. I think my last post on this topic discussed the hypocrisy of those who proposed the bills (namely politicians from Iowa and Pennsylvania) rather than the actual content of the bill. I posited that it seemed a bit disingenuous for a politician from Iowa to propose a bill that would ban online gambling when his own state contained no fewer than 17 casinos. It seems that if you were really concerned about the societal ills of gambling, the best place to start would be the casinos within your own control, namely, those in your own jurisdiction. Instead, the politicians are reaching beyond their jurisdiction to posture in a place they can't possibly hope to control to try to gain popular (read: middle-america republican) support in an election year. As a side note (do my postings ever contain anything other than a series of "side notes"???) I would be curious to know how many of those middle-american republicans make their annual trek to Las Vegas or the Mississippi riverboats to blow their hard-earned nickles on quarter slots.

Which, leads to John's point. He posits the question: why would a politician oppose such a bill? There's virtually no political down-side in supporting it. Those who are in favor of internet gambling (and those constituents who would be "against" the bill) know it could never be enforced from a practical standpoint, thus are unlikely to care whether it actually passes or not because it will not change their activity (this is sort of like "illegal" downloading of music - despite the fact that it is "illegal" people continue to do it because it is practically impossible to enforce). Those against internet gambling would like to see such a bill and a politician could gain political capital by supporting it. Thus, a politician would not see any repurcussions from supporting it; the opposition just doesn't care enough - and it's not like there's a "pro-online-gambling" political action committee to stand up for the rights of the casual online poker player (like me - to date I have lost a grand total of $10).

My argument, half-drunk and not well-thought out, is that we, in our position as "member of a free society" and politicians as our representatives should oppose the legislation on basic principles of our democratic and free society. It seems only a little strange that a nation that is in the midst of a war that would put Russia's conquest to turn Asia communist to shame, in the same breath that supports and extolls the virtues of democracy and freedom, is invading the dens and living rooms and computer rooms and bedrooms of its own people to ban them from activity conducted there. In other words, the legislation enforces the very opposite of personal freedom. So, it seems a little disignenuous to "free" the Iraqis when reducing the freedom of your own citizens. Thus, any congress-critter that voted for, or has expressed a support for, the mission of freedom (if not the invasion) in Iraq is a hypocrite if they vote for this legislation.

I'm not suggesting that Congress does not have the power or ability to regulate online gambling. Of course they do. I'm suggesting instead that if Congress doesn't want online gambling, that it ban the establishment of online casinos in the United States. The online casinos are still free to set up outside the borders of the United States. But it seems only a little hypocritical and fascist to tell "free" citizens what websites they can visit and what activities they can and cannot perform in the privacy of their own homes. Yes, they already do this: you can't view child porn at home (but that affects more than just the individual viewing because the very act of producing it is degrading and there is strong public policy against child pornography - and while the congresspeople would argue that public policy militates against gambling, I would argue that it's not nearly as strong of a public policy, because we do, in fact, allow some gambling, just not online gambling - we do not allow "live child pornography" while banning "online child pornography"), you can't send email spam (again, it affects more than just the person sending, because it also affects the person receiving), and you can't have anal sex in Georgia (would somebody care to tell me the last time this was actually enforced? Thus, it is a similar, toothless, silly policy that may as well not exist).

In any event, we, as people, should oppose the legislation not because we are in favor of online gambling (most of us don't really care one way or the other about online gambling), but because we value our freedom. One of these days perhaps I'll write something about how George W. Bush and his neo-conservative republican cronies are eroding any base that they may have had outside of the "religious right" by insisting on controlling, invasive, and hypocritical politics.

Chris Zorich

Because not all of you read my other blog, I'd figure I'd cross post this and add a little to it, because it's just too god-damn weird.

OK, from the realm of "ridiculous." I've had this Bears' jersey for years. I bought it in probably 1996 or so when John and I went to Chicago. Bought at the discount rack at Sports Authority on LaSalle at Ohio (or thereabouts). It's a Chris Zorich jersey. Who's Chris Zorich? Well, ummm...not what I thought. First, a quick run-down: he played football at Notre Dame (Defensive Lineman) and was drafted by the Chicago Bears. When he played he was pretty damn good. Unfortunately, he spent a lot of time injured and by 1997 he was out of football (he retired with the Redskins). I can't seem to find anything that says why, but I seem to remember he had nagging injuries and was considered a bit of a "mercurial" attitude.

I remembered him being really good, which is why I had bought the jersey and at the time, it was hoped he would still be able to play. He wasn't and he seemed to fall off the earth.

In any event, I wear the jersey on occassion because at this point it's got kind of an "old school" charm. Little did I know that the "charm" would be in full effect today. We were walking back from the Wicker Park Festival (it was raining, after Brothers Past) on Milwaukee to get a cab. As we were walking we hear "hey, you! stop!" I turned around and saw this huge bouncer-looking dude running at me from across the street. So, I kept walking (people in Chicago are crazy, I'm not stopping!). But, he was persistent and kept yelling to stop. So, I stopped. And here's the conversation that transpired.

him: "Hey, thanks for stopping."
me: "Sure"
him: "Where did you get that jersey?"
me: "I don't know, I've had it for years. I got it back in 96 or so."
him: "really? well. I just wanted to say 'thanks for wearing that jersey."
me: "huh?"
him: "Thanks for wearing that jersey, I really appreciate it."
me: "Ummm... no problem dude."

He shook my hand, and I shook his and we both went our separate ways. It all happened rather quickly and I wasn't really sure what the hell was going on. We walked away and it occurred to me: "Holy crap. That was Chris Zorich."

So, now my curiosity is peaked. I wonder "what the hell happened to Chris Zorich that he's now a bouncer at some random bar in Wicker Park?" Turns out ... he's not exactly a bouncer.

Here's the deal with Chris Zorich. Since leaving football he's been a little busy. He's running the Christopher Zorich Foundation. From his dress when I saw him, I can only guess that he was doing some work on behalf of the foundation when I saw him (he had work-gloves). He's also an attorney with Schuyler, Roche, and Zwirner in Chicago. So, go check out his Foundation's website; if you're feeling generous, donate your time or money.

I only wish I had known all of this when I met Mr. Zorich on the street. I have a zillion questions that I would have asked him.

Proof That Lawyers and Government Don't Mix

Seen on www.uspto.gov today, an actual committee that's supposed to accomplish something:

Provisional Committee for Consideration of Proposals Relating to a Development Agenda for WIPO (PCDA)

Unpack that one. So, this is a temporary group of people ("provisional committee") covened for the purpose of thinking about suggestions ("consideration of proposals") that deal with a list of topics to discuss the growth ("relating to a development agenda") of the World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO")? That doesn't seem like a very useful meeting to me; or at least not one that has to be performed in-person - maybe exchange some emails until you get the development agenda proposals narrowed down for an actual committee to consider. Just a thought.

Oh, and just so you know: they considered 111 proposals. But, this temporary group thought process was scuttled when Brazil and Argentina played sticks-in-the-mud and decided to take their ball and go home.

They Had The Nerve To Talk About It

I'll keep this relatively brief. Over the weekend we got cable re-installed (can't live without the Tour de France!) and one of the things I was watching yesterday morning was this show on AMC called "Sunday Morning Shoot-Out" - think of it as "Meet the Press" for the movie industry. The guest for the day was the CEO of Sony, Sir Howard Stringer. And he was fine - actually sounded like a pretty personable dude. But, then he dropped a bomb that is so inexcusable, so astoundingly pretentious, so amazingly condescending, so attrociously dictatorial that I not only turned the station, I have vowed that I will not knowingly watch another Sony movie (of course, this would be impossible, because a) Sony makes a lot of pretty decent movies and b) they have so many 'boutique' labels that I would never know if it IS Sony).

Anyway. They were talking about how "Memoirs of Geisha was such a failure." The problem, seemingly, is that it went WAY over budget and that it was offensive to the very people whom it was supposed to represent (e.g., using Chinese actors to portray Japanese people!). In the course of the interview, not ducking the criticism, Stringer admitted to it. He admitted that it should have been made for about half the cost and they should have looked harder for real Japanese actors.

But, this is where it gets good.

He claims it was still a good movie, but that what did it in was not that it was so offensive but "because we showed a screening in Japan a week before it was supposed to come out and the bad word of mouth kept people from the box office." Fuck you Stringer! How about you not make an offensive movie!!! I can not honestly believe that a CEO would stand (or sit) in front of a television audience and tell them, point blank, the problem isn't with the movie, it's that we showed it to people. The problem is that we showed an offensive movie and didn't give ourselves the first week box office to make sure we could reap at least some profit from the offensive movie before people started talking about how offensive it was and stopped seeing it.

So, it appears, that the lesson that Sir Howard Stringer is taking out of this is not: don't make offensive movies. Rather, the lesson is: If you're going to make an offensive movie, don't show it to anybody before it goes to the general public.

And the movie industry wonders why nobody goes to the fucking movies any more.

Update on the Whole Unity08 Thing

I promised an update and here it is: It's starting to feel a bit like a cult, or a pyramid scheme, or Amway, or a chain letter. In other words, it's starting to feel a little .... off.

On June 28, I got an email asking me to "Declare Your Independence Today." It directs me to a website that contains the following:

Declaration of Independence from Politics without Purpose

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for the governed to warn the government, a decent respect for democracy requires them to declare the causes of their anger.

We hold these truths to be self evident:

That elected officials should be public servants first and partisans second;

That to bicker is not to lead;

That those bought by lobby money cannot represent the people;

And that to polarize the Congress is to paralyze the nation.

We, therefore, as representatives of all the people of the United States, regardless of party, beseech our leaders to listen to our voices and hear our pleas. And to that end we mutually pledge to each other our sacred honor in declaring our independence from politics without purpose."

I'll leave alone the fact that, much like everything else published by these folks, this takes 7 paragraphs to not really say anything at all.

Now. I didn't check email on the 28th because I was out of town. But, not to be deterred, I received the same email on June 30th (still out of town) and again on July 3 (still out of town). Just for shits and giggles when I got home on the 4th and actually got around to reading it on the 5th I went and threw my name on it. After I hit "submit" it requested that I send a message to others asking them to sign it as well. Now, I'm not one to impose my self on others. I've done my duty, I've posted it here, if you're that interested you've looked at it yourself. I don't need to impose it on you by emailing you constant reminders of my own political whims.

Nevertheless, today (July 6), I get an email from them asking me, rather condescendingly I think, to "Show How Serious You Are." The email exhorted me to "take three minutes to get three more signatures" (emphasis in original). Now, it seems to me that if they truly offer a great product or service and advertise properly, they shouldn't have any problem getting signatures. It's this sort of "forced" viral marketing that is really irritating.

Groups see that some things travel the internet really quickly. Things like "Peanut Butter Jelly Time" and "Lazy Sunday" and whatnot. For some reason these things grab the fancy of the populace and they become over-night successes. But it happens naturally. No one said "Jeff, please forward this really funny banana singing an inane song to every person you know because we think it's funny, we think you'll find it funny, and we think your friends will find it funny." You know what? If I find it funny, I'll send it on without your telling me to.

And that's how viral marketing marks. It's providing something compelling enough that people want to share it. Not telling them that they aren't serious about a cause if they don't share it. That's just condescending and pretentious and grating.

I suppose by posting it here I've met their request to "forward it to 3 of my friends" and indeed I've done them one better by spending a bit more than 3 minutes discussing it. So, there ya are, I guess. Viral marketing at it's best. As they say, even bad publicity is publicity.