You know what? If it were just about online poker players bemoaning the lack of fishponds (oh it used to be so much better! party 3/6 no mas, no mas!), or if it was me waxing libby nostalgic on where the nation should be placing its priorities (poker or genocide! YMTC!), I don't think this whole *thing* (I don't even know if I've named "it" yet) would get so deep under my skin.
But its not about fishponds (though a koipond will make an appearance in a later post), but about the real economic impact that this ivorytower morality has on the United States.
Or, reason #2 this *thing* bothers me... str8 golddigging mentality.
a) Wlo's float is estimated anywhere from £3bn to £5bn on the London AIM. Naturally, US markets are unable/unwilling to carry the online poker float, so the pragmatic Brits open up and see the economic flocks and cranes thru the fog. More than that, wlo can't/won't find a US bank willing to finance it because of the (non-)status of online gambling here. It can't find a (US) bank to take its money!
Investec pulled out of the deal, stating they always intended *not* to see one of the biggest floats on the market thru. Ja, right.
And as roman/state is following in Big Brother's footsteps and jumping into the AIM as well, we can assume US banks will follow wlo's wake and not pick up ANY of the financing for fear of
The same arm that told NoDak not to bother with its attempts to regulate online poker, the same arm attempting to squash mainstream advertising of online poker (Which, is an interesting topic on its own... is the DOJ solely focusing its attacks on mainstream media outlets who carry/attempt to carry online poker advertising since they have no jurisdiction over anyone else who has fingers in the honeypot, or does the DOJ honestly see a threat from the floodgates of our ad-whore, multibranded culture getting awash in poker celebrity and online games thru our collective idiot-boxes? Check out the Sunday NYT Dan N. article or the SI ones, or the Maxim spread... all of these have a better draw to the pokersphere than ads, right? Maybe not... we haven't seen the shotgun deep approach of online poker advertising like London is being pelted with as I clickyclack in sunny NorCal... But that'll be another topic for another day! Sorry, easily sidetracked...)
b) But the basic premise of economic impact on media outlets can't be ignored, either. Esquire was basically "informed" that if it carried the b!tch's ads, it would be aiding and abetting a felony. Advertising is its lifeblood (ask the media giants with a sizeable online presence who're thinking about charging for content now about advertising reliance)... and in a time of people looking to drop more dollars into the economy, mags like Esquire lose an entire, well-funded source of income because of the DOJ barriers. Include mainstream media as a whole and you see where a huge chunk of change *isn't* being made because of restrictive US policies re: online gambling.
Along the same hilines as US big business losing revenue via restrictions from the federal gov't... number three on my pet peeve list...
#3: Bastardization and winkwink hypocrisy.
(will finish later, i don't know why radio's publishing this now -- I hadn't finished it) :( Have a happy holiday all,