Poker with Al Gore

Here is PJTV's interview with Chris Monckton.  It's a good'n.  Only two things bothered me about it.  First, why do British Lords come over here and quote Thomas Jefferson?  Isn't that like one of Satan's henchmen quoting St. John...and believing what St. John said was the gospel truth?

"Uh, yes.  I am the horned beast which comes from the sea to devour your children and wreak havoc across all your lands. Isn't that great!"

Yeah, never mind the title, I guess.  It means nothing.  I guess.  We'll get to an altogether different horned beast in a minute...

The other thing that bothered me was the "doubling down" analogy Bill Whittle uses at the very beginning of the interview (he's always doing this, using useful analogies and I love him for it, but this was a little simplistic, I thought).

Well, I started thinking about how I could make that analogy better, and while I haven't made it better, I certainly complicated it and made it less accessible--at least to those who know nothing of poker.  Ahhhh....I love this stuff! 

Well, although my analogy is not as simplistic as merely saying "doubling down", it is at least correct.  You see, we know Al Gore knows he is lying and is in this global warming racket for the prospect of power and dividends.  We know that for a fact.  So, in essence, Al Gore's Op-Ed article was a bluff...a very, very unconvincing bluff to anyone who knows anything about Texas Hold 'Em.

In Texas Hold Em each player gets two cards that only they can see.  The players then look at their hands in turn and decide to raise, fold or call.  Let's say there are nine people at this table you're sitting at and everyone folds around to you.  You look at your hand and you see a pair of nines.  There are only three people left behind you, so you raise three times the blind (which is like an ante that only the two people in the very end of the table have to pay).  Nines are pretty good, especially so late in position where the odds of anyone having a better hand is greatly diminished...because there are less players left to beat you.

So you're sitting in late position and have raised with a modest pair (9-9).  Two guys behind you fold but the guy on the big blind (the weakest position in most cases) raises you twice your bet.  Now, usually when this happens you can pretty much kiss your ass goodbye.  Players on the big blind know they have to bet big to "get you off your hand" when they are holding a weak ace (A-9 to A-2) or a small pocket pair (3-3).  But this guy didn't bet "big" he bet a modest amount to get your attention.  We should be scared, but we aren't.  We aren't scared because there is only one thing in poker more important than the cards in your hand, and that is:  who is the guy I'm playing against? That guy on the big blind in this case is Albert Gore, a player renowned for his, shall we say, uncanny ability to sell a bluff.  And he's only raised you the minimum.  Ok fine.  We'll consider Al's case as an Inconvenient Truth and simply call his bet as opposed to re-raising.  So now, we're even money, heads up to the flop.

The flop comes (4-4-Q).  Ok.  So we missed the flop, and the odds are, so did Al.  But we need to see where we are so we launch a little independent investigation, if you will.  We bet 2/3 the pot.  This is relatively safe because it's enough money at this point to make a weak player leave and small enough to get away from if our opponent decides to raise it up.  But almost immediately the guessing game is done.  Albert Arnold Gore immediately pushes all his chips to the center of the table and yells out emphatically:  "ALL IN!"  And he does this so that the entire casino can hear him...

Crap. Right? Now in order to win this hand, we are being forced to do like Al did and put all our money on the line.  Man, my mother hates no limit Hold 'Em, for this very reason. It's insane, and pressure packed.  But we, who are in the know, are cool, calm and collected.  We are calculated in our reserve because we know what Al does not know.  We know the Orangutan.

The Orangutan Theory is an obscure Game Theory projection that very few people (even avid poker players) know about.  It is a theory that says basically this:  If you are in the lead position in a hand where the flop is paired (4-4-Q) and you bet (your hand doesn't matter) and your opponent goes "over the top" with a crazy bet, that bet he has made is almost certainly (91.1%), a bluff.  And here is the reasoning behind it:  If your opponent has a 4, he most certainly is not going to overbet because he's got you by the rocks, He'll call with his 4 and try to milk more money from you (there are two more cards--or streets--to come down with which we can make our hand).  If your opponent has a Q, he may bet, sure, in fact he should, but he'll certainly not go "ALL IN!' because that hand too, should make him money on the fourth and fifth streets.  Granted, 7.8 percent of the time, that player will have either the Q, a higher hand than you (J-J), or a low percentage draw he's willing to gamble on in order to force you out.  But this is Al Gore.  And his carbon footprint looks scientifically equivocal to those of an Orangutan.

So there's no question what we do.  We call Al's bluff--for bluff is exactly what this is.  And when Al sees our chips go in the middle, be ready.  This is Texas Hold 'Em after all.  And men have been shot down for far less than calling a status quo bluff in this wild west bonanza.

Democrats show us what pole-vaulting over the fence really looks like.

Remember this:



Good news to report:  Pelosi was NOT lying.  She was serious, and here's what her vaulting over the fence looks like:

Michele Bachmann calls for investigation of the White House
by therightscoop

Corruption at it's finest.  Argh.  When will it end?

Is Sugar Legal?

I like sugar.  Sugar makes things taste better.  Corn Flakes are just little flaky wafers of smashed up corn without some milk and sugar liberally applied.  Sugar comes in all kinds of forms, naturally.  Sugar makes fruit taste good.  Blood sugar (a colloquialism, to be sure) assists animals in maintaining metabolic homeostasis.  Sugar is universally good.  Sugar makes beets, yes, even beets, taste good.  Ok, well maybe the beet thing is a stretch... But the point is:  Sugar has all sorts of documented and time-tested uses.  Heck, sugar can even assist you in a capital murder case!

But really, when we say "sugar", we are talking about the little white crystals of goodness we flavor our Corn Flakes with.  We don't just use sugar to make things sweet or sweeter, but that is the most common application. Sugar, the commodity (SUG) is openly traded worldwide and, apart from some really ridiculous regulations, restrictions, limitations, contractions, demarcations, and confinements over the years, is a great example of a reasonably superfluous tangible.  We don't need sugar on Corn Flakes (I think), but we really like it.  Don't we?  Ask yourself, the one time you tried Corn Flakes without sugar (you remember that time, right?), ask yourself if you weren't thinking with every bite: Man, this really needs some sugar.

Conversely, sugar really isn't worth it's weight in sand...granules...whatever.  Sure, some refined sugar is purported to have medicinal qualities, and some is used as an offsetting or stimulus agent in certain pharmacological production methods, but there are other ways of doing it.  And, to be sure, Jaggery-an unrefined sugar cane product-is replete with vital minerals for your body...but these too, you could get elsewhere, like say, in a spoonful of Corn Flakes straight out of the box.

So, why all the regulations on sugar?  Is it because we parents know the affects products laced with too much sugar have on children--despite what the talking heads in labcoats say to the contrary? Nope.  The regulation of sugar has absolutely nothing to do with its effects on children either real or perceived.  But what I do know is that if a two year old were to somehow, you know...hypothetically, get her hands on one of her brother's cans of Mountain Dew, this is the result:

  

Yeah, yuck it up, yuck it uppers.  And know this was done under the strictest (*cough*) supervision.

Anyway, we've heard all the arguments, haven't we?  About how it's the food coloring that causes hyper-activity.  Or that it's lack of general nutritional intake to offset the "sugar effect" in our foods.  Blah, blah, blah.  Let me tell you something right now, knowing full well that precautions CAN be made to prevent the effects of sugar on a child's body:  sugar causes hyper-activity, period.

But...so what?  I'm one of those wierdos that think hyper-activity isn't really hyper (that is, above the norm) at all.  In fact, I think we have a great need in this country for a little hyper-active behavior.  Maybe parents have been duped into thinking things need strict control and regulations, restrictions, limitations, contractions, demarcations, and confinements.

Which begs the question:  Is sugar really legal?  I mean, when it comes down to it, a thing that is "legal" is a thing that is not subject to regulations, restrictions, limitations, contractions, demarcations, and confinements.  So what do you call a thing, a commodity if you will, that is subject to regulations, restrictions, limitations, contractions, demarcations, and confinements?  I don't know about you, but I call that thing: the decriminalization of cannabis in America.

Along with the gradual decriminalization that liberal democrats want to see (and are seeing), comes stricter rules and regulations than just saying: no, you can't have it.  When liberals "legalize" a thing, they end up with MORE laws governing that thing then they had when it was illegal.  This is a fact, it is simply how the liberal mind works.  'Decriminalized control' is the catch-phrase liberals love so much and "control" is the only word that matters.

I don't like cannabis.  I don't like the smell of it, mainly.  I've never really smoked weed, but I've been in hundreds of rooms filled with the smoke of it--to the point that it affected me.  I would never put cannabis over my Corn Flakes.  I wouldn't use it to clear up acne or make a flower grow premature, out-of-season buds.  I would never, if I were a politician, advocate the licensing of the plant, or the regulation of it or the derivatives involved in the taxation of it.  But the fact of the matter is, they will regulate it, like they regulate the corn that is used to make your breakfast cereal and the laws they make regarding it would dominate its presence in the marketplace as they do for sugar.

It would be nice if we could legalize it and watch the market grow.  But it'll never happen.  There is always an excuse to not do so.  And while the protection of consumers is a constant saber-rattling declaration of liberal control freaks, the fact of the matter always has been, and always will be:  the markets make better corrections to invalid or dangerous commodities than the governments of the world do.  It wasn't the government that lashed out against Toyota recently, it was consumers--the government was a post facto dictator with a vested conflict of interest in this case. It wasn't the government that found lead in our children's toys shipped in from China, it was consumers--although the CDC tried to take all the credit for "protecting" us.  Government regulations couldn't stop a salmonella outbreak in peanut products recently.  Regulations have never protected us against bad luck.  But consumer reports have, and do, constantly.  The fact of the matter is that no entity can protect you at all times, except you.  If you think cannabis requires regulation, then regulate it yourself, not unlike you do with sugar.

But, you say, what happens if someone crashes their car while all doped up and kills someone?  Huh?  What about that, Mr. wierdo libertarian guy?  Well, let's see, what usually happens when you murder someone under the influence of an intoxicant?  No one ever said, especially a libertarian, that government shouldn't protect you from the irrational, irresponsible actions of others.  That's one of the major tenants of libertarianism, that governments should get involved when someones actions are injurious to another.  We're not talking about instituting laws such as DUII standards and things like this, for cannabis, these are a given and only an idiotic anarchist would oppose such legislation.  We're talking about the regulation of growth, distribution, sale, consumption and possession of a commodity here and the power the free market should have in determining the success of that commodity.

Corn and sugar both are highly subsidized, highly regulated commodities.  As are rubber, glass, coal, milk, and sand (yes, I said 'sand').  What makes anyone think cannabis will be any different.  

The main difference between a liberal and a libertarian is that liberals don't trust anyone (especially their own selves) to make good decisions so they entrust government to enlist a vast array of regulations, restrictions, limitations, contractions, demarcations, and confinements for the sake of protection.  Libertarians are generally optimistic, trusting (think of the Greek hospitality rule, here) of the marketplace and the consumers who dictate its successes and failures while generally viewing the government and its continued failures as depressing, oppressive and futile.

In the end, let us be honest.  There is no way we're going to get cannabis legalized.  Sure, the liberals will win this, it will be decriminalized, and soon.  Question is, will we give up our principles on this issue like we do every time we pour that sugar over our Corn Flakes?  Yeah.  We will.  We'll find some way to justify it.  And then we'll spend the next 100 years railing against the regulation of the commodity like we do with alcohol, tobacco and firearms...but we'll lose because the hyper-activity we so badly need in this fight will be sedated by the true 'opiation of the masses' liberals so desperately desire.  That is: sedation by capitulation.

Puter Vinum

Og had a crazy L. Ron Hubbard dream the other night. Richard had wacky dream the other night he was talking about on Facebook...but I lost that one. I think Joan is engaged in some quodlibetal discourse with her dark Orpheus even when she's awake...or else she's in some perpetual state of primordial somnambulance...That woman dreams constantly...

Anyway, maybe it's the talking about the dreaming that is the Jungian diaspora here, and not the dreaming itself. Who's to know?

The insane grape knows.

I ran into what I thought was an insane grape at Winco. Which is weird, because I never do the shopping around here...like, at all.  This grape, one of the little purpley kinds, insisted on striking up a conversation with me while I was reading the nutrition facts on a microwavable dinner box. (I told you, I don't shop) I don't know, I guess I was feeling a little depressed that day and really didn't feel I had the patience to deal with any talking fruit. And I'm telling you, I tried to ignore the little fella, but he was simply too persistent--almost to the point of being sour.

So...this little puter vinum goes on to inform me that he wasn't just some little out-of-date grape lost in the frozen food section looking for a handout or a nice tub of sweet cream to dip himself in...which was a relief, because if I know anything, I know that little purpley grapes donned in the dulcet drapery of thick..smooth...sweet...whipped cream...

Indeed.

He went on and on about the state of grapes and the tragedy of being the only grape he knew that he could relate to. I figured, like you probably would, that this grape was crazy and needed some serious medication. I went about shopping as the little guy bounced and rolled around behind me telling me his life's story and the injustice bestowed upon him by Garth--the produce manager. To be honest I don't really recall what exactly he was going on about, but I do remember stopping by the pharmacy and staring at a pamphlet for Paxil. The grape kept rambling on and--I don't know what it was, really--but I just started busting out laughing. I was pointing at the happy lady on the cover of the brochure. She was swinging on a tire swing in some happy meadow.  Drenched in sunshine.  Doped out to the max on happy.  Happy. Happy. Happy.  The grape wasn't amused. Come to think of it, I don't think this little grape had eyes...so maybe he couldn't see the irony the abject joys of anti-depressant stimulation can bring...

Whatever the case, I had to clam up and move along when the pharmacist peeked his nerdy little head around a shelf of pharmacological goodies and scowled at me.

F--- you, I thought, I'm talking to the grape, here.

Anyway, the dream gets fuzzy after this. I remember something about the Legendary Golden Peel of Chiquita and the Tomato Underground--as the grape called it.  But, almost immediately after leaving the pharmacy, the little grape disappeared and there I was, alone, swinging on a tire swing in some fecund meadow.  I was smiling.  I was really, really, smiling.

Don't think about this.  Just shrug your shoulders and hit the "Next Blog" button at the top of the page.

There's a what? Where? Huh?

What you're afraid to say, Victoria Jackson SINGS from coast to coast...in that squirreley little voice of hers. Man, if she can sing it, anyone can.



Once again, we prove our women are smarter than their women.  I mean, just take a look at their women:

Oh whoops.  I must have made a mistake when I uploaded Lindsey Graham's photo...Or...did I?

Mitt Romney Launches 2012 Campaign Without Knowing it? Nah.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

It's hard to dissect someone when they are saying the same things now that they were saying two years ago. Things are not better than they were 1.3 trillion dollars ago...he is right. Maybe he would have done a better job? No clue. I didn't vote for Mitt. I don't particularly like his swagger...he's like the republican version of Bill Clinton if you ask me. But, he's candid, he's aware, he's involved, and he's got that sexy hair thing going on. Ooh La La! And all that...

PPS Labor Contract Leaked

Oregon Politico says they have cajoled or otherwise procured the tentative labor contract for Portland Public Schools.  As you may know, the teachers in this city have not had a working contract since Eli Whitney was filling orders for U.S. Army munitions...at least that's the way they make it sound.

The leaked form in Acrobat reader comes up crooked when you click this link...does that say anything about it's contents?

Of course, you could just hit the "rotate" button in Acrobat...but what's the fun in that.

Anyway, I haven't read the whole thing yet.  Maybe I'll rant about it later...in the meantime, give it a read...sideways if you're fit enough for it.

Another New York Mess Moment

Mets beat reporter Marty (drymouth) Noble has indicated that Mets center fielder Carlos Beltran will be interviewed by federal investigators regarding a Toronto based doctor. Apparently, Anthony Galea was treating a whole host of professional athletes either illegally or questionably.

Nothing is clear.

Mets shortstop Jose Reyes was questioned this weekend about the treatment Dr. Galea gave him for his injuries last year.

It's not certain whether or not any Mets players (or any of the other athletes involved with Galea) actually did anything wrong. But knowing the Mets' luck, they'll suffer through a suspension riddled year...

Ugh.

Sowell at RCP

Of course I had Mr. Sowell on my "Cool Person Quote of the Month" Last month (February), and then I couldn't find any new articles by him for the whole month. And now March is here and on the FIRST day of the month he writes an article on RCP. Coweenkeydank? I think not. But fear not, since me quoting people seems to put them in temporary stasis, this month's quote will be from Keith Olbermann.

I'm getting the hang of this cheese.