The hypocritical stench surrounding the online gambling law forthcoming in Washington state includes campaign donations from none other than Indian casinos for State Senator Margarita Prentice (pictured below, Sen. Prentice homepage). Her term ends January 2009. The bill submitted to the Senate is known as SB 6613 and the history shows that it took from January 17, 2006 when it was discussed until June 7 to be enacted into law. Not even five months. Wow, they can move fast on the things that don’t matter, can’t they?

Curiously enough, the Seattle PI article cited below doesn’t mention these heavily biased campaign donations, but KIRO710 Dori Monson read a list of the terrestrial casino donations during one of his recent talk shows.

Washington residents who play poker or make other types of wagers on the Internet will be committing a Class C felony, equivalent under the law to possessing child pornography, threatening the governor or torturing an animal. Although the head of the state Gambling Commission says it is unlikely that individual online gamblers will be targeted for arrest, the new law carries stiff penalties: as much as five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

So let me get this right: an adult who dials up an online poker site is going to be comparable to someone possessing kiddy porn? If there are any actual convictions, this is proof most politicians have gone insane.

The bill passed unanimously in the Senate and with just five dissenting votes in the House. It was signed into law by Gov. Christine Gregoire on March 28.

The same Christine Gregoire who referred to herself as “Chris” Gregoire during her election run. I didn’t vote for her and won’t vote for her re-election. At least there are five people in the House with common sense but they were drowned by 95 others who favored imprisoning online gambers in Washington state.

The article focuses on online poker which is a game I’ve never played for real online. Not a game I particularly care for, but regardless I am strongly opposed to laws preventing adults from gambling if they want to do so.

Formerly, online gambling in Washington State was a gross misdeamonr, of which there don’t appear to have been any convictions (?) which KIRO710 Dori Monson also mentioned as being strange. How can we upgrade the punishment for a law which formerly had zero prosecutions? Is this correct or were there some confirmed prosecutions? My research as of the writing of this article could not confirm there were any successful prosecutions. Please update in the comments if you can find differently.

Washington state residents, please write to your local representatives, especially the 95 who voted for this bogus and likely unenforceable law. Complain voiciferously. Even if you don’t gamble, the last thing the state needs is to see is online gamblers being thrown in jail and having Class C felonies on their record. It will be very difficult to get this law repealed now.

Across the 50 states, only two do not have legalized gambling: Utah and Hawaii. Is Washington state about to have the harshest law on the books against online gambling? In a state that is literally teeming with Indian casinos — some of which we like to visit occasionally — and a state run lottery with some utterly craptastic odds (like most state lotteries) this law seems incredibly hypocritical.

And now I somewhat expect to receive a (likely anonymous) fear mongering comment about how terrible gambling is for society. Yeah, prohibition worked too (not). Didn’t work with alcohol. Isn’t working with marijuana. Won’t work with online gambling. Let’s find a way to legalize and regulate online gambling, open up gambling to the non-tribal state businesses, tax it so the indian casinos aren’t reaping all the rewards.

A vote in a recent election shot down non-tribal gambling being legalized. Of course the fear was that we’d have slots in grocery stores and right next to schools. That’s how laws which make sense get sullied by political scare campaigns muddying up common sense. Most casual gamblers, of which I consider my wife and I, wouldn’t want slots next to schools, but it’s that FUD that spreads and causes non-gamblers and casual gamblers to vote down legislation.

I like the guy’s spirit in the article that says he may take his wireless laptop to the capital steps in Olympia and play online poker as a form of protest. I’ll donate to his legal fund to prevent him from sharing a cell with Bubba. You?

Update June 7, 2006: Clarification on penalties from KOMO:

(Editor’s Note: There was some earlier confusion over the law’s penalties. While online betting will be a Class C Felony, which typically carry 5 year prison terms and $10,000 fines, the law’s sponsor says it will be an “unranked” felony. That means it has a maximum sentence of 1 year plus a fine. And if you’re a first time offender, you get no time or up to 90 days, plus a fine.)

Sponsors of the bill say it’s really meant to protect, not punish gamblers. They say online games invite organized crime and money laundering.

When President Bush defended Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld he used the words “I am the Decider.”

In the following spoof/cover of the Beatles “I am the Walrus” by Paul Hipp this classic tune was turned it into “I’m the Decider” (autoload sound, adjust your speakers accordingly) This is very well done (Thanks Feld Thoughts). Bush supporters might not like the lyrics of this song, however.

More than 41 hours of jury deliberations over al Qaeda terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui for the jury to decide that he will not be put to death by lethal injection. At age 37, he’ll have a long time to think about his involvement in the September 11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. For 23 hours a day he’ll be confined to a cell with no other human involvement.

via CNN:

On the witness stand, Moussaoui displayed a complete lack of remorse for the 9/11 deaths, saying he was sorry only that the attacks weren’t more lethal.

“I just wish it could have gone on the 12th, the 13th, the 14th, the 15th, the 16th, the 17th. We can go on and on,” Moussaoui said. “Like they say, no pain, no gain.”

I hope Moussasoui lives until age 130. I’m thinking the jury weighed that death might be too easy for him, but this is bound to raise concerns about if a situation like this doesn’t warrant the death penalty, what does?

As famous boxing promoter Don King would say: “Only in America” and what could be more true than illegal immigrants forming a mass march day — during work hours — for many of them. As a small business owner who only employs legal citizens I’m even more disturbed by this spectacle.

Bankok Post:

An informal internet poll on the MSNBC television showed that 67 per cent of those surveyed wanted illegal immigrants at the rallies to be arrested.

We have brave men and women dying over in Iraq, gas prices going up, and this is supposedly good timing for illegal immigrants to rise up and march? Screw that. I wish INS would be standing by with plans to deport these people (not going to happen). Also, employers impacted that don’t realize they’ve got illegals working for them (wishful thinking, I know) will label these walkouts voluntary terminations and replace them with legal American citizens.

And before anybody thinks I have something against mexicans who reportedly make up some 60% of the illegals in the US, don’t even go there. I have a lot of hispanic blood in me with my great grandmother being 100% mexican. Love to eat hot, spicy food, especially authentic mexican food, not the crap being packaged up at many of these wannabe mexican restaurants. I don’t care where these immigrants are from as long as they are illegal, I want them deported. Enforce the borders. Cork the genie.

And as for the argument that Americans won’t do the jobs these illegal immigrants are doing my response is to raise the freaking pay and let’s see what happens. If this means as consumers we end up paying more for goods/services, fine I’ll do it. I’ll pay more for produce. More for construction. More for a sticker that says Made In America (by legal citizens). We’re already paying more for gas and that has nothing to do with illegal immigrants.

Deport these people back to their homelands. They couldn’t march there or they wouldn’t be here. I love America, but I don’t like how we’ve become the welfare system for anybody that can smuggle themselves across the border or on a boat.

What is so difficult to understand about legal vs. illegal here? Argh. So many better things to march for than what this group of people cares about who is illegally here now.

We try to let other websites save the world and champion causes but earlier today heard on the radio about the savetheinternet.com coalition fighting to preserve net neutrality and wanted to comment.

If there is any web-related cause to take up for on this blog, this could be the one:

Congress is pushing a law that would abandon the Internet’s First Amendment — a principle called “Network neutrality” that prevents companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from deciding which Web sites work best for you — based on what site pays them the most.

Let’s continue to keep the internet bits and bytes open to all, not just those who pay the most. Whatever it’s worth, the coalition has my vote.

I’m not sure how many examples we need of the Department of Justice saying they are focusing on cracking down on the reprehensible presence of kiddy porn (KP) on the web and yet lumping in adult sites, but here’s yet another one (emphasis mine):

Gonzales called for additional measures against child pornography and adult-themed material in general. He asked Congress to prohibit the practice, common at some sexually explicit Web sites, of hiding innocuous terms in a site’s code so that search engines will point to them. The DOJ initiative would make it illegal for a person to knowingly deceive others into viewing obscene materials.

Look, I’m all for going after child pornography on the internet but why does almost every story have to lump in “adult-themed material in general” in with this? Don’t take my word for it, open your eyes and follow the stories about KP and watch how many have subtle references like the one above that I spotlighted which suggest tougher rules or tightening the screws on legal adult material. Comparing that with KP only angers people and muddies the importance of that issue. The two are not the same, were never the same, but it’s done constantly. And quite intentionally.

Somebody get Janet Jackson on the line, there’s a scandal abreast in an India fashion show.

Last week, model Carol Gracias’s skimpy halter slipped down to her waist showing her breasts to snapping photographers and rolling TV cameras during a fashion show in Mumbai.

This was followed by another sensational “wardrobe malfunction” when former Miss India Gauhar Khan’s skirt zip split, revealing her bottom to the media and Mumbai’s smart set.

Of course the morality police, er politicians, in India are outraged. They shut down Mubai’s famous dance bars leaving thousands of dancers unemployed. There is the travesty, not a few seconds of breast or butt exposure.

I haven’t been to a dance club in years, but if I wanted to go to one, I would. I don’t understand why politicians feel the need to grind an axe against these businesses. Ok, I do, it scores them points with the hardcore conservatives. Some may think these businesses aren’t legitimate, but isn’t this really about personal freedom and expression? They are making some of the rules in these establishments so difficult that’s it’s putting them out of business. It’s more of the not so secret war against sex. It’s like the politicians can be crack smoking whore toting in their own free personal time and to our faces be the exact opposite in public. What a crock. Just once I’d like to see a politician who says: enough of this BS. Put me in office for real values: better education and schools, better roads, lower taxes and less stupid anti-business legislation and if I like prostitutes, heavy metal and gambling, that’s my own damn business.

And as for any of these “wardrobe malfunctions” being intentional or accidental? What’s the big deal, really? Shocking, we see a hint of naked breast pop out (sarcasm). Is this the end of life as we know it? We didn’t come into this world wearing suits and dresses.

Even if one or more breasts or asses becomes exposed during a freaking fashion show, is this some sort of crude sexual act? I mean, come on, isn’t some fashion supposed to be erotic? But oh no, not if any flesh is showing, that’s immoral. This is happening in India, not here in the US, but it wouldn’t surprise me if the same thing happened here. A sorry statement to admit.

Let’s focus on the things that really matter in the world: poverty, hunger, environment, health care, peace. If politicians want to go after a real racket, go after health care or why the hell our men and women are over there in Iraq right now. Get them out of there, already, they are getting maimed and killed for .. what? Bush sucks, I’m sorry. He is the worst President we’ve had in my lifetime and maybe ever. This Iraq war was a total sham. Saddam’s trial lingers on while Bin Laden laughs away in some cave. The national debt is going through the roof. Who is going to pay for all of this horrible money mismanagement in the US?

We are.

And these clowns toting their $1,000+ MRIs which insurance companies and ultimately all of us end up paying. My wife has now had 4 MRIs for an accident 2 1/2 years ago and the doctor’s keep requesting more … each time a $1,000+ charge. It looks like she is going in for an operation on her neck and spine and they want yet another MRI, the 5th one. Isn’t there a buy one, get one free plan or something? Who’s ultimately paying for this?

We are.

And what about ambulances? An ambulance ride for my wife and son cost nearly $2,500 for a 7 mile trip to the hospital. Are you kidding me? Almost $2,500USD! Even though they both went in the same ambulance they charged for two trips. The attitude seems to be oh, the insurance will pay it. The insurance will pay it. What are you worried about, the insurance will pay it.

Don’t some of these people realize how insurance works? Insurance companies spread the risk in premiums over a wide group of people. So if the insurance company pays too much, guess who that cost gets passed along to? Policyowners. Who is paying for this?

We are.

I better not get really started, I’m only half warm in this post and there is a good reason I rarely write about politics and religion: both subjects are extremely combustible. I will write about the third combustible topic: sex. Worrying about wardrobe malfunctions here, in India or anywhere, is such a collosal waste of energy, effort and time. Just look around out there. So many other worthwhile battles to fight.

Maybe my brief write-up earlier this week on the DOJ / Google conflict wasn’t fully explained, but I understood exactly what the government is up to with their continued assault on porn in the guise of it being to protect children. This might seem a bit conspiracy theorist but I don’t believe for a second their principle interest is keeping chilren away from accessing adult material. That’s the cover story. Phillip Lenssen takes exception to the various news reports being twisted into this being about kiddy porn (KP), but the reality is a high percentage of porn-related stories — just watch Google news, Phillip — have some sort of KP reference in them. There is a huge difference between children accessing porn and KP, but I’ve seen this happen many, many times before.

Why didn’t I edit my original post to make it clearer that these were two separate issues? It’s simple: because I don’t think they are. Yes, they are different issues logically, of course they are, but tangentially they have a huge amount of relevance. One is the inflammatory cover story for expanding government.

It’s my perspective that the government — and those who write about porn with an accusing finger — want people to be confused by the two so that they will get more inflamed about the subject and agree to vote for laws that expand federal power. It’s political spin, it bleeds and leads. It sounds a lot more exciting to play that card instead of the truth which is the government would like to take away adult’s right to view pornography.

Parents are the ones who need to monitor what their children do on the internet, not the government, not you, not me. Parental responsibility in this country is more to blame than anything or anyone else. Why don’t more parents give a damn about what their kids are doing on computers? I’ll tell you why: the internet is the new TV babysitter. Only, instead of plopping kids in front of the TV where content is primarily one way, the internet comes with much greater perils left completely unmoderated. It’s not the government’s responsibility to do this though, it’s the parents.

Stop trying to raise our children for us, President Bush!

One of the best pieces I feel I’ve written here to date was on freedom and 2257 Our freedom is under assualt thanks to the Bush administration. You don’t think so? Do a lot more digging.

You don’t have to care about or even like porn to understand the greater risk of this kind of government intrusion. Sure, it starts with porn, something that is becoming more mainstream, despite hard right sentiments, but what is next? Where does it end?

Do not believe everything you read from here or anywhere else. Do the research yourself. Educate.

MSN General Manager Ken Moss explains what they really provided the DOJ when asked (emphasis mine):

Over the summer we were subpoenaed by the DOJ regarding a lawsuit. The subpoena requested that we produce data from our search service. We worked hard to scope the request to something that would be consistent with this principle. The applicable parties to the case received this data, and the parties agreed that the information specific to this case would remain confidential. Specifically, we produced a random sample of pages from our index and some aggregated query logs that listed queries and how often they occurred. Absolutely no personal data was involved.

What bothers me most about the MSN response to this whole DOJ situation was brought up by one of the anon’s in their post (lots of anons in that post, curiously enough). Why didn’t MSN disclose this sooner? This happened last summer and they didn’t feel that people using their search service would care that the government wanted this information?

With all that Microsoft tries to do right, with all the blogging, with Scoble travelling the globe spreading the Microsoft message, the fact that they can’t cobble together a blog entry like this last summer when this all happens and query and/or at least notify folks about the situation is very telling.

Did MSN have to tell their search users anything about this DOJ request? No. What harm would it have caused to have said something back then? Now, it looks like they were hoping nobody would ever find out.

Rest assured that high on my list of things to take to Search Champs v4 next week will be much more transparency about privacy issues and clearer privacy policies for MSN Search. Google may have lost 9 percent of their market share yesterday for standing up to the government, but I think in time they will score many, many more points with people sick and tired of intrusive government activity. I’m glad I bought more Google stock this month and am supporting a company with the stones to stand up and say: we don’t think that’s right, and willing to go to court to fight for what we feel is reasonable access to information via subpoena.

Ken Moss concludes his post with: “Now that you have more information, you can be the judge.”

Ok, here’s my judging, Ken: a prime opportunity was missed last summer. Back then there was a chance to come out at a time when Google was being pounded over privacy concerns and stand up to the government instead of folding like a cheap lawn chair and working out some technical response that we would only learn about months later when the heat was on and they had to say something. Shameful, really.

I’m glad to hear that Google will fight the government’s efforts to subpoena information related to their battle to crack down on porn under the guise of the protecting children on the internet.

The government contends it needs the Google data to determine how often pornography shows up in online searches. In court papers filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose, Justice Department lawyers revealed that Google has refused to comply with a subpoena issued last year for the records, which include a request for one million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period.

The government doesn’t need Google’s data to go after child porn (KP) sites. They can work even more closely with groups like ASACP (Adult Sites Against Child Pornography) which I did the Blogathon for here a couple years ago. They can add more staff to follow up on these reports and work to shut down these illegal sites.

They could also get a Google API key and run their own searches on various child-related keywords and see what’s returned. They could also get the entire five billion websites dump from Alexa and go hogwild.

There are plenty of ways to identify and get rid of these lowlife scum KP sites but using children as an excuse to go after legitimate adult websites is — just as the courts have already confirmed — too wide reaching. Don’t tell adults what they can and can’t look at, as long as the willing participants are adults.

Just in case I haven’t said this enough in this piece, I’m all for the feds cracking down on KP, just don’t try and take away the adults ability to find and enjoy movies like Pirates.

Google has my support 1000% on this one.