And of Absolutely No Interest to Anyone....

For the 7th time in 7 tries, I made the final table at the $60 buy-in, double-stack tournament at Roxy's Casino. And for the 7th time in a row, I finished out of the money in 7th. A tad disappointing, for sure. But making the final table 7 times in a row is pretty darn good.

As full of myself as I am in going 7 for 7, I'm equally disappointed. I played really, really well and have nothing to show for it. This frustrates me a bit because the players at this game are genuinely awful. They make basic poker errors, like: raising only 2x the big blind preflop, open limping, overplaying top pair, overplaying pocket pairs on draw-y boards/flops, giving more value to suited pocket pairs than the deserve (AK of spades is only 2%-3% better than AK unsuited), chasing draws when the bet makes in it incorrect and costly to do so, underestimating their hand values and not raising with them, playing "scared" poker (not aggressive and using position) overplaying A-rags (like A-5, A-4) and calling raises with them; and my personal favorite, playing their cards and not their opponents' hands. Oh, and when I've identified the tight-weak players, I bluff the daylights out of them.

So, given all that why am I not making the money? I think they're are a couple of reasons:
1.) I've been running 'card dead' in the middle-late rounds when the blinds are around $400/$800 and $800/$1600. With better hands, I can steal the blinds and maintain/build my stack. But I'm seeing a lot of garbage and my stack simply hasn't been high enough in these rounds to pre-flop steal even with garbage hands. Meh. It happens.
2.) Being hyper aggressive from position. I'm aggressive now, I just need to turn it up a notch. (I did a good job at this last night, I think.)
3.) When I'm short stacked and down to 5 big blinds, I need to open up and shove whenever possible. This is in line with #2.

Do those things and there's no reason I can't money or take down this tournament repeatedly.

Backoff Obama on Afghanistan

A lot of criticism has been leveled against President Obama for not acting fast enough on Gen. McChrystal's recommendation to send 40,ooo more troops into Afghanistan.

Yesterday former veep Dick Cheney called it "dithering."

These are unfair and unwarranted attacks on President Obama. The attacks are also two-faced and hypocritical and willfully ignorant of recent history on the part of Obama's critics.

The Bush Administration 'dithered' on Iraq strategy while that country spiraled toward a religious and civil war for nearly 2 years. It wasn't until mounting US casualties, domestic pressure, the GOP's defeat at the polls in Nov. '06 and the (mostly worthless) Iraq Study Group Report* forced Bush to get off his ass and find a new strategy. The "surge" strategy wasn't announced to the public until Jan. 10, 2007—more than 2 months after strategy talks began. From start to full deployment, "the surge" took almost 10 months. (The first buildup phases of "the surge" began in Jan./Feb. 2007 , and it wasn't until Jun/July '07 that was fully operational and all boots requested were on the ground.)

Do Obama's critics not realize how foolish they look given these undenible facts?

I understand the need for urgency on Obama's decision. Losing our brave men and women while the Taliban and al Qaeda grow stronger is certainly not what any reasonable and compassionate person wants. However, it has been a little more than 2 months since McChrystal submitted his 66-page report to Sec't of Defense Robert Gates on Sept. 20, 2009, and I sincerely believe that Obama is doing the right thing in taking the time to implement a responsible and hopefully successful and winning decision on strategy. It's his duty as Commander in Chief.

Fortunately, there are a few wise Republicans out there who see the same thing I do, like Sen. Chuck Lamar who said, "President Obama is entitled to take sufficient time to decide what our long-term role ought to be in Afghanistan. I want him to take the time to get it right."

Obama's critics should follow our lead–especially you, Mr. Cheney.


*Not to be confused with the Iraq Survey Group, which was charged with finding WMD after the liberation** of Iraq.
**Not occupation, dicks.

Did I Mention That I'm Also Insane?

Dear 3.5 Readers,

Remember a little while back when I professed that I was a Birther and a Racist?

Now I'd like to inform you that I'm also insane.

According to the WaPo's Dana Milbank, people who repeatedly disagree with President Obama and his unnerving quest for nationalized health care, we're insane.

That's right, I'm cuckoo for CocoPuffs! Off my rocker! The ace of clubs short of a full deck! I'm...oh, you get the idea.

But wait a tic.

If I'm nuts, then what's that make Milbank—and by extension, Milbank's editor who approved such a pointless and juvenile column—who spent (I imagine) a fair amount of time actually counting the number of times Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) repeated certain phrases over the course of 50 or speeches? Wouldn't his time had been better spent actually refuting McConnell's points in a column?

While he was at it, why didn't Milbank sift through the hundreds of speeches where President Obama used "hope" and "change" and "new direction?" I mean, shit, if the tactic worked to get Obama elected, what's so wrong with McConnell employing the same approach to defeat ObamaCare? Is it because McConnell has The Scarlet R attached to his name?

Hmm, those all could be true.

Then again, what do I know?

I'm just insane.

Crazily Yours,
OP

Bull Rush-ed

Despite my political leanings, and people's predisposed opinions of my associations given those leanings, I don’t care much for Rush Limbaugh. I say this not to as way to add credibility to what I’m about to say, it’s that I just don’t care for him. I simply don’t listen to him very often. But when I do listen I find him to be a bombastic megalomaniac. He's also a bit of "bomb-thrower"—saying outrageous things about his opponents or their ideals. On the other hand, he's an extremely astute political and media observer who makes salient points and arguments, too. He’s also fiercely loyal to his conservative ideals (sometimes to a fault) and whose bomb throwing often nails the target with accuracy.

Rush is also bloody wealthy. The $400,000,000 deal-plus deal he struck last year merely added to his wealth.

So he's got a bunch of money to spend. And what do guys with a lot of money do? They buy stuff. Like football teams. And Rush wants to buy a minority stake in the St. Louis Rams. I have no problem with this. Hell, Keith Olbermann of all people has no problem with this. The NFL, however? They have a problem with this and they’re intent on not letting Limbaugh buy a stake. Why? Well, let's get to the laughably specious reasons.

First, NFL commish Goodell went back into the playbook to dig up Rush's comment about Donovan McNabb ("I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well."). The comment got Rush fired by ESPN because many viewed as being racist. How it was racist to any observant and reasonable person who can read or that follows our media and culture is a mystery. Nonetheless, Goodell trotted that one out saying, "I would not want to see those comments coming from people who are in a responsible position in the N.F.L. — absolutely not" and “the comments that Rush made specifically about Donovan, I disagree with very strongly."

Not to re-hash this, but I have to since Goodell and others are bringing it up: Rush wasn't making a racist comment about McNabb; Rush was saying the media—specifically the east coast media, which plays a huge role in this country—was building up McNabb, not just The Next Great Quarterback, but as the Next Great Black Quarterback. (I guess they missed Warren Moon's career.). More to the point, as Slate’s Allan Barra deftly noted, “Rush Limbaugh didn't say Donovan McNabb was a bad quarterback because he is black. He said that the media have overrated McNabb because he is black.”

Barra goes on to make another fantastic point: “I don't know of a football writer who didn't regard the dearth of black NFL quarterbacks as one of the most important issues in the late '80s and early '90s…. To pretend that many of us didn't want McNabb to be the best quarterback in the NFL because he's black is absurd. To say that we shouldn't root for a quarterback to win because he's black is every bit as nonsensical as to say that we shouldn't have rooted for Jackie Robinson to succeed because he was black.”

So Goodell is taking offense to something he clearly doesn’t understand cowardly pandering to the predominantly African-American NFLPA who also took great offense to Rush’s potential ownership.

But the NFL wasn’t finished being stupid. Cue Colts owner Jim Irsay—whose father, Robert, moved the Colts franchise from Baltimore to Indianapolis literally in the middle of the night back in 1983.

Irsay said that Limbaugh’s bid would be met with opposition from the other 32 owners (three quarters of the owners are required to approve the sale). Oh really? Now call me silly, but I’m thinking a majority of those billionaire owners are likely Republicans/conservatives themselves with a few exceptions. So good luck in finding the 8 owners who likely could give a rat’s butt about opposing Rush’s minority ownership role.

Next, if the NFL is so damn concerned about “comments coming from people who are in a responsible position in the N.F.L.,” and the integrity of its franchise owners, then why hell doesn’t it do something about Oakland’s Al Davis, Cleveland’s Randy Lerner and the Fords in Detroit, all of who are pile-driving their franchises into the ground? Or what Dallas’ Jerry Jones and his repeated outbursts? Or Washington’s Dan Snyder? Hmm?

Yeah, crickets and tumbleweeds on that one, eh, Commish Goodell?

Finally, does the NFL even know who its audience is? Do they really think the majority of their audience are latte-sipping beat poets and community organizers? Maybe Goodell & Friends need a lesson demographic analysis. It’s more NASCAR than Nescafe, I can assure you of that.

Worst of all, this mindless and baseless opposition to Rush’s purchase reinforces the Saul Alinksy rule that if pick the target, attack and polarize it, you can win. And the frothing liberal left succeeded in doing what it has been trying to do for years: Defeat Rush. So Rush won’t get a part of the Rams. Or any team likely ever.

And the legacy of this “victory” for the Rush-hating left? You can violate every American ideal and free-market principles of ownership and force someone out buying something simply based on his or her beliefs or views.

Congratulations, you pathetic un-American cowards.

Golf Trash Talk

It so goes against the gentlemanly nature of the game, but when trash talk does happen in golf it's pretty entertaining.

While this won't compare to Tiger Woods' caddie Steve Williams calling Phil "Tits" Mickelson a "prick", it's still got a nice zing factor to it.

The Americans retained the President's Cup over the International team on Sunday, beating them 19.5 to 14.5. During Sunday's singles matches, Anthony Kim was matched against Aussie Robert Allenby.

Throughout the tournament, Allenby called Kim "the current John Daly" and "the loosest cannon" on the U.S. team. No surprise there, really. Kim is just 24 and known for his brash but very cool belt buckles (only in golf would one's choice in belt buckles garner so much attention) plus he has a fair amount of 'hood in him having grown up in inner Los Angeles.

Kim must've used it as motivation because he laid wood to Allenby, 5 and 3.

But Allenby just couldn't take his ass-whoopin' graciously. He accused Kim of getting back to his hotel "sideways" (aka: "shit faced" in our lingo) and that "Maybe we should all take the theory of Anthony Kim. Get home at 4 o'clock [in the morning] and then go shoot 6 under."

I could do that at 24, too. Arrive at the course still semi-drunk from the night before and play, so maybe Allenby has just a bit of age/liver envy.

But Kim had a great response: "I was at the hotel, had dinner with the team, met my buddies for about 20 minutes, then went straight to my room*. I was in tip-top shape**. If Robert had that to say, he maybe needs to practice a little more."

Hoozah! A pretty good, gentlmanly zing for a 24-year old.

And so much classier than telling Allenby to go suck wallaby tool. Which is what I would have said.


* Read: I've never said I didn't get plastered in my hotel room.
** For being slightly powdered.

And Here I Thought I Was a Bad Writer

I have no idea what kind of news service Associated Content is (or isn't), but this fine piece of, um, writing came up under a news search I was doing on Mike Zimmer, the Cincinnati Bengals defensive coordinator whose wife died suddenly last Thursday.

Mike Zimmer's wife and her cause of death still hasn't been released. But Mike Zimmer's wife's cause of death is naturally mysterious, since her death came out of nowhere. Mike Zimmer's wife, Vikki Zimmer, didn't have any sicknesses or diseases before she was declared dead on Thursday, as far as anyone knows. Since the news shocked everyone, Mike Zimmer's wife's cause of death is taking an extra long time to figure out. But no matter what the cause of death, Mike and Vicki Zimmer served as an extra inspiration to the red-hot Cincinnati Bengals on the field.

Then the second paragraph started:

Before Mike Zimmer's wife died, he was merely best known as the defensive coordinator of the Cincinnati Bengals.

Just one question: Who's wife died again?

Geezus, Write Something Already

I know! I couldn't agree more, dear 3.5 Readers. I should be writing more, and I'm for not doing, I'm sorry.

Hoenst, I have a bunch of stuff that's almost fit to post and for you to avoid reading! Yeah!

Know Why The 'Hawks Lost to the Bears?

Why I Worry About My 1-1 Raiders

I'm pretty jazzed about my Raiders win over the Chiefs yesterday, but I have some issues. Like this one from CBS:

Raiders coach Tom Cable on whether there’s a common theme to QB JaMarcus Russell’s erratic passing. “No, there’s not. That’s the real issue here, just finding out why those things are going on."

Hmm, well, that's a nice, direct answer. But I think he could have better answered it this way:

"Russell is a great kid, I really like him as a person. And admittedly, today was particularly tough for JaMar. I mean 7 for 24 and 109 yards is really, well, my son has better stats in the 10-12 year old division of Pop Warner. This was the same defense that Ravens' QB Joe Flacco torched for 350+ yards and 3 TDs last week, and he was the #18 pick in the draft, not the #1 like Russell. And he went to the University of Delaware, for God's sake.

Anyway, there are a lot reasons for his erratic throws. He locks in on receivers and, in turn, defensive backs lock in on him. What happens? Picksville. Then he forces the ball into traffic and—swat!—there's another pass defended. He holds onto the ball too long. He can't throw on the run, which is really weird for a QB from LSU. He thinks "going through his progressions" means trying different varieties of Progresso soups. And checking down to his backs? Jesus Christ, I know Darren McFadden is a small-ish back, but hell, JaMar is like 6'4" why the hell he can't find him is a mystery. But what am I supposed to do? I can't dumb down the offense to the Special Olympics level. So the whole erratic throwing thing really isn't a surprise to anyone paying attention—which clearly you aren't, reporter man.

Oh, and did I mention Al Davis drafted him because he can huck the ball 70 yards, but he can't hit a 15 yard down and out? Fuck, I really wish I could start Jeff Garcia, but we shipped him to Philly just before the season started. So there's that....next question, please."

Chicks Don't Dig Foul Balls*

Especially 3 or 4 year olds.

Great reaction by Dad!


*For anyone paying attention, yes, I stole that from my FB post. Self-plagarizing is not a crime.

Dick

I thought videos and MTV Video Awards died a number of years ago. Good thing they didn't or nobody would know what a classless cockring Kayne West truly is.

Classy move by Beyonce to bring up Taylor Swift (whoever the hell she is) to perform with her afterward the incident.

I'm a Birther and a Racist

At least according to Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen I am.

Why?

Because I'm oppose HR 3200 and the president's relentless attempts to shove it down our throats.

Mr. Cohen thinks he's free to wonder—no, premitted to wonder, in his words—that "if some of Obama’s more hateful critics are not expressing a repressed bigotry -- the feeling that the man up on the dais cannot really be the president of the United States. After all, he does not look like one."

Wait, how do you go from to..um...how does one come to the conclusion that....no, when you rudely yell "you lie!" and that makes you a....

Aw, screw it. I'm a birther and a racist, I guess.

But at least I'm not fucking nuts....

"You Lie!" And The Lying Liars Who Don't Want to be Called Out About Lying (Or, "You Call That Civil Discourse?")

Disrespectful. Uncivil. Rude. Lacking grace and dignity.

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) shouting "You lie!" during President Obama's speech was all those things. (I was listening to the speech on the way home last night when I heard it and thought, 'Did I just hear that right?'.) Naturally, The Shout Heard 'Round The Country is plastered all over the main pages of media outlets. Columnists and pundits are all in a twitter and waggling their knowing fingers at Republicans.

It all makes me chuckle, really. I feel like channeling the guard from "Cool Hand Luke":

"What we've got here is...failure to remember."

Like when House Minority leader (at the time) Sen. Harry Reid calling President Bush a "loser" and a "liar" to high school kids.

Or when the late St. Senator Ted Kennedy (D-forever-Mass.) accused President Bush of being a liar by “telling lie, after lie, after lie”, in order to go to war in Iraq.

Or when President Obama misrepresented the oppostion last night calling them liars regarding "death panels", health insurance to illegals and use of federal dollars to fund abortions, when he himself is not fully disclosing that there are some truths to those claims*. So he is a liar for calling them liars.

But I think one of the more amusing responses in all this came from House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Queen of San Francisco, CA). Stories and columns today noted that Pelosi looked "visibly stunned" by Wilson's "You lie!"

She was quoted in the New York Times as follows:

Asked if she had considered gaveling Mr. Wilson out of order, she said: “No. Well, the — if he had continued. But the sergeant-at-arms — you know, the parliamentarian passed me a piece of paper that said what the options were, and I said we’re just going to move on.”

Well of course she wanted to move on—lest anyone else in the Chamber call her out on national TV for her baldfaced lies claiming she was never briefed on the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques back in 2002. (Thanks to AG Holder for pulling off the "Triple Ooopsy!" by releasing the EIT documents that a.) prove Pelosi's a liar; b.) undermine CIA agents and future intel gathering operations and; c.) EITs actually do work.)

And where were the stories and columns and calls for apologies on those equally disrespectful and unprofessional remarks?

If you're hearing crickets and tumbleweeds in the Land of Double Standard you're not alone.

Look, no doubt Joe Wilson was way, way, way out of line and disrespectful last night. He's since apologized, and Obama has graciously accepted it.

But before the calls go out for Wilson's resignation—because you know that can't be far away—the feigned indignation over the demise of civil discourse in this country and double standards should be checked at the door.



*This is not to say that those who make such dubious claims regarding "death panels" aren't exaggerating or using hyperbole; they are. But those are discussions for another time.

I Still Have Much Love for My Liberal Friends

But geez, when did they start drinking the rhetorical Kool-Aid by the vat?

This is all over Facebook today:

No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day.

Wow. Just wow. The first sentence is demonstrably false, misleading and deceitful that it would be laughable...if so many people weren't posting it on their Walls today.

Which begs a bigger question: In general, when did liberals, who've told us for years to "question authority" and "don't trust the government" or "don't trust anyone over 30", all of sudden find faith in the federal government to run a massively complex health care program, the very same federal government that can barely manage public education, and put decisions about their health care into the hands of bureaucrats? Really?

Moreover, do they just not have the time to investigate the matter? Are they just not that interested? Or are they just trying to be 'right' side of the issue with their friends? Do they not see the slow loss of their personal liberties? I honestly don't know how anyone who has read any critical and objective analysis—or, my God, simply seen the Congressional Budget Office report on the price tag of HR 3200—can feel good about or right in supporting such a poorly constructed and concevied piece of legislation. (And that doesn't even account for the poorly constructed arguments and misrepresentation and poor examples presented by President Obama on why the public should support it.)

Look, these friends are really, really smart people; many of whom I find to be truly incredible people who are much, much smarter than I am on numerous issues.

But I am absolutely, 100% Grade A perplexed by their willfull blindness to accept HR 3200 in any way, shape or form.

I Read Stupid People (And Their Ignorant Slams on Religion Bumper Stickers)

The anti-religious bumper stickers always tickle my funny bone. I think that's mostly because the people who place them on their vehicles would sooner worship politicians (hint, hint: guess who?) than be caught worshipping an entity they can neither touch or see. What I find belly-jiggling is that they find it all too convenient to use religious symbols or figures or psalms in order to express an opinion about an issue.

For example, in order to chastise and waggle a knowing finger at all religions, there's the "Coexist" bumper sticker:

Clever on the surface, but ultimately ignorant and graphically retarded.

The designer just shrugged their shoulders and thought, 'Ah, who cares if the peace and man/woman symbols aren't really religions symbols, it works in the graphic. Besides I'm too lazy to look up other religious symbols that might make a better 'O' and 'E.' I can still use the Christian cross, the Jewish star and the Islamic moon and star in the same word and still make my point! Whatever that is...'

And is the point of this bumper sticker?

Aside from the graphical inaccuracies, there's the greater inconvenience in acknowledging the fact that it's incredibly ignorant of current events. See, nearly every major and current conflict or war in the world was started by—you guessed it—Islamists.

Lest you think I'm full of Shiite, here's a quick recap of current conflicts: Sudan? Islam. Chechnya? Islam. Afghanistan? Islam. Pakistan? Islam. Palestine? Islam. Lebanon? Islam. Iraq? Islam. (Yes, that may be over-simplifying or glossing over Israeli aggression in some instances, but this is a matter of 'original sin' in starting said conflict.)

Now, take some time and cite a current modern conflict started by Christians, Jews or Buddhists. Go on, no hurry. I'll wait.

Still thinking, huh?

That's cool, get back to me when you think of one.

So who's really not 'coexisting' with whom, Mr. Oh-So-Smart-Religion-Hating Graphic Designer?

How about leaving on the Moon and Star for the 'C' and using regular fonts for the rest of the word? Then a point would be made.

Here's another favorite:
















Cute, huh? See how the writer used Jesus to point out Christian hypocrisy in supporting wars, insinuating that we should 'love our enemies'? I actually think this one makes a good point in that regard: As followers of a peaceful and loving God, war should be the last option.

Here's the deal, however: While I don't profess to know what Jesus may or may not think on the matter of war, I get the feeling Jesus would have a darn hard time 'turning the other cheek' or letting his beard be plucked' or 'loving the enemy' if he knew millions or thousands of people were being massacred and buried in mass graves like the Jews in WWII. Or in the killing fields of Cambodia. Or in Saddam's deserts. Or if humanity itself were threatened by any entity other Jesus' dad, dear old God.

Who knows, Jesus might even admire the extreme accuracy of modern weaponry in targeting the bad guys of today. (Of course, some of those cowardly fucks like to use women and children to hide behind posing a gut-wrenching dilemma even Jesus might have trouble dealing with.)

Finally, there's this one I saw in the parking lot at work (sorry, no picture):

"If religious groups want to be in politics, they should pay taxes."

Hmm, does that go for all nonprofit groups—like, say, the Sierra Club? Or the Nature Conservancy? Or MoveOn.org? Or just pick your favorite liberal nonprofit group that's heavily involved in lobbying for their interests. Should they pay taxes too? I'm thinking 'no' here. We just want those meddling Christians to pay! Bastards!

I think the final chuckle I get from all these is this: Professed and alleged tolerant and liberal people have no problem whatsoever openly expressing their intolerance and ignorance.

And in other news, water is wet.