Thursday, December 29, 2011

the dreaded middle airplane seat

Every single day, there are roughly 50,000 non-military airplanes that take off and land.  A statistically insignificant number will crash.  That seems pretty impressive, but it's probably not.  You're far more likely to die on the way to the airport.  You should take solace in this fact unless you're one of the poor souls who finds themselves in the unenviable middle airplane seat.  It's really not that big a deal if you're traveling with your spouse or a family member.  But if you're stuck in the middle between a pro wrestler and the creator of Funyuns, you're in for a predictably miserable experience.  Consider the direct JFK > LAX flight.  Ouch.

As I see it, here's the breakdown...

About 50% of the people who board an airplane do not want to wish to engage in conversation.  Most are willing to feed you an obligatory "hello," but then generally dissolve into their iPad, book/magazine or use the vomit bag to construct some kind of origami-frog. 

Another 25% will make brief, polite conversation from here and there.  This is the category I generally fall into.  I speak when spoken to.  If someone has a mundane weather observation, I'll gladly provide input.  But it's usually concise. 

Then there's another 10% who want to yap incessantly.  Annoying but generally harmless.  They'll try to engage you from the start.  But if you stand your ground, they will usually take the hint.

And it has been my experience that about 10% of the time, you're seated next to some moron who just can't shut the fuck up.  This is consistent with societal norms.  One time I was flying from Columbus to Phoenix, and I had the misfortune of sitting next to a large man who relentlessly impaled my tympanic membrane with discussion of his ostrich farm.  The lean quality of the meat, the friendly disposition of ostriches, the overall upswing in ostrich popularity, celebrities who've been to his ostrich farm (I vaguely recall Eric Estrada having visited), ostrich mating habits, anything ostrich-related was on the table.  And the guy didn't even live in Phoenix.  The asshole lived in Tuscon.  He had no shame whatsoever.  Completely unaware of his role as an unacceptable life form.  And suffice to say, this type of passenger almost always has chronic halitosis.

The last 5% are the people who have no business associating with humanity in general. Ahh, the subhumans who lack the ability to communicate due to a variety of issues.  Extreme paranoia requiring near lethal dosages of maximum strength Xanax, the unbearable notion of going the next 4 hours without a cigarette, fear of the plane crashing, fear of close proximity to others, maybe they never have boarded an airplane until this fateful day (meeting that new love in Vegas after a sordid, 48 hour, hot and heavy internet romance), etc. 

So what's my point?  At 41 years of age, I'm guessing I've boarded an actual airplane about 183 times.  I'd estimate that's a little above normal, but I'm obviously not in the category of Air Force, the executive business traveler, flight attendant or someone who travels extensively.  I'd say I've gotten stuck in the middle seat about 15% of the time.  And as I alluded to early, if you're in between two individuals of ample girth, that spells Uncomfortable with a capital "U."  I'm not homophobic, but I try my best to avoid male thigh-on-thigh contact.  Yes... I am complaining.  But I realize it's not like being waterboarded or sliding down a razor banister.  Back to my main point - if one or both armrests are unavailable, there's going to be some discomfort. 

So earlier, I defined the various types of airplane traveler personalities.  I did this for a reason.  There's not much I can do about "thigh and leg spatial violations."  But if you happen to get stuck in the middle seat, there needs to be a socially, universally acceptable way to ask for occasional use of the armrest.  So the question becomes, how and when is the best way to broach the subject.  Here's what I would suggest...

As the flight attendant goes through the routine safety procedures, he/she will come to the point where they explain oxygen mask protocol.  During this instant is your best chance.  As the flight attendant's arms are outstretched, glance up and say the following.  "Wow, looks like she has plenty of arm room.  I am sooo jealous!"  Then, immediately follow it up with a "lighthearted" apology - something along the lines of "Ohh, I can't believe I just said that.  I'm so sorry."

If either of the individuals seated next to you has any conscience (about 85%), they will acknowledge your dilemma.  Some will offer up the armrest immediately.  At this point, I would suggest responding with "Ohh, I won't need it for the whole flight.  Just from time to time so my arms and upper torso don't go numb."  Follow this up with just a hint of nervous, skittish laughter.  So there you have it.  I believe this to be the best solution (as it relates to constructive timing and reasonable etiquette) to the dreaded middle airplane seat, armrest problem.

Since I'm the only known person on the planet likely to have put this in writing, I must make the following demand.  My middle seat solution cannot be used on flights with a duration of less than 1 hour 26 minutes.  That's in-the-air flying time.  That seems like a reasonable limitation.  And just for the record, I have never flown first class.  So my observations all come from a coach perspective.   That would make a killer question for Mitt Romney, the man who likes to make $10,000 bets.  "Governor, have you ever sat in the middle seat?"  If he pauses and has to think about it (for more than just 2 seconds), it makes him look like an elitist.  If he responds, "Yes.  I have sat in the middle from time to time," it would likely be viewed as an outright lie.  Either way, it makes him look like a douchebag since virtually all his flight experiences have been on a private plane or at the very least, commercial first class (in which case the armrest argument is rendered mute).  Just the mere mention of having to sit in the middle...  it's almost as bad as the "how many times a day do you beat your wife" question.  Someone should try it.  Hell, it could sink his campaign.  

Sunday, December 25, 2011


I went for an interception yesterday in Gold Lot 6 before the Rams game.  The end result was me biting the dust, or in this case, asphalt.  A banged up knee bone and a sore chest.  I could be hobbled for a while.  But as expected, free tickets were plentiful.  Tons of no-shows.  Attendance rolled in at 60,081.  That's 5,419 no-shows.  Way to go Steeler Nation.  I wonder how many will bail on the Ravens at Bengals next week.   I'm a little torn on that one.  Of course I want the Ravens to lose and Pixburgh to secure the #2 or even #1 seed (doubtful as the Bills would have to beat the Patriots).  But the thought of Cincy losing a heartbreaker has a certain appeal.  I wouldn't mind going to Cleveland Stadium next week.  Surprisingly, I've never been there.

Nevertheless, I came up with an unusual idea last night.  As I gazed at Gig's Christmas tree, it suddenly hit me like a ton of bricks.  Pornaments.  That's right.  With the mainstream acceptance of pornography coinciding with the disdain, rejection and demise of organized religion, this could be a huge hit.  Most of those adult video companies sign their female stars to long-term contracts.  Why not have miniaturized porn action figures, or in this case Christmas tree pornaments?  The porn stars would embrace the self promotion and I'm sure there are a slew of weirdos out there who would eagerly display the shit.  I'm not even going to bother addressing the notion of cast moldings and poses.  Suffice to say, they would all have functional, moving parts.  You could even sell accessories with them - mini-lingerie and sadomasochistic stuff (whips, chains, masks, etc).  The possibilities are endless.

Back in the mid 90's, me and Alex hung an inverted Christmas tree from the ceiling and decorated it with empty beer cans, ticket stubs and misc. crap.  The tip of the tree was suspended just an inch from the floor.  Ohhh, happy day.  Holy night.  Whatever.  Anyway, it received rave reviews.  That same year we were gifted an assortment of Peeps.  Peeps are those disgusting sugar-dyed marshmallow hen-like animals.  We removed from the container and tacked some of them to the wall.  Then we proceeded to throw darts at them.  This made for some weak entertainment.  Regrettably, the woman who kindly made us the candy assortment saw what we had done with her beloved Peeps.  She was not amused.  In fact, she was completely disgusted with both of us.  Honestly, were we really expected to consume them?

Anyway, the time is right for pornaments.  You could really draw the ire from social conservatives in an election year, thus greatly enhancing the concept.  Seriously, it's a win-win.

Sunday, December 18, 2011

Happy Holidays vs. Merry Christmas

I know.  I know.  As usual, the Christian majority is aghast.  Once again, the damn government wants to "take the Christ out of Christmas!"  Look here.  Look what they gone done.  They won't let our congressman/woman send out a card that says "Have A Merry Christmas."  This is political correctness gone awry.  I've had it up to here.  This is a Christian nation, damn it!  I'm sick n'tard of all these nonbelievers imposing their will on the defenseless majority.

Alright, let's tear this shit apart.  First, this is not a Christian nation.  The "founding fathers" espoused a government, of the people, by the people, for the people.  Back in the day, they went to great lengths to forgo the notion of some magical deity that commanded the populace like a marionette.  There's a reason they made specific mention that it was "the people" who all politicians must inevitably answer to.  Not some bearded, hovering grandfatherly figure.

But now it's gotten much worse.  For god's sake, you can't even tell people to "have a happy holiday."  What's the world coming to?  This would actually imply that the government is endorsing any religion.  What about those who don't celebrate the holidays.  We mustn't offend the atheists and infidels.  It could irreparably damage their sensibilities.  We can't command them to embrace notions of seasonal joy.  But just wishing people, "happy holidays"... well... I guess that's okay.  Kind of like saying Happy Hump Day.  Yeah, I get it.

But here's the real deal for all you arch conservative, anti big government right wing tea-baggers.  Rather than bitching up a storm about this overreach of politically correct behavior, why not think about the issue from my perspective.  If you take the blinders off, you'll find it coincides with your own view.  Why on earth is the government footing the bill for holiday greeting cards on the tax-payer dime?  Why are U.S. citizens forced to pay for this nonsense?  Every Senator, every member of the House sends out this gibberish in order to ingratiate themselves with their constituency.  Think about it.  Not only does it offer an unfair advantage from a campaigning perspective, it's just in incredibly poor taste.  Gaudy snowmen and horny mall store Santas, sandwiched betwixt frolicking elves - posing jubilantly amidst your extended family.  Sickening. 

And how about that appointed panel or commission established to make an official determination regarding exactly what particular message should be deemed offensive.  This disgusts me more than the aftermath of a combined beer/wine/scotch/eggnog induced evening of revelry.  Another waste of the tax dollar.  That's right.  I'm addressing you, you Rushtic Limbaughns?  I'm talking to you, you overindulgent mangerial idiots who always think prayer is the answer.  I've got some really bad news.  Prayer does nothing.  All that time and effort in vain.  You could have been sewing an itchy, woolen baby blanket or making your traditional sausage, ham, bologna and bacon omelette.  Instead, you went to church.  Kudos.

My point - let's get rid of these imbecilic government holiday greeting cards altogether.  Happy holidays, merry Christmas, abysmal kwanzaa, whatever...  Dispose of all this nonsense.  If a government official craves the desire to mandate dispensation of seasonal enjoyment, let them do it with their own money.  I suggest everyone send their politician the following message.  In my case it would go something like this...

Hey, Senator Rockefeller - take your greeting card and stick it up your ass.

Yo, James Manchin - why don't you go caroling with that Charleston pedophile mall store Santa?

Representative McKinley - On the 12th day of Christmas, my congressman gave to me... the gift of watching you engage in bestiality with the lead reindeer.  In this case, I'm hoping for a genetically mutated manimal named Rudolph McKinley.

We're done here.  Happy Hanukkah.

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Civil Emergency in this area until 1:24 PM EST Take Shelter Now U.S. Govern

If you happen to reside in central New Jersey (specifically Monmouth, Ocean and Middlesex counties) and are a Verizon customer with a "cellular enabled device," you may have gotten the scare of a lifetime.  What happened on Monday afternoon, December 12, 2011 strikes me as something far more than a casual accident.  I'll let these 2 pictures speak for themselves...

CMAS just means Commercial Mobile Alert System

Now that second one looks a tad more menacing.  Nothing like a request to "Take Shelter" due to a "Civil Emergency."  Seriously, it evokes images of students being told to hide under their desks because the Soviet Union just launched a nuclear missile.  And guess what - it's heading straight toward central New Jersey.  Can you imagine the public reaction if this message was distributed at 1:24 AM, instead of during the pleasant afternoon hours?  If the majority of users had been awoken in the middle of the night, I think the public reaction would have made been vastly more severe.  In fact, the timing of the message seemed deliberate.  It was sent at 12:27pm during a period of relative calm, while many were on their lunch break (or if it was Snookie and the Jersey shore crew, they were probably just waking up after a night of binge drinking, arguing and brawling, eventually resulting in a deviant orgy).  My point though... the timing of this emergency text seems purposely attenuated to do "as little" damage as possible.  But someone must have had a purpose when they chose the specific 57 minute duration or the precise time until the emergency was to be lifted.

The content of the message was exactly the same, whether it was on your Android phone, I-Pad or whatever.

There have been plenty of articles written about it, but as I type this, the mainstream media appears content to just let the matter expire.  Since the issue of text induced panics and artificially generated stampedes has plagued my mind since mid-March of 2011, I simply cannot let this matter fall by the wayside.

Here's one of several articles written about the matter (they all say basically the same thing).

Verizon issued an apology and a retraction - stating there was no emergency and the original message should have included the phrase "test message."  Apparently, Verizon deemed this an "accident" (in an email from the company).  Sounds to me like a company spokesperson may have been coerced through government intimidation.  But this did nothing to allay fear as 911 calls poured in.  In a timely response (90 minutes later), the Federal Department of Homeland Security issued a statement stating there was "no emergency."  So glad the Janet-planet Napolitano-behemoth was there to offer a helping hand.  Way to go!  And so informative...  Reminds me of the post 9/11 run on duct tape.

There's a complete lack of accountability with regard to who was ultimately responsible for this.  And that's the only thing that DOES make sense with this fiasco.  Who on earth would personally step up and take the blame for this one?  Nobody, because this was likely NOT an accident.  Whoever sent this message out had a very specific agenda.  Maybe it was someone who had been consistently overruled or scoffed at, perhaps part of a larger bureaucratic turf war.  From where though?  You could probably take your pick.   Maybe a liaison between the New Jersey state and federal Department of Homeland Security?  Maybe a higher-up at Verizon that doesn't want to play ball with the federal government - someone worried about potential litigation and exposure.  How about someone at FEMA trying to exert their influence in opposition to the ill-advised time frame of the 2012 federal role-out of PLAN (Personal Localized Alert Network)?  Maybe an underling at the FCC who was recently demoted and has utter contempt for their boss?  Who really knows about the source of origin?  But we can establish one thing for certain.  Whoever did this, it's one of 2 things - they either share my specific, grave concerns OR were trying to exert leverage and influence in some way from within big business, but more likely the guvmint.   Odd I suppose, because the United States is the most attentive government on the planet.  It has always shown a penchant for deliberately weighing the concerns of its employees.  Every single one of them.  Particularly those who have a problem with the trajectory, methodology and intentions of big brother.

My fundamental argument - this text alert was NOT an accident.  It had a purpose, whether it be noble or nefarious (conceviably a combination of both).  There is a reason things like this happen.  They don't "just happen" like when a guy sleeps with his wife's mother on Maury Povich.  "Ohhh Murry, we were drinking ya know, and uhhh, well, it just happened Murry.  I'm sorry (in a diplomatic tone).  (followed by a sheepish) Will you forgive me?"
And I have a weird hunch that 1:24pm might signify something.  Maybe it's an important date (1-24-12 or January 24, 2012) with regard to the PLAN role-out.  Perhaps someone is implying, if don't get your shit together and warn people that these systems are not 100% secure by such and such a date...  but I'd rather not go down the  conspiracy/numerology route.  It's just a strange hunch.  Because someone must have had a legitimate reason for selecting "1:24" pm.  You don't just capriciously pick a specific time.  Ohhh, let's say 1:24... on a whim, I guess.  No fucking way.

And I couldn't help but notice that the message was sent immediately following the end of the "home game" portion of the college football season (it ended this weekend with the annual Army/Navy game at Fed Ex Field in Washington, DC).  The timing here seems a bit coincidental, too  As if to say... well, we got lucky this year, but eventually this streak of good fortune is going to end (regarding the potential for an artificially generated stampede).  After all, the upcoming bowl games would likely NOT be an issue - only home campus games with regard to the campus text alert system.  If this particular aspect doesn't make any sense, just scroll down and read the 9th chapter of my book...

That should clear up any confusion.  Well, I'm going back to bed.  Leaving for Arizona in a few hours.  I just had to get this shit off my chest.  Civil Emergency in this area until 1:24 PM EST Take Shelter Now U.S. Govern... I wonder what the next one will say.  All I know is that it will express some form of content.  But the question, what will be the intent.  And will it be yet another "accident?"

One more thought - why did this happen in New Jersey?  Perhaps because it's the most densely populated state in the country and it rivals New York City for major Homeland Security funding?  Or is that just another coincidence?  Why didn't that unintentional text alert go out to unexpected Verizon customers in the Bartlesville, Oklahoma area?  Just something else to think about.

Sunday, December 11, 2011

Callista Gingrich will soon be sodomized (but not by Sandusky)

I watched some of the Republican debate recap this morning.  Good stuff.  I've come to one conclusion... The Republican party has really fucked itself.   I think the Iowa caucuses are going to provide no clear-cut winner.  And I think ALL of the Republican candidates, especially the lesser-tier (Santorum, Bachmann, Huntsman) will spin it that way in their post interviews.  I think they'll all say the same thing - "Iowa didn't give us a clear preference... so we're going forward to New Hampshire and South Carolina, Florida and so on."  Perry's probably thinking along the same lines except it's New Mexico, South of the Border, Panama, and so forth.

Every candidate seems to occupy a niche within the right wing.  And it's diluting everyone's brand.  Now factor in the aggressive retail campaigning of Santorum and Paul, even Bachmann.  They all have strong ground games.  Organization is critical in the caucus setting.  Unlike myself, some of these voters will sit in a church basement for over two hours.  Is it any wonder all of the candidates are so desperate to appeal to the anti-gay, prayer in school, religious fodder?  Look who has won the Iowa primary in the past - Pastor Huckabee, the fucking Reverend Pat Robertson for cryin' out loud? Seriously, what the fuck is that???  Still, the higher-tiered candidates fight back with heavy advertising.  Makes for a tangled mess.  Which I think is completely cool.  And why wasn't Jon Huntsman at the debate?  Betting your entire candidacy on New Hampshire is horribly naive for someone trying to portray themselves as a sensible, reasonable politician.  Much like Giuliani bet it all on Florida in the last go-around.  Bad move.  He never really stood a chance anyway.

And when Romney extended that $10,000 bet to Rick Perry, Perry should have said, "Uh Mitt, Mormon's don't gamble."  Could have raised himself another mil.  Regrettably, Perry ain't that quick on his feet, err uh, cowboy boots.

So anyway, the point of this blog.  A couple weeks ago I wrote about how Gingrich, or for that matter any of the field, could destroy Mitt Romney's campaign.  So this entry will be about how to annihilate Newt Gingrich.  Let's just say the gloves are going to come off.  I think Romney's team or a conveniently affiliated 527 group is gonna go after Newt's wife.  F'in A!  They could show that stoic, botoxed smile of hers when they bring up Newt cheating with Callista while his cancer-stricken wife was lying in a hospital bed.  The images would be brutal.  How's that for a negative attack ad.  This is the ultimate crushing death blow.  I'll put it in UFC terms - it's the Jon Jones guillotine choke on Lyoto Machida.  You can't counter it, because you've been knocked out.  Or if you prefer a 1980's wrestling reference - it's that lard-ass, monster-boobed New Yorker, Adrian Adonis, latching on with a sleeper hold. 

Newt has shown that he can handle all the smear tactics.  And Newt seems less immune to the flip-flop charges because he's viewed a fighter.  The acrimony recanted by fellow Republicans he served with in the House - nobody seems interested in hearing about it.  Charges that he was a "lobbyist" for Freddie Mac - they just don't seem to stick.  And he has distanced himself from all the ethics violations from the 90's (Although I think it's an issue, I really don't think most Americans care about it).  All that stuff, it just bounces off him... kind of like a Teflon-Newt.  I'm tellin' you what.  Newt Gingrich is the John Gotti of politics.  So when the gloves really do come off, they'll go after Callista - that devious, cheating mistress.  She's really an inviting target.  Hey, what the hell, let's bring back images of her and the gaudy jewelry from Tiffany's.  Photoshop a picture of her wearing multiple strands of pearls and a diamond-encrusted tiara.   Bring on the bling.  The first ever "conniving, scheming, deceitful, mistress shrew-bitch."  Is this really who we want as President and "first lady?"

I can't be the only one devising this strategy.  Romney's team probably calls it the "bombardment option."  "Nuclear option" might not be a politically correct term at the moment.  They probably polled a focus group of Iranian-American dissidents.  Now you could make the claim... what if it backfires?  Newt might appear courageous in coming to the defense of his wife (although he would refer to it as an act of "obstinate chivalry").  But it's hard to defend the honor of a woman who looks so phony and synthetic.  And something in my gut (which has added about 7 pounds recently - not kewl, need to start running again) tells me she just couldn't handle the humiliation.  How cool would that be.  She would go B-A-N-A-anas.  I could even envision watching her run.  Yeah, right.  Running straight to her family doctor for a maximum strength Xanax prescription.  Hell, let's make fun of her in that way too.  Just say that Callista is sooo privileged.  In her case, it's the doctor that must make the rare house-call.  For she is a real life sedentary Barbie-princess. 

The best scenario would be for Romney to get another candidate to the dirty work.  Rick Perry has demonstrated with an unusual degree of skilled acumen that he indeed could be this perfect dolt.  The guy literally cries out - "I am a complete joke and I have a ton of money to spend.  My campaign team raised all this cash.  Would one of you real candidates please exploit me?  I'm beggin' ya."

On an entirely different note, I have grown really sick of Tim Tebow and the in-your-face proselytizing.  I've never cared for Roethlisberger either (and his relentless pointing to the heavens above).  But I tolerate him cuz it's Pixburgh na't.  But Tebow?  I despise, loathe, detest and have a great deal of animosity for.  I'd love to see Ray Lewis or Terrell Suggs knock him out in Denver.  This could happen.  What if the Ravens head to Mile High (er uhh, Invescothon) as the 5th wild card seed.  I hope Tebow's Christian ass gets repeatedly pummeled with a hint of broken spine.  Wouldn't it be absolutely insane if Tim ended up like our friend TIMMY! (think South Park character).  Alright, that's enough.  I'll stop before I say something really hurtful.  Well... just one more thing.  We really need a high profile NFL player who's a devout atheist or worships the devil.  I'd even break from steadfast tradition and buy an officially licensed jersey.  Everyone else gets to celebrate this time of year.  Why not me?  Seriously, is this asking too much?

But I do stand by my assessment - I think we're going to see a vicious Callista Gingrich lynching in the very near future.  It's the most plausible, effective way to take out Newt.  Poor Callista.  We hardly knewt you.  I love politics.  I cannot wait.

Thursday, December 08, 2011

facebook will dismantle the online gambling industry

I just finished reading a brief article about how facebook is drawing advertising revenue from online gambling companies.  It got me to thinking.  Yeah, I know online gambling is illegal in the U.S.  Hell, our legislators have deemed it immoral.  If people gambled on pro sports, it could take a bite out of the church bingo circuit and hurt the scratch-off nonsense and state mega-lottery ticket sales.  Thank god we have a noble Congress that can enact laws on which type of gambling is morally acceptable.  And they've done a great job... because nobody can gamble on pro-sports.  Everyone knows it's illegal, thus nobody will be wagering on the Thursday night game (except about 200,000 people). 

The point - if you really want to gamble, you don't need to go down to the Sportsman's in downtown Wheeling and broker a bet with some guy named Lefty "Quick Draw" McSweeny.  All you do is go online, set up an account with a reputable company based in Costa Rica or Barbados (really anywhere), and they will be more than happy to extract 10% (even up to 15%) off you for every losing wager. 

But facebook has an unusual distinction.  Hundreds of millions of registered users.  They have the potential to turn the entire gambling world upside down.  How?  Pier-to-pier gambling.  It's a concept I invented this morning.  It has always been out there.  Think of it more like a toned-down office pool or just betting amongst your friends.  What if facebook set up a neutral, age-verified gaming site of their own?  In the meantime, they could just set up their subsidiary office outside the U.S. 

But here's the kicker designed to reek absolute havoc with all the conventional gambling sites.  It would be based on safely and securely wagering against your friends.  A regular gambling site sets you up with an initial amount of money (via credit card or bank draft) and then it takes its cut off your losing bets.  Facebook has the potential to completely dismantle this business model.  They could set you up with an intermediary account (much like paypal) and take a far less significant cut.  Their percentage could be more like 1%-2%, because they would make it up in VOLUME.  They already have the largest established user base on the planet.  My idea is "friends betting directly against their friends."  Instead of the traditional bookie making pay-outs or collections, you take the money directly from one of your facebook friends.

And it would be virtually impossible for U.S. legislators to crack down on this practice.  All the laws and regulation in the world can't do away with that NCAA Final Four office pool.  Of course, my idea has some far-reaching consequences.  But it's all based along the simple premise - is it okay if the government comes knocking on your door and says, "Hey, you made a personal wager with a friend of yours on the Browns-Steelers Thursday night game.  Guess what, you're under arrest!"  Although I'm sure this might appeal to a few Mormon Iowa caucus-goers, I don't see it happening from a practical perspective. 

Of course, the legal hurdles are problematic.  But once you get past the age verification issues, it just becomes a form of widespread, DECENTRALIZED online gambling.  I'm going to make a bold prediction here.  The U.S. Congress and the courts will eventually realize that these online gaming companies aren't going away.  They'll have to make it legal at some point.  The internet has transformed the gambling industry.  Of course there will be the customary resistance to the status quo... but eventually it's gonna happen.  At that instant in time, facebook will instantly become the biggest bookie on the planet.

And they can even target you based on your all your past posts.  Everyone knows who just checked-in at Heinz Field.  Here we go Steelers, here we go.  Yeah, I'd probably take Pittsburgh tonight.  The spread is -14.  Let's say 31-10.

Friday, December 02, 2011

How Ginrgich could terminate Romney

A month ago I devised of a way to destroy the Mitt Romney campaign (preferably in Iowa).  While I still think my idea has merit (the busload of ethnically diverse supporters accidentally filmed at all the Romney campaign stops), I surmised a much easier way.  Everyone seems to agree that it's all coming down to Romney and Gingrich.  I suppose Ron Paul will place somewhere in Iowa caucus contention (probably 3rd), but all the others are generally viewed as a joke.

Santorum - rigorous, valiant campaigner, but no cash
Bachmann - an absolute joke except to her immediate family and the Palin offspring.
Cain - I think he'll withdraw tomorrow.  Never had a real campaign.  Won't fare well in Iowa anyway.
Huntsman - just can't seem to break out past the 2% threshold
Perry - has money, but is the biggest rodeo clown of them all.  Just not ready for the grand stage.  Kind of shocked he was able to rise to the level of governor of a major state (even in a state filled of Texanic yokels)

So it will likely be Romney vs. Gingrich.  I think all the candidates know one immutable fact.  NONE of them will be selected for the veep slot if Romney gets the nomination.  Romney wants nothing to do with any of them for the same basic reasons their campaigns have failed.  He'll likely choose someone like Marco Rubio (FL) or maybe Portman (OH) - for help in a crucial swing state.  Or go with a respected outsider like John Thune (R- South Dakota).  Gingrich obviously knows this, so he'll likely go for blood.  Mormon blood!  I think that's a dark shade of lavender.  Others have tried to knock off Mitt and failed miserably.  Rick Perry worked the illegal immigrant angle - Romney employed a contractor to do some landscaping work (totally fucking weak).  Even worse, Perry couldn't finish the hatchet job.  It's sad when you memorize your own attack lines and end up looking like the fool.  Perry is real-life microcosm of the movie JackAss.

Anyway, how to besmirch Romney or make him suddenly lose front-runner status...
Let's start by putting out the following premise we can all agree on.  Republican primary voters can't stand Obama.  This is something we can all take for granted.  Gingrich should try and make Romney look like Obama.  Draw the parallel.  How can he do this... portray him as the fundraiser-in-chief, just like Obama (the campaigner-in-chief, not doing the job, etc. blah).  This would overshadow any of the picayune policy positions.  He could say, "Look this guy has been campaigning for the presidency for the past 8 years.  Do we really want MORE OF THE SAME, or will you trust your gut and try something different."  Although Newt's a total Washington insider, this puts Romney on the defensive.  It bodes well for the attack style of Gingrich.  Hell, the guy has no shame, doesn't care if anyone thinks he's a hypocrite - so why not go all out?  The question is how and when....

Anf here's the answer.  You don't just make the assertion, you offer up tangible proof.   Ever since McCain disposed of Romney in the 2008 primary, Romney has been buying up airtime on every cable network.  Does anyone remember all those "I'm your neighbor, I'm your dentist, I'm your teacher, I'm your anaesthesiologist when you got that colonoscopy, and I'm a Mormon commercials?"  They've ran fucking non-stop for years... then mysteriously they came to an end.  Well, they just didn't suddenly disappear...  they morphed into the Foundation for a Better Life commercials.  Now, it's these ones that play ad nauseum.  WHY?  Because the Romneyites were trying to raise the comfort level among Republican primary voters (nationwide, but particularly in Iowa and South Carolina which is an absolute necessity).  Subconsciously blend the ad campaigns.  This is our best shot.  It should dim the wits of the already dimwitted Fox viewers. 

So here's what Sir Gingrich Newton should do.  During the next high profile debate, he should directly call out the Romnathon.  "Listen Mitt, we all know that these endless Foundation For a Better Life commercials are part of a larger, slicker campaign strategy to put you in the White House.  The American people are TIRED of all this bait-and-switch maneuvering.  We already got plenty of that with the Obama "hope and change" campaign.  Look where that got us.  Now, you're the one trying to pull a fast one on the American people.  The voters want someone who can do the job, not a "window-washer trying to exploit the gullibility of the masses.  If you select me, you'll get a REAL candidate.  If you choose Mitt, you'll get another empty campaigner, devoid of anything SUBSTANTIVE.  It's up to the voters.

But here's the clincher.  After figNewton launches this offensive, he should call on Romney (face to face) to stop running all those Foundation advertisements.  This is a big deal because it gives Mitt only 2 viable options - both of which totally suck and destroy his credibility.  Both are lose-lose.  If he withdraws all the ads, it makes him Romney look like a total chump.  Hey, did you see how Newt called him out on the ads and Romney buckled - what a fucking pussy!  We'd be fools to nominate that phony.  But even better, Mitt probably cannot withdraw the ads (due to contractual obligations with the networks).  This scenario is worse because Newt has tied him to a deceptive, untrustworthy strategy.  And what's the fundamental reason Romney can't get over the 25% hurdle with Repub primary voters...  They don't trust him to be a "classic conservative" - they all think he's a flip-flopper.

So let's say, the Foundation ads continue unabated - it becomes this endless, incessant reminder of how Mitt tried to pull a fast one on the American public - the ultimate loser scenario for Mitt.  That's what's so brilliant - Romney loses either way.  There's no snappy comeback for this one.  And I doubt he's prepared to address the matter.  Odd, because Mitt has an answer for everything.  Mitt really is... the shit.

And if I were as evil as Newt (I'm not, but let's say hypothetically I was), I would make it a point to laughingly bring up that infamous, imbecilic basketball commercial.  This is the one where the kid tells the coach he "touched the ball on its way out of bounds."  Everyone has seen this commercial and when Newt calmly explains that it doesn't make any sense because the ref ALREADY made the call, the audience would erupt in laughter.  Newt should say, "Only Mitt Romney would find comfort and justification in a referee illegally flip-flopping on an out-of-bounds call that has already been made."  Then, Newt should go in for the kill and explain, "I hate to sound condescending, but the irony is really overwhelming.  Out of all of them, I think Mitt probably produced that one.  He's very hands on.  After all the kid did touch the ball when it went out of bands.  See, there's the proof."

But this is really powerful, because it destroys Mitt on credibility, not policy.  Then Newt can go in for the kill with some long-winded discussions about foreign and domestic positions.   I think that's the way you annihilate Romney - you turn him into a joke.  Nobody wants to be affiliated with the joke-of-a-candidate.  Everyone can accept some differing opinions on climate change, varying degrees of tax cuts, maybe even abortion.  But absolutely nobody wants to align themselves with the town idiot.  Especially in a caucus-style setting where everyone in the room sees who you're pulling for.

So when do you pull off this stunt.  Well, they just announced that Donald Trump (my favorite douchebag to the dumbshits) will be moderating the Dec. 27 debate in Iowa.  What better a time to deliver a crushing deathblow?  Romney will be playing total defense as usual.  Gingrich comes in and smothers Mitt with his gock (for those who don't know, that's a combination of gut and cock).  Romney has no time to launch a counteroffensive and his campaign gets seriously hampered heading into New Hampshire.  Gingrich vaults into second place in NH - doesn't matter how bad Romney beats him if he places second.  Then, it's onto South Carolina where the backwoods, Jesus freaks are terrified of a Mormon.  Gingrich wins again.  2 out of 3 should do it. 

Please keep in mind, I think all the Republican candidates (with the exception of Ron Paul) are totally excrementilicious.  That might sound like a ringing endorsement, but trust me, it means they're all joyful, heralded piles of excrement (aka shit).  I'll be voting for Obama.  And the real irony of me writing this particular blog, if it has to be a Republican in the White House, I'd feel much more comfortable with Romney.  Romney's a phony but Gingrich is pure evil.