In international news, in case you haven’t heard, Osama Bin Laden was killed, so that’s good too. It’s interesting to see how people respond to this type of thing. Among my friends, I have some who celebrated in the streets, and I have some who put up posts on Facebook with messages like “Killing is never a cause for celebration.” Personally, I’m more with the celebrating-in-the-streets group. I completely understand not wanting to be blood-thirsty or to celebrate killing, but I’m willing to make an exception if the killed person was a mass murdering fuckhead.
I mean, life is nothing if not nuanced, right? Nothing is ever cut-and-dried. Even the most principled people can’t live a completely consistent life. I once knew a policeman who considered it his moral imperative to follow the law unwaveringly. He did so, until one day circumstances conspired in such a way that in order to act morally, he had to break the law. Tormented by this paradox, he eventually committed suicide by drowning himself in the Seine. Okay, I didn’t actually know this guy. In fact, he’s not even real. He’s Javert from Les Miserables, but it’s a good illustration of my point – there are always shades of gray and exceptions.
I see this as well in “enhanced interrogation techniques” (aka, torture – Can’t we just call things what they are?), which has come to the forefront a bit, as it’s possible some the intelligence used in locating Bin Laden came about from such techniques. On general principle, I completely oppose torture. I don’t believe it’s moral, and I don’t believe it usually works. I’ve heard former CIA interrogators interviewed who claim other techniques, such as offering incentives (or punishments) to a detainee’s family members, are far more effective. But, everybody and every situation is different. If there was a specific instance where interrogators felt they could gain a vital piece of information that could potentially save thousands of lives, and in this very rare instance the only way they could get it was through torture, well, how deeply are you going to dig in on principle alone?
On the lighter side of Osama’s death, it’s been funny to hear so many people inadvertently say Obama when they mean Osama and vice-versa. (“Did you hear? They just killed Obama!”) I did it and was really embarrassed, then later two of my colleagues did it, and then listening to the Adam Carolla Show, I heard two of his guests do it, as well. Then I saw this clip. Now, I’m not so embarrassed.
It’s bound to happen. From a phonic standpoint Osama + Bin = Obama. It really is a bit surreal that the president of the U.S. is named Barack Hussein Obama. He almost has both of the two most notorious enemies of the state of the last ten years in his name. It would be like if in the 1944 election one of the candidates was named Harry S. Mussolini Hetler.
OK, enough about Bin Laden.
In my job search, things have been going okay. It’s not like I’ve been offered a position yet or anything, but I’m getting some bites. One of the prospects I mentioned before is looking less and less likely, but some new opportunities have come about.
Also, my baseball betting is going pretty well. Since I started betting on baseball, I’ve basically tripled my money. I would have even more, but last week, I miscalculated some probabilities and made nine foolish bets. Only two of them hit, so I lost a “bunch” of money. I use quotes because my stakes are ridiculously small. I’ve been thinking about upping the ante a bit, but I’m not sure if I have the cajones (which is probably a good thing). I will say though that it’s starting to look more and more like I have an actual skill in predicting games, and I’m not just getting lucky, but it’s tough to say.
Actually, the past few days it’s been really hard to find good bets. The odds have just been terrible. I don’t know if this is just temporary or if it will continue, hopefully the former. There have been a lot of odds like the following. Team A and Team B are two basically equal teams playing each other. Bet $1 on Team A and win $.91. Bet $1 on Team B and win $.91. So basically, in this scenario, the bettor has to pay the casino 9% for an “even-money” bet. That’s just not reasonable. 1-2% I could understand (the casino has to make money), but 9% is just way too much. I don’t know who is taking these bets, certainly not me.
I wish Internet gambling were legal in the States, because if it were, I would try to start my own site. My plan would be that it would only be low stakes. There would be really low caps on how much you could bet. That way nobody (including myself) would lose their shirt. I would give people really good odds so that they would come to my site, and then I’d supplement my revenue with advertising. It would be more of a game for the bettors than a way to make money.
This seems like a good business model to me. I thought about whether or not it would work using fake money instead of really money, but I don’t think it would. Even if it’s just for fun, there is something about using really money that can’t be captured with fake money. I occasionally play low-stakes poker with friends. We usually each throw in $20. Nobody is getting rich off these games, and yet they are way more fun than they would be if we were using fake money. I wouldn’t even play poker for fake money. It sounds completely boring to me. (Now, strip poker, on the other hand…) There’s something about winning money, even in small amounts that makes the game more exciting.
It’s strange, isn’t it, that gambling is mostly illegal in the States, except for arguably the worst type of gambling – state-run lotteries? They are 100% luck and they mostly prey on the poor and uneducated. Sure, the funds often go to schools, but is it a good idea to pay for schools by essentially taxing people who are so desperate for a better life that they are willing to believe in the virtual impossibility that is winning the lottery?
So, in other news, S and I went to see the movie Howl last night with some friends. I really enjoyed it. S fell asleep during it, but she was tired from her flight. Also, it’s a very easy movie to fall asleep during, because there isn’t really a plot. It’s loosely based around the 1957 obscenity trial involving Allen Ginsberg’s poem Howl, but for the most part it’s Ginsberg (played by James Franco) being interviewed, Ginsberg reading Howl at a poetry read, and animation set to the poem. It’s interesting, but there isn’t really a story.
Okay, that does it for this entry. No jokes this week, but I haven’t completely abandoned the idea. I might come back with some next week.
Peace.
No comments:
Post a Comment