Fantasia

Ok, feel free to call me a wanker. Just please leave me your IP address and a name would be quite helpful:

CONTROL THAT KEYBOARD

Message board abuser successfully sued

eCommerce News reports that American resident Sue Scheff has been awarded US$11.3 million in an Internet defamation lawsuit against fellow American Carey Bock, who called her a "crook," "con artist" and "fraud" on an Internet message board.

"What this verdict says is, you can't go and destroy someone's reputation and post defamatory statements about them over the Internet," said Scheff's attorney David Pollack.

A Broward County, Fla., jury has awarded a Weston, Fla., woman US$11.3 million in an Internet defamation lawsuit that legal experts say could spur more courtroom battles over what's said online.

Sue Scheff filed the lawsuit against Carey Bock in December 2003, after the Louisiana woman called her a "crook," "con artist" and "fraud" on an Internet message board for parents interested in alternative schools for troubled teens.

One message landed on the Broward County PTA Web site, calling Scheff's referral company for such parents "an old, old scam."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: The US legal system is now for sale on Ebay, BIN $10 or ONO.

The Muppets - The Movie

Oops! Following my last post it appears US politicians have made a major faux-pas in their haste to prove to the Religious Right that they are worthy of their wvote!

With no chance of the US Act to prohibit online gambling going through before Mid-Term elections, future Presidential candidate Senator Frist took a small part of the original Act and tacked it onto a totally irrelevant "must pass" Bill, the "Ports Security" Bill. This flew through as expected with an amendment saying that Banks and Financial Institutions ahd 270 days to find ways of stopping their customers using their own money for online gambling.

All well and good, that's how US politics works (yes it is the 21st Century I know!). But in their haste to stop "problem gambling" - that's the claim - all the online gambling companies outside the US that are publically listed have pulled out of the USA. So what? Well the US politicians either don't understand problem gambling, or they don't care. A problem gambler will find a way to gamble and the legislation has ensured that a great number of the "safe" and properly regulated casinos and poker rooms are no longer available to them! Ooh that's sensible!

As if that wasn't enough, the liklihood now is that offshore payment processing companies will sring up and offer US citizens alternative methods for sending their monies to online casinos and poker rooms. Not all will be legit of course.

Frist got this one wildly wrong. But perhaps the real motivation lies elsewhere. The Religious vote is very important. Additionally, Harrahs, the mega-casino company that dominate Las Vegas have funded his campaign (www.opensecrets.org). Interesting.

So let's get this straight...Frist claims in his various speeches and essays n this act that gambling is morally unacceptable, but is happy to take money from a major casino operator? But he's taken the first steps to banning online gambling so that has to be a good thing. Oh but hang on...apparently the Act does not extend to online lotteries and horse racing. Clearly some forms of gambling are morally wrong, but not all.

Did I mention mid-term elections?

Sheesh. Land Of The Free my a**e!

The Heist

OK...let's just assume for 2 minutes that you have morals, but agree that people are free to make up their own minds, even if you choose to abstain from something. So in essence, you're TOLERANT of other people's beliefs. Within reason obviously! Let's assume you're comfortable with sports wagering, investing in shares, playing poker and general "gambling" activities like these.

Unfortunately though, it seems like American politics is back to it's heads-in-the-sand bewildering best when it comes to gambling. The latest "initiative", driven as is usual with "American Values" proposals by the Christian Right, is to introduce Prohibition for online gambling. Stop everyone from doing it. That's the way forward comrades! Oh wait sorry - SOME forms of online gambling, not ALL types. My mistake.

As recently as last week, representatives Goodlatte, Kyl and Leach pushed through HR 4411, a bill aimed at making online gambling a felony for US residents. The debate was carried by an overwhelming majority, presumably backed by representatives unaware of America's "Land Of The Free" tag or more likely, worried about the almighty $ leaving State boundaries.

It amazes me how they dress it up. The debate at times (I listened live) was farsical. Reps claiming that families were driven to ruin, that gambling was a social scourge that needs to be eradicated for the good of Americans. Yet at the same time happy to write in an exclusion allowing betting on horse racing and lotteries! Er....! Hello?! Oh and we'll conveniently forget that you're gambling when you buy company shares that could go up or down.

Hey look! If you believe gambling is bad, and you're going to do a job, do it properly and ban gambling. Don't be hypocritical - don't use "morals" to argue it's not okay to gamble on this, but it's okay to gamble on that. Because you can't. Just come out and be honest - it's THE MONEY!

Unreal, but sadly a sign of the times. The dollar is way more important than "American Values" in politics these days and if the Senate falls for the same crap, it won't be too long before we know them as the Kremlin and mid-term voting is no longer required.

So anyway, just to rubber-stamp their intentions, the DoJ arrest the CEO of BetOnSports in the departure lounge at Dallas Airport. "Texas Hold 'Em" screamed the New York Times in a sublime piece of journalistic reporting it must be said. The indictments when analysed are partly to do with practices in contravention of the 1961 "Wire Act" prohibiting Sports wagering by telephone, and partly to do with tax evasion. But it's enough to panic the whole industry and shares across the gambling sector, with the odd lower-profile exception, crashed by as much as 48%.

So America...let's get this straight? Prohibition was tried once...did it work? Er...no. It drove it underground until the government realised it ws harder to police and costing billions in tax revenue. So I have a question for any US politicians involved in the HR4411 (ex HR4477) debate:

Is it best to:

a) ban everyone from doing something they enjoy because a few cannot handle it?

OR

b) use a commission from those who gamble to educate and help those FEW with a problem to improve their life?

Or put another way:

A) Communism?

OR

B) REGULATION?

Even American citizens who do not approve of gambling should be worried. If this one gets through the senate and the "man-at-the-top", then your freedom has had another nail hammered firmly into the coffin.

You don't stop a problem gambler from gambling. Where there's a will there's a way. So you help him/her overcome his/her addiction and improve their life, not brush them under the carpet. Like you don't ban drinking because some people get aggressive when drunk. Education.

And this is progress?

True Lies

So where exactly does "Freedom of Speech" draw the line? Why is it the press are allowed to pretty much say anything they like and get away with it? This wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the fact that, contrary to popular opinion, a newspaper editor is more powerful than any other being on the planet save the paper's owner perhaps.

If Tony Blair were to say "David Beckham is gay", no-one would pay any attention. If the Sun reported it, 2 million people would go "wow he must be". Sad but true. This vilification of celebrity by the press is what gets to me right now. Not satisfied with hounding Princess Diana to an early grave, they seem intent on knocking every successful person, everyone who's actually gone and done something with their life, with the ambition of turning everyone against them.

And why? because they want your grubby little 40 pence. That's the only reason. Buy the Sun, the Mail, the Mirror, whatever and you are basically saying you are either a) easily lead or b) stupid or c) easily lead and stupid.

I just read the news online now - but even the BBC have started to follow the crowd. We all know Sky loves to try and grub-it-up with the gutter press on their headlines but you don't expect it from the BBC.

Today's example that fed this blog entry was centred around the not-particularly-likeable-but-nonetheless-successful boss of Chelsea Football Club, Jose Mourinho. In an interview after the game that his side lost last night he was calm and collected. He was pressed to comment on the "dubious" goal and he declined merely saying that he felt the linesman would have been hard pushed to see it but that a goal was a goal and "that's football". This morning what do we get on the BBC? "Mourinho Blasts Linesman". Oh come on - please. BBC - hear me now, don't lower yourself to the level of the gutter press. You're better than that.

S!

All The Presidents Men

So Election Day is looming fast in the UK. Which party though eh? Tricky one this...the party that doesn't meet its promises, the party that can't meet its promises or the party that doesn't make any promises?!

The way i see it is that here and in the USA there is one fundamental problem: 4 years or even 8 years isn't enough to make a major difference. Whats the point in changing policy makers this regularly? 2 steps forward, 1 step back. The only real changes, for better or worse, that really impacted the UK were the Thatcher years and they amounted to 12 in total. We went into it with major strikes and disillusionment and came out a stable country. It wasn't to everyone's taste but as a nation, we stood much stronger in the world economy.

The US impose a limit on the time a President presides. From the outside, it appears to me that if Clinton had been able to stay around we wouldn't have had Iraq and you'd probably have the US as a far more resepcted nation. So ok, Blair has this tendency to do what the US tells him too - or so it would appear. That wouldn't be so bad if it was Clinton in the hot seat - but GWB? Doesn't inspire confidence from here i can tell you.

Still, I'm an outsider what do i know. All i know is that we have 3 "major" parties in our election and given a chance they'd probably all do some good - and maybe some bad - but that won't get proven unless Labour gets another term or two. Hopefully the impatient part of the public voice won't contrive to take another step back again.

S!

Total Recall

Two browsers to code for ...oh no...it's happening all over again :(

So which b&ast&ard invented Firefox? Hands up? Anyone? Dust. Anyone? Dust. I was finally happy that Netscape bit the dust and i only had to worry about coding sites for one browser. But hey, while there are users who want to use it and don't mind that a lot of good web content doesnt appear properly, good luck to 'em. Everyone has a choice.

But speaking as a developer, I say "Bollocks!". I mean, let's face it there are only two reasons to create a new browser: 1) to get rich or 2) because you're jealous of Microsoft. Dunno which it is that the developers intended, but if its the former, then f&ck 'em, and if it's latter then f&ck 'em. It simply makes my life harder. So if it's the stale and outdated "they-done-good-lets-bash-em" or "bash-microsoft-its-trendy" argument, i have no time for it. Sh1t it's even been developed so it runs on Microsft Windows too!

We'll be kind and give 'em the benefit of the doubt and say they want to flog it and get rich. After all, you could picture the debate:

#Man 1: "I use Firefox now cos Microsoft software is sh1te"
#Man 2: "What version of windows are you on?"
#Man 1: "XP of course...why?"
#Man 2: "Oh no reason. Tw*t."

So I'm buggered if I'm going to develop two sets of code, or sit down and learn every W3C standard, just to keep everyone happy. Its quite simple: if it works in IE then that works for me. If you use Firefox and it don't work right, thats your problem. Go away and find an alternative site. Oh yeah...and stop boring people with your "i use Firefox and you should too" stories down the pub!! You're the techie equivalent of a Jehovas Witness! Ever wondered why people suddenly spot someone they "haven't seen for ages" at the bar?

S!

Anaconda

While I'm on the subject of the MJ trial (see post below), it pleased me to see that slimey-like reporter Martin Bashir may be up for contempt of court. If you ever saw his "interviews" with MJ and Princess Diana, you'll know what i mean. Talk about trying to get the sleaze! Tabloids would love him I'm sure.

But if those interviews didn't damage his credibility enough, then maybe this will. The only good thing was that when one of his interviews was on, my family let me watch the football on the other channel :)

S!

Stir Crazy

Following the Jackson trial? Then you may have noticed the side-story about a woman's family sueing him over his visit to hospital with flu symptoms. This sums up the attitudes of many people today - greed gets the better of so many.

Seems like when MJ went to hospital, the hospital moved a woman out of a room to make way and to try and get him away from the glare of publicity while he was treated. It's an unfortunate fact that the woman who was moved died later in the day after two heart attcks - very sad.

But withing just a couple of days, the supposedly "grieving" family had found the time to capitalise on this sad time and, probably with the aid of some rich legal eagles who spotted the opportunity of a lifetime, decided they need to sue MJ to relieve the pain!!! Wake up people. Take a look at yourselves and maybe you'll see how it looks to us ordinary folk. A member of your family has died and no amount of money is going to replace her...you're just taking advantage of someone for your own gain and its WRONG!

If you want to sue anyone, then sue the hospital who made the decision to move the woman. It had nothing to do with MJ and just because he earned a shedload of money does not mean you are entitled to handouts. Its disgusting...pathetic...grrrr...there are no more words to describe this lowlife tactic IMHO. I ought to sue them for pyshological damage caused reading about it!!

S!