War on Online Poker?
Looking over at CardPlayer.com right now, the headline to their story about the DoJ targeting banks in Britain (really it's banks everywhere maybe even some U.S. banks) says: "War on Online Poker: DoJ Targets Banks in Britain." Which leads us to ask: Should all this Neteller, DoJ and legislation business really be characterized as a "War on Online Poker," as CardPlayer.com puts it, or is online poker just collateral damage in a much bigger war on online gaming (in particular sportsbooks and casinos), which is really a continuation of an older war going back to an era of bookies, racketeering and money laundering, as well as perceived societal notions involving the evils of gambling, especially when mainly luck is involved and the odds are greatly stacked against the bettor?
And along those lines, does it behoove, for the lack of a better word, unfortunately, all of us when reporting on the recent shakedown--not ironically just before the Super Bowl and March Madness--to make a point of treating online poker as an incidental casualty of the U.S. government's war on online gaming rather than as its real, intended target? That online poker is, dare we say, a victim here? Perhaps not a sympathetic victim, but one that considering its mainstream popularity and acceptance, which sports wagering and casino betting have never enjoyed and will never enjoy, the majority of people would conclude that poker should be treated separately? As in, shouldn't people somehow, some way be able to play from the comfort of their homes the online version of the game we see on television 24 hours a day featuring celebrities, athletes and famous poker pros?
Think about it while you check out these photos of Eva Longoria posted over at GorillaMask.net (marginally NSFW) because we're busier than a set of jumper cables at a Mexican wedding right now. Post a comment or if you write about it on your own blog, let us know so we can share a link to it here.