Did you think Obama's "feel" good campaign on nothing but style was NEW. Surely you are not that dumb--even if most of the mainstream media is that dumb (or pretends to be, because they think you are).
In 1981, Warner Brothers reincarnated "Bret Maverick" as a TV movie (rating 79--not quite the old magic, but not bad), with James Garner again taking up the role again. As is true of the entire original TV series, the movie is now being rerun on the Western Channel. The movie turned around a big poker game, and a political race for sheriff between the real thing and a slick talker campaigning as an "agent for change".
That means, of course, that the Obama political tactic was OLD by 1981--TV rarely comes up with anything new. Let us quote the character campaigning for sheriff: "It is time for a change. A vote for for Barack "World" Obama is a vote for CHANGE." Oops. I'm sorry. A Freudian slip. The character did not actually say "Barack "World" Obma", or even "Barack Obama". The writes were not quite that prescient. The character actually said "Mitchell Dowd (the character name in the movie).
Now let's hear from the sheriff in the movie, when he is told that his speeches are too short, and not very impressive: "Speech making, and hand shaking, do not make a sheriff". They did not have TV at the time in which this movie was set, so the sheriff could not run a TV ad about how being a smooth talking celebrity did not qualify a person to be President. OOPS!!! I did it again. I meant "to be sheriff". The similarities get more eerie.
The smooth talker running for sheriff, with George Soros backing him (SORRY--the character was not named George Soros), paid every person who would agree to vote for him ten dollars. Obama, of course, has promised people who vote for him $1000.00 per couple, or $500.00 per person. Now Obama has shown how leftist Democrats have figured out a better form of bribery. Obama proposes to use TAXPAYER money. Leftist Democrats, of course, count on the numbers showing that only 50% of the country, for now, pay any significant taxes (with the top 10% paying close to half of all income taxes). Bribery is still bribery. Leftist Democrats have simply raised it to a whole new level.
Of course, even this kind of bribery is NOT new. George McGovern tried it in 1972. Then, the country rejected it. The question is: Is the public still that SMART, or are mainstream media types, and leftist Democrats, correct that the public is now DUMB enough to be bribed. Was the "Bret Maverick" movie prescient here as well? The public in the movie WAS dumb enough to buy the smooth talk and the bribes.
P.S. I do wish writes would stop MISREPRESENTING poker. No, I am not really a poker player, but I know enough to reject that old, creaky plot device where one of the players raises beyond the ability of any of the rest of the players to call, and thereby wins the pot. That is a SWINDLE, and professional poker players would never get in a true "no limit" game (unless pulling the swindle). As I understand it, no real poker player plays in a game whre the rule is not TABLE stakes (or some variation of that). That means that you can't force a player out of a hand by a bigger raise than he has on the "table". All you can do is force a player to go "all in", to use "World Series of Poker" terminology. Otherwise, the player with the most money would ALWAYS win a game of poker (absent scruples). A player "all in" cannot win more than he bets, of course, but can't be forced out of a hand. The TV show, "Maverick", often got this right, but often got it wrong (depending, I think, on the writers). The TV movie gets it WRONG. Unless you are talking about a swindle, it is sheer LAZINESS to use this plot device of misrepresenting how poker is really played. No, I think professional poker players had figured this out even in the 19th Century. "Bret Maverick" uses this creaky plot device, for no reason. It was not necessary to the plot. It rarely is. When it is necessary to a plot not concentrating on a swindle, then the plot is defective. In "Bret Maverick", the plot is not really defective, but the writes were lazy in trying for cheap dramatics for no real reason. Only a really dumb poker player, or Bill Gates, plays in a true "no limit" poker game.
No comments:
Post a Comment