Let your mouth speak archive

When the wsop schedule will be out?

I want to adjust my schedule.

The entertainment world was shaken on Saturday night when reports poured in of Whitney Houston’s death at 48-years-old. Regardless of perceptions, no one can dispute her place in music history. With one of the all-time great voices, Houston has so many classics outside of her catalogue of hits that she will live on - especially on shows like “American Idol”, which will pay tribute to her this week.

Join Bovada Sportsbook right now and bet American Idol!

American Idol Season 11 - Who will win?
Male -105
Female -125

Even the Grammys were overshadowed by Houston’s death, and while Adele’s massive night will never be forgotten, Houston loomed large over the show like a shadow, and many viewers were simply watching and waiting to hear the Academy pay their respects to Houston, who won six Grammys over her career. Jennifer Hudson, who came to prominence on “American Idol” and has since gone on to win many awards in her own right, performed a short and poignant version of “I Will Always Love You”; the Houston version netted two awards for Houston in 1994.

It was also announced during the Grammys by Ryan Seacrest that “American Idol” would also be doing their tribute to the late songstress when the show moves to Hollywood. Meanwhile, Simon Cowell, the creator of “American Idol” and “The X Factor”, said that he attempted to bring Houston on board as a judge for “Factor” and the people on “American Idol” also wanted her to be a part of the show. It just proves how major of an influence Houston was on these shows; you can’t go through one without hearing one of her songs, and no one will ever do them justice. As it did with the Grammys, look for Houston’s shadow to loom over “American Idol” as well.

As one important female voice passes, maybe a new female one will emerge. The odds makers at Bovada Sportsbook are projecting a female winner for Season 11. We'll get a better idea as the participants are whittled down in the coming weeks.

Very good news i hope they will give the permission....

Hello,

Thanks Manne your are great you are updating us members daily that's nice....

Last year, the District of Columbia seemed to hold all the aces in the high-stakes race among states to offer Internet gambling. Its program, iGaming, was on track to be the first one in the country, and it promised revenue for the district from Texas hold ’em poker, blackjack and bingo. Instead, the Council of the District of Columbia repealed iGaming last week over criticism that it had been approved without sufficient public comment or scrutiny.

The 10-2 vote on Feb. 7 has, for now, ended Washington’s foray into online gambling. The dustup has also opened a window into iGaming’s tumultuous creation and collapse, spurring calls for investigation and questions about the conduct of city officials.

To some, the episode has revealed not a glittering promise of gambling’s future, but an unsavory stew of political grudges and pay-to-play business dealings. It has cast a further shadow over a city government already embroiled in multiple federal investigations, one of which resulted in a council member pleading guilty last month to theft of public funds.

“If you’ve been around long enough, you look at some things and they just smell,” said Ann Loikow, a retired federal attorney and civic activist. “There’s just enough stuff that’s not right, and this is that case — on steroids.”

The District of Columbia and about a half-dozen states have been moving to adopt Internet gambling or have considered doing so. A recent Department of Justice ruling allowed such programs.

The iGaming program was approved in 2010 in an amendment added to a budget bill at 2:17 a.m. A year earlier the Council had approved a contract to operate the city’s overall lottery, which included a provision allowing new types of gambling, though the Council had rarely — if ever — discussed Internet gambling, members said.

An uproar ensued months after the approval, when opponents realized the online gambling measure had been slipped in. Marie Drissel, founder of the group Stop D.C. Gaming, said she was “absolutely stunned, to put it mildly,” when she learned that Internet gambling was going to be legal in the city.

Michael A. Brown, the Council’s chief iGaming supporter, said after the vote to repeal the program that there was “nothing wrong with the process.” He said that the plan received a public airing, albeit after it became law, and that the program’s repeal meant the city would lose tens of millions in potential revenue. (The city’s own estimate is more modest, at $13 million over four years.)

“All the Council rules were followed,” Mr. Brown said. “Nothing was done incorrectly or improperly. That’s just an excuse, and that’s just a copout.” He suggested that deep-pocketed gambling interests had killed the program.

The collapse of iGaming has also become a part of a complicated policy saga involving the overall contract to run the District of Columbia lottery. That controversy is also the subject of a lawsuit filed by the city’s former director of contracts.

The former official, Eric W. Payne, has said he was fired in 2009 for resisting efforts to meddle in the lottery contracting. He sued the city and its chief financial officer, Natwar M. Gandhi, seeking whistle-blower status and millions of dollars in damages.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Gandhi declined to comment, but forwarded court filings calling the dispute “a garden variety employment case” and Mr. Payne’s complaints “cries of conspiracy.”

The turmoil began in 2007 after earlier security breaches allowed individuals to claim prizes for lottery tickets they never bought. As a result the city decided to put the contract for running the lottery out to bid, for the first time in years. But the process quickly became ensnared in procedures requiring Council approval for large contracts. Critics say the requirement, created as a check on mayoral power, encourages influence-peddling. The winner of the new contract was a joint venture anchored by the Greek gambling giant Intralot. Its local partner, headed by a businessman named Warren C. Williams Jr., had had a series of run-ins with the city, and had antagonized Councilman Jim Graham, whose district included a nightclub Mr. Williams owned. Mr. Payne’s lawsuit says that Council members and Mr. Gandhi wanted a more favored partner. According to the inspector general’s report and e-mails published in The Washington Post, Mr. Graham also made a proposal: he would support the lottery contract if Mr. Williams’s company withdrew from an unrelated housing project with the area transit authority, whose board Mr. Graham served on.

In one e-mail, Mr. Williams’s lawyer, A. Scott Bolden, called the overture “very close to corruption, bid rigging and other inappropriate conduct.”

Mr. Graham declined to discuss the allegation, but acknowledged “definite reservations” about Mr. Williams’s “record with the city.”

“There is nothing in my subsequent actions to indicate that I was in any way influenced by any of these considerations,” he said. He said the lawsuit had “nothing to do with me.”

Mr. Williams, responding to Mr. Graham’s claims, wrote in an e-mail: “Individuals have a right to their opinions, but they don’t have the right to steer contracts.”

The contract languished until the Council rejected it in December 2008. The city reopened bidding, and Intralot won again, but without a partner. Byron E. Boothe Jr., Intralot’s vice president of government relations, said it became clear the Council would reject Intralot if it lacked a local minority partner.

“That’s important to D.C., and so we just understood and it’s just part of the process,” he said.

The company selected a start-up called the Veterans Services Corporation and formed a company called DC09; Veterans Services owned 51 percent, and Intralot owned the rest. Veterans Services’ president is Emmanuel Bailey, a Maryland businessman whose mother had worked for the city and was the company chairwoman.

City inspectors certifyi

Serbia has issued a blacklist of 70 online gaming operators which offer services in the country according to Balkans.com.

Among the notable companies on the list are 888, bwin.party, Ladbrokes, William Hill, Unibet, and Betfair. The Serbian government plans to block the ISPs of these sites but they have six months grace to decide whether to apply for a license in the country.

Serbia passed a law in November which will allow for a licensing system. It features a five percent gross gaming yield and 10 year license.

Serbian Association of Gaming Operators (JAKTA) director, Aleksandar Vulovic, told newspaper Blic, “We had to prevent access to illegal sites in order to have a regulated market, with leading players who will operate under the law and allow the state will reap the benefits.

“Currently online gambling is one of the most profitable industries and it is estimated that the revenue will double by 2013. It is simply wrong that the state does not collect a penny of the millions from the sector,”

However analysts Daniel Stewart & Co are not convinced the market is so attractive saying, “Serbia’s population of c7.5m, low internet penetration c56% and low GDP per capita c$11,000 are factors in our view which do not make for a particularly large online gambling market.

“However should a mass exit transpire we believe it would benefit the Serbian state lottery and by default Playtech (Buy; 462p) which entered into a partnership with the state lottery in 2009 and supplies the former with its casino games and poker platform.”

According to a recent article on the Enhanced Online News source EON lawyers that have been using ‘poker as a game requiring skill’ as a defense in the PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker, case have lost that avenue. A judge has declared the argument irrelevant shutting down the defense for the accused in the Black Friday indictments. Canadian-Poker has reported that Judge Lewis Kaplan puts an end to the skill vs luck argument when it comes to this situation.

Canadian-Poker representative was of the opinion that the Judge was surprised that the defense would go with this tact and that he believed this argument was still undetermined in the general sense relating to the whole poker issue.
The issue in this case is not the game Americans played but the movement of the money. The deposits and the way they were put through is at issue with the Department of Justice. It is suggested that the UIGEA law in 2006 didn’t deter the sites that had ways of getting around the deposits issues and balanced the risk and rerouted online gambling money. The Canadian-Poker web site representative also suggests that it’s a good thing Black Friday occurred looking at it as a wake up call for the poker fan that puts their money on the line. It is a window into the back room that this event has created, letting the pubic into a private world that they put their trust in.

The trust factor is what has been eroded by the indictments by the American Justice Department against Full Tilt Poker and PokerStars not forgetting Ultimate Bet and their money processing operations. It is important to choose a trustworthy online gambling web site, finding isn’t hard, most of the publicly traded and regulated, eGOGRA certified ones are usually accountable. The rules are, have fun but be careful and gamble responsibly.

It is award season in Hollywood and all that is left is the 84th Academy Awards, which will take place on February 26th at the Kodak Theater. Don’t be surprised if one of the stars of the show is the legendary Meryl Streep, who has been nominated for 17 Oscars and has come away with two (1979’s Supporting Actress honor for Kramer vs. Kramer and a 1982 nod as the lead in Sophie’s Choice).

In 2012, Streep is up for Best Actress due to her turn as Margaret Thatcher in The Iron Lady and when we heard that they were making a movie based on the life of the longest-serving U.K. Prime Minister of the 20th century, only one woman could truly play it. So far, Streep has picked up a number of awards for her performance, and the probability of receiving her third Oscar is very high.

Join Bovada Sportsbook right now and bet the Oscars!

2012 Oscars - Odds to Win Best Actress

Viola Davis (The Help) 5/7
Meryl Streep (The Iron Lady) 23/20
Michelle Williams (My Week With Marilyn) 15/1
Rooney Mara (The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo) 40/1
Glenn Close (Albert Nobbs) 50/1

Streep scooped the award for Best Actress on Sunday for the BAFTA’s in London, England and that will go quite nicely with her Golden Globe, which was picked up back in January in Beverly Hills. The only major award that Streep didn’t win was at the Screen Actors Guild event in Los Angeles at the end of January when she was beaten out by Viola Davis of The Help. Her wins in the BAFTA and Golden Globes are certainly indications of where the Academy is leaning and you also have to consider that she hasn’t won an Oscar in 28 years, so that could certainly sway enough voters to give Streep an edge.

In addition to the BAFTA and Golden Globe awards, Streep has been honored by the New York Film Critics Circle, the London Critics Circle, so Streep is off to a flying start. Only a late surge for Davis is standing behind Streep, one of the all-time greats in entertainment, and her third Oscar.

Join Bovada Sportsbook and bet the Oscars with your prediction for who will win Best Actress in 2012.

Last month I published an article suggesting that Newt Gingrich was a better option for bettors than Mitt Romney given Gingrich’s connections to gambling interests in Nevada while Romney was clear that he opposes online gambling. The article was in no way intended to endorse anyone although based on some emails I received it appears that some felt the article was trying to lobby for Gingrich. The only Republican candidate that I, or anyone at the OSGA would even consider endorsing, strictly based on his willingness to work for gamblers, is Ron Paul. Paul’s libertarian views and support for bills such as HR2267 almost certainly would ensure that the dark cloak on online gambling in the U.S. would be lifted if he became President.

One comment I made in the article suggested that Rick Santorum was all but finished and should simply drop out. But that comment seemed short sighted. Santorum has emerged as a strong contender out of nowhere after winning 3 straight caucuses and is now the solid 7/2 favorite at most offshore sportsbooks, trailing only Mitt Romney. Gingrich has lost all momentum and now sits as a 30/1 longshot.

So the question that now has to be answered is whether Rick Santorum’s would be a better option for gamblers than Romney. Unlike with Romney or Gingrich it wasn’t necessary to do a lot of digging on Santorum to find his views on gambling or any social issues for that matter. If it’s enjoyable, profitable or goes against the bible in any fashion he opposes it. In an interview with the Las Vegas Sun, he not only said that he opposed the expansion of gambling but he called online gambling dangerous to the country. He didn’t go into great details but the fact he was willing to berate gambling to a Las Vegas media outlet right around the Nevada caucus makes it clear that he will be no ally for gamblers. But anyone who has followed Santorum’s career shouldn’t be surprised. He could give even the most radical religious leaders a run for their money in terms of promoting absurdity with his comments comparing homosexuality to incest and bestiality not to mention his opposition to birth control. And his most recent ramblings that women should not be allowed in military combat because male soldiers will feel obligated to protect them would make the Taliban proud. But given that the OSGA is concerned with gambling, we’ll focus on his comments that online gambling is dangerous to the country and simply inquire why? It’s a question that we’ve asked many times before. Why is land based gambling ok but Internet gambling "dangerous". The standard answers given by other politicians have centered on compulsive gambling, underage betting and legitimacy of operators but to date we have heard very few instances offshore where compulsive gamblers “lost the house” playing poker or casino games and by all accounts the age verification software and monitoring has been very effective in stopping underage bettors. But land based casinos have seen numerous instances where people on self exclusion lists have gotten back in and lost more money and underage betting seems to be a constant concern at land based casinos, leading one to believe that guards at the doors are either ineffective or the kids are using fake I.D. And both are issues that are tackled effectively at online establishments.

That said, Santorum seems to think that all gambling is bad (except for probably bingo which the Catholic churches rely on for income).

So who would be a better candidate for gamblers given the choice of Romney or Santorum? Both leaders oppose gambling and neither would likely support any pro gambling legislation but Santorum would probably be a better option for bettors for one simple reason – he’s more likely to lose to Obama. Right now there is a real chance that gambling could be legalized and regulated in the U.S. and the recent DoJ announcement on the Wire Act is paving the way for that to happen. But if Romney and particularly Santorum were to become president it’s almost certain all advancements for online gambling would be revoked. Polls are clear that Romney has a real chance to win the next election but Santorum has little support from moderates and in fact a major television network has called him “unelectable”. Moreover, there are websites that suggest that Santorum has numerous skeletons in his closet that will come out if selected as the nominee while Romney seems to be fairly honest and clean. Certainly Santorum would get few, if any votes from homosexuals and he’s probably lost the vote for many military families.

As it stands the best thing for gamblers is the status quo. It’s just unfortunate that Ron Paul’s campaign has really never taken off.

Two regulatory authorities dealing with online gambling have made important but differing announcements. Antigua and Barbuda is the world's oldest regulatory jurisdiction and the Danish Gambling Authority the latest.

The government of Antigua and Barbuda will be resurrecting its eight year old dispute with the United States. This announcement was made on February 15 by the Finance and Economy Minister Harold Lovell. The dispute relates to a judgment delivered in favor of Antigua by the WTO, which the United States has steadfastly refused to honor. The Minister said that in the coming days, the government would consult with appropriate officials and legal counsel to determine the best way forward for the people and the online gambling industry of Antigua. Antigua has a number of options at the WTO with which to push the recalcitrant American government into compliance. Lovell pointed out that Antigua had played by the rules and had earned a hard-fought and fair victory. He added, "It is high time that the United States do what it routinely expects from its own trading partners - comply with WTO law and rulings." Last minute negotiations with United States officials also cannot be ruled out.

Antigua had appealed to the WTO that certain US federal and state laws making online gambling illegal were against the international agreements on trade. In a landmark decision, issued after years of negotiations, argument and dispute hearings, the WTO had ruled that these laws were discriminatory, inequitable and in violation of America's international treaty obligations. The WTO had further ruled that Antiguan operators offering online gambling services to American consumers had been financially harmed and had asked the US to pay compensation. The dispute led to the US government unilaterally withdrawing from its WTO obligations concerning gambling.

The Danish gambling market opened on January 1, 2012 and the Danish Gambling Authority has made it clear that it wants to keep illegal operators out. One of the actions it is taking is encouraging whistle blowing. In that respect it has published an advisory outlining what constitutes an illegal gambling website, the consequences of providing illegal gambling and how to report illegal operators. A dedicated e-mail address has been provided for this purpose and citizens and companies have been asked to file complaints enclosing documentation like screen dumps.

The advisory says that an online gambling website is illegal when it is directed towards the Danish market. Some indicators of this are that the web site is in Danish, it offers customer service in Danish, and accepts Danish currency. The following action will be taken against illegal online gambling operators. They will first receive a notice of contravention and of ceasing to provide illegal online gambling in Denmark. Then customers' access to the illegal website will be denied, transfer of funds will be blocked and the violation will be reported to the police.

A majority of the state lawmakers who represent Henderson, Union and Webster counties favor allowing Kentuckians to vote on whether to permit casino-style gambling in the state.

Legislation was introduced in the state Senate Tuesday to place a constitutional amendment on the Nov. 6 ballot. Voters would be asked: "Are you in favor of authorizing the General Assembly to permit the establishment and operation of up to seven strictly regulated casinos, up to five of which would be at licensed horse racing tracks, with the Commonwealth's revenue from them to be spent for job creation, education, human services, health care, veterans programs, local governments, public safety, and support of the horse industry?"

The legislation clarifies that language would be added to the Kentucky Constitution specifying the two casinos not located at horse tracks would have to be located at least 60 miles from the nearest track.

State Sen. Dorsey Ridley. D-Henderson, said he favors the bill.

"This issue has been around since the decision was made on the lottery back in 1988," he noted. "It continues to be discussed. I think it's time the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky have an opportunity to vote on this.

"If they vote yes, we'll move forward. If they vote no, then we'll go on to something else."

State Rep. David Watkins, D-Henderson, also expressed support for the measure.

"I sure would support whatever would help our racetrack (Ellis Park)," he said. "I think this could significantly expand employment. It would be a good economic boost for our area.

"Less than five miles away there is the (Casino Aztar) boat. It's not like we're introducing gambling to our area."

If the money is going to be gambled, Watkins said, at least Kentucky residents should benefit from the taxes on the proceeds.

State Rep. Jim Gooch, D-Providence, made some of the same points as Ridley.

"For about the last 15 years it has been an issue in the General Assembly every single session," Gooch said. "There is only one way, in my opinion, to finally put this issue to rest, and that is to put it on the ballot and let the people decide. That's what a democracy is. Because it's not going away."

State Rep. John Arnold, D-Sturgis, did not return calls Thursday regarding the legislation.

Casino owner Milton McGregor told his lobbyist in a phone call secretly recorded by the FBI that he told a key political player in the state that a 2010 gambling bill was about survival for him and his industry.

McGregor, owner of VictoryLand, told his lobbyist Tom Coker in the wiretapped phone call about a conversation with Paul Hubbert, who was then the powerful head of the Alabama Education Association.

McGregor and Country Crossing developer Ronnie Gilley were among those trying to pass gambling legislation in 2010, trying to keep their casinos open, and were trying to talk state Sen. Jim Preuitt, R-Talladega, into voting for their legislation.

Preuitt, according to testimony, was concerned about Hubbert spending $2 million against him in the 2010 election. The senator, according to testimony, funded his own campaigns, but did not want a heavily-contested election.

McGregor said in the call played Thursday in a federal corruption trial -- where he, Coker and Preuitt are defendants – that he had a long discussion with Hubbert on Preuitt’s behalf.

Recounting to Coker his conversation with Hubbert about Preuitt: “I got more riding on it than anything and I need his vote.” He said he told Hubbert the bill was “about survival for not just me, but my whole industry.”

With concerns about pending raids by a task force created by then-Gov. Bob Riley, which had raided at least one casino at the time and attempted other raids, Gilley and McGregor were pushing legislation in 2010 that would have allowed voters, if the Legislature had passed it, to decide if they wanted electronic gambling in the state.

Gilley, on the witness stand in the corruption trial, said Preuitt told him he did not want direct contributions because he funded his own campaigns, but was “intrigued” by an offer from Gilley to have country music stars play events in his district.

Gilley, who was once a defendant in the case and has since pleaded guilty, said he told Preuitt that Randy Owen of Alabama and Jamey Johnson were willing to participate. He also said those singers were making phone calls in support of the legislation. Coker, in another conversation with McGregor, said he had lunch with Preuitt and that the offer of country artists playing events was “icing on the cake.”

McGregor told Coker that Gilley and his people followed up on what they said they would do.

Gilley called the campaign events with country artists the “Democracy Tour.” He said he hosted an event for state Sen. Harri Anne Smith of Slocomb, another defendant in the case, in December 2009.

Gilley, who would bring country artists to the State House to lobby for gambling legislation, said he and his team offered to pay for talent, production costs, and food for Democracy Tour events.

Gilley said he used a “drop phone” that he changed out every week or two to make many of his phone calls so they would be more difficult to track. He said they used the drop phones because they were discussing illegal activity.

Gilley said the FBI had wiretaps on his cell phone, McGregor’s cell phone and drop phone, and on the cell phone of Gilley lobbyist Jarrod Massey.

McGregor’s attorneys have said he did not have a drop phone and had his phones for years. They have also argued that Gilley is a con man who bilked people out of millions of dollars.

Trucks

Gilley, in another wiretapped conversation with then-Country Crossing spokesman Jay Walker, talked about purchasing vehicles from Preuitt’s Ford dealership.

Walker, another defendant in the case, told him he did not need a truck, but was willing to purchase a vehicle from Preuitt. Gilley said he needed a truck and that eventually the construction company for Country Crossing would need a fleet of vehicles.

Gilley said he told Preuitt he would bring country music legend George Jones to purchase a truck from Preuitt. He told Walker in a wiretapped conversation to tell Preuitt that he would bring Jones.

Gilley said he had other conversations with Walker, and with McGregor, about purchasing vehicles from Preuitt.

Gilley said he went to McGregor’s house, met with him in his sun room, and mentioned the possibility of purchasing vehicles. He said McGregor was supportive and said he had purchased vehicles from Preuitt, but to wait because it might not be necessary.

Susan James, attorney for Walker, said the talk of purchasing vehicles was a joke and they were not serious.

Preuitt voted against bringing up gambling legislation for consideration on March 3, 2010, but voted in favor of the bill on March 30, 2010.

Prosecutors allege he changed his vote because Gilley, McGregor and their lobbyists bribed the senator.

Defense attorneys contest that the first vote was procedural and that the two versions were very different, with the second one being much simpler and not “grandfathering in” existing facilities.

The Senate approved the bill on March 30, 2010, with the minimum number of votes. Federal authorities made the corruption investigation public two days later.

The story of Christopher Plummer is one that you will be very familiar with by the time the Academy Awards are presented on February 26th in Hollywood, as Plummer is aiming to become the oldest actor or actress to win an Oscar at 82 years, 42 days.

Join Bovada Sportsbook right now and bet the Oscars!

2012 Oscars - Will Christopher Plummer win Best Supporting Actor?
Yes -4000
No +1500

Plummer was first nominated for an Oscar two years ago in the Supporting Actor category for his work in The Last Station but the native of Toronto, Ontario certainly has to be considered the favorite for this year’s honor for his role in The Beginners, which stars Ewan McGregor and Melanie Laurent. He has essentially swept the Supporting Actor category throughout award season, picking up hardware from BAFTA, The Screen Actors Guild, the Golden Globes and from the Film Critics Associations chapters in Toronto, Los Angeles, Detroit and Indiana, among others.

Of course, Plummer will have to beat a solid list of actors, such as Kenneth Branagh (My Week With Marilyn), Jonah Hill (Moneyball), Nick Nolte (Warrior) and Max Von Sydow (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close), but one omission has certainly aided his chances on February 26th. Albert Brooks has earned rave reviews for his performance in Drive, but he was left out of the Oscars and many entertainment experts feel he would have been the one to stop Plummer.

However, Von Sydow has emerged as the darkhorse candidate to stop Plummer’s march to break Jessica Tandy’s record, which she set for the win in the Best Actress category for her work in Driving Miss Daisy in 1989. With his earlier wins and his main competition missing out on a chance to compete for the Oscar, it looks like a clear road for Plummer to become a part of Academy Award history.

Hello,

That's a great news...

Hello,

Manne you are awesome and i love you daily updation...

Having served for the last 30 years in significant legal roles -- legislator, governor, prosecutor, judge -- we understand that fundamental elements of the rule of law include clarity and enforcement.

Opaque directives have the potential to invite violations and hinder enforcement. This is particularly true when attempting to apply old laws to new problems, and a recent vote by the District of Columbia Council demonstrates why.

The council just voted to repeal the city's first-in-the-nation Internet gambling law. Regardless of the council's intentions behind their decision to repeal, this vote brings to light a larger problem facing the country, illegal Internet gambling.

Unless Congress acts and works toward a national policy to regulate online gambling, we could be facing different laws that are designed, in theory, to operate within the borders of a state.

But, in practice, we all know that Internet gambling takes place in a borderless enterprise outside an already ambiguous policy arena that affects millions of Americans.

Americans across the country can gamble on various games on the Internet such as cards, sports and games of chance, even though various laws make those activities illegal and the operations running them are offshore, unregulated and offer no consumer protections.

There are as many as 1,700 offshore sites of these kinds taking bets with an annual market of $4 billion to $6 billion.

Unlicensed and unregulated online gambling websites may very well now proliferate more than ever, all still lacking safeguards against fraud, underage gambling and money laundering.

And unfortunately individual states simply do not possess the necessary law enforcement tools to effectively police gambling in a borderless Internet.

While this seems like a dire outlook, there is some cause for optimism. There is a growing consensus that strengthening law enforcement and consumer protection should be the focus, and ultimate goal, of the debate on Internet gambling.

Leading professional law enforcement organizations like the Fraternal Order of Police, National Association of District Attorneys and the National Association of Police Organizations have publicly stated that federal Internet gambling laws are in need of reform and that online poker should be strictly regulated.

Organizations ranging from nationally recognized Internet child and consumer protection advocates to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are also advocating for a federal solution to the issue of Internet gambling.

To build on the chorus of calls for action by America's law enforcement community and bring greater legal clarity to this issue, federal policymakers should consider four key steps:

First, modernize and strengthen the Wire Act, as well as the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 to eliminate illegal Internet gambling and unambiguously define related crimes.

Provide federal law enforcement agencies with additional tools to crack down on rogue operators and empower those agencies to shut down illegal sites, working with financial institutions to stop illegal gambling.

Protect the rights of states to determine what forms of gambling are legal within their borders, by giving them the authority to accept or prohibit online poker and mandate geo-location tools to block consumers in prohibited jurisdictions.

Finally, establish a strict and uniform gambling regulatory framework for licensing and enforcement of online poker only in jurisdictions that choose to accept the activity with state-of-the-art technology and strong regulations.

These steps are critical to protect millions of Americans from shady offshore operators, especially in light of the D.C. Council's recent decision repealing the city's Internet gambling law.

Applying old laws to new problems poses significant challenges to a clear understanding of the law, but if Congress can move quickly those challenges can be addressed. We hope they will.

Louis Freeh is a former director of the FBI. Tom Ridge is a former secretary of Homeland Security.

Washington, D.C., was supposed to be one of the jurisdictions closest to taking advantage of the Justice Department's recent reversal regarding federal law and online gambling. But last week the D.C. Council nixed the iGaming program, which would have allowed District residents to play poker, blackjack, and bingo online. The plan ("approved in 2010 in an amendment added to a budget bill at 2:17 a.m.," The New York Times notes) was misbegotten to begin with, since it involved extending the government's lottery monopoly instead of simply legalizing online gambling and allowing businesses to compete for customers. The Times reports that the selection of a vendor to operate the gambling monopoly was clouded by charges of cronyism, corruption, and spiteful obstruction:

The turmoil began in 2007 after earlier security breaches allowed individuals to claim prizes for lottery tickets they never bought. As a result the city decided to put the contract for running the lottery out to bid, for the first time in years. But the process quickly became ensnared in procedures requiring Council approval for large contracts. Critics say the requirement, created as a check on mayoral power, encourages influence-peddling.

The winner of the new contract was a joint venture anchored by the Greek gambling giant Intralot. Its local partner, headed by a businessman named Warren C. Williams Jr., had had a series of run-ins with the city, and had antagonized Councilman Jim Graham, whose district included a nightclub Mr. Williams owned.

Mr. Payne's lawsuit says that Council members and Mr. Gandhi wanted a more favored partner. According to the inspector general’s report and e-mails published in The Washington Post, Mr. Graham also made a proposal: he would support the lottery contract if Mr. Williams’s company withdrew from an unrelated housing project with the area transit authority, whose board Mr. Graham served on.

In one e-mail, Mr. Williams's lawyer, A. Scott Bolden, called the overture “very close to corruption, bid rigging and other inappropriate conduct."...

The contract languished until the Council rejected it in December 2008. The city reopened bidding, and Intralot won again, but without a partner. Byron E. Boothe Jr., Intralot’s vice president of government relations, said it became clear the Council would reject Intralot if it lacked a local minority partner.

"That's important to D.C., and so we just understood and it's just part of the process,” he said.

The company selected a start-up called the Veterans Services Corporation and formed a company called DC09; Veterans Services owned 51 percent, and Intralot owned the rest. Veterans Services’ president is Emmanuel Bailey, a Maryland businessman whose mother had worked for the city and was the company chairwoman.

City inspectors certifying Veterans Services' small-business status found the company based in the family room of Mr. Bailey’s mother’s home. Inspectors found no sign of bookkeeping, payroll records or company stationery, according to their report.

Whatever else it shows, this kind of nonsense hardly confirms Frank Wolf's thesis that gambling is inherently corrupting.

He Oscars drop the curtain on award season for the film industry and you can get a good read on who is going to win the Academy over by the events that lead up to the biggest night in the business, which will be held this year at the Kodak Theatre in Hollywood on February 26th.

Best Supporting Actress is one of the honors that will be up for grabs next Sunday and there is a strong list of nominees featuring Berenice Bejo in The Artist, Melissa McCarthy in Bridesmaids, Janet McTeer in Albert Nobbs and Jessica Chastain in The Help, but they’re all chasing Chastain’s castmate, Octavia Spencer.

Join Bovada Sportsbook right now and bet the Oscars!

2012 Oscars - Will Octavia Spencer win Best Supporting Actress?
Yes -4000
No +1500

Spencer has been cast in a wide spectrum of films from Being John Malkovich to Big Momma’s House but it was her star turn as Minny Jackson in The Help that garnered the attention of the Academy as well as a host of others. Spencer has had a busy awards season, scooping up the honors at the BAFTAs, the Golden Globes and the Screen Actors Guild awards, as well as being a part of ensemble-cast awards from the Hollywood Film Festival, Broadcast Films Critics Association and the Satellite Awards.

It would be a huge upset if Spencer were to walk away empty-handed at the Oscars after her outstanding wins at the rest of the major events, although Bejo has emerged as a possible dark horse and The Artist could be the darling of the show. Some entertainment experts are touting Chastain as a possible winner as well and if either of these women took home the Oscar, it wouldn’t be a massive upset as both played their roles incredibly well.

But the earlier award shows are usually a good harbinger of what the Academy is thinking, and Octavia Spencer is missing only an Oscar to cap an amazing season for her.

The recent emergence of gambling issues on several fronts says it's time again for a full-throated debate on this subject, especially given South Carolina's history on gambling and its statutory ban against most forms of it, including friendly poker games and church raffles.

The last real debate came in 2000, the year a ban on video poker went into effect and voters said "yes" to a state-run lottery to help pay for education.

This state's ability to get out ahead of gambling issues was tested in the 1990s with video poker and found to be sorely lacking. We fumbled and bumbled our way through that, with video poker casinos popping up on every corner and law enforcement working overtime to enforce what seemed to be ever-changing rules.

Leading the list today is the proposal to open an off-reservation Cherokee gaming casino in Hardeeville. The casino would be built on 50 acres in Hilton Head Lakes, with the imprimatur of the United Keetoowa Band of the Cherokee of Tallequah, Okla. The project holds the promise of thousands of jobs and hundreds of million of dollars in economic impact for Jasper County and the state.

It would come under federal law controlling off-reservation gambling, which includes getting approval from South Carolina's governor and the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs.

The casino could prove to be an economic boon to Jasper County, but it should be looked at in the context of gambling as a whole in South Carolina and not as one isolated event. If a deal were struck with the governor on this casino, it's very likely casino gambling wouldn't stop there. Are we ready for what might come next?

Other gambling issues that have come to the fore in recent months include:

The Catawbas, the only federally recognized tribe in South Carolina, have sued to open a casino. They contend boats that dock in South Carolina, but sail outside state waters for gambling, open the door to casinos for them. They have asked a judge to allow a temporary gaming facility while they pursue their lawsuit. A hearing on that is scheduled for Thursday.

The tribe is up against a settlement it agreed to in 1993, which states that the tribe is allowed to offer gambling to the extent it is authorized by state law. A 2007 state Supreme Court decision reinforced that.

The Catawbas are pushing economic impacts similar to those touted by supporters of the proposed casino in Hilton Head Lakes.

What is the status of "sweepstakes" machines that are very reminiscent of video poker. Beaufort County Magistrate Darlene Smith ruled them illegal this past week and ordered confiscated machines destroyed. But magistrates elsewhere have said they are legal; we'll need judges higher up to decide this question. That is, unless the legislature acts to ban them.

A bill has been filed to allow state-regulated casino and other forms of gambling, including parimutel betting. It calls for a change in the state constitution that would have to be approved by voters.

A vote on gambling proposals, including the Cherokee casino in Hardeeville, strikes us as an appropriate approach. Let individual communities decide whether they want gambling. Hilton Head Lakes developers point to votes of support for the casino by the Jasper County Council and Hardeeville City Council as proof of community support. But a ballot question is a better way to gauge that support, even if it's not necessary under federal law.

We suspect that the Hardeeville casino would get a favorable vote in Jasper County, as would proposals to allow gambling in other areas of the state. County-by-county referendums in 1994 on whether to continue to allow cash payouts for video poker resulted in only 12 of 46 counties saying "no." The S.C. Education Lottery got the nod from 54 percent of the voters statewide in 2000.

And we say put it to a vote even though the state Supreme Court in 1999 blocked a referendum on the video poker ban. The decision stated that the legislature could not delegate the authority of lawmaking to a popular vote.

Gov. Nikki Haley put the Hardeeville casino proposal in appropriate perspective at a Jan. 18 news conference: "What I know is right now we don't allow gambling in the state, so I'm not going to say let's go out and do this. I understand locally they're talking about this, and they're getting some things done, but that's a big deal to ask for an exception to state law. That's not something I'm going to take lightly or answer quickly."

We have time to sort this out. The developers hope to bring an agreement to Haley by the end of the year. If she were to endorse it, it would be considered by the federal Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs, a process the developers said might take between six and 18 months.

Opportunity might be knocking, but let's be sure we know what's on the other side of the door.