nemokc's Blog

I'm a degenerate!    At least, that's what they tell me.

Why am I a degenerate?   I'm a degenerate because I like to play games.  Not just any games...but one particular game.   A game that is as American as apple pie and cowboys.   I'm a poker player.   I'm one of an estimated 15 million Americans who regularly play poker online. 

People who don't play will tell you that poker is game of luck played in smoke-filled rooms by old men who curse as they lose their life savings on the turn of a bad card.   People who don't play will tell you tales of children who steal their parent's credit card to run up enormous charges that cost them the family home.   People who don't play will tell you that it's a sin to gamble because soldiers threw dice during the Crucifixion.  (And any poker player will tell you that it's one thing to figure odds on making a flush....but only crazy people bet dice!)

But the people I play with on line will tell you other stories.   They will tell you how they work in remote locations and online poker is how they relax in the middle of nowhere.  They will tell you that they are disabled vets from Iraq & Afghanistan and this is a sport they can still play like a man.   They will tell you they live on a fixed income and the lower stakes tables available online (some as low as $0.01/$0.05) are affordable where a live casino is not.   They will tell you they are college math majors who buy their books off of their winnings.   They will tell you that,  if I am a degenerate for playing poker....there's currently 35,980 fellow degenerates online with me on my favorite site as I type this! 

There is a difference between games of chance and games of skill.   When you walk into a casino you have many opportunities to try your luck.   Slot machines, roulette, craps tables and even Blackjack are games that are played against the house.   These house games have certain rules that can affect the outcome of the wager.  Like the dealer stands on 17 in Blackjack or the slot machine is designed to pay out a certain percentage of the time.  Poker is unique in that it is played against other players...not the house.  You can win with a bad hand by betting large amounts at a player you know is too scared to call you.   You can control your destiny on a poker table with a few good "reads" on your fellow players and rudimentary math knowledge.    Because that's what poker is all about...math and people. As the saying goes, "Play the people, not the cards!"

But in 2006, George Bush signed into law the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act (UIGEA) which the government insists prohibits my rights to play a game online that all participants entered willingly into.

The UIGEA was attached to the Safe Ports Act to satisfy the conservative religious base of the GOP.   Its' passage was justified because prohibition of internet gambling would keep minors from playing, prevent problem gamblers from gambling and poker sites could not be used to launder terrorist money!  (Seriously that's what it's supposed to do!)

So let's examine these claims of the benefits of prohibition.  (Remember prohibition has such a wonderful track record of success in America.)   Even with the passage of UIGEA, the U.S. still represents the largest percentage of Internet poker players world wide. And since the UIGEA offers no enforcement on mandatory age limits or limits players with gambling addictions, its' usefulness is highly questionable. Its' success relies on keeping people from participating.  (Good luck with that!)  Even Department of Justice attorneys will admit that the law they are trying to enforce is so poorly written that it creates more problems than it solves. For instance, while it differentiates between games of "skill" and games of "chance", it doesn't define either term.  The lack of definition leaves poker in a legal limbo.  But the religious right wants to make sure that I (and millions of Americans like myself) follow their personal religious beliefs in lockstep!  And they don't believe in Poker!

Now the only real issue that should be of concern to Americans as a whole (as opposed to issues of concern to those of us who actually play poker) is the aspect of money laundering for terrorists.   This was actually what got the UIGEA passed originally.  What politician up for re-election wants to vote against a law that keeps terrorists from getting funding?   It never matters during a heated election that the law was a bad law, what matters is you are on the record as supporting Muslim terrorists if you vote against UIGEA.  But again, success depends upon people not playing poker online....and millions do every day!   (Sadly, the poker sites themselves can easily monitor games for discrepancies that would indicate money laundering, but UIGEA doesn't require them to do that. Another failure of the current legislation.)

During his confirmation hearing, Attorney General Holder was asked if he would enforce the UIGEA.   His reply was that he would because it was the law of the land.  And last week, the Justice Department seized an estimated $34-36 million dollars in online poker payouts.

Now I'm not complaining about that.   It was to be expected.   A court battle will help clear up the issue.  Poker sites have replaced the money in the accounts of the recipients and alternate ways to distribute winnings will be made available.  But this does bring to light one very important aspect of online poker that could have an impact on ALL Americans.   That $36 million dollars was only one week of payouts.  It is estimated that over $16 billion dollars is held in the accounts of online poker sites.  That's a lot of money being taxed overseas and not here at home.   In fact, it is estimated that over $3 billion dollars a year in tax revenues could be gained by legalizing online poker.  (And that's a conservative estimate!)   With our country running record deficits, it only seems prudent to make use of this additional source of federal and state revenue.

Currently there is legislation pending in the House that would establish clear guidelines for internet poker.  The Internet Gambling Regulation Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act of 2009 (H.R. 2267) would: "establish a federal regulatory and enforcement framework under which Internet gambling operators could obtain licenses authorizing them to accept bets and wagers from individuals in the U.S., on the condition that they maintain effective protections against underage gambling, compulsive gambling, money laundering and fraud, and enforce prohibitions or restrictions on types of gambling prohibited by states, and Indian Tribes."

Basically, this proposed law would not only provide protection to internet gamblers, it would also tax and regulate the industry providing much needed revenue for the Obama administrations many new programs.   With the current push to "pay as you go" on all new programs, legalizing poker could be a definite win/win for all concerned.

So even if you are not a poker player, pick your favorite proposed program requiring funding.  Then write your Congressman and tell them that you want your favorite program funded with poker money.   All they need to do is to go "all in" with their support of H.R. 2267!

I recently read a post on the Israeli-Gaza Strip conflict by Rosco that was entitled LIVING IN A SEWER PIPE.   It hurts a little to say this, but on this particular post he was right as he very accurately conveyed the feelings of the Israeli people regarding the Gaza Strip.    He wrote, "Imagine, your government kicks you out of your home and off your land to give it to terrorists who want to kill you and your family and your people. In return for taking your home, your land, and your livelihood, the Government promises you a new house, and enough land to rebuild your farm, and your life but instead puts you in a temporary house made of what amounts to compacted dust and cardboard and charges you rent while you wait for the promised home and land. And then, when the terrorists bomb your new temporary neighborhood from your old neighborhood, your Government gives you a sewage pipe to protect you and your children."   It is a very accurate description of the average Israeli's fear (of terrorists) and frustration (with thier own government).

The problem with the post is that it only tells one side of the story.   The same description could be used to explain the feelings of the grandparents of today's Hamas terrorists in regards to Israel.  Now, I take no sides on the problems of Israel.   I understand the need to defend yourself from missle attacks.  I can even understand the loss of civilian life in Gaza because it was the civilian population that elected Hamas to a leadership role.   But I also think that is is important that people remember the history of Israel and use that knowledge to try to understand WHY the conflict is so bitter.   Without recognition and  understanding of the feelings of both sides, it becomes impossible to reach any kind of acceptable resolution.  (If one actually exists.)

You see, while it is easy for us to forget that Israel as a modern nation is very young....it is a vivid nighmare to the people of Gaza.   

Between the Biblical times of King Solomon's Israel and the modern re-incarnation of the country in 1948, the land we know as Israel was controlled for over 1200 years by Muslims.   Then in the late 1800's, a large number of Zionists began to immigrate to Palistine.  Zionists at the time, were composed primarily of persecuted Jews from Russia and Europe who immigrated to escape persecution.   For over 50 years; Jews, Muslims & Christians lived together peacefully.  But the goal of the Zionist's was to re-establish a religious state in land promised them by "God".   To this end, they began to plot illegal immigrations to increase the population of Jews in the region.    By the end of WWII, the Jewish population was quite large and vocally demanding self-rule in a country that they had begun immigrating to less than a 100 years earlier.    The decision to grant them self-rule was made by the UN in 1948 and the region has been filled with conflict ever since.  The best land was given to the Jews and the poorer areas of the country were to be the Muslim state.    If you had lived in Palistine in 1945, you would probably be pretty upset by both the UN & the West on New Year's Day 1949.   You would also probably pass that anger and hatred on to your children.  I don't condone the violence, but knowing the history of the region helps to understand the reasons for the violence. 

Here's a hypothetical example for you to ponder on.  The Mormon Church believes that when Christ returns to earth he will establish New Jerusalem in Independence, Missouri.    So how would you feel if the UN decided to give the city of Independence to the Mormon Church?    All Christians within the city limits would have to give up their homes and move to Kansas City's East side.    Fences & walls would be placed to keep the former residents of Independence out of the city.    Promises would be made to make restitution "somehow" and Christians would be expected to sit quitely in thier run down East side apartments while a Mormon family moved into thier home in Independence.   How would you react?   I would be willing to bet that Rosco would be one of the first people on his rooftop with a rocket launcher aimed at Independence.  (And I couldn't blame him for his actions.)   I also would be willing to bet that any children who spent time with Rosco would grow up to HATE Mormons without reservation.   (It would be a natural reaction.)

The Israel-Gaza conflict is a horrible thing.  But the problem is now compounded by the fact that the root of the problem started 60 years ago.  A short time for a country but a lifetime for a person.  An entire generation has grown up in Isreal and it is the only home they have ever  known.   They are as territorial about thier country as the Muslims are certain that it should still be their country.   It is a case of 60 years of personal history versus 12 centuries of tribal history.    So the next time you hear a Christian speak of Israel's rights or you hear a Muslim speak of the evil of the Israeli's perhaps you can stop to remember that there are no easy or right answers to this question anymore.    The only thing left is to find a measure of peace for the region...and that will require both sides to accept something less than they have had in the past.   Never an easy sell for any diplomat.

It's a decision that has created quite a stir across the country.   It's a decision that managed to unite both the right & the left in their anger. Ironically it had nothing to do with policy but with Obama's choice to lead our country in prayer before he takes the oath of office.   The left hates the choice because Rick Warren supported California's Proposition 8.   The right hates the choice because Obama made it and Rick Warren isn't a true conservative!   

But this is what Obama has promised us all along....to find areas that we can agree upon and work together on those issues.  We are all filled with "differences".   We see the world from a different set of life experiences and it gives us each individually a different outlook on what is important.  But while the differences in ideology and social values are important, they are not nearly as important as the fact that we are ALL Americans.   United by our common citizenship.

Recently, I stumbled upon an article written by Melissa Etheridge (a local girl turned musician, Mom & Lesbian).  In it, she details her disagreements, misconceptions of and eventual meeting with Rick Warren.   She also explains why she will be in Washington at the Inauguration in spite of her misgivings on Pastor Warren.

It's an interesting read.   It reaffirmed my belief that there still is hope that we can overcome our cultural differences in honor of our country.    I hope you take the time to follow the link.  

This just in:

SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO REVIEW OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE LAWSUIT.

And I thought this was supposed to be a conservative court!

Gee, maybe it really is a frivolous suit!

Since the election there has been a lot of discussion on the internet about upcoming court hearings regarding the authenticity of the birth certificate of Barack Obama.   "Don't hold your breath" has been my standard answer to all who have told me how the Supreme Court would issue a ruling requiring Obama to hand over a valid birth certificate or not accept the nomination.   

The internet rumors suggest that he was actually born in Kenya or that he was adopted by his Indonesian step-father which made him an Indonesian citizen or that his father was a British citizen which disqualifies him for the office of President.   They then finish their argument with the plainative plea, "if he's really an American citizen, why WON'T he release his birth certificate to the public"?    (Not that any of them have offered to post their birth certificate with all that personal information on the world-wide web for all to see!) 

If you are interested in the detailed explanations of why none of these arguments are valid, I suggest you check out snopes.com.   It lists the major arguments and refutes them.   

You should also know that two different officials from the State of Haiwaii have issued statements that they have personally examined the certificate and it is both valid and in the possession of the state.   Both of these officials are political appointees of a REPUBLICAN governor (and McCain supporter).    They have nothing to gain by lying and would be heros to their boss if they could prove Obama doesn't qualify for President.

If you are wondering why he just doesn't release the documents, I can offer three suggestions.    First, like many American citizens with "foreign-sounding" names, I suspect that President-Elect Obama dislikes having to prove he is an American just because of his name.    (Ask a third generation Mexican-American named Jose' if he has documents & see what his reaction is!  Duck if he is bigger than you.    Also ask yourself, why nobody ever asks an O'Malley if he's an American.  The only countries that seem to be an issue are inhabited by people with brown skin color.)  

Second, a birth certificate contains a lot of personal information that can be used for identity theft.    (Hey mom, I got a credit card in the name of the President!)

Third, I think Obama feels that this is the perfect "red herring" for the radical right.   If you read much of the political blogs on this site, you know that there are a few who will NEVER like or agree with ANYTHING that Obama does.  He takes a jet to visit his dying grandmother & he is wasting donor money.   He doesn't take a jet to the funeral and he's scum who doesn't care about the woman.  The "mystery" of the birth certificate keeps these people occupied.   If he were to release the document, many would deny it's validity and the rest would look for something else to fixate on. 

But after reading the insanity that is continually posted on this site concerning this subject by the same four or five bloggers who just can't handle the thought of the Obama Presidency, I admit that I was wrong in one respect.  I shouldn't have told you not to hold your breath!   Please, Please take a DEEP breath & HOLD IT.....keep holding it from now until December 5th when you think you'll get what you want!

As we come down to the final days of the 2008 election cycle, perhaps we should make a close examation of why we choose to vote the way we do.    Our country has managed to divide itself fairly equally between two different and vastly opposing ideologies.   And as tends to be the case with extreme idealogues...the more committed they are, the more vocal and uncompromising they are.    And this is NOT a good thing.    No ideology whether liberal or conservative fits all situations all of the time.   The result is a blind committment to what may be a good idea in theory but simply doesn't work in a pragmatic way.

The idealogue will follow the party line all the way....regardless of where it leads.   The gay rights idealogue will insist that gay marriage is a right...and nothing less than legal marriage is acceptable.   He will continue to insist on his right, even turning down the compromise of "domestic partnership".    That means that when his partner lies near death in a hospital, that partner can be kept from the hospital bed by the partner's parents.   The pragmatist says, "what's in a name"?   Domestic partnership would give you the rights you deserve without incurring the anger and conflict that the term marriage will bring to the discussion.

The idealogue will insist that "gun ownership" should have NO limitations and that any law curtailing your right to a weapon is unconstitutional and must be fought!   The pragmatist asks, "what happens when a 14 year old boy walks into your daughter's middle school with an automatic weapon and an attitude?"    

The idealogue believes in "my way or the highway" while the pragmatist looks for the compromise solution.

One of the greatest complaints I hear about our government is the assertion that they don't get anything done.   But that's to be expected.    We vote our ideology.   And as a nation we are pretty evenly split down the middle between conservative and liberal.   We have reached a national road block with neither conservatives or liberals being enough of a majority to make any progress on real solutions to real problems.   And that is why I am supporting Sen. Obama for President.

Two years ago I read both of the Senator's books and was especially impressed with THE AUDACITY OF HOPE.   In it he discusses his political philosophy which is very dependent upon the belief that policy only works with a majority concensus.    He wrote of two incidents that stuck in my mind that illustrate how a President Obama would approach policy.     Both anecdotes involved "hot button" issues designed to upset both the right & the left.   But the Senator's take on the Death Penalty and Separation of Church & State was what first led me to think that a President Obama might be a good idea.

While an Illinois State Senator, Obama worked on a bill concerning the death penalty.   On a personal level, Senator Obama is against the death penalty in most cases.    A liberal group had brought up the issue of Chicago cops who would allegedly beat a confession from a suspect and then have him charged with a death penalty crime based on that coerced confession.     The liberal idealogue would insist on trying to ban the death penalty.    Obama instead stated the obvious, most Americans support to one degree or another the death penalty.  He sat down with representatives of the police and with those advocating the end of the death penalty.  He then passed legislation that limited death penalty convictions to cases where the confession is video taped.   If a confession was given without the videotape, then the man would only be sentenced to life imprisonment.   He found a solution based on the limited common ground of the two sides.   Neither was completely happy with it but both sides agreed that it worked better than the status quo.

He also addressed the issue of separation of church & state.     As he put it, you can't let the government endorse a particular religion or religious belief.   But the flip side  is that those who watch that "line in the sand" need to be aware that the world does not stop is someone mentions "God" in public.    There needs to be a balance that reflects the differing opinions of the public.   

One of Obama's favorite sayings is, "I know you want to go to the moon, but we only have enough gas to get this far".    He is pragmatic about what can and  cannot be done.   I would be willing to bet that all of the screams of outrage against his candidacy from the right will be nothing compared to the screams from the left when they realize that he listens to both sides before acting.   

I would prefer to vote for the candidate who is going to realize that America is made up of many differing opinions.   I will vote for the candidate who considers the middle ground when enacting policy.    To be honest, I think McCain has many pragmatic traits about him.  It was one of the things that attracted me to his candidacy in 2000, but he is definitely an idealogue on foreign policy.   More importantly, he is an old man and his number two is an unprepared idealogue.    And that a recipe for disaster!