When Remembering Kennedy Don't Forget Mary Jo

I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him;
The evil that men do lives after them,

There is no other way to start a discussion on the death of Edward M. Kennedy, the Democratic Senator from Massachusetts. He is being hailed throughout the media as the "liberal lion" of the Senate, somehow confusing the loud Bostonian accent and thick mane of hair for regal bearing.

Ted Kennedy lived the last forty years of his life running away from the first thirty-seven. I'm not sure if the scant years on the "good" side of the scale make up for the bad. Not when that includes his responsibility for the death of a young woman who made the mistake of trusting him to give her a ride.

The Boston Phoenix is keeping track of where Chappaquiddick is mentioned in the Kennedy obits.

For those keeping score at home: the Globe put it in the fifth paragraph, the Herald in the tenth. Which isn't that odd, given the considerable attention paid to the fatal accident in the Globe's recent Ted Kennedy bio, and the Herald's recent love affair with Kennedy.

Chappaquiddick will be discussed here, in the fourth paragraph. It is the name of a small island where Kennedy attended a party with a group including six girls who had worked on his brother Bobby's campaign. Kennedy left the party with Mary Jo Kopechne after offering to drive her to the ferry. He took a wrong turn, the car went over Dike Bridge and ended upside down in a channel. Kennedy was able to get out of the car, but Mary Jo was not so lucky.

He walked past four houses until reaching the house where the party was held and grabbed two male friends to accompany him back to the channel where efforts to save Mary Jo were restarted, to no avail. The rest of the party-goers were not informed of the accident. After the men were unsuccessful in trying to rescue Mary Jo, they drove Kennedy to take the ferry to his hotel where his sleep was interrupted by some noisy guests -- according to a complaint he made to the hotel staff.

By 8 o'clock the next morning, Kennedy (who took the time to complain to the front desk about noisy neighbors) still had not reported the accident to authorities. A half hour later, a fisherman spotted the overturned car and went to the neighboring house to alert them -- they called the police.

John Farrar, the diver who eventually discovered Mary Jo's body in the car, testified at the coroner's inquest that Mary Jo did not drown but, rather, suffocated. He stated that when he found her the next morning, she was pressed up with her head against what may have been an air pocket. He testified that had rescuers been notified of the accident within a half hour, she likely could have been saved.

We know the rest of the story. Kennedy received the statutory minimum, a two month sentence -- suspended -- for leaving the scene of an accident causing injury. His driver's license was suspended for six months. He paid some money to the Kopechnes, but not much as they did not want to appear to be taking blood money.

Kennedy lived out the rest of his life in the public spotlight and will be laid to rest in Arlington as a national hero, but what did he do that was so heroic? He didn't serve in the war (he was stationed in Europe during the Korean War and would have been on academic deferment had he not been expelled from Harvard for cheating). And his "service" to his country was the luxury of having one of the guaranteed seats in the Senate -- being a Democrat in Massachusetts, a state so in love with the Kennedys he was reelected with 62% of the vote after Mary Jo's death.

As the media remembers Kennedy, let us remember the entire story of this politician. It includes a young woman left to die forty years ago this past July, in a car on the island of Chappaquiddick.

Boycott Scotland

This year marks the “Year of Homecoming” in Scotland, a program designed to attract those of Scottish descent to visit their ancestor’s homeland. The vast majority of those they are hoping to attract come from the United States. With the recent release of Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, the Libyan terrorist convicted for the Lockerbie bombing that took the lives of 270 people including 189 Americans, it is time to rethink our support of Scotland’s tourism and economy.

The U.S. has been good for Scottish tourism in general, accounting for about 260 million pounds a year in revenues from American tourists. The U.S. is the source of the greatest number of overseas tourists to Scotland, making up 24% of tourists from outside the British Isles. Ironically, it was a plane full of tourists returning home from Great Britain to the U.S. that was brought down by al-Megrahi and his fellow Libyan terrorists.

It was devastating enough for the families of Pan Am Flight 103 victims to see the hero’s welcome that greeted Megrahi upon his return to Libya. But then they learned that the release was a crucial part of ongoing oil and gas deal negotiations between Scotland and Libya. A convicted mass murderer was released to freedom and cheers in order that government could negotiate the best energy deal from Libya.

The website BoycottScotland.com is calling for a tourist boycott of Scotland as well as a boycott of Scottish products. A boycott is the only way to demonstrate opposition to the Scottish government's action. Since their decision was motivated by purely economic interests -- without considering its emotional impact -- it is only fitting that we respond in kind. They wanted to get a better deal from Libya? It'll cost them in money from the U.S. It's that simple.

The boycott Scotland movement is already having an impact. According to Bloomberg, "Visit Scotland, the government-funded agency promoting tourism, received e-mails from Americans saying they plan to cancel holidays and staff have been preparing for a backlash after the release of al-Megrahi, spokeswoman Alison Robb said."

Is this locking the barn door after the horse escaped? Well, yes, to some extent. Obviously, nothing done now can change what happened. But that doesn't mean you do nothing. Joining the boycott movement is a way to take a stand. It doesn't take much effort -- buy domestic whisky instead of Scottish, travel to Dublin instead of Glasgow.

The Scottish government displayed callous insensitivity to the memory of those who died and those their loved ones, in approving the release. What makes their decision even worse is the fact that it was spurred not by “compassion” for the dying terrorist but by purely economic interests.

To quote everyone's favorite whipping boy, George Bush, you're either with us or you're with the terrorists. Right now, Scotland made a very unfortunate alliance. If they're not with us, we shoudn't be with them.

Israelis Not Feeling the Love from Obama

In a recently released poll that should surprise no one, just 12 percent of Israelis believe President Barack Obama's policies are supportive of Israel. The poll, conducted jointly by the Palestinian Center for Police and Survey Research and the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, was conducted earlier this month but released yesterday.

Of course, everyone’s perspective is clouded by their own personal beliefs and it should also come as no surprise that the poll found Israelis and Palestinians view the President somewhat differently. Indeed, while 40 percent of Israelis believe Obama’s policies are instead supportive of the Palestinians, 64 percent of Palestinians feel Obama's policies support Israel.

But reading between the lines, it is a stunning turnaround for an American president to be viewed as anything but overwhelmingly pro-Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East and our strongest ally in the region. The fact that a sizeable percent of the Palestinians do not find the U.S. President’s policies as pro-Israel is quite stunning evidence that things have changed in US-Middle East policies.

Many in the pro-Israel community allowed themselves to be comforted by the presence of Rahm Emanuel in the Obama White House. With his ties to Israel, it seemed that Israel would have a supportive voice in the president’s ear. Instead, it now looks as if Emanuel is window dressing, a symbol without any meaning behind it.

Obama has been quite clear in where he stands on Israel – and it is not by her side. As Allen Dershowitz wrote last week, “Many American supporters of Israel who voted for Barack Obama now suspect they may have been victims of a bait and switch.” The Obama administration has been particularly week in two areas: its apporach to Iran and its efforts to develop nuclear weapons and its apparent softening on negotiations with Hezbollah and Hamas.

A nuclear-armed Iran would be one of the greatest threats to Israel’s security. In the past, the Obama administration had suggested linking effort to negotiate an end to their nuclear program to discussions on Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Nothing should be a precursor to efforts to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons – we cannot be weak on that issue.

Similarly the Obama administration’s counterterrorism expert, John Brennan, has recently suggested we engage in negotiations with Hezbollah and Hamas, stating that within these organizations are non-terrorist factions with which we can talk. Brennan said, of Hezbollah, in an interview on TheNation.com:

“Hezbollah started out as purely a terrorist organization back in the early ’80s and has evolved significantly over time. And now it has members of parliament, in the cabinet; there are lawyers, doctors, others who are part of the Hezbollah organization.

“However, within Hezbollah, there’s still a terrorist core. And hopefully those elements within the Shia community in Lebanon and within Hezbollah at large – they’re going to continue to look at that extremist terrorist core as being something that is anathema to what, in fact, they’re trying to accomplish in terms of their aspirations about being part of the political process in Lebanon. And so, quite frankly, I’m pleased to see that a lot of Hezbollah individuals are in fact renouncing that type of terrorism and violence and are trying to participate in the political process in a very legitimate fashion.”

He went on to say that Hamas was, also, an organization with both terrorist and political dimensions to them. What a careful way to dance around Hamas’ true nature and intentions.

It is pretty clear why Israelis would fear a lessening in support for their country from its heretofor biggest supporter. This is a dangerous direction for us to go in. If our friends cannot count on our support, can we count on having any friends in the future?

Ted Kennedy's 180

Back in 2004, when John Kerry was running for president, his fellow Senator, Ted Kennedy, was concerned that under Massachusetts law Republican Governor Mitt Romney would be the one to fill the vacancy should Kerry win. Kennedy successfully lobbied the state legislature to change the law and take the power of the appointment out of the Republican governor's hands. Instead, the bill required a special election to fill the seat, while making no provision of a temporary appointee in the interim.

Flash forward to today as Kennedy confronts not only his own mortality, but what it would mean for his Senate seat. Senator Kennedy has had a sudden change of heart about the law he worked so hard to pass. Now he wants the law changed back again, to give the power of the make the appointment back to the governor -- who now just happens to be a Democrat.

Why the sudden flip-flop? With the President's health "reform" bill needing every one of the sixty Democratic votes in the Senate, the loss of that one seat would be disastrous for the bill's future. So, suddenly the arguments used back in 2004 no longer apply. Kennedy is no longer worried about the voters being represented by an un-elected appointee of the governor's choosing. At least not when the governor is of his political party.

It is ironic that Kennedy himself was a one-time beneficiary of the old law. When his brother vacated his Senate seat after the 1960 presidential election, then then governor, a Democrat, appointed a former college roommate of the president's to fill the seat until Teddy was old enough to run in 1962.

Is it bad taste to call a man with a terminal illness a hypocrite? I don't think so. Because there are larger issues here about how power corrupts and how convenient it is for the powerful to try and manipulate the system to their own advantage. Kennedy will be leaving a complex enough legacy, he doesn't need to add hypocrisy to the mix.

Musings on PA jury finding poker is a game of chance

A Pennsylvania jury of seven men and five women decided last week, after just two hours of deliberation, that poker is a game of chance and not skill. In making this finding of fact, the jury found defendant Lawrence R. Burns, 65, guilty of running an illegal gambling enterprise.

Burns had admitted that he advertised and ran poker tournaments, for profit, in Westmoreland County, but his defense to illegal gambling charges was that Texas hold'em should be exempt from the definition of illegal gambling as it is a game of skill and not chance.

His defense attorney presented testimony from University of Denver Professor Robert Hannum who conducted studies that established what is obvious to those who play poker, but apparently unknown to the twelve who sat on the jury. Poker is not about the cards, but the skill of the player.

Too bad the jury didn't have the chance to watch last night's broadcast of the first day of the 2009 WSOP Main Event. They would have seen Dutch pro Lex Veldhuis put on a clinic on how to play poker skillfully, leaving nothing to chance.

In hand after hand, he bluffed his opponents off better hands. There was no show down, no chance for a miracle card on the river to change things. He read his opponents (correctly) as weak and made his move. How does chance figure into that? The outcome of every hand was his correct interpretation of the facts in front of him.

Playing the player, not your hand, is the cornerstone of the most skilled poker player. It's what separates them from the casual player who waits for good cards and then prays they hold up. For most people, especially those who don't want to feel responsible for their own lack of skill, it's easier to attribute poker losses to "bad luck." But when someone's cagey bet gets you to lay down the best hand, that's not bad luck. That's being outplayed.

I wonder if the jury's take is part of a larger problem with most people. The tendency of people to blame others for their problems. It's also what makes us so dependent on the government. We can't take care of ourselves. We have bad luck. Forces are out to interfere with our success. So we ask the government to fix everything, instead of looking inward.

That jury in Pennsylvania apparently didn't want to accept that some people are better than others at poker. They would have no trouble agreeing that practice makes you better at golf or pool (other games where wagers are often made), but since cards are involved, they assume the outcome of a poker game is all luck. If they lose, it's not their fault, it's the cards.

But, as Shakespeare wrote, "the fault...lies not in our stars, but in ourselves."

Poker -- Luck or Chance? Pittsburgh jury to decide

If poker wants to raise its profile, towards the ultimate goal of having it taken out of the sleazy "gambling" realm and elevated to a cerebral battle of wits played with cards, it's going to have to be careful how it is portrayed on TV.

For most casual players, and non-players, their only exposure to the game is what they see on TV. Similarly, all I know about golf is what I see broadcast. If I saw amateur golfers beating Tiger Woods, I might think that this golf thing is pretty easy. If a lucky swing gave you a hole in one, I'd be hard pressed to see the skill involved in the game.

On TV we have the new show Face the Ace, in which an amateur poker player takes on some of the greats in heads up matches. On the first episode, in the very first match, we see one amateur be dealt some premium hands and quickly dispense with one of poker's finest players. What is the message? It's all about the cards you're dealt -- exactly what those who oppose poker believe and what those who play seriously know is not the case.

Realizing how lucky he was to win, to beat the expert with such ease, the amateur walked away with his first round winnings and did not try to test his luck any further.

Poker has always had a tough time being accurately reflected in the media. ESPN, which broadcasts the World Series of Poker, distills twelve or more hours of play into at most 40 minutes worth of hands (less after the human interest stories concerning the oldest or most physically challenged player that year). With so few hands shown, it is not surprising that the ones that do make the cut have the biggest visual and visceral impact -- often the big suck outs.

Sadly, it is not riveting TV for most viewers if the player makes the right read, gets it all in with the best hand, and it holds up. But ESPN could show last year's November Niner Scott Montgomery suck out with a brutal one-outer late in the tournament, defeating a player who made a brilliant read, over-and-over. And when they do, it gives support to those who claim, "It's all luck@"

In a courtroom in Pittsburgh today the two sides are once again at it -- is poker illegal gambling or a game of skill exempt from anti-gambling laws. One of the prosecution witnesses says of course poker is gambling -- she testified that "the outcome of the game is determined by your cards." Not surprising, she said she always loses.

Any pro will tell you that if you are only playing your cards, you're missing a least half of the game. And any pro would love nothing more than to play against a player who believes that it's all about the cards.

But when poker winning is shown so often to be a result of a miracle card or a great run of hands, it shouldn't be surprising that there are people out there who believe it. The defense attorneys in Pittsburgh will be bringing in experts (as has been done in other courtrooms around the country) who will enlighten the jury as to the true nature of poker. And it is likely that they will come to the same determination as other juries have recently -- that poker is a lot more about who is playing than what they are dealt.