In a three minute address to the people and government of Iran, President Obama demonstrated his foreign policy -- apologetic, unrealistic and weak. Here is what he -- as President of the United States -- told this hostile regime and its people.
"I would like to speak clearly to Iran's leaders. We have serious differences that have grown over time. My administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community. This process will not be advanced by threats. We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect.
You too have a choice. The United states wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place among the community of nations. You have that right. But it comes with real responsibilities. And that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization. And the measure of that greatness is not the capacity to destroy, it is your demonstrated ability to build and create.
So on the occasion of your new year, I want you, the people and leaders of Iran, to understand the future that we seek. It's a future with renewed exchanges among our people and greater opportunities for partnership and commerce. It's a future where the old divisions are overcome where you and all your neighbors and the wider world can live in greater security and greater peace.
I know that this won't be reached easily. There are those who insist that we be defined by our differences. But let us remember the words that were written by the poet Sadi, so many years ago: the children of Adam are limbs to each other having been created of one essence.
With the coming of a new season, we are reminded of this precious humanity which we all share. And we can once again call upon this spirit as we seek the promise of a new beginning. Thank you and (here he signed of in what was probably Farsi)."
Is anyone else having a Jimmy Carter flashback? Haven't we already seen the folly in the "can't we all just get along" approach to our enemies -- and do not mistake for a moment that as long as we support Israel, we are Iran's mortal enemy. It's hard not to react to the Neville Chamberlain-esque naivete inherent in treating a dangerous, hostile regime who has vowed the destruction of one of your strongest allies as a potential friend.
While we can debate how much bombast needs to come from the White House in dealing with our enemies, this mealy-mouthed supplication is not the answer. It was, frankly, embarrassing.
The Iranian response? Let's just say, they weren't conciliatory.
"We welcome the interest of the American government to settle differences. The American government should realise its previous mistakes and make an effort to amend them in order to put aside differences.
The Obama administration so far has just talked. By words and talking the ... problems between Iran and America can not be solved.
Nowruz (the Iranian New Year which falls on Friday) is a sign of fundamental development in nature and Obama should learn from this to make fundamental changes in his policy towards Iran.
Supporting Israel is not a friendly gesture and the new year is an opportunity for the United States to change this policy.
By fundamentally changing its behaviour America can offer us a friendly hand. So far what we have received have been unfriendly fists. Unlimited sanctions which still continue and have been renewed by the United States are wrong and need to be reviewed.
The Iranian nation has shown that it can forget hasty behaviour but we are awaiting practical steps by the United States."
Iran's spokesman had no problem making his country's position crystal clear. So long as the United States supports Israel, we will be Iran's enemy. There will be no peace between our two countries while the United States maintains a pro-Israel position.
Iran has maintained this position for over three decades and has not wavered in wanting the destruction of Israel. The only peace Iran will accept they have told us repeatedly is one that results in the death to Israel. Trying to reason with Iran's leadership, trying to deal with them as other than the hate-filled, terrorist-supporters they are, is a mistake that could have grave consequences for us and our allies.
Obama's only goal this first hundred days seems to be to do precisely the opposite of what George Bush did.
That is not policy or ideology; it's petulance.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Obama's Special Olympics Gaffe
During the Bush administration, every act of bumbling, tumbling, and stumbling was reenacted ad nauseam on the various talk shows. David Letterman and Keith Olbermann in particular seemed to take perverse pleasure at any opportunity -- and, I admit, there were many -- to make fun of our former president.
One wonders if President Obama's late night gaffe -- where he said on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno that his inability to bowl "was like the Special Olympics" -- will be played on an endless loop on any of the talk shows tonight.
How many times were we shown the video of George Bush trying to go in a locked door on his way to a dinner in China? How hard did they laugh at and relish in his awkwardness and embarrassment? Mocking Bush was a sport and everyone tried to out-score the other.
Now that it's Obama starting up the presidential gaffe-o-meter, will we be subjected to endless showings of his less-than-noble moments?
I doubt it.
One wonders if President Obama's late night gaffe -- where he said on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno that his inability to bowl "was like the Special Olympics" -- will be played on an endless loop on any of the talk shows tonight.
How many times were we shown the video of George Bush trying to go in a locked door on his way to a dinner in China? How hard did they laugh at and relish in his awkwardness and embarrassment? Mocking Bush was a sport and everyone tried to out-score the other.
Now that it's Obama starting up the presidential gaffe-o-meter, will we be subjected to endless showings of his less-than-noble moments?
I doubt it.
Obama's Manipulation
President Obama is one of the most skillful politicians we've seen in a long time. His "Blame me," speech earlier this week is a prime example. Obama managed to portray himself as George Washington, Harry Truman and Mahatma Gandhi all rolled into one when addressing the AIG bonus fiasco.
Obama told a town hall meeting in Costa Mesa, California, "Washington is all in a tizzy and everybody is pointing fingers at each other and saying it's their fault, the Democrats' fault, the Republicans' fault. Listen, I'll take responsibility. I'm the President."
He went on to add: "We didn't draft these contracts. We've got a lot on our plate. But it is appropriate when you're in charge to make sure stuff doesn't happen like this. So for everybody in Washington who's busy scrambling to try to figure out how to blame somebody else, just go ahead and talk to me, because it's my job to fix these messes even if I don't make them."
That was brilliant. By nobly falling on his sword, he gave the impression that he had nothing to do with the problem but was so saintly, so selfless that he would accept the responsibility of others as his own. Obama the martyr.
Instead, this was a display of Obama the devious, deceptive manipulator of public opinion. Because as we all now know, it was his administration that pressured Senator Chris Dodd into adding the very language in the stimulus bill that allowed the AIG bonuses to be paid.
So by seeming to take responsibility then immediately following it up with a deft denial -- "we didn't draft these contracts" -- he was shielding himself and his administration from any further attention to their part in the AIG mess. Don't look behind the curtain, don't investigate any further, don't ask any more questions. I've said it's my fault, even though I went on to say it wasn't really my fault, so let's move on.
It really is quite a feat. And it scares me that our president is so comfortable with his popularity, especially with the mainstream media, that he can do this masterful bit of manipulation and come out unscathed.
Obama's administration knew about the AIG bonuses, pushed for language in the Dodd Amendment to ensure the bonuses would be paid, then claimed outrage when the public got wind of them. He then deflected further scrutiny by pretending to take responsibility for something he pretended was someone else's fault.
Obama may be a terrible president, but he's a great politician.
Obama told a town hall meeting in Costa Mesa, California, "Washington is all in a tizzy and everybody is pointing fingers at each other and saying it's their fault, the Democrats' fault, the Republicans' fault. Listen, I'll take responsibility. I'm the President."
He went on to add: "We didn't draft these contracts. We've got a lot on our plate. But it is appropriate when you're in charge to make sure stuff doesn't happen like this. So for everybody in Washington who's busy scrambling to try to figure out how to blame somebody else, just go ahead and talk to me, because it's my job to fix these messes even if I don't make them."
That was brilliant. By nobly falling on his sword, he gave the impression that he had nothing to do with the problem but was so saintly, so selfless that he would accept the responsibility of others as his own. Obama the martyr.
Instead, this was a display of Obama the devious, deceptive manipulator of public opinion. Because as we all now know, it was his administration that pressured Senator Chris Dodd into adding the very language in the stimulus bill that allowed the AIG bonuses to be paid.
So by seeming to take responsibility then immediately following it up with a deft denial -- "we didn't draft these contracts" -- he was shielding himself and his administration from any further attention to their part in the AIG mess. Don't look behind the curtain, don't investigate any further, don't ask any more questions. I've said it's my fault, even though I went on to say it wasn't really my fault, so let's move on.
It really is quite a feat. And it scares me that our president is so comfortable with his popularity, especially with the mainstream media, that he can do this masterful bit of manipulation and come out unscathed.
Obama's administration knew about the AIG bonuses, pushed for language in the Dodd Amendment to ensure the bonuses would be paid, then claimed outrage when the public got wind of them. He then deflected further scrutiny by pretending to take responsibility for something he pretended was someone else's fault.
Obama may be a terrible president, but he's a great politician.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Geithner On His Way Out?
Timothy Geithner should be out at Treasury by the end of next week. How do I know? Look at the following statements made today by President Obama about his Treasury Secretary:
"I have complete confidence in Tim Geithner and my entire economic team."
"Nobody's working harder than this guy. You know, he is making all the right moves in terms of playing a bad hand."
Those are precisely the kind of statements made just before the, "for personal reasons, the secretary has decided to step down from his position...."
Geithner has already given us one of our first, "what did he know and when did he know it?" moments. According to AIG Chief Executive Edward Liddy, Geithner knew about the bonus payouts two weeks ago, but a Treasury spokesman has disputed this, claiming Geithner only discovered the bonuses on March 10.
Absolutely no one has been wowed by his performance so far -- he has appeared torpid, unfocused and disorganized, not exactly what is needed in a time of economic uncertainty. He has been unable to confidently articulate a plan for the economy. And now this mess, with the government admitting at best that it had no idea where some of the bailout money was going. At worse, they knew and did nothing.
Which takes us to Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd, who one day after denying that he played any role in the loopholes that allowed AIG to payout these huge bonuses, today admitted that he lied. According to a report from CNN, Dodd acknowledged that he in fact was responsible adding language to the federal stimulus bill which ensured that the pre-existing contracts for bonuses at companies receiving federal bailout money were honored.
It is hard to imagine this senior Democrat, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, was acting without the knowledge and consent of the administration. And, indeed, it turns out he wasn't.
Dodd told CNN that the Obama administration pushed for the additional language because it was worried that without allowing for these bonus payments, the bill might be threatened. Dodd would not name who in the Treasury Department urged him to add the bonus payments loophole, but said it was a number of different staffers.
This is not something Geithner can explain his way out of. He really has no other choice but to just step down. And maybe Dodd should join him on the way out.
"I have complete confidence in Tim Geithner and my entire economic team."
"Nobody's working harder than this guy. You know, he is making all the right moves in terms of playing a bad hand."
Those are precisely the kind of statements made just before the, "for personal reasons, the secretary has decided to step down from his position...."
Geithner has already given us one of our first, "what did he know and when did he know it?" moments. According to AIG Chief Executive Edward Liddy, Geithner knew about the bonus payouts two weeks ago, but a Treasury spokesman has disputed this, claiming Geithner only discovered the bonuses on March 10.
Absolutely no one has been wowed by his performance so far -- he has appeared torpid, unfocused and disorganized, not exactly what is needed in a time of economic uncertainty. He has been unable to confidently articulate a plan for the economy. And now this mess, with the government admitting at best that it had no idea where some of the bailout money was going. At worse, they knew and did nothing.
Which takes us to Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd, who one day after denying that he played any role in the loopholes that allowed AIG to payout these huge bonuses, today admitted that he lied. According to a report from CNN, Dodd acknowledged that he in fact was responsible adding language to the federal stimulus bill which ensured that the pre-existing contracts for bonuses at companies receiving federal bailout money were honored.
It is hard to imagine this senior Democrat, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, was acting without the knowledge and consent of the administration. And, indeed, it turns out he wasn't.
Dodd told CNN that the Obama administration pushed for the additional language because it was worried that without allowing for these bonus payments, the bill might be threatened. Dodd would not name who in the Treasury Department urged him to add the bonus payments loophole, but said it was a number of different staffers.
This is not something Geithner can explain his way out of. He really has no other choice but to just step down. And maybe Dodd should join him on the way out.
You May Be a Republican If...
According to a recent Rasmussen survey, the percentage of Americans who identify themselves as Republicans is currently hovering around 33.6%, compared with 40% who identify as Democrats. There are a number of reasons the Republican party is currently the minority party, not the least of which is the public's perception of what a Republican is -- a white, middle-aged, right-wing, Evangelical, gun-toting, uneducated fascist.
But if you disregard the negative stereotype of the average Republican that is perpetuated in the media, and focus instead on the core values that most Republicans share, you might find that you are closer ideologically to Republican than Democrat.
Borrowing from the Jeff Foxworthy routine, I've come up with a few ideas that might help you determine where you belong in the political spectrum and reevaluate your image of the Republican party.
You might be a Republican if:
You love and are proud of America.
We all remember Michelle Obama's famous declaration during her husband's run for President that, for the first time in her adult life, she was proud to be an American. The reason that statement drew such ire was that the vast majority of us always feel proud to live in this country.
Pride doesn't mean we don't acknowledge faults and mistakes, but pride means believing that the freedoms and opportunities available in this country make it the greatest country in the world. And it is those freedoms that shine a light on our country's mistakes and help us grow even stronger.
You don't hate the wealthy.
Republicans view those who have attained wealth through hard work, talent and perseverance as the beacons for the rest of us. Those who make money -- create something of value, earn their wealth -- are esteemed and emulated. We go to school or send our children to school in hopes that they too can become wildly successful. We don't view them as thieves or greedy or evil. We know that since the beginning of our country, there have been entrepreneurs and visionaries who have taken risks and become wealthy as a result. And that their wealth helped build this country and create opportunities for others.
Republicans realize that the vast majority of the wealthy in America deserve what they have. Back in 1996, Professors Thomas Stanley and William Danko wrote a book on America's wealthy entitled The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of America’s Wealthy . This book debunked many myths about the rich being mere inheritors of wealth, who were merely lucky, lazy, and irresponsible. In fact, they found that very few of the wealthy had inherited their wealth. Instead, they found that there were common traits shared by this group and they were the old stalwarts --taking risks, becoming an entrepreneur, getting a good education, going into a profession, saving your money, spending wisely.
Republicans don't hate the wealthy, they aspire to join them, whereas -- judging by their economic policies -- Democrats mostly want to tear the wealthy down.
You believe charity begins at home.
Many mocked George Bush's call for "compassionate conservatism" and claimed that Republicans, basically, do not care about the poor and misfortunate. In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Sociology Professor Arthur C. Brooks provided data that supports what Republicans have said all along. The Republicans want people to help people, the Democrats want the government to do it.
Brooks, found that religious conservatives were far more charitable than secular liberals, and that "those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others." And the charity imbalance was not just to "religious" charities, but for all types.
Brooks also found, according to Philanthropy.com, "that households headed by a conservative give roughly 30 percent more to charity each year than households headed by a liberal, despite the fact that the liberal families on average earn slightly more."
It boils down to who do you think will do a better job with the money, the charity or the government. Republicans have faith in the local charities, Democrats have faith in the federal government. The Democrats have so little interest in privately-supported charities, in fact, that Obama's new budget includes drastic reductions in the deductions for charitable giving.
You believe there is good and evil, right and wrong.
One of the surprising semantic differences between Democrats and Republicans is the lack of "judgmental" language from the left when it comes to admitted enemies of the U.S. The Democrats want to talk with Iran, talk with North Korea, talk with Hamas. The Democratic Party Platform, for example, talks about diplomacy -- "going the extra diplomatic mile" -- with a country run by a man who wants nothing less than the complete destruction of Israel.
Republicans do not believe in moral relativism and have no trouble saying that some countries and some leaders are evil. Democrats want you to see things from the other person's perspective and extend understanding and a friendly hand, even to Hugo Chavez, even to Kim Jong-Il, even to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
You can find many more Democrats who are willing to call Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter "evil" than are willing to extend that epithet to any of our true enemies.
You don't expect government to have all the answers.
You only have to look at the recent stimulus package and the new budget proposals to see that the Democrats' motto is "in government we trust." If you look at the most recent pieces of legislation to come from the Democrats, ask yourself if this is your vision of America. Do you support the redistribution of wealth through higher taxes on America's top earners? Do you support raising the tax on capital gains and dividend income? Do you support reducing tax deductions for mortgage interest and charitable donations? Do you support increased government spending, auto company bailouts, financial institution bailouts? Do you want the government to have that much power?
The country, as its founders envisioned it, was to be of the people, by the people and for the people. The government was to serve the people, not the other way around. The Democrats want the government to be your father and mother, they know best what's good for you, after all. You can't be trusted to do the right thing, to spend your own money, to run your own business. If you fall, the government will be there to catch you. There are no consequences for anything you do -- if you succeed, the government will take more of your money. If you fail, the government will pay you to make you whole.
What does that sound like? And, more importantly, does it sound like something you believe in?
Understandably, you may be loath to associate yourself with Limbaugh and Coulter and the other extremist talking heads who proclaim they speak for the Republican party. But they are not our leaders and they do not represent us.
The Republican party is a party of ideals and if you share those ideals, you just may be one of us.
But if you disregard the negative stereotype of the average Republican that is perpetuated in the media, and focus instead on the core values that most Republicans share, you might find that you are closer ideologically to Republican than Democrat.
Borrowing from the Jeff Foxworthy routine, I've come up with a few ideas that might help you determine where you belong in the political spectrum and reevaluate your image of the Republican party.
You might be a Republican if:
You love and are proud of America.
We all remember Michelle Obama's famous declaration during her husband's run for President that, for the first time in her adult life, she was proud to be an American. The reason that statement drew such ire was that the vast majority of us always feel proud to live in this country.
Pride doesn't mean we don't acknowledge faults and mistakes, but pride means believing that the freedoms and opportunities available in this country make it the greatest country in the world. And it is those freedoms that shine a light on our country's mistakes and help us grow even stronger.
You don't hate the wealthy.
Republicans view those who have attained wealth through hard work, talent and perseverance as the beacons for the rest of us. Those who make money -- create something of value, earn their wealth -- are esteemed and emulated. We go to school or send our children to school in hopes that they too can become wildly successful. We don't view them as thieves or greedy or evil. We know that since the beginning of our country, there have been entrepreneurs and visionaries who have taken risks and become wealthy as a result. And that their wealth helped build this country and create opportunities for others.
Republicans realize that the vast majority of the wealthy in America deserve what they have. Back in 1996, Professors Thomas Stanley and William Danko wrote a book on America's wealthy entitled The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of America’s Wealthy . This book debunked many myths about the rich being mere inheritors of wealth, who were merely lucky, lazy, and irresponsible. In fact, they found that very few of the wealthy had inherited their wealth. Instead, they found that there were common traits shared by this group and they were the old stalwarts --taking risks, becoming an entrepreneur, getting a good education, going into a profession, saving your money, spending wisely.
Republicans don't hate the wealthy, they aspire to join them, whereas -- judging by their economic policies -- Democrats mostly want to tear the wealthy down.
You believe charity begins at home.
Many mocked George Bush's call for "compassionate conservatism" and claimed that Republicans, basically, do not care about the poor and misfortunate. In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Sociology Professor Arthur C. Brooks provided data that supports what Republicans have said all along. The Republicans want people to help people, the Democrats want the government to do it.
Brooks, found that religious conservatives were far more charitable than secular liberals, and that "those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others." And the charity imbalance was not just to "religious" charities, but for all types.
Brooks also found, according to Philanthropy.com, "that households headed by a conservative give roughly 30 percent more to charity each year than households headed by a liberal, despite the fact that the liberal families on average earn slightly more."
It boils down to who do you think will do a better job with the money, the charity or the government. Republicans have faith in the local charities, Democrats have faith in the federal government. The Democrats have so little interest in privately-supported charities, in fact, that Obama's new budget includes drastic reductions in the deductions for charitable giving.
You believe there is good and evil, right and wrong.
One of the surprising semantic differences between Democrats and Republicans is the lack of "judgmental" language from the left when it comes to admitted enemies of the U.S. The Democrats want to talk with Iran, talk with North Korea, talk with Hamas. The Democratic Party Platform, for example, talks about diplomacy -- "going the extra diplomatic mile" -- with a country run by a man who wants nothing less than the complete destruction of Israel.
Republicans do not believe in moral relativism and have no trouble saying that some countries and some leaders are evil. Democrats want you to see things from the other person's perspective and extend understanding and a friendly hand, even to Hugo Chavez, even to Kim Jong-Il, even to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
You can find many more Democrats who are willing to call Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter "evil" than are willing to extend that epithet to any of our true enemies.
You don't expect government to have all the answers.
You only have to look at the recent stimulus package and the new budget proposals to see that the Democrats' motto is "in government we trust." If you look at the most recent pieces of legislation to come from the Democrats, ask yourself if this is your vision of America. Do you support the redistribution of wealth through higher taxes on America's top earners? Do you support raising the tax on capital gains and dividend income? Do you support reducing tax deductions for mortgage interest and charitable donations? Do you support increased government spending, auto company bailouts, financial institution bailouts? Do you want the government to have that much power?
The country, as its founders envisioned it, was to be of the people, by the people and for the people. The government was to serve the people, not the other way around. The Democrats want the government to be your father and mother, they know best what's good for you, after all. You can't be trusted to do the right thing, to spend your own money, to run your own business. If you fall, the government will be there to catch you. There are no consequences for anything you do -- if you succeed, the government will take more of your money. If you fail, the government will pay you to make you whole.
What does that sound like? And, more importantly, does it sound like something you believe in?
Understandably, you may be loath to associate yourself with Limbaugh and Coulter and the other extremist talking heads who proclaim they speak for the Republican party. But they are not our leaders and they do not represent us.
The Republican party is a party of ideals and if you share those ideals, you just may be one of us.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Etiquette on the Felt
The World Series of Poker* has released its updated rules for this year's schedule of events and, apparently, 2009 will be the year of decorum. One may rightly ask, since when does civility mix with poker? Certainly not in years past when we've had browbeating, verbal abuse and endless harangues at the table. But, if they are true to their rules, that will now be just a memory.
The "no swearing" rule of last year -- which prohibited cursing at another player -- has now been expanded to every public place at the casino. According to Rule 36, "Harrah’s prohibits the use of obscene or foul language in any public area of the casino at any time."
So now, when your pocket aces are cracked by someone who called your preflop all-in with 3-5 offsuit, you have to get up from the table and say, "Oh, my, that was unfortunate." When your opponent catches the one-outer that saves him on the river, you say, "Heavens, how disappointing."
While the blanket "no swearing" seems a bit excessive, I'm thrilled to pieces with another change. Immediately named the Scotty Nguyen/Phil Hellmuth rule, Rule 30B provides, "All participants are entitled to expect civility and courtesy from one another at every Tournament table and throughout the Tournament area. Any individual who encounters behavior that is not civil or courteous -- or is abusive in any way -- is encouraged to immediately contact a Tournament official."
A corollary to this rule is Rule 38, which provides, "Player or staff abuse will not be tolerated. A player will incur a penalty up to and including disqualification for any abuse towards another player or staff member."
On its face, this would seem to gut the game of poker of its character and image. Heck, this was the game Wild Bill Hickok was playing when he was shot dead. But in recent years, as TV cameras have covered tournaments and made celebrities of the most memorable players, it seems that rudeness and disrespect have been an easy way to gain notoriety.
The new rule is very clearly an attempt to rein in Scotty and Hellmuth who in last year's 2008 embarrassed themselves and poker with their childish tirades. Scotty was a drunken mess at the H.O.R.S.E. final table and you can Google Hellmuth and "idiot" and find any number of videos of his tirades against players who had the audacity to beat him in a hand.
Hellmuth's most outrageous World Series outbursts came at the end of Day 5 last year, against Christian Dragomir. After getting outplayed on a hand Hellmuth thought the guy shouldn't even have been playing, Hellmuth went ballistic on the guy, calling him an idiot five separate times and saying he was the worst player ever.
Hellmuth was given a penalty which was supposed to kick in at the beginning of the next day, but it was rescinded to the disappointment of many and the surprise of no one. Of course, the famous Phil Hellmuth can't not be playing near the end of what could have been his third Main Event title, his twelfth bracelet over all. So the penalty was set aside.
I understand that poker is a mental game and you try to use any tactic to get the better of your opponent. And I've seen browbeating and denigrating your opponent as a winning approach. But that doesn't make it right and at some point you have to wonder, is devaluing your opponent as a human being really worth it? Isn't winning with class -- think Peter Eastgate, Jerry Yang, or Greg Raymer -- even sweeter?
The "no swearing" rule of last year -- which prohibited cursing at another player -- has now been expanded to every public place at the casino. According to Rule 36, "Harrah’s prohibits the use of obscene or foul language in any public area of the casino at any time."
So now, when your pocket aces are cracked by someone who called your preflop all-in with 3-5 offsuit, you have to get up from the table and say, "Oh, my, that was unfortunate." When your opponent catches the one-outer that saves him on the river, you say, "Heavens, how disappointing."
While the blanket "no swearing" seems a bit excessive, I'm thrilled to pieces with another change. Immediately named the Scotty Nguyen/Phil Hellmuth rule, Rule 30B provides, "All participants are entitled to expect civility and courtesy from one another at every Tournament table and throughout the Tournament area. Any individual who encounters behavior that is not civil or courteous -- or is abusive in any way -- is encouraged to immediately contact a Tournament official."
A corollary to this rule is Rule 38, which provides, "Player or staff abuse will not be tolerated. A player will incur a penalty up to and including disqualification for any abuse towards another player or staff member."
On its face, this would seem to gut the game of poker of its character and image. Heck, this was the game Wild Bill Hickok was playing when he was shot dead. But in recent years, as TV cameras have covered tournaments and made celebrities of the most memorable players, it seems that rudeness and disrespect have been an easy way to gain notoriety.
The new rule is very clearly an attempt to rein in Scotty and Hellmuth who in last year's 2008 embarrassed themselves and poker with their childish tirades. Scotty was a drunken mess at the H.O.R.S.E. final table and you can Google Hellmuth and "idiot" and find any number of videos of his tirades against players who had the audacity to beat him in a hand.
Hellmuth's most outrageous World Series outbursts came at the end of Day 5 last year, against Christian Dragomir. After getting outplayed on a hand Hellmuth thought the guy shouldn't even have been playing, Hellmuth went ballistic on the guy, calling him an idiot five separate times and saying he was the worst player ever.
Hellmuth was given a penalty which was supposed to kick in at the beginning of the next day, but it was rescinded to the disappointment of many and the surprise of no one. Of course, the famous Phil Hellmuth can't not be playing near the end of what could have been his third Main Event title, his twelfth bracelet over all. So the penalty was set aside.
I understand that poker is a mental game and you try to use any tactic to get the better of your opponent. And I've seen browbeating and denigrating your opponent as a winning approach. But that doesn't make it right and at some point you have to wonder, is devaluing your opponent as a human being really worth it? Isn't winning with class -- think Peter Eastgate, Jerry Yang, or Greg Raymer -- even sweeter?
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Do As I Say, Not As I Do
Just three days after being sworn in, President Obama famously pushed aside Republican objections to the stimulus package, reminding congressional leaders that it was his agenda -- not theirs -- that was going to prevail, telling them "I won." He went on to allow a bill that no Republican congressman supported to be pushed through on a fast track and then triumphantly and very publicly signed into law.
On Wednesday, Obama signed the $410 billion spending package that includes billions in earmarks -- thousands of pet projects that he promised to curb during last year's campaign. He called the bill an "imperfect" one and was apparently so uncomfortable with it that it was signed in private.
This seems to call into question exactly who is in charge here. Why didn't Obama say to the congressional Democrats "I won," and force them to change the bill? He ran against earmarks and repeated his pledge to curb them, yet could not use his formidable star power and popularity to get Congress to take them out of the bill?
Newsweek has an article this week in which they claim that it is Nancy Pelosi, and not Obama, who is running the show -- at least as it relates to spending bills coming out of Congress. I suppose it's not surprising -- she has far more governmental and political experience than he does. But the fact is, we didn't elect Pelosi -- at least not knowingly -- and unlike Obama, her approval rating is down around 35%. So the thought of her running the country should upset Obama supporters as well as the rest of us.
If anything makes a Republican turnaround likely in 2010 it will be Obama letting Pelosi run wild.
So how did Obama explain signing a bill he knows to be full of the very earmarks he campaigned against? "I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government," he said. In a typical eating your cake and having it too moment, Obama added, "This piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business."
So Obama was able to criticize earmarks will signing a bill loaded with them. Classic.
But, Obama didn't stop there. He also released a "signing statement" in which he warned that some of the bill's provisions raised constitutional concerns, just days after criticizing former President Bush for doing the same thing.
I guess it's good to be king.
On Wednesday, Obama signed the $410 billion spending package that includes billions in earmarks -- thousands of pet projects that he promised to curb during last year's campaign. He called the bill an "imperfect" one and was apparently so uncomfortable with it that it was signed in private.
This seems to call into question exactly who is in charge here. Why didn't Obama say to the congressional Democrats "I won," and force them to change the bill? He ran against earmarks and repeated his pledge to curb them, yet could not use his formidable star power and popularity to get Congress to take them out of the bill?
Newsweek has an article this week in which they claim that it is Nancy Pelosi, and not Obama, who is running the show -- at least as it relates to spending bills coming out of Congress. I suppose it's not surprising -- she has far more governmental and political experience than he does. But the fact is, we didn't elect Pelosi -- at least not knowingly -- and unlike Obama, her approval rating is down around 35%. So the thought of her running the country should upset Obama supporters as well as the rest of us.
If anything makes a Republican turnaround likely in 2010 it will be Obama letting Pelosi run wild.
So how did Obama explain signing a bill he knows to be full of the very earmarks he campaigned against? "I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government," he said. In a typical eating your cake and having it too moment, Obama added, "This piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business."
So Obama was able to criticize earmarks will signing a bill loaded with them. Classic.
But, Obama didn't stop there. He also released a "signing statement" in which he warned that some of the bill's provisions raised constitutional concerns, just days after criticizing former President Bush for doing the same thing.
I guess it's good to be king.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)