The big bad stupid people can’t win

Patrick rocks, but who thought molding Patrick into this was a good idea.I have a new guardian for my job. When I’m stuck dealing with the crazy people who are not only crazy people but also incompetent people, I need someone who appreciates my point of view. I need someone who can give the appropriate posture and attitude and ferocity of mental superiority. This person exists. He is Patrick, Protector of Sanity within the Office of Ridiculousness and Incompetence&#153.

Today, he will look menacingly at his first assignment, the Forces of Evil Who Require Tony to Work on Government Holidays&#153. I suspect that I will call him into action many, many times after today. Even when I’m not invoking his name, he will stand watch in menacing anticipation. Ain’t he cool?

…Fool me twice, I’m an idiot

Let me tell you why I suck at Texas Hold ‘Em.

Texas Hold ‘Em is a simple game, but the strategy is quite detailed. The only way to get better is to see as many hands as possible. That’s why I generally buy back in if when I’m bankrupted from the game. I have to lose before I can win. So I play some cards.

Last week, my roommates and I had a game. I was the 3rd to bust out among the six players. I don’t really remember many of the good hands I’ve played and won, but like every poker player, I remember every bad beat. Last week, I had played my worst hand ever, letting my roommate play a straight draw from the Flop to the Turn without betting when I had top two pair on the flop. Naturally, he pulled the straight on the River. Being blinded by my “sure win”, I bet into his straight because I wasn’t paying attention. I never recovered in the game.

Monday, I told some friends about my horrible play, laughing as I swore I’d never make that mistake again.

Early in tonight’s game, I drew the following pocket cards:

I raised aggressively into the big blind before the flop, just to let everyone know that I was serious. A few players called my raise, while a few folded. That was exactly what I wanted.

The flop came out:

I bet into the pot again, hoping to buy the pot or gamble my way into the flush. Two of the other three remaining players called. I made a silent wish for another spade. The Turn came out:

I made my flush. This is the time to bet into the pot, most likely with an all-in to let the other players know that they had better have a strong flush. I checked to play it “cool” and pretend that I didn’t have the flush. Why I played it that way, I don’t know. What was I waiting for? I had the Jack-high flush. All I could do is let someone make the stronger flush. But I checked. Everyone checked behind me. The River came out:

I had a sinking feeling as I realized that I’d possibly let someone draw to a flush with only one spade in their pocket cards. I checked, knowing I’d messed up. It was too late to play it, so I decided to let the cards play out. As the bet went around the table, I assessed that only one card could beat me. If one of the other two players had it, I’d lose the hand.

After the betting was through, we flipped over our cards. My brother, one of the remaining players, saw that I had the Jack and sighed. I relaxed, expecting to win. The other remaining player, who’d never played before, had been tentative the entire hand and hadn’t bet into the flush when the Ace came out. With my pocket cards and the community cards, I knew 7 of the 52 cards in the deck. That meant that, with 45 cards unknown to me, only the Queen of spades could beat my flush.

She flipped over her cards and looked for help. I saw her cards and immediately knew I’d lost:

Despite vowing that I’d never make that mistake again, I made that mistake again. I let an opponent draw into the best hand without having to bet to see it. I busted out two hands later.

I’d say I’ll never make that mistake again, but I’m not confident about it now. I suspect that I’ll overplay that situation a few times before I balance out into the right strategy. Playing more cards is the only way I’m going to get better and not make the stupid mistakes. That doesn’t make tonight any less frustrating.

It’s just like breathing

I don’t know how I missed this, but after UVA beat UNC a few weeks ago, UVA Fourth Year senior tailback Marquis Weeks commented on his 100-yard kick-off return for a touchdown. Before I reveal his quote, consider this description of his run:

Receiving the kickoff a yard deep in the end zone, Weeks started up the right side, ran out of a tackle attempt by Hilee Taylor near the 25-yard line and burst to midfield, where he cut left across the field to pick up blockers who cleared the rest of the way.

I didn’t see it, but it sounds like it was a sweet run. Good for him. Blah, blah, blah. As I said, the real key is this post-game quote from Marquis Weeks:

“That was just instinct,” Weeks said with a laugh. “Kind of like running from the cops, I guess you could say.”

Ummm, I don’t believe I have that instinct. And I remember getting mocked over the summer because of the most recent legal run-ins for members of the Virginia Tech football team. I can accept the mockery because there’s no defense for the behavior of some of my guys. But I can’t allow that quote to just disappear into the ether. Considering that one of my roommates went to UVA, do not fret. That quote isn’t going anywhere, except maybe taped to my refrigerator.

Beam me up, Howie.

Stern.jpgI’ve mentioned once or twice that I don’t like our government’s irrational and (unconstitutional) assault on free speech. I’m not going to debate that now because there’s no new information on that front, but I have to re-examine my beliefs. I was wrong about the entire debate. The last nine months have been wonderful and useful and beneficial, so I have a few thank you’s to offer.

First, to the people who complained to the FCC about Janet Jackson’s Super Bowl halftime debacle, I say thank you. You got the ball rolling while people like me were too busy watching another channel to even know that a breast had been flashed. Nice work!

Second, to the tight-panted bureaucrats at the FCC, I say thank you. You ran like lunatics once the fine, offended citizens of the United States gave you the ball. You threatened censorship. Righteous!

Third, to President George W. Bush, I haven’t said this before to you, but I thank you for your outstanding service to the nation. Without your overbearing hand pressing down further on the censorship machine, we might have artists criminals slinging curse words and flashing naked genitals on the radio and the TV. Kick ass hiney!

Why am I making such a bizarre turn-around on my previous opinions? The witch hunt was worth it. All of the sternly-worded, paternalistic slaps on the wrist for our moral depravity will pay off in a better society. If my beliefs had been embraced, we’d be at a status-quo, but they weren’t, so we’re not. Inspired by this re-interpretation of freedom, Howard Stern is moving to Sirius satellite radio in January 2006.

Before anyone gets the wrong impression about me and thinks that I’m excited because that means we’ll hear coarse language and sexual innuendo, that’s not why I’m excited. Ok, it makes me do a little dance of joy, but that’s not the point. I’m excited because our censorship-obsessed political climate is going to make me a lot of money. I bought many, many shares of Sirius in early 2003 and stuck them in the back of my investment vault. That decision is paying off today. Without the FCC witch hunt of the last nine months, Howard Stern’s move to Sirius would’ve been improbable at best.

I’ll do my part for the economy when I buy a beach house with my profits. (Insert super-cool slick thumbs up gesture and sparkle from winking eye directed at Michael Powell…)

Thomas and Franklin become George

Did you know that if you insert a dollar bill into a vending machine and then insert extra coins before selecting your item, the vending machine will exchange your small coins for quarters?

I tried this on a whim when buying a pack of gum. At 60&#162 for the gum, my 40&#162 change would add to a pocket full of change. And I have an exhausting, never-ending need for quarters to pay for Metro parking every day since a day parked at a meter is cheaper than a day parked in the garage. Because the meters accept only quarters, I have an obsession that fosters creativity. So I put $1.10 into the machine and waited. I expected a quarter, two dimes, and a nickel to fall into the change slot. When I only heard two clinks, I did a mini mental dance.

The Evil Vending Machine Giver of Nickels and Dimes&#153 will never win again!

The future belongs to freedom, not to fear.

In an effort to conduct an unscientific poll, I’m curious to know what everyone thought of the debate. (You did watch, didn’t you?) I think Kerry won, though only with a slight edge. He was more forceful and consistent with his ideas than he has been in the past. He responded to some of the criticisms lobbed against him by the Bush campaign over the last few weeks/months. He looked more “presidential” than he ever has in the past.

Counter that with Bush’s refusal to articulate much further than “I’m right” and his often strange body language and brain locks. As the night wore on, Bush seemed to devolve into “You’re with me or you’re against me”, which he clearly intended to imply his usual argument of patriot vs. non-patriot. Unlike all of the nonsensical arguments thrown at Kerry, that is the only concept I heard last night that wasn’t “presidential”.

From Andrew Sullivan, consider this:

Still, there were major weaknesses. If you believe, as I do, that the Iraq war is beginning to spiral downward, Bush was not reassuring. He seemed as out of it as ever. When Kerry rightly pointed out the failure of Bush to revamp the CIA or to secure Soviet nuclear material, Bush simply and sadly responded that every morning some guy comes in and briefs him on national security. Now I feel better. And you don’t want to be the president who is forced to say, “Of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us.” Moreover, his fundamental critique of Kerry – that by criticizing the war, he had made himself unworthy to be commander-in-chief – was dumb and border-line offensive. It implies that if you’ve ever criticized the president’s war conduct, you cannot succeed him in office. Huh? By that logic, the only credible alternative to Bush is someone who has agreed with him every inch of the way. Memo to Bush: we live in a democracy.

With that said, Kerry blew multiple chances to cripple Bush’s argument that change would be bad. Kerry made it clear that he believes Bush made mistakes in planning for the war but not the peace. Valid, but not enough. He should’ve pointed out examples of Bush’s mishandling of the situation in Iraq and Bush’s unwillingness to adjust during the war. Every time Kerry let Bush re-iterate that change sends a bad message to our troops and our allies, that ludicrous belief gained credibility. He needed the instinct of a boxer with his opponent on the ropes. The champions don’t wait for the decision from the judges; he knocks his opponent out. Consider this, again from Andrew Sullivan:

Kerry was effective, however, in detailing the relatively small contribution of most of the allies. But why oh why did he not mention the obvious parallel of the vast coalition Bush’s father put together for the first Gulf War? If I were a debate judge – and I’ve had my fair share of debate experience – I would have flunked Kerry on the spot.

To his credit, Bush showed class, ignoring the opportunity to attack Kerry personally when asked to do just that. He generally performed in the manner we expect. He has appeal as more of the “every man” than Kerry. Anyone who doubts that this appeal can carry a candidate needs to review the political life of Bill Clinton.

So I think Kerry won, but not by much. What do you think?

It may not make sense, but it makes sense.

Baseball is returning to Washington, DC. As I mentioned, I’m excited about that and look forward to having big league baseball only a metro ride away. I’m not changing my allegiance, but I’m curious to know what the new team name will be. The obvious choice and initial majority opinion is to look to the past and re-christen the Expos the Washington Senators.

I disagree. Thinking about it Wednesday night as the initial suggestions began to trickle through during the wall-to-wall television news coverage of this story, I had a thought. I don’t mind the name “Senators” but don’t believe it should be the only name considered. Specifically, I do NOT want the inevitable name search among the fans to spiral into the disaster that is the fan-chosen Baltimore Ravens logo. So I was thinking the thought process should extend further into the past and look at the Negro Leagues for inspiration. The first commentary I read on the Expos impending move came from Michael Wilbon. In his column from yesterday, while noting that Senators seems to be the favorite, Mr. Wilbon offers the same alternative that I was thinking:

There might be only one very, very good alternative: Grays. Baseball, more than any other sport, sells nostalgia, from the retro ballparks that have popped up around the major leagues (and presumably will here, too, on the Anacostia waterfront) to throwback jerseys. And while there’s arguing against Senators or Nationals from a historic standpoint, the name Grays qualifies historically, and has perhaps a more romantic link to Washington’s baseball past.

The Senators, let’s face it, were losers. Big losers. The franchise was contracted by the National League in 1900, left town for Minneapolis in 1960, bolted town again, for Texas, in 1971. The Senators had 11 straight losing seasons to start their American League history in 1901, then lost at least 100 games in each of their first four seasons as an expansion team in the early 1960s. Where do you think “First in War, First in Peace, last in the American League” as a depiction of Washington came from?

Exactly. There is a winning baseball tradition in Washington, and it’s not the Senators. Renaming the Expos as the Grays, while a curious name, will represent a tradition of winning and of a tenacity to just play baseball, against the overwhelming odds. It will also honor the pre-integration history of black baseball players in a way that retiring Jackie Robinson’s #42 didn’t quite achieve (at least for me).

Consider:

The Grays won nine straight Negro National League pennants when the team played here, from the late 1930s until 1950.

Not only was it probably the greatest Negro League franchise of all, but with apologies to Satchel Paige and the Kansas City Monarchs, it was the most glamorous of all the Negro League teams and at its height featured Josh Gibson and Buck Leonard. And if your first inclination is that a 15-year-old kid has never heard of Josh Gibson, chances are you’re right . . . and he’s never heard of Frank Howard either. I remember Sam Lacy, the great sportswriter for the Afro-American newspapers, telling me that one season in the late 1930s or early ’40s, Gibson hit more home runs than the entire Senators lineup.
…
It’s not like the name Grays symbolizes anything bad to folks who aren’t black. The first person I heard lobby for Grays was ESPN anchor Dan Patrick. Laura Meissner, handing out pamphlets yesterday titled “Bring the Grays Back to Washington,” is a young white woman who is vice president of a group devoted to remembering the Grays. A team embracing Negro League history at its best might not work everywhere, but one would think it could work here, in the blackest city in America.

I think it would work here, so I vote for Grays. The team can wear the Senators uniforms as a Throwback weekend promotion.

That’s enough singing for now, lads… looks like there’s dirty work afoot.

Just when I hoped our elected leaders Representatives could focus on something important, I found this article in The Washington Times. Since many Republicans in Congress seem to forget that we’re in an international war with guns and bullets and bombs, we’re also in a culture war with words and breasts and weddings. Trying to perpetuate the Federal Marriage Amendment, the House of Representatives is voting on the FMA today.

The Republican leadership wants us to ignore this logic:

“This amendment has zero chance of passage,” said House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat. “Even if it did, it wouldn’t pass in the Senate. It is another waste of time while the budget is not attended to … the highway bill is not attended to, the energy bill is not attended to.”

And focus on this instead:

“For too long, Congress has stood idly by … and the time has come for Congress to reassert itself,” Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Texas Republican, said Tuesday. “It’s unfortunate that this step is being forced on us by the courts, but that is exactly what is happening. … The only way to protect marriage is with a constitutional amendment.”

“The time has come for Congress to reassert itself.” I know Rep. DeLay uses that as an indication that Congress needs to wrestle the Constitution (and the culture) from the Judiciary, but I also read the “daddy complex” that possesses the Bush Administration and the overall Republican leadership. The next new hit sitcom, probably airing on Fox News Infotainment, will be Congress Knows Best.

Of course, I don’t mean to paint everyone who supports the Republican Party as an evil person who hates anyone who falls into the “Not Like Me” category of “Those People”. There are rational conservatives who understand that conservative beliefs don’t require being a minion for the party line. Consider:

Rep. Christopher Shays, a Connecticut Republican facing a re-election challenge, plans to vote against the measure. He feels it unnecessary to amend the Constitution to protect marriage but says his district is closely divided on the issue.

“I don’t win votes either way on this issue,” he said. “I just find it hard to understand why we are doing this so late [in the year]. It seems so political to me, and so divisive.”

Also, consider this argument by California Republican Rep. Christopher Cox (it’s from an opinion piece from The Wall Street Journal):

“For Republicans, who believe in federalism, the [amendment] is an uncomfortable fit,” he wrote. “Republicans have not shied from even the unpopular exercise of federal power over the states when it has been warranted. … But when it is not warranted, neither should we succumb to the temptation to federalize what the states have handled well for centuries.”

That’s the most spot on argument against the FMA and what Congress is attempting right now. Believe whatever you want about same-sex marriage, but understand that a constitutional amendment is not the conservative response. Not only does the FMA seek to ingratiate discrimination into our most important document, it seeks to further extend the federal government’s power over Americans. We need to move on as a nation. There are legitimate issues facing us and this isn’t one of them.

My final thought on this (for now):

“This week the House will begin the process to protect marriage in America,” Mr. DeLay said. “The American people … need to know where their representatives stand.”

On your last point, Rep. DeLay, we’ve never been more in agreement. It’s a shame you won’t appreciate that I will cast my vote against my Representative if when he votes for the FMA.