Dear Mr. President,
Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas has stated that he will dissolve the Palestinian government and force Israel to take responsibility for the West Bank. Abbas is clearly a much better poker player than I would have given him credit for.
If Israel does not stop settlement construction, Abbas would be wise to follow through on this threat. Abbas is correct when he says that he cannot be expected to lead, to be responsible for a territory he has no real control over. Israel bears little of the financial or regulatory responsibility for its occupation, and forcing the government to pay (literally and figuratively) for its policies is the only way to compel change. The threat may frighten Israeli leadership enough to get an actual settlement freeze or could pave the way to a more just single-state solution, should the Palestinians begin lobbying not for statehood but suffrage.
I certainly don't envy the headache Prime Minister Netanyahu must be suffering as a result of this announcement.
With Israeli and Palestinian firefighters working together to battle a forest fire, I hope that government officials on both sides recognize the potential for all of the people in this region to live side by side, to work together, in peace. It can happen, but such an outcome is absolutely contingent upon civil rights, economic stability and personal security for all people, regardless of race, religion or ethnicity. It cannot happen under occupation, and I am glad that Abbas, at least, recognizes this. I hope that peace talks resume in a manner that is fair and respectful of both sides, but, should the intractable commitment of the Israeli right to continue the construction of the settlements prove to be insurmountable for Netanyahu, I fully support the return of administrative responsibilities for the West Bank to the Israelis. Palestinians have long been punished (often violently) for the actions of extremists within their midst while Israel has empowered, protected and elected their own fundamentalists. The price of this hypocrisy ought to be the social, financial and political burden of the occupation and oppression supported by those fundamentalists and spearheaded by settlers in the face of international law, the interest of peace and basic common sense.
Abbas has slid his chips across the table. Netanyahu must go all-in with him, or fold and face the consequences. As Israel's ally and an advocate for peace, (not to mention a leader familiar with the costs of occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan,) I'm sure you can appreciate just how difficult Netanyahu's decision will be. Netanyahu should learn from history, freeze the settlement construction and return to the table for peace talks more willing than ever to compromise for the sake of peace. Call your friend, Mr. President, and tell him it's time to fold.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Showing posts with label poker. Show all posts
Showing posts with label poker. Show all posts
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Day 310- Another poker metaphor
I got a message this week I can't respond to. For all of my internal conflict over the decision to respond or not to, I know the right thing to do. But, in another life, with a different past, I know what I would say. And so, what I cannot say elsewhere I will say here.
Dear Mr. President,
On the day after election day, I started to hear a phrase tossed around to explain the disappointment with your Presidency and the Democrats' abysmal midterm performance. "Playing the cards they were dealt", the refrain insisted, indicating that a bad economy, high unemployment, or any number of political cards were the reason Democrats lost. As a poker player this metaphor rang falsely from the moment I heard it.
Because any card player worth their weight knows you don't play the cards you're dealt; you play the man across the table.
When Democrats lost this election it didn't feel, to me, like a problem with our cards versus theirs. Our positions, our issues, our records were better. We just got outplayed. Now, hearing, already, about compromises on the Bush tax cuts feel like the same tired tactics that have failed all legislative session long. Republicans are excellent poker players. They indicate a willingness to compromise, Democrats foolishly believe them and make concessions (and often lose the support of their base in the process,) and Republicans hold the line until they get what they want or no one gets anything at all. You'll push the definition of middle class to $500k a year or $1 million a year, and Republicans will ask for more. In the end, if you're very, very lucky, you'll get tax cuts renewed only on those making less than $5 million a year, but in all likelihood, they will be completely renewed.
Out-playing the Republicans now that they control the House means ignoring the cards we've been dealt. Ask for a bill renewing the tax cuts only for those making $250k or less or threaten to let them all expire. And veto anything in the middle. Raise or fold. Do not check. Do not call. Raise or fold. Forget about the polls, the media narrative, the conventional wisdom, and whatever other cards you think you've been dealt. Look at the man across the table. The question is not "is his hand stronger?" The question is always "can I convince him that his hand is weaker?"
Maybe gambling is not the most noble profession. And you might make the argument that governing is not a game, that people's lives and livelihoods are at stake. Ask any poker player going all-in with this week's grocery money- higher stakes require you to play well, not to play cautiously. The stakes are high. Forget the cards you were dealt and your moral objections to the way the game is played. Look at the (in this case, very orange) man across the table.
Mr. President, I think that your noble belief in bipartisanship is admirable. But I think it has to be on your terms. I also suspect you're a much better politician than you're willing to let on. You're facing two years of bleeding political capitol every round you lose until election day, or going all-in right now with these tax cuts.
The lesson here is that no one can control the cards they're dealt. Poker is, superficially, a game of luck. The reason that some people win the world series and others lose their lunch money is that good players learn to leverage what they can control; their own reactions, perceptions, confrontation. Good players know the cards change but the man across the table stays the same.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Dear Mr. President,
On the day after election day, I started to hear a phrase tossed around to explain the disappointment with your Presidency and the Democrats' abysmal midterm performance. "Playing the cards they were dealt", the refrain insisted, indicating that a bad economy, high unemployment, or any number of political cards were the reason Democrats lost. As a poker player this metaphor rang falsely from the moment I heard it.
Because any card player worth their weight knows you don't play the cards you're dealt; you play the man across the table.
When Democrats lost this election it didn't feel, to me, like a problem with our cards versus theirs. Our positions, our issues, our records were better. We just got outplayed. Now, hearing, already, about compromises on the Bush tax cuts feel like the same tired tactics that have failed all legislative session long. Republicans are excellent poker players. They indicate a willingness to compromise, Democrats foolishly believe them and make concessions (and often lose the support of their base in the process,) and Republicans hold the line until they get what they want or no one gets anything at all. You'll push the definition of middle class to $500k a year or $1 million a year, and Republicans will ask for more. In the end, if you're very, very lucky, you'll get tax cuts renewed only on those making less than $5 million a year, but in all likelihood, they will be completely renewed.
Out-playing the Republicans now that they control the House means ignoring the cards we've been dealt. Ask for a bill renewing the tax cuts only for those making $250k or less or threaten to let them all expire. And veto anything in the middle. Raise or fold. Do not check. Do not call. Raise or fold. Forget about the polls, the media narrative, the conventional wisdom, and whatever other cards you think you've been dealt. Look at the man across the table. The question is not "is his hand stronger?" The question is always "can I convince him that his hand is weaker?"
Maybe gambling is not the most noble profession. And you might make the argument that governing is not a game, that people's lives and livelihoods are at stake. Ask any poker player going all-in with this week's grocery money- higher stakes require you to play well, not to play cautiously. The stakes are high. Forget the cards you were dealt and your moral objections to the way the game is played. Look at the (in this case, very orange) man across the table.
Mr. President, I think that your noble belief in bipartisanship is admirable. But I think it has to be on your terms. I also suspect you're a much better politician than you're willing to let on. You're facing two years of bleeding political capitol every round you lose until election day, or going all-in right now with these tax cuts.
The lesson here is that no one can control the cards they're dealt. Poker is, superficially, a game of luck. The reason that some people win the world series and others lose their lunch money is that good players learn to leverage what they can control; their own reactions, perceptions, confrontation. Good players know the cards change but the man across the table stays the same.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Day 282- Hold 'em
Dear Mr. President,
I learned to play Texas Hold 'em because I didn't want to feel left out. The boys I went to High School with had begun having weekly poker nights, and it was strictly No Girls Allowed. I'm still not sure what made them change their minds and include us; maybe playing a guys-only game just wasn't as fun? Maybe they just wanted more sources of money in hopes of increasing their winnings? For whatever reason, the boys broke down and let a few of us girls join. We played late at night, small-stakes, unlimited re-buying and way too much of Mrs. Yunker's delicious coffee and snacks keeping us up sometimes until dawn. Later in the summer, seeking the thrill of higher stakes and the greater glory of taking money from strangers, we moved our weekly nights to a limit game in a local casino. When Teddy Roosevelt said "walk softly and carry a big stick" he probably didn't imagine that decades later an 18 year old girl would adopt it as her mantra for hustling poker tables full of 40-year old drunks. (It was a very good summer, in some respects.) The whole poker culture fascinated me, especially at the world series, where the ancient celebrities clashed with the young turks learning the game online.
These days I only play for fun, an occasional night game with friends, like tonight. Coworkers, new friends and total strangers, we gather around a too-small table in a motley assortment of chairs, trading banter as we bond over junk food and movie references. A game like poker will quickly give a table full of strangers the familiarity of friends or even kin. You play the person, not the cards, I'm told. This strategy appeals to me, as does the way the tides of fortune change. At any point the weakest player can take on the strongest and win. Tonight I've already won and lost more money than I care to think about, but I'm still pretty confident that I'll manage to claw my way back to a tidy profit.
So, strangely enough, this has me thinking about the filibuster. Domestic policy is not dissimilar from poker, in that strategy tends to trump substance. The strength or wisdom of policy proposals is secondary to the wrangling, bluffing and bullying institutionalized in both houses of congress. Maybe that's part of the fun, part of the challenge. And I won't claim more than an amateur observer's expertise in the finer points of political strategy, but, as a poker player, I feel like Democrats have great cards and rarely, if ever, know how to play them. Just the other day a friend asked me about filibusters and why the threat of a filibuster is enough to hold things up. Why don't the Democrats just let them filibuster and see how bad they look doing it? I didn't have a satisfying answer for her.
Anyway, I should probably go focus on this game, if I'm ever going to scrape my way back into the black. Not to beat the whole metaphor to death or anything, but it is long past time to call the Republican's bluff. I will add my voice to the chorus of those on the left who want to see these Filibuster threats acted on. I suspect that the Republicans are just bullying; I'd bet that the first display of strength from the Democrats and they'd back down. But I'll stick to playing cards and leave such musings to those more qualified to offer them. I hope you're enjoying your weekend.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I learned to play Texas Hold 'em because I didn't want to feel left out. The boys I went to High School with had begun having weekly poker nights, and it was strictly No Girls Allowed. I'm still not sure what made them change their minds and include us; maybe playing a guys-only game just wasn't as fun? Maybe they just wanted more sources of money in hopes of increasing their winnings? For whatever reason, the boys broke down and let a few of us girls join. We played late at night, small-stakes, unlimited re-buying and way too much of Mrs. Yunker's delicious coffee and snacks keeping us up sometimes until dawn. Later in the summer, seeking the thrill of higher stakes and the greater glory of taking money from strangers, we moved our weekly nights to a limit game in a local casino. When Teddy Roosevelt said "walk softly and carry a big stick" he probably didn't imagine that decades later an 18 year old girl would adopt it as her mantra for hustling poker tables full of 40-year old drunks. (It was a very good summer, in some respects.) The whole poker culture fascinated me, especially at the world series, where the ancient celebrities clashed with the young turks learning the game online.
These days I only play for fun, an occasional night game with friends, like tonight. Coworkers, new friends and total strangers, we gather around a too-small table in a motley assortment of chairs, trading banter as we bond over junk food and movie references. A game like poker will quickly give a table full of strangers the familiarity of friends or even kin. You play the person, not the cards, I'm told. This strategy appeals to me, as does the way the tides of fortune change. At any point the weakest player can take on the strongest and win. Tonight I've already won and lost more money than I care to think about, but I'm still pretty confident that I'll manage to claw my way back to a tidy profit.
So, strangely enough, this has me thinking about the filibuster. Domestic policy is not dissimilar from poker, in that strategy tends to trump substance. The strength or wisdom of policy proposals is secondary to the wrangling, bluffing and bullying institutionalized in both houses of congress. Maybe that's part of the fun, part of the challenge. And I won't claim more than an amateur observer's expertise in the finer points of political strategy, but, as a poker player, I feel like Democrats have great cards and rarely, if ever, know how to play them. Just the other day a friend asked me about filibusters and why the threat of a filibuster is enough to hold things up. Why don't the Democrats just let them filibuster and see how bad they look doing it? I didn't have a satisfying answer for her.
Anyway, I should probably go focus on this game, if I'm ever going to scrape my way back into the black. Not to beat the whole metaphor to death or anything, but it is long past time to call the Republican's bluff. I will add my voice to the chorus of those on the left who want to see these Filibuster threats acted on. I suspect that the Republicans are just bullying; I'd bet that the first display of strength from the Democrats and they'd back down. But I'll stick to playing cards and leave such musings to those more qualified to offer them. I hope you're enjoying your weekend.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
