In my Bible study of 1 John I point out that the word practice has two popular uses: 1) to do something "I practice law" 2) to do something with the intention of doing it better. This post is referring to the second kind of practice. I am trying to get better at doing the kind of annoying advice I give to most complainers, in particular the kind of complaints directed against other people.
I insist that the offended person look at the issue from the perspective of the other person, give them the best possible motivations, practice sympathy rather than judgment, etc.
So I was recently slighted by some people in a not very important way but it still hurt my feelings. The strict interpretation of my constant advice is to train my thoughts against imagining their dislike of me. It is all too natural for me to start thinking "They don't like me... I don't fit in... I am an outsider." [I am aware of the "embrace the solitude" individualist perspective and reject it as inhuman]. My advice would be to train your thoughts against the negative interpretation of their actions and focus on the best interest of others. But that is not happening...
So I practice what I preach. I might not win this fight or it might take months to convince myself that these people do not dislike me or if they do that it a mistake on their part, or something like that. Until then the best I can do is practice at it. I have been disliked before, fairly and unfairly and there have been times with increased time together I have made new friends and earned respect (this happens a lot at work where my offensive nature sometimes gets the first impression). and it is possible that a person can get to know me and still think little of me and that is something I have been okay about (I have never been bothered by those who dislike my attitudes toward money).
So I guess what I practice at this point is 1) not dwelling on the hurt/offense 2) not striking out at others because of it. It is a mental battle which I might sometimes lose but that is why I want all the more to practice what I preach. It is better to try to live in peace with others and mess up then to separate from any who offend (anyone can) or not even try to live in peace.
btw sometimes separation is the best path but even then the hope is for some future re-connection and this particular case is nothing so drastic. That is a sort of nuclear option.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Monday, July 20, 2009
"Fiscal conservatives grumble over tab for reform"
pre-script: Hey Martin, I just tagged you because I know this is one of your core issues, but you aren't specifically mentioned.
The SF Chronicle posted an article(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/07/20/MNAR18QUG7.DTL) about House Speaker Pelosi having difficulty getting her ten year, trillion dollar Health Care Reform Bill through the Congressional Budget Office. It is a pretty ambitious bill, covering pretty much anyone making between 43K and 88K, excepting illegal immigrants. I am guessing that exception is a compromise to make the bill more palatable, but think that the courts could very easily make it so that immigrants would have to be included or else throw out the bill if it were passed. There is a pretty high tax increase for those making 350K and businesses with payrolls above 250K and an even bigger bump for individuals making more than a million.
However, Democrats which the article repeatedly names as "conservative Democrats" have criticized the bill because it will almost certainly increase the federal deficit. I think that if the bill is having trouble in the house (the most radical part of congress) that it will die in the Senate (which is always more conservative). But what is more interesting to me is the politics within the actual Democratic Party.
The article reads: "Liberal Democrats warned conservatives that there would be hell to pay if they brought down the president's top initiative and denied health care to millions, while conservative Democrats warned that mounting federal debt and new taxes, especially on small businesses, would be the party's undoing."
I'm always interested in battles for the heart and soul of a party, Republican or Democrat. I usually root for the moderates on either side
The SF Chronicle posted an article(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/07/20/MNAR18QUG7.DTL) about House Speaker Pelosi having difficulty getting her ten year, trillion dollar Health Care Reform Bill through the Congressional Budget Office. It is a pretty ambitious bill, covering pretty much anyone making between 43K and 88K, excepting illegal immigrants. I am guessing that exception is a compromise to make the bill more palatable, but think that the courts could very easily make it so that immigrants would have to be included or else throw out the bill if it were passed. There is a pretty high tax increase for those making 350K and businesses with payrolls above 250K and an even bigger bump for individuals making more than a million.
However, Democrats which the article repeatedly names as "conservative Democrats" have criticized the bill because it will almost certainly increase the federal deficit. I think that if the bill is having trouble in the house (the most radical part of congress) that it will die in the Senate (which is always more conservative). But what is more interesting to me is the politics within the actual Democratic Party.
The article reads: "Liberal Democrats warned conservatives that there would be hell to pay if they brought down the president's top initiative and denied health care to millions, while conservative Democrats warned that mounting federal debt and new taxes, especially on small businesses, would be the party's undoing."
I'm always interested in battles for the heart and soul of a party, Republican or Democrat. I usually root for the moderates on either side
Mandatory Reporter Paper (review)
Ahoy hoy,
This is my paper review for the law roudntable in Dr. V's 5311 class. If you are tagged it is because you are either in my credential program or else are on the teacher track as well. Feedback is okay.
If it seems a little long for the roundtable assignment... I think you are correct.
BTW pastors are also mandatory reporters.
p.s. team 50 don't forget the cover page.
....
Roundtable 1
Law Roundtable- Mandated Reporting
Sabina Nizami
Michael Gardner
TED 5311
Dr. Bette Vervais
July 16, 2009 In American it is estimated that one in four children are victims of abuse. This can be physical, sexual and emotional, but it all has long lasting, and even generational, effect. As teachers we have a special role on the lives of our students, spending more hours during a week with the child than any other adult. Students will look up to, trust and depend on us. This creates a responsibility which we can not morally abandon. But as teachers there are also legal requirements and protections concerning abuse and the reporting of abuse which we need to know. This discussion will introduce the legal standards of teachers concerning reporting observed and even suspected abuse, including our legal status as mandatory reporters, how to correctly report abuse and some signs of abuse.
As teachers we are legally classified as mandatory reporters. This means that we must report abuse and suspected abuse or else face the risk of up to six months in jail and a fine of up to a thousand dollars,# to say nothing of thee possibility of seriously endangering a child. Congress passed the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act in 1974 which states:
a mandated reporter shall make a report to [the police, sheriff’s department, county probation department or county welfare department] whenever the mandated reporter, in his or her professional capacity or within the scope of his or her employment has knowledge or observes a child knows or reasonably suspected has been the victim of child abuse or neglect.#
This report is expected to be made as soon as practically possible by phone and must be followed by a formal written report within 36 hours.
Being a mandated reporter also provides legal protection form civil and criminal prosecution for reporting abuse and suspected abuse. This means that you can not be sued for reporting a reasonably possible suspicion. You also can not even be identified as the reporter unless there is a court order to that effect.
It is not necessarily expected that every mandated reporter should be an expert at diagnosing or recognizing abuse but the law defines the reasonable suspicion we must be “objectively reasonable for a person to entertain a suspicion, based on the facts that could cause a reasonable person in a like position… to suspect child abuse or neglect.”# We can list some signs but ultimately what the law requires is something like common sense, depending on your experience and training with cases of abuse.
It is natural that when the subject of child abuse is made someone’s responsibility that it would cause strong feelings that are difficult to deal with. It might even be normal to want to avoid the issue. However, even aside from our legal responsibility we should remember that the reason we choose to teach. We want to improve the lives of people when they are most receptive to help. It is a great gift to teach children to read, strengthen and expand their mind but it pales in comparison to helping preventing abuse. It is even possible to save someone’s life. We can not save everyone but we can and we must be willing to make a difference.
This is my paper review for the law roudntable in Dr. V's 5311 class. If you are tagged it is because you are either in my credential program or else are on the teacher track as well. Feedback is okay.
If it seems a little long for the roundtable assignment... I think you are correct.
BTW pastors are also mandatory reporters.
p.s. team 50 don't forget the cover page.
....
Roundtable 1
Law Roundtable- Mandated Reporting
Sabina Nizami
Michael Gardner
TED 5311
Dr. Bette Vervais
July 16, 2009 In American it is estimated that one in four children are victims of abuse. This can be physical, sexual and emotional, but it all has long lasting, and even generational, effect. As teachers we have a special role on the lives of our students, spending more hours during a week with the child than any other adult. Students will look up to, trust and depend on us. This creates a responsibility which we can not morally abandon. But as teachers there are also legal requirements and protections concerning abuse and the reporting of abuse which we need to know. This discussion will introduce the legal standards of teachers concerning reporting observed and even suspected abuse, including our legal status as mandatory reporters, how to correctly report abuse and some signs of abuse.
As teachers we are legally classified as mandatory reporters. This means that we must report abuse and suspected abuse or else face the risk of up to six months in jail and a fine of up to a thousand dollars,# to say nothing of thee possibility of seriously endangering a child. Congress passed the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act in 1974 which states:
a mandated reporter shall make a report to [the police, sheriff’s department, county probation department or county welfare department] whenever the mandated reporter, in his or her professional capacity or within the scope of his or her employment has knowledge or observes a child knows or reasonably suspected has been the victim of child abuse or neglect.#
This report is expected to be made as soon as practically possible by phone and must be followed by a formal written report within 36 hours.
Being a mandated reporter also provides legal protection form civil and criminal prosecution for reporting abuse and suspected abuse. This means that you can not be sued for reporting a reasonably possible suspicion. You also can not even be identified as the reporter unless there is a court order to that effect.
It is not necessarily expected that every mandated reporter should be an expert at diagnosing or recognizing abuse but the law defines the reasonable suspicion we must be “objectively reasonable for a person to entertain a suspicion, based on the facts that could cause a reasonable person in a like position… to suspect child abuse or neglect.”# We can list some signs but ultimately what the law requires is something like common sense, depending on your experience and training with cases of abuse.
It is natural that when the subject of child abuse is made someone’s responsibility that it would cause strong feelings that are difficult to deal with. It might even be normal to want to avoid the issue. However, even aside from our legal responsibility we should remember that the reason we choose to teach. We want to improve the lives of people when they are most receptive to help. It is a great gift to teach children to read, strengthen and expand their mind but it pales in comparison to helping preventing abuse. It is even possible to save someone’s life. We can not save everyone but we can and we must be willing to make a difference.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Why I Write
Ha, ha, the obvious answer (obvious if you write) is that I write to get these thoughts out of my head. I heard someone say something I've said about my own writing: it is like vomiting on a piece of paper. In mentality I actually agree with Robert Heinlein (or his character Lazarus Long "it is perfectly acceptable if you write just so long as you do it in the privacy of your home and wash your hands when you are done."
But I guess what I am trying to articulate is what I think is beneficial about writing or any kind of art. What is actually good about Jemuel or Martin's music, Mike's comics? I don't think this will be why we do it but maybe could be a standard by which I (or some other high and mighty A-hole) judge our overall success. I think what makes art different from mere self expression (which is good and fine) is that art provides the audience (and artist) a vocabulary for understanding their feelings.
For example, Martin has a number of kinds of songs, love songs, sad songs, intimate songs, ironic songs, etc. and while I do enjoy his romantic "baby baby baby" songs they don't "teach" me any new understanding of my own feelings. That is not because of anything missing from his songs but because the message of those songs is already very well developed in our vocabulary/understanding. But he has a couple of "she did me wrong" songs which do delve to put a difficult experiences into a form both the artist and audience can in some ways understand, accept/reject and articulate.
This understanding of art can be seen in how passionately younger people feel about their music. I once saw a ten year old girl lip syncing to a No Doubt song (this was a while ago) with all of the feeling AS IF she had any understanding what it felt like to go through what the song was about. I see now that she was actually practicing feeling that way and by sharing in their art got a glimpse (inoculation?) of how it really felt.
And though I am certainly prejudiced towards the literate/articulated portion of this: understanding the words; it has to be acknowledged that much of this internal vocabulary is from the music or pictorial aspects as well. For example (I'm lame) when I hear the beginning music or Lord of the Rings or (more respectable) the beginning music or "Silent all These Years" there is a non-literate understanding which I remember. If I look at "the Howl" or "starry nights" I do have a feeling. It might not have a very appropriate word attached to it as if all internal activity had an equal dictionary expression: "Silent all these Years" is = and exactly = to pensive. Making that definition longer does not solve this foolishness as if "Silent All These Years = and exactly = pensive+sad+healing+growing.
So when I write I am in some ways simply expressing myself, but rather than only letting the inside out I also steer my understanding towards a kind of expression. I imagine that my audience is someone like a teenage version of myself and I want him to be able to understand what he is feeling and what is happening. And that is the part of art which I am not the least bit shy about.
Happy Martin? You were mentioned.
But I guess what I am trying to articulate is what I think is beneficial about writing or any kind of art. What is actually good about Jemuel or Martin's music, Mike's comics? I don't think this will be why we do it but maybe could be a standard by which I (or some other high and mighty A-hole) judge our overall success. I think what makes art different from mere self expression (which is good and fine) is that art provides the audience (and artist) a vocabulary for understanding their feelings.
For example, Martin has a number of kinds of songs, love songs, sad songs, intimate songs, ironic songs, etc. and while I do enjoy his romantic "baby baby baby" songs they don't "teach" me any new understanding of my own feelings. That is not because of anything missing from his songs but because the message of those songs is already very well developed in our vocabulary/understanding. But he has a couple of "she did me wrong" songs which do delve to put a difficult experiences into a form both the artist and audience can in some ways understand, accept/reject and articulate.
This understanding of art can be seen in how passionately younger people feel about their music. I once saw a ten year old girl lip syncing to a No Doubt song (this was a while ago) with all of the feeling AS IF she had any understanding what it felt like to go through what the song was about. I see now that she was actually practicing feeling that way and by sharing in their art got a glimpse (inoculation?) of how it really felt.
And though I am certainly prejudiced towards the literate/articulated portion of this: understanding the words; it has to be acknowledged that much of this internal vocabulary is from the music or pictorial aspects as well. For example (I'm lame) when I hear the beginning music or Lord of the Rings or (more respectable) the beginning music or "Silent all These Years" there is a non-literate understanding which I remember. If I look at "the Howl" or "starry nights" I do have a feeling. It might not have a very appropriate word attached to it as if all internal activity had an equal dictionary expression: "Silent all these Years" is = and exactly = to pensive. Making that definition longer does not solve this foolishness as if "Silent All These Years = and exactly = pensive+sad+healing+growing.
So when I write I am in some ways simply expressing myself, but rather than only letting the inside out I also steer my understanding towards a kind of expression. I imagine that my audience is someone like a teenage version of myself and I want him to be able to understand what he is feeling and what is happening. And that is the part of art which I am not the least bit shy about.
Happy Martin? You were mentioned.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Cycle of Doom
"Get right back on the horse" means that if you are learning to ride a horse and it throws you off that you should get right back on the horse. This teaches both you and the horse that eventually this will be mastered. A fall need not need define you.
When I fall it is for two reasons: there is something I want which naturally leads towards falling and the horse itself will throw me off.
The problem with the "get back on the horse" analogy is that both my desires and the comparative strength of the horse are hard wired... they are a part of our definition.
This leads to what Jackson's sermon called the cycle of doom: you try, fail, try harder, succeed for a while and then fail again (repeat to infinitude). This can lead to amazing accomplishments but never to peace, joy or success. For example, let's say my dad had been on the cycle of doom. As a young man he was a violent and wild father. He had some humbling experiences that taught him how horrible this could be so he tries to change. He does pretty good for a while but then loses his temper, hits the bottle and wakes up on the street. So he tries again and does a little better for a little while but then he loses his temper again and hits the bottle and maybe something else. This continues for forty or so years until near the end of the life he is a grizzled and humbled mountain man at AA who with pain and wisdom hard earned speaks of the effect of alcoholism. This old man is an amazing accomplishment and those who know only this part of his life say "What a great man."
My dad would never say this about himself because he knows his wisdom was built upon beaten sons and wives, abandoned children and self destruction that defies belief. The naive idealist would say "Oh but look at all the wisdom he has achieved and the good he has done! Was it not worth it?" I can say with some knowledge that my dad would give a friendly laugh like when he heard my teenage ideas but at his funeral all the people who knew him best were wounded by him. The tone of those who were his sons and wife was that of a terrible forgiveness born from grief and helplessness.
Imagine there was a president who through a lack of wisdom or experience did horrible horrible things which destroyed the lives of many people. But through his missteps the president became a better wiser person and at the end of his (or her) life did nothing but restitution. Would it undo the damage? Could his or her planted trees, children books read and moral lessons bring one dead son to life, heal the wounds?
The cycle of doom at it best produces toothless but wise old men and women who powerful but unwise men and women can safely ignore. And to tell the truth usually it does not even produce this. Most old people I know have a few teeth left and regret their age more than the lives they lived.
This is is why the best the secular position can offer is resignation. "That's the way it is." "It's the way of the world." "What can you do?" "Just get back on the horse."
...
The thing about learning to ride a horse is it is not something you actually do alone. You are never the first person who says "Get back on the horse."
The problem with the fall is that it resulted in two things I can not change: what I want and the strength of the horse. I might focus my desires so that I trade heroin for television and a prostitute for a wife (pick you addictions my dad said) but I can not change that I like to sit down and feel good or that sex is desirable.
The only way to escape the cycle of doom is help from someone who is not subject to it. Most world religions give fine, fine help to focus the cycle of doom to less destructiveness... until they mess up and kill a bunch of people and destroy families and communities burning the innocent and helpless alive for no reason at all.
The only escape is help from Someone who is not subject to the cycle of doom.
Heidiegger's last meaningful quote, at the end of his life, (and my favorite things about existentialism) was "Only a god could save us."
When I fall it is for two reasons: there is something I want which naturally leads towards falling and the horse itself will throw me off.
The problem with the "get back on the horse" analogy is that both my desires and the comparative strength of the horse are hard wired... they are a part of our definition.
This leads to what Jackson's sermon called the cycle of doom: you try, fail, try harder, succeed for a while and then fail again (repeat to infinitude). This can lead to amazing accomplishments but never to peace, joy or success. For example, let's say my dad had been on the cycle of doom. As a young man he was a violent and wild father. He had some humbling experiences that taught him how horrible this could be so he tries to change. He does pretty good for a while but then loses his temper, hits the bottle and wakes up on the street. So he tries again and does a little better for a little while but then he loses his temper again and hits the bottle and maybe something else. This continues for forty or so years until near the end of the life he is a grizzled and humbled mountain man at AA who with pain and wisdom hard earned speaks of the effect of alcoholism. This old man is an amazing accomplishment and those who know only this part of his life say "What a great man."
My dad would never say this about himself because he knows his wisdom was built upon beaten sons and wives, abandoned children and self destruction that defies belief. The naive idealist would say "Oh but look at all the wisdom he has achieved and the good he has done! Was it not worth it?" I can say with some knowledge that my dad would give a friendly laugh like when he heard my teenage ideas but at his funeral all the people who knew him best were wounded by him. The tone of those who were his sons and wife was that of a terrible forgiveness born from grief and helplessness.
Imagine there was a president who through a lack of wisdom or experience did horrible horrible things which destroyed the lives of many people. But through his missteps the president became a better wiser person and at the end of his (or her) life did nothing but restitution. Would it undo the damage? Could his or her planted trees, children books read and moral lessons bring one dead son to life, heal the wounds?
The cycle of doom at it best produces toothless but wise old men and women who powerful but unwise men and women can safely ignore. And to tell the truth usually it does not even produce this. Most old people I know have a few teeth left and regret their age more than the lives they lived.
This is is why the best the secular position can offer is resignation. "That's the way it is." "It's the way of the world." "What can you do?" "Just get back on the horse."
...
The thing about learning to ride a horse is it is not something you actually do alone. You are never the first person who says "Get back on the horse."
The problem with the fall is that it resulted in two things I can not change: what I want and the strength of the horse. I might focus my desires so that I trade heroin for television and a prostitute for a wife (pick you addictions my dad said) but I can not change that I like to sit down and feel good or that sex is desirable.
The only way to escape the cycle of doom is help from someone who is not subject to it. Most world religions give fine, fine help to focus the cycle of doom to less destructiveness... until they mess up and kill a bunch of people and destroy families and communities burning the innocent and helpless alive for no reason at all.
The only escape is help from Someone who is not subject to the cycle of doom.
Heidiegger's last meaningful quote, at the end of his life, (and my favorite things about existentialism) was "Only a god could save us."
Friday, April 10, 2009
Entitlement
A political party is a somewhat random conglomeration of different interests that pretend to unite in order to share influence with each other. So let's say your key issue is the second amendment, the right to keep assault rifles. The NRA by itself certainly has some influence and political power in itself but when they are also backed by corporate deregulationists, small government advocates, pro-lifers, NAMBLA or whoever that lobby becomes more powerful. To be sure those lobbies may not care much about hunting or handguns but their passive inclusion grants a degree of extra legitimacy.
In "America The Book" the Daily Show writers mock this a little saying to someone thinking of running for office "do you support universal health care? Then you must also want a ban on assault weapons. Pro-limited government? Congratulations, you are also anti-abortion." (108) I can not help but imagine that a lot of these political alliances are arbitrary, what does government spending have to do with the abortion? Nothing except that all intelligent people think exactly as you do on this and all other subjects.
I've sensed a degree of antagonism or at least unease from the Libertarian branch of the Republican/conservatives I know who in particular do not favor the joining with social conservatives. There are varying reasons for this ranging from being a member of NAMBLA to anarchist tendencies. I will not be arguing for or against it, but was interested in making a some what logical connection between the politics of morality and government programs.
For my discussion I am distinguishing between Christianity and social conservatives. Of course it must be recognized that in American and most of Western civilization Social conservatives follow some variation of something like Christianity. But I distinguish the two based upon their stated objective:
Christianity's purpose is to declare God's message of redemption through Jesus Christ, equipping believers to do His will and caring for the needy.
The purpose of the social conservative is to enforce a set of moral rules, punishing transgressors and rewarding adherents but with the purpose of social harmony.
The two might sometimes join sides as Christianity does believe part of God's will is that we avoid sin and a social conservative might regard the church structure of Christianity as an expedient to their goals, but they are not the same. This can be seen in that their are Muslim, Confucian, Buddhist, Communist and all other kinds of social conservatives who are actually opposed to Christianity.
All of that to say why social conservatives are allied with fiscal conservatives! In particular when it comes to welfare and similar programs there is a logic between the two because one of the tenants of most social conservatives is the importance of hard work, earning one's own way and being a PRODUCTIVE member to society. When the government seeks to provide for the needs of some of the population it undermines the ideal that moral citizens ought to pay their own way. A fiscal conservative might not care how a welfare state will effect the character of society but a social conservative can scarcely be thought to think of anything else. So the two can be seen to share some common interests.
In "America The Book" the Daily Show writers mock this a little saying to someone thinking of running for office "do you support universal health care? Then you must also want a ban on assault weapons. Pro-limited government? Congratulations, you are also anti-abortion." (108) I can not help but imagine that a lot of these political alliances are arbitrary, what does government spending have to do with the abortion? Nothing except that all intelligent people think exactly as you do on this and all other subjects.
I've sensed a degree of antagonism or at least unease from the Libertarian branch of the Republican/conservatives I know who in particular do not favor the joining with social conservatives. There are varying reasons for this ranging from being a member of NAMBLA to anarchist tendencies. I will not be arguing for or against it, but was interested in making a some what logical connection between the politics of morality and government programs.
For my discussion I am distinguishing between Christianity and social conservatives. Of course it must be recognized that in American and most of Western civilization Social conservatives follow some variation of something like Christianity. But I distinguish the two based upon their stated objective:
Christianity's purpose is to declare God's message of redemption through Jesus Christ, equipping believers to do His will and caring for the needy.
The purpose of the social conservative is to enforce a set of moral rules, punishing transgressors and rewarding adherents but with the purpose of social harmony.
The two might sometimes join sides as Christianity does believe part of God's will is that we avoid sin and a social conservative might regard the church structure of Christianity as an expedient to their goals, but they are not the same. This can be seen in that their are Muslim, Confucian, Buddhist, Communist and all other kinds of social conservatives who are actually opposed to Christianity.
All of that to say why social conservatives are allied with fiscal conservatives! In particular when it comes to welfare and similar programs there is a logic between the two because one of the tenants of most social conservatives is the importance of hard work, earning one's own way and being a PRODUCTIVE member to society. When the government seeks to provide for the needs of some of the population it undermines the ideal that moral citizens ought to pay their own way. A fiscal conservative might not care how a welfare state will effect the character of society but a social conservative can scarcely be thought to think of anything else. So the two can be seen to share some common interests.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Poker is a game of odds and character
So I took Nate to play poker with the Outback guys and he said almost nothing the whole night and played maybe ten hands (and he slow played those ten) and he walked with maybe seventy bucks. That is a lot by our group standards.
So the first part about poker is simply knowing what the good hands are, knowing the odds. That is the easy part, a little math or a little experience and you are fine.
But the hard part for me is wanting to play every decent hand. There is something about an K/2 unsuited that says "this is your hand" and like a fool I play it. I joked once that the trick to paying poker is hating Satan. Satan says "play that hand" and so you have to say "I rebuke you Satan."
Kind of silly, but the point is that poker requires a degree of character. That is the kind of skill required, not simply the odds but the character that does not chase after every hand because "you never know."
Nate has that kind of character.
Ha ha if the game weren't some kind of spiritual exercise I wouldn't like it!
So the first part about poker is simply knowing what the good hands are, knowing the odds. That is the easy part, a little math or a little experience and you are fine.
But the hard part for me is wanting to play every decent hand. There is something about an K/2 unsuited that says "this is your hand" and like a fool I play it. I joked once that the trick to paying poker is hating Satan. Satan says "play that hand" and so you have to say "I rebuke you Satan."
Kind of silly, but the point is that poker requires a degree of character. That is the kind of skill required, not simply the odds but the character that does not chase after every hand because "you never know."
Nate has that kind of character.
Ha ha if the game weren't some kind of spiritual exercise I wouldn't like it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)