« Tut-tut, Looks Like Rain | Home | Why »
10.05.06
Getting From Here To There
posted by Absinthe | 2:21 PM
Lisa: But we can’t accept that money! It’s tainted!
Principal Skinner: Now, now, let’s leave the money out of this. It’s not the money’s fault you cheated.
The Simpsons, episode AABF03, “Lisa Gets An ‘A’”
It’s time to stop steaming over the online poker bill. Yeah, already. Yes, Frist fucked us with a cheap and pointless election-year stunt, with no understanding of or care for the consequences. But what’s done is done. Anger is only a useful emotion when it promotes beneficial action (by accident) or vents off enough unproductive energy to permit the return of rational thought. We’ve all sat at a poker table long enough to know what sort of good getting angry does. Gambling isn’t going to win this thing; we need to play poker. In theory we have at our disposal some people who are pretty good at that.
[self-editor: Reader, I am not suggesting that you personally are focused on the wrong thing. I often choose my words poorly and inflame the wrong people, which is why the glorious poker revolution will have to be chaired by someone other than me.]
Let’s look at where we are. It’s not great. (“It’s not great.” Sheesh. Yes, I once considered a career in the lucrative field of understatement.) The disintegration of affiliate programs is going to be a severe blow to a lot of people (ScurvyDog‘s tale of woe is pretty staggering; he’s handling it admirably, but I imagine there are a few kick-holes in the walls of his new house), though the criminalization of such is merely icing in this case, as if all the mother sites cut off the US market affiliate revenue is going to be drastically reduced at best. Unless a few reputable sites hang tight, the online fish farms are probably going to be poorly stocked for a while, and US players who find ways to continue are going to have to adjust their schedule so they can play with Eurodonks. That’s the bad news, more or less, though I’m sure new wrinkles are bound to come up.
The good news is that the game is far from over. It’s unlikely to be truly over in our lifetimes, though there’s a chance of that one way or the other. Our “right” to play poker at all, not just online, is going to be up in the air for some time; it’s unlikely that the right to gamb00l is going to be enshrined in the Constitution anytime soon.
As the smoke clears, we’re getting a pretty good idea of where we are. What we need to decide is where we want to get, and how we’re going to do it. Risk versus reward and the ability to evaluate such rationally. That’s poker. It’s what we need to be doing.
So what do we want? Status quo antebellum was working pretty well for a lot of people, so repealing the language that passed in the port security bill would be a good first step. It seems unlikely that will happen, but if we can draw enough attention to the issue and lay out our case we might at least get a hearing. Appeals to fairness might be useful; tell your Congresscritters that if this is so bloody important to our nation, it at least deserves debate and a vote on the merits. It wouldn’t happen until next session anyway, and by all indications we’ll have a better chance of that then than now anyway.
So what’s our case? Poker is obviously a game of some skill, and it’s been recognized as such by the courts. It’s a traditional American pastime. It’s not any more of a gamble than the stock market or an insurance policy, probably much less when you consider the amount of control you can actually exert over the latter two. This alone is a pretty solid case for making and keeping it legal, without considering the billion-dollar losses of collective wealth (and potential tax-revenue sources) that have already happened over this issue.
There are a great many people who are inured to such arguments because they aren’t rational actors, but there are persuadables out there, and while they’re unlikely to become strident supporters of our cause, we might at least be able to get enough people to come around to the notion that they ought to be able to play the game even if they don’t personally care to, which happens to be the same way I feel about recreational drugs. (Furthermore, our misadventures with regard to cannabis, alcohol and the coca plant should have taught us by now that prohibition doesn’t do anything but generate casualties of prohibition.)
The horrifying and beautiful thing about politics is that it is a game of inches. A lot of the time all you need is a plurality. It is a game played and won in the margins, much like poker. But it takes organization, money, patience, and a willingness to evangelize. Join the PPA. If you’re in poker’s version of the closet, get out. Talk to your friends and co-workers about what the ban means to you, whatever that is, and why you love the game. Combat ignorance and anger with information and politeness. Start a low-stakes home game and invite anyone who seems remotely curious. Ply the attendees with cupcakes and booze. Do something.
The number of people with an entrenched fear and hatred for gamblers and poker players is much, much smaller than the number of people in the don’t-know-don’t-care category. We don’t need to get everybody on our side. Just a fraction. You know what they say about propositioning random people in bars. Time to start cruising.
Popularity: 2% [?]
Topics: Poker | 4 Comments »
October 6, 2006 at 7:16 AM
As usual, well said. Much better than my post. Might I suggest puch and pie if you want to have a large number of people show up to your event.
October 6, 2006 at 7:35 AM
That should be “punch and pie.” I love trying to be clever and then screwing it up.
October 6, 2006 at 1:40 PM
Talking it up is a good thing.
I wish some of the bigger name pros who have really good access to the media would speak louder.
October 12, 2006 at 3:40 AM
“Might I suggest puch and pie if you want to have a large number of people show up to your event.”
And make sure you make this speech:
“There were alot of people who stopped playing in WW2…. They were called the french. Are you French?”