About Politics

Nick Taylor asked:


Lots of people would not even consider it, much less the politicians of today, who are not only trying to portray themselves as saints, but are also trying to bring the game industry down by refusing to consider poker a game of skill. However, they certainly cannot erase history, and it would be good for some of them to refresh their memories about the historical relationship between poker and politics.

In a time of controversial enforcement acts against the gaming industry, gambling has become a taboo, even a felony in one state, and money-transferring companies are now banning U.S. players for fear of getting busted and severely punished, like the recent Neteller case.

Even when some politicians and lawyers question and condemn the recent laws to the point of causing a lawsuit from attorney Lee Rousso against the state of Washington for turning gambling into a felony, most people in the Senate and other political circles declare themselves enemies of the gaming industry.

The question is: why now, if playing has always been a favorite past time within the political arena? Why not keep it silent, like it has always been?

It’s a known fact that ex-presidents and important political figures have been inclined to spending their leisure time playing golf, poker, drinking and partying with their peers. What are our current politicians trying to do with all this banning and censure? Are they indirectly saying they are ashamed of their political ancestors for their gambling?

Let’s refresh their memory. There’s a huge list of political personalities in the poker “black list,” including legendary figures like President Warren Harding and Secretary of State Daniel Webster, and more recent personalities, like president Nixon and presidential candidate Barack Obama.

According to presidential records, Warren Harding “played poker at least twice a week, and once gambled away an entire set of White House china. His advisors were nicknamed the ‘Poker Cabinet’ because they joined the president in his poker games.” Other sources even say “he was an ineffectual and indecisive leader who played poker while his friends plundered the U.S. treasury.”

President Harry Truman used to combine alcohol with poker in his long boat vacations, and it is said that “while he told most reporters his main goal was to get some sleep and drink some Kentucky bourbon, he also spends hours playing poker (pay $500 dollars to enter the game).” Some of his favorite poker guests were Speaker Rayburn and Chief Justice Vinson.

Richard Nixon learned to play poker during World War II, and it’s reported that “he became such as dedicated player that he once turned down a chance to have dinner with Charles Lindbergh when it conflicted with a [poker] game. He also won a great deal of money and used his winnings partially to finance his first congressional campaign.”

Secretary of State Daniel Webster, the greatest speaker in American politics, “was a well known poker player in his time [….] Kentucky Senator Henry Clay, a notorious gambler, was Webster’s friend, political ally and favorite poker opponent. They played high limit Draw and it wasn’t uncommon for the pots to reach thousands of dollars.”

Presidential candidate Barack Obama crowns this list, as his taste for poker is the most contemporary proof that politics have always gone hand in hand with poker: “’When he was a young state politician in Illinois, Barack Obama played his cards right. He had the stone face,’ said Senator Terry Links, who hosted weekly poker games at his home. ‘He didn’t stay in hands if he didn’t think he had a chance of winning.’”

There are many more politicians associated with poker, like President Dwight Eisenhower, Vice President Hannibal Hamlin, U.S. Senator Henry Clay, Presidential Advisor Clark Clifford and Justice Thurgood Marshall, to mention some.

Poker is much more closely linked to people who reach the top ranks of success in society than chess is, due to the fact that these personalities found poker more intellectually stimulating. Bill Gates, avid poker player while in college, once expressed to his college roommate that he “believed [poker] marathons were at least as productive and intellectually stimulating as his time spent in class.”

Maybe the answer to gaming persecution lies in what Radley Balko commented last year in Reason Magazine, “I think the main motivation for the bill was simply the moral aversion to gambling held by its chief sponsors - Goodlatte, Kyl, and Leach - and a desire to impose that moral rectitude on the rest of the country.”

Will current politicians achieve their unfounded moralistic quest? We can only hope that the American leaders elected in 2008 realize that these policies represent turning their backs on their political role models, the ones that built the America of today.

Lorraine

jamie68117 asked:


I’m starting to get interested in politics, but I really want a job where I can help people. What could I be?! I’m 16, get straight As, and am planning on going to college.

Is there anything I could do where I could study government/politics and get a job where I could help people?

Glenda

Kinz asked:


For instance, do any feminists refrain from wearing revealing clothing because they thinks it’s demeaning? Inversely, do any feminists WEAR revealing clothing because you feel it’s somehow liberating? Or do you refuse to let your politics affect your fashion choices?

Dora

James William Smith asked:


A wave of political change has been sweeping across the continent of Europe. In country after country, the politics of liberal, high tax, big government have been falling like dominos. It started in Germany with the election of Angela Merkel. It visited France with the victory of Nicholas Sarkozy. It was in evidence in Italy with an historic rout of the Communists and the Greens in parliamentary elections. Then, it hit England last week when the Labor Party suffered its worst local election results in 40 years.
In fact, in contests for more than 4,000 local seats across England, Conservatives captured 44 percent of the vote, compared to 25 percent for the Liberal Democrats and just 24 percent for the Labor Party. The election result was so bad for Labor that Boris Johnson became the first Conservative Party member ever elected mayor of London. Overall, it was an election that Prime Minister, Gordon Brown admitted was “bad and disappointing”. Certainly, the prospects in the next general election for the Labor Party are now looking grim.
Meanwhile, a new BBC public opinion poll suggests even more trouble ahead for United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown. In the poll, Tory leader David Cameron is seen as more effective than Brown or Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg.  Indeed, 68% said Conservative David Cameron was an asset to his party, compared with 43% for Clegg and just 42% for Gordon Brown. In fact, in the poll only 32% thought Brown could be trusted to run the country’s economy.
In general, the problem for the Labor Party and Gordon Brown include an ongoing perception by the public of government incompetence. The latest issue is the governments 10p tax controversy which in effect increased taxes on the nations poor while providing small tax relief to higher income individuals. The 10p tax issue was a crucial factor in Labor’s recent defeat at the polls. The truth is that the 10p tax controversy has acted to damage the Party’s core base of voter support. This is evident from a BBC voting analysis that indicates that Labor’s vote fell most heavily in its traditional voter strongholds.
Of course, the 10p tax controversy is only the latest in a series of government competence issues that have impacted the Labor Party since Gordon Brown took office after the resignation of Tony Blair last year. Consider that for months, government competence controversies have become front page news in the United Kingdom. In fact, scenes from the Northern Rock banking crisis even made world headlines. Thousands of people lining up to withdraw savings were reminiscent of the worst financial crises of the last century and Brown was criticized in the United Kingdom for making the Northern Rock banking situation even worse.
As Prime Minister, Brown changed the process for dealing with financial turmoil by involving the Bank Of England, the Financial Services authority, and the Treasury. In effect, the Northern Rock crisis became a United Kingdom government bailout. Since Brown’s first action as Prime Minister was to grant the Bank Of England independence, the bailout arrangement for Northern Rock demonstrated that the Bank Of England was not really independent at all.
Next, the Labor government disclosed that it somehow managed to lose financial data on 25 million people. Two disks that were not encrypted were put in the regular mail and disappeared. The lost data contained personal details about families with children, including names, dates of birth, addresses, bank account information, and insurance records.
All of this controversy was preceded by weeks of government preparation for the possibility of an early national election that Gordon Brown suddenly backed away from. The result was that Brown looked politically indecisive and lacked an election mandate.
The popularity of Labor is on the decline in the United Kingdom and Prime Minister Gordon Brown is in political trouble. His Labor Government continues to make serious management mistakes and its competence has been called into question. Meanwhile a conservative wave of political change is already sweeping across the continent of Europe. In the next general election, it may well turn into a political wave of disaster for the Labor Party and United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Cecil

beeboroachgoingon197 asked:


What do you consider to be John Locke’s greatest contribution to modern politics and society in “The Second Treatise of Government”?

I need to critically analyze my choice. Any suggestions?

Viola

Alanna asked:


I know that in the 1920s Canada was booming, and in hte 1930s Canada was in the Depression. However, I’m’ wondering how it all tied in with the politics at the time, and how the economic conditions “drove” politics.

PS. This is not a school project or assignment, so please don’t tell me to just do my own research.

Kevin

The Amsterdam Red-light District asked:


Many of the leaders in our society are guided by unhealthy
intentions. Instead of seeking to serve the people and heal
our nation’s ills, their actions and decisions are primarily
motivated by their desire for power. Many of the people
running our country are run by their addictions to approval,
sex, power and control. Unfortunately, few truly healthy
individuals want to submit themselves to the necessary
abuses inherent to our political races - the verbal abuse
both given and received, the huge amounts of money spent,
the integrity sacrificed through the concessions, lies and
manipulations offered in order to win. Our system of
electing our officials is so corrupt that there is little
possibility of attracting a person with a strong, personally
responsible, loving inner adult self. This is not to say that
none of our elected representatives are honest and caring.
Some are certainly motivated by positive intentions but,
unfortunately, they constitute a minority.
There is no training required in personal responsibility to
run for office. Our leaders are not required to heal their
dysfunctional aspects in order to become honest and
trustworthy people. The prerequisites for political positions
mostly include having enough money, enough powerful
people behind the scenes, being male, and being white.
Our political arena is designed to attract wounded people who
need approval and power in order to feel worthy and validated.
Obviously, such a person, with little or no internally derived
sense of self-worth and integrity, is very susceptible to
corruption. As the adage says: “Power corrupts and absolute
power corrupts absolutely.” Power corrupts when a person
is motivated by his or her desire for power over others, and
few people have accomplished enough inner healing to
transcend the desire for control over others.
A healthy person in office who is more concerned with serving
the people than with getting re-elected could accomplish a
great deal. Such a person was depicted in the movie Dave.
In this film the actual president is in a coma and the White
House officials, seeking to conceal the truth from the public
so they can maintain control, put a look-alike into the
president’s seat. Dave, however, is a man of heart, and rather
than allowing himself to be controlled he sets about making
necessary changes - cutting money where it is not needed
and allocating it into more crucial avenues, like child care
and the creation of jobs. He even takes responsibility for the
corruption of the actual president and gracefully “dies” as
the actual president is dying so the vice-president, a man
of great integrity who was maligned by the power structure,
could take over in his rightful place. The movie is, of course,
a fantasy. Sadly, we would never elect a man of such
integrity - a straightforward, honest, caring, and financially
middle-class man like Dave. Our election process does
not allow for this.
Revamping our election process would give people like Dave an
opportunity to run for office. We desperately need people who
care more for the common good than for their own popularity.
We need brilliant, creative, honest and caring people to lead
our country, but this will never happen with our present election
system. We have incredible talent in this great country of ours,
talent that could eliminate hunger and homelessness, and heal
the internal wounds that create health problems, drug abuse,
racism, violence and crime. But this talent is rarely tapped
because running our country has been based on the earthly
values of greed and power over others rather than the spiritual
values of honesty, compassion and caring.
Unfortunately, neither our government nor most big businesses
are based on the spiritual principles of compassion and caring
about the common good. I have no doubt that if our government
was based on spiritual principles we would not have the hunger,
homelessness, crime, health problems, and drug abuse that are
endemic to our modern society.
Article written by Margaret Paul, Ph.D.

Miguel

christina rose asked:


I go to school at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and I’d imagine that political discussions at my university are much different than those in the deep south? Do you know anything about politics classes/ university political discussions in the deep south?

Minnie

me!!!!!!!!! asked:


Regarding politics in general (not the President or specific political issues), what would you say is the “bright side” of politics and the “dark side” of politics?

Dora

man in search of answers asked:


It is ironical that gender politics has taken a back seat after 50 years and something else has occupied the political focus.

What do you think??

Mike