Local politics -- Whatcom County, WA

Here in Whatcom County (far northwest Washington State) we have our version of odd-ball politics. This past week they got really odd-bally. There are eight people running for four seats on County Council. Four line up on the moderate to liberal side of the ledger and four on the standard conservative to Teabagger side — and, yes, they are pitted against each other. Since the Council has only seven seats, how the election breaks will determine the make-up of our primary governing body. You might think this is just a silly little issue in a remote, mostly rural county. You’d be wrong. This body, the Whatcom County Council, will, in the near future, make a decision that will impact the rest of the country, whether or not to approve the construction of what would become the largest coal exporting port in the world. Go here for the full story.

With issues like this on the line, we get to see the real differences between liberals and conservatives. Earlier this month the local Tea Party invited all to attend an open session where questions could come from all quarters. The liberals showed up as, of course, did the conservatives. Predictably, the liberals got the most heat and, predictably, handled it well.

Then a liberal political organization invited all eight to attend their open session. All four liberal candidates accepted. The other four either declined outright or conveniently found somewhere else they “had to be.” The most astonishing excuse was from one conservative who said that he “didn’t want to disclose his political agenda” …. because, “it will be used against him.” The forum was cancelled. What’s the point of having a political debate when there’s no one there to debate with…

Thoughts on the death of William W. Scranton

William Scranton, one-time governor of Pennsylvania, lived a good life, a long life, one that should be applauded, feted, celebrated. I don’t mourn his death; I drink a toast to the life well-lived. The death I mourn is the slow, lingering, painful death of the Republican party he once was a proud and effective part of.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/30/us/politics/william-scranton-former-pennsylvania-governor-dies-at-96.html?hpw

Running over in my head the positions Scranton took makes it clear. Today, this popular and effective Republican would be either an Independent or a Democrat. There is no room for people of principle who actually care for the welfare of the people of America and for its hallowed ideals in the GOP anymore.

Lines like these from the obit just jump out at you:

“As governor, Mr. Scranton pushed education reforms, creating a state community college system, a state Board of Education and a Higher Education Assistance Agency. He increased the sales tax to subdue a deficit, brought unemployment to new lows and promoted state trade nationally and abroad.”

and

“His amiable patrician style, and his independence as a fiscal conservative who supported civil rights and other liberal programs, proved popular with voters.”

and, in acknowledgement of his efforts,

“He served on government commissions, advised the White House on arms control and took on presidential missions — for Richard M. Nixon in the Middle East, for Gerald R. Ford at the United Nations, for Jimmy Carter on urban policy and intelligence oversight and for Ronald Reagan on Soviet-American relations.”

Can anyone even imagine a Ted Cruz or Paul Ryan taking positions like these? Can anyone in their wildest dreams think of Sarah Palin or a Michele Bachmann being entrusted with these kinds of responsibilities?

The Republican party exists today for two reasons. One, they can elect senators in Red states because Redstaters won’t vote for Democrats. It doesn’t matter who the Dems put up, how nutty the positions of the Republican are or how idiotic their stances, they will elect enough of them to choke the Senate into submission. Two, they have managed to gerrymander the districts within states they hold to ensure that they will elect a majority of members of the House of Representatives.

It’s not all that widely known or appreciated, but in 2012 over 1.4 million more people voted for the Democrat running for a seat in the House than for the Republican – yet the GOP managed to come out of the election with a sizeable, 34-seat majority. The only way this can happen is gerrymandering. Many districts around the nation end up with large Democratic majorities but many more end up with smaller but reliable Republican majorities.

FWIW, here’s the origins of the term “gerrymander” (from Wikipedia).

 

First printed in March 1812, this political cartoon was drawn in reaction to the state senate electoral districts drawn by the Massachusetts legislature to favor the Democratic-Republican Party candidates of Governor Elbridge Gerry over the Federalists. The caricature satirizes the bizarre shape of a district in Essex County, Massachusetts as a dragon-like “monster.” Federalist newspapers editors and others at the time likened the district shape to a salamander, and the word gerrymander was a blend of that word and Governor Gerry’s last name.

Is there any hope on the horizon? Yes and no. The “no” part is short-term. The GOP has a singular focus: oppose anything and everything that the Democrats put forward and, if they can tie any piece of potential legislation to Obama, shovel shit all over it at every opportunity. When they have a few moments free from blowing things up, they pass useless bills to repeal Obamacare – 40 of them at last count. In fact, they are so obsessed with killing the Affordable Care Act that they are now threatening to shut down the government, threaten the country’s credit rating, choke off its ability to borrow unless the ACA is defunded.

Why? Simple. They hate Obama, just cannot stomach that a Black Dude is smarter than any of them and actually knows what he’s doing so anything that comes from the White House must be resisted or blocked. They also know, when the darkness creeps up on them at night, when their lesser souls whisper in their ears that, yes, really, truly, … Obamacare is going to work. It will reduce medical costs, produce lower insurance premiums, allow policies for people with pre-existing conditions and provide a host of services to people who are currently not getting them.

And if the public discovers this – and they will – those who’ve been trying to block it are just fucking toast. Their goal: kill it before it succeeds. Pathetic.

The “yes” part is down the road. I can see two possible ways for the country to move. One is tactical and depends on whether things get better in spite of Republican obstructionism. If the economy improves markedly and if the average voter begins to see what the bunch of lunatics they’ve put in office are doing, they may begin to tilt toward the Dems. Even dyed-in-the-wool conservatives may just hold their noses and pull that “other” lever rather than send a Louie Gohmert or Steve King back.

The other is demographic. Each year sees a new cohort of kids turn 18 and eligible to vote. Each year sees greater immigration and an increase in the non-white population. Each year brings us closer to 2020 when the next census is taken.

If these factors all come together in a perfect storm we could see the Democrats increasing their numbers in Congress and, critically, taking over most of the state legislatures. They could redraw the districts in a more fair and democratic manner and allow us to actually have a government in DC that reflects the make-up and values of the people.

Recipe: Cajun Pasta Sauce

The recipe makes about 4 + cups. It looks like a lot of work. It isn’t – lots of the details here are just hints. It’s derived from Paul Prudhomme’s Cajun cooking style. Amounts of some ingredients aren’t specified. The recipe has a lot of “give.” Use more or less of things that feel right. The sauce is rich and flavorful and can be pushed in many different ways.

You’ll only need a fraction of the recipe for 4 servings. It freezes well. There’s always a cup or three in our freezer.

Spice Mix – more or less equal amounts of each of the following. A generous ½ teaspoon of each should work. Increase or decrease amounts of any, depending on mood and “tilt” of the sauce. If using fresh herbs, increase amounts a bit. Spices that I like to add more of are marked with an asterisk. There’s lots of flexibility here and you can tweak the mix to suit taste.

*cumin, ground

curry powder

onion, powdered

garlic, powdered

black pepper

white pepper

*cayenne pepper

salt

mustard, powdered (Coleman’s preferred)

*paprika (Hungarian, hot)

oregano

basil

*thyme

Ingredients

Green onions – 4 - 6 bunches, sliced thinly

Chicken thighs – about 4 pounds or so, skinless, boneless and cut into bite-sized pieces. Dust with half the spice mix in a bowl and set aside. You can use breasts or a mix but I prefer all thigh meat.

Tomato sauce – 2 or 3 28-oz cans. I prefer Hunts.

Chicken broth – 2+ c. Home-made best, Swanson’s okay, others acceptable

Onions – 2 large, chopped, medium dice (can use either yellow or white – I prefer yellow)

Garlic – 4 - 5 cloves, smashed and chopped

Peanut or canola oil – as needed (use an oil that can take high temperatures)

Butter – as needed

Worcestershire sauce – 4 - 5 good “schlocks”

Tabasco (or other) hot sauce – 4 - 5 good “schlocks” (Sriracha preferred)

White wine for deglazing

Preparation 

Heat a mix of oil and butter in a large, heavy duty pot, big enough the hold the final sauce. Sauté onions and garlic with the other half of the spice mix. Cook till just beginning to brown. See * below on controlling thickness of final sauce.

Add the chicken broth, tomato sauce, about half the chopped green onions, Worcestershire and Tabasco (or Sriracha) sauces. Best to go easy with these last two ingredients. Taste and adjust after flavors meld. Leave to simmer, stirring occasionally.

Heat a large skillet over high heat. Add butter and/or oil. When just about at smoking temperature, add the chicken pieces. Cook, stirring, till they begin to brown.

Add the rest of the green onions to skillet and continue cooking until the scallions get dark.

Add the chicken/scallion mix to the tomato sauce.

Return skillet to heat and deglaze with white wine, scraping up fond. Add to sauce.

Simmer for at least an hour, stirring occasionally.

Serving

Excellent with pasta – texture goes well with a linguini or fettuccini. Garnish with chopped scallions and parsley. Some like to add parmesan. That’s okay, but in my mind it’s best left alone at this point.

*If you like pasta sauces thick add a T (or more) of flour to the onion/garlic sauté just when it starts to brown. Cook it a bit and then add a bit of the chicken broth. It’ll give you a nice roux-like mix. Then adjust the amount of chicken broth to control the thickness.

Heretical thoughts on the WSOP Main Event

Heresy is my home, my favorite stance. So here’s my take on the WSOP Main Event, the ultimate event in the nearly two months-long blizzard of tournaments that make up the annual World Series of Poker. The Main Event is a $10,000 buy-in tournament; the winner is dubbed the World Champion and is blessed with instant and lasting fame and fortune – though the fortune part, as substantial as it is (this year’s winner’s share will be a shade over $8.3  million) doesn’t always last as long the champ hopes.[1]

My take on this tournament: It’s overwhelmingly determined by luck!

Yes, of course, poker is a game of skill (an extended defense of this can be found here) but not under all circumstances. For one, there’s a time element. A short poker session is determined largely by luck. If you want a shot at beating someone really good like Phil Ivey or Tom Dwan, you want to play a very short session. In fact, your best move would be go all-in on the first hand before you look at your cards – you’ve got a fifty-fifty prop and that’s the best you’re going to get.

Here’s my reasoning. The tournament has, in recent years attracted some 6,000+ players (6,352 this year). All know something about the game. I’d guess that at least half of them are very good players. They know the stats, the basic strategic moves, have decent hand reading abilities, understand positional play and all the other standard stuff that you just have to know if you’re going to have a shot.

Further, I’d guess that at least a thousand are serious, highly skilled players and at least several hundred are playing professionally – that is, their basic income comes from poker.

Now, when you get this many very good players all together competing against each other the final outcome is going to be largely dictated by the turn of a card – or two or three or more cards.

It actually cannot be any other way. Yes, I know, each level is two hours long and the blinds move up slowly and the action continues for a week before the final table is determined. So what. Playing ten hours a day for seven days only amounts to 70 hours of play, an insignificant amount in a game where no one can have any confidence in the stability of the data until several thousands of hours have been logged. Besides, as anyone who’s played or watched one of these in the last several years, the number of hands per hour is stunningly low. No one seems to be able to make a play without spending two or three (or more, lots more) minutes mulling it over. Nolan Dalla, media director for the WSOP, has bemoaned the ridiculously slow play.

The basic point is dead simple and unassailable. When you have several hundred excellent poker players pitted against one another for a mere 70 hours (which are playing more like 30 hours of ordinary play) the driver of destiny is the random number generator.

You might ask why isn’t this more obvious and why haven’t others pointed it out? Because this luck thing is sneaky and doesn’t always reveal itself. You might think that by luck I’m talking about hitting a bunch of 2-outers or filling gut-shots at optimal times. Well I am, of course, but this is the least of it. Where this luck thing is doing its most serious luck thing is far less obvious.

It’s having the best of it going to the river and having your hand stand up. It’s taking an over-pair to the flop and not having your opponent hit a set and having this happen some twenty or more times. It’s making a stone-cold bluff against an opponent who turns out not to have much – over and over for seven days. It’s hitting flops at a rate that is statistically unlikely. It’s being moved to a weak table, being assigned a seat to the left of an aggressive player. It’s a thousand little things that allow you to accumulate chips.

I’ve been watching this year’s Main Event online. They’re down to 18, a tiny fraction of the starting hoard. You know what? All of them are fantastic players, skilled, tricky, shrewd and successful – and they’re also the luckiest of the hundreds just like them who started nearly two weeks ago.

---

[1] Recent articles have chronicled Jerry Yang’s money problems after winning $8.2 million in 2007.

Political Rant: Abortion Rights and Marriage Equality

On a recent Meet the Press show several politicians, commentators and activists discussed abortion and marriage equality. The right-wing, anti-choice position was defended by Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition, founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition (and well-known hypocrite[1]), Jim DeMint, former South Carolina Senator who now heads the Heritage Foundation and (through a video feed) Congressman, Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) who has recently proposed a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

The progressive view defending marriage-equality and a woman’s right to make choices about her body was presented by Rachel Maddow, host of TRMS on MSNBC, Michael Eric Dyson, sociologist at Georgetown University and, despite his supposed neutrality as host of the show, David Gregory.

From any but the most blinkered perspective, Maddow, Dyson (and Gregory) effectively dismissed the anti-choice arguments. But the progressive side missed the chance to present, up-front and publically, what the anti-choice, anti-woman, anti-abortion movement is about. So let me do it here:

It has nothing to do with the “sanctity” of marriage, with abortion, with protecting the rights of fetuses, supporting children or protecting life. It is first and foremost against women and gays, against their right to make decisions about whom they love, about their bodies, their liberty and freedom and, most of all, against their right to enjoy sex. It is steeped in ignorance, fear and prejudice.

The anti-abortion, anti-marriage-equality arguments are based on the following claims:

1. The respect for life
2. The support of children
3. The dysfunctional nature of gay relationships

The first, of course, is nonsense. The right supports needless wars where lives are tossed away like used gum wrappers and called “collateral damage.” They support the death penalty despite compelling evidence that the innocent are victims far more often than the guilty and ignore the astonishing costs both in dollars and human suffering. They oppose sensible gun control despite the 30,000 needless deaths each year. And they have little regard for the well-being of the fetus as displayed by their lack of concern for the health of the mother or the unborn child during gestation.

The second is painfully hypocritical. Those who are honestly concerned with children favor and fund pre-natal screening, gestational medical care, pre- and post-partum counseling, paid maternal leaves, and Head Start, pre-school and day-care programs. The right-wing is against them all. And, if they truly wished to reduce the number of abortions, they would support the most effective ways to do so: sex education and freely available birth control rather than seek to defund or eliminate them.

The third has no data to support it. Gay couples show the same happiness profiles as straight. Children prosper or not in families independent of the genders or the caretakers. The notion that somehow children raised in same-sex households are vulnerable to psychological disorders is a myth, as this extensive review of the literature shows.

When you strip away all the nonsense, all the incoherencies and misrepresentations, the right-wing position on abortion can be summed up simply: Women should be an adjunct to men and sex is only for reproduction. A woman who has had sex without intending to become pregnant has sinned. The punishment shall be to bear an unwanted child – one that society has no obligation to support.

Their position on marriage-equality, denuded of its fine talk about tradition and misrepresentations of the data, comes down to nothing more than discrimination driven by hatred and fear. As Maddow noted, being against gay marriage has nothing to do with supporting so-called “traditional” marriage; it is simply discrimination against a segment of the population, denying them rights and privileges taken for granted by others.

---

[1] Reed long campaigned against legal gambling on “moral” grounds but, in the early 2000s was involved in money laundering through Jack Abramoff’s efforts to support the gaming rights of the Mississippi Choctaw tribe. Go here for details.