Forbidden Games?

In a New York court, the state is seeking to ban fantasy league companies like FanDuel and DraftKings because they are a form of gambling.  Other states are lining up to do the same.  The industry is trying to make the argument that the fantasy sport leagues are games of skill while the states attempt to argue it is a game of chance and therefore, gambling.  Such companies have the approval of most major sports leagues and with an ever growing customer base, the industry represents billions of dollars in annual revenue.  Outcomes are hard to predict but what is certain is that the case will not end in New York.

In full disclosure and as a sports fan, I have an issue with companies like FanDuel and DraftKings because it has nothing to do with fandom.  One could say it is the anti-thesis of fandom so I’m working up a feeling of schadenfreude on the hopes that such companies are indeed banned.  These leagues are creating followers who are adherents not to a particular team or sport but to players and outcomes for the purpose of making money.  All of the noble qualities that sport possesses and the life lessons it teaches are thrown out the window with fantasy sports.  But, I digress. 

I heard a story on National Public Radio about the case and heard from one of the more successful fantasy sports players – he was able to quit his job as an accountant to do fantasy sports full time.  He said his job has nothing to do with gambling because of the skill involved.  He mentioned that about 90% of all earnings on FanDuel are earned by just over 1% of the players.  The fact that skill weighs so heavily in who wins and who loses makes it an “obvious game of skill by any definition” and therefore, not gambling.

First, it would seem that there is a distinction in some minds, partly in how the New York Attorney General’s office has defined it, between games of chance and games of skill.  This distinction, to some, seems to define what is and what is not gambling.  Gambling can certainly be both.  Take poker for instance.  A reasonable person would agree that there are good poker players and bad ones.  That same person would also agree that poker, while chances of winning can be enhanced by the skill of the player, is also a game that depends on how the cards fall.  No matter how good you are, if you get bad cards, you are not going to win.  Both of these scenarios make poker both a game of chance and a game of skill.  However, nearly all people would see poker for money as gambling. 

Secondly, each person who plays with FanDuel or DraftKings pays money up front to take part in the fantasy leagues.  The industry says that the money paid out initially by participants is simply money paid to play.  As DraftKings lawyer John Kiernan said, it is not a wager or bet and the participants are not risking anything of any real value.  If money paid to participate is not anything of “true value”, I’m not sure what is.  It certainly seems like a wager to me.  Commercials for such companies promise the chance of winning hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Is that not the whole idea of a wager – money paid in hopes of winning more? 

When you take part in a fantasy league, you are betting that the players you have chosen will play well enough for you to “win” your league – and by doing so, you will also win money.  Such endeavors are both games of skill and games of chance: much like poker.  And by any definition, the fantasy sports players are gambling.  Now, this is not an article damning gambling.  I don’t like it and don’t partake but it is a person’s choice to lose all that money.  However, I also find the practice of fantasy sports a little annoying so if the law can come down on the corporations earning billions off of this, I would not be devastated.  

Terrorism and Indecisiveness

Egypt, Turkey, Lebanon, France, Mali.  Terrorists like the Islamic State have been busy over the last weeks and months.  In their wake is a string of shattered cities and devastated lives.  For the western democracies, it needs to be a time to not just hunker down or lash out but to re-evaluate.  France’s intelligence network’s failure to pick up on the events that shattered its capital is more than that – it is a sign that things are evolving and adapting.  The West must do the same.

Gandhi was once asked whether his approach to conflict resolution would have adequately dealt with Hitler.  He said yes but it would have taken much longer.  Europe and the United States do not have time if recent attacks across three continents in the last month or so are any indication.  French President Francois Holland is increasing the militarily targeting of the Islamic State but he is also seeking to change how the French do business in-country by changing police procedures and tactics against suspected terrorists. 

M. Holland’s attempt to change the constitution to meet new security needs have faced opposition from both sides of the political spectrum.  However, he clearly sees the need for a change and he is trying to adapt to a new reality.  By all accounts, French intelligence was taken off guard by the events of 13 November.  Whether the French leader will be able to impose his will or not remains to be seen but a requirement to be on the qui vive has gripped parts of the French population. 

Regarding President Obama, he presented the most confounding reaction to the events of the last month or so.  My observations are not unique.  Many have been dismayed over the near blasé approach to the events and how the United States should respond.  The president, who days before Beirut and Paris, said that the Islamic State was contained, maintained that a change in philosophy or approach to the terrorists is not required.  The present modus operandi was sufficient and it was important not to over-react.  Yes, an over-reaction would not be prudent but certainly a re-evaluation is necessary because American intelligence proved to be as unaware as its French counterparts.  His comments from Ankara would suggest that is also not necessary.  However, there is push back. 

Former deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency Michael Morell suggested with Charlie Rose that the president’s response needs to be on the same level as if the target was not Paris but New York City.  Combat veteran and Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D-HA) has criticized the president for failing to grasp the core element of dealing with the terrorists by refusing to use the word.  Last week, when a bi-partisan measure in Congress sought to make a seemingly common sense improvement in the screening process for incoming Syrians, the president responded by mocking Congressional Republicans as being scared of little old ladies and orphans.  This was in the face of reports suggesting that at least one of the Paris attackers entered Europe posing as a refugee. 

It is a nasty world out there and it will not improve any time soon.  It is not just international groups like al-Qaeda or ISIS but also regional groups like the Mourabitounes, the West African terrorist group that attacked the Radisson hotel in Bamako, Mali.  The rise of these groups would be a difficult challenge for any president but our commander in chief needs get into a locked room with military and terrorist experts and consider a new way of doing things.  The West was surprised by the Parisian attacks.  We need to find out why and contemplate a new approach.  The enemy already has.

The (Lost) Art of Compromise

All government, indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue, and every prudent act, is founded on compromise and barter.

            Edmund Burke, Irish-born English philosopher and political theorist

This past weekend, Speaker of the House John Boehner announced he was retiring from the Speakership and leaving a congressional career that spans a quarter of a century.  Members of Congress in general and the Republican Party specifically greeted the news with a certain amount of enthusiasm.  Mr. Boehner was seen as an obstacle to the absolutism that is championed by some politicians – mainly from the Tea Party wing.  Their lack of political maturity and understanding of their profession has caused undue stress among conservatives and in the process, has damaged the philosophy’s perception. 

This is not an article about Mr. Boehner or his legacy.  This is about the job of a representative.  This has more to do with a key ingredient to democracy.  Since the early days, the country has been a philosophical battleground of differing ideas based on differing perceptions and understandings of the Constitution.  As these groups have circled one another, trying to get one piece of legislation passed after another, they have accepted the notion that it is impractical and potentially destructive to try and get everything one wants. 

As George Will once said, democracy is the government of persuasion and insofar as that is true, it requires patience and compromise.  The absolutists in Congress today, with whom I largely agree, are following a policy of brinkmanship.  An all or nothing approach is rarely the right way to go about it.  There are only a few times in U.S. history where that was the case.  Mostly, representatives are tasked with struggling to create something out of the half-loaf. 

Whether the Congress and the Republican Party are any better off with the retirement of the Speaker is one for statesmen to argue.  Whether the country is better off with a contingent demanding that everything go their way simply because they are in a majority, I would say that is an unequivocal “no.”  Republican supporters throughout the country have seen various attempts by the party to muscle through legislation and fail miserably.  They have seen party attempts at forcing “doomsday” choices on the other party blow back in their face.  The reason it happens is because, in part, a failure to compromise. 

Compromise can be an ugly word.  Some seem to confuse it with appeasement.  These attitudes are heightened by people looking at Democrats – in Congress and in the White House – as a personal affront.  Democrats simply represent another, if not mistaken, view point.  To attempt to roll over them, thinking the most decisive victory is the best victory, is political immaturity. 

The American people can understand the notion of give and take as in the course of their relationships – at work, at school, at home.  What they do not understand, because few experience it, is steamrolling others with little to no regard.  With the art of compromise, one puts more pressure on the other side.  The attempt at rationality puts greater focus and more heat on the other side for an equal measure.  Additionally, compromise prevents the other side from a knee-jerk response.  Greater bipartisan support is possible for conservative ideas.

Discourse can be polemic and debates can be vigorous.  However, in the process of making laws and setting policy, the smarter play is compromise.  It is an art that is reserved for adults, reasonable and logical who understand the nature of man.  The art of persuasion requires one to understand others.  An all-or-nothing approach requires nothing but obdurateness.  It requires no thought, interaction, cooperation and, ultimately, no talent or intelligence.  It simply requires a disregard of all others who are not like you.  Conservatism is not like that and nor should politics.  It is not personal.  It is not about the individual but about the whole.

The Fight for 2016

As I watch Donald Trump in the news, this modern-day incarnation of Narcissus travels the country seemingly trying to derail his own campaign with one ridiculous statement after another.  And indicative of an age of runaway Ritalin prescriptions, some angry and misguided people are popping Mr. Trump’s missives like pills.  From a political party that can call its own the likes of Lincoln and Reagan, this vaudeville barker is muddling the message of real conservatives who could make a serious and honorable run for the Oval Office. 

A good friend, and a very intelligent one, refers to Mr. Trump as revolutionary.  I disagree.  There is nothing revolutionary, new or extraordinary about the businessman-turned-demagogue.  History is replete with fringe characters (some good, others not) aspiring for the White House – Aaron Burr in 1800, Hugh White in 1836, Henry Wallace in 1948, George Wallace in 1968 and Ross Perot in 1992.  Beyond U.S. history, a string of such people have sought power and had their supporters and popularity.  Mr. Trump does not represent anything new but he is a new incarnation of an old idea.  Appealing to our baser instincts elevates nothing and will ultimately produce nothing but more acrimony. 

For all the talk from Democrats regarding the homogeneity of conservatism, there are some varied and powerful ideas coming from the candidates who, sadly, are not being heard or so we thought.  In the last few weeks, some of the Republican candidates are making progress in the polls.  For the most part, they are also seen as outsiders without the toxic, ad hominem nature of the front runner.  As we are still nearly a half a year out of Iowa, it is hoped that some of these candidates will be able to dispatch Mr. Trump and allow him to return to whatever he was doing a year ago.

Recently surging in the polls is retired surgeon Ben Carson.  In debates and in conversations, he has shown a serious, quietly humorous and mature voice on the campaign trail.  As the head of the Republican National Convention said, I’m not sure about one who has no political experience gaining the nomination but he stands as a respectful and thoughtful voice.  His measured and articulate position on why the Affordable Care Act is not workable and his support for a guest worker program has earned him some attention.

Carly Fiorina is another polished and thoughtful voice in the Republican race.  The former CEO of Hewlett Packard earned rave reviews after her appearance in the matinee debate a few weeks back.  There is a bevy of videos that show Ms. Fiorina being harangued by one reporter after another on various issues but she has shown poise, what the French call sangfroid.  Her position on a simplified tax code has drawn some interest as well as her criticism of President Obama’s net neutrality policy. 

He is not an outsider but I’ve been a fan of Florida Senator Marco Rubio for a while now.  As a junior senator, he has shown a great deal of political courage for putting out on record his plan to deal with issues such as immigration and budgetary concerns.  Given his background as the son of Cuban refugees, it is not surprising Senator Rubio has steadfastly opposed the president’s moves to normalize relations with Cuba.  It might have been a losing position but his willingness to put himself out there and support his constituents is admirable.  He is young, passionate and articulate.  He represents the potential future of the conservative movement.

There is so much substance among some of the candidates in this Republican preliminary fight that it makes it all the more puzzling that Mr. Trump continues to dominate the political scene.  Some pundits believe that there is no way he will still be around come January but they are likely the same bunch who said the same things months before.  In some ways, Mr. Trump is the realization of the worst fears of cultural critics.  In other ways, he is simply the latest in a long line of societal agitators.  Let us hope that another can appeal to the “better angels of our nature.”

A Questionable Legacy

There has been so much going on in the news lately and no shortage of topics to discuss.  However, having a baby in the house has had a rather predictable impact on my writing.  That said, I would like to address the retirement of Jon Stewart.  All sorts of luminaries and dignitaries have spoken of his talent and ability to make others laugh and that cannot be denied.  They have talked about the groundbreaking nature of his program – The Daily Show.  That also cannot be denied.  However, what does his success mean?  That is my concern.

Jon Stewart once explained to Fox News that he is not to be taken seriously – he is a comic on the Comedy Central telling jokes about news-worthy events.  I could not agree more.  My concern is that his audience does not take the same view.  Recent polls suggest that a large number of viewers, mostly younger folks, used his show as their only source of news and information.  This is the first major concern I have about Mr. Stewart’s legacy and those who seek to continue the same.  He made no attempt at being comprehensive or objective; he made no attempt at providing context, historical or otherwise.  Yet, there are many Americans who were armed only with the information that Mr. Stewart and his crack team performed.  One might say that being mal-informed is better than being uninformed.  I would hate to live off the difference.

Second, much of what Mr. Stewart did was satire at various politicians, pundits and personalities.  An old tradition and one that he did quite well, this is not an attack on such tactics.  It is at times necessary to take pot shots at the popolo grasso in our nation’s capital.  However, with no other news digested by the viewer, one gets a horribly skewed view of our politicians, the jobs they are elected to do and the institutions in which they serve.  What is the cumulative effect of such slanted exposure?  When one considers that the growing number of young people who do not vote (yes, I know many other age groups don’t vote either) and their lack of engagement, what are the consequences for our Republic?  It is nothing good and such a thought should frighten those who care.

More than anything else, I’ve seen a growing number of people who cannot take the serious without the frivolous.  I’ve seen it with my students the most.  I assign them a serious topic to research and present to class and I have to make the caveat that they are not allowed to make light of the subject or goof off.  My students complain saying that the “fun” will make it interesting without considering that the inherent interest of a subject is interesting enough.  I’ve written before about the phenomena of education that must be “fun” or news presented as “entertainment.”  The question that I pose is – what is the impact of this approach?

This cultural trait is not to be laid at the feet of Jon Stewart.  He is a comedian doing his job and he did it quite well.  What is troubling is the importance that people placed in him – an importance he rejected often.  These people range from his viewers who used him as their sole source of news to those who sing his praises as something greater than he thought he should be considered.  As Neil Postman once said, the idea of being well-informed is not changing but what it means to be well-informed is.  I sometimes wonder if this is what it looked like when the Roman Empire began to collapse.

A Battle over History

Over the last several weeks, since the shooting in South Carolina, there has been increasing cries for the taking down of the Confederate battle flag.  This past week, members of both parties in the South Carolina legislature with support from people across racial and political lines lowered the Confederate battle flag for the last time.  One can argue for the meaning of the symbol and there are certainly different interpretations, but what must be agreed upon is that it was time.  Yet, this does not allow for a blanket Confederate application.   

Throughout American history, South Carolina has stood as one of the most obdurate states in the Union.  In 1828, it threatened to succeed over the issue of a tariff passed by the John Quincy Adams administration.  First in 1856 and then in 1860, it threatened to succeed over a possible election of a Republican.  When Abraham Lincoln won in 1860, South Carolina carried out its threat in the following month.  For over a century, the state has been defiant over federal encroachment.  So, it is fitting that it is only South Carolina that should determine when to lower the flag. 

However, my stance on the flag does not extend to all things Confederate.  Recently, Baltimore officials and those throughout the state are having a conversation about removing all symbols and references to the Confederacy, including statues and other memorials dedicated to Confederate soldiers and leaders.  As a history teacher, I have a particular problem with this for a couple of reasons.

One, the monuments are to the fallen; those considered by the U.S. government as veterans.  The idea that some officials, including the embattled mayor of Baltimore, would do away with the dedication to those who fell during the Civil War is shocking and an affront.  Our monuments do not take into account the personal beliefs of those honored – merely considering their dedication and willingness to sacrifice for their country.  Such measures are unacceptable and should outrage Americans. People want to get rid of a statue of Robert E. Lee – why?  Because he fought with a belief in slavery?  So did some in the North.  The North was not a paragon of racial equality and harmony.  Should we get rid of those statues and monuments as well?

Two, this is an attack on history.  One cannot wipe away the history of an era simply because one does not like it.  History is replete with those who seek to alter or abolish history and typically, such people are numbered as some of the worst dictators and tyrants.  What is being considered here sets an abhorrent precedent that leaves history to the whims of fancy.  In their minds, Baltimore officials may think they are striking a blow against prejudice and hatred but what they are actually doing is robbing a people of a history that is never perfect and never pure.  History’s “humanness” is in its imperfection, its constant struggle to get things right.  To judge the past by the standards of the present is to write off much of our past.

The battle flag is a symbol resurrected during the mid-20^th century to represent not the South but the worst of its character.  The abolition of the flag from public buildings and events is right.  The wish to alter or wipe out the past by taking down statues and monuments to those who served and died for the South is ridiculous.  Once a group of people take it upon themselves to edit that history which they find objectionable, we are indeed in dangerous territory.  We risk losing ourselves when we lose our history.

A Fight for Knowledge

In all the talk about the Muslim world and the tacit approval by some of more extremist elements, there is something missing – the intellectual and educational past of its decedents. When one considers the achievements made by Muslims, it is a shocking concept that one group proclaiming the tenets of Islam, the Shabab militants in Kenya, should target teachers and children to shut down schools. Yet, this is what the people of Kenya are facing. Sadly, and not just Kenya, centers of education are being attacked under the unfounded idea that somehow such things are against God.

Muhammad, he who founded the Islamic faith, was a worldly man. He had traveled throughout the region with his uncle, a merchant. He knew of other people and indeed, his knowledge of other people and their culture helped in the spread of his nascent faith. From the very beginning, a practical and worldly education propelled Islam forward, into the world of the peripatetic arena of the Bedouin, into the ancient lands of the Fertile Crescent to the dusty lands of North Africa and into the Iberian Peninsula. It latched on to other, older cultures, absorbing its history and knowledge and in doing so, spreading the faith and expanding its borders into Persia and India.

Early Muslim scholars rescued the works of the Romans and Greeks, preserving them for generations to come at a time when the Europeans had denigrated into barbarism. Such intellectual achievements were also seen with early mathematicians such as Muhammad ibn Musa Al-Khwarizmi, scientists such as Abu Nasr al-Farabi and Thabit ibn Qurra, historians like Ibn Battuta and Ibn Khaldun, philosophers such as Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and physicians like Ibn Al-Baitar and Ibn Zuhr.

We now move forward nearly millennia, where thugs in the name of Allah are attacking schools and killing teachers and students.  It is a level and focus of violence that can only be described as a type of mass psychosis.  Those who encourage and facilitate education in the Muslim world or Dar al-Salam are fighting an uphill battle.  On some level, this has to be a low point from which Muslim culture must rebound and take, once more, its place among the world’s great intellectual centers.  It has universities and scholars but few whose voice extends throughout the region and beyond.

As for Kenyan schoolchildren and teachers, Shabab is wreaking havoc as teachers are fearful to resume their duties and soon-to-be graduating students have little to no instruction for their preparation with exams.  These exams are vital for their placement in universities.  Especially in the northeast, with its proximity to Somalia (the home territory of the Shabab), officials in Nairobi are concerned for the future of the region.  The terrorist attack at the university in Garissa last year as well as the attack on a bus load of mostly teachers heading home for Christmas has brought the idea of education to the fore. 

County governments have little desirable options in trying to answer the needs of their students and Nairobi searches for answers that are more affordable than placing armed units of soldiers at every school and school function.  Of course, other countries could offer help but the African Union has a role to play here if it can agree to a course of action.  Nairobi might say that it is unwilling to have outsiders play the role of driving out other outsiders but if it cannot come up with its own answers, what is the alternative?