FUN: “Find the hat”

Monday, October 29, 2007

An urban legend, but this is how I heard it.

*** begin quote ***

Back in the 1950s, men wore hats as part of their business attire.

An IBM sales rep, new on the job, was going to call on a key customer in Texas. The old sales rep met him for he was to introduce the new rep. The old rep was aghast that the new rep had no cowboy hat. “You’ll never be taken seriously”, he advised. So the stopped at the local Stetson dealer, and the new rep purchased a fine $100 Stetson cowboy hat. (In the Fifties, a hundred dollars was “real money; not like today!) The meeting went well and the new rep was warmly greeted by the client.

Everything was right with the world.

In preparing his Sales Report, the new sales rep also prepared his expense report. Of course, he attached all his receipts as part of his expenses as required by the IBM policy, including the one for the hat.

His boss returned the expense report, telling him to “lose the hat.” While the rep felt it was needed that didn’t matter. It was not on the official schedule of reimbursable expenses. And so the company wouldn’t pay for a hat!

So, the sales rep turned in a new expense report … for the same amount, but with no line in the report for the hat. In response to his boss’ questioning look, the man said, “Find the hat.”

*** end quote ***

Obviously a urban legend since no one at IBM would have ever been so confrontational.

# # # # #


FUN: PaiGow session#2 at more modest $20 table

Monday, October 29, 2007

20071028 paigow #2

What was interesting in this session is the player to my far left was playing “hunches”. Varying her bet and varying her bonus play.

Guess what?

She was wiped out.

Note: 5Aces400x; StraightFlush50x; FourOfKind25x; Fullhouse5x; Flush4x; ThreeKind3x; Stright2x

If she’d have just played the bonus for the 5$/hand, she’d have been rolling in it. She was catching a bonus had every other hand. If I have had her cards, I’d have been loaded.

So that brings up the essential question. Are you playing to win the hand or the bonus?

Still don’t have an playing or exit strategy. This time I used the clock (i.e., meet for lunch or meet to go home). There has to be a better way.

Next time:
* Play at a low minimum table.
* Always play the bonus for the full five dollar stake.
* Since we are going to limit our losses, cap the loss (i.e., a “wall” of five soldiers?).

We are seeking a winning streak. A two win streak replaces one soldier. Use the breakage from the first win to advance the line and bonus bet? The commission on a 20$win gives you back a 19$. Increase you line bet and bonus bet by five each? Hole the nine for the next commission. If you win that second bet, you’ll get a full soldier back. If it wasn’t a bonus win, use the extra five to bump the bonus again. It’s all about playing more when you are winning and less when you are losing.

Comments welcome?

# # # # #


INTERESTING: Lauren Canario

Monday, October 29, 2007

A nonviolent civil disobedience superactivist Lauren Canario has been held for more than 20 days. How can “they ” do that?

# # # # #


INTERESTING: My congresscritter responds

Monday, October 29, 2007

***Begin Quote***

From: Representative Rush Holt [mailto:representative.rush.holt@mail.house.gov]
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 12:27 PM
Subject: Email from Rep. Rush Holt

Dear Mr. Reinke :

Thank you for writing me regarding our government’s policy on so-called “military tribunals” and the related Hamdan v. Rumsfeld court case on this subject. I appreciate learning your views, and I apologize for the delay in my response.

After the Supreme Court ruled against the Bush administration’s use of so-called “military tribunals” in the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case in 2006, the administration and the Congress had an opportunity to craft a detainee policy that both protected our country and the principles it stands for. Instead, the Congress passed a deeply flawed piece of legislation-the Military Commissions Act (MCA)- which I opposed.

How true we are to our ideals affects the clarity and decisiveness with which our soldiers can act, the safety of our troops, the motivation of our potential enemies, and the behavior of our actual enemies. The MCA provides protections that are vague, slippery and imprecise. It is subject to interpretation by the President, by the Secretary of Defense, by our commanders in the theaters of operation, by our troops in the field, and by our friends and enemies around the world.

We need a law on detainee treatment that does at least two things. First, i t should provide a clear set of guidelines consistent with American principles-such as in our revised Army Field Manual-that applies to all U.S. Government personnel (including contractors and intelligence agents ) on how to treat prisoners in ways that preserve our principles. That is why I have become a co-sponsor of the Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007 (H.R. 1415) and the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007 (H.R. 1416). If enacted, these bills would undo the most pernicious and c onstitutionally offensive provisions of the MCA, including the denial of habeus corpus rights to detainees.

Second, any changes to our laws on detainee treatment should include verification mechanisms to monitor how prisoners and detainees are treated. One of those mechanisms is already in use by law enforcement organizations across the country: the videotaping of interrogations.

Videotaping has proven to be extremely effective at preventing not just abuse of detainees but also false allegations of abuse by detainees against their interrogators. The practice aids in interrogation (by allowing linguists and others to review the record) , and it protects all of us-the enforcers, the prosecutors, and the defendants. By not including such a provision in the MCA , the drafters missed a real opportunity to ensure that we prevent serious problems in the future.

In May 2007, I offered an amendment to the FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act that would have mandated the videotaping of detainee interrogations after the detainee had been held for seven days or had been transferred to a permanent detention facility. While my amendment did not pass, it garnered 199 bipartisan votes and demonstrated that a near-majority of my colleagues recognize the value of videorecording of interrogations.

Indeed, it may interest you to know that the day after the House voted down my amendment, the Defense Department released a previously classified Inspector General report on detainee treatment in Iraq that was originally sent to the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in August 2006. While portions of this 131 page report remain classified, the conclusions are not:

“(U) Allegations of detainee abuse were not consistently reported, investigated, or managed in an effective, systematic, and timely manner..no single entity within any level of command was aware of the scope and breadth of detainee abuse. policy for and oversight of interrogation procedures were ineffective. As a result, interrogation techniques and procedures used exceeded the limits established in the Army Field Manual 34-52, “Intelligence Interrogation,” September 28, 1992.” ( Report No. 06-INTEL-10 , Review of DoD -Directed Investigations of Detainee Abuse (U), August 25, 2006, p. ii.)

You can view the full report at the following URL:

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/abus e .pdf , or ask me to mail you a copy.

I will continue to press for mandated video recording of detainee interrogations because I believe doing so would provide critical safeguards for all involved in the process.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

RUSH HOLT

Member of Congress

***End Quote***

Sigh!

# # # # #


LIBERTY: “voting” doesn’t opt anyone in!

Monday, October 29, 2007

http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=642&Itemid=36

Opting Out Print
Monday, 22 October 2007
By Kat Kanning

***Begin Quote***

People opt in implicitly by voting or taking government benefits.

***End Quote***

CONTRASTING

http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcelroy/mcelroy107.html

Lysander Spooner
by Wendy McElroy

*** begin quote ***

Spooner now explains why voting cannot collectively bind “the people” or even a particular individual to the Constitution. A rough listing of the points in his argument is as follows:

* The act of voting can bind only those who vote.
* Most people do not vote in any given election; many people never vote. Therefore, they have not consented.
* To be binding, a vote must be “perfectly voluntary” yet a “very large number” vote in self-defense.
* Taxation is compulsory and many vote only to prevent their money from being used against them.
* Votes for unsuccessful candidates cannot be binding.
* A secret vote provides no legal evidence by which to bind any particular voter to the Constitution.

*** end quote ***

SO … imho … “voting” doesn’t opt me in!

# # # # #