The First Senator of Poker
By now supporters of online poker should be familiar with US Senator Alfonso D’Amato. For the first time in my life the mention of a politician did not make me think cynical and all too conventional thoughts. For instance I did not immediately think that D’Amato’s sole motive was power and money, nor did I think that he was looking out for his own interests. Of course that is far from the truth. D’Amato is getting paid big bucks to lobby for the Poker Players Alliance (PPA). Plus he is also a longtime poker player.
In short D’Amato is the same as every other politician. My readiness to view him as the one good Senator in Congress stems from him supporting my beliefs, in this case the freedom to play online poker without the hassles created by the UIGEA. My interest in this issue worries me.
My fear with politics is that I will take an interest in the issues and drama, and more importantly side with other politicians, and therefore form an allegiance with them so they can support my interests whether it is good or bad for the general public. When I reach my thirties, I fear this will be inevitable, that I will soon become civic minded for myself. Somehow I feel it’s better to play apathetic and uncaring. That way I can put the blame on others and make fun of Bush’s intelligence as much as I want, not that I do the latter. I don’t do the latter because it’s hypocritical to the former. My hobby is to blame bush bashers for the sad state of politics. In other words, I’m a hypocrite whether I choose to be civic mind or not.
But with a choice, I’d rather be apathetic. At least that way I will be only indirectly to blame if the country elects the next Stalin, and I wouldn’t have to deal with the guilt of my selfishness. With D’Amato, I’m not sure I can support someone that relates the online poker ban to the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920’s.
Overall it is a weak argument, almost comical like Mark Kriedler points out in his article D’Amato Shows Poker Face. Kriedler also pokes holes in D’Amato’s statement that poker is America’s favorite sport. D’Amato is quoted saying “You don’t have 70 million people playing baseball,” when the PPA, the group he is lobbying for, estimates that only 23 million people play online. In the end these arguments may be persuasive.
Politics is about spin, and I hate spin, so I’m debating on whether or not I should support D’Amato. In more general terms the debate is on whether I should support my interests through any means or not.
[source Gambling911.com]
Poker Player’s Alliance, D’Amato, political apathy, poker, UIGEA
March 8th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
For now, I’ll support the idea that the PPA bringing on D’Amato is a good thing. Ultimately there will need to be deals done in Washington and D’Amato is certainly an insider that has a history of getting things done.
I hesitate to get to excited because the PPA has been less than transparent about what they are doing. Because of the lack of transparency, I don’t know who’s interests are being served by the PPA. Is it the players or some other group?
They are taking the angle that online poker is illegal and needs a carve out. In 39 out of 50 states online gaming is not illegal and there is no federal law stating it is illegal. I don’t care for this approach that they are taking at all and frankly I wouldn’t be surprised if they are really representing U.S. casino entities that want to get into the online poker arena.
As far as Kriedler’s piece, I didn’t care for it. He certainly didn’t make any friends in the poker community with his commentary. Maybe comparing this to alcohol prohibition is a stretch, but there are similarities. Shady money processors and fly by night poker sites are consequences of this law as were speak easies and backwoods alcohol makers.
March 9th, 2007 at 2:22 am
Good points about the prohibition analogy, Michael. That’s certainly true. If there is enough demand someone will supply it, legal or not.
I liked the Kriedler article. But more because I found the sarcasm amusing and the writing was decent.
He does seem to have an anti-online-poker stance in this article. Does he have other articles about poker?
With D’Amato and the PPA, I’m going with the wait and see approach. If they are successful, that’d be great. If not, oh well.
March 9th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Hi, Richard.
I’m not sure if he has written other articles about poker. I’d check ESPN.com to see if has and I would guess he has.
I guess I’m too sensitive to what is going on with this online poker issue. If he was trying to be playfully sarcastic, I guess I missed it (LOL).
March 10th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Hey Michael,
I can see why you’d dislike Kriedler’s article. The sarcasm was used to make D’Amato’s arguments look bad and more ridiculous than they really were, like the prohibition example.