What are the odds?

I am a poker player. For those of you who know me personally, you know this to be true. But, for those who follow my blog; you might not have figured out the hidden meaning behind my pen name. Well, now you know.

The game of poker is very intriguing to me. For those who have not given it much thought, there's a lot of probability and statistics behind this game. And, being a math and logic guy, I suspect this is what intrigues me about the game.

As a poker player, I have taken my fair share of what we like to call "bad beats". I can just see my fellow players rolling their eyes; imagining that this blog is a bad beat story. Well, not exactly. But, for those who do not play, a "bad beat" is when the odds of winning are in your favor, and you lose anyway. This can be the most frustrating part of the game. Particularly, when you realize that your opponent played badly, and won anyway. It just doesn't seem fair. But, most poker players learn to take these things in stride. And, they realize that over the long term, the odds will be in their favor.

Now, if a player was consistently losing when the odds were in their favor, one might start to wonder what was going on. After all, you would think that if your probability to win was 80%, then you should win 80% over a period of time - right? Well, so, if you lose 10 straight times in a row, when you had an 80% chance of winning each time, what would you think? Isn't it logical that if you have an 80% chance of winning for each hand that you should win 80% of those hands? At least, isn't it logical that you should not lose all 10 of those hands?

Let's look at this from a different angle. Let's say you have a 20% chance of winning each of ten different hands. What percentage of the hands would you expect to win? For me, I would expect to win at most 40% of those hands. And, I would consider myself really lucky to win those, because I really only had a 20% chance of winning any one of those hands.

Let me switch gears here for just minute.

I was in Mumbai having dinner with friends and colleagues, and the subject of "intelligent design" came up. And, in the discussion, it was established that only two people out of the eight at the table believed in intelligent design. At the time, I remember being surprised by this statistic. But, I filed that away for later consideration, and we finished our dinner.

Later, I started to think about the Mumbai conversation. And, as my beloved wife will tell you, when I get stuck on something, I tend to dig until I find an answer. To be honest, I was surprised that 75% of the people at the table did not believe that God had created the Universe. So, I started my investigation. And, the more I read, the more disturbed I became. There were theories for everything - everything could be explained. I started to read more, and got even more disturbed. I started to have trouble sleeping. My mind was going crazy processing everything I had read.

Then one night I had a dream. In the dream, I saw probabilities; just like when I am sitting at the poker table trying to calculate the probabilities of my opponent's hand. Then I saw the probabilities lining up, and getting smaller and smaller. It occurred to me that this is the way probabilities work: If something has multiple things which must happen in sequence (in order to occur) the probabilities are multiplied with one another - making them smaller. And as the list of items grew in length, I saw the probabilities going to zero.

So, what are the odds?

The human body is very complex. Clearly, if we knew everything about the human body, there would be no disease or illness. People would live forever, because we would know how to make replacement parts. The point here is that we do not know everything about life. So, we cannot possibly know how long it would take to create life.

We do know, through science, that the universe has rules. There are rules that govern math. And there are rules that govern physics. Of course we really don't know if there are any other rules out there that we haven't discovered yet. Nor do we know if there are conditions under which the rules will change. The age of enlightenment has helped us (man kind) to work within the confines of the rules that we know and understand. But, what about what we do not know? What is the probability that we know everything? Well, we certainly still have a lot to learn in the medical field. And, we still cannot explain division by zero. I think it's one thing to work within the boundaries of what we know, in order to improve ourselves. I think it is something all together different to assume that we know everything, and to ignore the other possibilities simply because we cannot explain them. That seems to be arrogant - or ignorant - I am not sure which.

If you take a minute to think about cause and effect. That is, think about things that have to happen, in order for other things to happen. Now, take a minute to think about all the things that would have to happen in a precise sequence, in order to do something like, say, create the universe. I think that is a very complex thing to do; particularly since as far as I know, we still don't really know what happened. We have theories, stacked on top of theories. We cannot have facts, because we were not there. We cannot know precisely what happened. Yes, in the last 200+ years we have made fantastic technological advances. So, what? What does that prove? Does it prove we are suddenly smart enough that our theories become facts? What if we are wrong? We were certainly wrong about Pluto.

It's just like at the poker table: you are trying to make the right decision based on the information you have at that particular moment in time. There is a probability that you are right, and there is a probability that you are wrong. But, if you think someone has a hand, and when you fold the other player shows you a bluff, you have just lost out because the other player convinced you that they had a hand.

So, what is the probability that all the evolution theories are correct; as opposed to believing that God created the universe? Well, you have a number of things that would have to happen very precisely. And, according to what I was told, evolution says that life evolved based on defects becoming the new normal. And, that defects enabled the various species to adapt over time. I'm sure someone more enlightened than I has already thought about this; but, let me take a simple poker player's point of view. What is the probability that a specific defect occurred at the precise time that was necessary to survive? And, even if it happened, what is the probability that it continued to happen? And, even if it continued to continue to happen, how much time would it take? I know if time is not an object, anything can happen. But, the Earth has only been around a certain amount of time.

Evolution, is like thinking that a 1963 Chevrolet corvette would spontaneously manufacture itself. Yes, this car was manufactured. But, it was manufactured from parts. Those parts were also manufactured. How? Well, if you go back far enough in the chain, you are gonna get to a point where you either assume something (aka guess), or you take a leap of faith.

The odds are against evolution. For me, it makes more sense that the universe was created by someone (God) that knew what they were doing, and that was acting in a deliberate fashion (had a plan). To me, that makes more sense than a bunch of theories that could have accidentally occurred in a precise sequence, at a precise time, to create the universe. Think about it. Do you want to make a leap of faith based on theories from men who think they are enlightened, yet admit they don't know all the rules of the universe?

As a poker player, I would call to see the other player's hand - particularly if I was betting my eternal soul.

Moderate Democrats

I just saw a segment on one of the cable news channels, where one of the pro-democrat pundits claimed that the Democrat minority was a much more moderate body than it was before. Really? Of course, this particular pundit did not bother to back up their claim with facts. In typical liberal media fashion, they just made an unsubstantiated claim. So, let's explore this claim - logically.

This claim would be valid if the Democrats had lost the majority of their very liberal members in the recent elections. This is the only way the Democrats could claim they have become more moderate. What about that? Is it logical that a liberal Democrat would be elected in a moderate or conservative congressional district? Not likely. The Democrats that lost their seats were in moderate or conservative districts. That indicates to me that the more conservative or moderate Democrats were ejected from congress. Kind of counter to the claim by the pundit. If anything, it seems logical that the Democrats are more liberal than before, given the loss of the moderates that would offset the liberal views within their own caucus.

The second way the Democrats could be viewed differently, is if they were under different leadership. Well, despite the losses the Democrats took in the last election, they decided to keep Pelosi. Hmm - that's not a leadership change. In fact, it's a very liberal thing to do; not holding Pelosi accountable for the disconnect between the liberal agenda and the average American's point-of-view. Maybe Beck was right - if the liberals want to change the middle, they need to go further left. Is that the new liberal strategy?

The most disappointing thing about this situation was the blatant attempt by the media to manipulate public opinion. Facts are stubborn things. So is the field of logic and statistics. I don't think it's too much for the American public to expect integrity from the news media. Not only did the media blatantly represent opinion as fact, they clearly made no attempt to determine the truth before they made the report. Shameful.

Real Hope & Change

It's been a month since the latest congressional election. And, the Republicans have been given a clear majority in the House. But, that is not the Real Hope & Change the American people are looking for. The Real Hope & Change the American people are looking for, is in the way the government is run. It has nothing to do with one party, or the other. It has everything to do with bringing some integrity to a morally bankrupt institution. So, Republicans beware: Independents like myself have passed the mantle of leadership to you - but we can just as quickly take that mantle and pass it elsewhere.

Rush likes to refer to Independent voters like me as "no labels". Implying that we do not have the guts to follow our convictions and be either a Democrat or a Republican. Well sir, I think you have just proven that you are in fact the mouth piece for the Republican party. And, I resent you calling people like me a "no label". It is true that we do not want to be associated with one party or the other. And, that is because we do not identify strictly with one party or the other. We are not blind followers of the hype and spin that both parties like to spread, in order to maintain their power base. Independents like myself are thinkers; and, we want to look at each issue, and each individual, and make decisions based on the facts. We are not likely to blindly follow your propaganda (or anyone's). In fact, I think it is rather arrogant of you to take credit for the Republican victory; the Independents are the ones that made the difference. You would do well to remember that little fact. But, I digress ...

Today, in both the House and Senate, our elected government officials use earmarks to bribe one another to vote a particular way. That is corruption - plain and simple. Any time an elected government official votes with his or her party instead of his or her constituents, there is something wrong. The same is true when an elected government official votes with a PAC, instead of his or her constituents. And, when that same government official is putting (or permitting) earmarks into legislation, that representative is no longer serving the interests of America, or the American people.

Earmarks are intended to provide elected government officials with a "prize" they can take back to their constituents, in order to prove that they are looking out for the interests of their constituents. However, earmarks encourage decisions based on "deals" and "bargaining", rather than looking at the needs of the American people. Earmarks also encourage spending on particular projects or issues; something that has gotten way out of hand. In a time where our deficit is our biggest national security risk, I think it is time to put an end to earmarks.

The Real Hope & Change I see is the fact that the new House Majority Leader (Boehner) is calling for a ban on earmarks. Of course, an earmark ban is no substitute for a Balanced Budget Amendment, but, it is certainly a step in the right direction. We can only hope that Mr. Boehner will follow through with his promise to ban earmarks.

I was not as encouraged with the Senate Minority Leader's (McConnell) refusal to support the earmark ban. The ball is squarely in the Republican court on this issue. And, the American people are watching very closely. If the Republicans want to keep their majority in the House, I suspect they will need to do more than just talk about this issue. The Real Hope & Change is that we will finally see steps toward fiscal responsibility, and a government institution that is not based on bribes and backroom deals.

I have one more example of Real Hope & Change that I would like to mention. I was very impressed with President Obama's move to get both tax cuts and the extension of unemployment benefits put in place by the end of the year. To me, this is the way government should work; elected officials should be making laws that actually benefit all the American people. That said, I am not at all happy with all the earmarks that have been put into this bill. And, I am counting on the Republicans to make sure that the earmark ban is enforced on all legislation (including this one).

Again, I congratulate the administration for what I consider to be its very first effort towards Real Hope & Change. I am anxious to see if this is the beginning of a new era, or, if this was just a tactic to lure the American people into a false sense of security. I think only time will tell on this point.

So, what is the Real Hope & Change I am looking for:

• No more earmarks
• No more legislation that is accomplished by making backroom deals and bribes
  
• Legislation that keeps the needs of the American people at the center (like the tax cuts and unemployment benefit extensions)
• Elected officials that remember they work for the American people; particularly when it comes to things like special benefits and automatic pay raises
• A balanced budget amendment, that will force our elected officials to be fiscally responsible

Virtual Strip Searching

The TSA has started with their new virtual strip search policy. That's right, if you want to be able to fly today, you have to submit to a machine that is able to see underneath your clothing. What's the big deal? After all, don't we all want to be safe when we fly? Well, yeah. But, what are you willing to give up as a result of your fear? I think this is the real question.

Do you think they (our government) are applying these same standards to people that fly on ... say ... Air Force One? What about private jets? Do you think someone like Bill Gates will be subjected to these kinds of screens? What about his wife and kids? What about people in the Obama administration (those that fly commercial that is)? Do you think they are being subjected to these screens? What about the other elites - any of the elites?

So, is it Justice when we have laws like the one they are using to perform a virtual strip search of American Citizens? How can this be Justice? Can this be applied equally to every American Citizen? The simple answer is no. Those who have the financial means to fly on private jets will not be subject to these screens. Likewise, those with "celebrity status" will not be subjected to these kinds of screens. Is this Justice?

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963

This is discrimination plain and simple. It may sound absurd, but, think about it. doesn't this law put those who cannot afford to fly, in a private jet or at the expense of the taxpayers, at a distinct disadvantage? Isn't that the definition of discrimination and injustice?

Fear is an amazing thing. And, it is a great motivator. People seem to be afraid of lots of things. Now, I believe in caution, and I am not saying that we should be taking all kinds of risks. But, I think we also have to be rationale about what we are asking the public - Innocent American Citizens - to do.

How do we measure the loss of liberty against the gain in security? More importantly, are we really gaining in security by giving the government even more control over us? And, doesn't it seem interesting that the federal government will not protect our borders, but, they are willing to have armies of TSA agents performing virtual strip searches and walking through airport terminals asking for our "papers"?

Terrorists succeed because we let them make us afraid. Nobody wants to die. And, its even more tragic when innocent people are victims. But, lets face it: lots of people are killed by violent crimes and drunk drivers every day - innocent people. Isn't a virtual strip search kind of like stopping every vehicle on a road, in the hopes that you are going to catch a drunk driver? How long before our benevolent government sees fit to remove more of our civil liberties in the name of protecting the population?

How is it possible that our Supreme Court upheld this absurd law? What's next? Government agents monitoring all our phone calls and email? Cameras on every corner recording our actions day and night? Police who can take you into custody and keep you for as long as they deem necessary? Biometric scans as we enter any public building? Transponders and RF-ID chips inserted into our bodies?

When the government uses these kinds of tactics to erode our civil rights, then what is next? Is it really better to have security at the cost of liberty?

First Things First

Well, if you read my latest (previous) post, you know that I am hopping mad over the money that was spent on this boondoggle to India and Indonesia. And, it was while writing that last post that I realized that our elected officials really do not give a hoot about us average Americans. They are gonna keep spending our tax money however they want; on what ever they want.

As I understand it, the Republicans have said that their first priority is to repeal ObamaCare. Well, I think we have a bigger problem than ObamaCare. I think the spending epidemic is the biggest threat we are facing as a country. And, I believe this is going to finally break the back of our Great Nation, if we do not act quickly to get things under control. In a triage situation, you always stop the bleeding before you try to treat other symptoms. Well, we are bleeding big time! And, we need to stop that bleeding before it is too late!

We need the Balanced Budget Amendment RIGHT NOW before it is too late!

I would rather see the Republicans put all efforts towards getting a Balanced Budget Amendment. I don't think anything else matters. A Balanced Budget Amendment would stop the bleeding.

Look, passing a repeal of the ObamaCare is a political tactic. The republicans want to keep a hot topic in front of the American voters, in the hopes that we will elect a Republican President in 2012. Listen up Republicans. We are onto the political games that both you and the Democrats are playing. And, we the people are not gonna put up with it anymore. We voted to put you into power, and we can vote to take you back out again. So, maybe its time to think about the people for a change. If you (the Republicans) want a platform for 2012, the Balanced Budget Amendment should be that platform. If you want to make the Democrats look bad, then do it by making them vote against the Balanced Budget Amendment. That will go a lot further than the repeal of ObamaCare. And, a Balanced Budget Amendment would force the kind of spending restraints that would get rid of ObamaCare anyway. It's a win-win scenario.

First things first - we need to stop the financial hemorrhaging. We need a Balanced Budget Amendment NOW. In order to make this happen, We the People need to stand up and make our voices heard. We have a new Congress coming in January. We need to let them know that the financial hemorrhaging has got to stop. We need to let them know that we want - no we demand - a Balanced Budget Amendment NOW.

So, I am asking you to forward this post to everyone you know. And, most importantly, I am asking you to forward this to your congressional representatives and your senators. We need a grass roots campaign for a Balanced Budget Amendment.

God Bless America!

Waste, Fraud & Abuse

That is what the government calls it when tax dollars are not spent properly: Waste, Fraud & Abuse.

So ... let's talk about this latest trip that the President is taking. As I understand it, the President is taking a trip to India and Indonesia. And, if the information I have heard from the media is correct, the price tag for this trip is in the neighborhood of 2 Billion Dollars. Seriously?

2 Billion Dollars for a trip? Well, as one of the tax payers, whose money you are spending, I certainly hope that there are going to be some jobs or other benefits to us average Americans as a result of this trip. Perhaps you could enlighten us average Americans as to the purpose of the trip, since we are the ones who are paying for it (after all). How is this trip benefiting the country?

Mr. President, How can you possibly think it would be okay to spend 2 Billion Dollars for a trip to India and Indonesia? Let's put this in perspective. What is the total annual budget for NASA? Well, I am not sure, but it seems to me that 2 Billion Dollars is a sizable percentage of the NASA budget. Yet, if memory serves me, you are cutting the NASA budget because we cannot afford the expense. You are cutting NASA's budget, but you are taking a trip to India and Indonesia? I dare say that the American people will get a lot more benefit from 2 Billion Dollars being spent with NASA, than by spending it for you to travel to India and Indonesia.

And you were wondering (after the elections) why the American people just threw out so many Democrats. Do you seriously not see how the American people would be upset with your decision to spend 2 Billion Dollars on a trip to India rather than spending the money on NASA? I have tried to figure out what rationale you could possibly use for spending this kind of money. Did it never occur to you that the average American is never going to understand why you are making this trip? Did it ever occur to you that this is NOT leading by example? People are worried about their jobs. People are worried about the tremendous amount of debt that is being racked up by your administration and the Democratic Congress. Are you that out of touch that you cannot see how this kind of expenditure would be received poorly by the average American?

To me, this is an expenditure that should not have happened. To me, this is a classic example of Waste, Fraud & Abuse. It also reaffirms to me that you and the Democratic party are out of touch and out of control. You are so set in your elitists ways, that you cannot see how obviously wrong it is to make this kind of expenditure; particularly when we have the kind of deficits we have today. Shame on you!

I did something this last election that I have never done before in my entire life: I voted AGAINST every Democrat on the ticket. That's right. I voted Liberatarion. I voted for Green party. I voted Republican. I refused to vote for one single Democrat. I voted for a Democrat in both of the previous congressional elections. Not this time. I not only voted against the Democrat congressional candidate, I handed out fliers for his opposition. I called and emailed every family member to be sure that everyone voted. I put more time and energy into this election than I have put into all the other elections combined. And, I am going to keep doing this while we are having the poor quality of elected officials that I believe we have today. I guess I was hoping the right wing media was wrong about you, Mr. President. I was hoping that at some point you would demonstrate your leadership.

How dare you cut the funding for NASA, and then turn around and spend this much money on a boondoggle. Don't bother sending me any of your campaign materials. I will be voting AGAINST you in 2012 - no matter who the other candidates are. This trip has proven to me that you do not have the judgment or integrity that I require for my elected president.

Ground Zero Mosque

I have decided to weigh in on the Mosque at Ground Zero. First, a warning to my ultra-conservative friends: you are not gonna like this post. Sorry.

Let me start by saying that the Right of Religious Freedom is just that: a Right. This means that any citizen has the Right to practice their religion in this country.

Now, that said, this does not have anything to do with what I believe the majority of Americans have expressed as their views. After all, the majority of Americans support the constitution. I believe that the majority of Americans understand and respect the Right of Religious Freedom. And, I believe that the majority of Americans are simply expressing their desire to have the mosque built some place else. They do not want to impede anyone's Religious Freedom. Rather, they would just like for people to be sensitive to the location where the mosque is to be placed. And, to some degree, I think the majority of Americans are both disappointed and angry about the apparent lack of compassion from the organization that is trying to build the mosque.

I think that is enough said about the mosque topic. And, frankly, I do not consider this to be news worthy. This goes to my next point. This mosque is becoming a political football. And, I think this needs to stop.

To be clear, this all started when the President decided to provide his position on the mosque. And, to be honest, what he said was quite literally correct.

1. The constitution provides for religious freedom
2. The issue is more about the "judgment" rather than the legality

Here's the deal:

• The president should stop trying to have beer summits every time two people have a disagreement; there are lots and lots of other issues which are far more important (e.g. jobs, border security, government transparency, etc.)
• The conservative media should stop trying to pin this mosque on the President - yes, he stuck his nose into yet another social issue, but, enough is enough

I will agree with the conservative media on one point: the President only seems to focus on those issues which will continue his celebrity status. Lets face it; why on earth would the President feel the need to get in the middle of every little dispute? By sticking his nose into this (and other similar issues), it is providing fuel for the conservative media. It just helps to fuel the image of the president as the head of a government that is out of control (even drunk) with power. Mr. President, is that what you want?

Yes, building a mosque next to ground zero is really bad judgment. But, don't we have more important things to worry about right now?