The Fatal Attraction of the Inside Straight

The subjects this week concern the War in Iraq, saving Social Security, and the death of Terri Schiavo. To examine the logic of all three, we begin with poker.

For about four decades I’ve played low-stakes poker. I understand the game well, but at best just break even. Why?

Casual poker players are doomed by the fatal attraction of the inside straight. Two cards can win when you draw to an outside straight, one chance in six. But drawing to an inside straight, where only one card can complete it, has one in twelve odds.

The first is a good bet; the second is a sucker bet. Amateurs go broke chasing the inside straight. The logic, if you think about it, has three steps: This can be true. This ought to be true. This is true. Now, apply that lesson to three main issues this week.

Opponents of the War on Iraq are now less in number but more shrill, as Iraqis have shown their commitment to democracy and freedom, not oppression and mass murder. The main remaining argument against the war is that the blood cost is too high.

Six months ago I compared the death rate of Americans in this war with those rates in the other ten major US wars. This is our least bloody war.

Another comparison is also appropriate. The death rate of American men and women in Iraq is only slightly higher than if they were home and driving cars to bars on Saturday nights. In short, the argument that the blood cost of this war is “too high” is factually false. But some people want to believe that, and therefore do believe it.

A similar deception reared its ugly head this week on Social Security reform. AARP has launched a dishonest attack on the President’s position on this subject. The main attack is that we cannot afford “new debt” of $2 billion for the transition to private savings accounts.

Let’s examine that claim. The people whose SS benefits will be paid by those bonds, are already alive. The law that says how much they will get is already written. The position that this is “new” debt means AARP expects tens of millions of Americans to die suddenly, or it expects the government to default immediately on SS benefits, or that AARP is lying.

Unfortunately, the press is not printing the facts when reporting on AARP’s position. And millions of Americans believe the AARP canard only because they want to believe it.

The third major subject this week was the ultimate death of Terri Schiavo, who died of thirst in Florida after 13 days of no food and water, under a series of court orders. At the end, this was a terrible situation which could have no good outcome. But if we are to learn anything from her death that might benefit others, we need to figure out what went wrong here.

The press kept stating this as a contest between Terri Schiavo’s parents and her husband. The problem is embedded in that sentence. Terri Schiavo has no husband, not in any real sense.

Ten years ago, Michael Schiavo turned his back on his wife – except for occasional symbolism. He took a new “wife,” and had two children by her. His connection to his wife Terri was no longer with his mind or heart, it was only with his wallet. He had custody of a $1.6 million medical malpractice case because he was the husband of Terri. And starting then, it was in Michael’s financial interest that Terri die, rather than live.

People who see conservatives or the “religious right” behind any interference with the “necessary and appropriate” death of Terri Schiavo hang their hat on that label: husband. Of course, in such situations and in the absence of any written instructions, the surviving spouse should be the principal decision-maker. But in this case, Michael Schiavo should have been divorced as a husband and dismissed as a guardian a decade ago. People who want to believe otherwise reject such inconvenient facts.

Among the people who have a strong grasp of reality by playing poker for decades are Presidents Truman and Nixon, and Chief Justice Rehnquist. It minimizes the tendency to self-deception. As President Reagan said, borrowing a Will Rogers line, “It's not what they don't know that's the problem. It's what they know that ain't so.”

Personal Note: I will be a main speaker at the March for Justice II in DC, on 7 April at about 1:30 p.m., probably on C-SPAN after coverage of Congress ends. The subject is runaway judges.

About the Author: John Armor is a First Amendment attorney and author who lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu

Dear Congressman:

Your political analysis is spot on.

Your poker analogy shows why you only break even.

The first rule of poker is to learn to compute pot odds. Going for an inside straight can be a good move if the pot odds warrant it.

Second, you have to calculate the odds of your opponent beating your hand even if you fill the straight. Third you have to figure out how to make your opponent believe you have already filled the straight. Finally, you must have the courage to call what you think is a bluff.

I think number 5 is what separates the good poker player from the average player.

In fact, I think having the courage to make the call is the characteristic which separates many successful people from the rest of the pack.

"The press kept stating this as a contest between Terri Schiavo’s parents and her husband. The problem is embedded in that sentence. Terri Schiavo has no husband, not in any real sense."

Good article. However I disagree with the analysis in the last 2 sentences of the above excerpt. I believe that the MSM used the 'guardian/custodial' contest as a diversionary tactic to obscure what I see as the "real" problem - the legal definition of 'LIFE' vs. the actual reality of life.

Scientific advances and breakthroughs are now coming so fast, that the legal definition must be changed. Recent experiments (non-human) have shown that stem cells can become new brain cells or almost any other body part and generate new tissue to repair damaged tissue.

Soon, probably within the next 10 years (my layman's estimate), we may be able to completely heal someone who is in the same condition as Terri Schiavo was, and perhaps completey heal and repair badly damaged hearts and kidneys, etc., as well. If this comes to pass, how will Judge Greer's and Michael Schiavo's actions be judged, hmmm? (Most of us already see them as her executioners, at least I do.)

How will a future world and society view the starving to death of an innocent handicapped person that could have, in just a few short years, been fully restored to a normal life?

Perhaps that might not have occurred; perhaps stem cell therapy is only a pipe dream; but what if ... ?

I believe that congress now MUST pass legislation that makes it a federal felony to remove life support of any kind without the signed written permission of the individual, witnessed by 3 disinterested parties and notarized (i.e. a living will).

Unfortunately, the costs (when insurance runs out) will ultimately be shifted to government entities (cities, state, federal) and thus to the taxpayers. Any such legislation must include ways to prevent fraud, abuse, and corruption (which inevitably take place) with heavy penalties and fines for each. No, I'm not in favor of more taxes, but it's going to happen - watch.

If stem cell therapy (hopefully minor or less invasive surgery) works and becomes widespread, medical costs should decline rapidly, as the cost of treatment vs. other less successful treatments will be much lower. IMO, probable results would be that the black market in transplant organs would dry up overnight and the length of dependence on life sustaining equipment would decline sharply.

Again, the real problem is 'how do legally define life' or should we even try?

Those who, like me, believe in God (not allah) know how to answer that question. The atheists and agnostics will only be confused and befuddled. For example:

In the '60s and '70s, there were books on how to make your houseplants grow larger, stronger, and healthier by playing classical or soft music and talking lovingly to them several times during each day. Experiments showed impressive results, including poor results when playing loud harsh rock music and yelling with anger at them. The question raised at that time was: "Do plants have feelings?"
And, yes, many animals can be taught some amazing tricks and other things. Just ask any PETA member and they will almost surely tell you that animals are more valuable than humans.

I believe that God gave each of us life and a soul, and an obligation to sustain both as long as we possibly can.

JMHO

The main attack is that we cannot afford “new debt” of $2 billion for the transition to private savings accounts.
Let’s examine that claim. The people whose SS benefits will be paid by those bonds, are already alive. The law that says how much they will get is already written. The position that this is “new” debt means that

AARP expects tens of millions of Americans to die suddenly, or
AARP expects the government to default immediately on SS benefits, or
AARP is lying.

Exactly! The claim that the debt is "new" is absurd; the only responsible way of accounting for that debt is for the government to buy private assets to cover it. Anyone can write an IOU for 2 trillion dollars, and put it in a safe somewhere and claim to have the money to cover the Social Security Trust Fund all by themselves.
That's what the government has done; the only difference is that when the government does it it has the effect of printing dollars. Notice I didn't say "money" but "dollars;" printing dollars on that scale would have a huge inflationary impact and the dollars printed wouldn't be nearly as much actual money as you would otherwise expect.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.