My mother taught me to play Spades before she allowed me to pour my own milk. In my family, parents recite the rules of the game instead of nursery rhymes. We draw cards instead of eenie-meany-miney-mo. We learn addition by keeping score.
We play by strict rules: no wild cards, no passing, 100 points for a nil, nothing for a failed nil, one-hundred-point penalty at ten sandbags, no table talk, no discussing a bid with a partner or changing a bid, negative score for doubling a bid, and the game ends at 500. No exceptions. Ever.
Things went well until my bother married the Hoosier. When I sat at their table, she informed me that she plays deuces wild, pass two cards, second bidder is allowed to ask the first how secure the bid is, and she adds a hundred points to the bid for a nil score.
Passing cards and wild cards were beneath my snobby Spade standards. But what was I to do? The game was at her house; everyone else agreed to play by her house rules. If I refused to pass or trump with my deuces, I would not only look like a fool, I would lose. There was no point in playing the game if I didn’t want to win.
I called my brother away from the table. “I can’t play like this,” I told him. “It feels like cheating.”
“Winners host the next game,” he reminded me. “If you win tonight, you get to set the rules at yours house next time. If you let her win, you’ll be playing by her rules every week.”
I played by Hoosier rules in order to win the game back.
To those who think the Democrats should run a campaign without money, I disagree. I think we must win the game back so we can play by our rules again.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 80
This is not an if question, it is a when question. If McCain wins and gets to appoint a couple more SC justices like Thomas and Scalia when could be a long time.
Who wants the Dems to campaign penniless? How ridiculous is that!
Fortunately, Obama has been able to raise the money for this campaign through small, private donations. He hasn't had to stray from his principles. But, even if he had, I would still support him because I hate what happened with Dennis Kucinich. The idea behind this story has been in the back of my mind since 2004, when I admired Dennis Kucinich for sticking to his principles but, at the same time, wanted to beg him to do whatever it took to give his platform the chance I thought it deserved.
Janna, will one question mark make you happy, or do I need to add a long strong of them?
One question mark makes me happy; too many makes me sad.
I like exclamation marks too!!
I especially like dots..............
I wish my parents had taught me how to play Spades. It had to be better than those damn flash cards!
I do love to play Spades, though.
Very sensible words from Ron W.
Losing will do nothing to solve our problems, winning could. " I agree!
Thanks, everyone!
That's what we do when we vote.
Wendy: you better start learning politics. It's a game that affects every aspect of your life whether you pay attention or not. Sandy has a wonderful post about Nice Mommy that shows what happens when you put up with unacceptable behavior. I recommend you read it & send it to friends.
This post is a gem. Purism (is that a word?) in politics is always self defeating. I hate to bring up the N word (as in Ralph), but I get really angry when I hear people extolling the supposed virtues of this egotistical loser. It is time for liberals, democrats, progressives, moderates, and even republicans who feel hopeless and directionless to shed the sanctity and hedonism of despair, and join in to WIN. The time is NOW.
And I don't know if money is always the answer. We need to be firm and strong in our positions and be very vocal about setting the dishonest attacks right, but will it do anyone any good if we win by using the same low, cheating rules that the Republicans are using? And, would it do any good if so many voters are too stupid to recognize those lies for what they are in the first place?
Sheryl, I too would be very disappointed if my sister-in-law switched the game to Go Fish and I had to either stick with Go Fish the rest of my life or play the stupid game and win back the real game. It would be tough, but I'd grit my teeth and ask if she had any threes. You probably know me well enough to know that I'd complain, loud and clear, the whole time if I caught her trying to cheat and stick me with Go Fish forever.
Just like Bush and his innumerable signing statements....Ha!
You know, Sandy, I love the fact that Obama is a man of ethics and intelligence and is not stooping to attacks on John McCain's character - it would be easy enough to do. Obama is sticking to the differences in policies and pointing out where McCain is out of touch with the needs and concerns of US citizens. But, I do not trust the stupid people of this country - I really don't. I read their ridiculous postings on Gather and I hear them call into C-Span. They truly believe the lies that are being spread by Rove and the McCain campaign hackers. Where these idiots cannot win by convincing the public of their solid policies, they try to win by out-and-out lies against the opponent. And people out there believe these lies - whether from ignorance or racism or fear.
The question is, can anyone win against liers and cheats? Can anyone win if they do not cater to these low forms of slander and lies and attacks? If is disheartening to know that there are so many people out there who believe them and support them, to their own personal detriment.
"I love the fact that Obama is a man of ethics and intelligence and is not stooping to attacks on John McCain's character." I agree. I believe, without a doubt, that Barack Obama is one of the most honest, ethical, diplomatic, loving people on this earth. I admire him. But I also want him to win. I believe it is necessary for him to win, and have the same question you present: The question is, can anyone win against liers and cheats?
I don't think it is possible to win against liars and cheat without calling them on their lies and holding them accountable for their cheating. If Barack Obama or, more likely, and hopefully, Joe Biden, decide Go Fish is a stinky game they have to play, it will not change my respect for them.
Example 2: Democrats have largely been successful in banishing Judeo-Christian thought from public schools, even though the 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of religious expression.
Example 3: Democrats maintain that Bush "stole" the 2000 election, even though the Constitution explicitly tells us that a presidential election is NOT a popular election.
Example 4: Even though several Democrats in Congress said that they believed that Bill Clinton was guilty of perjury, they did not fulfill their constitutional obligation to vote for his removal.
Example 5: Democrats (and John McCain) have limited the effectiveness of the 1st Amendment by enacting campaign contribution laws that limit personal, group, and corporate free speech.
I could list several others, and will upon request, but right now I have to get ready to go somewhere. Happy trails.
.
When you dig, really dig, you find they are all on the same page. What "change" did the Dems make when they won Congress in '06?
It was summed up well by Harry Truman who said, "Whenever you have an efficient government you have a dictatorship."
The Founders wisely set up a constitutional form specifically so that individuals, groups, and government branches would fight against each other, jockey for position, and ultimately check and balance each other.
The only time the branches and parties would come together, reasoned the Founders, was when a problem was so immediate and disastrous that cooperation and efficiency were needed to solve it quickly, such as national disasters and major wars. In other words, the Founders wanted the government to be slow, contentious, and largely uncooperative.
As Marchamont Nedham, a noted newspaper columnist in 17th Century England wrote, "...keeping [the executive and legislative] Powers distinct...so that they may never meet in one, save upon some short extraordinary occasion consists the safety of a state."
This structure, of course, was set up at a time when the People understood that they individually bore the main responsibility for their own welfare.
Now, when the majority of our citizens look first and primarily to the government to solve problems, frustration with a sluggish, partisan, and uncooperative government is an ever-increasing sentiment.
The more the government fights internally, the more they leave citizens alone free. In most cases, the more government cooperates, the more freedom we lose. Don't get me wrong--I want the government to be strong and capable in its prescribed duty to protect my unalienable rights.
Cooperative, efficient government has given us the following and more:
The 16th and 17th Amendments and the Federal Reserve Act, and, as a result, the Great Depression.
The New Deal, complete with the foundations of every entitlement program in existence today.
The Iraqi War, which is currently costing us $12 billion per month and is now the second longest war in our history, as well as the second most costly (surpassed only by World War II).
The $5.3 trillion bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
And in the process, what has been forcefully taken from us? Tax dollars (you now work four months out of twelve to support the bloated federal government budget), incalculable amounts of spending power through inflation, a constitutional form that largely prevented the growth of the federal government and ensured that state governments could check and balance the federal government, domestic peace as class conflict and resentment are created because of forced wealth redistribution, and a naturally balanced and healthy society as the government favors certain institutions at the expense of others, among others.
I don't know about you, but I wish the government would stop getting things done.
The next time you read or hear of partisanship and a lack of cooperation in the government, thank heaven that the politicians and bureaucrats are fighting amongst themselves, rather than working together to take your hard-earned money and property. The less they cooperate, the less they encroach on your freedom. The less they get done, the more you're able to get done without them meddling, regulating, and confining.
Long live uncooperative, inefficient government!
I am unwilling to learn for you; only you can open your mind and accept education. Until you are willing to do so, I am unwilling to entertain your nonsense. On point three--my progressive status--you are incorrect. And you know as well as I do that I expect you to take nothing on faith, but you might not know the reason. I don't believe you have enough faith in yourself to break the ties that hold you and think for yourself.
Linda, how disappointing you are. You saw my comment and came here to leave your rhetoric without even reading my story. I repay the favor and not read your comment.
The Democrats have the most corrupt party to day, and Obama just like the Clintons are no more deserving of the house than McCain is.
Its time to get rid of the Corruption, and get both the Republicans and Democrats out of office where neither of them belong.
I read your story and rose above it, cutesy as it was; sorry you didn't get it or appreciate the value in the post. What do you have to fear from a motivating, educational post like mine?
Perception is reality and some things are true whether you believe them or not.
TJ - good points!
I'm really puzzled about your comment to TJ "accept education". We don't accept or reject education - it is what each of us takes away from the "teacher" based on our own life story and experiences.
Why do you hate America so?
Didn't he just quit his church of twenty years when it became politically expedient to do so? Thought so ;)
If you mean "whatever it takes" as in getting the most electoral votes, you are correct. They do whatever it takes to fairly get the most electoral votes... which is why they won. Sucks to be a lib when most Americans are conservative and afraid of moonbats.
I can't help but wonder what the attraction is. Someone sorely wants another's approval so it seems, otherwise why is someone so hell bent on getting the other's attention?
So, you disagree politically. There's a huge age difference and you'll never see eye to eye.
Now go to your own room and play.
I'm going to need an example of me hating America, because I consider myself quite patriotic.
Also invite Sandy to look in my purse to choose one of three things:
1)Ex-Lax
2) Prep-H
3) Condom
Ops, did I say that out loud?
Sorry, I was in Provider Relations, and occasionally thought I should carry those items for those in the greatest need...
I doubt any of them can prove you hate this country, but then they woulkd think voting in another crook and lier like Obama is going to help....
What's a Hoosier? It sounds like a defunct make of automobile, Like De Soto or Studebaker.
I can just hear you as a kid saying "Here comes big bro. with his new Hoosier, it has enormous headlamps.
hahahah! The images that conjured was too much!
I still think it sounds like a car. In fact I'm sure though its some years since I read The Grapes Of Wrath, that Tom Joad went into town and found a Hoosier pick up that he could ride all the way to California.
Oh, erm, I just made it worse didn't I? Isn't language a wonderful thing?
Where do these state navtive nicknames come from? There must be some interesting stories behind them.
And thank you, too, Shelbia.
this one is for you, you can learn all about the Bushonomics and how he screwd 90% of the country.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/08/pdf/bushonomics.pdf
here is your opportunity to learn the facts, easy to prove since we are lving in them, deficit, foreclosure, party corruption, and all the other stuff...how he did it and why it happened.
America is a place but the people are the nation and the people, those who think, are sick and tired of republican party faithfuls who know nothing about the policies and the agenda that fuels them, yet they want to make an argument for their validity.
I am an independent and it bring me joy to no end to see all the republicans supporting the democratic ticket...this are people of consequence, smart and know why the party has failed its people.
TJ, if you think no lefty ever gave you anything to work with besides faith, you just haven't been paying attention. The word is ignorant. The fact is, you take every right wing sentiment on faith so much so that you made Joe McCarthy your hero.
If you think that Republicans play by the Constitution then why did they support the dissolution of habeas corpus? Why did they try so hard to rush the passing of the Patriot Act? You can SAY that they were trying to protect the country, but in the end, it was still working against the Constitution.
We hear McCain and Palin talking about how we need to be that beacon of the "City on a hill" again, and it's obvious that they don't even know what that means. The "City on a hill" is a metaphor for not only leading by example but for not going out in the world to slay monsters or enforce our way of life. Right-wingers have no problem with lies and innuendo especially when they SAY they want to change Washington. What a load!
And then there's the closet McCarthy-ite Dan R, or as I like to call him HUAC, who's calling the Democratic Party the more corrupt party of the two! Forget the Abramoff thing, forget the Keating thing, forget Enron, forget that every white collar criminal was/is a huge supporter and member of the Republican Party! Forget that the lobbyists are all supporting John McCain, the people that McCain himself saw fit to villify at the Convention.
Dan R, in terms of corruption the Democrats at their worst are Republican-Lite.
Exactly! Sometimes you have to play like a Hoosier.