The Final Flush of Rush

From yesterday's Sacramento News & Review

A tremendous amount of ink was spilled yesterday reporting the death of one radio broadcaster.  As a former radio guy, perhaps I saw more than average, as I belong to several broadcasting-type groups, and have many friends who are still in the industry.  But I don’t recall ever seeing so much commentary about one man who, in my opinion, doesn’t deserve that much praise.  Or any, really.

I exaggerate a bit, but then again, so did Rush Limbaugh.  He was a pious, holy man.  OK, I lie, but so did Rush Limbaugh.  To be fair, Rush was good at what he did.

But what he did was vile.

Rush did what he did for two reasons – one was for Rush (ratings and money) and one was for the Republican cause.  It’s no wonder the right and the far-right, not to mention Fox News and that ilk went bonkers heaping praise on him.  All owe something to Rush.

The truth is, Rush owes everything to Ronnie Reagan.  His gutting of the Fairness Doctrine set the stage for Rush to be Rush, and to dominate the AM airwaves without a General Manager having to worry about that pesky “equal time” nonsense.

Rush also owes a debt to Joe Pyne.   Before Rush there was Pyne, and I mentioned this on a few posts yesterday.  One guy responded that Pyne was mild compared to Rush and Hannity and the loud-mouthed bastards we know today.  I shot back that Pyne was radical for his time.  Also, the Fairness Doctrine was still intact then.  Even though I was just a kid back then, I know Pyne was conservative and controversial.  How can I know?  Simple – my dad never watched talk shows and he never missed Pyne, and politically, my dad is just to the right of Archie Bunker.

About those broadcasting posts, there were as many posts praising Rush as there were criticizing him, and many of the Rush-lovers got their panties in a bunch whenever someone was critical of Rush.  They were horrified that people would say bad things about him…as if Rush never made fun of anyone’s dying – he was notorious about poking fun of gays who died of AIDS, and mocked all sorts of celebrities – as long as they were Democrats.

I had a neighbor who was a Rush fan.  He always would stop me to tell me what Rush said someone said, or what Rush said someone did.  Of course, by the time Rush got around to telling the tale there were bits missing, emphasis changed or added, and just enough fiction tossed in to make what actually was said or actually happened very very different than the way Limbaugh described it.  It was his style too to be “just the guy asking questions here” even though he already knew the answer was bullshit.

From a radio programming perspective, Rush was a “better” broadcaster when he was on the offensive, attacking the Democrats when they held the keys to the kingdom.  He fared less well defending the GOP during the Bush eras as it was harder to pin everything on Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi.  Not that he didn’t try.

Of course, when “the Obama regime” took over in 2009, Rush was in heaven.  Here was a guy he could unload his entire arsenal of hate upon.  There was only one problem; Obama didn’t do much that was wrong.  That didn’t stop El Rushbo from cranking up the “outrage du jour,” whether it be a tan suit or Dijon mustard or Fast ‘n’ Furious.  And then in 2016 it was TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP as Godzilla met King Kong and a love-fest soon followed.

By then Limbaugh’s ratings were a shell of what they used to be when he “wrote books” and “was on television” and was pretty much the only game in town.  Now there’s several NETWORKS of pundits who “do the Limbaugh” and are far more outrageous than he.  By the time Rush got his Medal of Freedom he was yesterday’s news, but he’d never admit it.  Then again, he’d be living in a fantasy-land for the last 30 years, so why stop now?

I obviously was no fan of Limbaugh, but I never wish a person dead.  But he’s no one I wish glad tidings on, either.

Two others in the industry offered their perspectives, and they’re worth reading.  The first is the veteran/legendary Paul Harris.  Rather than excerpt his excellent piece, I link to it here:

http://www.harrisonline.com/rush-to-judgement-day/

The other comes from Jeffrey P. Jones, the Executive Director of the prestigious Peabody Awards and University of Georgia Professor of Entertainment & Media.  He tweeted:

What Rush Limbaugh did to us:

1. Made opponents into true enemies

2. Revived overt and dog whistle racism

3. Stifled attempts to revive the Fairness Doctrine

4. Showed Roger Ailes the formula for right-wing broadcast success

5. Offered ignorance as "common sense" thinking

6. Created an army of listeners with little knowledge and skills in civics or critical thinking into believing themselves political experts

7. Stifled dialogue and said it was OK to talk politics without debate (rarely took calls from those who disagreed)

8. Made partisan propaganda into a consumable product with tremendous market value.

9. Made hatred and violent rhetoric commonplace and "acceptable"

10. In sum, laid the groundwork for the triumph of MAGA and Trumpism, a reality we will deal with for decades to come.

 

All I can add to that is, “he’s gone.”

Do We Need More Days of Infamy?

“Yesterday, December 7th, 1941—a date which will live in infamy—the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.”

 

It’s a good chance you’ve never heard the word “infamy” except in the concept of FDR’s famous speech.  The dictionary refers to “infamy” as “the state of being well known for some bad quality or deed.”

Pearl Harbor certainly fits that definition.  Here in America, we actually have several of those days, although only 12/7 is usually refenced as a date of infamy.  There’s also…

•        November 11 – we recall the end of WWI at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh year.  Sadly, “remembering” the close of WWI didn’t keep us from WWII
•        September 11 – It’s not been quite twenty years, but 9-11 is another day of infamy, remembering the terrorist attacks in New York, DC, and in Pennsylvania,  although there was some doubt we’d remember I guess because they had to go and make it an official “holiday” (Patriot Day) and my guess is that in another generation there will be a call to make it another one of those roving Monday holidays like President’s Day, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Memorial Day, etc., so folks can have a four-day weekend rather than actually sit around and remember stuff.  Is that bitter enough?

My question is – do we need more of these days of infamy?  Sure do.

Consider the Holocaust.  No doubt you saw the headlines this Spring that a survey showed a number of Americans with a shocking degree of LACK OF KNOWLEDGE about the Holocaust.  Granted, it was a survey of those who were not alive when it happened (people age 18-39), but still –

•        Sixty-three percent of those surveyed did not know that 6 million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust.
•        More than half of those thought the death toll was fewer than 2 million.
•        22 percent of respondents thought it was associated with World War I.
•        One in ten did not recall ever having heard the word "Holocaust" before.

No wonder the idea of mass genocide continues to resonate around the world.  Not as in “we will never forget” but rather “let’s do it again.”  Stalin’s purges, Khmer, Rouge, Boko Harem, North Korea, etc. etc. and sadly, etc. 

Want to read a horribly scary list?  Try this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history

 

So…When do we designate a day of infamy for those who have died of COVID?  Currently in the US, we experience the same death toll as 9-11 or at Pearl Harbor nearly every damn day this month alone (five times out of six so far and you know there’s more death coming).  COVID has killed twice as many people as soldiers who died during WWI (116,516), and my guess is it will kill more than died in WWII before it’s over (407,316).

We can’t forget.  And we can’t forget how it all happened.  I don’t know how we could just pick one day to represent the horror of COVID, but if we must, let’s use June 14^th.  That way we can remember the failure of the Trump administration to actually DO anything to protect Americans from the spread of the virus and honor those who fought (and continue to fight) to keep us safe.

Yes, June 14^th is Trump’s birthday.  Got a better date?

People Just Wanna Gamble

Three recent news articles made my hair stand on end this week, and they say plenty about the state of gambling here in the US, which, as we all know, is pretty fucked up given Adelson’s RAWA rampage.

The first was a story from the Pew Charitable Trusts called, “States Consider Slapping Limits on Their Lotteries.”  Ignore the faulty graph showing sales per capita (more on that in a moment) – most of the quotes (and backlash) come from two sources.  One is our “buddy” Les Bernal of Stop Predatory Gambling, who really wants to stop ALL gambling, not just set limits to lotteries.  The other battleground is Minnesota, where real buddy Mike Qualley can tell you what the real issue is.  It’s not so much limiting the lottery (though there are folks who are cousins to Bernal on this), but limiting WHO can sell the damn tickets.

Which brings us to story #2 – The New York Times writes about “A Texas Ban on Gambling That Doesn’t Quite Work.”  The ban on slots in Texas can hardly succeed when the counties charge $500 fees each for the machines (to be used only as entertainment with non-cash prizes).  Hell, the STATE cashes in, too - the Texas comptroller’s office collects $10 million annually on eight-liners (slots), pool tables and other devices as part of a coin-operated machines tax.
 
One county hauled in $1.5 MILLION last year.  There are an estimated 30,000 to 150,000 machines in Texas, and pretty much everyone looks the other way about this.  Counties collect much needed revenue, and people do what they want to do.  Gamble.
 
Because face it, folks.  People just wanna gamble.  It doesn’t matter what the law or society says – we’ve been gambling ever since we’ve been upright, almost, and we’ll keep on doing it until we die.  No pun, of course.
 
And because people wanna gamble, governments are gonna wanna get their share.  Nothing new.  Screw laws and morality, what was decided last year, whatever…the desire for money is why people gamble and why governments have tried to get their hands on as much of it as possible.  It’s a dance we’ve been playing in this country ever since we landed (Harvard was build on Lottery money, and the Revolutionary Army was funded pretty much the same way).
 
Let us play and get out of the way.  Times are changing (except, not).
 
Which brings us to the third news story that grinded my gears, and I’m not linking to it, since pretty much everyone knows what happened in Indiana.  I won’t comment, but I will pose this query to you:

You own a bakery.  Two guys come into your bakery at different times to order wedding cakes. One asks for a cake with "Good luck Chris and Pat" on it. The other asks for a cake with "Good luck Pat & Chris" on it.

Which is the gay marriage?  Think about it.  Take all the time you need.

Yes, this is how stupid the argument is.  This is what our politicians spend their (already limited time) dicking around with.  Instead of letting us gamble as we please.

Asshats.

ADS Explained (Adelson Desperation Syndrome)

It’s not Friday so this isn’t sarcasm.  PPA Minnesota State Director Mike Qualley suggested it was time it was time for me to post something (on the most recent wacky happenings with Sheldon Adelson and his Venetian casino) and I had another blog post on a slightly different subject…and by some miracle found a way to combine them in a ground-breaking post that answers the question – is online poker going to be a legal reality in the United States again, or is it doomed?

The answer follows, and it involves statistics, not emotion.  This is a lengthy post (as it’s really two…two…two posts in one) but the stats will be simple.  And besides, it’s been a while since I posted, so it will be like making up for lost time.

When you’re an advocate for something, it’s sometimes hard to separate logic from sentiment.  You WANT it to happen, just as much as the other side doesn’t.  Making rational objective observations was my former job in marketing research.  Telling folks news they DIDN’T want to hear was tough (and a good way to not get paid).  Giving a potential politician the word that he’s trailing 65/35 and has no hope for victory was the facts...as difficult as it was to hear (he lost 64/36, BTW).  Telling a beer company their product was not well received was not well received, but cooler heads prevailed and they saved themselves millions of dollars.  That’s the beauty of statistics.

I let emotion get in the way when I made a comment on Facebook about two recent rulings in Idaho.  Both involved Federal judges making important decisions on items important and passionate to me – poker and gay marriage.  Coming just days apart, the news reported that a judge declared poke a game of skill, and that Idaho’s anti-gay marriage rules were unconstitutional, meaning that states joined 15 others (now 18) allowing same-sex marriages.  (Full disclosure:  I am heterosexual, but have volunteered with pro-gay organizations.  I also enjoy poker.)   I made the comment that “the dominoes were falling” or something like that, meaning it appeared that things were moving (for both issues) in the right direction, and victory seemed inevitable.

A reader saw my post and was confused, then took umbrage.  He couldn’t tell which way I felt about poker, and then, once I explained I was an advocate, was “concerned” that I would mix coverage of the poker issue with a discussion on gay marriage.

So here’s fact #1 – if you want to think of a subject that the course of public opinion was changed any more dramatically – favorably – than gay marriage…think again.  Take a look at this chart from the Gallup Research folks:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/162689/record-high-say-gay-lesbian-relations-morally.aspx

You’ll see “gambling” listed farther down the list, but let’s not worry about that now.  Here’s another dramatic Gallup chart:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/163730/back-law-legalize-gay-marriage-states.aspx

Way back in 1996, did ANYONE actually believe that a majority of Americans would be supportive of gay marriage?  Well, yeah, I did.  Not because I was passionate about the issue (which I was) but…because of statistics.

I don’t have the charts I saw back then, but I do have this one more Gallup chart to show you that tells pretty much the same thing.  Check it out, and I will explain in a paragraph…

http://www.gallup.com/poll/169640/sex-marriage-support-reaches-new-high.aspx?ref=image

You can see that even in 1996, the youngest age group still did not have a majority of supporters, but they were (by far) the group most likely to support gay marriage.  Back then it was apparent (to me) that younger people were more tolerant of gays and of diversity in general than my generation ever was.  Forty years ago (when I was 21) we were just a few years past Stonewall, and a few years from Billy Crystal’s gay character on Soap.  I remember a high school buddy telling me he didn’t know anyone who was gay.  I told him he did – he just didn’t know they were gay.  Nowadays the closet is gone, gays are mainstream, and…well, you can see the results in the Gallup poll.

But that’s only part of the answer.  What really changed, statistically, wasn’t just that people had changed their opinions.  What also changed were…the people.  Old folks with anti-gay views were not as representative in the 2014 poll as they were in 1996, because many of them were dead.  Twenty years makes the 18-29 age group the 38-49 group!  It’s not the opinion that changes – it’s the people!

And that’s how I knew that gay marriage was inevitable.  The trend was (and is) crystal clear. 

So let’s look (briefly) at online gambling.  First, let’s look at gambling.  Go back forty years (I was still 21) – the only legal place to gamble in a casino was in Nevada.  Atlantic City was still a couple of years away (heck, in ’74 New Jersey voters voted against legalizing casino gambling statewide).  The Internet and the World Wide Web were the stuff of science fiction.

My, how time changes things.

Today the younger generation can gamble legally in 35 of the 50 states (I might be off by a few states, but it’s the majority).  We’ve had the Internet for years, and we even had a small taste of online gaming.  Just like the idea of “morality of gay marriage,” the idea of “morality of gaming” has changed, though not as dramatically…lately.  My guess is that the shift occurred a bit earlier than the first Gallup chart shown above.

Now, here’s another chart…one we’ve seen before:

Do you favor or oppose allowing casinos to run online gambling for people in their states?

	18-29	30-44	45-59	60+
Favor	38%	37%	20%	15%
Oppose	49%	50%	71%	77%

Yes, it’s from my earlier blog about the Fairleigh Dickinson University PublicMind poll about online gambling and marijuana legalization.  Lookie!  Youth are in favor far more than us oldsters.

Look familiar?  And this is for ALL online gambling – the PublicMind poll did not distinguish between gambling and just online poker (which my non-statistical passionate mind says is an “easier sell” than al of gambling).

So the answer to “is online poker going to be a legal reality in the United States again, or is it doomed?” is YES – it’s inevitable.  But hopefully it comes sooner than 40 years from now, as I’ll be 101 and I really don’t want to wait that long.

Someone else who can’t wait that long is Sheldon Adelson.  He’ll be 120 then.  He’s also the eighth richest person in the world, and even though I’ve called him a senile ol’ coot, he didn’t get to be that rich by being stupid.  My guess is that he knows what I know – he’s read the tea leaves, and it doesn’t look good for his side.

This bring us to his actions of present.  As you may know, he’s committed to spending “whatever it takes” to stop online gambling.  He’s also recently adopted what I call a “scorched earth” policy; drawing lines in the sand and making folks choose his way or the highway, in a “you’re either with us or against us” kind of stance.  Witness the recent backsliding of the AGA (no doubt pressured by Adelson and his $$$), and more recently, the bizarre dismissal of PokerNews from covering a tournament held at Adelson’s Venetian Casino in Las Vegas – a tournament in which they were a sponsor!  You can read the whole story here, but the top paragraph says it all:

Less than a week after The Venetian excluded PokerNews from providing live coverage of a Mid-States Poker Tour event inside its casino, the company issued a statement which confirmed that the ban was related to to PokerNews' business relationships with online poker sites.

Here is my ADS explanation – Sheldon has seen the statistics, too (or has had a minion explain them to him).  He knows that his ONLY hope is to strike fast, now, with some sort of blanket ban that would be difficult to overturn (gay marriage related: DOMA and Prop 8).  It’s not guaranteed of success, of course, but it’s the only option. In desperation, he is doing EVERYTHING he can to succeed – on the national level, on the state level, in every venue and vestibule he can.  Because he’s desperate – he’s seen the handwriting on the wall.

Our advocacy for online poker must remain vigilant.  We can’t let him succeed.  Yes, time is on our side (yes, it is).  But I’m tired of waiting.  Aren’t you?

One thing you might have to wait for is my next post.  Tourist season has started in earnest, but I will do my best to stay on top of all things poker.  Longish posts like these might have to wait until fall, but I will try to be a concern troll and make the occasional witty blurb or droll comment.

It’s inevitable.

Boycott the Venetian?

If you’re a live poker player or a online wannabe, you are no doubt aware that the man who owns the Venetian Hotel/Casino (and many other gaming properties) – Sheldon Adelson – is behind the recently formed Coalition to Stop Online Gambling, and the power (spelled m-o-n-e-y) behind the politicians launching anti-online-gambling legislation in the US House and Senate.  You may also be aware that there was a boycott of Adelson’s properties last year by individuals who either would like to see online poker legalized in the USA or think Sheldon’s full of shit, and there is talk of another boycott this year.

So, do you boycott, or not?

I’ve been involved in a couple of online forums where this subject has popped up, and it’s not as cut and dried as you might think.  Face it, ANYONE can CHOOSE to do or not to do ANYTHING for ANY reason.  If it pisses you off that Adelson is a hypocrite about this issue or it bugs you that a rich guy can buy legislation, then so be it, and do what you have to do.  I've always been a person of principle, even though it's cost me a job or two, potential customers, friends, etc. If I had plans to play in Vegas this year (I don't, so it's academic), I would avoid going to the Venetian.  It’s pretty easy for me to boycott in this case. 

But what about others who might be hurt by the boycott?  Some folks have said that Adelson will hardly feel the affect of a boycott of the poker room (he makes wads in every corner of the casino) and it would hurt dealers and other employees.  Heck, a slowdown might cause him to pull the poker room completely and put in high-stakes slots or something else that makes him even more money, so, the logic goes, a boycott would be counter-productive.

And I’d agree if the ONLY thing a boycott affects is ties to money.

Obviously, the idea of boycotting goes beyond finances.  It’s the principle of the thing.  The cause.  The idea.  The change.  And it does not happen if things happen as they always have.  A boycott can raise awareness, get people talking, get more people involved, cause pressure, cause change.

If NO ONE takes that FIRST step, nothing happens.  If a few begin to take a stand, then, that’s a start. Where it goes from there depends on everyone else.

I can easily say “boycott” because I won’t be playing anywhere this summer.  But you?  It’s your call.  Do what you believe in.  And in closing, here's something I posted on one of the Facebook forums (which is why it's in blue - gawd, I hope I'm not in violation of some privacy law or something...)

• I have to admit that one of my personal boycotts is "effective" only in that it gets people talking - I've boycotted Wal-Mart for more than 20 years. People ask about it, and I tell them that the ONLY way that "the Wal-Mart syndrome" will stop gutting small town businesses is if EVERYONE STOPS SHOPPING THERE.  Eventually this will happen (maybe not everyone, but enough people will go elsewhere).  They’ll go elsewhere because they’re tired of Wal-Mart’s prices or shoddy quality or arrogant attitude or some other reason, but go elsewhere they will.  They always do.  Don't believe me? Ask Mr. Sears or Mr. Roebuck.  Things change.  People cause change.  One person at a time.

The Importance of Being Racist

Asshole

Apologies to Oscar Wilde, and anyone who thinks I’m about to defend racism.  Yeah, that ugly word for that ugly act is in the news again.  Or still.  You’d think that the 21^st Century would be some sort of enlightened age, where humankind finally accepts that while we’re all different, we’re all the same in that no one gender, race, nationality, etc. is higher on some sort of scale than any other.

Bigotry, racism, prejudice, bias, call it what you will.

We should be discriminating, but only on those points where there IS a difference.  He’s taller…she’s a better bowler…they have better coffee…they scored more points…this car gets better mileage…etc.  I cannot fathom any descriptor or comparison where one could legitimately say, “All blacks do X” or “All gays do Y” or “All men do Z.”  Because they don’t.

All of those who make up some sort of classification don’t all do bad things, or good things.  Individuals do bad things or good things.  Individuals do stupid things.  Donald Sterling did a stupid thing this week, and it got him in a heap of trouble.

The thing is, from what I've gathered from the multitude of media reports, is that it’s not the first time he’s done stupid things.  It’s not even the first time he’s done THIS stupid thing.  It IS the first time anyone decided that someone should do something about it, and that’s a shame.  That someone DID do something is fine, but let’s ask ourselves…why did it take so long?  Hell, even Fox News reported on Sterling’s racist past and the fact that it was no secret in the NBA. The comments in question (the ones that cost Sterling $2.5 million and his ouster from the league) were made in September - last year.

Do we really tolerate this kind of behavior?  Well, yeah, but there are limits.

Had Sterling made such comments in a pickup basketball game with a bunch of buddies, he might have gotten a few laughs.  Had the comments been made in night league with a mixed race composition, he might have gotten his ass kicked.  As it was, he made the comments “supposedly in private” (to two people) acting as an owner of a team in the NBA – a league of professionals where more than three-fourths of the players are African-American, and almost half the coaches, too.  Of course, non-white ownership is puny (as it is in all professional sports).

In my opinion, such a statement is stupid (and depending on your bent, “wrong”) in any context.  I know a little about racism, as my father shares many similarities with Sterling.  He was also named Donald, loved basketball (two-time high school captain for Ann Arbor High School), and was a bigot from the word go.  He’d call a spade a spade unless he was a dago, a hunky, a frog, a wetback, or a yid.  I remember watching Norman Lear’s “All in the Family” with him, and I asked him what he thought of the show.  “Pretty funny for a bunch of kikes,” he said.

I don’t know why my Dad was racist, but he was.  He worked with a black laborer for 14 years and never said a bad word about him.  When he went to the race track in Northville or Hazel Park he hung with the railbirds, many of them black (or as Dad called them “colored.”).  He was no stranger to the N-word, of course – that’s how the family knew someone had pissed him off somehow – the individual went from “colored” to “N------.”

But it wasn't just race – Dad was a WWII marine who fought in the Pacific, so we heard stories about the Japs and Nips and all of the slant-eyed gooks when the Vietnam war was raging.  Jews…Polacks…you name it.  All except Germans (which runs in our family tree, mostly).  He even defended Hitler in a classic argument with me:  “Well, what’s the hell’s wrong with Hitler, anyway?  Dad was always bad at math, and couldn't count to six million, I guess.

So yeah, racism is stupid.  It always has been.  It always will be.  So please, can we stop pretending that it doesn't matter and that it’s invisible and that it’s OK when rich people and famous people do it unless it’s a media circus and then maybe not?

Bigotry and denouncing all parties of a group is stupid and horribly incorrect.  Except for one group.  Racists.  They’re ALL assholes.  Even my Dad.

Sheldon and the Baptists

Go ahead...pull my finger...win a jackpot!

I spend a lot of time lately trying to understand things that baffle me.  I’m not sure if it’s because of advancing age, or if the world has gone completely batshit crazy.  You decide:

Why do teenage girls take up smoking nowadays?  The dangers are real, and we’ve known about them for decades.  You can shorten your life by years, bring on all sorts of nasty diseases, and, when you kiss your boyfriend, you taste like an ashtray.  Where is the upside here?

Why did thousands of American white males and an entire TV new network (I’m looking at you, Fox) go gaga in defending a deadbeat rancher who drapes himself in the American flag, rallies behind the 1st Amendment, and yet claims not to recognize the U. S. Government (proud sponsors of both the flag and the 1st Amendment…and the land he’s using for his cattle)?  Would this story have been any different if it wasn’t Cliven Bundy, but his neighbor, José Hernandez?

Why are Southern Baptists backing Sheldon Adelson?  After all, The Southern Baptist Convention, through its resolutions, has condemned gambling as “immoral,” “harmful,” and “devastating.” Sheldon Adelson is one of the most successful casino owners in the world.  For those of you hard of hearing, that means HE GETS HIS MONEY FROM THE VERY THING THE SOUTHERN BAPTISTS THINK IS IMMORAL.

Yeah, I don’t get this.

Adelson was quoted as saying, “My moral standard compels me to speak out on this issue…I don't see any compelling reason for the government to allow people to gamble on the Internet.”  Understand that if this sentence was three words shorter, it would be the stupidest sentence ever uttered by a casino mogul.  Drop the last three, and you have Adelson saying: “My moral standard compels me to speak out on this issue…I don't see any compelling reason for the government to allow people to gamble.”

Is that a WTF moment, or what?

There was more, but let’s do this one step at a time, beginning with the second sentence.  If there is no “compelling reason for the government to allow people to gamble on the Internet,” that means there should be compelling reasons to PREVENT people to gamble on the Internet, as opposed to preventing them from gambling, period.  And what are these reasons?

Sheldon’s coalition (the Coalition to Stop Internet Gambling) has indicated that online gambling might be hazardous in allowing money laundering and collusion, perhaps even a way to sponsor terrorists. In the last few years there have been investigations into such practices and other illegal activities.  In casinos owned by Sheldon Adelson.

Another bullet from Adelson’s Coalition is the harm online gambling may have on our youth, causing teens to go out of control and gamble away their college funds.  Just recently a casino in Pennsylvania came under fire for underage gambling - with fines totaling $220K for four different infractions.  In a casino owned by Sheldon Adelson.

Finally, the Coalition deplored the idea that online casinos would be expanding gambling to make it “available in every college dorm room, every family’s house, every poverty stricken neighborhood…”  They even have the wonderful tag line “Click a Mouse and Lose your House.”  Speaking of famous mice, there was a casino company that was trying to expand land casinos in Florida, the land of Mickey Mouse and family entertainment. 

Anyone wanna guess who owns the company trying to do that?????

Hey Baptists, turn your good book to Matthew 23.  Or maybe Matthew 6.  Or Matthew 7 or a host of others spots in the Bible*.  Adelson is a hypocrite of the first order, and by getting into bed with him on this issue, you have opened yourselves up to scrutiny and further actions have to be viewed with one eye cocked askew.  The Washington Examiner said it best: “Whenever you see someone pushing a regulation for the environment, children or public health, it’s a good idea to sniff out the bootlegger funding the campaign.”

Sheldon is the rum-runner, BTW.

* is anyone surprised this non-believer knows his Bible?  I actually read the thing (it’s been a while).

Lawlessness and Anarchy



Note picture of man who does not recognize U.S. government holding U.S. flag.

 Do you know the difference between lawlessness and anarchy? 

• Lawlessness: not regulated by or based on law, unrestrained or contrary to the law, not governed by law.
• Anarchy: a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority.

We seem to tolerate a great deal of lawlessness here in America, but we tell ourselves that anarchy would be dealt with swiftly and surely, should it ever come to be.  There not much difference to me, ‘cept that it seems that if one or two people are doing it, it’s lawlessness; if everyone does it, that’s anarchy.

I bring this up because I’ve been bothered for the last few months about the cell phone law here in Oregon.  Now, it’s not a new law - it’s been on the book since 2011.  Pretty much everyone involved with driver safety agrees that driving while using a hand-held cell, or texting while driving, is a dangerous pursuit.  In Oregon, it’s not just risky - it’s not legal.  The law is four years old, and the fine went UP on January first of this year to $142 (minimum) - that’d one expensive phone call. 

So why do I see so many people using their phones while driving?

It can’t be that they don’t know about the law - it’s been in place for FOUR FRICKIN’ YEARS, and it’s discussed constantly on the news, talk shows, etc.  It has to be blatant disregard for the law.  When we take our daily walk to the beach in the off-season, we see maybe 10-20 cars along the way.  We have NEVER had a day where NO ONE was using their cell phone, and often we see two, three, or more driver’s happily chatting or texting while careening down 12th Avenue (that’s how we lost our power pole two years ago - taxi driver, alone, texting a friend, and dislodging the pole with his taxi’s front end).

So that’s lawlessness.  But if EVERYONE did it, would that be anarchy?  Is anarchy just a measure of how many folks are not playing by the rules?  Must disorder be in multiples?

And that brings us to Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher who is a bit behind in his grazing payments to BLM.  He is called a patriot by some, and to me this is like calling a dog’s tail a leg.  No matter what you call it, a dog still had four legs.  No matter what you call Bundy, he’s breaking the law, regardless if he recognizes the authority or not.

Bundy claims not to recognize the U.S. government (which is why there are so many US flags at all of his speeches and rallies, right?), but  last time I checked, he was an American citizen.  So, that means he has to play by ALL the rules, not the ones he doesn’t like.  He used to pay his fees, but stopped.  TWENTY YEARS AGO.  He actually acknowledges that he owes money, but the amount and who should have it differs. He says $300K and Clark County; BLM says over a million dollars, and the U.S. government.  One side note - even though Bundy recognizes State of Nevada and Clark County sovereignty, he hasn’t paid THEM, either.

So what if EVERY rancher stopped paying their grazing fees?

It would hardly be anarchy, but it would be costly.  And who pays?  Well, you do.  Just like you’re paying Bundy’s share.

See, here’s the thing - when so other guy cheats on his taxes or doesn’t pay his fees or breaks the very laws you follow every day, they are making a knowledgeable choice to do so, and usually (like so many things) the choice is economically motivated.  If they pay less in this zero-sum game we play called “life,” someone else pays more. The guys and gals who play by the rules.  You and me (well, certainly me, and most likely you).

Here in Oregon we have more than $3 Billion in Income taxes, parking tickets, and court fines, unpaid in the last decade.  The Department of Revenue is responsible for collecting debts, but hasn’t done a very good job.  They recognize that owed money could ease the burden on taxpayers or pay for better services.  And yet they don’t change a DAMN thing in their methods. 

Bundy could move here, but no thanks.  We have enough lawless moochers.

Sexual Ignorance

This isn’t about poker (unless you recall the old sign for the Man Cave that read, “Liquor in front, Poker in rear).  It’s about sex, specifically teen sex, and the ongoing battle to “educate” our young people about sex.  That word is in quotes because there is education, as described as teaching about how it works, how to prevent disease, and how to prevent pregnancy.  There is also “education,” as in scolding, pressuring, denying, and holding out that the ONLY way to educate youth about sex is to say, “Abstinence Only” over and over and over and over and over again.

In 2014, no less.

I bring this up because my little town of Seaside is once again hosting the state’s Adolescent Sexuality Conference (this year’s theme: Building Blocks of Youth Sexual Health).  It’s been going on since the late Seventies, and this year there was something new added – a protest.

I was downtown on an errand when I saw the protesters form their picket line.  It was early, before the conference started, and there were dozens of cars parked at the OTHER end of the parking lot (next to the Catholic Church…coincidence?).  Although the big-city TV stations that covered the protest highlighted the “pornographic content” and the idea of “local control,” I saw the signs the protesters held.  I know what they really were protesting.

The idea that teens have sex.

Like it or not, teens will have sex.  Always have.  Always will.  Is this a good thing?  A bad thing?  Like so much in life, it depends.

I don’t disagree with the idea that persons should not have sex if there’s a chance of unwanted pregnancy, or potential of transmission of disease.  I consider such individuals unknowledgeable and unready to engage in what some refer to as “safe sex.”  In cases such as these, no sex is better than safe sex.

But you’ll note that I did not attach any age to such a condition.

Many “kids” aren’t ready.  I can also vouch that many adults are not, either, including many who ALREADY HAVE KIDS.  It’s not about age – it’s about maturity.  It’s also about knowledge, which means education, which means “no quotes” around the word “education.”

Abstinence only “education” has been shown to be NOT PRODUCTIVE.  Over and over and over.  Often the “education” is riddled with lies, distortions, half-truths, and scare devices.  Kids need support, facts, caring.  It’s a difficult enough issue without the crap coming at you from the “just say no” crowd.

In the fourteen years we’ve ran the ice cream parlor here, we’ve hired more than 50 young women (OK, teen girls).  I’ve lost a number to other jobs, college, and fired a few as well. 

And I’ve lost two because of pregnancy – one sixteen year-old, and one fifteen-year old (who was impregnated by a thirteen year-old boy).  I learned (later) that the sixteen year-old had the child, had another, married another man, and it seemed that she got her life on track OK.  So she said.  I never heard from the fifteen year-old, but figured she’d wind up like her mom (many kids, different dads, lather, rinse, repeat).

I can’t help but think that perhaps, with a little more education and a lot less “education” things might have turned out differently.  I don’t know.  I also would assume that these two are NOT the only ones who have had sex while working here (just an assumption on my part based on stuff I hear is all).  And I could not say for certain whether those who had sex and didn’t get pregnant had more or less education or “education” that the other two.

But I can tell you that the time to get our heads out of the sand and admit that kids need facts, not a waving finger (with a “no, no, no” sneer).  Abstinence only does not work and should not be tried.  Or funded. 

Advocate self-discipline and practice moderation, but above all promote education.

Quit fucking around with “Abstinence Only pseudo-education.”

Underage Gaming – Don’t “Kid” Yourself

 

There are more things wrong with Lindsay Graham’s (R-Adelson) anti-online gaming bill than there are digits in my newly-minted PPA membership ID number (and that’s a lot), but I wanted to just look at the first sentence to debunk it and the new Coalition “Don’t Bet on It” ad (thanks to Mike Qualley for the pic).

Here’s the first sentence:  “To restore long-standing U.S. policy that the Wire Act prohibits all forms of Internet Gaming…” 

Hell, couldn’t even make it all the way through.

The Wire Act was made law in 1961, fifty-three years ago.  The Internet had yet to be created. The first poker website came about in 1995.  Americans played online without government interference until 2006’s UIGEA, which did not require compliance until 2009, and was not enforced until Black Friday, April 14, 2011. 

Long-standing policy my ass.

Secondly, all forms of “Internet Gaming” are not now prohibited, nor have they ever been.  I’ve had accounts on YouBet and Xpressbet since the nineties.  Perfectly legal.  Ironically so, since the original intent of the Wire Act was to suppress illegal bookmakers who took most of their action on…wait for it…horse racing.  The Wire Act actually made it POSSIBLE for simulcasting and with it, the online betting industry we know today.

Which gets us to point three: “carve outs” in the Graham Bill.  It is expected that the horse racing industry will again get a “free pass” in the implementation of this bill, as may online lottery ticket sales (the latter is under debate).  But there is one more “carve out” currently in place that receives little discussion but has been mentioned in the same breath as horse racing for exemption: Fantasy Leagues. 

 

And here’s where the hypocrisy of the new Coalition ad comes in.

 

According to the new ad, online gambling is dangerous to our youth, as it’s “so easy” (and cool) for kids like the boy shown in the ad to “just find” Dad’s account and start plopping down big cash at the roulette wheel and poker table.  Just like Angry Birds, almost, we’re told.

According to a September, 2013 article on Yahoo Finance, 20% of all teens (age 12-17) played in Fantasy Leagues in 2012.

Let me repeat that.  20% of all teens (age 12-17) play in Fantasy Leagues.

Do you think that kid in the Coalition’s ad is more likely to sit down at a virtual roulette wheel, or join a Fantasy League (or two or three or more)?  Where would Dad’s credit card be more vulnerable – at some new game he’s never played, or at something HE’S ALREADY DOING AND LOVES?

Politicians have no business introducing bills where they are totally ignorant of the implications or effects.  HR4301 is the poster child of that crap.