First, they're right, race/gender issues have no place in the discussion about Sen. Obama versus Sen. Clinton. Of course, both have used their uniqueness amongst previous serious candidates for the presidency as a major selling point. Identity politics and the Democratic party go together, whether they like it or not.
Chickens. Home. Roosting
(go ahead, make that some sort of veiled racial reference, I dare you!)
Second, they're right, yet more expansion of Indian Gaming on non-Indian land would be a bad thing. Not for the reasons they state, though. I think this picking one tribe over another as to winners and losers is ridiculous, all these compacts, and deals, and treaties are a sham. Americans want gambling, they want it close by, but generally they don't want it down the street.
The whole reservation system and the fiction that these "Nations" are sovereign within the United States is a comfortable fiction that serves a few interests well, but fails the majority of the descendants of our continent's first residents. End the whole sham now, in the long run that would be the best solution for this mess of convoluted laws, compacts and 'treaties'.
I think I've made it pretty obvious that I'm pro-gambling, but anti-monopoly. People want to be able to gamble, state governments are addicted to gaming revenue, let's quit all the hypocrisy and open up the business of gambling to business interests and communities willing to come to an accomodation without some 'poor disposessed native group' fronting for professional gaming concerns.
Maybe this wasn't so historic, I agree with their conclusions, not how they got there, their reasonings are as fuzzy and wrong-headed as always. But besides being a conservative/libertarian, I'm also a pragmatist, if a liberal newspaper is willing to agree to the results I'm also looking for, who am I to argue?
Showing posts with label Legalize Gambling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Legalize Gambling. Show all posts
12 January 2008
Who the Heck is John H. Cox?
Received my ballot for the Feb. 5th Republican Primary. There's eleven names on the ballot, the names you'd expect, Paul, McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Thompson, Giuliani, plus there are the drop outs who made the ballot like Brownback and Tancredo, there's the local who hasn't dropped out, but probably should have already Hunter, there's Keyes (?), and finally there's John H. Cox.
Who is this fella?
In the age of the internets, it shouldn't be too hard to find out.
He's got a website, he calls himself the only true conservative in the race (doesn't everyone though), and in his bio it says he's from Chicago, is active in GOP politics there, and seems that the highest office he's ever held was either on a school board or zoning board (depending which you consider to be higher). His issues page shows all you'd expect from someone calling himself a 'true conservative'. His positions don't seem much different from Sen. Thompson.
Right now, whether or not South Carolina goes well for Fred (I hope it does, so that he's viewed as a viable candidate on Feb 5th), he still has my vote here in California, he probably won't win my state, Giuliani or McCain most likely will, but Fred is still the man.
Nobody is making any media buys in California yet, on either side. That might be a mistake, absentee ballots are already available, and many folks may have already cast their ballot, or are about to this weekend. Don't cry for the local TV stations though, they are getting plenty of advertising dollars from the Nonpartisan State Measures on the ballot this year. 4 of them, #94-97 are generating the most ad buys. These are lumped together as the "Indian Casino" measures, part of a deal cut by Schwarzenegger to allow an expansion of Indian gaming. I'm for legalized gambling, period. I don't like giving a few tiny tribes a monopoly on the activity, I think it should be open to any community that wants to legalize gambling within their jurisdiction. Just to be mischevious, I'm going to reject 3 of the tribes, but vote yes for the Morongo Indians, I just like their name, and their casinos are easier for me to get to. Still think if our state government thinks it needs the revenue from gambling, then state sanctioned legalized sports gambling could generate an amazing amount of revenue, and could be administered with a minimum of state interference. Most sports bars have a bookie or two associated with them, so just let these folks come out of the shadows and pay taxes on their revenue (and their players would also have to pay revenue on their earnings).
Also, fully legalize pot while you're at it, between not having to incarcerate dealers, growers and users, to not having to pay the cost of interdiction, to the potential tax revenues from the legal sale of the wacky weed, the potential positives from de-prohibition will outweigh the social costs of de-prohibition (see alcohol prohibition for reference). Pressure the federal government to allow a statewide experiment on legalization (Arnold could cut the deal, nobody can say no to the Governator) and watch the state coffers begin to overflow.
Who is this fella?
In the age of the internets, it shouldn't be too hard to find out.
He's got a website, he calls himself the only true conservative in the race (doesn't everyone though), and in his bio it says he's from Chicago, is active in GOP politics there, and seems that the highest office he's ever held was either on a school board or zoning board (depending which you consider to be higher). His issues page shows all you'd expect from someone calling himself a 'true conservative'. His positions don't seem much different from Sen. Thompson.
Right now, whether or not South Carolina goes well for Fred (I hope it does, so that he's viewed as a viable candidate on Feb 5th), he still has my vote here in California, he probably won't win my state, Giuliani or McCain most likely will, but Fred is still the man.
Nobody is making any media buys in California yet, on either side. That might be a mistake, absentee ballots are already available, and many folks may have already cast their ballot, or are about to this weekend. Don't cry for the local TV stations though, they are getting plenty of advertising dollars from the Nonpartisan State Measures on the ballot this year. 4 of them, #94-97 are generating the most ad buys. These are lumped together as the "Indian Casino" measures, part of a deal cut by Schwarzenegger to allow an expansion of Indian gaming. I'm for legalized gambling, period. I don't like giving a few tiny tribes a monopoly on the activity, I think it should be open to any community that wants to legalize gambling within their jurisdiction. Just to be mischevious, I'm going to reject 3 of the tribes, but vote yes for the Morongo Indians, I just like their name, and their casinos are easier for me to get to. Still think if our state government thinks it needs the revenue from gambling, then state sanctioned legalized sports gambling could generate an amazing amount of revenue, and could be administered with a minimum of state interference. Most sports bars have a bookie or two associated with them, so just let these folks come out of the shadows and pay taxes on their revenue (and their players would also have to pay revenue on their earnings).
Also, fully legalize pot while you're at it, between not having to incarcerate dealers, growers and users, to not having to pay the cost of interdiction, to the potential tax revenues from the legal sale of the wacky weed, the potential positives from de-prohibition will outweigh the social costs of de-prohibition (see alcohol prohibition for reference). Pressure the federal government to allow a statewide experiment on legalization (Arnold could cut the deal, nobody can say no to the Governator) and watch the state coffers begin to overflow.
05 February 2007
The Real Governator Wouldn't Propose Ineffectual Half Measures
If Gov. Schwarzenegger is truly serious about augmenting state revenue generation without raising taxes, a little half-measure like easing the rules on Indian Casinos is a half (and half-assed) measure, at best.
Go all the way, Governator.
Legalized gaming in the state of California makes sense. Let cities zone it out of existence if they choose on a local and individual basis, but in leave it up to each jurisdiction. This ridiculous monopoly enjoyed by a minuscule number of "Indians" (most Indian gaming concerns are run by big corporations on behalf of very, very small bands of Indians) serves a narrow number of interests, whereas broader legalized gaming could produce a tremendous windfall at a fairly minor social cost (folks prone to gambling addictions already have ready access to feed their addiction, greater access to legal gaming choices won't change that).
Obviously, Nevadans would fight tooth and nail to prevent this from happening, isn't that reason enough to go ahead and do it?
And while we're legalizing stuff that does do harm to some people while entertaining many more, Marijuana is a huge cash crop in California, and as a legal crop would be even bigger (while generating positive revenue for the state, instead of costing the state money in law enforcement and eradication efforts). Fight the big battle with the Federal government over antiquated drug laws, stand up for states' rights. California has the resources and standing to challenge previous rulings on a federalized drug policy.
Go all the way, Governator.
Legalized gaming in the state of California makes sense. Let cities zone it out of existence if they choose on a local and individual basis, but in leave it up to each jurisdiction. This ridiculous monopoly enjoyed by a minuscule number of "Indians" (most Indian gaming concerns are run by big corporations on behalf of very, very small bands of Indians) serves a narrow number of interests, whereas broader legalized gaming could produce a tremendous windfall at a fairly minor social cost (folks prone to gambling addictions already have ready access to feed their addiction, greater access to legal gaming choices won't change that).
Obviously, Nevadans would fight tooth and nail to prevent this from happening, isn't that reason enough to go ahead and do it?
And while we're legalizing stuff that does do harm to some people while entertaining many more, Marijuana is a huge cash crop in California, and as a legal crop would be even bigger (while generating positive revenue for the state, instead of costing the state money in law enforcement and eradication efforts). Fight the big battle with the Federal government over antiquated drug laws, stand up for states' rights. California has the resources and standing to challenge previous rulings on a federalized drug policy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)