Posted on 10/19/2006 11:53:10 AM PDT by Sabramerican
LAST week President Bush signed a law that will try to impede online gambling by prohibiting American banks from transferring money to gambling sites. Most Americans probably didn’t notice or care, but it may do significant political damage to the Republicans this fall and long-term damage to Americans’ respect for the law.
So, a month before a major election, the Republicans have allied themselves with a scattering of voters who are upset by online gambling and have outraged the millions who love it. Furthermore, judging from many hours of online chat with Internet poker players, I am willing to bet (if you’ll pardon the expression) that the outraged millions are disproportionately electricians, insurance agents, police officers, mid-level managers, truck drivers, small-business owners — that is, disproportionately Republicans and Reagan Democrats.
In the short term, this law all by itself could add a few more Democratic Congressional seats in the fall elections. We are talking about a lot of people (an estimated 23 million Americans gamble online) who are angry enough to vote on the basis of this one issue, and they blame Republicans.
...... If a free society is to work, the vast majority of citizens must reflexively obey the law not because they fear punishment, but because they accept that the rule of law makes society possible. That reflexive law-abidingness is reinforced when the laws are limited to core objectives that enjoy consensus support, .....
The reaction to Prohibition, the 20th century’s stupidest law, is the archetypal case. But the radical expansion of government throughout the last century has created many more.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The didn't outlaw gambling, they just gave one group of gambling establishments an advantage over another. If moral absolutes are not negotiable, then there's nothing moral about it.
Ooooh.....!
Such wit! And so true!
Let me see if I can explain: (this ain't going to be easy because, as you've probably already gathered, I'm a stupid Bush-bot trying to be ironic, but patience, I pray, for we stupid are people too, and entitled to express our views in this democracy) four months after his inauguration W declined to inaugurate world war III over China's payback for his predecessor's bombing of their embassy during the Kosovo war.
It was incredibly short-sighted of him to appease these tyrants, and this denied us the opportunity to wage two wars simultaneously.
Tell your master Pat Buchanan that, in my profound stupidity, I still love and support the President. And while you're at it, convey to Pat my heartfelt concerm for his health and my continued hope that he find employment commensurate to his talents.
My head might be small, but my heart is large.
I'm a bit embarrassed to have to point this out to you, as we all know conservatives are well informed. Charles Murray is a libertarian and the author of numerous books, including the seminal Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950-1980 and his latest, In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State. In short, he's probably forgotten more things about public policy than you and I will ever know.
You know, you might want to take a look at some of his writings before making such an idiotic statement. See my post #63.
As for you not caring, he made the point that most hadn't heard of it and wouldn't care even if they knew. His point, as you seemed to have missed it, was that the on-line gambler does care, and there are millions of them. They know it was Sen. Frist who added this to the port security legislation. Their ox is being gored and it was a Republican who gored it. Some percentage, who knows exactly, will vote for the Democrat because of this. It might make the difference in some closely contested races around the country.
When I say I hate gambling, it just means I don't do it. I don't care if other people gamble. I never understood why it was illegal in the first place.
Enough said, thank you.
PS: I am not a smart as you are.
LOL. Now THAT point is probably debatable. Take care. ;^)
Aside from the thrust of the piece, it is an excellent lesson in how Western culture works, and the dangers of intrusive government. Charles Murray is a valuable public intellectual.
Bump For Later Moonbat Bashing
I completely understand your numerical assessment. I just totally disagree that the reaction will be what you and he think it is going to be. First, I think most gamblers are likely to simply work around it or ignore it. After all, this stuff has to be enforced. I doubt banks will immediately do that, because they don't know which sites are 'illegal' without some tipoff. Second, I doubt it will be enforceable, either, as the gamblers will simply transfer funds to international banks that WILL transfer to the gambling sites. So I don't think players will care, because the sites will continue as usual.
But that said--I doubt a substantial percentage of players vote to begin with, and those that will vote won't do so primarily on the basis of this ban. Frist gambled that was the case, and I think it was a good bet (pun intended).
Give me a break..my husband and I gambled at these sites for entertainment and I know many more who did. HOW DARE THE GOVERNMENT TELL ME HOW TO SPEND MY MONEY. The truth is the real legitimate gambling sites WANT to pay taxes and be legit. Instead of allowing these sites to be regulated, they just closed them down. HMMMM...who does that benefit? The US casinos who grease the palms of all our corrupt politicians I'm sick of them all
"Internet gambling could turn into the same kind of cash cow for our enemies."
By making US sites illegal, you've made that a certainty.
An inaccurate characterization simply on the basis of its blandness alone. China shot down and stole our plane, keeping our airmen hostage, daring us to do other than apologize in the face of their aggression. You make it sound like China simply traded pawns. What China did is reinforce to the world that the U.S. is a paper tiger, and such torpor in the face of such baiting certainly didn't make 9/11 LESS likely. If you think such appeasement helped America avoid war, you're really drinking that Kool-Aid (and yes, it was appeasement to allow China to hold our militarymen hostage, subject to an apology from the U.S. for China's SHOOTING OUR PLANE DOWN, and subsequently ignore their tramping all over the plane, and subsequently let them force us to slice it into pieces to bring it back).
"It was incredibly short-sighted of him to appease these tyrants..."
It is you who have said it.
"...and this denied us the opportunity to wage two wars simultaneously."
You mean like the war on terror and the war on drugs and the war on bad skools and the war on...oh, hell, how many is the federal government fighting this week (all in accord with the Constitution, of course)? Further, it is difficult for me to see the war on Islamic fascism and the war on North Korean proliferation as the same, simply because we have essentially deferred in the latter to the Chinese and Russians in Korea, and in the former, deferred to the Europeans in Iran. Oh, wait, maybe you're right, maybe they ARE the same, 'cause in both cases we're just waiting for the shoe to drop, either on Japan or Israel, you pick the ally-to-glow-later. And in both cases, we're putting off a war that will happen, postponing a fight now to our own detriment later.
"Tell your master Pat Buchanan that, in my profound stupidity, I still love and support the President. And while you're at it, convey to Pat my heartfelt concerm for his health and my continued hope that he find employment commensurate to his talents. My head might be small, but my heart is large."
Obviously, your brain isn't much in the mix. You lump ME in with the Buchananites? I'm the guy defending Israel here, and Japan. Did you miss that? You people sure are desperate to find some common enemy behind all your troubles. Here's a tip: look in the mirror. Settling for mediocrity guarantees you'll get it, or worse.
You may be right. It just seems to me there was little to gain politically from this, and perhaps more to lose. Too late now anyway, the cow is out of the barn... LOL. Adios.
So had we invaded China, 9/11 would never have happened? Give me a break!
You mean like the war on terror and the war on drugs and the war on bad skools and the war on...
Well, I make a distinction between metaphoric and actual. The "war against drugs" is a metaphor. War with China would be an example of a real war. And, I'm convinced that with patience and persistence, it is an avoidable war. That's the Chinese way. That's fighting fire with fire.
Further, it is difficult for me to see the war on Islamic fascism and the war on North Korean proliferation as the same, simply because we have essentially deferred in the latter to the Chinese and Russians in Korea, and in the former, deferred to the Europeans in Iran.
No disagreement here, that I can tell of. You're right; they are completely different--well, save in the respect that both would require enormous expenditure of life, energy, and resources. By the way, that's why I now applaud what I earlier decried: W's refusal to escalate a belligerent confrontation. This event, to my thinking, reinforces the reasonableness and righteousnous of his decisions to wage war against Afghanistan's Taliban and Sadam's Iraq.
As to deferring to Iran's, Syria's & North Korea's neighbors : I don't have a better idea myself. You?
Obviously, your brain isn't much in the mix. You lump ME in with the Buchananites?
Maybe you're right about my brain, in April '01 my brain was convinced that we ought to tweak the Chicoms's nose and teach 'em a lesson. Damned glad we didn't now.
I apologize for lumping you in with the Buchaninites. I thought I had you pegged. Obviously I was wrong.
I'm damned glad of that too!
C'mon, quit with the cheap straw man attack. But you act as if our response to China was somehow inapplicable to world politics. If we had mounted a strong response, perhaps expelling the Chinese ambassador and threatening a tariff on all Chinese goods, we might have been seen to give a damn about our national interest in being a world power, instead of simply being a world power that has managed to maintain its position through good luck. Instead we had days of backdoor wrangling and an apology, which had to be reassuring to people like Bin Laden and the Taliban, who could foresee little retribution for 9/11. So to address that straw man, no, the appeasement of China didn't mean that 9/11 WOULD happen--but it sure didn't place any concerns in Islamofascist terrorists' way, either.
"Well, I make a distinction between metaphoric and actual. The "war against drugs" is a metaphor. War with China would be an example of a real war. And, I'm convinced that with patience and persistence, it is an avoidable war. That's the Chinese way. That's fighting fire with fire."
I don't believe it is avoidable, since I don't believe that simply adding capitalism will convert an oppressive system to a free one. It only enriches it and provides more opportunities for graft. I think in the long run, having opened China to capitalism, enriching that evil state to protect its survival financially, without ensuring China values the freedom of its citizens, will be Nixon's final stab into the heart of the American republic.
"No disagreement here, that I can tell of. You're right; they are completely different--well, save in the respect that both would require enormous expenditure of life, energy, and resources. By the way, that's why I now applaud what I earlier decried: W's refusal to escalate a belligerent confrontation. This event, to my thinking, reinforces the reasonableness and righteousnous of his decisions to wage war against Afghanistan's Taliban and Sadam's Iraq."
We disagree--I think it ensured that there would be a war against those countries. And I think the war that will inevitably result from our continued appeasement of both China and Islam will be far greater in loss of life than any skirmish that would have erupted now. We are in the days before our Poland. It is only a matter of when that happens, with China and Islam so certain of our lack of national resolve. All we need to do is elect a Democrat president, and that will probably provide the final spark that lights the world on fire.
"As to deferring to Iran's, Syria's & North Korea's neighbors : I don't have a better idea myself. You?"
Certainly. First, I'd force South Korea to stop subsidizing their neighbors by telling them to end their food and money transfers to the North, or we'd pull out entirely from the South and withdraw our military umbrella, too. If the purpose of our presence there is to defend against North Korea, we should be defending our allies. If they're not our allies, we should be out of there, and let Kim busy himself with the takeover instead of annoying us. In the long run, it seems to have been better for us to have done that in Vietnam, as opposed to the halfway job in Korea, where not only does the North hate us, the Southern kids are ungrateful little $#!#s.
Second, I'd also tell Russia and China to quit acting like North Korea's buddy or we'd slap tariffs on their goods and oil, and start a trade war. If we're doomed to fight a war, better to start it on ground we know. We can win that war without bloodshed and build Mexico's economy as a bulwark against south American nutjobbery at the same time.
Third, I'd have set up around the region along with our allies, watching for North Korean and other ship movements that might result in nuke transfers. And I'd have our navy board every North Korean ship that emitted a detectable nuke signature. While South Korea may not care about crazy-ass Kim, we still have to worry about him making a buck on the world market with his nukes even if we cut the ROK loose.
Fourth, as to Iran, I'd track their nutjob president. After he'd made the grand public pronouncement that they had enriched uranium (in violation of the international agreements they've made to the contrary, and after they have repeatedly threatened America with death) I'd kill him, and try to kill their entire mullahocracy, if possible. We are at war with Iran. There is no question they believe it. We seem to think otherwise. Killing their President and the religious leadership that encourages him would be the best first step to returning that country to a nearly free one. Civil war in Iran would also cause real damage to the Islamofascists' cause in Iraq. Sure, more nutjobs would rise up in Iran, but they'd have to consolidate power again, and without the power of the entire Iranian state behind them would find it much harder to present a threat like Iran does today. Didn't we take out Saddam precisely because it would destabilize a region that is plainly aligned against our long term interests in a worldwide democracy?
Fifth, as to Syria--why are we even talking about Syria? Lebanese and Israeli problems with that country mean we should have let the Israelis have a free hand with them a long time ago. Let Olmert solve his wimp problem by tearing Syria a new one.
"Maybe you're right about my brain, in April '01 my brain was convinced that we ought to tweak the Chicoms's nose and teach 'em a lesson. Damned glad we didn't now. I apologize for lumping you in with the Buchaninites. I thought I had you pegged. Obviously I was wrong. I'm damned glad of that too!"
We should have tweaked their nose to teach them a lesson and teach the WORLD a lesson. Instead, we taught the North Koreans and Taliban a lesson, all right--lie to the U.S., and threaten them, even attack them conventionally, and nothing will happen to you if you happen to have nukes. This in the long run is a pretty dangerous lesson for us to have taught those countries, and 9/11 proves it. China learned, at the same time, that the U.S. fears the loss of China as a trading partner more than it values American face worldwide. Another very dangerous lesson for China to learn (essentially, it proved the old adage we'd sell them the rope to hang us with).
"A good bet? Why? How is this supposed to help anyone? Are you really a libertarian?"
I'm not saying it was a good POLICY move. Nor am I saying it was GOOD for American morals (that law can make people moral somehow, that's a load). I'm saying--though you obviously miss it--that Frist is gambling there will be no backlash against such a vote. THAT is a good bet on his part POLITICALLY, because gamblers don't give a damn about the law, they care about being able to gamble. They will work around it, just as before internet gambling, they had bookies. It will be little or no impact upon the election.
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.