WHERE'S THE OUTRAGE?

The domestic laws against gambling enforce community standards: call that "Christo-fascism" (if that's the nearest you can come to expressing a real thought). Restriction of internet gambling is about protecting state and national jurisdiction: that's called patriotism.

Heyo, heyo, heyo, MarkMcConnell, thanks for visiting my Blog!

Y'know, I'm really sorry if you took the "Christio-fascism" crack personally. If it hurt, well, maybe it's too close to truth. I don't know you from Adam, but I'm sure you know of people who fit that comment perfectly. Their tolerance extends only as far as the myriad Christian religions, and beyond that, well a body might as well have come from another planet.

No, I'm sorry, your statements are just wrong here, guy. Congress is absolutely in no sense of the word trying to protect state or national jurisdiction. If so, why just gambling? Why not pass restrictions against buying *anything* from overseas? Why protect Nevada gaming companies from foreign competition, but people who make automobiles still need to compete? People who sell electronics still need to compete? Video tapes? Artwork? You name it, you can buy it on the Internet, and often at much better prices if it comes from overseas.

Protectionism is bad for everybody. It weakens the industries being "protected" and it increases the costs for consumers. Everyone is supposed to know this already from their Econ 101 classes in Junior High School.

I expect liberals to be ignorant of economics. That's why I tire of conservatives constantly bashing liberal Democrats -- you know, pick on somebody your own (intellectual) size! But I also expect conservatives to know better.

Most of the comments I read on the forums give me some hope. Most of the conservatives "get it." But too many don't. Too many seem to believe that "Big Government" is only a "bad thing" when Democrats are in power.

As to "enforcing community standards", if the "community" is already engaging in Internet Gambling, who is being served by a ban? Again, Americans make up the largest segment of the gambling done on the entire planet. If we want to gamble on the Internet, who the heck are you to tell us we can't? Gamblers in America *ARE* the community!

But, once again, let met thank you profusely for participating in my blog. This now puts me 3 inches closer to the 27 mile marathon of becoming Townhall's Most Famous Blogger! Wheeeee!

Cheers!

is it a Christian racket, or a protectionist scam? I would seem that a Christio-fascist would want all gambling made illegal, not just foreign based internet gambling.

Heyo, Cynewulf! I always enjoy your comments in the various forums.

You're absolutely right that a "Christio-fascist", in the truest sense of the term, would want a *complete* ban on *all* gambling, and you can bet (pun intended!) that they're out there working towards that very goal. They make no secret about it.

And it's all religion. Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think there's a single anti-gambling organization in the US that doesn't have some variation of Christianity as its basic raison d'tre. I mean, for example, Jews and Budhists just don't seem to be interested in that sort of thing.

Whether or not gambling is "good for you" is secondary -- that it's against their brand of religion is their *real* motivation.

I read somewhere (jeez, I should keep track of my references!) an opinion that the Anti-Gambling crowd worked hard to get this bill pushed through, but in the end, Congress pulled a fast one on them. As I mentioned, there are plenty of loopholes in it so that any number of US-based companies can still have all the online gambling they want. It's not exactly the kind thing that would really make them happy.

This reminds me of the difference between a "liberal" and a "conservative." The former wants regulation in the boardroom, and the latter wants regulation in the bedroom. I.e., it really does seem that conservatives want to regulate everyone's personal life. What could be more personal than sitting quietly at home, at your computer, bothering no one, and enjoying a little online poker?

Who would even *know* about it unless a body happened to brag about their winnings?

So, whatever the Anti-Gambling crowd *thought* they were getting, what Congress actually *gave* them was ultimately a Nevada (et al) Gaming Protection Bill.

And we really should be suspicious of this on a whole 'nother level. They don't actually *ban* Internet gambling with this bill -- they don't even actually ban *banking* to Internet gambling companies -- what they've done is sheer genius, in terms of sneaking in more Big Government. What they've done is added enough onerous paperwork and regulations until they have *effectively* banned US banks from handling the transactions -- and without US banks, they have *effectively* banned Internet gambling.

This is on the same level of the "Marihuana Tax Act of 1937", where they knew they'd need another Constitutional Amendment for an outright ban, but recent experience with Alcohol Prohibition meant that wasn't going to happen. So instead, they instituted a $1 tax.

The kicker was, in order to get the "stamp" that proved you paid your dollar, you had negotiate a maze of rules and regulations that were virtually impossible, and failure to do so had heavy jail time and penalties.

They *effectively* banned it.

They'd gotten the idea from what was done with "Tommy guns". The 2nd Amendment prevented them from banning the weapons outright, so they just slapped an onerous tax on them. (They were a lot more keen on the Constitution back then. They actually thought up creative ways around it, instead of just outright ignoring it the way things are done nowadays!)

So what's going to stop them now from using this same technique to impose similar regulations for any other sort of activities they decide is politically expedient to get rid of? Control unfavorable press with banks? Control guns with credit cards? They already protect incumbents with campaign finance "reform."

This is the part I find the scariest, scarier even than the deafening silence on the issue from my conservative friends at Townhall.

Just as a personal note, my wife happens to enjoy slot machines. She spends an occasional few hours at our local Indian casino. Sometimes she wins, but of course she usually loses. BUT SHE HAS A GREAT TIME! As far as I'm concerned, as much as she enjoys it, it's relatively cheap entertainment.

Me, I'm too "smart" -- I can't ever enjoy myself, because I keep thinking about how horrible the odds are.

....I've suffered through your site....

If Christians don't want to gamble...don't gamble...change people's minds, not the laws....

I understand why other Christians are against gambling (it has something to do with those horrible odds), but I don't see why there is such a drive to ban it in every form. I think Jimmy has the right idea. I do understand why some states don't want to be the next Nevada, but that's the state's business. The Fed shouldn't have anything to do with it.

I agree...the difference is gambling in your home or going to a casino...allowing gambling in your home isn't exactly a "community," but allowing casinos in your city is....that is why cities develop different cultures, as do homes....

I have never heard of this bill, and if your facts are correct, frankly, it's outrageous.

I especially liked (and agree with) the idea that the Rep party is all for small government, except when they want big government to forward their agenda.

It's the old "Well, yeah, but..." position.

Which is, of course as you pointed out, why they're now spending money like drunken sailors.

Reagan must be spinning in his grave.

Good essay. I'm glad you plugged your blog on this on the Bozell column.

Thank you for suffering through my blog! Go now and sin no more -- unless it's funny, of course, then yah, go right on ahead! We can always use a good laugh!

I think that there's simply a universal appeal, somehow, that there is always going to be a certain percentage of "busy-bodies" who can't keep their noses out of other people's business.

The only reason Nevada legalized gambling, historically, was that as a state with little or no other natural resources, gambling was about the only thing they could use to attract visitors. Otherwise, I'm sure the busy-bodies would have gotten it banned there as well.

Indeed, when Nevada casinos started having fully topless shows, there were concerted efforts to get that banned. As it so happens, the people who wanted to attract horny customers (with cash for slot machines) won out over the people who wanted to protect gamblers from their own libidos. So topless reviews (and some fully nude ones) are tolerated in Nevada, at least for the time being.

Yes sir, it is a real bill. I got this news from the Internet, in that I usually have "Top Stories" among other things on my Google home page.

The story has been brewing for at least a week now, and I *still* haven't seen any sort of coverage on it. You would think that sending the stock prices of an entire multi-billion dollar industry into a nose dive would be on the 6 o'clock news! Even if it *is* overseas!

If you want to look up information on it, go to the Google "News" link (or Yahoo, etc., if you prefer). Search for "internet gambling."

It's a shame about this Foley sex scandal. Any time you get a scandal involving S E X, the ENTIRE NEWS MEDIA goes into overdrive. You could assassinate the King of Belgium right now, and nobody would hear about it until this Foley thing dies down.

Who knew?

Yah, they do. I looked it up. CIA World Fact Book.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

Belgium is a "federal parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy."

When I was writing the post, the first thing that popped into my head was "President of Luxumbourg," but when I checked to make sure they actually had one, as it so happens, they have a Grand Duke.

Too many words. So I looked next door and found a king.

See, everybody should read my blog! You never know when you're going to get a serious education!

In our homeowner's association, most of the people involved in regulating other people are retired. Nothing against retired people, I hope to be one myself some day. But it does go to show that in order to be a busy body, you have to have a lot of time on your hands. Of course, the second part of that is that you have to be willing to spend that time checking on other people instead of something more noble like blowing all your time on Townhall. If we could only find something to occupy their time.

And thanks for the learning (King of Belgium). Just who is the current king?

Yah, I owned a condo unit once, with an HOA. I was the secretary, I had to take notes.

You wouldn't BELIEVE the arguements these people had over the TRIVIALEST of details. Who CARES what color the screen door is, so long as it's not falling off the hinges or something.

No, wait, on second thought, you probably *would* believe it!

Maybe it's a nasty side effect of having such a successful capitalist system that people have so much free time. Maybe it'll just be another few decades until society as a whole will have adjusted. Or, maybe not.

BTW, the King of Belgium is King Albert II. Heir apparent is his son, Prince Phillipe. The Prime Minister is Guy Verhofstadt.

I feel like I'm writing a fairy tale! I almost expect the CIA Fact Book to list the names of the Evil Stepsisters or something!

Hi! Welcome to blogging! Want me to be your liberal troll? Every blog needs a troll!

Anyway, you said: 'This reminds me of the difference between a "liberal" and a "conservative." The former wants regulation in the boardroom, and the latter wants regulation in the bedroom.'

You're exactly right (of course, my view on it as a liberal is that SOME of the stuff that people do in the boardroom has a significant impact on my own life and some of it is, indeed, my business).

I remember once, years ago, I was channel surfing and happened across a televangelist who was in the middle of saying, "Yes, we believe as Christians that this is wrong, but you can't force morals on people through the law. Change can only come from the heart." I immediately thought, "The only way a TV preacher could be saying that is if he's talking about money." I waited to see if I was right and, sure enough, he was talking about something that had to do with the business world. They would never say that about two people who wanted to violate the Bible in the privacy of their budoir.

The online gambling issue is an interesting one since it involves both personal vices and business interests. Similar to the Abramoff hullabaloo, the folks who have a business interest in gaming appear to have used the "morality police" to help them achieve their own goals.

Joan

Sure, you can "troll" for me anytime!

As long as your comments are as intelligent as they usually are, there's not a problem.

(Every forum gets its more-than-fair share of morons, I'm sure you know! It's like:

A: "I think this and that and the other."
B: "YOU'RE STUPID."

A: "Now wait a sec! Here's a nice comprehensive list of reasons why I think this and that and the other."
B: "YOU'RE STUPID AND GREEDY!"

A: "Look, here's some links to some well-respected sites that back up my claims with hard data --"
B: "YOU'RE STUPID AND GREEDY AND HEARTLESS AND YOUR KIND IS DESTROYING THE WORLD!"

A: "Yes, but please, tell us how you REALLY feel --"
B: -- blank -- Mr. B has moved on to annoy others --)

In light of your comments regarding business interests involving themselves in the arena of using Government Big Guns to do their dirty work, check out the following article by John Stossel. It's exactly the kind thing we need to guard against, and it happens ALL the time.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2006/09/27/big_business_loves_government

Does your screen look like mine? I.e., the right column color covers half the words?

Maybe I should change the color. I was going for a "dark" look, coz, after all, this *is* the *basement.*

I don't like the colors, but hey, what can be done.

I set it to two columns instead of three. Ah, the compromises of life.

I was expecting something along the lines of the Prime Minister's name. Maybe they should switch.

you probably *would* believe it!"

Oh, yeah. One of our neighbors submitted a paint color for approval. They were turned down. So, they tried another color. They were turned down. After a couple more turn downs, they submitted one of the standard colors that was already on the approval list, just to see what happened. And, you guessed it: they were turned down. Because that's the other problem with busy bodies. If you manage to tick one of them off, they can make your life miserable, and they've got tons of time to do it.

on the top 5 blog posts for the week. Cool.

I demand a recount!

I can't imagine my blog even showing up on the radar!

...anything in the Bible that says its wrong to make a little wager once in awhile. Why doesn't he put his efforts into something important? DD

HELLO!

First, thanks for visiting my blog and making a comment.

Second -- this blog is a little old now. Jacob Sullum actually did have an article on it. It some weeks after I wrote the blog entry, but at least it was there! Maybe he had other stuff he thought was more important?

As to your reference to the Bible, well, I'm sorry to say that's not really relevant. When the busy-bodies need a Biblical justification for banning something, and if they can't find it in the Bible, they just invent it from whole cloth.

See, a lot of people take the view that their concepts of the Bible is Divinely Inspired, and yours isn't! This goes for their interpretations, their translations, etc.

E.g., when they wanted to ban alcohol, around the time Prohibition was passed, some organizations found all the Biblical references to "wine" and said that what God *really* meant to say was *grape juice,* and it all just sorta-kinda got lost in the translation.

It's funny in 20-20 hindsight; these same people would strongly object at any suggestion that He might allow any other part of the Bible to be so badly misconstrued, misinterpreted, mistranslated, or whatever! These are the folks who would say, "when God says the world was made in six days, He MEANS SIX DAYS!" Ah, but when Jesus turns water into wine, sorry, He "really means" grape juice!

Cheers!