Tuesday's vote in the House on HR 4411, the bill that bans internet gambling nationwide, was supported, to no one's surprise, by those denizens of moral rectitude on the religious right. Agape Press reports on the strong support that "family" (read: anti-fun) organizations had for the bill, including Focus on the Family and Concerned Shrews Women for America. No doubt a sizable percentage of those in Congress who supported the legislation take a view similar to this:
"Right now, we have enough problem and pathological gamblers to fill more than 214 NFL stadiums to capacity," Hills says. "Imagine if we brought a casino into every living room in America that had Internet access." The Focus on the Family analyst says the bill is necessary not only for the adults who are addicted, but also for the even more computer-savvy younger gamblers who could get hooked online more quickly...
Concerned Women for America says it is celebrating passage of H.R. 4411, describing gambling as a "dangerous and addictive behavior" that is only exacerbated by the ease and anonymity provided through Internet technology.
But here's the interesting part. The bill passed by a vote of 317-93. But when John Conyers offered an amendment that would have banned online wagering on state lotteries and horse racing as well, that amendment failed. That means that a large percentage of those who support the ban on internet gambling because it's such a horrible threat to the family contradicted themselves by refusing to ban all forms of online gambling. Why the difference?
Gosh, I'm sure it couldn't have anything to do with the huge sums of money that the horse racing industry put in their pockets, could it? I'm sure it couldn't be because the government makes so much money by pushing this highly addictive activity on people, could it? I mean, that would make all that principled talk of saving people from the horrible addiction to gambling just a bunch of empty claims by hypocrites who will quickly drop their principles for the highest bidder. That's a bet I'd gladly double down on.
Gambling is evil, you see, and we must put a stop to it. Unless, of course, those who profit from it donate a lot of money or it brings significant amounts of money into government. Then it's just fine. Bill Bennett to the white courtesy phone, please.
- Log in to post comments
John Stewart briefly hit on this last night in connection with Ted Stevens' ramblings about the internet.
You Tube
Yeah, I thought it was rank hypocrisy, too. After the Daily Show's excellent explanation last night, I'm more convinced that there's no hypocrisy if we would just all see the world as a certain senile senator from Alaska!
(The Santorum sketch was even better.)
Good thing they're banning internet gambling, since we're all too dumb to be able to set up our own games with some friends in the living room...
You gotta play to win, as the State keeps telling us.
I consider the stock market just as much evil gambling, except that there's experts who (for a price) can explain how to win (they've got a System). Umm, come to think of it, there are lots of experts who will sell you lucky numbers, Systems to use at the track, and winning poker strategies. Well, I guess I would be confused about what's okay and what's evil were it not for our holy Congressmen.
Notice that it passed the House. There is speculation that it won't make it through the Senate, at least in part because the currently legal gaming corporations don't want it banned because they're trying to figure out how to move into the business itself.
Horse betting isn't gambling, it's parimutel wagering.
Horse racing is a gentlemen's sport, with a long and storied tradition. This sets her apart from her vulgar cousins the casino games. Sucessful betting requires knowledge, intellect, math skills, and the ability to evaluate and take risks. One learns that reality is too complex to be reduced to a mechanical system. This is vastly different than, say, online blackjack.
Also restricting other forms of gambling will likely increase the amounts wagered by stupid people on horses, which benefits me.
Carter wrote:
I really hope you're joking.
Horse racing is a gentleman's sport for the 8 gentlemen at the track; for the rest of the crowd there, it's betting on dreams, hunches, tips, the white horse, the horse that shits before entering the gate, and Systems. The parimutual aspect affects the payouts, which affects the way some people bet (why risk $2 to gain $0.40?--let's bet on the long shot!). For those folks, once they place their bet and the race begins, they have no option to discard, raise, or bluff--it's all up to the horse and the jockey.
Am I joking? Not entirely. The terrific thing about online horse wagering is that you are not stuck with the menu of races at your local track. Also you can bet while naked, something they discourage at actual racetracks.
Have you heard about Washington States new online gambling law?:
"The law, which took effect June 7, says anyone who "knowingly transmits or receives gambling information" using the Internet is guilty of a Class C felony punishable by up to five years in prison.
Rick Day, director of the Washington State Gambling Commission, said most people don't need to worry. The state isn't out to get gambling aficionados who blog about casinos or post tips on how to beat the dealer at blackjack, he said.
But he said links or references to online gambling conceivably could spell trouble for Web site owners.
"What you have to look at is whether that is a solicitation or inducement for people to engage in something that's illegal."
...He took a harder line earlier this month when asked about Todd Boutte, a Bellingham man whose "Integrity Casino Guide" Web site linked to online casinos.
Boutte told The Bellingham Herald that he helped support his family by running the site and said he hoped he was safe, given that he didn't make or take bets himself.
Day told the paper that people who simply link to gambling sites were risking prosecution.
"Any party involved could be guilty of a violation of state law," he said. "If the site also has a link to a gambling site, then to us that's no different."
Boutte subsequently shut down his site. He couldn't be reached for additional comment." - 'New state online gambling law raises doubts', Seattle P-I
Yes, I've written about the unconscionable Washington anti-gambling law several times.