Sullum on Internet Gambling Arrests

...the constituent groups that the Democrats have to please are less frightening to me than the constituent groups the Republicans have to please

My political philosophy in a nutshell.

That's exactly why I have libertarian leanings and vote Democrat.

It's calle voting for the lesser of the two evils.

There's already internment without trial, approved torture of prisoners and secret monitoring of US citizens. What real difference is there from being in China (except maybe for scale)?

My question for you Ed is how bad would it have to be before you considered throwing in the towel and emigrating? The move to a fully facist state is a slow drip-by-drip process and while the US is no-where near that as yet it certainly is heading in that direction.

What single act would finally be "too much" for you?

Heck, compared to the current mob, Cthulhu's election campaign (tagline: "why vote for a lesser evil?") looks to be built on a rather shakey premise...

I've been registered Rethuglican for years but almost always vote Democreep in generals.

I'm pretty cynical about how much I think my vote actually counts. But, especially in smaller elections (primaries and locals), I figure it mathematically has marginally more impact to vote 'against' the things and people I dislike than 'for' the ones I like.

Rich C.

David Durant wrote:

There's already internment without trial, approved torture of prisoners and secret monitoring of US citizens. What real difference is there from being in China (except maybe for scale)?

As much as I think it's important to oppose our own government's power grab, I think it's also important not to overstate the situation. The difference between us and China, even in the current situation, is still monumental by any sane criteria. There is quite a difference between a government that uses harsh interrogation techniques to get information from those who commit acts of terrorism, and a government that imprisons people for anti-government speech. We don't have slave labor here, we don't have forced abortions, we don't shut out any internet site that might allow someone to read unapproved ideas, and we don't imprison people for holding Bible studies in their homes. These things are not merely a matter of degree, they make life tolerable here and intolerable there. If you think that living in China is no different than living in America, even with our currently awful group in power, then I suggest that a few months living in Beijing might change your mind.

As for your question about emigrating, I have no idea. At this point, while I'm fiercely opposed to what my government is doing in regards to the NSA program, we still have the strongest free speech protection in the world (far stronger than in the UK, as I've pointed out many times). We still have stronger protections for freedom of religion than anywhere I can think of. Every nation maintains a balance of good and bad policies. On the whole, I'll still take ours. And no, I don't think we're headed toward fascism. We've been here before with administrations overstepping their constitutional boundaries in times of war. Probably no one did so worse than Lincoln, but only an irrational person would suggest that we were less free after Lincoln than before. We've had episodes like this before in the US and they have proven to be temporary.

So while it's important that we fight to restore that balance to our government, let's not go off the deep end and think that this is the end of freedom forever. The threat is real, but it is localized and temporary and we will overcome it just as we overcame Lincoln's unconstitutional actions, and FDR's, and Nixon's (and Adams', for that matter).

Exactly the way I'm leaning Ed. I'm intensely independent, leaning libertarian by philosophy. Both the Republicans and the Democrats have their ways of threatening liberties, but I hope for at least Democratic control of one house of congress simply for accountability.

I hope you do, Ed. The Democrats I know are hopping mad over the greed and incompetence of the Bush administration. Many of us have come to realize that a "nanny state" can too easily segue into neo-con Fatherland fascism.

I'm happy to compromise on gun control and motorcycle helmet laws if we can get rid of warrantless wiretapping and endless war, and start working on energy conservation and fixing our damned infrastructure, port security and New Orleans.

Just as an FYI, I don't think the crackdown on internet gambling is really some sort of vice-squad action. There is a vested interest by physical casinos and state treasuries in ensuring competitors like on-line gambling do not succeed.

In Tunica, Mississippi a lot of the card dealers and casino executives and casino financiers attend Evangelical churches there. I'm don't get the impression these crackdowns are rooted in some sort of anti-vice mentality.

Louisianna is a hot bed of live gambling. The state makes mula mula over it. I bet the crack down is because it infringes on state money, not because it's a vice. If the state could make money off of it, you can bet the crackdown will cease. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but the infringement on freedom has a lot of profit motivation, imho, and it's not coming primarily because of some sort of vice-squad policing.

Salvador

Sal-

I think you've got part of it right. There's no doubt that the money being thrown around to spur the push against online gambling comes primarily from brick and mortar casinos who don't want the competition. They were the ones who paid Abramoff and Ralph Reed, for example, to stop new casinos from being opened around the country. But it's being sold to the public as an anti-vice, and there is only one constituent group that has to be pandered to in order to gain their support on that question: the religious right. So it's both financial and "moral" (and I put that in quotes because there is absolutely nothing moral about violating anyone else's rights, as this legislation clearly does).

But the fact is that the state could make money on this if they wanted to. I know for a fact that the online poker companies would much rather be US-based, for obvious reasons. The bulk of their market is here, and the first one who could advertise that they're an American company with serves on American soil - and therefore if you have a problem, you can sue them in American courts - would gain a huge advantage over foreign-based competition. If online gaming was explicitely legalized in the US, you would see a mad scramble to register and move servers here. They would love to be regulated and taxed the way regular casinos are in many states. The government is actually losing a powerful revenue source, not protecting one.

Here is an article that gives a snapshot on Evangelical attitudes in the deep south over gambling. It is mixed, it's not anything like other hot button issues in the Evangelical world.

Miss. Churches In Shadow Of Casinos

Rev. Arthur Lewis finds himself in a quandary.

The church he leads, St. Paul United Methodist, has a doctrine against gambling. But it also has members who work at the casinos, including Lewis's daughter-in-law.
...
Still, he [Paul Husband] tells members who are employed at the casino that they must follow their conscience. ''If your conscience doesn't condemn you and you've got to feed your family, I'm not going to tell somebody to quit their job.''

Unlike Baptists and Methodists, the Roman Catholic Church has never condemned gambling, said Bishop Joseph Howze of the Biloxi Diocese. Gambling is no different from purchasing stocks and bonds, Howze said.

'Taking chances is not sinful,' Howze said. 'The Catholic Church all across the country has been playing bingo for generations.'

My hypothesis is the crack downs are fundamentally motivated by business and govenement financial interest. It only superficially looks like a culture war issue.

Emigrating from the US won't solve anything; all it will do is remove sensible freedom-loving people from the voter rolls, thus enabling the Taliban wannabees to continue destroying the greatest democracy ever created. And if democracy falls in the US, there will be nowhere safe to go. Best to make our stand here, where victory will actually mean something.

Thanks for you comments Ed.

The government is actually losing a powerful revenue source, not protecting one.

The interesting question then is if the US government will go after casino executives from other countries. If the US legalizes on-line gambling and taxes it, how will they treat foreign gambling interests?

I do think the religious right is generally against gabmling, but it is very very low on their priority list.

I like to play in casinos. I've only occasionally gotten some awkward moments over the issue, and I'm in some pretty conservative circles.

Where the issue might be more personal are relatives of those who lost a lot of money gambling. One girl in our IDEA club (who was the most concerned about my adventures in casino land) had an uncle who lost his house, his job, his family over gambling. She was so worried for me!

It's those sort of stories that weigh on people's desires for prohibition, not because there is some intense doctrinal issue, probably more personal.

I've sat at blackjack tables in Tunica and watched people lose $3000 in 20 minutes. I'm for personal freedoms, but man, it was tough to watch the sullen faces and see guys lose money they didn't have in the middle of a vacation.

Though I'm Presbyterian now, I grew up in a Catholic home where dad played poker 4 days a week (probably illegally, but he's gone home to be with the Lord, so I don't mind saying it now). He had a lot of fun, and I would not ever want that taken from him....

I've taught Bible studies and then watched the kids start playing Texas Hold Em and talk about ESPN, etc....

My point is that it is a culture war issue, but I just wounld't be to eager to say it's really a hot button issue for the religious right, with the exception of families members of chronic gamblers....

Salvador
PS
I saw a guy this past February make $200,000 in three hours at an ajacent blackjack table in Tunica. He had stacks of purple chips going to the roof. It was beautiful!

Ed,

Thanks for the info. I didn't know about Reed and Abramoff until you mentioned it just now. I did a google, and I found this juicy article:

Ralph Reed's Other Cheek

When the casino-rich Coushatta tribe of Louisiana began a lobbying blitz in 2001 to block three other tribes from opening competing casinos, they hired two of Washington's top influence brokers, lobbyist Jack Abramoff and public relations whiz Michael Scanlon. But Abramoff and Scanlon -- who are now at the center of a Washington scandal sparked by the multimillion-dollar fees they charged several tribal clients -- knew that to win any lobbying campaign in the South, they needed help mobilizing social and religious conservatives. So they turned to one of the best-known names on the religious right: Ralph Reed. Since his departure as head of the Christian Coalition in 1997, Reed has emerged as a highly sought-after corporate consultant, putting his organizing skills and political connections to work for business interests -- even those that conflict with his followers' conservative beliefs.

...
On the casino issue, Scanlon's company, Capitol Campaign Strategies, paid Reed to help assemble anti-gambling coalitions in Louisiana and Texas. Among other things, those coalitions backed a lawsuit filed by Texas' attorney general that early in 2002 succeeded in shutting down two Texas casinos that posed competition to the Coushattas' highly lucrative operation.
....
The payments have attracted the attention of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, which for several months has been probing allegations that Abramoff and Scanlon engaged in improper lobbying activities and spending on behalf of the four tribes that paid them an astonishing $45 million from 2001 through 2003.

Whoa! One can buy off a lot of legislators with that kinda money. I think you've convinced me the feds and the state can make more money by allowing net gambling. But I think the kind of money and influence the Brick and Mortar casino's have is pretty strong for various reasons:

1. large powerful lobby
2. hotel, food, and entertainment business sympathetic lobby (especially places like Las Vegas)
3. large numbers of employees

Thus the anti-internet gambling lobby will probably be by competing businesses under the veneer of social values. I don't think the politicians will really see it so much as an issue for votes as an issue for money and favors.

It will be interesting to see if the US cracks down on foreign casino executives more than american violators. A recent example of American clemency was on Foxwoods casino in Connecticut. The powers that be looked the other way for a long time.

Salvador

Sal wrote:

It will be interesting to see if the US cracks down on foreign casino executives more than american violators. A recent example of American clemency was on Foxwoods casino in Connecticut. The powers that be looked the other way for a long time.

So far they've focused on sports betting outfits (BetOnSports and SportingBet) and the only two who have been arrested have been foreign. But I believe the owner of BetOnSports, who is under indictment but has not been arrested because he hasn't been on American soil since the indictment (and I doubt he will be) is an American living abroad. I know that there are Americans still living in the US who have an ownership stake in online poker rooms, but so far they've escaped arrest. I'm afraid they're going to start cracking down on employees of those sites working in the US; there are many of those and some are friends of mine. If their legal theory is correct, however, they should also be going after and arresting people like Greg Raymer and Mike Sexton. They are paid employees of major poker sites as well as major endorsers of them.

My hypothesis is the crack downs are fundamentally motivated by business and govenement financial interest. It only superficially looks like a culture war issue.

I would tend to argue that while politicaly, it really is an issue of business (I don't think it's really about government revenue - more like, campaign revenue)it gets a huge push from the religious right.

It may not be as important to them as gay marriage or abortion, but there are still plenty of righties who get into a huge tare about gambling. The fact that many Christians don't really get up in arms about it doesn't begin to reflect the christian right's view. How many moderate to liberal Christians do you think are against anti-discrimination laws for LGBTs? Not very many - though the vast majority of the religious right are. Same can be said of a host of issues. To say that gambling laws are not a cultural issue, or not much of one, is nieve. I go to a church with a full spectrum of political and cultural beliefs in it's membership - including quite a few who are to some degree or very much a part of the religious right. We mostly avoid bringing our politics into our fellowship but some political and cultural discussions do occur.

Likewise I listen to a religious station that broadcasts a preacher I particularly like. After he is on comes Dr. Kennedy followed by Focus on the Family. I rarely make it far into Kennedy's show - his anti science screeds really annoy - but soemtimes I get through him and occasionaly through Dobson's little rants. Through this I have learned that gambling, like loose sex, abortion and a host of other atrocities are the real motivation behind the "pushing" of evolution. And, in Dobson's world, Gambling is right up there with feminism, slightly behind abortion and gay rights, as the ultimate danger to the family. Considering that Dobson is one of the most listened to voices shaping the religious right, I tend to think that it's a fairly big deal to them.

Welcome aboard. I think I am somewhat similar to you -- though we differ on some matters, like gun control -- in that I would be, by nature an independent. But the history of the Republican party, not just now but throughout my entire lifetime -- McCarthy, "Better Dead Than Red," the "Southern Strategy" with its implicit support for racism, Nixon, etc. have made me a Democrat my entire life -- though I do appreciate the number of honorable Republicans who once were a substantial group in their party (Scott, Javits, Keating, Saltonstall, Case, etc.) and who are more and more a dwindling minority (thank your favorite deity, if any, for Maine).

Even now I regret the necessity for hoping that a Chaffee will lose, because of the vital importance of the Democrats getting control of Congress -- and what scares me is the thought that Bush has never had to deal with a legislature opposed to him, and with his monarchial tendencies, there might be a real constitutional crisis -- I could very easily imagine him declaring the Legislature, if Democratic, irrelevant.

Ed,
I wasn't going to reply to this since I'm not sure you go back and read previous day's comments but this has been bugging me so here goes.

> There is quite a difference between a government that uses
> harsh interrogation techniques to get information from
> those who commit acts of terrorism

Or at least those *suspected* of committing terrorism.

Torture evidence (lest we forget): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse

Fractional number of those arrested for terrorist offences convicted:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/09/scorecard_from_1.html

That's when people are even *charged*.

> and a government that imprisons people for anti-government
> speech.

Don't think it's moving that way?

Blogger arrested in US:
http://freejosh.pbwiki.com/

> We don't have slave labor here

No, but there are 37 million people below the povety line:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty05/pov05hi.html

And 46 million without health insurance (up 15% in 5 years):
http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml

> we don't shut out any internet site that might allow
> someone to read unapproved ideas

But there are laws attempting to start doing just that for government funded locations (eg libraries):
http://www.cippic.ca/en/faqs-resources/internet-censorship-public-libra…

> If you think that living in China is no different than
> living in America

I didn't say that. I said that the US is getting worse in a slow "drip-by-drip process" but things are definitly getting worse in terms of individual freedom there.

> we still have the strongest free speech protection in the
> world (far stronger than in the UK, as I've pointed out
> many times).

This is true and something that must not only be celibrated but also defended strongly against the many people who wish to curb it.

Although the UK is far weaker, in terms or legal protection, I really do thing that free speach is under attack far more in the US than over here.

> We've been here before with administrations overstepping
> their constitutional boundaries in times of war.

There are many that would say that the current "war", like the so-called "war on drugs" makes a mockery of the term.

> Probably no one did so worse than Lincoln, but only an
> irrational person would suggest that we were less free
> after Lincoln than before.

Again that is true but Lincoln had a vision of a better world he was working towards for all people. Do you think that any current powerful US politicians have a similar vision?

> We've had episodes like this before in the US and they
> have proven to be temporary.

Except now extraordinary executive branch powers brought in will not be rescinded:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement

No politician given more power ever volunteers to remove it.

> let's not go off the deep end and think that this is the
> end of freedom forever.

Certainly not but currently things are bad and look to get worse before they get better (which I believe in the very long view they definitly will).

David-

You don't have to cite Abu Ghraib for me, I think what went on there is hideous. I certainly wasn't defending this administration or saying that we should not be fighting their authoritarian tendencies (in fact, I said the opposite several times). But I regard your question - "what real difference is there from beign in China" - as a patently absurd one. You made a specific comparison to one of the most totalitarian governments the world has ever seen and that's just rhetorical insanity. To so vastly overstate the situation here is to diminish your own credibility and the credibility of one's opposition to what is really going on. No, we are not on the verge of becoming a fascist state, nor are we headed there slowly. We are experiencing another episode of panic and overreaction, as we have many times before. The previous episodes have not destroyed our society, nor ended our freedom. Indeed, we are immeasurably more free today than we were before Lincoln's unconstitutional actions, before FDR's, and even before Nixon's. Let's be vigilant in opposing any attempts to diminish our constitutional protections, but let's not be chicken little. It only undermines our cause.