Just when I thought it was going to be a slow news day, somebody forwarded me this story from the Christian Science Monitor... Don't fold on Internet gambling ban
Ahhhhh, the hilarity.
The
article starts off with a bang, "Last year, the percentage of American
college students who gamble online fell to 1.5 percent from 5.8 percent
the year before. The reason? A 2006 federal law restricting Internet
gambling."
At least we can both agree on this point.
Yes,
the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act did cause a huge drop in
the amount of college students that gambled online. The problem is that
it also likely caused a similar proportional drop in the amount of
honest and responsible hard-working American adults who wanted to
gamble online, but couldn't because somebody else wanted to thrust
their own version of morality upon them.
And while we are at it, let's talk about those American college students.
Are there some irresponsible students who could get theirselves into financial problems due to gambling online? Of course.
But these students, like it or not, are adults.
They
are likely living away from home, they are old enough to vote in an
election, they are old enough to go to war and die for their country,
and most importantly in this situation, they are old enough for a bank
to issue them a credit card.
So, exactly what is it about these people that makes them not old enough to gamble online?
Anyway,
as I mentioned, this is only the first 30-odd words of the story - it's
only getting started. Following is a passage from the article
describing Barney Frank's Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement
Act...
"Last November, the National Association of Attorneys General voiced
"grave concerns" over Mr. Frank's bill. Current law bars banks and
credit-card companies from processing payments for online gambling,
essentially shutting it down. The attorneys general said the result was
that many Internet-based gambling operators had been driven out of the
US market."
Do you get the idea that they view driving legitimate businesses and economic opportunity out of America as badge of honor?
Then
they drop in this beuty of a quote, from Rep. Darlene Hooley (D) of
Oregon, "Internet gambling is a growing problem in the United States,
particularly among young people and college students... It is known to
destroy families, marriages, and entire lives."
Don't you just love broad generalized descriptions that provide no basis for proof?
Are there some people who gamble irresponsibly? Yes. Are the protections provided by online gambling
vastly superior to those offered by traditional casinos? Absolutely.
Does Rep. Hooley have any facts or figures to support her broad claim?
Absolutely not!
Oh, and do you think Rep. Hooley's opinion is at
all affected by the fact that, at the time, Oregon was the only state
that actually offered online gambling? Unfortunately, that perk ended in 2007 due to complaints by the NCAA.
True
to the Christian Science ethos, the article ends by trying to
strengthen its point of view by completely muddying the waters. The
author basically agrees the WTO ruling means that online gambling
should be allowed in America, since America allows online betting on
horseracing.
But then they make a recommendation that could
only come from a follower of biblical wisdom by suggesting "Congress
should go the other way and strengthen the law by banning Internet
gambling on horse racing as well."
A true judgement of Solomon. Solve the argument by destroying the child.
But - Hey! - what do you expect from the only organization in the world that would proudly describe itself as an "international daily newspaper published Monday through Friday".
Fitting!