Of the nine dismissals in the U.S. attorney scandal, the firing of former New Mexico U.S. Atty. David Iglesias was probably the most blatantly partisan.
A Justice Dept. inspector general report released last week concluded that Iglesias was forced to leave because he didnt pursue public corruption and voter fraud cases that New Mexico Republicans wanted him to prosecute.
Now, 22 months after his dismissal, Iglesias said in a phone interview that the IG report vindicates his repeated assertion that he was fired for improper and possibly illegal reasons.

Similar posts: gambling problem

First we have to know what is addiction. It is a big issue in present era and most of people are suffering from it. An addiction is nothing but only a psychological craze or dependence towards anything specially any activity. Addiction occurs when someone fails his or her control and continuously by any mean that activity is making some harmful effect to him or her. Accordingly it can take place in anything like drugs, alcohols, food, and sex and when it comes to gambling field; it becomes really a serious issue among the gamblers.
Unlike any other type of addiction this addiction is hard to identify. But generally it is seen when a person experiences win in several gambling and accordingly feels that they cant control their deep impulses to gamble and they can make a nice deal and gain more and more money through that type of activity without facing any trouble, that mainly play role in making addiction towards gambling field. Gambling addiction makes the gambler so impulsive that they cant give any single thought to be involved again in this activity and in the winning stage the gamblers become so excited with their earnings that they dont want to quit gambling by any mean. With that they feel their increasing intensity to gambling field. Even sometimes it is found that they are deterred by recurrent losses as they think that they can win again and get their money back. The addicted gamblers forget to think although it is a form of harmless entertainment and fun yet that can become a devastating illness too and can affect them negatively. It can lead the players very badly to big financial problems (when they start to borrow huge amount of money), mental restlessness, relationship stress and many other activities related to their lives.
Thus a recreational sport gambling turns out to be a denting experience to any gambler when he gets addicted to this betting field. Like winning phase and losing (as discussed above) there is also desperation stage which can lead a gambler to get addicted horribly. Keeping hope in mind that they can earn more and more through this betting process and eliminate their losses which they may even face on every alternative day of their playing they become mentally fatigued. Unmanageable state of their increasing debts makes them desperate to face gambling every day. Desperately the gamblers are found engaging in illegal activities to finance their gambling. They may suffer badly by hopelessness, suicidal thoughts, even arrest, divorce and any other drug exploitation. That surely leads to a complete breakdown of an addicted gambler.
Although gambling addiction cannot be identified so easily, there are some signs which can denote that addiction a little bit. That includes constant discussion about gambling, making gambling plan, gambling at any odd time, getting into a long debt circle, giving priority to only gambling not even to personal life and responsibilities and feeing the need to gamble to wipe off any practical issue or stress. It is only a concept but deliberately the sign of addiction is not confined among such behaviors only. There may be many other signs which assign gambling addiction.
There are some treatment programs also for the addicted gamblers. The therapies and medication are supposed to be the most successful way to be cured from this addiction. Counseling with various support groups can also help to remove this type of addiction. But above everything for successful result in this treatment firstly it is required that the addicted person has to admit that he or she is facing restlessness with such type of activity and is feeling to give it up as soon as possible, unless and until the recovery process will not go make any further step.

Similar posts: gambling problem

In an ugly act of racial and political intimidation, four supporters sympathetic to John McCain who are students at the the small Christian George Fox University in Newberg, Oregon, confessed to hanging a life-sized Obama effigy from a tree at the entrance of the college with the words, "Act 6 Reject" scrawled on the figure. The Act 6 program is a minority scholarship program.
The goal of those that hung the life-sized cardboard figure of Barack Obama in effigy seemed pretty clearly aimed at both intimidating any supporters of Barack Obama and also making any minority students feel unwelcome and unsafe at the college. It was like posting a death threat to any Obama supporters or to any minorities that they are not welcome at the Christian college and should leave for their safety. It is closely related to terrorism in attempting to incite fear to control others.
Administrators were outraged at this disgusting display of racial and political intimidation and held an event at the school's chapel to address this outrageous hate act. And the FBI is actively investigating the act of racial prejudice and may file federal charges against the four students who are currently under suspension from the school.
So far the McCain-Palin Campaign has been silent on this hate crime act. But both McCain and Palin are on record as opposing hate crimes laws at both state and federal levels. Both have a clear of record of weakness when it comes to support for prosecuting those who use racial intimidation or death threats against minorities. It seems highly unlikely that anyone from the McCain Campaign will offer any statement condemning this hate crime.
The John McCain record is so poor on minority issues that only a mere 36 African American delegates were at the Republican National Convention this year. One of the lowest numbers in years. Many minorities recognize that John McCain is no friend to their shared values of justice, equality or law enforcement against hate crimes. John McCain's right wing economics continue to keep many minorities in economic slavery as well and have diminished their standard of living.
John McCain has continued to compare himself to Barry Goldwater over the years. However, during the 1964 campaign it was Barry Goldwater's vice presidential candidate, Arthur Miller who accepted the support of the Ku Klux Klan during the campaign, creating an embarrassing situation for Goldwater that year which was just another factor in his landslide loss that year.
With his opposition to the Martin Luther King Holiday, civil rights legislation and hate crimes laws, John McCain has one of the worst records of any GOP candidate for president in many years on combating racism in America. It is hard to imagine that such a candidate is running in the party of Abraham Lincoln who was so devoted to racial justice for all Americans. And the racist incident at George Fox university is just an ugly reminder of the shallow reason that a few supporters are drawn to John McCain.
But one major Oregon Republican seems to have stepped up to make a strong statement perhaps inspired by this hate crime. Republican Senator Gordon Smith has begun airing new ads last week that show his bipartisan support with Senator Edward Kennedy for supporting increased penalties for hate crimes. Senator Smith represents the broad number of decent Republicans who reject hate crimes, racial violence or using racist effigy figures to intimidate minorities or Obama supporters.
While some supporters of John McCain such as the racists who hung the Obama effigy may want to make this election a referendum on race, the Obama Campaign has always taken the high road in this campaign, making this election about the economy, character and issues. That's where most Americans are and will be on election day as well.

Similar posts: gambling problem

In an ugly act of racial and political intimidation, four supporters sympathetic to John McCain who are students at the the small Christian George Fox University in Newberg, Oregon, confessed to hanging a life-sized Obama effigy from a tree at the entrance of the college with the words, "Act 6 Reject" scrawled on the figure. The Act 6 program is a minority scholarship program.
The goal of those that hung the life-sized cardboard figure of Barack Obama in effigy seemed pretty clearly aimed at both intimidating any supporters of Barack Obama and also making any minority students feel unwelcome and unsafe at the college. It was like posting a death threat to any Obama supporters or to any minorities that they are not welcome at the Christian college and should leave for their safety. It is closely related to terrorism in attempting to incite fear to control others.
Administrators were outraged at this disgusting display of racial and political intimidation and held an event at the school's chapel to address this outrageous hate act. And the FBI is actively investigating the act of racial prejudice and may file federal charges against the four students who are currently under suspension from the school.
So far the McCain-Palin Campaign has been silent on this hate crime act. But both McCain and Palin are on record as opposing hate crimes laws at both state and federal levels. Both have a clear of record of weakness when it comes to support for prosecuting those who use racial intimidation or death threats against minorities. It seems highly unlikely that anyone from the McCain Campaign will offer any statement condemning this hate crime.
The John McCain record is so poor on minority issues that only a mere 36 African American delegates were at the Republican National Convention this year. One of the lowest numbers in years. Many minorities recognize that John McCain is no friend to their shared values of justice, equality or law enforcement against hate crimes. John McCain's right wing economics continue to keep many minorities in economic slavery as well and have diminished their standard of living.
John McCain has continued to compare himself to Barry Goldwater over the years. However, during the 1964 campaign it was Barry Goldwater's vice presidential candidate, Arthur Miller who accepted the support of the Ku Klux Klan during the campaign, creating an embarrassing situation for Goldwater that year which was just another factor in his landslide loss that year.
With his opposition to the Martin Luther King Holiday, civil rights legislation and hate crimes laws, John McCain has one of the worst records of any GOP candidate for president in many years on combating racism in America. It is hard to imagine that such a candidate is running in the party of Abraham Lincoln who was so devoted to racial justice for all Americans. And the racist incident at George Fox university is just an ugly reminder of the shallow reason that a few supporters are drawn to John McCain.
But one major Oregon Republican seems to have stepped up to make a strong statement perhaps inspired by this hate crime. Republican Senator Gordon Smith has begun airing new ads last week that show his bipartisan support with Senator Edward Kennedy for supporting increased penalties for hate crimes. Senator Smith represents the broad number of decent Republicans who reject hate crimes, racial violence or using racist effigy figures to intimidate minorities or Obama supporters.
While some supporters of John McCain such as the racists who hung the Obama effigy may want to make this election a referendum on race, the Obama Campaign has always taken the high road in this campaign, making this election about the economy, character and issues. That's where most Americans are and will be on election day as well.

Similar posts: gambling problem

Weve reached a point in American history where the philosophy of relativism has at last reached critical mass. Hundreds of thousands of people with a ballot in hand believe that compromise and getting along, keeping an open mind and being are the better way to go, where it comes to the future of this country. They have no clue or concept what they mean by the word other than its a synonym for compromise.
Lets say that youre offered the choice between being murdered or raped (an actual set of options by murderous thugs in Europe). Which would you choose? Neither? Of course. So what about a compromise?
The real problem here is that several generations now have grown up being educated by the modern American educational system. Defined by so-called progressive thinkers (aka liberals), these people have been taught that no absolutes can exist, nothing is permanent, nothing is certain, and the reasoning mind is the least reliable of all cognitive methods.
With only feelings, based on whatever chemicals are blowing through the bloodstream, these so-called cant have a position. Chemistry only lasts at the longest about three days, after which whatever new feelings wander along will be the deciding force. (This probably is why McCain will make a final push only 72 hours prior to the election polling.)
Decisions based on principles rarely offer all that much room to compromise. When the principles at stake are fundamental, such as personal liberties, economic responsibility, welfare systems, and so forth, theres practically no room at all for compromise.
Modern education has taught entire generations that theres always room for compromise. Nothing is worth fighting for. Why go to Iraq? Who cares, its just a feeling on the part of some unknown number of people. Theres no such thing as the principle of freedom, self-government, slavery, totalitarianism, or anything at all.
Is there a God? Nobody knows, it depends what the feelings are at any given moment. There certainly isnt any kind of basic and because theres no such thing as an objective morality. No objective values exist other than the supposed value of having no values — otherwise known as compromise. Ethical relativism tells these people that everyone is good in some way, everyone is
The great tragedy looming on our horizon as a nation is that enough of these unprincipled, amoral people will eventually put the future of the country on hold. They want a wait and see situation, waiting to see if irrevocable consequences really and truly are irrevocable. They want from whatever makes them feel bad (or worse, makes people they see on TV feel badly). With no clue what that change would be, mean, or how it would be defined, it means nothing.
Legitimate compromise can only take place between two principled position. Both sides must have clear values, and those values must have a basic framework of general agreement. Todays liberalism has no common framework whatsoever with modern conservative values. Theres no such thing as and the other nonsense names the media has come up with.
Conservative thought is founded on capitalism, objective values, and factual reality. Liberalism (progressive thought) is founded on romanticism, socialism, and perceived reality. The two are diametrically opposed with no room at all for compromise.

Similar posts: gambling problem

Weve reached a point in American history where the philosophy of relativism has at last reached critical mass. Hundreds of thousands of people with a ballot in hand believe that compromise and getting along, keeping an open mind and being are the better way to go, where it comes to the future of this country. They have no clue or concept what they mean by the word other than its a synonym for compromise.
Lets say that youre offered the choice between being murdered or raped (an actual set of options by murderous thugs in Europe). Which would you choose? Neither? Of course. So what about a compromise?
The real problem here is that several generations now have grown up being educated by the modern American educational system. Defined by so-called progressive thinkers (aka liberals), these people have been taught that no absolutes can exist, nothing is permanent, nothing is certain, and the reasoning mind is the least reliable of all cognitive methods.
With only feelings, based on whatever chemicals are blowing through the bloodstream, these so-called cant have a position. Chemistry only lasts at the longest about three days, after which whatever new feelings wander along will be the deciding force. (This probably is why McCain will make a final push only 72 hours prior to the election polling.)
Decisions based on principles rarely offer all that much room to compromise. When the principles at stake are fundamental, such as personal liberties, economic responsibility, welfare systems, and so forth, theres practically no room at all for compromise.
Modern education has taught entire generations that theres always room for compromise. Nothing is worth fighting for. Why go to Iraq? Who cares, its just a feeling on the part of some unknown number of people. Theres no such thing as the principle of freedom, self-government, slavery, totalitarianism, or anything at all.
Is there a God? Nobody knows, it depends what the feelings are at any given moment. There certainly isnt any kind of basic and because theres no such thing as an objective morality. No objective values exist other than the supposed value of having no values — otherwise known as compromise. Ethical relativism tells these people that everyone is good in some way, everyone is
The great tragedy looming on our horizon as a nation is that enough of these unprincipled, amoral people will eventually put the future of the country on hold. They want a wait and see situation, waiting to see if irrevocable consequences really and truly are irrevocable. They want from whatever makes them feel bad (or worse, makes people they see on TV feel badly). With no clue what that change would be, mean, or how it would be defined, it means nothing.
Legitimate compromise can only take place between two principled position. Both sides must have clear values, and those values must have a basic framework of general agreement. Todays liberalism has no common framework whatsoever with modern conservative values. Theres no such thing as and the other nonsense names the media has come up with.
Conservative thought is founded on capitalism, objective values, and factual reality. Liberalism (progressive thought) is founded on romanticism, socialism, and perceived reality. The two are diametrically opposed with no room at all for compromise.

Similar posts: gambling problem

Atelevision ad supporting Proposition 8 implies that gay marriage would have to be in California public schools unless the right of same-sex couples to marry is overturned. It makes me wonder: What exactly do you teach when you teach gay marriage? How to get same-sex weddings announced in the New York Times?

And, wait a second: If gay marriage would have to be taught, is heterosexual marriage already in the curriculum? Do teachers say Today, boys and girls, we're going to learn about passive aggressive behavior related to laundry? Are there workbook exercises called Ten things I'm accusing you of that really have to do with my own insecurities? And don't those lessons already cross over to gay marriage?

As it turns out, the only thing in the education code related to marriage has to do with teaching the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood. Moreover, it's only a requirement for school districts seeking state funds for health education, which not every school does.

In other words, no matter what happens with Proposition 8, Secrets for Meeting and Marrying the Same-Sex Partner of Your Dreams won't make the syllabus, at least not because of the education code the ad references. Granted, if gay marriage remains legal, a thoughtful teacher (especially of older kids) might see fit to acknowledge that fact. Call me a latte-drinking, Volvo-driving, personal-responsibility-touting lunatic, but that sounds pretty reasonable, because in so doing, he or she would be conveying the fact that no one, regardless of sexual orientation, is off the hook when it comes to marriage's legal and financial aspects.

As for the Proposition 8 supporters who apparently fear that such discussions would be tantamount to promoting gay marriage -- how can I say this without hurting your feelings? Perhaps your invitation to the popular culture's collective and ongoing celebration of same-sex matrimony has been lost in the mail, because I don't see how you could think that kids haven't already been

Let's see: There was People magazine's cover story about the wedding of Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi, and Brad Pitt's announcement that he won't marry his partner, Angelina Jolie, until everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able. (Pitt also donated $100,000 to fighting Proposition 8.) There was that run on San Francisco City Hall the first time it was legal -- with pictures of happy couples all over every kind of news media. And then the second coming of all that, when the state Supreme Court weighed in.

Still, just because gay marriage is nothing new for the general public doesn't mean kids necessarily understand the complete concept. But that doesn't have as much to do with homosexuality as it does with the fact that some young people can't tell the difference between getting married and going on a really long date. So maybe marriage class should be mandatory -- with an emphasis not on gay or straight but, rather, (As in, until you're older.)

As inundated as young people are with superficial, misleading and often incredibly tacky messages about sex, they're barraged with equally superficial, misleading and often incredibly tacky messages about marriage. Don't believe me? Watch the Wedding Channel for just five minutes.

Of course, in many ways it was always thus -- or at least it has been since Queen Victoria transformed the white wedding gown from a garment into a genre -- the lavish white wedding -- unto itself. One cable wedding show, MTV's Engaged and Underage, follows very young couples in the weeks before their weddings, and takes such a starry-eyed view of taffeta dresses and towering cakes that no amount of sobering footage can counteract the ultimate effect: glorifying what may well be the biggest mistake these kids will ever make.

Oh, and by the way, Engaged and Underage has featured a 19-year-old lesbian couple who met on MySpace and got engaged six weeks later. That's ground- breaking stuff, mostly because it proves that marriage-related stupidity isn't just for straight people anymore.

And that's why students need marriage-ed. They need it because we're being taught to associate marriage not with permanent commitment but with social status, diamond rings, gifts, throwing a big party and, for women, wearing a dress that doesn't necessarily fit through the door. As a result, many teens of all sexual orientations (and many adults too) not only confuse sex with love, they confuse the long-term implications of marriage with the short-term gratification of wedding and honeymoon planning.

No matter what happens with Proposition 8, the way the education code is worded, it's unlikely that a lot of classroom time will ever get devoted to thinking deeply about marriage of any brand. That's a shame, because what students desperately need to be steered toward is not straight marriage or gay marriage but grown-up marriage. Now that would be radical.

Similar posts: gambling problem

Both conservative and liberal leaning Hollywood filmmakers are hoping to sway the November election with a couple of films that they hope will become their own "October Surprise". However, it is highly unlikely that either film will pack theaters and both will likely be quick to end up on DVDs that will make better Frisbees than anything. Unfortunately both a film by Oliver Stone about George Bush entitled "W" and an anti-Michael Moore film, AN AMERICAN CAROL, really seem to miss their mark by miles.
Both films attempt to use some sense of larger than life parody, exaggeration and comedy, especially the conservative leaning anti-Michael Moore film, which falls into the shallow one note attacks of many conservatives who accuse others of not being patriotic or use shallow one inch deep personal attacks rather than intellectualize the arguments of their political rivals.
Where the anti-Michael Moore film goes horribly wrong is the absurd assumption that Michael Moore is anti-American and not patriotic. The real Michael Moore may be left leaning politically, but that hardly means that he would support doing away with the 4th of July like the outrageous character in the film. The real Michael Moore is mainly a consumer advocate concerned with the public abuses by some large corporations or some lawmakers who are pawns of these corporate swindlers. And the cast of AN AMERICAN CAROL which includes some like Bill O'Reilly are hardly widely considered as masters of comedy by any means. And the Michael Moorelike character in the film is played by Kevin Farley, the younger and far less talented brother of the late comic, Chris Farley. Other than bringing in gross obesity to the role, Farley really brings in little to the film.
Producer/Director David Zucker used to be known for some pretty good comedy gems like AIRPLANE! or the Leslie Nielsen NAKED GUN films. And the aging Leslie Neilsen does play some small role in this film. But it hardly holds a stick to these past achievements by any means. And with a cast of fellow conservative leaning actors like Kelsey Grammer, Trace Adkins, Jon Voight and Dennis Hopper, the Republican leaning Zucker has really tipped his hand from making films for all viewers, producing a biased right leaning personal attack on Moore and a pointless political propaganda film that absolutely misses the moral calling that draws the real life Moore to produce films attacking corporate corruption and naked greed.
It's almost like 1950's type redbaiting to continue to attack the patriotism of many liberals or even leftists, yet this is also part of this film's shallow attack on Moore. The real Michael Moore was brought up in a good Irish Catholic family where he once considered becoming a Catholic priest. It is this moral background deeply embedded in his early Catholic faith that has most encouraged Moore's battle at what he most likely considers to be corporate immorality and sin that has most likely inspired his moral crusades against corporate sins in the health care industry and other areas. Zucker's mindless film never digs this deep by any means, instead showcases the grossly overweight and talentless Farley as a complete boob who hates America. Simply outrageous trash can material at it's very best.
Liberal leaning, conspiracy theorist filmmaker, Oliver Stone's W film has some faults of it's own as well. Oliver Stone is indeed a top flight filmmaker compared to Zucker who mainly uses endless sight gags in many of his films thinly glued together with a lightweight premise. Zucker uses a premise, any premise in fact, just to hang a few jokes and sight gags on. But Oliver Stone is by contrast a real and true and complete filmmaker who is certainly capable of making a great film if the subject is right.

Similar posts: gambling problem

Atelevision ad supporting Proposition 8 implies that gay marriage would have to be in California public schools unless the right of same-sex couples to marry is overturned. It makes me wonder: What exactly do you teach when you teach gay marriage? How to get same-sex weddings announced in the New York Times?

And, wait a second: If gay marriage would have to be taught, is heterosexual marriage already in the curriculum? Do teachers say Today, boys and girls, we're going to learn about passive aggressive behavior related to laundry? Are there workbook exercises called Ten things I'm accusing you of that really have to do with my own insecurities? And don't those lessons already cross over to gay marriage?

As it turns out, the only thing in the education code related to marriage has to do with teaching the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood. Moreover, it's only a requirement for school districts seeking state funds for health education, which not every school does.

In other words, no matter what happens with Proposition 8, Secrets for Meeting and Marrying the Same-Sex Partner of Your Dreams won't make the syllabus, at least not because of the education code the ad references. Granted, if gay marriage remains legal, a thoughtful teacher (especially of older kids) might see fit to acknowledge that fact. Call me a latte-drinking, Volvo-driving, personal-responsibility-touting lunatic, but that sounds pretty reasonable, because in so doing, he or she would be conveying the fact that no one, regardless of sexual orientation, is off the hook when it comes to marriage's legal and financial aspects.

As for the Proposition 8 supporters who apparently fear that such discussions would be tantamount to promoting gay marriage -- how can I say this without hurting your feelings? Perhaps your invitation to the popular culture's collective and ongoing celebration of same-sex matrimony has been lost in the mail, because I don't see how you could think that kids haven't already been

Let's see: There was People magazine's cover story about the wedding of Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi, and Brad Pitt's announcement that he won't marry his partner, Angelina Jolie, until everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able. (Pitt also donated $100,000 to fighting Proposition 8.) There was that run on San Francisco City Hall the first time it was legal -- with pictures of happy couples all over every kind of news media. And then the second coming of all that, when the state Supreme Court weighed in.

Still, just because gay marriage is nothing new for the general public doesn't mean kids necessarily understand the complete concept. But that doesn't have as much to do with homosexuality as it does with the fact that some young people can't tell the difference between getting married and going on a really long date. So maybe marriage class should be mandatory -- with an emphasis not on gay or straight but, rather, (As in, until you're older.)

As inundated as young people are with superficial, misleading and often incredibly tacky messages about sex, they're barraged with equally superficial, misleading and often incredibly tacky messages about marriage. Don't believe me? Watch the Wedding Channel for just five minutes.

Of course, in many ways it was always thus -- or at least it has been since Queen Victoria transformed the white wedding gown from a garment into a genre -- the lavish white wedding -- unto itself. One cable wedding show, MTV's Engaged and Underage, follows very young couples in the weeks before their weddings, and takes such a starry-eyed view of taffeta dresses and towering cakes that no amount of sobering footage can counteract the ultimate effect: glorifying what may well be the biggest mistake these kids will ever make.

Oh, and by the way, Engaged and Underage has featured a 19-year-old lesbian couple who met on MySpace and got engaged six weeks later. That's ground- breaking stuff, mostly because it proves that marriage-related stupidity isn't just for straight people anymore.

And that's why students need marriage-ed. They need it because we're being taught to associate marriage not with permanent commitment but with social status, diamond rings, gifts, throwing a big party and, for women, wearing a dress that doesn't necessarily fit through the door. As a result, many teens of all sexual orientations (and many adults too) not only confuse sex with love, they confuse the long-term implications of marriage with the short-term gratification of wedding and honeymoon planning.

No matter what happens with Proposition 8, the way the education code is worded, it's unlikely that a lot of classroom time will ever get devoted to thinking deeply about marriage of any brand. That's a shame, because what students desperately need to be steered toward is not straight marriage or gay marriage but grown-up marriage. Now that would be radical.

Similar posts: gambling problem

The US crackdown on internet gambling has created a large and potentially lucrative loophole for fantasy sports leagues, a new report suggests. The study raises further questions about the controversial ban as efforts mount in Washington, D.C., to repeal or amend the sweeping prohibition.
The National Football League and other professional sports leagues were aggressive backers of the 2006 federal ban on internet gambling, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. The politically-influential leagues have campaigned aggressively against on-line sports betting, fearing scandals that could drag in players and cast a cloud over the integrity of their games.
But while the new law took aim at a wide variety of online gambling activity, it carved out a specific exemption for fantasy sports leagues, argues Joseph Kelly, co-editor in chief of the Gaming Law Review and Economics and a professor of business law at SUNY College Buffalo in New York.
Such fantasy sports leagues have been a boon for the professional leagues, further increasing fan interest in their teams and games. There are now more than 27 million players in the United States with one third playing baseball, and annual revenue is in the range of $800m to $1bn, according to the Fantasy Sports Trade Association.
However, that loophole has unwittingly opened the door to a fast-growing, and so far, legal form of online gambling; one which appears poised to stretch the original intent of the exemption for fantasy sports under the two-year-old internet gambling ban, Kelly warns.
Such concerns come as Congress weighs whether to suspend the increasingly unpopular 2006 internet crackdown. Democratic US Representative Barney Frank, chairman of the powerful House Financial Services Committee, succeeded in pushing through his committee a bill that would have suspended the enforcement of the federal internet gambling ban, though it would preserve the ban on online sports betting.
While an amendment that allows horse tracks to offer on-line wagering generated controversy, the iron-clad exemption for fantasy sports leagues surprisingly generated little press attention, Kelly observes in his article, “Living in a Fantasy”.
“You have some very clever entrepreneurs who could take fantasy sports and define it in such a way that the game will not have any relationship with fantasy sports,” Kelly said in an interview with GamblingCompliance.
In fact, that trend may be already starting to happen, notes Kelly, in his recent Gaming Law Review report. Originally founded by small groups of statistic-crazed baseball fanatics, fantasy sports leagues have been extended to bowling, darts, celebrity leagues and even ‘fantasy Congress’ leagues. “But that trend is likely to move in directions that will push the envelope each further, to the point where the very definition of what is a sport is called into question,” he argues.
Meanwhile, fantasy leagues are increasingly looking like a form of online gambling. Players ante up a fee to play in a tournament, and then compete for a prize or prizes. And those prizes are getting more lucrative as well. Fantasy Fishing Awards, Kelly notes, is “offering a $1m grand prize and 4,000 other prizes in its online game.”
Station Casinos, in turn, which operates the fifth largest sports book, is accepting “wagers based on players’ projected fantasy statistics”, Kelly reports. Some entry fees may be as high as $1,500. More typical is one fantasy baseball league, which charges $29.95 to enter and offers a grand prize of $10,000.
“The entrance fee and the winning of prizes could be considered a bet and therefore be possible illegal gambling,” Kelly writes.
Still, if the coast is clear on the federal level, there are still some potential roadblocks on the state level for would-be online gambling operators, according to Kelly. While the exemption for fantasy sports protects it from federal prosecution under the 2006 internet gambling law, it leaves it up to the states to decide whether to write regulations that would officially legalize fantasy sports.
So far, only Montana has taken this step, but it has also capped profits at 15 percent, effectively discouraging any would-be fantasy sports operators. However, in written opinions, attorney generals in three different states – Florida, Arizona and Louisiana - have concluded fantasy sports are illegal, Kelly writes.
“Attorney general opinions are not law, but they are viewed often by courts as persuasive authority,” Kelly writes.
That said, it is highly unlikely there will any state crackdowns on fantasy sports clubs. For politically savvy district attorneys and attorney generals, there is nothing to be gained – and much to be lost – by going after sports fans. “Some of the biggest names are conducting fantasy sports leagues. I can’t imagine a law enforcement person wanting to get into this,” Kelly said.
By contrast, there have been a few private suits against fantasy sports companies on behalf of individuals who lost money in tournaments run by the firms. So far, none of these suits have been successful.
Nor is there likely to be any action by the major sports leagues, whose main concern is barring online sports betting out of concern it could damage the integrity of their games, said Andrew Zimbalist, an economist at Smith College and one of the nation’s top sports business experts.
“It just increases their following and the intensity of the fan base tremendously,” Zimbalist said. “They certainly don’t want to squelch that activity. It’s low-grade gambling.

Similar posts: gambling problem

How come we arent taught basic economics (including international economics) in grade school?
Im looking back over my life and education, thinking about how I learned about money, when this happened, and what it was that I learned. More often than not, either I got curious about what I thought was a simple question, or I read something odd and wanted to know a bit more. The Internet has certainly made it easy to get information, and of course the local library is a never-ending excellent source.
But I didnt learn anything at all about money and finance in school. I wonder if thats a conspiracy of some sort? The more stupid we are, the American public, the easier it is for the government to screw us in the wallets.
Recently, Ive been interested in economics because Ive had an ongoing interest in whats call a zero sum equation. The belief that wealthy people have a moral obligation to give back to a community, neighborhood, or the society at large is ridiculous. But where did it come from? Where did this undefined claim to moral demand begin?
Lester C. Thurow wrote a book called, The Zero-Sum Society back in 1980. There already had been economic discussion coming to popularity back in the late 1960s, so I started with Mr. Thurow, a highly accredited economist. From there, Ive been reading about international trade and trade deficits.
Its astonishing! From what I gather, there are two key things being measured: capital, and foreign exchange rates. Capital is the core concept of the economic philosophy of capitalism.
Simplistically, capital trade balances are figured as to how many foreigners (people outside the US) want to hold assets in the US in relation to how many Americans want to hold assets outside the US.
Assets would mean stores, buildings, manufacturing plants, assembly plants, real estate, land, farms, and anything else that generates something useful in making valuable stuff.
Foreign exchange seems to mean money itself. If I want to buy a shirt in France, I cant just send 10 dollars (American) to someone in France and get the shirt mailed to me. It may look like that, if I use PayPal or something, but thats not technically what happens.
To buy my shirt in France, I first get the price in francs. I then take 10 American paper dollars and send them to whatever central bank in France. That bank takes (and keeps) the paper dollars. They those paper dollars for francs, then send those francs to the person who owns the shirt.
The foreign exchange rate is negotiated by someone. It could be the central banks, the governments, or the open market place. That rate is how many French francs equal 1 American dollar.
At the end of the day, France now owns the paper dollars I sent over there (the governments and banks actually did the transfer). I get my shirt. The shirt guy gets French francs.
The way economists would say it, from what I gather, is that the entire country of France somehow decided to buy 10 American dollars and send us a shirt. Confused? No doubt! Because Im buying a shirt, Im sending dollars outside the country, and the value of the dollar is high. The French want the dollars.
But if I sell a shirt to a guy in France, then I want francs, not dollars. Therefore, the value of the dollar is down. All because I want to sell my shirt to some (?) outside the country! What happened to the guy who wants the shirt? Its a mystery.
A trade deficit happens when more people outside the US own or control assets outside the country than Americans own or control outside the country. Note that this is all outside the country. It also happens when people outside the country buy things from America. They send us their money and dont want our money, they want our stuff. So the value of the dollar goes down.
When the value of the dollar is low, does that mean our money sucks? Apparently not. It means that people all over the world are buying lots and lots of stuff, sending us their money so we can keep it. WE arent buying their stuff, so our dollars are sitting here, not there. The value of our dollars, according to economists, is going down.
Butre selling boatloads of stuff to everywhere in the world!
Heres another thing: If we bring stuff in from outside the country, thats an import. If we send something outside the country, thats an export. When we import more than we export, we have an international trade deficit. (If we buy more stuff than we make, thats a productivity problem, or consumer debt problem.)
Heres the rub: An import or export is anything that crosses the border, through Customs. Nobody cares who was responsible for making that thing, its irrelevant in terms of import and export
In other words, if Intel, an American company, decides to build a chip-making plant in China, thats a building. Intel has increased their capital assets in a foreign nation. America gets a positive capital balance. But!when Intel brings those chips back to the US for sale in a computer, we technically are the chips.
Who cares that the chips are American, owned by an American company! They were moved across Customs from outside to inside the country. Ergo, economics tells us that we imported those chips and that means more imports, not exports.
The international trade deficit includes ALL those items that are manufactured by American companies, part of the American economy, but that are made outside the US and brought back here!
Ive been vaguely hearing about the growing trade deficit all my life. I thought it meant that the rest of the world is growing and building, making and selling, and that the US is just sitting around. Were doing nothing, the economy is dead, were going broke, and life is bad. Thats what I sort-of-kind-of believed, knowing nothing at all about economics!
Instead, it turns out that trade deficit is an accounting problem with technically correct statements that have very little to do with each of our everyday lives and times. In fact, the more the American economy grows, develops, creates, builds, and expands, the more WE have a trade deficit! Not the rest of the world!
How stupid is that?
If I have a business and start growing and expanding, selling more and more stuff to the rest of the world, then Im a success, right? Wrong! Im helping to grow the international trade deficit! Every item I sell to the world means Im bringing more and more foreign money here and not selling Im helping to make the dollar less valuable and making the dollar Eh?
So the more I sell, the more exports are leaving the country, but the less our money is worth? Does that make sense? I dunno, Im not an economist. All I know is Im to blame for increasing the deficit in foreign exchange.
If I decide to open up a manufacturing plant outside the country, Im reducing the capital deficit. Im increasing the capital assets outside the country. Im an American, and own that plant in a foreign nation.
To balance that reduction here, and increase elsewhere, some foreign company would have to open up a manufacturing plant here in America. But everything I manufacture and sell back here to an American public, thats an import. We then import more than were exporting.
So the more I sell my own stuff that I had manufactured elsewhere, the more Im importing. That means the entire country is importing more than its exporting and we have a capital trade deficit? Or is it a foreign exchange deficit? What the hellI thought I was doing good, thinking and being successful!
I swearthis just gives me a headache! The hell with this trade deficit nonsense.

Similar posts: gambling problem

Latinos have ascended to the largest minority population in the United States, comprising almost 16% of the total population in the country. With this unprecedented number, we have yet to fully discern the full range and impact of the challenges our communities face. It is clear, however, that health care is an often devastating challenge confronting millions of Hispanics.
National Minority Health Month is this month, and for the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC), it renews the need for us to stress the gross health care inequalities faced by Latino and other minority populations. Hispanics compose a significant portion of the nations workforce; failure to remedy our current health care system ensures a precarious, uncertain future for our country.
Combined with other issues such as poverty and lack of access to educational opportunities, too many children are stuck in a very hard place. Their parents or parent might be working several part-time jobs, or have other factors that are a roadblock to their financial security.
Currently, about 1 out of 3 Hispanics are uninsured - a disheartening statistic reflecting an inability to address medical emergencies that leaves families vulnerable. They must rely on public health care services, like Medicare and Medicaid, to provide for their needs. Approximately 40% of Hispanic children are beneficiaries of such public services.
However, the vacuous rhetoric employed by Republicans and the current administration against the expansion of programs like SCHIP demonstrates the difficulties that lie ahead. In their continual diatribe against immigrants, Republicans have fervently lobbied against any effort focused on extending assistance to these needy families. In turn, they have relegated the issue of health to mere politics, and legal immigrant children paid the price for that last year in SCHIP negotiations.
We believe that this strident, stubborn opposition to helping deserving families in need accomplishes nothing but exacerbating the disparities within the health care system.
The CHC recognizes the relevance of this issue to Hispanics, and has been active in spearheading legislation to recalibrate the health care system. With the help of the TriCaucus (the coalition of the CHC, the Congressional Black Caucus, and the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus), Rep. Hilda Solis (CA-32), Chair of the CHC Health and the Environment Task Force, has introduced the Health Equity and Accountability Act, H.R. 3014.
The League of Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the oldest Hispanic Organization in the United States, has praised this piece of legislation, as it underscores the major problems concerning the current national health disparities crises and lack of healthcare services in under-served communities.
Latino children are less likely to receive adequate medical care, such as routine examinations and vaccinations. Latinos and African-Americans comprise 60% of all HIV/AIDS cases in the country. It is evident that priority must be given to diminishing these health disparities. If we have any chance of fixing health care for our community as a whole, action must be taken now.
In the spirit of National Minority Health month, we at the CHC will continue to strive and fight for equitable, quality health care. It is a commitment we have held for many years, and a commitment that will continue.
We currently live in a society where people of color face dangerous and unjust inequalitiesin health care and beyond. It is a remarkably devastating reality that should not be tolerated.

Similar posts: gambling problem

As the online gambling industry fights to gain its legal stature in the United States through a challenge waged by the The Interactive Media Entertainment Gaming Association, the New York Times has hit the stands with a story that McCain may have ties to the land-based casino sector.
A lifelong gambler, Mr. McCain takes risks, both on and off the craps table, according to the New York Times. He was throwing dice one night not long after his failed 2000 presidential bid, in which he was skewered by the Republican Partys evangelical base, opponents of gambling. Mr. McCain was betting at a casino he oversaw as a member of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, and he was doing so with the lobbyist who represents that casino, according to three associates of Mr. McCain - that would be Foxwoods Casino in Connecticut.
The visit had been arranged by the lobbyist, Scott Reed, who works for the Mashantucket Pequot, a tribe that has contributed heavily to Mr. McCains campaigns and built Foxwoods into the worlds second-largest casino. Joining them was Rick Davis, Mr. McCains current campaign manager. Their night of good fortune epitomized not just Mr. McCains affection for gambling, but also the close relationship he has built with the gambling industry and its lobbyists during his 25-year career in Congress.
As a two-time chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Mr. McCain has done more than any other member of Congress to shape the laws governing Americas casinos, helping to transform the once-sleepy Indian gambling business into a $26-billion-a-year behemoth with 423 casinos across the country. He has won praise as a champion of economic development and self-governance on reservations.
One of the founding fathers of Indian gaming is what Steven Light, a University of North Dakota professor and a leading Indian gambling expert, called Mr. McCain.
As factions of the ferociously competitive gambling industry have vied for an edge, they have found it advantageous to cultivate a relationship with Mr. McCain or hire someone who has one, according to an examination based on more than 70 interviews and thousands of pages of documents.
The Indian casinos have not exactly embraced the online gambling sector, however, though McCain has gone on record as saying that prohibition of Internet gambling and online poker is not a priority of his.
It is really Sen. Jon Kyls deal, McCain told a Las Vegas reporter when pressed about the subject. Arizona Republican Senator Jon Kyl was a co-author of recently past Internet gambling prohibition - the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act - and has been among the industrys most aggressive foes over the past decade. Strangely, Kyl has not taken center stage on the issue in recent months at a time when bills have been presented in the House by Democratic Congressman Barney Frank. Fellow Republican Spencer Bacchus has taken the lead in his place.
But McCain insists online gambling prohibition is far from his mind.
I havent thought about the issue, McCain said when pressed further by the Vegas-based reporter.
The Indian casinos, like Las Vegas, have been casting a keen eye on the multi billion dollar Internet gambling sector. Vegas has profited from the industry indirectly via the World Series of Poker, which draws throngs of players to Sin City during its hottest months of summer. The online poker rooms have been credited for building the WSOP.
And the Indians have not been left out of the equation. Kahnawake, a tribe outside of Quebec, Canada, is among the most prominent enterprises involved in online gambling today, overseeing such businesses as BodogLife.com and UltimateBet Poker.
The New York Times questions McCains classification as a based on his relationship with the Indian casinos and those lobbyists who represent them.
Mr. McCain portrays himself as a Washington maverick unswayed by special interests, referring recently to lobbyists as birds of prey. Yet in his current campaign, more than 40 fund-raisers and top advisers have lobbied or worked for an array of gambling interests - including tribal and Las Vegas casinos, lottery companies and online poker purveyors.
Mr. McCain declined to be interviewed by the New York Times. In written answers to questions, his campaign staff said he was justifiably proud of his record on regulating Indian gambling. Senator McCain has taken positions on policy issues because he believed they are in the public interest, the campaign said.
Just two weeks ago, Democratic running mate Joe Biden announced that his son would no longer engage in lobbying efforts. Bidens son, Hunter, worked on lobbying efforts for the online poker sector.
Federal lobbying records show that Hunter Biden’s firm was hired in June by lawyers for J. Russell DeLeon and his wife, Ruth Parasol, billionaire expatriates who founded a Web site called PartyPoker, according to a New York Times report. Their company, PartyGaming P.L.C., which later went public in London and was the single largest IPO on the London Stock Exchange in 2004, stopped doing business in the United States after President Bush signed a bill into law in 2006 aimed at curbing online gambling.
Wyeth Wiedeman, a lobbyist hired by Mr. DeLeon and Ms. Parasol, said Mr. Biden helped put together a lobbying campaign to persuade Congress to pass a law that would clarify the question about whether online gambling was legal prior to 2006. Mr. Wiedeman said the Justice Department has been examining the couple and others involved with the PartyPoker site.
PartyPoker was forced out of the US market thanks to Jon Kyls co-authored UIGEA. At the time, 80 percent of Partys customers were originating from the US. And in an ironic twist, one time Iowa Republican Congressman and another co-author of the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act, Jim Leach, is now vocally endorsing Democratic Senator Barack Obama for President.

Similar posts: gambling problem

Both conservative and liberal leaning Hollywood filmmakers are hoping to sway the November election with a couple of films that they hope will become their own "October Surprise". However, it is highly unlikely that either film will pack theaters and both will likely be quick to end up on DVDs that will make better Frisbees than anything. Unfortunately both a film by Oliver Stone about George Bush entitled "W" and an anti-Michael Moore film, AN AMERICAN CAROL, really seem to miss their mark by miles.
Both films attempt to use some sense of larger than life parody, exaggeration and comedy, especially the conservative leaning anti-Michael Moore film, which falls into the shallow one note attacks of many conservatives who accuse others of not being patriotic or use shallow one inch deep personal attacks rather than intellectualize the arguments of their political rivals.
Where the anti-Michael Moore film goes horribly wrong is the absurd assumption that Michael Moore is anti-American and not patriotic. The real Michael Moore may be left leaning politically, but that hardly means that he would support doing away with the 4th of July like the outrageous character in the film. The real Michael Moore is mainly a consumer advocate concerned with the public abuses by some large corporations or some lawmakers who are pawns of these corporate swindlers. And the cast of AN AMERICAN CAROL which includes some like Bill O'Reilly are hardly widely considered as masters of comedy by any means. And the Michael Moorelike character in the film is played by Kevin Farley, the younger and far less talented brother of the late comic, Chris Farley. Other than bringing in gross obesity to the role, Farley really brings in little to the film.
Producer/Director David Zucker used to be known for some pretty good comedy gems like AIRPLANE! or the Leslie Nielsen NAKED GUN films. And the aging Leslie Neilsen does play some small role in this film. But it hardly holds a stick to these past achievements by any means. And with a cast of fellow conservative leaning actors like Kelsey Grammer, Trace Adkins, Jon Voight and Dennis Hopper, the Republican leaning Zucker has really tipped his hand from making films for all viewers, producing a biased right leaning personal attack on Moore and a pointless political propaganda film that absolutely misses the moral calling that draws the real life Moore to produce films attacking corporate corruption and naked greed.
It's almost like 1950's type redbaiting to continue to attack the patriotism of many liberals or even leftists, yet this is also part of this film's shallow attack on Moore. The real Michael Moore was brought up in a good Irish Catholic family where he once considered becoming a Catholic priest. It is this moral background deeply embedded in his early Catholic faith that has most encouraged Moore's battle at what he most likely considers to be corporate immorality and sin that has most likely inspired his moral crusades against corporate sins in the health care industry and other areas. Zucker's mindless film never digs this deep by any means, instead showcases the grossly overweight and talentless Farley as a complete boob who hates America. Simply outrageous trash can material at it's very best.
Liberal leaning, conspiracy theorist filmmaker, Oliver Stone's W film has some faults of it's own as well. Oliver Stone is indeed a top flight filmmaker compared to Zucker who mainly uses endless sight gags in many of his films thinly glued together with a lightweight premise. Zucker uses a premise, any premise in fact, just to hang a few jokes and sight gags on. But Oliver Stone is by contrast a real and true and complete filmmaker who is certainly capable of making a great film if the subject is right.

Similar posts: gambling problem

I hate George Bush! Thats what we hear time and again from liberal fanatics. Its not that they disagree strongly with the Administration or Republican political ideas. Its not a serious difference of philosophic opinion, perhaps open to reasoned discussion. No, its raw hatred with no room for debate, truth, facts, analysis, or objective reality.
Face it, at this time in history we have visceral, gut-level hatred being evidenced everywhere in what might be called politics. Its happened before, with one example being the Revolutionary War, and another being the Civil War. Either weve got a peculiar problem of social weirdness or maybe were on the verge of another great war. Reading The Fourth Turning, Im inclined to suspect the latter.
But whats at the heart of this kind of basically irrational hatred? Liberals not only despise George Bush, they get emotionally riled up to a level of serious rage. Religious fundamentalists are prepared to blow themselves up in opposition to what they see as a different view of life. Christian fundamentalists are just as bad, with astonishing stories of insane events showing up in the news all over the country. Both religion and politics have growing demographic segments of extremists.
This isnt just a dislike, or a philosophic disagreement! Its that gut-level, bloodlust of utterly berserk frenzy. Where do we see that sort of primitive rage? There are two times in life where its almost universal to find disagreement descending into this level of mind-blasting anger. The one is during toddlerhood, the other is during early adolescence.
We might say that an acrimonious divorce shows evidence of the same type of rage, but is it that two adults have descended into the pit? Or is it rather than two people with arrested development symptoms have chosen to marry as if they were adults?
We also see this kind of rage in murders and heinous crimes. But it makes more sense to say that a person trapped in a psychological pathology crosses the line into rage, than to say a matured adult is pushed over that same line.
Only when a reasonable person is backed against a wall and facing violence does that person defend with opposing violence. In that case, though, its usually the level-headed person who maintains rational planning, who tends to come out ahead. Not always; theres a fine line between smart versus cunning.
Looking across society over the past forty years, I see an increasing number of people who remind me of enraged toddlers, demanding instant gratification and screaming with rage when theyre denied. I also see the same sort of rage familiar from teenagers filled with a maelstrom of hormones, blazing with a fire of their supposed moral superiority and autocratic demand for independence.
Toddler years are marked by a not-yet separated self. The child is becoming aware of a subjective self, but still is part of a merged group personality. Theyre dependent upon authority and adults, but they dont understand that dependence. Instead, toddlers believe they can go anywhere and do anything without any personal consequences. Denial or restraint calls up instant rage, screaming, kicking and temper tantrums.
Adolescence is where a true objective perspective begins to come into effect, with the development of an emotional center in the brain. Perceiving themselves as others see them, teenagers become overly self-conscious. Their self-contradiction is to believe theyre unique, different, and distinguishable from the herd, yet at the same time they do whatever they can to be part of a herd in some way. Frustration marks both ages.
The hormonal storm of puberty prior to young adulthood routinely skews all types of rational thought. Everything becomes melodramatic, emotionally world-shattering, and completely crucial. Belief systems introduced during childhood come under scrutiny as the adolescent questions everything in preparation for self-definition. The default is to throw out all beliefs and invent something new. What? Thats a mystery. All thats important is that whatever it may be, its a changedifferent. From what? Who knows?!
During both these times, emotions either havent yet been developed or theyre being developed and arent yet under control. Everything is personal excepting whatever isnt worth noticing. Attention swings toward only what directly affects the individual, with all else being either unnoticed or meaningless.
Thats where weve arrived, following a long and complex journey of child-rearing philosophies, educational experiments, and political confusion. A majority population in this country remains in arrested development, caught either in toddlerhood (2 yearolds) or adolescence (12-13 yearolds).
Its happened before, cycle after cycle in history, with the natural result being a society unable to think long-term, or to plan across multiple generations. The result is exactly what we see around us today. Theres a gathering of cliques (special-interest groups), violence as a solution (gangs), protectionism (anti-globalization), fanaticism, sweeping fads, and near meglomaniacal self-centeredness. Ego rules; empathy doesnt exist.
Only a severe and traumatic shock to the system usually is sufficient to stop everyone in their tracks. Disaster brings a returned focus on actual reality and the objective world. To that end, in these types of cycles war breaks out time and again, acting as a shock to the social system.
No living beings are as utterly violent and cruel as potential human beings in the toddler or teenage years. Without yet having a formed conscience or moral system, these age groups, on the whole, are driven almost entirely by self-interest and whatever feelings are moving through their bodies.
In a healthy environment, toddlers and teens begin to take control of their impulses and plan for delayed satisfaction. In a warped, unhealthy environment we see the genesis of the sociopath, narcissist, and amoral thug.
In most societies, toddlers and teenagers are protected by adults from not only hurting themselves too badly, but from doing serious damage to the surrounding community. But what happens when the supposed adults havent yet grown out of these two phases? The answer is a large segment of early 21st century America.

Similar posts: gambling problem

As the online gambling industry fights to gain its legal stature in the United States through a challenge waged by the The Interactive Media Entertainment Gaming Association, the New York Times has hit the stands with a story that McCain may have ties to the land-based casino sector.
A lifelong gambler, Mr. McCain takes risks, both on and off the craps table, according to the New York Times. He was throwing dice one night not long after his failed 2000 presidential bid, in which he was skewered by the Republican Partys evangelical base, opponents of gambling. Mr. McCain was betting at a casino he oversaw as a member of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, and he was doing so with the lobbyist who represents that casino, according to three associates of Mr. McCain - that would be Foxwoods Casino in Connecticut.
The visit had been arranged by the lobbyist, Scott Reed, who works for the Mashantucket Pequot, a tribe that has contributed heavily to Mr. McCains campaigns and built Foxwoods into the worlds second-largest casino. Joining them was Rick Davis, Mr. McCains current campaign manager. Their night of good fortune epitomized not just Mr. McCains affection for gambling, but also the close relationship he has built with the gambling industry and its lobbyists during his 25-year career in Congress.
As a two-time chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Mr. McCain has done more than any other member of Congress to shape the laws governing Americas casinos, helping to transform the once-sleepy Indian gambling business into a $26-billion-a-year behemoth with 423 casinos across the country. He has won praise as a champion of economic development and self-governance on reservations.
One of the founding fathers of Indian gaming is what Steven Light, a University of North Dakota professor and a leading Indian gambling expert, called Mr. McCain.
As factions of the ferociously competitive gambling industry have vied for an edge, they have found it advantageous to cultivate a relationship with Mr. McCain or hire someone who has one, according to an examination based on more than 70 interviews and thousands of pages of documents.
The Indian casinos have not exactly embraced the online gambling sector, however, though McCain has gone on record as saying that prohibition of Internet gambling and online poker is not a priority of his.
It is really Sen. Jon Kyls deal, McCain told a Las Vegas reporter when pressed about the subject. Arizona Republican Senator Jon Kyl was a co-author of recently past Internet gambling prohibition - the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act - and has been among the industrys most aggressive foes over the past decade. Strangely, Kyl has not taken center stage on the issue in recent months at a time when bills have been presented in the House by Democratic Congressman Barney Frank. Fellow Republican Spencer Bacchus has taken the lead in his place.
But McCain insists online gambling prohibition is far from his mind.
I havent thought about the issue, McCain said when pressed further by the Vegas-based reporter.
The Indian casinos, like Las Vegas, have been casting a keen eye on the multi billion dollar Internet gambling sector. Vegas has profited from the industry indirectly via the World Series of Poker, which draws throngs of players to Sin City during its hottest months of summer. The online poker rooms have been credited for building the WSOP.
And the Indians have not been left out of the equation. Kahnawake, a tribe outside of Quebec, Canada, is among the most prominent enterprises involved in online gambling today, overseeing such businesses as BodogLife.com and UltimateBet Poker.
The New York Times questions McCains classification as a based on his relationship with the Indian casinos and those lobbyists who represent them.
Mr. McCain portrays himself as a Washington maverick unswayed by special interests, referring recently to lobbyists as birds of prey. Yet in his current campaign, more than 40 fund-raisers and top advisers have lobbied or worked for an array of gambling interests - including tribal and Las Vegas casinos, lottery companies and online poker purveyors.
Mr. McCain declined to be interviewed by the New York Times. In written answers to questions, his campaign staff said he was justifiably proud of his record on regulating Indian gambling. Senator McCain has taken positions on policy issues because he believed they are in the public interest, the campaign said.
Just two weeks ago, Democratic running mate Joe Biden announced that his son would no longer engage in lobbying efforts. Bidens son, Hunter, worked on lobbying efforts for the online poker sector.
Federal lobbying records show that Hunter Biden’s firm was hired in June by lawyers for J. Russell DeLeon and his wife, Ruth Parasol, billionaire expatriates who founded a Web site called PartyPoker, according to a New York Times report. Their company, PartyGaming P.L.C., which later went public in London and was the single largest IPO on the London Stock Exchange in 2004, stopped doing business in the United States after President Bush signed a bill into law in 2006 aimed at curbing online gambling.
Wyeth Wiedeman, a lobbyist hired by Mr. DeLeon and Ms. Parasol, said Mr. Biden helped put together a lobbying campaign to persuade Congress to pass a law that would clarify the question about whether online gambling was legal prior to 2006. Mr. Wiedeman said the Justice Department has been examining the couple and others involved with the PartyPoker site.
PartyPoker was forced out of the US market thanks to Jon Kyls co-authored UIGEA. At the time, 80 percent of Partys customers were originating from the US. And in an ironic twist, one time Iowa Republican Congressman and another co-author of the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act, Jim Leach, is now vocally endorsing Democratic Senator Barack Obama for President.

Similar posts: gambling problem

well documented love of gambling and specifically for craps with its high reward-higher risk profile and its significant house edge.*  (Which is another way of saying that if over his years as a Senator with oversight over the gambling industry he shows a notable net positive return on his wagers, he is most likely being bribed.  Anyone check his tax records on this?)
This pleasure in the game can take on the color of urgency.  When, during the campaign, his advisors blocked him from heading to a casino floor in Las Vegas to play, he proposed bringing a craps table to his room.
His aides blocked that idea too, but that it even occured to a man in the middle of a Presidential campaign illustrates the depth of McCains gambling jones.
Now, what does this love of high risk, immediate reward, and long-term inevitable loss say about McCains emotional and intellectual fitness for the Presidency?  Does an affinity for a gambling rush imply anything about the rest of McCains capacity for judgment and decision making ability?
The answer, according to both empirical observation and recent neurobiological research, is at least a provisional yes.
Anecdotes (which I know are not data) first:
Just take the last week of the campaign to see what happens when an impulsive risk taker gets on the loose.  McCains sudden decision to call for a delay on the debate and assert a (false) suspension of his campaign were widely seen as on-the-spot impulse decisions.  They do not appear to have benefitted him.  His decision to demand a role in the bailout negotiations has been widely described as a disasterand so on. Going a little further the selection of Gov. Palin looks like another impulse acceptance of great risk for potentially great reward.
Such examples of  McCains behavior under pressure does not prove that he is an erratic, risk addicted menace, of course.  But they do provide a portrait that is consistent with that view.
Now, enter neuroscience.  The study of the brain chemistry of gambling is a young one, and anyone looking for a deterministic answer to the question of whether regular but not ruinous risk taking is an indicator for a broader collection of mental attributes is not going to find it there, at least not yet.

Similar posts: gambling problem

Dear Mr.Bush,
I know you will never read this letter, and that you don't read much period. I don't care I am still going to write it, because I Vote and I pay Taxes. I am horrified at what you have done to this Country, OUR Country. I know you ran your two Drilling Businesses into the Ground, Arbusto and Harken, but you had your Daddy and his friends bail you out. So I guess "Bailing " is always viewed by you as a Solution. See I am a mom, a single mom and a nurse. I know you don't respect Single Moms, you have made that clear in your speeches and in your Laws. I work hard, but I don't make much and I do take care of my son and I have never asked Anyone for a Dime. Most Single Moms I know work really hard.....

And now we learn that these Huge Corporations and Banking Entities on Wall Street have made mistakes and mismanaged their Monies and Investments. And you sent Mr "Hank" Paulson to the Hill today to explain to Hurry Up and Sign paperwork basically giving him total Control over 700 Billion Dollars. Personally I have trouble with trusting Men with Sandbox Names ( ie, Scooter). He came to the Hearing today, and I realized he has only been Director of the Treasury for 22 Monthes. He must miss Goldman Sachs, and His 38 Million /year CEO job, and his role Running Board Meetings. But he treated our Senators like they were disgruntled employees he could badger, he was arrogant and short sighted. I know it is hard to live on 300 Million Dollars and have any Comprehension of Someone like me that lives below poverty level.

I watched him field Questions about WHY there was no Oversight Proposed, No Auditing, and no Regulatory observances.And in his 3 pages of The Plan, there are 32 WORDS that make Mr.Paulson a Czar of this massive amount of money. I am confused that he worked at Goldman Sachs just 22 monthes ago, he did not see ANY Problems on the Horizon, especially after the Bearn Stearns Failure ? And the Other 11 Banks that already Failed ? And there were NO other Warnings or Economists voicing Concerns, even after watching Commercial Properties Fail En Masse and 9000 Families Lose their Homes a day to Foreclosure.

And then I watched you go to the UN while The Bailout Hearings were going on and the Stock Market again was like watching a cat weave between rockers on a summer porch. It is a Labile Market driven by Nerves and Rumors at this point. So you, Our Failed President go to the UN, and there you attempt to strong arm our Elected Reps by laying the Whole Financial Drama before the UN. How Unpresidential of you to go there and Air Our Very Dirty Broken Laundry. I am surprised you did not go there and just hold our your hand and maybe even shed a few crocodile tears as part of your performance.

See Here is the Thing, YOU and YOUR administration are asking People like me,moms, and dads and families that are struggling to just put food on the table and take care of our kids and our folks. People are struggling, 47 Million Plus without Health Insurance, 50 Million Underinsured ( and facing Huge Medical Bills), and 27 Million living in Poverty, and 15 Million are children.These People that are already hurting and stretched too thin and eating noodles and turning off Utitlities and selling their belongings are supposed to Bailout the WallStreet CEO's ? So they can get their Multi Million Dollar Severance Packages and escape to the Cayman Islands ?

Mr.Bush we have already Experienced Under Your Failed Leadership An Illegal War and all the damages that brings, the Devastation of Katrina, Rita and IKE, and now you have Devastated our Financial System....and we learned tonight you and your Administration 6 monthes ago that there were problems, and you did NOTHING. And now you want Money from us, all of us and Our Children. That means you KNEW all summer that there Massive Trouble on the Horizon and you did Nothing. Like when you got the August 6th Memo in 2001 warning of Trouble and you did Nothing. I wonder, is there a Financial Memo that warned of this Wallstreet Disaster, I bet there were MANY.

Tonight we learn that there are FBI Investigations regarding Potential Fraud at Management Levels at Lehman Brothers, AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And yet the paperwork that Mr.Paulson brought forth had 32 words that would have prevented ANY Investigations, Criminal or otherwise. So we are supposed to give money to coverup these Possible Crimes and Bailout the Possible Perpetrators ?

These 32 WORDS would have prevented ANY Investigation:
"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

Mr.Bush you know Nothing of Mainstreet and What is happening to Real People In this Country. You need to stop your Motorcade and look at the People and the Suffering that you have Inflicted on this country. This is not a Golf Game, there are NO Mulligans and No One to Bail Us, We The People.... Out. 8000 Families a day lose their Homes, they Know the Truth there is Something Wrong here In America and No One is Bailing them out.

Similar posts: gambling problem

Poll: Obama struggling to win over Clinton voters
WASHINGTON (AP) — Barack Obama's support from backers of Hillary Rodham Clinton is stuck smack where it was in June, a poll showed Tuesday, a stunning lack of progress that is weakening him with members of the Democratic Party in the close presidential race.
An Associated Press-Yahoo! News poll shows that among adults who backed his rival during their bitter primary campaign, 58 percent now support Obama. That is the same percentage who said so in June, when Clinton ended her bid and urged her backers to line up behind the Democratic senator from Illinois.
The poll shows that while Obama has gained ground among Clinton's supporters — 69 percent view him favorably now, up 9 percentage points from June — this has yet to translate into more of their support. In part, this is because their positive views of Republican presidential nominee John McCain have also improved during this period. Those supporting McCain have also edged up from 21 percent to 28 percent, with the number of undecided staying constant, the survey showed.
Clinton backers' reluctance to support Obama helps explain why he is having a tougher time solidifying partisan supporters than McCain. Overall, 74 percent of Democrats say they will vote for Obama, compared to 87 percent of Republicans behind the Arizona senator. About nine in 10 Clinton supporters are Democrats.
The problem that supporters of Clinton, the New York senator, have with Obama seems to flow from their measure of him as a candidate, not from issues. From establishing a timeline for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq to abortion to canceling tax cuts on the rich, their views of the importance of issues are virtually identical to Democrats in general.
Yet they find Obama less likable, honest, experienced and inspiring than Democrats overall do, and have a better view of McCain. And while majorities of Clinton supporters say Obama shares their values and understands ordinary Americans, they're less likely to say so than Democrats overall.

Similar posts: gambling problem

Hell try, that is; he understands the importance of not eating your seed corn.  But the last eight years of ordinary Bush/GOP (McCain supported) budget profligacy has just been turbocharged, and the blunt reality is that it will be a struggle for any part of the federal discretionary budget to hold its own.
Obamas point about tax revenues holds for the states as well, of course, so there is not much real hope of any cushioning of the blow, even for public universities, at that level of government.
It gets worse:
Last Thursday or so, I ran into a senior member of the MIT adminstration this week, someone deeply involved in funding and running the research side of the Institute, and he pointed out the obvious:  when the financial system caves and the stock market trembles, private philanthropy suffers too.  So thats another leg of the science - funding stool getting sawn through as we go.
The net take-home:  hard times are about to get harder for major science research institutions in this country.  That promises, as Sen. Obama acknowledges, to threaten future economic prospects and to undermine our national strength and the ability to project hard and soft power internationally.
And as for what this means for those who value science as a voting issue this November?
Vote Obama, for specific and systemic reasons.
The specific:  even though I think it unlikely science will get an enormous boost, at least in his first couple of budgets, he clearly understands the significance of the enterprise.

Similar posts: gambling problem