Thursday, February 23, 2006
Don't bet on it
In the game of oneupsmanship, it's best to be the last guy to make a play.That's why two South Jersey assemblymen are now pushing a bill that would legalize sports wagering in Atlantic City's casinos despite a federal law prohibiting it.
New Jersey had its chance to join Delaware, Montana, Nevada and Oregon as states where sports book is legal back in 1994. But the state shot the idea down.
And now assemblyman Jeff Van Drew, a Cape May Democrat who chairs the tourism committee, and Assemblyman Louis Greenwald, D-Camden, are playing a long shot to resurrect the concept of legalized in-person wagering on pro sports in Atlantic City's casinos.
And believe it or not, they're using the hockey betting scandal as part of their justification.
Former Philadelphia Flyer Rick Tocchet and a state police trooper have been charged with helping operate a betting ring, and authorities have said several NHL players were involved as bettors.
"This gambling investigation is a living, breathing example of why sports betting should be allowed at Atlantic City's casinos," Van Drew said Thursday. "Sports betting is a reality. Let's keep it open, honest, clean and fair."
Throwing dice in a back alley in Philly is a reality too. Does that mean Pennsylvania should leglize table games in addition to slot machines?
What's next, prostitution? There's certainly enough of that going on in both corrupt cities.
All we need after that is to allow the citizenry to go around wearing concealed firearms to protect themselves from the social ills the rest will create, and presto - It's the Wild West all over again. And as they said back then, don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.
| 
| 
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Any port in a political storm?
Feigned outrage over the sale of a series of privately-owned U.S. commercial sea ports to the United Arab Emirates seems so disingenuous that even bipartisan support for banning the sale - the first cross-party moves since 9/11 - can't stop it.At a time when some Congressmen face increasing scrutiny from the Jack Abrahamoff case, the Hurricane Katrina disaster and countless other scandals, this must have seemed like a golden opportunity to shift the public debate away.
For instance, U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., who came under fire this week for getting a $500,000 loan from a campaign contributor to buy a vacation home, couldn't resist sending me an e-mail on the subject.
"I can not sit by while the safety and security we have fought so hard for is sacrificed, and right here in our state at the Port of Philadelphia," Santorum's message said. "Please join me in fighting for the safety of these critical entry ports to our nation."
There's only one catch.
Those ports were already owned by a foreign power - a British company. Their sale to "a nation that was implicated in the events of 9/11" and Santorum's "concern" smacks of racism because the potential buyers just happen to believe in Islam.
We didn't stop doing business with Saudi Arabia after 9/11 and weren't 18 of the 19 terrorists from there? Nor do we check more than 5 percent of the cargo coming into any U.S. ports for contraband, let alone weapons of mass destruction.
And isn't the UAE an ally of ours in the war on terror?
These politics of obfuscation are so blatant that in a rare act of courage, President George W. Bush has come out in favor of the sale and said he would veto any attempt to block it.
How bad do things have to get for me to actually agree with Dubya?
Besides, even if those ports remained in British control, do you really want to trust your security to a country that managed to lose a world-spanning empire in less than 50 years?
| |
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Cheney's got a gun
In honor of our esteemed vice president's mishap, I'll just post this:
| |
This Week's Rants | The Daily Rant Archives
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
