OlsonOnline

Time to dump the Oregon Lottery!

“You hardly want to criticize a business person for opening up a successful business,” said Oregon Lottery spokesman Chuck Baumann. “When retailers are making money, the state of Oregon is also receiving some of that, too.”

That's from Todd Murphy's excellent article in yesterday's Tribune on how Craig Estey, the owner of a chain of video poker dens called Dotty's, has defied Oregon law to become the single biggest beneficiary of Oregon's misguided experiment in state-sponsored gambling.

And it's a compelling argument for dismantling the Oregon Lottery, and disavowing it as a legitimate source of revenue for vital public programs.

As much as I sympathize with the poor people on the Gulf Coast left homeless by Hurricane Katrina, I admit to experiencing some schadenfreude at the destruction of the floating casinos that have become such a significant part of the tax landscape in the Southern states that bore the brunt of the storm.  In Biloxi, Mississippi alone, Katrina destroyed, gutted, or sunk these "money-making casino" barges:

• the Isle of Capri casino
• President Casino
• the Grand Casino pier, with two barge casinos
• Treasure Bay Pirate Ship casino
• Palace casino

I say good riddance to them all.  Maybe now, in rebuilding, the state of Mississippi will rethink its regressive tax policies and the "easy" money gotten from gambling, which is in reality a largely invisible tax on the poor, the weak, the vulnerable, the addicted, and the easily tempted.

Todd Murphy's accompanying piece on the pseudonymous Elizabeth, a 68-year-old  retired government employee and self-admitted "problem gambler", illustrates perfectly the evils of state-sponsored gambling:

"Elizabeth, who asked that her real name not be used, figures that today, four years later, she’s lost 'thousands' of dollars playing video poker. She’s gambled from 8 a.m. until 7 p.m. on many days. Some nights, even though she doesn’t drive, she’s gambled until 2 a.m., then walked home from the lottery outlet with her housemate."

But the more damning statistic is this one from Jeff Marotta, a state official dealing with programs for gamblers like Elizabeth:

"Several studies have suggested that from 35 percent to 50 percent of revenue from video gambling devices comes from problem gamblers, says Marotta."

It's clear from Murphy's article that the Oregon Lottery, a virtually autonomous state agency, won't do anything about Dotty's and Estey's, brazen flouting of Oregon law.  But that's what happens when a scofflaw like Estey is making big money for the state. 

As I wrote in this post back in January, state-sponsored gambling is itself a "crime" against good tax policy, absolving our elected "leaders" of the responsibility for crafting a fair system of taxation:

"The proponents of state lotteries and casino gambling are careful never to use the word 'gambling' in their proposals.  It's always "gaming", as if dumping a few hundred bucks in a video poker machine is no worse than, say, playing a game of checkers.  Besides, part of what you lose -- and you will lose-- goes into the public coffers to support needed services.  And best of all, gambling, the state-sponsored kind, absolves our legislative leaders of the distressing responsibility of imposing taxes on the people who elect them."

I say it's time to elect leaders who promise to wean the state from it's gambling addiction.  It's time to abolish the Oregon Lottery!

Backatcha, Falvey!

In a new comment to his own post, Peter Bray cites Hurrricane Katrina as prima facie evidence of environmental  devastation.  Some will simply dismiss the hurricane, and its aftermath, as a natural disaster.  But it's actually a hard lesson in what happens when you mess with Mother Nature. 

I've long argued that most people have little understanding of ecology, even those who claim to be environmentalists.  If you don't know what an ecosystem is-- in this case wetlands-- then you're likely ignorant of the consequences of wetland destruction.  And you're probably not going to be a vocal opponent of river channelization-- the Mississippi is a good example-- or of building dikes and levees to protect low lying areas-- New Orleans-- from flooding.  Nor are you likely to support the prohibition of development on 100-year flood plains. 

I've also argued that ecology should be taught --and emphasized-- in all schools, not just a few, like the Environmental  School in Portland.  When I taught environmental science to my team of seventh graders in Hillsboro, my stated goal was that they would all learn what an ecosystem was, how it worked, and why it was important.  As I wrote in a post a while back, they would know that a forest, for example, was indeed an ecosystem, which would make them smarter than George W. Bush.  And most other adults as well.

An aside:  How is it that the MSNBC website can come up with an informative and useful bit of news reporting while its cable TV counterpart does nothing but drone endlessly on about missing persons, runaway brides, tragic honeymoons, and Michael Jackson?  But you an I know the answer to that.  This is America, after all, where it's all about the ratings.  And the money.

There's lots of important stuff out there (here's another example from the MSNBC website on global warming) that's completely ignored by tabloid TV.

It's Bray vs. Falvey

That's Peter Bray over at Land Use Watch, who actually got Christopher Falvey to respond to his rebuttal of Falvey's commentary in yesterday's O.  He includes some pretty slick aerial shots of the "environmental devastation" that Falvey denies is happening.

Bray's post is good.  But the debate in the comments that follow is even better.

The Oregonian features yet one more libertarian voice

Where do they find these guys? 

Today in the O, it's some guy named Christopher J. Falvey who flew over the U.S. and noticed there's a lot of open space out there.  Then he looked at some global population density maps and saw that there is "still plenty of 'out-in-the-sticks' for us to eat up." 

From this he concludes that urban sprawl is not really a problem, and that cries of environmental devastation are greatly overstated.  But he makes no mention of global warming, the alarming acceleration of species extinction in the past 100 years, the continued destruction of the Northwest's temperate forests, the imminent demise of our salmon runs, the ongoing damage to coral reef ecosystems, the near total sacrifice of prairie ecosystems to cattle ranching (and railroads), which decimated the American buffalo and the Native American cultures dependent on them, and-- well, I could go on and on, but you get the picture.  All of the above are examples of "environmental devastation" caused by humans in their unrestrained and thoughtless pursuit of wealth.

Christopher Falvey calls himself an environmentalist, but he's actually a garden variety libertarian and free market conservative.  I know, because I looked it up.  In fact, avoiding the Oregonian's worthless website, I found the article linked above on the Intellectual Conservative website.

And I read Falvey's own website.  He doesn't admit to being libertarian, but his politics align perfectly with those of the Libertarian Party.  Here are some examples:

• He thinks privatizing Social Security is a good idea.
• He believes that the healthcare "problem" in this country comes down to this:  "Lack of individual responsibility is, I believe, the predominant force behind the healthcare crisis in America."
• He accuses  environmentalists, and the environmental movement, of "ignorance of the free market" :  "Environmentalists have spent the better part of the past 30 years... attempting to bypass demand through forced government regulation... ."

To top it all off, there's this analysis of Plamegate, which proceeds on the assumption that the CIA is not a "political"  agency.  That may be less an example of libertarianism than of just plain foolishness.

***********************
Speaking of the Oregonian,  after yesterday's post on the mainstream media, I was pleased to see a letter in today's paper reminding readers that "... the Oregonian and other corporate media shamelessly touted this war [Iraq] to the American public." 

The mainstream (corporate) press needs critics, NOT defenders

Jeff Alworth's well-written piece in Blue Oregon defending the mainstream media  against charges of subjectivity (bias) sidesteps the larger issue of corporate journalism and its probable impact on news coverage.  Simply speaking, the most influential American newspapers are mega-corporations out to make money for shareholders:

• The New York Times Company publishes 18 newspapers. It owns eight TV stations, two radio stations, and 35 websites.  In 2004, it had revenues of $3.3 billion dollars.
• The Washington Post Company is also a highly diversified media conglomerate with reported 2nd quarter revenue in 2005 of $897 million.
• The Tribune Company publishes the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, Newsday, and the Baltimore Sun, owns the Chicago Cubs, and too many television stations to list.

And closer to home, the Oregonian is one of 26 newspapers owned by the Newhouse News Service. 

The issue then is not one of liberal or conservative bias in news reporting, or even of objectivity versus subjectivity.  The real question is whether journalism subsumed in a culture of corporate capitalism can be fully trusted to seek out the truth in stories that may ultimately hurt the bottom line.

While bloggers may be neither  particularly competent nor objective, at least (in most cases) they don't write for money.  That's gotta count for something.  (Journalists, by the way, although they may be competent writers, are rarely experts on, or even knowledgable about, the subjects they cover.  Education is a good example. It's why we continually read in the local press idiotic references to "underperforming schools.")

In the blogosphere, Bob Somerby's The Daily Howler is a good antidote to what he terms "celebrity journalism."  He's thorough and relentless.  Check it out.

 

Condolences

To Erik Sten on the loss of his father, runner par excellence, Erik G. Sten.  And for the continued small-minded attacks on Commisioner Sten for his "big idea" approach to city governance.

Here's my favorite story about Erik Sten, pere.  Back in February of 1984 when I was training for the Seaside Marathon, I went out to Blue Lake Park for the ORRC 30K Championship.  Now 30 kilometers- 18 miles- is a long run by any standard.

So here comes Erik Sten, a thin and remarkably efficient runner, trotting through the park carrying a small backpack.  He toed the line with the rest of us and ran the race, after having run to the park from his home in Northeast Portland (which has to be a good ten miles.)  I assume he then ran home again.

I know it's been twenty plus years, but that's my recollection.

Back to Erik the Younger.  Two recent letters, one to the Tribune, the other to the O, put Sten's performance on the City Council in perspective.  And they counter the relentless criticism he's gotten in both the press and the blogosphere.

Here's the first in its entirety:

Sten’s big ideas should be valued

Something stood out in your recent article on city Commissioner Erik Sten (Has Sten lost his clout?, Aug. 9).

PSU (sic) professor John Bogdanski claims that “Sten’s a big idea guy,   but    this is a city that doesn’t need big ideas right now.” Bogdanski indicates we need to focus on how to keep basic services going.

What he fails to note, however, is that today’s nut and bolts issues should have been dealt with years ago. It is the lack of forward thinking in the past that has created many of our problems today.

        Big ideas today often turn into the basic issues of the future.

The second from the well-known naturalist and environmentalist Mike Houck says in part: 

"...City Commissioner Erik Sten deserves kudos, not brickbats, for his leadership on intractable issues like affordable housing and endangered species protection. These problems require not only keen intellect but also a willingness to spend political capital to prevent them from becoming truly insoluble."

And that's why I like Erik Sten. 

 

 

Take this quiz!

A reader who apparently took issue with my equating Libertarians with Republicans sent along this little quiz to set me straight.

I took the quiz.  And guess what?  My responses labeled me ... a liberal!  What a surprise.

Look, I know the differences between libertarian and Republican politics.  I also know what libertarian Tom Cox himself admitted in switching to the GOP:  Libertarians have much more in common with the Republican Party than they do with any party on the left-- the Democrats, the Greens, or the Progressives (altough I'm not sure a Progressive Party is actually recognized on any ballot in the United States.)

There are progressive voices out there, however.  Mine is one.

Two peas in a political pod

Contrary to what Cascade Policy Institute researcher Rich Page claimed in a comment to this site, libertarians and Republicans are two peas in the same pod.

The proof is in the defection of former Libertarian candidate for governor, Tom Cox, to the Republican Party.  In his statement announcing the switch, Cox said this:

"My core values are 100 percent compatible with Republican core values: individual liberty, personal responsibility, and limited government. We may differ on the margins and  we'll have vigorous debate on how to move forward, but I know I'll be comfortable with the Republicans."

That sounds like a pretty clear declaration of commonality to me. 

 

The world according to Bush: Sleepy truckers improve highway safety (and other absurdities)

Perhaps when the Bush Administration claimed  regulations allowing truckers to drive 11 hours without a break would improve highway safety, it was unaware that last week's fatal truck "accident" that shut down I-205 in Portland for ten hours was probably caused by "drowsiness."

In fact, "... 17 truck crashes in Oregon have been attributed to drowsiness..." this year alone.  And according to this article, "Driver fatigue is the cause of 5.5% of all large truck accidents... ."  As all freeway drivers know, "large truck accidents"  contribute disproportionately to traffic congestion, which in turn contributes to greenhouse gas emissions.   

We know that in the Bush Administration, business trumps science on environmental isssues.  As the Winston-Salem Journal article makes clear, concern for big businesses, like Wal-Mart, also trumps highway safety.

*******************
While we're on the pronouncements of George W. Bush, his warning yesterday that an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq "would weaken the United States" needs some clarification. 

As I wrote in my last post, an exit of the U.S. presence in Iraq would only hurt the large corporations who are profiting handsomely from the war.  But perhaps that's what Bush means by "weakening" the United States. 

No surprise there.  Bush is at heart a corporatist, which, to my way of thinking, makes him a fascist.

Why we should get out of Iraq, NOW!

My wife asked me the other morning what I think would happen if the U.S. withdrew from Iraq immediately.  My honest answer was simply, "I don't know.  But it couldn't be any worse than what's happening now."

Since I've been anti-Iraq war from day one (unlike the "leadership" of the Democratic Party), the question has forced me to give the issue some serious thought.  Beyond the facile arguments that the war was bad policy based on bad intelligence (and lies)-- they don't really address the issue of withdrawal anyway-- here's my case for getting out of Iraq , NOW!

• An extended war will bankrupt the country, meaning the government, which is probably OK with Bush and Grover Norquist, but not for most Americans.  And certainly not for progressives.  According to Linda Bilmes in the New York Times, " ... if the American military presence in the region lasts another five years, the total  outlay for the war could stretch to more than $1.3 trillion, or $11,300 for every household in the United States."  That's a hefty tax.
• Some leading Republicans are beginning to argue the point that the Iraq War has been a faliure and that it's not getting any better.  Chuck Hagel, who may run for President, says that Iraq is beginning look like Vietnam.  He should know.  He was there, unlike our current President.  And North Carolina Congressman Walter Jones has introduced an actual resolution for an Iraq exit policy.  He also said, "...the reason for going to war —
  Saddam Hussein's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction — has been proven false."
• Even the American Conservative Union has argued-- persuasively-- that American style democracy has no chance of working in Iraq, a country that consists of three distinct and often hostile factions.  One of the three-- the Kurds-- isn't  even Arab, and they're demanding autonomy, which may actually be a good idea. Most people probably aren't aware that present day Iraq was cobbled together by the British after World War I from three  provinces of the defeated Ottoman Empire.  The reason:  Oil.
• The war in Iraq has not only failed to promote democracy, it has been utterly disastrous for the "war on terrorism."  If the goal is to defeat Al Qaeda, then having American soldiers on the ground in Arab countries is a strategy designed to backfire.  Robert A. Pape wrote in the NewYork Times in July:  "Most important, the figures show that Al Qaeda is today less a product of Islamic fundamentalism than of a simple strategic goal: to compel the United States and its Western allies to withdraw combat forces from the Arabian Peninsula and other Muslim countries."   
• War profiteering by large U.S. corporations is the one unspoken goal of the American invasion that has been an unqualified success.  Antonia Juhasz writes: "Instead, more than 150 U.S. companies were awarded contracts totaling more than $50 billion, more than twice the GDP of Iraq. Halliburton has the largest contract, worth more than $11 billion, while 13 other U.S. companies are earning more than $1.5 billion each."  She says that "oil is at the heart of the agenda" of the privatization of Iraq's once largely state run economy.

Of course there are other compelling reasons-- moral reasons-- for an immediate withdrawal of soldiers from Iraq.  The death toll for American soldiers now stands at 1866.  14,021 have been wounded.  The estimated number if Iraqi civilians killed exceeds 23,000.  The number wounded?  Who knows? 

More importantly, does anyone care?