Thursday, February 19, 2009

Gambling... our future.

A few years ago, the wise men who lead Pennsylvania decided to legalize "gambling". This meant that they would issue licenses to a few lucky parties to build casinos to house slot machines. Apparently these would serve as tourist attractions, or alternatively keep local gambling addicts in town to spend their money (as opposed to, say, having these folks drive to Wheeling, WV). Personally, I don't go in for this sort of "gaming", and I was decidedly uninterested in having the opportunity to play slots in my hometown. At the same time, I felt that if people really wanted to waste their money this way... why shouldn't they be allowed to? Who am I to judge folks and the way they spend their hard-earned cash?

As far as I understood, the reason to allow such activities was to generate revenue that could offset property tax reductions. I've been a home-owner for over a half decade, so this sounded good to me. And I had no moral qualms about folks throwing their dollars in the public kitty, with irrational dreams of becoming wealthy overnight. I wasn't sure why these gambling licenses were limited to slot machines, nor could I figure out the particular appeal of such a game. It didn't seem like anything that could ever hold my interest even if I was interested in placing bets. Why not include high-stakes poker or blackjack? Hell, even something like the roulette wheel seems more captivating. But to each their own.

It's been years since the legislation allowing "gaming" was passed, and Western PA is still waiting for the grand opening of the casino. Meanwhile times are getting tougher. So now PA Governor Ed Rendell is casting about for other ways to generate money for the state. His latest idea is to legalize the video poker machines that have been part of the bar/cafe scene for as long as I've been in the 'Burgh. I don't remember seeing them in Eastern PA, but I'm aware that they've been quite popular around these parts. The first time I saw a back-room full of these things in a ma-and-pop convenience store, I was confounded. After I got my first job at a bar, I realized that these places did indeed pay out winnings in cash. I assumed the entire business was mob-run. I knew it was illegal.

Rendell believes that the state can generate serious income (he estimates $550 million) for higher education by bringing these operations "above board". In his proposal, PA would get 50% of the take and leave the rest for the individual owner of the machine. I'm not quite sure where that leaves the syndicates that have been in charge of this illicit business for decades. Obviously there are some parties whose interests are at stake. The anti-gambling lobby couldn't help but oppose this. But the most vocal resistance is coming from the new casino operators who believe that video poker will eat into their own profits. Ultimately, at least a few lawmakers suspect that Rendell is simply positioning himself to push through table games as an alternative.

Meanwhile, PA State Senator Jeffrey Piccola (out of Harrisburg) has entered the fray with a counter-proposal. He's putting forth a plan that intends to boost tuition aid assistance for state schools that would (speculatively) serve an additional 25,000 students. But he wouldn't do it through legalizing video poker. Piccola wants to cut funding for the state's museums, private colleges, and art programs. He also wants to end the tax credit that Pennsylvania has extended to attract film production companies. It's difficult to understand Mr. Piccola's logic on this matter. He wants to enable more folks to get higher education, at the expense of the type of jobs and careers that such training will prepare them for. Let's all hail another genius politico.

Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, December 21, 2008

Deal Me In?

Once again I have a friend trying to talk me into playing poker. So far I have managed to side-step the trendy phase of its resurgence, despite several folks making every effort to let me know what I am missing out on. For some reason people think that I would enjoy taking up the game. They know that I have an interest in psychology, and emphasize the importance of that facet of poker. I expect that these would-be enablers have only the best intentions at heart. Certainly they aren't just trying to recruit fresh meat for the table, right? It's merely an opportunity for me to exercise a specific part of my personality, and a localized region of my brain. Somehow I would be ensured of fun and amusement.

For every compelling reason I am given for participating, I can almost instantly generate a handful of objections. The most generalized excuse I have for foregoing engagement is philosophically-based. When I was a boy, I learned quickly that gambling was a black hole. A couple of my buddies conspired with me to start a football betting pool in middle school. We decided that we could capitalize on our classmates' prurient tendencies, and make a buck or two for soda and comics. The first week we had a lot of participants. It seemed odd that one of our accomplices had so much foresight into what would happen on the gridiron. It was even stranger that one of us came out on top seven days later. What prognostication skills my small social circle had!

You see, we had figured out that the best role to play was the "house". Unfortunately we got greedy too quickly, because if we had more moderation we would have probably been taken care of for months. Anyway, I made a decision after the others started to suspect a fix- I wasn't going to be the sucker. This naturally jigsawed with another objection I had to another honored American past-time... playing cards. As the youngest member of my family I didn't have a chance of success when the deck came out. It was frustrating that the only way I could do well was when someone started patronizing me. I spent a lot of time sitting out, and rolling Yahtzee by myself. It's not like I didn't understand the odds.

As I got older it was easy to avoid gambling because neither my friends nor I ever had any money to throw around. It wasn't an option. Any discretionary income went to beer and cigarettes. The high stake gambles had more to do with whoever you were trying to get into bed. Still I occasionally felt the pull to go to the track. There was something about the horses that tempted me. Perhaps it was something sociological... I was captivated by the milieu. And I felt like I could come out even by simply betting the minimum to show. I could suck up the atmosphere without getting caught in the loop. And for years, there was no pressure to involve myself in any other games of chance.

Now we have high stakes poker on television. You have to make it a point to remain untouched by the craze. If you decide not to get in on it, you risk giving something up socially. I understand that. My grandfather always warned me that a day would come when I would regret not learning how to play cards. I thought he was daft, but he was really quite prescient. Maybe I'll succumb to the gentle urgings of my pals. But I'd be starting at a distinct advantage, and at the mercy of the early adopters. That's something I'd have a hard time dealing with for awhile. There's an ugly side of me that finds losing completely unacceptable under any conditions. Who wants to encourage that?

Labels: , , ,