Ahhhhhhhhh, Vice!

by Dick Mac

I am a fan of vice, even though I strive to avoid it.

Today I discuss two of my faves: gambling and injectable drugs.

When I compare the two, I immediately think that the former is safer than the latter. I know of no gambler who has contracted hepatitis or HIV from a deck of cards, a pair of dice, the single-arm of a bandit, a cock fight, horse race, or bingo marker. I do know gamblers who have destroyed their lives, lost everything, alienated their children, lost their jobs and ended-up in bankruptcy court. These people are called addicts, and rightfully so: they can't stop, they are addicted. Still, the insidiousness of their problem is in its relative physical safety.

The latter, injectable drugs, are sort of in their own special category of vices. Technically, injecting drugs is in the same category as drinking alcohol, smoking pot, tripping on acid, and chewing Prozac. We all know, however, that injecting drugs is really different than smoking a bone. There is nothing insidious about addiction to injectable drugs: it is dangerous on every level.

When I consider parenting, I worry about the pitfalls my child will face: peer pressure, stress, spiritual and financial struggles, and I wonder how vice will play a role in her coping with life.

I hope my child stays away from cigarettes, and booze/drugs, overeating, gambling, and the many other vices at her disposal; and, I pray that she chooses against injectable drugs.

There is something viscerally disquieting about injectable drugs, the people who use them, and the people who traffic in them.

I've never heard anyone say, "He sells a little [junk] on the side, but he's generally a good guy." Although, you might hear someone say: "you know, he drinks heavily, but he's a good provider."

There is just something about the use of injectable drugs that seems to cross a line for almost everybody. It's a moral issue. It seems too extreme. It's scary and dangerous and people don't really like to think about it or talk about it. It happens to other people, in other places, in other times.

Gambling is a socially acceptable activity, unlike shooting drugs. There are palaces around the world (actually, buildings grander than palaces) open specifically for gambling. Free booze and free food and free lodging are available to anyone who wants to indulge. The deeper you indulge, the more free stuff you get. (Again, I point to the insidiousness of gambling.)

Shooting drugs might be the least socially acceptable activity, outside of rape and murder. There is no place in the world (even your friends' homes) where you are welcome to hang-around and shoot a little dope. Chat with the guys, enjoy a free tourniquet, and some clean hot water, maybe a clean toilet to puke into. It just doesn't work that way.

People who shoot drugs are really outsiders, and gamblers are really just regular joes like you and me who are coming over to the house on Saturday to play a little penny-ante poker.

Gamblers who are compulsive are known to steal, lie, cheat, defraud, even kill for their addiction. Drug users who inject drugs enjoy the same characteristics. Both the compulsive gambler and the injectable drug user are sociopaths, on some level; and your family is better-off if neither is at the dinner table.

Why do we treat them so differently? Why is one such an outcast and the other just a nuisance?

Come now, Major League Baseball, who at one time banned Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle (both retired) from the game because they endorsed a casino in Atlantic City, and currently ban Pete Rose from the game because he gambled on games (not his own games) while a manager. Major League Baseball has taken a stand that many families might want to consider: either you give-up the questionable behavior or you're out.

With the ban of Pete Rose, MLB has shown the courage of its convictions. These are the rules and you broke them and you're out! Period. End of story. No negotiations. You are banned for life. Arguably, the greatest pure hitter in the history of the game, Rose is now an outsider, shunned by the industry (family?) he helped build, to whom he gave his life.

The courage of its conviction is something that MLB should be proud of, because it shows a moral fiber I don't expect to see in a corporate entity.

Most corporate entities (recognized as 'people' as defined by the 14th Amendment) are generally morally bankrupt. They are sociopathic (maybe even psychopathic) in their drive to succeed and crush all around them. The moral fiber of corporate entities is questionable, at best.

So how has MLB managed to maintain such a strong moral presence?

Oh, wait . . .

There is no punishment of injecting drugs and cheating.

What?

That's right!

You can inject (or can have injected) drugs that gave you a competitive advantage, you can cheat, and there is no punishment.

Alex Rodriguez, Roger Clemens, Andy Pettite, and hundreds of other baseball players cheated for years, got caught, and all enjoy a secure place, snuggled around the fireplace in the hallowed halls of Major League Baseball.

Pete Rose is out, because he bet the over-under on a Twins v Indians game in 1987; and Alex Rodriguez is in, even though he injected drugs for years while playing the game.

Major League Baseball has some pretty skewed priorities and really odd values.

This is not a morally upstanding organization, this is a psychopathic entity ignorant of its own flaws and racing to the finish line of profits with absolutely no consideration for their moral impact on society.

Allowing Rodriguez, Pettite, and any other player who shoots drugs to remain in the game sends a message to America's youth that shooting drugs is OK, that cheating is OK, and there are no consequences for moral bankruptcy.

Three New York Stories (and a happy addendum)

Mayor Bloomberg has been on a campaign to shut-down Off-Track Betting (OTB) parlours in New York City. I know this sounds like Giuliani's fake morality campaign to squeeze-out the porno parlours, but it isn't. (The anti-porn crusade was actually a real estate campaign, not a morality campaign.)

The Mayor has been closing-down OTB parlours in the city because the City is losing money on them. it costs the city millions of dollars to keep them open. Only the State and the New York Racing Commission actually profit from the business.

We are a city that is slashing its education budget. We should not be subsidizing gambling parlours (really crappy gambling parlours) that benefit only people far from the city who hate the people of the city.

I applaud Bloomberg for his efforts to kick-out OTB. Let them open new shops in Rensselaer County, preferably six or seven right in Brunswick. Let Joe Bruno and his buddies subsidize it for a while.

There is a patch of undeveloped land in Brooklyn, NY. If you can believe it.

Near the intersection of Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues, in Prospect Heights, are rail yards with much open space. A developer wants to build an arena there, and rapper/mogul Jay-Z, an owner of the New Jersey Nets, wants to move the team to his hometown.

I understand and sympathize with the residents of the area who object to the development. The NIMBY culture is alive and well in urban America, especially among social groups least interested in sports. I wouldn't want a basketball arena in my neighborhood. But progress, like shit, happens. And I think the arena will eventually be built on that patch of ground, irrespective of the number of liberals who lay down in front of the bulldozers. This isn't the sixties anymore. Citizens are no longer allowed to halt progress.

So, we are going to have a new arena in Brooklyn eventually, and the developer will make a lot of money on it, as he should for making such a huge investment. Herein, lies the rub.

The developer expects the city and state to give him $300,000,000 towards the development.

New York City is looking to slash its school budget because there isn't enough money to go around. We should not spend one penny on a new arena, that is unwanted by its neighbors, when we have insufficient funds to pay for those neighbors' schools.

I hope the mayor and his successors see the folly of giving money to developers who give nothing in return.

And my third story today is about my junior senator, Hillary Clinton.

It was reported today that Senator Clinton met with the presumptive Democratic nominee for President, Barack Obama. The conversation is said to have been about uniting the party to beat John McCain in November.

There is only one thing that Hillary Clinton has to do, and because she is responsible for festering the problem in her campaign against Senator Obama, she is morally obligated to take this action. Any other action she takes is bullshit!

Senator Clinton must travel to every state she won in the primaries and tell all the voters there that racism is unacceptable, that her supporters must put race aside when considering what is best for the country, they must vote for Obama if they want any hope for the future and that she expects them to vote for him because she knows he is the best candidate.

Clinton and her campaign (including her husband) played the race card repeatedly in the past six months. She must atone for this sin. She must travel through America helping to destroy racism. To be considered a world leader, she must do this.

Anything less is unacceptable.

And as a closing note, my happy addendum: my Red Bulls won a hard-fought match against CD Chivas USA, last night at Giants Stadium. Thank you Juan Pablo Angel, and the entire team!

Cherokee Nation Lowers Itself

When the Cherokee Nation was defeated in 1832, the remaining Cherokee people and their slaves were forced on the Trail of Tears and settled together as a new nation in Oklahoma. The treaty to which the Cherokee Nation subsequently agreed in 1866, included their slaves and mixed-race Cherokees as full citizens.

On Saturday, March 3, 2007, the Cherokee Nation held a special election to accept or reject a constitutional amendment that would re-define citizenship. The issue at hand is race-based: are the descendants of Cherokee slaves and mixed-race Cherokees actual citizens of Cherokee Nation?

The election results overwhelmingly supported the right of the Cherokee Nation to revoke citizenship of anyone they determined to be mixed-race or the descendants of freedmen, not pure-blooded Cherokee.

Is there anything more despicable than exclusionary race-based laws, laws that exclude certain people because of their race?

Having gotten amazingly wealthy from the profits of casinos, the Cherokees want to rid themselves of the burden of paying to support those who are least able to care for themselves, those with no voice in their Nation. Sounds so Republican!

When the Seminole Tribes pulled the same disgusting stunt in Florida, the United States government revoked their right to run casinos. Without casino income, the Seminole Nation has no economy, so they repealed their racist laws. Let's hope the Cherokees are forced to do the same thing. Until they do, everyone should boycott Cherokee Casinos.

If you are a neo-con impressed that Cherokee Nation has done this, think about it: when the Cherokees throw these 2,800 people out of their nation in Oklahoma, they will become Americans and the responsibility of the United States, so the people of Oklahoma will have to pay to support them, while the millionaire chiefs of Cherokee nation enjoy the profits of their casinos.

This is a bad thing, no matter what end of the political spectrum defines you (even if you pretend you are in the middle).

Race-based laws within the boundaries of the United States are unacceptable.

Speak-out against this terrible injustice in Cherokee Nation. Defend the 2,800 descendants of freedmen and mixed-race Cherokees. Don't let the Cherokee Nation enjoy subsidies from the United State government and the profits of casinos frequented by United States citizens.

Read this article from the Cherokee nation website:

Cherokee Nation Special Election Results

TAHLEQUAH, Okla. – A Cherokee Nation Constitutional amendment restricting membership to descendants of Indians listed by blood on the Dawes Rolls has passed.

Cherokee voters overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the Cherokee Nation Constitution in a special election Saturday, March 3, by a decisive vote of 6,693 (77%) for the measure to 2,040 (23%) against. The amendment limits citizenship in the Cherokee Nation to descendants of people who are listed on the Final Rolls of the Cherokee Nation as Cherokee, Delaware or Shawnee and excludes descendants of those listed on Intermarried White and Freedmen rolls taken at the same time.

“The Cherokee people exercised the most basic democratic right, the right to vote,” said Chad Smith, Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation. “Their voice is clear as to who should be citizens of the Cherokee Nation. No one else has the right to make that determination. It was a right of self-government, affirmed in 23 treaties with Great Britain and the United States and paid dearly with 4,000 lives on the Trail of Tears.”

Smith added that the number of voters who turned out to vote on the constitutional amendment was actually more than the approximately 6,700 who approved the Cherokee Nation Constitution four years ago.

“This was an unexpectedly high turnout, considering it was a special election with nothing else on the ballot,” Smith said. “I think that reflects the idea that this is an issue that has been close to the heart of the Cherokee people and an issue they have thought about carefully before voting.”

The special election was brought about by a petition of registered Cherokee voters, and was an historic event for the Cherokee Nation, as its first ever stand-alone election to vote on a Constitutional amendment.

Election results are unofficial until certified by the Cherokee Nation Election Commission, but percentages are not expected to change significantly.

This from AP:

Tribe slave descendants face uncertainty
By SEAN MURPHY, Associated Press Writer
Sun Mar 4, 4:13 PM ET

The Cherokee Nation vote this weekend to revoke the citizenship of the descendants of people the Cherokee once owned as slaves was a blow to people who have relied on tribal benefits.

Charlene White, a descendant of freed Cherokee slaves who were adopted into the tribe in 1866 under a treaty with the U.S. government, wondered Sunday where she would now go for the glaucoma treatment she has received at a tribal hospital in Stilwell.

"I've got to go back to the doctor, but I don't know if I can go back to the clinic or if they're going to oust me right now," said White, 56, a disabled Tahlequah resident who lives on a fixed income.

In Saturday's special election, more than 76 percent of voters decided to amend the Cherokee Nation's constitution to remove the estimated 2,800 freedmen descendants from the tribal rolls, according to results posted Sunday on the tribe's Web site.

Marilyn Vann, president of the Descendants of Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes, said the election results undoubtedly will be challenged.

"We will pursue the legal remedies that are available to us to stop people from not only losing their voting rights, but to receiving medical care and other services to which they are entitled under law," Vann said Sunday.

"This is a fight for justice to stop these crimes against humanity."

Cherokee Nation spokesman Mike Miller said Sunday that election results will not be finalized until after a protest period that extends through March 12. Services currently being received by freedmen descendants will not immediately be suspended, he said.

"There isn't going to be some sort of sudden stop of a service that's ongoing," Miller said. "There will be some sort of transition period so that people understand what's going on."

In a statement late Saturday, Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chad Smith said he was pleased with the turnout and election result.

"Their voice is clear as to who should be citizens of the Cherokee Nation," Smith said. "No one else has the right to make that determination. It was a right of self-government, affirmed in 23 treaties with Great Britain and the United States and paid dearly with 4,000 lives on the Trail of Tears."

The petition drive for the ballot measure followed a March 2006 ruling by the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court that said an 1866 treaty assured freedmen descendants of tribal citizenship.

A similar situation occurred in 2000 when the Seminole Nation voted to cast freedmen descendants out of its tribe, said attorney Jon Velie of Norman, an expert on Indian law who has represented freedmen descendants in previous cases.

"The United States, when posed the same situation with the Seminoles, would not recognize the election and they ultimately cut off most federal programs to the Seminoles," Velie said. "They also determined the Seminoles, without this relationship with the government, were not authorized to conduct gaming."

Ultimately, the Seminole freedmen were allowed back into the tribe, Velie said.

Velie said Saturday's vote already has hurt the tribe's public perception.

"It's throwback, old-school racist rhetoric," Velie said.

"And it's really heartbreaking, because the Cherokees are good people and have a very diverse citizenship," he said.

Miller, the tribal spokesman, defended the Cherokees against charges of racism, saying that Saturday's vote showed the tribe was open to allowing its citizens vote on whether non-Indians be allowed membership.

"I think it's actually the opposite. To say that the Cherokee Nation is intolerant or racist ignores the fact that we have an open dialogue and have the discussion, he said.

Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.