I’ll be up front about it: I am absolutely fascinated by the MTV series Newlyweds. The reality show follows the marriage between third-rate pop stars Jessica Simpson and Nick Lachey, and is most interesting for the astounding lack of intelligence displayed by its leading lady. Whether it be her inability to understand that buffalo wings do not actually contain the meat of buffaloes, or that one ought to look at the price of lingerie before signing the credit card receipt, Mrs. Simpson gives frightfully ample evidence that one can go through life and succeed while still lacking the basic skills that most of us take for granted. Newlyweds is doing quite well in the ratings, however, and Jessica stands ready to ink several lucrative endorsement offers linked to her guffaws.
Lucrative offers may be in the wings for Madison as well: on February 17th, a referendum will be put forth to voters of Dane County regarding efforts by the Ho Chunk Nation to transform the DeJope Bingo Hall on the East side of Madison into a full-fledged casino. The tribe has pledged $91 million dollars over thirteen years, to be given to the city and county. The tribe would pay all infrastructure costs to upgrade the facility and deal with increased traffic. An estimated 1,300 jobs would be created through both the casino itself and businesses that cater to it. Not a bad windfall for voting “yes.”
Of course, there are countless social maladies that come along with gambling, and these would no doubt increase with the construction of a casino. While it’s delightful to think that only the wealthy and elite of Madison would come to throw around their dough, the reality is that many casino attendees come from struggling situations, and can ill-afford to spend what little disposable income they possess on slots and blackjack. Debt and theft are very real consequences that should be considered in regards to the casino. Also, while casinos serve as a source of entertainment, they can often become an addictive diversion to individuals who could otherwise be spending their time far more effectively on education and self-improvement.
The typical defense of casino-supporters is that of Native American rights. Native Americans have been disrespected and abused by the American Government for centuries. Nearly all they once held sacred was taken away from them. Who are we to challenge their offer to share revenue? If the Ho Chunk Tribe actually wants to share their profits with the community, why should we object?
Neither of these approaches begins to address what is actually in contention. The casino will definitely create addition problems. It is hypocritical, though, to ignore the negative effects of State lotteries and scratch-off tickets, and then make a fuss when a casino pops up. If you don’t believe that anyone spends more than just a few dollars on these items, ask someone who actually sells them. In fact, it’s probably better to bring gamblers out into the open public, rather than having them making crooked bets and arrangements behind closed doors.
Likewise, the argument of Native American rights does little to justify the existence of a casino. While government maltreatment of Native Americans is a historical fact, the construction of a casino is not the way to make amends. Gambling revenue will not restore what was once lost, and should hardly be touted as the solution.
What matters is the issue of personal responsibility. Numerous people out there don’t believe that the vast majority of adults can handle the added thrill of a casino. Compulsive gambling is estimated to affect between 0.9 and 3% of the population; this apparently means that the other 97% of us can’t be expected to know when we’ve lost enough money? Everything from drinking a beer to driving a car can become highly dangerous if done in an irresponsible manner, but these are hardly reasons to block off roads and shut down breweries. America is a nation founded on individual liberty, and we ought not remove such freedoms because of the irresponsibility of a few.
Jessica Simpson is a wonderful example of how presupposed irresponsibility need not be all that irresponsible. Presuming that those who appear less intelligent and capable than ourselves are unable to manage their own affairs is downright arrogant. We should not be throwing aside fundamental principles for no better reason than fear of personal mismanagement. The far left and the far right have come together to oppose this referendum. Whenever those two groups find something to agree on, it is usually a sign for the rest of us to turn around and run in the other direction.
Rob Welygan ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in history and political science.
