I’m a strange brand of progressive—on the one hand I very much believe in equality for all socially, economically, educationally, and opportunistically regardless of a person’s demographics. However, I also have no problem with owning guns, no problem with state-sanctioned (hence taxed) casinos (more on this later), or riding a motorcycle without a helmet. I don’t have a helmet—I also don’t have a motorcycle, but I do have bicycle.
The last example above comes down to personal choice—the type of choice only impacts the person riding the motorcycle should it crash. Is it a good idea to wear a helmet? Yes. Should it be law? Probably not. The same goes for booster seats in cars for children under a certain height or weight. In some instances these laws are completely pointless.
For example, in Minnesota, the law requires that child must be in a booster seat until they are at least eight years old or 4 foot 9 inches tall, which comes first. The height restriction was entered into law because seat belts often do not restraint the passenger correctly in the event of a crash. Do you know any adults shorter than 4’ 9”—I don’t personally, but I know people that do. So, why don’t they need to be in a booster seat? Beyond that, I how did all other generations survive since the late-60s when automobiles began to really choke the roads?
Laws like this make want to scream at TV talk show hosts like Oprah and other ‘isn’t anyone thinking of the kids” media types. Of course we are, they are our kids (well not my kids, I don’t have any, but…), we love our children and wouldn’t want anything bad to happen to them. However, we also don’t want to have to strap them into the car like we were transporting dangerous criminals or completely wrap them in shock absorbing suits of armor in order for them to learn to ride their bikes. Do we?
These laws, which I call “Oprahfication” Laws, beg the question: How did we ever survive this long as a species? How did we every get beyond childhood? Hell even birth, considering all the recommended restrictions on diet for pregnant women? No soft cheeses, or are you smoking within an 100 yard radius from me—not that I am advocating you smoking around pregnant women—that was intended to be hyperbolic.
I mean, with all these little 'protect them from themselves laws and regulations it's a wonder our species has survived so long.
The point is, we have gone over the deep end on the regulating what is and isn’t good for us—as a progressive, I advocate for equality—that also mean equal responsibility. Equal responsibility requires equal opportunity for education, resources, and a worthwhile future—without these things people don’t know how to be responsible for themselves and we get goofy laws the ones mentioned above.
Like the issue of casinos and peoples' fear of them as the needle exchange equivalent for those addicted to gambling. Do they open more opportunities for problem gamblers to get their fix? Yes, but without them these gamblers will get it elsewhere. Additionally, state-sanctioned casinos will raise revenue through taxes which can be applied (in part) to education and treatment programs for those struggling to control problems with gambling.
I have an addictive personality—I get hooked on things easily—and I like gambling. However, my parents were careful to inform me that the excitement of winning is often offset by losing even bigger. This was demonstrated at a casino as a young adult when my father gave my brother and me $20 each and sent us off while he and buddy watched a boxing match. Both of us were up pretty big, however by the end of the time at the casino my brother and I were flat broke and had begged my dad for more money. He refused, and said, “You lost, if I gave you more, you’ll blow it all and be back for more…see the pattern? Good. Why do you think your mom and I rarely gamble?” Point well made.
The other issue being considered is the impact a state-sanctioned casino might have on Native American operated casinos in the state of Minnesota—regarding this I have to agree with (gasp) a republican’s thoughts on this:
While tribal casino representatives worried that a Minneapolis casino would take business away from them, (State Representative John) Kriesel (R-Cottage Grove) said he thinks they would appeal to different customers. Minnesota Live is emphasizing a younger crowd than frequents casinos.
I started by saying I'm a rare type of progressive—I will gamble that many people see a pro-casino writer as lesser than progressive politically. I will also bet that they’d be wrong—there are many stripes of progressives and when it comes to laws that prevent equality for all, this progressive will get active.
A casino in downtown Minneapolis, MN in the Block E district (an area which, besides a few bars and the sport stadiums, is starting to shine less and less each year) would be a very nice addition to the area, adding more downtown tourism, as people make weekends of coming to the Cities to catch a Vikings game or a Twins game, but probably not a Timberwolves game (hehehe) and can visit a Vegas-style casino downtown—provided some of the revenues go to ensure law enforcement is fully staffed and added to the area to deter and control any resulting pressures on crime.