N.J. wants gambling, just not on N.J. games
- Last Updated: 5:22 AM, October 7, 2012
- Posted: 12:54 AM, October 7, 2012
Phil Mushnick
EQUAL TIME
Imagine if a member of Congress, say, from Ohio, introduced legislation that would remove “STOP” signs from the streets of 49 states.
The proposal, the Congressman explains, would stimulate the economy, get people to work — or out to look for work — much faster. Time is money!
The auto body and funeral home lobbies would be solidly behind it, as would the Amalgamated Brotherhood of Tow Truck Owners and Operators.
Of course, the one state in which STOP signs would remain, and subject to existing laws, would be the Congressman’s home state of Ohio.
Mike Ehrmann/WireImage.com
Wide receiver Kenny Britt (88) of the Rutgers Scarlet Knights celebrates after a touchdown during a game against the Syracuse Orangemen at Rutgers Stadium in Piscataway, NJ on November 25, 2006. NCAA Football - Syracuse vs Rutgers - November 25, 2006 Rutgers Stadium Piscataway, New Jersey United States November 25, 2006 Photo by Mike Ehrmann/WireImage.com To license this image (11530930), contact WireImage: U.S. / U.K. / Australia / Germany / Japan: (fax) info@wireimage.com (e-mail) www.wireimage.com (web site)
Well, similar is taking place in New Jersey, whose legislators habitually promote more legalized gambling as the solution to what ails it — despite decades of evidence to the contrary.
In this case, Gov. Christie, backed by bipartisan legislators, the gambling lobby, poll results and even the state’s largest newspaper, is eager to legalize gambling on collegiate and pro sports, bets to be made in casinos and at race tracks.
Christie and Co. figure the usual: Why let illegal bookies get all the action and the 10 percent on losing bets, when the state, running a clean, above-board operation, can rake its take.
Oh, there’s one stipulation: No college games that are played by Jersey teams or played in Jersey will be on the board. That’s a pre-existing law, and it seems everyone involved agrees it’s a good one.
But if Jersey’s is to be a clear, clean operation, what difference does it make? Why can you bet on Utah-Wyoming and Pitt-West Virginia, but not on Rutgers-UConn or Seton Hall-St. John’s? Why let the illegal books get the exclusive on large, local action?
After all, it’s either wrong or it’s right. How can it be wrong to gamble on Jersey teams and games, but right to gamble on teams every place else?
Or is it that the same folks who support this legislation also know that gambling is inevitably escorted by corruption, which is OK — provided the corruption occurs in the 49 other states.
Furthermore, if/when something does hit the fan in Jersey, those same legislators can avoid sharing the blame for promoting what they knew — or suspected — would happen, in the first place.
So Jersey encourages gambling on college football and basketball — come and get it! But, aware of what can, has and will happen, just keep Jersey schools out of it.
The entire package, then, becomes a tacit admission that these legislators know that it’s a dangerous ride they’re advocating, so much so that they want Jersey schools to be protected, as much as possible, from their own legislation!
No comments:
Post a Comment