Press-Citizen Promotes Student Gambling

The Iowa City Press-Citizen, which has been pushing the edge of the envelope with regard to the promotion of gambling (see earlier blog entries, linked from below) in page one stories and special supplements, ripped the envelope open this morning with a direct assault on our local high school and college youth. Hieu Pham, "Students Find New Ways to Earn Cash," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 26, 2006, p. 1A.

Without even a nod in the direction of balance, under a headline designed to get high school and college students' attention (after all, what student would not be interested in "new ways to earn cash"?), the paper introduces readers to Kyle Obrecht, "who plays online poker and gambles at casinos to make rent." "Gambling has paid for me to live in the last couple of years," he's quoted as saying. I'm sure many students, trying to make it on Iowa's minimum wage, will be excited to learn from the Press-Citizen that gambling has "proven to be much more lucrative than any regular job" for him.

Moreover, it's easy to do. "At his first casino visit, Obrecht won $600 . . . [but] still plays online three days a week." Given his gambling riches it's not surprising that "Obrecht . . . said he is considering becoming a pro poker player on the side."

But there are other ways, even if not as lucrative, for students to make money from the gambling industry. "UI junior Anthony Lobaito, 21, said he found his job as a dealer at the Riverside Casino & Golf Resort through Jobnet. 'The pay is really good,' said Lobaito, who earns an hourly base pay of $5.50 . . .." Yeah, $5.50 sure beats $5.15 an hour. (Actually, it's the tips that attract him.)

I've known the Press-Citizen since I've been a kid. I helped a buddy deliver the papers at one point in my life. I have read it for many of the years since. I have written regular columns for the paper during the 1980s ("Communications Watch," which was ultimately in national syndication), and 1990s (about K-12 issues, while serving on the local school board), and from time to time since. I read it early every morning with my first cup of coffee.

So it gives me no pleasure to have to criticize the paper in strong language.

But I really do think that for any paper to promote gambling in this irresponsible, inaccurate way to young people, without balance, without saying something about the real odds of winning (laid out in detail in the UI piece linked below), the real disasters it has brougnt into the lives of many youngsters, and the treatment programs that are available, can only be described as "shameful."

Over the past couple of months I have posted a number of blog entries on the subject of gambling and the media's promotion of the new Riverside Casino that are listed, and linked, below. In one, titled "Gambling's Road to Nowhere" (see link, in list, below), I began:

"Nobody but the house wins from gambling; seldom do gamblers win, even in the short run and virtually never in the long run. Like a fisherman who will tell you about the big ones he caught, but seldom about the entire days spent in a boat, or on the bank, without so much as a nibble, in my experience gamblers are notoriously poor bookkeepers when it comes to recording losses with the attention to detail they bring to their winnings."

I will give the reporter -- whom I have no reason to believe is anything other than an honorable, professional journalist -- that Kyle Obrecht actually said the things that are quoted and reported.

But were they confirmed? That even one student has found "online poker and . . . casinos" sufficiently profitable on a sustained, ongoing basis, to pay his rent and otherwise enable him "to live in the last couple years" is so outlandishly unbelievable that one would hope an editor would at least require the reporter to obtain, and share with the editor, the bookkeeping records that confirm the story.

Otherwise this is little more than a story -- and a very dangerous one at that -- about male college student braggadocio.

Gambling among young people is a serious problem in this country, as even a few minutes' search of the Internet will confirm. The references linked below are but a small, illustrative sampling.

The Nebraska report refers to studies by the National Gambling Impact Study Commission, the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, and the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. Those studies reveal such things as that roughly one in four 18 year olds gambled in a casino during the prior 12 months, and that among the 55% of adolescents who are "casual or recreational gamblers," as many as 1.1 million kids between 12 and 18 are "pathological gamblers" -- a proportion as much as three times that for adults. Moreover, quoting from an NGISC report, "pathological gambling is associated with alcohol and drug use, truancy, low grades . . . and illegal activities to finance gambling." The Nebraska paper continues, "Problems with gambling . . . increases . . . the likelihood of being involved in violent incidents [and] an increased risk for attempted suicide."

The NCAA's Director of Agent, Gambling and Amateurism Activities has testified that "The advent of Internet wagering . . . raises even greater cause for concern." He refers to the concerns of the American Academy of Pediatrics, among others:

"A 1999 Gallup Poll reports that teenagers say they start betting on college sports at age 10 and . . . at twice the rate of adults. Called 'the addiction of the '90's' by the American Academy of Pediatrics, their research indicates that there are over one million United States teens who are addicted to gambling. A recent Harvard School of Medicine report estimates that six percent of teenagers under 18 have serious gambling problems."

Not only are there adverse impacts on the youths engaged in gambling, and their families, there are costs of various kinds -- including financial -- to be paid by the broader community as well.

A story about the losses from youthful gambling could be a real journalistic service to any community. A story about college students' gambling as one of the "new ways to earn cash," indeed, to offset rising tuition, pay the rent and other living expenses, a substitute for what we'd normally think of as student employment, is grossly irresponsible.

Deliberate misrepresentations regarding the consequences of risky behavior, as one in a series of articles promoting gambling in general and the nearby Riverside Casino in particular, is a serious matter.

I'm not suggesting a direct parallel, and I'm certainly not urging that anyone file a law suit. But I would note yesterday's story about the $200 billion dollar class action suit against the tobacco companies for their misrepresentation regarding the health benefits of their "light" cigarettes. See, e.g., Adam Hochberg, "Judge OKs Class-Action Suit by 'Light' Smokers," NPR Morning Edition, September 25, 2006.

I expect better than tobacco company ethics from my local paper.

_______________

Sampling of Online Information About Youthful Gambling and Gambling Generally

1. University of Iowa: Student Health/Health Iowa: Substance Abuse/Gambling on Campus.

2. Debra E. Schroeder and Rebecca L. Versch, "Youthful Gambling in the United States," NebFact, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

3. International Centre for Youth Gambling Problems and High-Risk Behaviors.

4. Gambling Problems, Villanova University.

5. William S. Saum, NCAA, Testimony Before the Judiciary Committee of the Nevada State Assembly, March 2, 2001.

6. Roger Dunstan, Gambling in California, January 1997.

Nicholas Johnson's Blogging About Gambling and Media Promotion of the Casino

Nicholas Johnson, "Mr. Editor, tear down this wall!" August 8, 2006;

Nicholas Johnson, "Gazette: 'Reputation at Stake,'" August 18, 2006;

Nicholas Johnson, "Gambling's Road to Nowhere," August 21, 2006;

Nicholas Johnson, "Coming P-C Casino Spread: Another Frosty?" August 22, 2006;

Nicholas Johnson, "Gambling: Same the Whole World Over," August 22, 2006;

Nicholas Johnson, "Press-Citizen: Promoting Casino Gambling?" August 28, 2006;

Nicholas Johnson, "The Gazette: Promoting Casino Gambling?" August 28, 2006;

Nicholas Johnson, "Casino Offers Research Opportunity," August 29, 2006;

Nicholas Johnson, "Press-Citizen's 'Shuffle Up' Stories Available," August 30, 2006;

Nicholas Johnson, "Gazette Shames Press-Citizen," August 31, 2006;

Nicholas Johnson, "Out of Body, Out of Mind," September 1, 2006;

Nicholas Johnson, "Gambling and Paternalism," September 4, 2006;

Nicholas Johnson, "Royal Flush," September 7, 2006;

Nicholas Johnson, "Press-Citizen's Casino; Gazette's E-Frosty," September 14, 2006;

Nicholas Johnson, "UI Football Promoting Gambling?" September 16, 2006;

Nicholas Johnson, "Media on Casino's Leno," September 18, 2006;

_______________

Technorati tags: casino, gambling, student gambling, media promotion of gambling, Riverside, Pella, Riverside Casino & Golf Resort.

The Limits of Empire II: The Assassination Policy

The discussion between James E-J and myself, which began in Nicholas Johnson, "The Limits of Empire," September 24, 2006, continues with James' suggestion that the U.S. adopt an overt policy of assassination of leaders of countries we dislike (rather than going to "war" with them).

_______________

James E-J said...

I think your points are fair ... let me put this on the table as a proposal. I won't defend it right now, but from a game theory perspective, I suspect it will work:

1. The US should adopt a policy of targeted assassination.

2. Democratically elected leaders(even when elected in a sham election arranged by an elite that controls government, such as Ahmadinejad's election arranged by the Ayatollahs) are not subject to assassination under this policy, though such elite may be subject to assassination.

3. Leaders who exercise control over a geographic area and are not elected (the Ayatollahs, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, the Mullahs, etc.) are eligible for assassination.

4. The US will prioritize assassination targets that are a danger to foreign countries, support terror, impede democratization, impose fascism on domestic populations, engage in genocide or engage in any form of ethinic cleansing.

5. Successors to an assassinated leader will assume the same priority on the list as their predecessor absent clear and verifiable actions (not words) that establish a lower priority.

6. The US will make its assassination guidelines (but not a list of specific targets) public and publish its case against each person killed after their assassination.

I think if we established this kind of policy we would see more people like Libya's Muammar al-Gaddafi reduce their involvement in anti-liberal terror programs. The policy would be targeted very narrowly against those people who cause so much harm to humanity, and would provide strong incentives for those specific people to realign their behavior towards a more liberal course.

9/24/2006 02:38:28 PM

_______________

Nick responds:

There are a number of ways of approaching this proposal for a deliberate, albeit superficially "rational," policy of assassination.

1. At the outset, the choice between assassination and war somehow reminds me of my colleague, Tung Yin's, survey regarding whether, starving and put to the limited choice, people would rather eat a "rat burger" or an "insect burger." See Nicholas Johnson, "Professor Yin Says 'No' to Bug Burgers," September 16, 2006.

2. If you want to put this as a theoretical, hypothetical, philosophical choice between only two choices, and require me to make one of them, then, yes, I would prefer that the senseless slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians (the all too common consequence of most "wars") be avoided, even though it would require -- within the terms of this choice -- the deliberate assassination of someone.

3. But if you'll permit me the least bit of a moral civilization, I would, of course, not support assassinatiion -- and certainly not as a deliberate, overt policy. There is a reason why we call premeditated, deliberate killing of another "murder," and reserve for it our two most heavy penalties: life imprisonment and the death penalty. This is a moral judgment shared by religions and secular legal systems for at least hundreds of years.

4. For those reasons, I suspect there are many who would simply refuse to play this false game of choice, saying something like, "Murder is immoral as well as illegal; I simply refuse to make a choice between murder and war." As the lyrics to one of John Prine's songs put it, "Now Jesus don't like killin', No matter what the reasons for." (John Prine, "Your Flag Decal Won't Get You Into Heaven Anymore.")

5. First, let me say that (a) there are alternatives to violence. I won't launch into that lengthy essay here, except to say that "last resort" means last resort. (b) Every nation is entitled to protect its people once attacked. But virtually never should that justify unnecessary, "preemptive" wars (or assassinations) of choice. (c) Morality and international law aside, by what right does it fall to us to dictate to other peoples and countries who their leaders should be; which ones should be permitted to live and which should die? Where is the historical support for the assertion that things will be better after we've intervened?

6. Having said all that, I will now take the challenge as the theoretical/philosophical issue it is intended to be and try to address it seriously.

7. There are some practical, administrative, problems with an overt policy of assassination as well as the moral objections.

(1) As Colin Powell has said recently of our torture policies, a benefit cost analysis of an assassination policy might very well reveal that what we lose in "moral high ground," with the allies and international cooperation it, and they, provide, would more than offset whatever we'd gain with an occasional assassination.

(2) It might very well be counter productive. As reports of the latest National Intelligence Estimate reveal, the war in Iraq has increased the number of terrorists, provided them a training ground, eased their task of recruiting, and spread their cells, like a cancer, throughout the world. See Nicholas Johnson, "Don't Like To Say 'I told you so, but . . .," September 24, 2006. Assassinations might very well contribute to the same kind of result.

(3) It's not clear it would "work." (a) The Administration claims to have captured or killed many terrorist leaders -- following which terrorists' attacks, and recruiting, have increased, not decreased. Although President Bush once said that taking Bin Laden, "dead or alive," was our primary goal, Bin Laden's isolation makes that one goal for which one can scarcely claim "Mission Accomplished." Recently there have been rumors that Bin Laden is dead. The point is, whatever the truth may be it hasn't made any difference -- especially with a metasticizing cancer of terrorist cells. (b) Any dictator who's been around a long time, once assassinated, will most likely be followed by a clone -- possibly even someone worse. (c) And, as noted, if you're dealing with the "leader" of an "organization" that is not hierarchial, that consists of semi-independent cells around the world, perfectly capable of coming up with their own devilment and destruction without direction -- a sort of human equivalent of the resiliency of the Internet -- the only consequence from the assassination of that "leader" will be to strengthen the terrorists' resolve and recruiting. (c) If the assassination policy extends well beyond "the leader" to others in the second and third levels (if a hierarchial organization) "assassination" soon evolves into something closer to "war."

(4) Even if it would work strategically it is very hard to pull off successfully tactically. (a) Our efforts to assassinate Castro read like a script for the keystone cops: poisoning his food, exploding cigars. Castro's continuing rule, extending through the terms of many U.S. presidents committed to his destruction, is perhaps the best pragmatic argument against a policy of assassination. (b) Even if you would be successful in killing somebody, the odds are good you will end up killing the wrong person, or persons.

(5) U.S. history is full of dramatic real life illustrations of one of the themes of George Orwell's book, 1984: Today's hated enemy can very quickly become tomorrow's trusted ally -- and the reverse. Bin Laden helped us fight the Russians in Afghanistan. Have you seen the pictures of our present Secretary of State with Saddam, our ally in our fight against Iran?

8. The policy is open to abuse. Today, critics of U.S. foreign policy charge that all too often we go to war on behalf of U.S. corporate interests -- or even for political motives, as depicted in the "fictional" movie "Wag the Dog." The presidential power to start wars without complying with the constitutional requirement of a congressional "declaration of war" is bad enough as it is. With the legalization of your "shoot first explain later" assassination policy there would be virtually no limit on this executive grasp of power from congress.

For example, ITT offered money to the CIA on more than one occasion to insure that Salvador Allende -- a democratically elected president of Chile -- would not be elected, or if elected, come to power in Chile and take over ITT's telephone company there. The CIA helped the company funnel the money to achieve its purposes, which some have charged included Allende's assassination. Whatever the facts may be, Allende was killed, and President Nixon was quite willing to act unilaterally according to a CIA report:

"On 15 September President Nixon informed the DCI that an Allende regime in Chile would not be acceptable to the United States. He instructed the CIA to prevent Allende from coming to power or unseat him and authorized $10 million for this purpose. The President specifically directed that this action be carried out by the CIA without advising the Departments of State or Defense or the U.S. Ambassador in Chile."

CIA, "Subject: CIA Activities in Chile," September 18, 2000.

Can you imagine all the assassinations that might be requested these days by big oil and other major campaign contributors?

In conclusion, your choice, between war and assassination, reminds me of the conclusion the computer came to in the last scene in the movie "War Games." After trying various war scenarios against the Soviets, and a game of tic-tac-toe, it declares "the only winning move is not to play the game." Increasingly, that's where I come out.

_______________

Rain Forest: Monday September 25 Update

The Monday, September 25, update to the rain forest ("Earthpark") Web site, http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/IaChild, went up about 2:00 p.m. CT this afternoon (September 25).

It is a fairly substantial (2400-words-plus) entry dealing with a number of subjects which, if they were to have been entered as blog entries, would have been a number of separate entries.

_______________

[Every Monday since December 2005 there has been a weekly upload to the pre-existing Iowa rain forest Web site I maintain. In all, printed out it would run over 100 single spaced pages; there are, in addition, links to the full text of hundreds of newspaper stories and reports. It is very probably the most complete resource on the topic anywhere on the Web.

It is found at: http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/politics/IaChild.

Over the past few months the scope of the Web site has expanded from the rain forest project to include material related to the broader range of attractions and economic development generally in which the proposed rain forest exists and by which it must be evaluated.

If you are interested in following this subject, you might also want to check in from time to time with the Iowa Pork Forest blog for comments that are often humorous and entertaining as well as insightful.]

Technorati tags: Iowa Rain Forest, economic development, attractions, tourism, rain forest, pork, Earthpark, Earth Park, Iowa, casino, gambling, Riverside, Pella

The Limits of Empire

Following the earlier entry, Nicholas Johnson, "Don't Like To Say 'I told you so,' but . . .," September 24, 2006, an exchange took place in the comments between James E-J and myself that I thought worth reproducing as an entry of its own:

James E-J said...

I opposed going into Iraq too, but I wonder what you think should have been done about Saddam's refusal to comply with UN Security resolutions, ongoing Food For Oil program corruption, repeated violations of the No-Fly zone ...

I also opposed economic sanctions generally because I find that they punish civilians while the leaders remain mostly unaffected. So, for me that also was not a solution.

I would have supported coordination with Kurdish and Shiite organizations to kill Saddam and his sons (who are worse than he was). Unfortunately, The US has a policy against targeting for assassination the people responsible for a country's bad acts. I wonder what you would have suggested?

_______________

Nick said...

James: I (like you) don't claim to have all the answers. Clearly, I don't have educational/professional credentials with such matters.

My horseback sense is that we do have some level of obligation to all life on earth, and certainly humankind. I certainly don't advocate a "fortress America" isolationism.

On the other hand, we simply have neither the resources nor the wisdom to solve all of the world's problems. Nor do we have the right, I think, to make judgments for others regarding what we know to be better for them than what they have chosen for themselves (or had foisted upon them).

Putting the best face on it, giving the Bush Administration the benefit of the doubt that their intentions were an honorable desire to improve the lot of the Iraq people, Iraq stands as a classic example of how often and easily such seemingly well meaning efforts can end in a disastrously opposite state of affairs from what was intended.

There are a great many countries and peoples for whom I wish better than what they have, many world leaders whom I wish were not in the positions of power that they are -- and utilizing and abusing that power in the ways that they are.

At a minimum, picking who we're going to "help" requires a kind of triage by us of all the world's countries, and the various minority and other groupings within those countries. I don't know how Iraq would have ranked following such an assessment, but it's not obvious to me that it was a greater risk to us than North Korea, or a greater source of terrorists and their financing than Saudi Arabia, or involved greater brutality than Sri Lanka, Indonesia (East Timor), Darfur, or the former Burma, etc.

Are there absolutely horrible situations in which the best America can do is nothing? Yes, regretfully, I suspect that is often the case. Even more often, I imagine, is it the case that, as the bumper sticker has it, "Whatever is the question, war is not the answer."

_______________

Technorati tags: tags: terrorism, military, war in Iraq.

Thank You Richard Doak

The column of the Des Moines Register's Richard Doak in this morning's (September 24) Sunday paper was devoted to his take on a couple of recent speeches, one by Congressman Jim Leach and the other my "General Semantics, Terrorism and War."

Richard Doak, "Two Iowans Speak Clearly on War, Verbal Confusion," Des Moines Register, September 24, 2006.

Congressman Leach's address, "The Politics of Power," delivered at the University of Iowa August 31, deals with a variety of subjects, but includes the role of money in politics, a subject on which Jim Leach has taken a reformer's leading role over the years. Here's an excerpt:

"[A]nyone who does not see a compelling case for radical campaign reform is not looking closely enough at the machinations in American politics. All societies have examples of corruption. We are no exception. But the bigger problem in our society is legalized conflicts of interest. In a system built on too much money in politics, the case for eliminating PACs and going to a system of partial public financing, with the government matching small contributions up to a precise ceiling, is profound."

It's the "legalized conflicts of interest" that have prompted my oft-repeated observation that, "The problem is not that corporate executives are breaking the laws, the problem is that they're writing the laws."

Technorati tags: terrorism, military, war in Iraq, general semantics, campaign finance reform.

Don't Like to Say 'I told you so,' but . . .

"2. Global Muslim support is essential to a successful war on terrorism. Threatening war with Iraq increases Muslims’ hatred – and terrorists’ recruiting. What benefits from war in Iraq exceed the costs of increased terrorism here?"

This was the second in my "Ten Questions for Bush Before War," an op ed column published February 4, 2003, before the President launched the Iraq War. (Click on the link if you're interested in the other nine equally prescient questions.)

This morning's (September 24) New York Times reports that a current "National Intelligence Estimate" -- the consensus product of our government's 16 spy agencies -- has now come to the same conclusion as the implication of my now nearly 44-month-old question. Mark Mazzetti, "Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat," New York Times, September 24, 2006 (also available here).

The story begins:

"A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

"The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a . . . direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism . . ..

"The intelligence estimate . . . represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States, it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

"An opening section of the report, 'Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,' cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.

"The report 'says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,' said one American intelligence official."

For a listing of other of my writings about the subject, see "Terrorism and the War in Iraq."

Technorati tags: terrorism, military, war in Iraq.

Press-Citizen Says "Tough TIF"

The Press-Citizen has now (September 22) joined those of us who are concerned about the propriety of TIFs as a way of transferring taxpayers' money to private, for-profit businesses -- sort of. It's a "middle way" opposition: TIFs are sometimes OK, but not at this time and place. Editorial, "TIF Not the Right Economic Tool for Building the Hieronymus Tower," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 22, 2006.

TIFs have been the subject of a good deal of (largely unfavorable) commentary in the blogosphere. Just a couple of examples from this blog:

Nicholas Johnson, "Supervisor Sullivan Says 'TIF, TIF, Tsk, Tsk," September 16, 2006, and Nicholas Johnson, "TIF-ing My Toolshed," September 2, 2006.

Most of the discussion of TIFs (by me as well as others) has focused on the downside from the standpoint of their impact on taxpayers and government: why should taxpayers subsidize for-profit enterprises, the taxpayers/governmental unit may never get the promised pay back, shifting tax revenues in this way means other needy programs' budgets must be cut (or taxes must be increased), and so forth.

But the Hieronymus Tower project neatly illustrates the other side of the coin in shared public-private enterprise: the adverse impact on the marketplace.

Unlike the purists who think that there should be no regulation of one's use of one's property -- and that property owners should be fully compensated for any decline in value resulting from regulation -- I do support some rational, minimal degree of zoning. I'd prefer that developers not put a large hog lot or ethanol plant right next to my residential, urban home. I'd prefer that the University of Iowa not continue to buy up properties, and otherwise destroy, the National Historic Neighborhood-registered area where I live.

But when it comes to high rise buildings I think it's a mistake for a governmental unit to get too far into the design of the building's structural and economic details. For example, as the Press-Citizen reports,

"[T]he City Council's Economic Development Committee . . . required Hieronymus Square Associates' 'best efforts' to reserve space for a 40-unit hotel on the fourth through sixth floors of the building."

Look, I wasn't there. One hopes this was a truly rational, well-supported "requirement." But, on the face of it, it's not.

(a) Given that the Committee also "agreed unanimously to recommend to the City Council up to $16.4 million in tax incremental financing" I would think that if the City really wants a couple floors of hotel in there they would be entitled to get more than "best efforts" for their $16-plus million of taxpayers' money.

(b) But putting that aside for the moment, what is this "40-unit hotel on the fourth through sixth floors" (emphasis supplied) business about? It appears a little looney just on its face.

However, I'm not objecting so much to the fact that it's a looney idea (a matter as to which I'm willing to suspend judgment) as I am to who is to be given the responsibility for making, or participating, in addressing and implementing looney ideas.

How many hotel room do we already have in the corridor from Cedar Rapids to, now, Riverside? What are their past, present, and projected future occupancy rates? With what do those rates correlate? What do those occupancy rates need to be to justify more investment? What are the "best" locations for more, if more are needed? To the extent there is additional unmet demand, what range of room rates is most appropriate and responsive to that demand?

I'm quite prepared to concede that I don't know the answers to those questions.

My suspicion is that there are investors putting their money into hotels (Iowa City's Sheraton has just changed owners) who don't know all those answers with precision either.

I believe there are some things only government can do, and do well; I don't think that government is always "the problem, not the solution;" there are times when it is the solution.

But I think when it comes to the provision of hotel rooms "the marketplace" is the best way to resolve the balance between supply and demand, and to allocate the opportunities for profit, and the risks of loss, within our economy. I think government has little if anything to gain, and a whole lot to lose, by getting into that unpredictable game. The City Council might as well take our property tax dollars and leave them on the tables at the Riverside Casino. Moreover, when the taxpayers give generously to some hotel owners but not to their competitors, in addition to being clearly unfair, the economic results of the marketplace are really skewed.

There are reasons why the City might want to get into the housing business, especially the affordable housing business that was the subject of last evening's conference sponsored by FAIR!

Others would oppose the idea, and I wouldn't propose it, but I wouldn't automatically object to the City taking over the entire cost of building the structure at Clinton and Burlington (now to be called "Hieronymus Tower"), owning it 100%, and using it for affordable housing (as it already owns the parking garage across the street).

My point is simply that new construction is best when it is pure: either a 100% governmental project, or a 100% investors' project with no taxpayer subsidy.

When we endeavor to blend private and public funding, private and public planning, public and private projections of supply and demand (in this instance, for hotel rooms), we simply produce the worst of all possible worlds.

Hopefully, the City Council will follow the Press-Citizen's advice.

Technorati tags: TIF, TIFs, taxes, economic development,

More on Riverside Questions

I really will have something to say about the Q/A exchange between Riverside and David Oman as soon as I get this week behind me.

Meanwhile, there's lots to read elsewhere.

State 29 puts that blog's "tell it like it is" spin on the story, as the headline indicates: State29, "Riverside Hayseeds React to Con Artist Oman's Letter Concerning Earthpork," September 21, 2006.

The Press-Citizen editorializes, Editorial, "Earthpark Q&A Fails to Alleviate Our Concerns," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 21, 2006, and concludes, "As Earthpark officials seem to be postponing their final decision indefinitely, we hope Riverside officials will read these answers as evidence for why they should make Earthpark's decision that much easier by pulling their city out of the running."

And see yesterday's, Nicholas Johnson, "Riverside: 'Thanks But No Thanks'?" September 20, 2006, regarding Gregg Hennigen's story in The Gazette (with link), and Nicholas Johnson, "The $185 Million Dollar Questions," September 20, 2006, with link to the Press-Citizen's reproduction of the Q&A with Oman, and inclusion of Brad Franzwa's list of the questions that didn't get asked.

For the most thorough collection of commentary and links see Nicholas Johnson, "Iowa Rain Forest (Earthpark) Web Site," and for some 30 published op eds, speeches, etc., go to "Nicholas Johnson's Writing" (regarding the rain forest).

Technorati tags: Iowa Rain Forest, economic development, attractions, tourism, rain forest, pork, Earthpark, Earthpork, Earth Park, Iowa, casino, gambling, Riverside, Pella, Riverside Casino & Golf Resort.

The $185 Million Dollar Questions

Newspaper reports of a public meeting of the Riverside, Iowa, City Council on August 3, 2006, included the following:

"'We will get a packet of questions together,' said Mayor Bill Poch, 'and we would like you to write down the answers. We want hard copy.' He also asked if the answers could be done within a week after receiving the questions. Earthpark CEO David Oman said, 'It will not be a problem.'"

Mary Zielinski, "Riverside Wants 'Hard Copy' Answers for Earthpark Questions," Washington Evening Journal, August 4, 2006.

Apparently it was a problem getting answers within a week, but they finally arrived on September 19, and by noon today (September 20) the Iowa City Press-Citizen had scooped the competition and had them on its Web site. See, Press-Citizen, "Answers to Riverside's Questions," September 20, 2006.

When my wife and I watch the evening news the game we play is spotting the stories that aren't covered.

Since I was in class for most of this afternoon, I'm merely relaying for now the comments of Brad Franzwa (in an email to me this afternoon) who was apparently playing the same game with regard to the questions that weren't asked by the City of David Oman. Franzwa notes:

"The questions were somewhat insignificant considering the unresolved issues. The town asked questions about nearby hunting but failed to ask about 500 other more pertinent questions. No questions about cost overruns? No questions about attendance projections? No questions about specific financial details? How about operation costs? Spending to date? Lack of Vision Iowa funds? Funds already procured and in the bank? Siemens agreement? Other corporate lead promises? What about forecasting errors? What about the need for taxpayer funds being used for operations as well as construction? What about city/county requirements assuming the State offers nothing? How about any formal agreements between the casino and the rain forest? What about the match assuming Foundation contributions?

"If the project fails, who assumes the debt? Omen answered only about what would happen if there were assets left over after a project failure. Mr. Omen, who would be responsible for the remaining debt if there were not enough liquid assets to cover all of the debt? Will this project not be upside-down for at least a few decades? How often are there liquid assets left over after a total bankruptcy of a non-profit? Who would pay to relocate the monkeys? Who would be willing to pay for the lizard food? Seriously, what would it cost to dismantle and dispose of this project? How much in losses would have to be absorbed by the taxpayers before Omen would allow the project to die?

"This reminds me of any possible terminally ill elderly patient in our hospital’s ICU. The patient is 102 years old and just suffered a massive heart attack and a stroke leaving him on a vent, brain-dead, and unable to ever function again. No response to pain, no chance of recovery, and owning a hospital bill that goes up a thousand dollars every hour. The patient had been surrounded by 15 family members that said their goodbyes and have gone.

“'Doctor, why are we keeping this patient alive?' asks the nurse. 'Because WE CAN…'” responds Dr. Omen."

Technorati tags: Iowa Rain Forest, economic development, attractions, tourism, rain forest, pork, Earthpark, Earthpork, Earth Park, Iowa, casino, gambling, Riverside, Pella, Riverside Casino & Golf Resort.

Riverside: "Thanks But No Thanks"?

Gregg Hennigen has an Iowa Rain Forest story in this morning's (September 20) Gazette worthy of page one treatment. Why? It's "news." (Compare yesterday's, Nicholas Johnson, "Rain Forest's Big News: 'Nothing to Announce,'" September 19, 2006.)

Yesterday's story in the Press-Citizen repeated the rain forest's mischaracterization of "16 communities" having been involved in the "bidding process." (a) If there ever were anything like 16 communities the names of at least half of them were kept secret and never revealed by the rain forest's promoters. (b) The notion that there was a "bidding process" suggests that the project was evaluating the communities. In fact, just the opposite was taking place -- the communities were evaluating the project. (c) There have been very good reasons why, after that evaluation, all but two of the "sweet sixteen" have told the project's promoters: "Thanks, but no thanks."

Now it appears that the Riverside City Council may have the sense to do the same, making it 15.

See, Gregg Hennigan, "Riverside Unsure on Rain Forest; Will long-awaited answers erase unease about communication?" The Gazette, September 20, 2006.

For over a decade this project has been unfocused, unfunded, unsupported, and unresponsive. It has not banked a dime beyond founder Ted Townsend's original pledge for what its consultants say must be at least a $220 million project to attract enough tourists. Since then the proposal has been cut to $180 million, and now $155 million.

As State 29 put it a little more directly this morning regarding The Gazette's story,

"I don't think there could be any bigger litmus test for politicians than sticking the Earthpork project in front of them and seeing how they react. If you're for a project that has no financing other than tax dollars, has already angered officials other towns, and has wildly grand projections of attendance figures, you're a retard who should never be allowed to hold elected office ever again."

State 29 even offers all of us rain forest watchers the "Official Song for the Earthpork Project." Check it out at, State 29, "Stop Me If You Think You've Heard This One Before," September 20, 2006.

For the Internet's largest collection of links to the full text of 100s of articles, and over 125 single-spaced pages of analysis and commentary pro and con, see Nicholas Johnson's Iowa Rain Forest (Earthpark) Web site. For the best collection of biting humor about the project see Iowa Pork Forest. For a review of the project's "business plan," such as it is, see Nicholas Johnson, "Earthpark Business Plan: A Review," August 12, 2006.

Technorati tags: Iowa Rain Forest, economic development, attractions, tourism, rain forest, pork, Earthpark, Earthpork, Earth Park, Iowa, casino, gambling, Riverside, Pella, Riverside Casino & Golf Resort.

Rain Forest's Big News: "Nothing to Announce"

The Press-Citizen's page one, column one, top of the page -- apparently reserved for promotion of the Riverside Casino and Earthpark (see yesterday's Nicholas Johnson, "Media on Casino's Leno," September 18, 2006) -- this morning (September 19) contains the latest big announcement from the rain forest project (Earthpark -- or, as State29 spells it, "Earthpork").

[Revision: After posting this, discovered State29 also commented on the Press-Citizen's story this morning; see, State 29, "Hook, Line, and Sucker," September 19, 2006.]

It would have to be a big announcement to receive such prominent placement, right?

And what is the big news, the story that's more important than anything else going on in the world, U.S., Iowa, or Iowa City?

It is that the project has nothing to announce.

Kathryn Fiegen, "Time ticks for site decision; Earthpark board to meet Sept. 28," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 19, 2006, p. 1A.

"Time ticks," indeed. It has been ticking for 10 years. And the elephant in this rain forest is that the project has banked not one dime during that time beyond the initial pledge of project founder Ted Townsend.

In fact, it's going backwards on fundraising. A year ago, in Coralville, it could claim $90 million toward its one-time $300 million project (subsequently reduced to $225 million, then $180, and now $155 million). When the petulance of the project's leadership led to a falling out with Coralville's leaders, and it left town, it also left the $50 million federal earmark behind.

A federal grant for a "rain forest in Coralville, Iowa" left Senator Grassley with the need to redefine "Coralville" as "an area of 56,000 square miles, formerly known as 'the State of Iowa.'" That permitted David Oman to drive up and down Interstate 80 looking for a site. But with that definition, to keep the project alive, went a condition that the $50 million from grateful taxpayers be matched with $50 million from private sources -- sources so far proving to be much less grateful.

The board's final site selection -- promised for January of 2006, then February, March, April, May, June, July, August, and now September -- will, presumably, occur someday and on that day be proclaimed to be "on schedule." But it strikes me a little misleading not to mention that history.

Even more misleading is the suggestion that it makes any difference whether the project's board picks a site or not.

It's like making a big deal out of which city a major U.S. airline is going to choose as the place where it will declare bankruptcy.

"Wouldn't it be nice if we had an indoor rain forest," some folks say. "Maybe," I reply. "And it would also be nice if I had a $1.5 million house." But since they don't have the money to build -- let alone operate -- their rain forest, and I don't have the money for even a down payment on my $1.5 million house, I don't think it really makes much difference -- and it's certainly not "news" worthy of page one -- where either of us would build if we did have the money.

There is something called "the big lie" technique. Repeat a falsehood enough times, over and over, and it morphs into truth.

(The U.S. WWII Office of Strategic Services Report described "the big lie technique" used by Hitler as follows: "people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it." "Big Lie," Wikipedia, OSS Report, p51.)

So it is with the media's repetition of the project's assertion -- without any effort to investigate the details -- that "Both [Riverside and Pella] have met or exceeded the $25 million requirement for state funding." It is repeated once again in this morning's Press-Citizen story. The numbers simply don't add up -- even if you treat "a million a year for ten years" as the equivalent of $10 million in the bank, today; even if you're willing to consider "debt" the equivalent of private matching contributions; etc. (For repeated and detailed evaluations of the numbers over the years, see the material linked from and contained within my Iowa Child/Environmental Project/Earthpark/Iowa Rain Forest Web site.)

The story also continues the media's habit of repeating any assertion from the rain forest's promoters -- assertions that are obviously nothing more than hopes based on best case scenarios -- as if they were facts. And so this story concludes with:

"In addition to the $25 million in local funding, the project would be supported by a $50 million Department of Energy grant secured by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, $15 million to $20 million in state funding and the rest from debt financing. The park is expected to open during the 2009-2010 school year." (emphasis supplied)

Go through those two sentences word at a time. There is no $25 million in local funding. There is no $50 million "grant" -- it must be matched, and there is currently no basis for thinking it can be. The notion that there will be $15-$20 million in state funding has been ridiculed. (See yesterday's update to the rain forest Web site, linked above.) As for "debt financing," where is it written that debt will satisfy the terms of the matching grant? If (big if) they can get $25 million in local money, and if they can borrow $25 million (and that's ruled to be within the conditions of the matching grant), that will give them $100 million ($25 million plus $25 million triggers the additional $50 million) -- leaving an awful lot of "the rest" to be covered with "debt financing." Even if a $155 million project is big enough to draw visitors (and the project's own consultants say it's not), that would mean $80 million in debt ($55 million plus $25 million) -- for a project that has little prospect of ever being able to sustain itself. Who's going to loan them that money?

(As for self-sustaining, as State29 has noted, "It's a floor wax, it's a desert topping, it's whatever they want it to be." Over the years it's been promoted as a K-5 school, teacher training facility, world class research lab, aquarium, tourist attraction, etc. At some point they're going to have to decide what's going to happen inside this structure. But there's no more reason to believe it could sustain itself with research grants or funding from Iowa's school districts than it could from tourists' dollars.)

And "expected to open"? Ah, but by now presumably you get the point.

Aside from all this, it was a really exciting bit of news this morning.

Technorati tags: Iowa Rain Forest, economic development, attractions, tourism, rain forest, pork, Earthpark, Earthpork, Earth Park, Iowa, casino, gambling, Riverside, Pella, Riverside Casino & Golf Resort, journalism, promotion, public relations, product placement, journalistic ethics, advertising, reporting, media..

Media on Casino's Leno

Jay Leno came and went (post-game, Saturday, September 16, 4:00 p.m., Riverside Casino & Golf Resort).

So how did local media cover it?

Placement: Not surprisingly, the Press-Citizen decided this was the most important story in the world, the U.S., Iowa, and Iowa City. It was page one, column one, top of the page. Deanna Truman-Cook, "Leno Raises Casino's Stakes; TV Host First on Event Center Stage," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 17, 2006, p. 1A -- a placement consistent with the paper's prior promotion of the gambling casino that included, among other things, a special eight-page supplement, a gushing report of the opening/s, and another cover story and center spread on Leno's appearance.

The Gazette, by contrast, put the story well inside the paper, in the "Iowa Today" section, and on page three of that section at that. Mary Sharp, "Review: Leno Brings Audience Into Act at Riverside; Even Center Packs in More than 600 to See 'Tonight Show' Host," The Gazette, September 17, 2006, p. 3B.

Content: Because I wasn't at the event, I can't judge what was, and wasn't, reported. As "reviews," both stories were interesting and worth no less than a "B-" at worst. They repeated some of his jokes, told something of Jay Leno, had quotes from audience members, and made for a good read.

News: In Nicholas Johnson, "Press-Citizen's Casino; Gazette's E-Frosty," September 14, 2006, I suggested there were some real news stories here worth pursuing.

Jay Leno is quoted as saying he thinks the $100 and $120 ticket prices "seem high" and goes on to say "but that has got nothing to do with me." Who chose that price, and why? Was it just, on this first major event, to communicate the idea that the Riverside Casino is a Vegas-type, first class establishment -- more designed to attract the poor and middle class to the slot machines than the wealthy to see Leno?

How many tickets were actually sold to audience members at that price -- as distinguished from being "purchased" in bulk to then be given away to the high rollers the Casino flew in, gave free football tickets, and entertained in the Casino's skybooth during the game? How many of those in attendance had comp tickets: investors, board members, public officials, Casino officers and employees?

Neither story addressed those questions. But both did endeavor to provide some information about the size of the crowd. The Gazette headlined that the Casino "packs in more than 600," and the story concludes that the event "drew more than 600."

This is a bit of a contrast with the Press-Citizen's report that, "Though it wasn't a sellout, the casino sold 750 tickets at $100 and $120 each. The room seats 960."

Whether "more than 600" or "750" it was a room only 2/3 to 3/4 full for what the Press-Citizen acknowledged was "one of the biggest names in comedy."


For background, see:

Nicholas Johnson, "UI Football Promoting Gambling?" September 16, 2006
Nicholas Johnson, "Press-Citizen's Casino; Gazette's E-Frosty," September 14, 2006
Nicholas Johnon, "Royal Flush," September 7, 2006
Nicholas Johnson, "Gambling and Paternalism," September 4, 2006
Nicholas Johnson, "Gazette Shames Press-Citizen," August 31, 2006

Technorati tags: journalism, promotion, public relations, product placement, journalistic ethics, advertising, reporting, media.

Rain Forest: Monday September 18 Update

The Monday, September 18, update to the rain forest ("Earthpark") Web site went up at 7:45 this morning (September 18). Because there was no update September 11, this covers the material from September 4 to 18.

_______________

[Every Monday since December 2005 there has been a weekly upload to the pre-existing Iowa rain forest Web site I maintain. In all, printed out it would run over 100 single spaced pages; there are, in addition, links to the full text of hundreds of newspaper stories and reports. It is very probably the most complete resource on the topic anywhere on the Web.

It is found at: http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/politics/IaChild.

Over the past few months the scope of the Web site has expanded from the rain forest project to include material related to the broader range of attractions and economic development generally in which the proposed rain forest exists and by which it must be evaluated.]

Technorati tags: Iowa Rain Forest, economic development, attractions, tourism, rain forest, pork, Earthpark, Earth Park, Iowa, casino, gambling, Riverside, Pella

UI Football Promoting Gambling?

Is the University of Iowa Athletic Department, specifically the football program, promoting gambling?

There is very little ambiguity regarding the NCAA's rules regarding gambling on college sports. The NCAA Division I Manual provides:

10.3 GAMBLING ACTIVITIES

Staff members of a member conference, staff members of the athletics department of a member institution and student-athletes shall not knowingly: (Revised: 4/22/98 effective 8/1/98)

( a ) Provide information to individuals involved in organized gambling activities concerning intercollegiate athletics competition;
( b ) Solicit a bet on any intercollegiate team;
( c ) Accept a bet on any team representing the institution;
( d ) Solicit or accept a bet on any intercollegiate competition for any item (e.g., cash, shirt, dinner) that has tangible value; or (Revised: 9/15/97)
( e ) Participate in any gambling activity that involves intercollegiate athletics or professional athletics, through a bookmaker, a parlay card or any other method employed by organized gambling. (Revised: 1/9/96, 1/14/97 effective 8/1/97)

NCAA Division I Manual, Bylaw Article 10, Ethical Conduct, 10.3 (2001-02).

_______________

It couldn't be much clearer, could it? Academic institutions are able to claim that they want to maintain an impenetrable wall between their athletic programs, staff and student athletes, on the one hand, and the temptations of sports gambling on the other.

Of course, these standards do not address, nor could they, gambling on sports by those unaffiliated with a university. (And I am not claiming that the Universty's getting in bed with gambling interests, and taking the gambling industry's money, is "the same as" coaches and athletes betting on games.)

But it does seem a bit incongruous for the University's athletic program to enter into what amounts to a partnership with the gambling industry. How has it done that?

The University has (1) sold special indoor box facilities in the football stadium to a local gambling casino, aware that the casino purchased the facility to entertain, and encourage, high rollers, (2) knowing that the casino plans to bring gamblers into the state, put them up at its hotel, transport them to and from the football games, and (3) then agreed to let the casino use the football program's oversized electronic scoreboard to advertise the gambling casino to the 70,000 plus sports fans in attendance! (4) Removing any possible ambiguity about this, the Casino Web site's opening page currently displays, "Turn a Hawkeye game day into a weekend getaway!"

See William Petroski, "E. Iowa Casino to Lure U of I Fans; It will offer post-game parties, stadium shuttles," Des Moines Register, August 29, 2006 ("The casino has spent $165,000 for a three-year deal to lease a new skybox at Kinnick Stadium, and the casino has purchased dozens of football tickets for its preferred customers. Starting with the Iowa-Iowa State game on Sept. 16, charter buses will be offered to transport patrons between the casino parking lot and Kinnick Stadium, and there will be post-game parties at the Riverside complex."), and William Petroski, "Kinnick ‘Hotel’ ad omits 'Casino;' By design, an ad for Riverside's complex does not mention gambling," Des Moines Register, September 8, 2006 ("Chief Executive Officer Dan Kehl pointed out in a recent interview that . . . many students already gamble online.").

The duplicity is stunning. Apparently the University, recognizing the impropriety of what it was doing, but wanting the money from the gambling industry advertising anyway, decided everything would be OK if only it would falsely represent that no gambling actually takes place in a gambling casino by changing the name on its scoreboard from the gambling casino's real name -- the "Riverside Casino & Golf Resort" -- to that of a non-existant facility called the "Riverside Hotel & Golf Resort."

While I suspect that few of the 70,000 fans were led to believe that the Casino had truly decided to abandon gambling income for total dependence on its hotel business, there may well have been a few who found the name switch a little bizarre and baffling.

Not only does a university's promoting gambling to the young students in its charge violate basic principles of common sense and decency, it also violates the spirit of the law (which forbids anyone under the age of 21 to enter a gambling casino), and the spirit of the NCAA rules.

(Another incongruity is that while the University forbids consumption of alcohol in the stadium and some tailgating areas, a special dispensation to drink is granted to the Casino's stadium gamblers, as well as the guests of other purchasers of the $50,000-plus-a-year indoor skyboxes. There's no telling what lesson that provides the students in the stands and the athletes on the field.)

The University is certainly in no position to feign ignorance and innocence. As early as May 2006 the campus paper reported,

"[Riverside Casino Manager Joe] Massa has hired a sales manager to lure groups and conventions to the casino, and he plans to hire a sales staff in Chicago and Des Moines. A package could include a hotel stay with a trip to Kinnick Stadium for tailgating and box seats at an Iowa football game. Kehl says he wants to organize junkets to the casino, where out-of-state gamblers would be flown into the Eastern Iowa Airport."

Elaine Watkins-Miller, "If they build it, will they come?," Master's Media Project/Riverside Project, The Daily Iowan, May 5, 2006.

What has the University had to say about all of this?

"University of Iowa athletic director Gary Barta said Tuesday that the university would not place restrictions on a Riverside casino that has rented a Kinnick Stadium skybox with plans to bring big gamblers to Hawkeye football games.

“'We have never placed any restrictions on a company which owns tickets, how they use them secondarily,' Barta said. 'Once they are sold to a company, it is that individual’s or that company’s discretion how they use them.'

"The new $140 million casino at Riverside is placing a special marketing emphasis on Hawkeye football games. The casino, located 12 miles south of Iowa City, has spent $165,000 for a three-year lease on a skybox at Kinnick Stadium. The casino has also purchased dozens of Hawkeye football tickets for its preferred guests.

"Iowa has 19 casinos, but the opening of the Riverside complex Thursday at 9 p.m. marks the first time a casino has been so close to one of Iowa’s three state universities.

"Barta said the National Collegiate Athletic Association and the U of I are 'very concerned about possible ill effects as they relate to gambling and intercollegiate athletics.'

"He added, 'On the other hand, the various casinos in this state, they are legal businesses. So you walk that fine line between your concern about gambling and its association with intercollegiate athletics and what you know has been understood as a legal entity in this state.'"

Randy Peterson, "High-Level, High-Dollar, High Ol' Times," Des Moines Register, August 30, 2006 ("Casino's Football Skybox is OK With U of I").

The Hawkeyes won the game today, and a good one it was. And they've made a lot of money from the gambling industry.

But in the process they've certainly fallen far from the educational and moral high ground to which they profess to aspire.

Technorati tags: Iowa Rain Forest, economic development, attractions, tourism, rain forest, pork, Earthpark, Earthpork, Earth Park, Iowa, casino, gambling, Riverside, Pella, Riverside Casino & Golf Resort, football, college sports, sports betting, gambling and college football

Professor Yin Says "No" to Bug Burgers

Although this post may not persuade you, my colleague Tung Yin is one of the brightest, most widely informed, and productive academics it's ever been my pleasure to know.

The popularity of his blog, The Yin Blog, is understandable, given his insightful reviews of everything from court opinions to pop culture.

Since his office is just across the hall from mine he often stops in to challenge me with some proposition or other. So when he stopped in the other day I assumed it was going to be to try to persuade me that, say, TIFs are a really good thing.

You can understand my surprise when the "issue" he presented for our deliberation involved a choice between a "rat burger" and an "insect burger."

Here's his blog entry, in its entirety, on September 5, 2006:

Random question of the day

This question actually came up in a conversation I had with a colleague (I asked the question):

If you had to choose one or the other, would you rather eat a ratburger or an insectburger?

Surprisingly, that colleague and another one that I polled had trouble deciding. Maybe it's just me, but I'd think it's a really easy choice -- rats are still mammals, not too different from rabbits (which I've eaten once before), whereas insects are bugs (ick!).

_______________

Now there are, of course, many ways of approaching this question. Perhaps the answer, as in the movie "War Games," is "The only winning move is not to play the game."

If you are willing to play the game you might want to know if you will be able to assure yourself that the rat is not diseased, that the insects are not poisonous, and in either case how, and how long, they will be cooked. If the reason for your choice is your near starvation, with no other options, you might want to know something of the comparative nutritional value of both.

But this is not what Professor Yin says is (presumably) decisive for him. He would choose the rat burger because (among other reasons) "insects are bugs (ick!)."

A week ago, in New York, I was speaking on the subject of "General Semantics, Terrorism and War," September 8, 2006. Now I wouldn't urge any relevance of what I had to say about terrorism and war to "The Yin Dilemma." But I do think that general semantics has a significant contribution to make. (Some basics of general semantics are illustrated in that speech text and described in the footnotes.)

Growing out of World War II, Hitler's use of propaganda to alter behavior, and the necessity of eliminating "communication failures" with regard to the prospect of an all-out atomic World War III, general semantics offers a number of tools to help us become a little more reflective about the ways in which our language structure can "do our thinking for us." As one general semanticist put it, "humankind is no more conscious of the language through which it swims than a fish is conscious of the waters of the sea." As another said, "humans are the only species able to talk themselves into difficulties that would not otherwise exist."

It's as impossible to "summarize" general semantics' principles, tools and literature in a blog entry as it would be to summarize the law of contracts.

But the tools applicable to Professor Yin's "insects are bugs (ick!)" are captured in the general semanticists' phrases, "the word is not the thing," and "the map is not the territory."

There are "levels of abstraction" to our language from, in this case, the name you give your pet ant, Andy, the category of "ants," then the more inclusive "insects" (or "bugs"), followed by "animals," and perhaps "living things." Going "down" the abstraction ladder from Andy, we could describe his appearance, and -- if the unthinkable were to occur, and an autopsy were necessary -- perhaps his molecular and atomic structure.

This awareness is useful, if not essential, in dealing with children's (or adults') "food dislikes."

My father, who was one of the early general semanticists, while a sensitive and kindly man, was insistent his children at least taste everything on their plates. "'Asparagus' is just a word," he might have said. "What is it about that word you don't like?" Then he would ask, "Have you tasted what is on your plate? If not, how can you know you don't like the taste of this thing -- as distinguished from the word?"

He died in 1965, so I can whisper to you very softly that neither a "rat burger" nor an "insect burger" sounds very tasty to me. But even today I wouldn't want to make such a significant decision on the basis of the words alone. So why don't you taste both for me and tell me what you think.

Technorati tags: general semantics.

Supervisor Sullivan Says "TIF, TIF, Tsk, Tsk"

Johnson County's Supervisor Rod Sullivan is one of the brightest, best informed, creative, hard working county officials in the United States.

Now he's provided the City Council of Iowa City one of the best essays I've seen regarding the downside of TIFs (including my own writing).

It's in the form of a letter of September 12, and not available on the Internet so far as I know. But since it was sent by email to a group I'm taking the liberty of posting it here. If and when he posts it on a site that gets more traffic elsewhere I may delete it from this blog.

It really needs to be picked up and run as an op ed column by one of the local papers. Meanwhile, here it is:

Dear City Council:

My name is Rod Sullivan, and I live at 2326 East Court Street in Iowa City. I am a 22-year resident of Iowa City, and a lifelong resident of the area. I am extremely disappointed by the decision of the Economic Development Committee to recommend granting the TIF request by Hieronymus Partners. I think this is a very bad idea for several reasons:

1. I am already hearing justifications for this deviation in policy; ³Historically, Iowa City has been very responsible with TIFs.² That may have been the case ­ until now. How do you react to someone who says, ³Historically, I never drive drunk ­ until now.² Or, ³Historically, I have been a virgin ­ until now.² The past is important, but your current decisions matter now, and will matter long into the future.

2. The fact that Iowa City has historically used TIF less than other cities in Johnson County is irrelevant. The comparison is akin to saying, ³Crime is low in Chicago. Compared to New Orleans.² There is a reasonable standard for the use of TIFs, and Johnson County is not the correct place to seek comparisons.

3. TIFs are incentives. Hieronymus Partners has been very clear about their desire to build a 13-story building at the corner of Burlington and Clinton. No incentives are necessary. It is truly unwise to offer inducements when none are necessary.

4. Tax dollars should be spent on public purposes. What is the public purpose in this case? Imagine downtown Iowa City without the TIF. The building still gets built. Now you offer a TIF. The building still gets built. How does the TIF serve a public purpose?

5. Some claim that use of the TIF ³allows the City to have greater say over the project.² Last time I looked, Iowa City already had this power. If you do not like a plan, you do not grant the building permit. Iowa City already has the power to influence this (and any) development; you simply need to exercise this power.

6. The bulk of the building will be residential. Using TIFs for residential units is imprudent given the rollback on residential property taxes and the fact that the housing will not meet low-income standards.

7. How many jobs will be created because of the proposed TIF that would not be created otherwise? (I think a bit of study will show the number to be zero.) How much would these jobs pay? How long will they be in existence? What benefits will be provided? Will workers have an opportunity to unionize? Are there clawback provisions if projections are not met?

8. TIFs hurt other taxing entities. The ICCSD and Johnson County both already suffer from tight budgets. TIFs only serve to exacerbate these problems, as TIFs divert essential resources from other units of government. In terms of Johnson County, that means less ambulance service, less
deputies, less health care for the poor, less services for people with disabilities, less services for seniors, less services for Veterans... Less of everything, except taxes; those have to go up on everyone else.

The bottom line is very simple: Iowa City does not NEED a 13-story apartment building. The public will not directly benefit. If someone feels the market will bear this project, she or he should try to convince her or his financiers of the merits. It is not the job of Iowa City to help one landlord at the expense of all the rest.

I do not oppose the building being proposed by Hieronymus Partners. I do oppose taxpayer financing of what should clearly be a private endeavor.

Mr. Hodge is a man of significant means. He has the ability to go to the private financial market and finance his project. And hypothetically, if all the banks did say no to financing this, then why would Iowa City say yes?

I urge the Council to vote no on this TIF request. I would like to speak with you further on this matter. Please feel free to give me a call at 354-7199 at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,


Rod Sullivan
Technorati tags: TIF, TIFs, taxes, economic development.

I've Got Sun in Morning & The Gazette on Fridays

Have you ever sat around a camp fire on a cold winter's night, unable to get warm all over?

Ever hiked above 12,000 or 14,000 feet and been a little short of breath?

Well, imagine trying to keep Planet Earth somewhere between 30 degrees below zero and 120 above with a gigantic blow torch from 93 million miles away -- something the sun does with seeming ease every day of the year.

Imagine trying to maintain an 80% nitrogen-20% oxygen mix outside of a lab, or a container, over an area as vast as the surface of the earth (197 million square miles).

Those are just a couple of the features that make human life on earth possible, characteristics that should bring forth much more awe and wonder, respect, focus and thanks than they do for most of us most days.

Irving Berlin came close to the idea in the lyrics to his song, "I've Got the Sun in the Morning." ("Got no mansion, got no yacht/Still I'm happy with what I've got/I've got the sun in the morning and the moon at night.")

And on Fridays, at least, The Gazette recognizes these most significant of all "news" items with an almost full page report called, "Earthweek: A Diary of the Planet."

Today's (September 15) "Earthweek" reports that the Artic ice, formerly 10 feet thick, has melted to a depth of 1 to 7 feet. A fireball from the sky landed in New Zealand. There are reports of hurricanes Florence, Gordon, Lane and Typhoon Shanshan. Earthquakes and other earth movements were felt in an area from Florida to Louisiana to Tennessee; Israel and Palestine, Iran, India-Myanmar, Hong Kong, Tasmania, Chile and New Zealand. There were volcanos on three Indonesian islands. And a tree was found in the Redwood National Park in California a full 8 feet taller than what was believed to be the tallest tree; it's named Hyperion and is 378.1 feet tall. All this and the return of El Nino.

We share this great planet with somewhere between 10 and 100 million other animal species, many of which have useful qualities and abilities that have been denied us (e.g., speed, sight and hearing, radar and sensitivity to magnetic fields, etc.), and somewhere between 250,000 and 500,000 species of plants.

All, including us, are threatened by global warming. But that's not my point.

I just thought it useful to put our hangnails and burden of unanswered email into some kind of context -- and to thank The Gazette for providing us "Earthweek," a weekly report about our home planet. It's the only paper in the state of Iowa to provide the service to its readers.

Technorati tags: journalism, global warming, sun, nature, Earthweek, reporting, media.