Creative Revenue

It was recently announced that the forthcoming budget deficit over the next 10 years is an astonishing $9 trillion... with a t. This is a lot of money that we do not have. There are approximately 100 million households in the U.S., so if one does the math, this equates to $9,000 per year, per household extra that each household will have to earn to cover only the principle of this borrowing. I am not aware of a whole lot of households who have an extra $9,000 lying around with which to write the check to the IRS on April 15. Needless to say, the government must come up with some creative ways to make money. I offer a suggestion.

Weekends in fall are one of the most exciting times of year for millions across the country. It is not because of wonderful family outings or bond-building sessions of leaf raking in the backyard straight out of the JC Penney catalog (although these are fabulous ways to spend your time). It is all about football. Watching football is great, getting drunk tailgating at a football game is even better. One of the activities football fans are most passionate about is gambling on football games. Yes, evil, life crushing, debacherous gambling.

Americans love to gamble. Las Vegas has become THE place to go on vacation. Many of us frequent our local Indian casinos, which are springing up everywhere like Starbucks coffee shops circa 1996. For all of the protestations by various groups, I would like to borrow some of the logic of Adam Carolla for a minute and pose a question to you. Close your eyes for a minute and think about everyone you know who has lost everything due to a crippling gambling problem. I'll wait. Think of anyone? Probably not. This is because there are not millions upon millions of people who are recovering gambling addicts. There are some, to be sure, but the problem is not epidemic like some would like to have you believe.

We see gambling at casinos, gambling in the form of lottery tickets, even sports teams hosting Casino Night to raise money for charity. Clearly, as a society, we have decided that gambling is part of the mainstream and acceptable within reason. Why is it that we have drawn the line with sports betting? We allow it in Nevada but nowhere else. Every year we hear about how many tens or hundreds of millions of dollars are legally bet on the Super Bowl. How much more is being bet either through illegal bookmakers or online to offshore gambling sites? How much is being wagered throughout the year considering all of the thousands of college and professional football games played? How much more would be bet if people could do it legally? How much tax revenue could be had if all of that money was being wagered legally here in the U.S.?

When sports betting happens legally, taxes are paid regardless of who wins. If the casinos win, they pay taxes on the profit they make. If the bettors win, they, if they are following tax law which would require a whole other discussion, would pay taxes on the extra income they earn from it. Either way, the government gets a piece. Imagine if there were licensed bookmakers or legal online betting sites in this country for the government to tax. This could be billions coming back into the government till, helping to ease the financial burden of all of the government spending that has spiraled upward in the past 10 years.

This argument could also be applied to poker. Sports gambling and poker are two forms of gambling, (and yes, while poker is considered a skill game, every bet has an expected value and there are odds that govern winning and losing, therefore making it gambling) that have the highest expectations for experienced players because both allow you to use information to make smarter wages, either on sporting events, or choosing better bets while playing poker. We should reward folks for choosing to gamble in a way that can actually have a long-term positive expectation. Instead we shun these players and force them to play games which only have negative expectations. (I am counting blackjack because while the expectation is positive if you count cards, you usually cannot do that long enough to come out ahead long-term before the casinos ban you. Using basic strategy, which casinos do allow, affords the house a small edge. If this made no sense to you, read Casino Gambling for Dummies by Kevin Blackwood.)

I could spend an eternity on why sports betting has been stopped at every turn by politicians in Washington and how this links to all of the extra spending that Uncle Sam has been doing recently. Perhaps I will in another post. It suffices to say that there is a lot of extra revenue waiting to be claimed by the government if it were to allow people to legally do what they are already doing illegally. Granted, this alone will not solve the problem of where to come up with the $9,000 per household every year for 10 years, but no one thing will solve the problem. It will take many small solutions to add up to a big solution and this would be a great start.

Thanks for reading and big balls.

Bad Language

F*#^, s&@*, c@*#. Ok, not that kind of bad language. I am talking about the kinds of egregious, bone-headed, unfathomable language mistakes that simultaneously make me cringe and make the hair on the back of my neck stand up. We all misspeak from time to time, but some errors are worse, and more common, than others. Here are some of my serial offenders.

Nothing is worse than when life-long English speakers manage to completely mispronounce common words. We all know about some of the more universal mistakes: pronouncing nuclear as nuke-you-ler or foliage as foil-age. How about some others? Do you say "Alls you have to do" instead of "All you have to do"? I heard a woman on TV say "volleyvall" instead of "volleyball". Seriously, what has this language come to?

Another of my pet peeves is when people use "I" instead of "me" and vice versa. One should not say "My brother and me went to the store." Nor should one say "Go to the store with my brother and I." Just use "I" or "me" as if the other subject of the sentence was not there. It's just that easy.

I am no English major (though I have known a few), nor do I profess to have perfect grammar and literary skills. I do not commit any of the aforementioned atrocities, and my ears would kindly ask that if you do know anybody who has difficulty with any of the above mistakes, you swiftly and forcefully smack him or her on the back of the head. Thanks in advance.

Hai Majide

Freedom of Speech?

As regular readers of this blog will know I have recently taken a large dive into the world of international soccer and, especially, the English Premier League. One of my greatest daily treats was listening to a podcast of the Sirius show "World Soccer Daily". This show centered on all things soccer, focusing on international soccer and the English Premier League, all while based out of Los Angeles, giving it somewhat of an American flavor.

Today I was saddened to hear that the show is going off of the air. It is not ending because of poor ratings or contract negotiations; it is ending because the hosts and their families are receiving death threats via telephone, E-mail and Twitter. They are receiving these death threats from members of fanatical Liverpool FC fan clubs, all stemming from fairly innocuous comments made on the air a little while back.

The source of the controversy involved a tragedy that happened 20 years ago in England. You can check Wikipedia for a detailed treatment but I will summarize here. A crowd of people overran the outside gates of a match between Liverpool and Nottingham Forrest and congregated in a standing area near the field which was fenced in by tall steel gates. Too many people crowded the front and 96 people died when they suffocated while being pressed forward against this gate. Many blamed the tragedy on the fact that there were large pens where fans could crowd together. Some blamed police for opening up an outside gate to prevent crushing outside, allowing too many people to enter the stadium.

A less widely held view is that Liverpool fans bore some of the responsibility for events. Claims have been made that fans were drunk, violent, and congregated together in large numbers in a coordinated effort to outnumber police and gain entry into the event without tickets. One of the hosts of "World Soccer Daily", Steven Cohen, had expressed belief that Liverpool fans did indeed act badly on that day and should bear some of the blame for the tragedy. Although he apologized for anger this might have caused amongst Liverpool fans, he was on the receiving end of an effort to have him ousted as host of the show.

The efforts began as a massive boycott of the show and included phone calls, E-mails and letter writing to executives at Sirius radio to have the show removed. It then devolved into personal attacks and severe anti-Semitic slurs toward Cohen. Later, the attacks became direct against family members and, especially, against Cohen himself. Cohen decided enough was enough and bowed to pressure to attempt to alleviate the threats against him and his family.

Selfishly, as someone just starting to dive into soccer, it upset me that I lost the only daily soccer broadcast in this country. It also upset me that people would threaten someone's life over a statement that was made on a soccer show. A bigger disappointment is the fact that top executives at Liverpool FC knew full well what was going on and not once issued a statement condemning the hateful speech and threats. What I am most disappointed with, however, is that the campaign of hate and intimidation came not from fans in England, but rather from the U.S.

We live in a country where freedom of speech is such a basic right that it is guaranteed as the First Amendment to our Constitution. Certainly, making a comment about events 20 years prior on a soccer show would qualify. That people living in this country, under our Constitution, could ignore this fact and threaten away someone else's right to free speech is shameful. No matter how much we might disagree with one's position, he or she does not deserve to be slandered, be racially denigrated and have his or her family's life threatened.

Steven Cohen moved to the U.S. from England as a young man and promptly served 4 years in the U.S. Army. He has done nothing to deserve the vitriol that the animals supporting Liverpool FC have inflicted upon him. To think that it is 2009 and one could be killed for uttering a simple statement makes me wonder whether we are living in the United States or Iran. Such hatred has no place in this country, whether it is in entertainment, sports, politics or any other forum. We are all entitled to be heard. We are not entitled to threaten others to prevent them from being heard.

The Wisdom of Newton (Not the Fig)

Bodies in motion tend to stay in motion and bodies at rest tend to stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force. So summarizes Sir Isaac Newton's concept of inertia as described in his first law of motion. Although Newton was undoubtedly concerned with the motion of physical bodies, I think of inertia more in terms of human bodies; specifically how we live our lives day to day.

Isn't it funny how we all fall into habits? Some of those habits are good and some are bad. Either way, they are very difficult to get out of. If the habit involves doing something it is hard to stop. If the habit involves doing nothing, it is hard to get going. Don't blame it on willpower or desire; blame in on Sir Isaac Newton!

The best thing to do in life is to do things differently from time to time. Having the same morning routine, watching the same shows every day or every week, ordering the same foods at a restaurant are all good ways to become inertia's BFF. One needs to get outside of the comfort zones we surround ourselves with and do something new to grow every day. Maybe that is practicing another language, or a musical instrument, or learning a new recipe or researching a new subject. Continuing to expand our horizons in new and innovative ways helps us make the most of the precious little time we have.

Perhaps I should take a little more advice. My area of improvement involves setting a body in motion when it tends to be at rest. More specifically, I need to get my butt to the gym. I tend to find reasons why I can't get to the gym instead of finding reasons why I can. I like working out, I just find it difficult to get there. Once I get started I am pumped up to go, but it is the getting there that is the hard part. I made a promise to my daughter that I would be healthier by the end of the year. I am 7 1/2 months in and haven't made much progress. That will change. Next week I will go to the gym and overcome my inertia.

I believe that Confucius knew much more about inertia than he let on. He said, "The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." He understood that getting moving was the most difficult part of any sojourn; that the rest would be much easier after that. I challenge you to find your own areas of inertia and do something to get moving, or perhaps, slow down. Take a step to start something you have been meaning to start or to stop something you have been meaning to stop. Let's all do a little something new to get from where we are to where we want to go. Sharks die if they stop moving. Be a shark. Doing something, no matter how small, is much better than doing nothing.

Healing Heath Care

So it continues. The rushes of those at the upper echelons of our government are very eager to foist nationalized health care on us. The debate continues to be heated and to pretend to know what the final outcome will be would be difficult considering I broke my crystal ball a few days ago. I will come right out and say that I think national heath care is a bad idea. A colossally near-sighted, bloated animal of paying taxes out the butt bad idea.

The first reason it is a bad idea is that it will be the federal government running it. We all laugh when we think about the term efficient government and to think that things will change with health care would be quite naive. This is the same entity which runs the tax system, welfare and has gotten involved with public education, causing our schools to spiral out of control. Why would we believe that things would be any more streamlined, organized and efficient when it comes to universal health care?

On a related note, has anyone heard one great thing about Medicare? Granted, our senior citizens can become confused a tad easier than those in their twenties, but many a sharp-minded oldster have thrown their canes in disgust when trying to understand the program, what they qualify for, how much they have to pay, when they have to enroll, and so on. Imagine this times 100. I cannot believe that it will involve just a few forms and a few minutes of your time. It will be ridiculous, and will lead to people not getting appropriate care at the appropriate time at the appropriate cost.

How good are you with your money? Can you pay your bills? Do you support others who are a drain on your finances and pay nothing back into it? Welcome to the wonderful world of our federal deficit! The government is in debt $1.3 trillion dollars just this year alone. That is $1,300,000,000,000. The government pays for so many things that involve giving money to people who will not put money back into the system. Examples are those on welfare, Social Security and Medicare. There is way too much money going out in entitlements without sufficient sources to replenish those funds.

In a universal health care system, those using the system will be those who cannot afford to carry private insurance. Who will those people mainly consist of? The poor (who effectively pay no tax and if they qualify for the Earned Income Credit actually get more money back than they have paid in; kind of tax welfare), children and the elderly. None of those people are putting money back in the system. My taxes and your taxes will be raised to fund this. I will be paying money so that those who have not saved and cannot provide their family with the health insurance that they responsibly should, get health care at no cost. I will now light myself on fire.

Health care is not a right. The freedom of speech is a right. The freedom to worship whichever religion you choose is a right. Getting your arm fixed up when you fall off of a ladder or getting chemotherapy to shrink a tumor is not a right. Health care costs money and nobody who works hard should have money taken from their family to fix another family's medical issues. I don't want to sound like a cranky, paranoid extremist, but we have seen a rise in entitlements over the last few generations and universal health care is a giant step in that direction. That's not a direction I want to go in.

I am not the type to complain about something without offering a solution. Instead of giving health care for free at the expense of others or letting costs spiral out of control, why not look to control the costs of the health care? Instead of giving health care to all and getting over billed by greedy health care and insurance companies things should be left to the private sector. One could try to establish non-profit status with existing companies to discourage them from trying to make a profit. Companies would be required to only charge patients for premiums and care what it costs to provide it. There would be no profit taking and no margin goals to hit.

Companies that charge too much for care will be squeezed out and companies cannot lower standards of care to increase profits; if less money is spent on facilities and patients, costs for those patients will be lower as well. The market should settle into a happy medium in terms of costs and there will still be room for a range of care, similar to how people will pay more for better automobiles or televisions. Costs are kept in control and people get choices, not long lines for sub par government care. Costs will always go up, just like anything else, but at least this way people will get what they pay for; nothing more, nothing less.

Confirmed!

At last we have reached the end of the saga that is the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to be an Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court. Every time a new Supreme Court Justice is required I shut my ears to the inane cries coming from Washington D.C. With every nomination comes outrage from those on the other side of the political aisle, expressing outrage over how someone so outside of the "political mainstream" could be trusted with adjudicating the most pressing issues of our society. We have hearing after hearing where blowhard Senator after blowhard Senator weighs in, pro or con. Enough already.

Perhaps said screaming senators should remember a little cliche: to the victor come the spoils. Barack Obama won the election. Fair and square. The president gets to nominate the person of his choosing to fill any positions on the Supreme Court. The only requirement, the responsibility with which the U.S. Senate is to arbitrate, is whether or not said candidate is of sound legal authority and has the qualifications necessary to fill the Justice position. Essentially, if someone has an upstanding record of being a judge and is in good legal standing with their state bar association, he or she should be allowed to serve. Not whether the candidate believes in Roe v. Wade or what he or she believes on the topic of affirmative action. If President Obama nominates Sonia Sotomayor it is presumed her political philosophies will like somewhat to the left. This is his right to do so.

What is laughable is that all of the Senators in Washington have a clear sense of what the political mainstream is. This country is too diverse to have a mainstream opinion anymore. Short of such common ground like banning bestiality or burning people alive, there is little, politically speaking, which you could confidently agree that 51% of Americans believe to be correct. Therefore the mainstream no longer exists. We are left with two diverse sets of opinions and at any given moment we are wont to switch between the two come Election Day. This past November we, as a nation, decided to swing left and this is reflected in Obama's nomination. That makes it the mainstream.

All voters know, or at least should know, that the President has the power to nominate someone of his choosing to the Supreme Court. I would assume that our esteemed Senators know this. How come, one wonders, it seems that with every nomination those of the minority party act shocked and outraged that the President would nominate someone with whom he shares political ideology? I suspect it is less about politics and more about grandiose showboating. In order to run for public office, one must posses a larger than average sense of self. Such shenanigans like we have seen in recent weeks is simply a way for ego driven Senators to get more face time on the NBC Nightly News. Can we please calm down and knock off all of this grandstanding? In the end we knew Ms. Sotomayor would be confirmed. How about these Senators just do their job and get back to what is really important? You know, finding new ways to waste our tax dollars.

More 1/3 Baked Ideas

A little while back I wrote about a few 1/3 baked ideas I had. These are ideas that are not quite good enough to be 1/2 baked. Here are a few more which came straight from my brain. Results may vary.

A little while ago I was watching someone eat a Drumstick ice cream treat. As delicious as the whole thing is, my favorite part of the Drumstick is the very last bite; the bottom of the cone containing a thick layer of chocolate and a small bit of the remaining ice cream. From the moment I first bite into the top I can think of nothing else besides treating myself to that delectable combination of waffle cone, chocolate and vanilla ice cream (Caramel Drumsticks do not apply). It almost feels like I am cheating on the rest of the Drumstick by dreaming of another. Then I got to one of my more dangerous activities, which is thinking. What if they put out a version of Drumsticks where that last bite was all there was? It would just be a bin, a la Dibs, full of frozen Drumstick bottoms: tip of the waffle cone, thick layer of chocolate inside and just a bit of vanilla ice cream. Then I wouldn't have to eat the rest of the Drumstick while dreaming about the bottom. Heavenly deliciousness.

A few days back I heard a report on a local FM radio show I was forced to listen to at work regarding celebrity look alikes. These were not cheesy lounge performers mind you, rather these were sperm donors who look like celebrities so women can have children that look like they could be the offspring of said famous persons. This idea is quite creepy so naturally I had to draw it out to its furthest creepy extent. What if instead of getting the sperm of a celebrity look alike you could get the actual sperm or DNA of a celebrity? You want a baby from George Clooney? No need to have sex with him, just get a hold of a sample of his sperm and start having some of the best looking kids on the planet. Love Brad Pitt? Get a sample of his DNA and hire a shady lab outside the U.S. to clone him. My idea is to have a service by which one would procure said sperm and DNA samples from celebrities and sell them to potential stalkers, um, I mean really huge fans. A collection of good looking women surely could wrangle a sample or two from the best genetic specimens Hollywood and professional sports have to offer. It can all be done from other countries to get around the pesky U.S. legal system. Are there women who would pay into the six figure range to have a child that looks like their favorite stud? You know there are.

Those are my new 1/3 baked ideas. Check back for more ideas not good enough to be 1/2 baked at a later time when my brain sinks to depths which are more and more depraved.

Thanks for reading and big balls.