rsliu
10-02-2006, 06:57 AM
I know it's not much, but I think it's important to at least try to confront Bill Frist. Here is a letter I am emailing to his office right now. If I receive a response I will post.
Dear Mr. Frist,
I am writing this letter because I have some questions regarding your recently enacted ban on internet gambling, and I was hoping you (or one of your staff members) could take some time to address them.
First of all, I am extremely confused about the purpose of this ban. While I do not see gambling as a particularly productive activity, I do recognize it as being enjoyable for millions of Americans every day. Why would you legislate away an activity that people enjoy? Certainly, a small percentage of gamblers become addicted, but there are many other things in America that are potentially dangerous which are not illegal. Some drinkers become alcoholics, but we do not prevent adults from buying liquor. Smoking is directly tied to lung cancer, but we have not made cigarettes illegal. People who eat too much red meat are at increased risk for heart attack and stroke, but we do not enforce a ban on steakhouses. My point is, what singles out internet gambling that makes it so much more dangerous than these other activities (all of which are potentially life threatening, unlike internet gambling)? Is it the fear that children will acquire their parents' credit card information and start gambling? That fear is largely unwarranted, as many poker sites require strict identification procedures that go beyond credit card information before permitting the deposit or withdrawal of cash. Furthermore, underage abuse of adult sanctioned activities is not exactly a new phenomenon in our society, nor is it particular to internet gambling. If that is the issue, then the correct solution would be to regulate gambling websites and enforce strict provisions preventing minors from accessing them.
Secondly, if internet gambling truly is as dangerous as you believe, then why is there a carve-out for horse racing? Surely someone who becomes addicted to the thrill of blackjack can just as easily become addicted to horse racing. To be honest, the only plausible justification I've heard for this is the fact that there are powerful interest groups in Washington that do not want horse betting to be banned. Please provide a better explanation.
Third, why was this provision included in a bill regarding port security? Though I may be mistaken, it certainly appears that internet gambling is irrelevant to the other content of this bill. If this is the case, then shouldn't you have drafted a separate piece of legislation specifically focusing on internet gambling, so that it could be debated on its own merits? In fact, by adding a section on internet gambling to a hugely important and necessary legislation on ports, it seems to me like you've subverted the democratic process entirely. Why are you against open debate on this issue?
Fourth, I really have to wonder what your priorities were when passing this ban. I do not consider myself explicitly a Democrat or Republican, and I do not think I am being partisan when I say that many challenges confront America today. We are engaged in a long term struggle in Iraq, facing potential nuclear threats in Iran and North Korea, and a resurging Taliban in Afghanistan. At home, millions of Americans have no health insurance, many of our schools don't come close to matching the President's own guidelines for standards, our country is in deep debt, and Social Security will likely run out when my generation is eligible to receive it. I would think that the United States Senate, and especially the Senate Majority Leader, would have more pressing issues than crafting legislation that prevents people from playing poker with each other over the internet.
You are someone who represents both my country and my alma mater (Stanford University). As such, I hold you to the highest possible standards of integrity. I would be utterly disgusted if I were to find that you do not meet those standards. Please provide reasonable explanations for the questions I have listed. Right now I am losing faith in you and this country.
Sincerely,
Robert Liu
Dear Mr. Frist,
I am writing this letter because I have some questions regarding your recently enacted ban on internet gambling, and I was hoping you (or one of your staff members) could take some time to address them.
First of all, I am extremely confused about the purpose of this ban. While I do not see gambling as a particularly productive activity, I do recognize it as being enjoyable for millions of Americans every day. Why would you legislate away an activity that people enjoy? Certainly, a small percentage of gamblers become addicted, but there are many other things in America that are potentially dangerous which are not illegal. Some drinkers become alcoholics, but we do not prevent adults from buying liquor. Smoking is directly tied to lung cancer, but we have not made cigarettes illegal. People who eat too much red meat are at increased risk for heart attack and stroke, but we do not enforce a ban on steakhouses. My point is, what singles out internet gambling that makes it so much more dangerous than these other activities (all of which are potentially life threatening, unlike internet gambling)? Is it the fear that children will acquire their parents' credit card information and start gambling? That fear is largely unwarranted, as many poker sites require strict identification procedures that go beyond credit card information before permitting the deposit or withdrawal of cash. Furthermore, underage abuse of adult sanctioned activities is not exactly a new phenomenon in our society, nor is it particular to internet gambling. If that is the issue, then the correct solution would be to regulate gambling websites and enforce strict provisions preventing minors from accessing them.
Secondly, if internet gambling truly is as dangerous as you believe, then why is there a carve-out for horse racing? Surely someone who becomes addicted to the thrill of blackjack can just as easily become addicted to horse racing. To be honest, the only plausible justification I've heard for this is the fact that there are powerful interest groups in Washington that do not want horse betting to be banned. Please provide a better explanation.
Third, why was this provision included in a bill regarding port security? Though I may be mistaken, it certainly appears that internet gambling is irrelevant to the other content of this bill. If this is the case, then shouldn't you have drafted a separate piece of legislation specifically focusing on internet gambling, so that it could be debated on its own merits? In fact, by adding a section on internet gambling to a hugely important and necessary legislation on ports, it seems to me like you've subverted the democratic process entirely. Why are you against open debate on this issue?
Fourth, I really have to wonder what your priorities were when passing this ban. I do not consider myself explicitly a Democrat or Republican, and I do not think I am being partisan when I say that many challenges confront America today. We are engaged in a long term struggle in Iraq, facing potential nuclear threats in Iran and North Korea, and a resurging Taliban in Afghanistan. At home, millions of Americans have no health insurance, many of our schools don't come close to matching the President's own guidelines for standards, our country is in deep debt, and Social Security will likely run out when my generation is eligible to receive it. I would think that the United States Senate, and especially the Senate Majority Leader, would have more pressing issues than crafting legislation that prevents people from playing poker with each other over the internet.
You are someone who represents both my country and my alma mater (Stanford University). As such, I hold you to the highest possible standards of integrity. I would be utterly disgusted if I were to find that you do not meet those standards. Please provide reasonable explanations for the questions I have listed. Right now I am losing faith in you and this country.
Sincerely,
Robert Liu