Vicious Rants of an Angry Yellow Man

Yesterday in the LA Times there was an article about Indian casinos in California. It talks about some tribes are prospering with revenues from casinos while other tribes are still poor because they are not allowed to open casinos. The rich tribes are trying to pass legislations with the endorsement of the governor to increase the number of casinos they can own and increase the number of slot machines in each casino. At the same time these rich tribes are paying off legislators to prevent the approval of new casinos being opened by poor tribes. So the tribes that were fortunate enough to be granted rights to casinos are now using their political clout to increase their empires while preventing poor tribes from getting the same opportunities they had.

First of all, there should not be more expansion of casinos in this state. Gambling has great addictive potential and we should discourage it. Of course, the government uses gambling for their own gain, regardless the possible harm to the public. Lotteries may enrich the coffers of the government but also lead to destruction of lives. The Indian casinos, like the reservations, are politically correct way for the government to address past wrongs that were done to Native Americans. I find it repulsive to allow a certain group to go into a business that is illegal for other people to operate. Are we going to let Blacks sell drugs and Latinoes run brothels? I think there should be better ways to help disadvantaged groups.

This is not about self-reliance. If it is, as the Indian gaming commercials insist, then the profits should be shared among all Native Americans in the state. But the rich tribes just want to keep the money to themselves. Their political clouts are growing each day with their profit. Soon they will be like the government employee unions and big businesses that are buying our politicians. Along with all the poker championship on sports channels and all the lotteries run by the government, gambling will become mainstream in our society if they are not already. The toll on our future generations will be enormous.

p.s. I would like to thank everyone who has written comments on my blog. I find them very insightful except those from my family and friends. If you don't agree with my view, please say so. You won't hurt my feelings. Besides, I know who you are and I will find you. Periodically, I will comment on your comments. Today, I would like to answer leaderoftommorrow's question about what do I think the U.S. would do if we are attacked like Israel was.

The short answer is the U.S. would do exactly what Israel did. I don't blame Israel for fighting back. I am not Gandhi and I think an eye for an eye is fair. Going into Afghanistan after 9-11 was the right thing to do. If LA is being hit by rockets from Mexico, I would want my government to counter-attack. But look at it from a different point of view. If a group of crazy Americans fire rockets into Mexico and the Mexicans attack San Diego, you would understand it, right? But if the Mexicans start bombing LA because Canada was sending arms through LA to the crazies in San Diego and your building got hit, what would you think? If you are a young kid in LA and your home was destroyed by the Mexican bombs, wouldn't you hate them? So will the kid in Beirut whose house was destroyed grow up to hate Israel.

I look at this from the perspective of the boy in Beirut because of experiences I had growing up in Hong Kong. As a young boy I understood the communists in China were bad guys. I also knew there were communist sympathizers in Hong Kong who were causing trouble. Despite this understanding, I hated the British whenever they overreacted against civilians when the communists caused trouble. Looking back, if the British had destroyed the building I lived in because a few communists were hiding there, I would probably grew up to be an insurgent against British colonial rule. After my family left Hong Kong for the U.S., the British treated the people of Hong Kong much better. As a result, Hong Kong became prosperous and actually had a higher per capita income than their colonial masters by the late 1980's. Obviously, there was no chance of any insurgency against the British because they had acted in a civilized manner.

The point is the boy in Beirut and I are not evil people. We are just ordinary people who could be persuaded to become terrorists. As a much older and hopefully wiser person, I know becoming a terrorist is not the answer, but the bad guys are trying to recruit young and impressionable people. They also know that the more Israel and the U.S. overreact, the easier it is for them to recruit. I don't have any good answers, but I believe that if we are the good guys, we have to act like we are the good guys. Ultimately the good guys will prevail.

Again, thanks for the comments, keep them coming.