A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Does Harrah's have a 75-year license?

No, but it makes a large investment in buying landing, building a casino/hotel, etc. and remains subject to whatever new regulations are imposed on gaming licensees.

[sgtclub]

• Raleigh — New ethics charges have been filed by the State Bar accusing Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong of withholding DNA evidence and misleading the court in the Duke lacrosse case.
  
  The amended complaint cites findings from April 2006 that DNA tests found on the alleged accuser excluded all of the Duke lacrosse players as potential contributors.
  
  The complaint also states Nifong was told of the test results by Brian Meehan, the director of the DNA company where the tests were performed. The amended complaint also states that Nifong and Meehan agreed the "potentially exculpatory DNA evidence and test results" would not be provided to defense attorneys.
  
  In subsequent court hearings, Nifong told defense attorneys that he had released all of the evidence that would potentially benefit the defense.
  
  The State Bar also cited dozens of pretrial comments Nifong made to the media early on in the case. On March 13, 2006, a woman, who was working as an exotic dancer, claims she was assaulted by three men during an off-campus party in March involving members of the Duke lacrosse team.
  
  Last month, Nifong dropped rape charges against Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans in the case after the accuser wavered in her account of key details in the case. The three men still face sexual assault and kidnapping charges and all three men have maintained their innocence.
  
  According to David Freedman, who is representing Nifong in the ethics hearing, the Durham district attorney stepped down from the case in early January because the pending ethics charges created a conflict of interest.
  
  The amended charges could lead to Nifong's removal from the State Bar.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
And is anyone under the impression that Harrah's profits fund the state? And has Nevada agreed to the tax rate applicable to Harrah's for a 75-year period?

Where do you think Nevada gets a large portion of its revenue? Also, I may be wrong on this but I don't think Nevada has an income tax (it's either no income or no property, can't remember)

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Does Harrah's have a 75-year license?

Does Harrah's have a state-graned monopoly for 75 years?

It seems the difference is substantial. Nevada has passed a law allowing gambling, and it has set out conditions under which private companies may offer gambling. Nothing in that law or regulations obligates the state to continue to permit gambling for 75 years (or any time period). Nor does it prevent the state from changing the conditions.

I do take the point, however. If Illinois had no lottery, and simply sold a right to a company to conduct a lottery in the state I would probably be less troubled. Especially if that right was limited and created no guarantees beyond a short period. But that is not what Illinois is doing, in part because the value of the monopoly is far lower if there is no guarantee of holding it in perpetuity.

[nononono]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Where does it correlate those who thought we need to have a greater presence and those who disapproved?

Ooh, I think you may be right. Skimmed too quickly. In any event, more thought we needed more troops than fewer.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
remains subject to whatever new regulations are imposed on gaming licensees.

Isn't that a key difference?

Now, if Illinois sets out lots of conditions, perhaps my concerns are substantially mitigated. But I suspect purchasing the right to operate a previously state-operated franchise will convey certain rights that getting license to operate a franchise under certain conditions would not.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Adder can opine on this: Does the contracts clause apply to contracts with the government, or only between private parties? I thought it was the latter, and if the government impaired its own contracts (or obligations) it was a taking (for example, the Winstar/banking cases).

Anyway, bigger point is that I can imagine that Illinois in an effort to maximize teh apparent value of the patent right will give up many regulatory rights. When its subsequent legislatures decide to do things differently, I suspect a takings claim will lie.

FWIW, the thing on Marketplace last night on this said that state law would still apply to the lottery. I assume that meant that the legislature was free to fuck around with it as much as they want to.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by nononono
You missed my point. I sought not to justify our actions by saying there are worse people in the world, but to suggest that reactions to the two actors (or groups of actors) should be different and should reflect the severity, intensity, depravity, duration, cruelty, etc., of the various groups. What I was comparing was the relative outcry with respect to different groups. I get a general sense at times that to some, there is no need to make those distinctions, which leads to all sorts of ridiculous situations.

Okay. I didn't really think you were trying to justify the actions of a few bad apples. It just seemed an unreasonable comparison. Which, I think, means we agree, but arrive at our agreement along different paths.

Or maybe I was just wrong.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
"World outcry over Muslim violence in Somalia - nil"

"World outcry over Israeli retaliation in Lebanon against Hezballah - incessant"

Bullshit. As far as I'm concerned, we would have been better off and done more good going into Darfur than we will ever achieve in Iraq.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Does Harrah's have a state-graned monopoly for 75 years?

It seems the difference is substantial. Nevada has passed a law allowing gambling, and it has set out conditions under which private companies may offer gambling. Nothing in that law or regulations obligates the state to continue to permit gambling for 75 years (or any time period). Nor does it prevent the state from changing the conditions.

I do take the point, however. If Illinois had no lottery, and simply sold a right to a company to conduct a lottery in the state I would probably be less troubled. Especially if that right was limited and created no guarantees beyond a short period. But that is not what Illinois is doing, in part because the value of the monopoly is far lower if there is no guarantee of holding it in perpetuity.

But what is to stop Nevada from chaning it's mind and making gambling illegal or imposing severe restrictions that change the profitabilitiy analysis? I understand the point of the monopoly, but am not sure why that is particularly relevant.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Isn't that a key difference?

Now, if Illinois sets out lots of conditions, perhaps my concerns are substantially mitigated. But I suspect purchasing the right to operate a previously state-operated franchise will convey certain rights that getting license to operate a franchise under certain conditions would not.

Like what rights? Are you thinking that the operator is stepping in the shoes of the state?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Like what rights? Are you thinking that the operator is stepping in the shoes of the state?

Yes. Don't you imagine that the operator will expect to do so?

Compare with Nevada--as you point out, no limits on changes. Now, RT could be right, in which case my concerns are minimized. Other than concerns with lotteries generally.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Haven't seen anything about that in CAIR's action alerts. And their link titled, 'Not in the Name of Islam Campaign' brings you to a blank page. (!!) As millions of Muslims slaughter innocents in the very name of Islam, CAIR is posting "Action Alerts" once a month urging American Muslims to complain about the shortage of postage stamps a few years ago commemorating Eid ul-Fitr and Eid ul-Adha and
here too.

Nice.

What exactly was your point here? This has nothing to do with Somalia, which was what you quoted. If it was just a jumping-off point (hi Sebby!), then what is the thrust of your jump? That you hate all Muslims? I think you've pretty much made that clear already.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Bullshit. As far as I'm concerned, we would have been better off and done more good going into Darfur than we will ever achieve in Iraq.

I note that Ethiopia is beginning it's withdrawl from Somalia.

You see, they achieved what was militarily achievable and are now focusing on what can be achieved through diplomacy and politics. We could have followed, and still can follow, the same approach. Military presence cannot resolve the political and sectarian differences in Iraq. Had we followed such an approach, there would have been ample ability to also project force in Darfur and achieve what was militarily achievable there.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Adder
Anyone know if ethanol is actually energy saving? Yes, I am too lazy to google whether it take more electricty (produced by burning coal) than it saves in oil not burned.

I am always skeptical that ethanol is anything other than a giant give away to corn farmers. And Grassley's reaction to Bush's suggest did not help convince me otherwise.

It currently costs more to produce than it saves, but that is at least in part due to a lack of sufficient demand to allow for greater economies of scale. Another factor to consider is that coal is not the cleanest of energy sources, but it is far more plentiful than petroleum in the long run.