(The great debaters are back once more at their stations. Between them on the floor lies an unidentifiable pizza menu.)
True On Average (TOA): How long is it going to be?
The Business Bro (BB): Hold on, I'm still trying to figure out how to work this thing.
TOA: The phone?
BB: It has the menu on it.
TOA: The menu is right there!
(True On Average points at the menu lying between them.)
BB: Yeah, I see it. You don't need to acknowledge everything. This is better. This is the future.
TOA: Whatever.
(True On Average picks up the menu.)
TOA: What if the document does not have enough information for us to decide?
BB: What, on a pizza?
TOA: Well, I meant the voting booklet, but I suppose it could apply for both.
BB: We'll make an attempt to get the information. That's all anyone in charge does- gather information.
TOA: Oh yes, I remember you pointed that out about leadership.
BB: Right. And we'll need context, as you pointed out. In some cases, just measuring one data point won't count for all that much.
TOA: So, does Massachusetts have principles? Or context? Or deep dish...
BB: Not that I'm aware of. Officially, anyway. The safe route is probably to consider the USA and work with their ideas, their principles. The country started here, as I'm told, and we are still a part of it. So it should be a decent approach for now.
TOA: True, on average. That will take us in the right direction.
BB: Was that a plug? The readers are already here, you don't need to advertise. Shameless.
TOA: What? All debates have advertising.
BB: Never mind. You have no business sense. No grasp of marketing, either.
TOA: That might be. But I have a decent idea of what this country thinks it should be doing. The whole idea is to create freedom for its citizens. You can protest if you want, or not. You are free to express yourself. Expression. That sort of idea.
BB: Freedom? That's your answer?
TOA: It's simple but it's true. The execution of the idea has ranged from hypocritically false to A for effort. Just think about the amendments or interpretations of the Constitution.
BB: That sentence made no sense. The business of America is business.
TOA: That is a ripoff- even I know Coolidge when I hear it. He only said, like, three things. And even if you think that, you can't run a business without first having the freedom to start one.
BB: Well, I think Americans should be free to start a casino business. And it says right here- the slots will create new jobs.
TOA: Hold on, I don't even know what the vote is. What does the question say?
BB: One second please...
(The Business Bro reads the packet.)
TOA: This is captivating stuff.
BB: Quiet...OK...so basically, voting yes on #1 would allow one additional slot machine gaming location in the state. It has to meet a set of highly specified and somewhat ridiculous conditions, including that it must be on a property 'where a horse racing meeting may be physically held'. I think that means an actual race, not a meeting about a race.
TOA: A meeting? You business bros and your meetings. How many conditions?
BB: So you are acknowledging races now?
TOA: This is the kind of black and white I think people should worry about. How many conditions?
BB: Five such conditions are listed in total.
TOA: What about voting no?
BB: No means the law does not change.
TOA: What is the current law?
BB: It doesn't say...
TOA: Helpful.
BB: ...though reading between the lines hints that perhaps there is one and only one other such location already in the state somewhere.
(True On Average gestures a hand overhead.)
TOA: It ain't at the library, I know that much. Though I've never seen a horse at the library. Don't know what I was expecting. Anything else?
BB: Apparently, voting yes increases the state revenue from somewhere between zero and 'an unknown positive amount'. There will need to be further research, it says, if the vote is yes.
TOA: That sounds ridiculous. How could 'zero' be the baseline? What about the cost of measuring those five conditions? Or doing that research?
BB: I mean, there are always hypothetical reasons to argue against anything. Hypothetically, I could choke on a piece of broccoli. Its still a healthy food.
TOA: I'm surprised your readers haven't choked on your nonsense yet. Oh wait, you don't have any readers.
BB: Maybe YOU could. And that admin point...you love talking about admin.
TOA: Maybe so, but I think it is relevant.
BB: How's that?
TOA: Well, to go back to those principles I was talking about before I was cut off- the less admin in government, the less waste. Less waste means more resources for the people.
BB: I'm not sure its that simple.
TOA: I don't see how its less simple than saying something could impact revenue at a range of 'zero to an unknown positive amount'. The standards here are plainly, well, plain.
BB: Here we go with that wordplay again. How does that tie to the freedom principle? Or the business idea?
TOA: Er, um..I had it, but lost it for a second. Hold on.
BB: Hold on? We gotta pick up the pace here, the election is coming up!
TOA: What do the state sponsored opinions say?
BB: On the yes side, it talks about creating jobs and making horse racing more sustainable. It makes a good point about how people who currently leave the state to gamble- like you- might stay here instead and keep the revenue at home. Was Hartford on that move list of yours?
TOA: And on the no side?
BB: It's well-written, which you probably would find relevant, somehow. The basic idea is that not enough information is known about the impact to expand gambling. It points out that the idea comes from one developer whose sole purpose is his own financial gain.
TOA: Compelling. Let's vote no.
BB: And just wipe out all those extra jobs? We could use one, you know.
TOA: I'm not going to work at a casino. Not with you, anyway. Foxwoods was depressing. How are you gonna train or motivate someone to fix a slot machine?
BB: Oh, pipe down.
TOA: I would love to see you run a casino. You could probably figure out a way to bankrupt it. That would be a first in human history, no?
BB: Probably, yeah.
(Hearty chuckling ensues.)
TOA: I think I got that idea again. The freedom one.
BB: OK, go ahead.
TOA: Not everyone can start a business. Not everyone wants to start a business. But either way, that kind of freedom is available to a select group of people. For most people, freedom means lacking in want.
BB: Lacking in want? I'm not following. In English, please...
TOA: Yeah, I'm still sorting it out, you know what I mean? Someone who spends all their time addressing needs, so to speak, has no time to address anything else.
BB: Right...and...
TOA: So the principle here should look at how to improve conditions for people who are having a hard time with meeting their basic needs.
BB: Oh, wait. Poor people? Are you just saying alleviating poverty?
TOA: Well, I suppose.
BB: What took so long to say that?
TOA: Um-
BB: This is why your blogs run so long. Just get to the point.
TOA: We should try to vote in a way that brings the most freedom to the most people. For most people, that means things like affordable housing, better services for lesser taxes, things like that. Unless you think the country is perfect the way it is...
BB: No, I don't quite think its where it should be.
TOA: Exactly. As long as we agree that this country needs to move up, we should vote for policy that lifts it up. But it's like the same thing as physically picking up an object. You can't lift from the top. Things rise when real effort is made to bring up the bottom.
BB: Interesting. I don't care about lifting weights. And I don't see the point. More jobs lifts the bottom up, unless you want people here to drive to Foxwoods for work. I'm trying to decide on a vote here. So, what about this vote?
TOA: It is always hard to vote against any law that creates new jobs. But the economy is good. I read last week that unemployment was very low. It might not be the best use of legislative resources to focus on job creation when unemployment rates are so favorable.
BB: You believe everything you read. The economy is rubbish. Go out on the streets. We have needles everywhere. No one can afford to save money.
TOA: That's my point!
BB: No, it isn't. Let me finish. The top of the economy is great. What about the middle? What about the bottom? There a lot of people who need jobs like this one. So what if someone gets a slice for owning the place? Good for them. No one else is creating these jobs. The state certainly isn't.
TOA: But these aren't the right jobs. We need to discourage these types of places so the job creators find something more sustainable that builds communities through creating good jobs.
BB: This makes horse racing more sustainable.
TOA: Shooting injured horses is not what I call a sustainable anything.
BB: Right. Just minutes ago, you were talking about killing two birds or something like that.
TOA: That's just a figure of speech.
BB: True. But what about your little freedom speech? What part of your speech am I supposed to believe, then? Just whatever is convenient for you to get my support?
TOA: I'm not going to respond to a question so naive.
BB: If someone thinks they have a good idea for a business, they should have the freeeeee-dom to open it.
TOA: There is nothing free about slot machines, though I do agree it is dumb. Free-dumb. Get it? Maybe I do support this.
BB: Terrible. OK, you want to vote no. Let's do it. What should all the jobless people do in the meantime?
TOA: Let's look at the facts, then, which I'm sure is all you want to do anyway. I am concerned about two things, two facts. One, the extra admin. Sure, this generates state and local revenue. But how much of it gets sucked away by admin? Perhaps a different way to create jobs generates less admin.
BB: Always with the admin.
TOA: Two, that it is written within the very document you are clutching, sir, that more research is needed. Seriously, zero to infinite dollars for the state? The ink used to write that very expressions costs money. Am I really supposed to believe that slot machines are a no-risk bet to add potentially infinity dollars to the state coffers?
BB: I hate to admit it but you do ask an important question. Never trust infinity, the ancient Greeks used to say.
TOA: Greece? Goodness, how do you know about Greece?
BB: It's the thing in the middle of my pizza. Speaking of which...
TOA: Hold on, what were you saying about my point?
BB: I forget, though you should write down my infinity thought before you start your next post. You can post it as a warning- zero to infinite words coming...
TOA: I'm looking at the other end of it. If you encourage gambling addicts or create new ones by making it easier to play the slots, it WILL cost the state through increases in treatment programs and more policing to deal with any problems manifesting from any chaos at this site.
BB: Those are interesting, but hypothetical.
TOA: True.
BB: Still, it is worth thinking about. Alfred P. Sloan thought rushing into decisions without gathering all the information needed was a universal characteristic of failing organizations. On the other hand, I still think we should keep in mind that people who want to gamble- like you- will go to other states. How much money did you give to the state of Connecticut last year?
TOA: Twenty bucks.
BB: Lie.
TOA: Please.
BB: We'll wait for your tax returns.
(Silence.)
TOA: How about this? Build a wall of slot machines along the border of Connecticut and Massachusetts...
(Chuckling...)
BB: Maybe we could make Connecticut pay for it!
(Chuckling continues...)
TOA: Ah, yes. A fine idea. A touch unrealistic, perhaps.
BB: This is feeling a bit like a stuck vote. Although maybe not. I have no idea what side you are on anymore.
TOA: Me neither.
BB: Excellent...
TOA: Ultimately, this seems to hurt the average citizen for the benefit of some rich fella. In fact, it seems to disproportionately hurt the poor.
BB: Back to that again?
TOA: It's the principle we talked about earlier.
BB: What principle? We talked about freedom. Any person is currently free to spend their money how they please.
TOA: What I mean is that poverty restricts choices. Policies should increase the freedom of the people they are serving. So if this policy hurts the poor and helps the rich, it limits choices, which limits freedom.
BB: Limits choices? The choice is theirs if they want to play a little game or take a job.
TOA: Creating a slot machine creates nothing outside of the machine. So if we recognize that this will benefit a rich person, like the owner of a casino, and we recognize that nothing new is created, which it isn't from an economic sense, then where the rich person get that new money? It just redistributes wealth that already exists.
BB: Well, I'm not so sure-
TOA: The math is simple. If a rich person gets a bigger slice of a pie and the pie does not increase in size, then at least one person gets a smaller slice.
BB: I see your logic but I still think you are missing the point. Speaking of slices, that pizza?
TOA: You didn't order it?
BB: No. I thought you were?
TOA: OK, hold on. I'll go look for a phone charger.
BB: Good.
TOA: We can leave it here for now. The vote, I mean.
BB: That might be a good idea. We have three more questions here.
TOA: What is the second one?
BB: Charter school expansion- yes or no? I say yes.
TOA: What? Hold on, wait until I come back.
(True On Average exits the debate area. The Business Bro thumbs through the voter booklet. It does seem like a nice time for a break...
We'll resume coverage on Friday at the usual time. Thanks for reading.)
