|
|
|
| A Larger View |
|
A Bi-Monthly Newsletter of the Inner Outer Partnership |
| Volume VIII Edition 2 |
March/April |
2003 |
Casinos:
All That Glitters...
Thomas Baker, president of International Game Technology, predicts that not only his business will grow at the rate of 15% a year for the next few years but that at least a state a year will legalize gambling. He's chief executive of the nation's largest maker of slot machines and his predictions are based on the fact that the governors of several states are looking to gambling revenues to reduce budget deficits.
The gambling industry lobby, one that is fast gaining power as well as favor with several governors, proposes the use of gambling revenues as an alternative to raising taxes. The proposal is attractive and appears to be ready cash without a price. But are revenues from gambling as safe as they are promoted to be? Gamblers know that no matter how good their luck may be, there comes a time when one must pay the piper.
Using gambling monies is not exactly a new idea. What makes it relevant now is how prevalent it purports to be. During the depression Nevada became the first state to legalize gambling giving the industry a boost. With the recession of the 1990's again gambling revenues came to the rescue, and the industry got another boost. During that time states from Iowa to Mississippi allowed riverboat gambling, while Oregon, Louisiana, West Virginia and Rhode Island approved video poker. Today the roster of states considering gambling or an expansion of it keeps increasing: Pennsylvania and Maryland are trying to allow slot machines at racetracks; California is looking into allowing Indian tribes to build more casinos assuming that the state would get a larger percentage; Oklahoma is promising to use gambling money for schools; Arizona, Kentucky, Ohio, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts and Florida (who rejected gambling in a referendum in 1994) are all contemplating new or additional gambling revenues.
Using gambling revenues is not as problem free as it may appear. Once the industry has a hold in legislatures; once its workers can organize into a voting bloc; and once the vast resources of this profitable industry can be used towards lobbying and to influence elections (last fall in Arizona a referendum expanding Indian casino gambling narrowly passed after those backing it spent some $21 million) they stand to gain a permanent seat at the political table. While governors may think of this as a short-term remedy, the reality is that it has long term consequences.
There is another category of consequences. Gambling after all preys on human weakness. A federal commission on gambling in 1999 recommended a moratorium mainly out of concern for the psychosocial and economic problems it usually leads to. The study estimated that there were about 5.5 million problem gamblers, 15 million who showed signs of becoming problem gamblers and concluded that the full price of addiction is still unknown. Crime, Family problems, absenteeism, unemployment, financial burdens, bankruptcies to name only some of the problems associated with gambling point to the fact that the social and economic costs to the society as well as the spiritual ones may overshadow the benefits.
Los Angeles Times columnist, Ron Brownstein, a long time Washington observer, likens gambling to borrowing from a loan shark, "The bills mount even as the opportunity to break free dwindles," he writes.
Perhaps using gambling revenues as stop gaps to budget deficits is also akin to wanting instant gratification. Governors and state legislators ought to be sufficiently wise to recognize that in the long run all that glitters is not gold.
The Influence of Funding Sources
It's really not surprising, that those who pay for scientific studies tend to end up with the result they are seeking. But it is distressing. Almost two thirds of medical research funding in the United States comes from within the industry, thus in small and larger ways research findings often can't help but serve the goals of their funding sources.
A New England Journal of Medicine survey of favorable studies discovered that in 96% of the cases drug companies had funded the researchers. After years of studies praising the use of channel blockers to alleviate high blood pressure, a federally funded study by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute issued last December concluded that diuretics were better than the more expensive channel blockers.
A Yale University study operating without funds from business found that when businesses sponsor studies in hospitals and colleges the result are almost 4 times as likely to favor the business involved. Six Flags, owner of several parks such as Magic Mountain funded a study by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons who in turn found no correlation between roller coasters and brain injuries. Consumers groups predictably attacked the findings.
Medicine and academia once looked down upon corporate sponsorship, but as the number and size of government grants are unable to meet the growing need, many institutions now actively seek it. Although public monies have doubled in the last few years, the sums cannot compete with corporations wanting the cachet of academic ties.
It's obvious that when research findings are tainted, there is harm. Still much can be done if we identify this correlation as a problem. Researchers, for example, can be asked to adhere to a less harmful code of ethics, or place more distance between their funding sources and their results-Necessary steps to create a climate where funding sources are constrained to relinquish their expectations of given findings.
Struggling With Responsibility
There was a time when everything was easy. Right was right and wrong was wrong. As the world grows in complexity, the problems we face, the issues we wrestle with have more nuances so that right is not always right and wrong is not always wrong. Nowhere is our struggle with redefining new norms as evident as it is in the judicial system. Three recent cases typify our efforts to re-understand responsibility, an issue which of course cannot be understood without some challenge to the meaning of right and wrong as they currently exist.
The first is the case of a young California mother, Amy Prien who is being charged with second degree murder for the death of her baby. Prosecutors say the infant overdosed on amphetamines, which they deduced had to have been administered through breast milk. Prien denies she was using drugs. The case is still to go trial but the issue remains: If drugs were in her bloodstream and passed to her infant son through her breast milk, how responsible is she for his death?
The second instance is that of a Pennsylvania jury who recently decided that Philip Morris was not responsible for the death of Katie Carter, 62, a long time smoker whose family accused the tobacco manufacturer of concealing the dangers of cigarettes.
The last example concerns the moving story of a 64-year-old Atlanta mother, Carol Carr, who, rather than continue to see her sons die the slow and painful death of Huntington's disease, went into their nursing home, shot them and turned herself in. She had witnessed her husband die of the hereditary and terminal brain disease, which progressively robs those afflicted of their ability to do simple tasks and even think clearly. The prosecutors, recognizing the pathos of the case, agreed to a plea agreement under which she shall be charged with an old Georgia law against the assisting of suicide. Accepting the new charge, her attorney Lee Sexton, commented that "...you should always temper justice with mercy...She (Carr) believes she was 100% right-It was her duty. But legally, she knew it violated the law." Carr faces up to five years in state prison and Sexton hopes that her case inspires the legislature to legalize assisted suicide in cases of Huntington's disease.
It will be a long while before we achieve a better understanding of responsibility, and whatever the errors that are sure to come along the way, they ought not to detract us from seeing the many efforts towards it.
What Kids Can Do: A Partnership With Teachers
Education is such a big challenge and we are so used to thinking of it in terms of its problems, it's easy to overlook little exciting things. One such development is "Fires in the Bathroom" a book to be published in April by the New Press and produced by the non- profit organization, What Kids Can Do. In it, 40 students from across the nation voice their opinions about what can be done to improve schools. What the book emphasizes is that students are avid for relationships that make learning possible. Kathleen Cushman, an education journalist who wrote the book after lengthy interviews with the students says, "What we're hearing from students is that they want partnerships." At a time when many educators are looking at downsizing schools, some are as large as 5000, the book strikes a chord. What also adds to the book's value is that many laudable efforts do not look at what's on students' minds. Barbara Cervone, a co-founder of What Kids Can Do states, "You can restructure schools until the cows come home, but you need to get these relationships right from the start. Certainly smaller classrooms and smaller schools create some of the basic elements for more positive relationship between students and teachers. But that alone isn't sufficient."
Since the teacher-student relationship is at the core of the book, "Fires in the Bathroom" whose title acknowledges the chaos in some schools and classrooms, gives teachers a lot of practical advice. It suggests for example that teachers hand out a questionnaire the first day of school with questions meant to acquire more personal knowledge of the students, such as, "What do you do after school" or "What's a fair amount of homework time to expect?"
Hopefully, "Fires in the Bathroom", a step in developing new cooperative learning methods, will be recognized as a contribution, widely read and utilized.
Web Site of Interest: www.aegis.org
A Comprehensive Look at AIDS
This is in impressive site, a prime example of what the Internet can do. Said to have 750,000 AIDS and AIDS related documents, it provides an easy to use up to date encyclopedia-like site on the illness. One of the features making it distinctive is that it is primarily set up for those who have the disease. If you have AIDS or think you might it's easy to look up information on a range of topics including prevention, exposure, resistant drugs, treatment options, scientific facts or legal cases and decisions. The links page is equally impressive; it includes links to all continents and information about each country and the status of AIDS in that country. To make the knowledge that much easier to place in perspective, maps are provided. A link to organizations for pediatric and adolescent AIDS is there along with a faith and religion page. The link to statistics will among other sites take you to the CDC (Center for Disease Control).
We are subjected to lots of information about AIDS and can sometimes have difficulty sorting through it or placing it in context. This site becomes a must for any question we may have. Sponsored by the Boehringen, Ingelheim, Metrikus Inc, John M Lloyd foundations, the National Library of Medicine and individual donations, it was begun by Sister Mary Elizabeth Clark in 1989. Through her perseverance, sense of purpose, determination and patience, it has grown to what it is today. A year ago an "ask the doctor" feature was added. Users can ask specific questions-not answered somewhere else on the site-to a group of MD's.
Larry Kramer, a long time AIDS activist who uses the site everyday and who said he couldn't get along without it, has recommended Clark for an award from the American Foundation for AIDS Research.
To Ponder On
"When all else fails, men {and women} turn to reason."
Abba Eban
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
Martin Luther King
|
|
