Skip to content

Sports Betting: State or Federal Issue?

November 24, 2014

Erica Paul

Constitutionally, legislation surrounding gambling is supposed to be left to the determination of the states. As a condition of the Federal Interstate Horse Racing Act of 1978, the States should be allowed to have “primary responsibility for determining what forms of gambling can legally take place in their borders.”[1] The role of the Federal government in the issue is to protect states from other states interfering with their gambling policies, and to represent the national interests as a whole. Other important legislation was the passing of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act in 1992, which essentially prohibited states from having sports betting in their state. [2]

Sports’ betting is the most recent topic in gambling. The divide between the authority of the states and the federal government is clearly shown as the NBA puts pressure on Congress to make states legalize some form of sports betting. NBA commissioner Adam Silver advocates a “national law” that “allows states to authorize betting on professional sports.” [1] Nevertheless, Silver recognizes that it would be necessary to have severe regulations and technological precautions. Examples of such precautions are “minimum-age verification measures, geo-blocking technology,” as well as “mechanisms to exclude people with gambling problems.” [2]

The current state of the legislation of sports betting is that four states, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Delaware, allow it. A referendum was voted on by the people of New Jersey to approve it, but there have been some complications in the court. Governor Chris Christie allowed for sports betting at “casinos and racetracks,” but organizations such as the NCAA and other sports leagues are fighting it. [2]

Personally, I do not think that sports betting is a great idea. Despite that, since some states have already passed laws allowing it, it should be nationally allowed. The federal government should “create a federal framework that allows” all states individuals the ability to bet on sports. [3] Individual states will lose money, as their residents will go other places to bet on sports if they really desire too. In addition, illegal sports betting is a thriving underground business with no regulation at all, accumulating a possible $400 billion each year. [3] Also, Adam Silver’s description of how to regulate sports betting seems too intricate to be feasible. He describes finding a way to prevent gambling addicts from betting on sports, but it would be unconstitutional to prevent someone from doing something they want too. Minimum-age verification measures would be extremely difficult to implement. Ultimately, although I agree that sports betting should be legal, Adam Silver’s precautions seemed to be too involved to use realistically. In the coming years, it will be interesting to see where gambling, as an economic option for many states, will head. Many states have legal casinos, a whole lottery system, and few even have options for legal online betting. Going forward, it is hard to say whether or gambling of this nature will become universal and regular in our country. We will have to wait and see how the federal government responds.




Lessons from Oppenheimer’s The Act of Killing (2012)

November 19, 2014

Robert Shaw Bridges  

When we take up the mantle of cultural critique, what do we expect is the result? This is a question that philosophers and historians have long debated, and will likely remain unsettled until history provides us with an answer, sometimes one soaked in blood. From 1965-66, Indonesia erupted when a failed coup d’état gave way to the violent purge of the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) by paramilitary youth organizations, among them the Pancasila Youth. After the establishment of the New Order in Indonesia under the military dictatorship of Suharto, participants in these mass killings were celebrated as heroes, and the murders of close to 500,000 Indonesians became officially sanctioned acts in wartime. With the resignation of Suharto in 1998 and his death ten years later, the people have become more receptive to discourse over the narrative. In 2012, evidence for this openness received international acclaim with the release of the documentary film The Act of Killing, by Joshua Oppenheimer. The film received the 2014 BAFTA award for best documentary among other awards and nominations, and through underground channels has reached millions of Indonesians. The story is shocking: a satirical representation of the spectacle of death, in which the killers become the narrators. The film’s protagonist is the former movie theater gangster Anwar Congo who claims to have personally killed 1,000 people in the purge. Throughout the film, the Anwar and his compatriots from the ol’ days are challenged to reenact their memories of carnage to the tune of their favorite Hollywood blockbusters.

Whether dressed as film noire gangsters or wearing a cowboy hat and pretending to be John Wayne, these seemingly unrepentant killers are asked to convey their crimes against humanity to a worldwide audience. The shocking message these erstwhile movie-stars deliver until the end is eerily reminiscent of that chilling maxim that motivated the Third Reich, “Might Makes Right.” The viewer is made aware throughout the film of the clear continuities between these fascist psychologies separated by time and space, familiar to all readers of Klaus Theweleit’s Male Fantasies. Several leaders of the paramilitary group who decades ago were burning homes and dumping bodies in the rivers of the Indonesian tropics, were filmed sharing a laugh or a snide comment about a woman’s dress or jovially talking about the ecstasy that comes with raping their victims. The film also makes clear that the dominant historical narrative in Indonesia condones this social praise of past acts of violence. Politicians and leaders of the paramilitary youth told them they were not just gangsters, but that they were “free men” who did a great service to their country. The fact that they were able to commit murder with impunity, as one former paramilitary executioner exclaimed, was proof that their crimes were sanctioned, and by extension justified. If the State did not provide them with enough damning propaganda to vindicate their consciences, Anwar and his friends found ways to persuade themselves of their own innocence. “They have to accept it,” said Safit Pardede, one of Anwar’s accomplices, “Maybe I’m just trying to make myself feel better, but it works: I’ve never felt guilty, never been depressed, never had nightmares.”

Anwar, however, was not so lucky. Toward the end of the film, while watching the footage of his own reenacted scenes of carnage, Anwar shows signs of disturbance, of genuine disgust at his and his friends’ glorification of violence. At one point, he even becomes physically ill at the sight where he tied his victims to a pole and strangled his them with a metal wire. When asked by Oppenheimer how he felt after playing the victim of one of his crimes, he responds, “But I can feel it, Josh. Really, I feel it. Or have I sinned.” As a viewer, these moments give us hope that even if these men were ruthless killers, somehow they can regain their humanity. If they only realize what they did was wrong, we believe they are redeemable. This may be true. But is it the only lesson we should take away from Oppenheimer’s film? Perhaps these moments undermine the very message that should resonate with us. Ordinary people, who displayed no outward signs of psychosis, were capable of committing heinous crimes, and experienced no dissonance between their violent acts and their value system. They deluded themselves and were deluded by their social and political institutions into believing what they did was right, and today, they consciously suppress their suffering because their society approved their behavior, or perhaps they believe society forgave them for it. Regardless, Pardede reminds the viewer, the carnage has ended and the history is written and the victims just “have to accept it.”

Should we seek to redeem the killers? Or should we understand our very human capacity for and conditioning to violence? A similar phenomenon occurs in what many students on college campuses are now calling “rape cultures.” Fascism is not just an ideology; it is a state of mind, and an aesthetic that saturates culture at multiple levels. Certainly as political actors, the dominant narratives do not always sway us, nor do we accept the critique that we are all susceptible to the kind of violent ideologies that fed the Nazi regime in the thirties, or the state-sanctioned genocide in Rwanda. Through films like The Act of Killing, we seek to reconcile the humanity of the killers like Anwar with our own concept of humanity. We try to vindicate the part of them that we recognize and love in ourselves, rather than condemn the cultural mores that led to their downfall. Yet it may have been necessary to show the audience Anwar’s humanity to truly equate us with the madness of the social and cultural vectors that ultimately gave him the license to kill. What audiences should recognize is these men did not commit murder in a vacuum. There were contributive vectors, ways of fetishizing violence that were sanctioned, violence that many students in the United States believe is still sanctioned in our society, whether it is celebrated in public or reveled in behind a closed bedroom door.

Environmental Progress and Eased Tensions at the APEC Summit

November 18, 2014

Catherine Nardi

The influx of Republican candidates to Congress has America wondering which successes, if any, lie ahead during the remainder of President Obama’s final term in office.

However, as of November 9th, the President was concerned with other important issues. President Obama departed for China soon after the midterm elections to attend the Asia- Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit. On November 12th, the APEC summit concluded with what President Obama called a “historic agreement” [1] between the United States and China. The deal would include cutting U.S. greenhouse gas emissions “by nearly one-third from 2005 levels by 2025,” and by 2030, China would “peak it’s carbon emissions” and “increase the use of non-fossil fuels to 20%.” [2] As President Obama said, the agreement “is an ambitious goal, but it is an achievable goal.” [2] The agreement was the result of months of debate and planning, but is already being recognized as a remarkable attempt to target climate change.

The two nations have been at odds in recent years, especially as the US was suspected of crafting plans to insincerely “pivot” [1] their attention to Asia to ensure a political presence there. Tensions were exacerbated due to accusations that President Obama supported pro-democratic protestors in Hong Kong earlier this year [2]. Meanwhile, U.S. officials and media sources have repeatedly criticized China’s stance on human rights, inciting further discord.

Although the government received backlash for focusing on Asian interests, such focus may eventually progress relations with China. China is one of our strongest allies, and maintaining civil relations with them is crucial to our nation’s success. The “pledged cooperation” [2] on the climate change agreement marks a step forward in Sino-American relations.

Curbing emissions and improving air quality is a hot topic in foreign politics, particularly in big cities like Beijing and Paris where the air quality is dangerously unhealthy. It is an issue that requires action and is almost guaranteed to garner Congressional support. Americans that want to improve the current condition of the environment exist in both parties and thus both parties are open to taking action. This issue is one of the few that has the potential to get through Congress and through the Oval Office successfully now that the republicans hold the majority in Congress and a democrat remains in the White House.

The remainder of President Obama’s term in office is dependent upon his foreign success; it’s possible that his involvement in the APEC agreement will be one of his last notable accomplishments for the rest of his presidency. This past fall would have been a struggle for any President, having to handle continued threats from Isis and dealing with the Ebola pandemic. However, President Obama has little time left to make an indelible mark on history. Perhaps he has the opportunity, with this agreement and other future initiatives, to make environmental progress his legacy.



Hardliners and the Politics of Nuclear Talks with Iran

November 17, 2014

Kara Fitzgerald

Little over a month remains to strike a deal with Iran in an endless series of nuclear talks before the November 24th deadline created by the interim deal this past November. The United States maintains one goal: to make certain that Iran will never produce a nuclear weapon. At this stage of negotiations, the United States is pushing for Iran to reduce its centrifuges from a current 10,000 down to 1,500. Iran, while seeking to free itself from the crippling weight of UN sanctions against it, maintains a goal of building its enrichment capacity for civil functions. A dominant narrative in US news argues that Iraq hardliners are the force behind failure in these talks: those that refuse to degrade Iraq’s nuclear capabilities even slightly. What, however, about the lesser-mentioned United States hardliners? How are United States domestic politics and American hardline voices tipping the odds of the discussion to failure?

Counterintuitively, for many in Washington right now, the only true political success is failure. Success would mean having made concessions to the other side. Many commentators argue that our best hope right now, and most likely result, is an agreement to extend the deadline[1], to keep talking and disagreeing. A resistant Congress has been a huge factor in an immobile line on reduction. Some members have even attempted to tighten sanctions, for example this past January[2], despite ongoing negotiations considering loosening in exchange for parallel concessions. This and other actions by Congress have meant a constant looming threat over negotiation: If the state department and top diplomatic officials can even beat the widely perceived odds to come to an agreement, will the United States Congress even accept it?

The Obama administration seems to be preparing for the possibility that the answer is “no.” The New York Times[3] reported on Sunday that the Obama administration, in consultation with the Treasury Department, is prepared to circumvent a vote of Congress by enacting temporary suspensions of sanctions on Iran, obviously a response to the belief that Congress would be unable or unwilling to do so. Sanctions are a huge source of leverage for the United States and sanction relief for Iran is an inevitable trade associated with any Iranian concessions on enrichment equipment and sites. Congress, unsurprisingly, has proven displeased with the possibility of being shut out from the debate. Senator Robert Menendez, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, one of the sponsors behind January efforts to tighten sanctions, issued a statement over the weekend that Congress will respond if a deal is made that does not “substantially and effectively dismantle Iran’s illicit nuclear weapons program.” A fellow hardliner critic of the negotiations, Senator Mark S. Kirk, stated, “Congress will not permit the president to unilaterally unravel Iran sactions that passed the Senate in a 99 to 0 vote.” If the current Congress poses a threat to the current negotiations, or at least a complication, the impending Congress poses still a greater one.

President Obama may be able to appease Iranian representatives with his ability to temporarily relieve sanctions in the face of a hostile Congress, but he certainly cannot permanently maintain such a transaction. If Democrats hold on to the Senate next month, officials cited by the New York Times on Sunday[4] have said that it is still likely that a vote for a new Iran deal would still lose. If Republicans win the Senate, that likelihood is immensely greater. Can United States officials convince Congress to compromise more than it seems willing to? At the least, can the United States convince Iranian officials that it has a more willing Congress than it does? The Iranian foreign minister has affirmed his ability to convince Tehran. The public will hear much talk in the coming weeks about the dangers of Iranian hardliners and would not accept any compromise that might arise at negotiations. Let us not forget about the American ones.

The time ahead is for negotations on multiple fronts including between foreign officials of the respective nations, between Iranian foreign officials and Tehran influences, and between American foreign officials including President Obama and Congress. There is no doubt that the Pennsylvania Avenue front is a contentious one and it is a reality acknowledged by Iranian officials when considering the United States’ ability to follow through on deals. The near future of U.S. domestic politics holds great implications for the future of Iranian nuclear talks. We might soon see that failure to negotiate will win political points and the time for a decision may very well be pushed to a later date, but it is important to acknowledge that one of the stagnant parts that might be required to move is the domestic gear of our nation. The six weeks remaining to come up with a deal and the future that waits beyond that date are unclear, but if we agree with Henry Kissinger, that Iran is a bigger problem than ISIS for the United States[5], the pressure to overcome politics and achieve statemanship must be all the more pressing.






Women Driving in Saudi Arabia

November 14, 2014

Abby Rolland

According to Al Arabiya News and Agence France Presse, Saudi Arabian women are preparing to drive on October 26th, the anniversary of the driving protest from last year.[1] A ban prohibits Saudi women from getting behind the wheel, with Saudi Arabia being the only known country to have that prohibition. Last year, at least sixteen women were fined for driving. This year, an online petition has attracted over 2,400 signatures as of October 9 while activists encourage women to use the Twitter hash tag #IWillDriveMyself and to post pictures of themselves driving on FaceBook and Instagram when they drive. Hala Al-Dawsari, a member of the campaign, told Al-Hayat daily that the constant campaigning should lead to one of two things: the lifting of the ban or a good explanation of why women are not allowed to drive.[2]

In conservative Saudi society, gender equality is lacking. According to the Gender Inequality Index, Saudi Arabia is ranked 135th out of 146 countries.[3] It seems like Saudi Arabia is slowly moving in the direction of giving women more rights, as noted by King Abdullah’s decision that women will be able to run in the 2015 local elections, but reform is slow.[4] The driving ban does not come directly from the Qur’an, but from the strict Sunni form known as Salaf (religious predecessors), which is mostly unwritten and gives judges a large amount of discretionary power (they normally rule in favor of tribal customs).[5] Some women do support keeping the status quo – in 2008, Rowdha Youself and other Saudi women launched a petition called “My Guardian Knows What’s Best for Me,” which gathered over 5,000 signatures, while other activists argue that bans such as the driving one and others demean women.[6]

As early as 1990, Saudi women were illegally driving in the streets in order to protest the ban. Now, it remains to be seen whether or not the continued protests against the driving ban will work. King Abdullah would like to modernize the country but needs to listen to Wahhabi traditionalists before he makes the politically risky move.[7] Many believe that women driving could erode traditional values and lead to a Western-style openness. It will be interesting to see the impact of the driving protests on October 26th and if an increasing amount of women demanding for this right to drive will foster change in Saudi Arabia.








Hazy Outlook for Iranian Nuclear Talks Deadline

November 13, 2014

Cassandra Mensinger

It appears as though the originally planned deadline of November 24 for Iranian nuclear talks will most likely be extended past that date. The talks are aimed at curbing Tehran’s nuclear power, and talks with global leaders have so far failed to make any progress. The goal is to form a comprehensive nuclear deal by late November, involving Iranian, U.S., and European diplomats. Because of the vast instability in the region (Syria, Yemen), the talks with Iran and the United Nations Security Council plus Germany (P5+1) have been difficult to resolve [1]. A recent meeting in Oman sought to continue talks to lift sanctions in return for further restrictions on Iran’s bomb-building capabilities. The U.S. has suspected that Tehran has a clandestine program, but Iran continues to deny this suspicion.

President Obama and his aides are still focusing on the November 24 deadline, though it is not certain whether or not any resolutions will come of these talks. With the recent elections and the GOP takeover in the Senate, it is becoming known that plans are set to impose further sanctions on Iran if a deal is not reached by the deadline. This action could greatly affect further diplomacy in the region, which President Obama has been advocating for in his administration. The GOP views the President’s current nuclear diplomacy plan as too weak toward Tehran, so there could be some shift in agenda as the new year begins and the Senate turns over [2]. Also voicing concern over the deadline are Israel and Saudi Arabia, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu urging the P5+1 bloc to not sign any agreement that doesn’t go far enough in blocking Iran’s nuclear capability. The talks themselves revolve mainly around the timeline of removing Western sanctions on Iran and specifically upon limiting Iran’s enrichment of uranium.

Obama officials believe a deal can be reached by the November 24 deadline, however other experts expect the deal to extend again into 2015. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham (SC) spoke up about bringing the Iran discussion to the forefront, adding that he hopes that sanctions will be a first priority for the new Senate in January under Sen. McConnell’s leadership [2]. The actual act up for negotiation is called the Iran Nuclear Negotiations Act, which was brought forth in July. The act requires an up or down vote from Congress, with an up vote signaling possibly more concessions to Iran than many in Congress approve of. A down vote wouldn’t void a pact with Iran, but would instead reinstate any sanctions previously suspended by the deal. Many believe that if the interim deal is extended, the Republicans are likely to threaten new sanctions against Iran should the agreement be breached or abandoned.

Secretary of State John Kerry and Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif met earlier this week preluding the deadline to discuss their differences of opinion, and have yet to bridge any gaps. The two sides seem to have differing views of how the talks are going, with the U.S. thinking “there is still time” for progress, and the Iranian officials thinking there is “no progress” being made [3]. Iran continues to deny it is seeking power to build a bomb, while Western powers do not believe their claims that the nuclear program aims to produce atomic energy to reduce fossil fuel reliance. As the deadline approaches in two weeks, it remains unclear whether or not an agreement will be reached.






Republican Victory in 2014 Midterm Elections

November 12, 2014

Mia Phillips

Last Tuesday’s elections proved what many had felt to be true for the past several months if not years: Americans are upset with the direction in which the country is headed, and they want something to change. With the GOP taking over the majority in the Senate and maintaining their majority in the House of Representatives, all eyes are on the Republican leaders to see how they handle this newfound power. This win for Republicans, on multiple levels, may also indicate the potential for a Republican win in the Presidential race in 2016.

One of the largest changes facing the new Congress is the changing of all the committee chairmen to Republican leaders. These leaders will face some challenges from 2016-hopefuls like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Rand Paul, just to name a few from the Senate. These younger conservatives are pushing for bold plans regarding action on ObamaCare and taxes, just to name a few, yet those ideas might not be the best move for the Republican Party. Republican pollster David Winston is hoping that the GOP can take action on issues where the Republican base is comfortable and can syphon off Democratic votes to get bills passed. “I think the hope is that things move forward,” he said in an interview with Politico. “For a whole lot of reasons, there’s going to be a focus on jobs and the economy, and then after that there will be an assessment of what’s achievable and what’s not.”

With ObamaCare being a main issue driving voters to the polls this cycle, the question remains what the Republican Party intends to do about the health care law. Speaker John Boehner has been cited saying that the House “will move to repeal ObamaCare because it should be repealed.” However, the same article calls for Republicans to have a plan ready for proposal should they succeed in repealing ObamaCare. “Jim Capretta of the Ethics and Public Policy Center added, ‘you need to not only say you’re against the ACA (Affordable Care Act), but you’re going to need to have a replacement plan to show people you have a better way of providing people with health insurance coverage.’”

Regardless of the results of Tuesday’s election, the Wall Street Journal cautions reading too much into a potential 2016 win. “Turnout by Democratic-friendly voting blocs, including minorities, young people and unmarried women, tends to drop off in midterm elections and surge in presidential election years.” The same article quotes former RNC chairman Haley Barbour, who feels that the 2014 elections are less about “the party’s prospects in 2016 and more about widespread discontent with the Democratic administration.” Barbour sees this election as a challenge from the voters to do better than the Democrats have in the past few years.

Overall, this election has posed some interesting questions about the future of the Republican Party. What remains to be seen is how the GOP will handle their new power and what plans they have for attacking President Obama’s policies.