Ohio casino issue questions

It seems that the main justification for the four proposed casinos in Ohio is tax revenue. The idea is to change the Ohio constitution in such a way as to give exclusive rights to a select few individuals to build and operate gambling casinos in Ohio. In effect the proposed constitutional change will create two gambling organisations to generate revenue for the State of Ohio. Then Ohio can tax their profits and boost the tax revenue already being generated under the existing constitution.
Apparently these casinos will in some way be different than the Ohio lottery. The Ohio lottery functions under the existing constitution quite well and generates revenue for the state without any middle man taking his cut of the proceeds. In the minds of our lawmakers there seems to be a difference between state sanctioned lottery gambling and casino gambling. This perceived difference requires altering the Ohio constitution. Alright, I'll leave that point to the lawyers. For casinos to operate in Ohio we must change the constitution.
Why must we change the constitution in such a way as to give exclusive rights to a select group of rich men? Can't we change the constitution in such a way as to give exclusive rights to the Ohio lottery? What's the difference between keno in a bar and keno in a casino? I can't think of any but I imagine a well paid lawyer already has. I guess it really depends on who's paying the lawyer...or who's paying the lawmaker. Let's face it, whoever signs the check will decide whether there is in fact a difference between keno played in a bar and keno played in a casino.
Apparently the Ohio constitution, as it is written now, forbids the Ohio lottery from running a keno game in a casino. Alright, I'll leave that point to the lawyers.
If "we the people" can change the Ohio constitution to allow a few rich men to run keno games in a casino, why can't "we the people" change the Ohio constitution to allow the Ohio lottery to run keno games in a casino? Why not? "We the people" can change any law that prevents the Ohio lottery commission from operating a casino in Ohio.
Let's face it, the Ohio lottery is a gambling organisation. Anyone who argues to the contrary is either delusional or a well paid lawyer/lawmaker. Do I really need to give examples of keno, Pick 3, Pick 5, Super lotto to illustrate how the Ohio lottery is gambling? I don't think so. So unless your delusional or a well paid lawyer/lawmaker then let's proceed with the understanding that Ohio has a legal gambling organisation in place and generating revenue for the State of Ohio.
Why do we need to change the constitution and create two more legal gambling organisations? Why don't we change the constitution and enable the already existing gambling organisation to operate a casino? Why do our lawmakers feel that we need middlemen to take the lions share of the revenue to be generated by one or more casinos? As I understand the proposed constitutional change, the state of Ohio will get less than 40% of the profits generated by these casinos. Gee thanks! I know what! Let's enable the Ohio lottery commission to operate the casinos and we'll take 100% of the profits! Why not? Think about it. Why...not?
"Oh that would never work." Or "the lottery commission isn't set up for that." Or "bla, bla, bla (insert lawyer/lawmaker objections here). Surly we can add a department to the lottery commission designed to operate a casino. Why not build a casino with bond money and lease the management rights to someone for three to five years? Ever been to Vegas? Casinos are cash cows and I'm sure we could find a management company to run the casino for 15% to 20% of the profits. How long would it take for a casino/cash cow to generate enough profits to pay for the casino building itself? Let's assume that the "rich guys" are straight up when they say they need over 60% of the profits to run these casinos. My bet is that that 60% includes a fat profit margin for the "rich guys."
The bottom line is that Ohio does not need middle men soaking up all the profits from one or more casinos. Ohio has enough snouts in the trough already, we don't need to rewrite the constitution to accommodate more.

torture rebuttle

This is a rebuttal to the article of 5-3-09 by the executive editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, David M. Shribman.
Mr. Shribman's editorial in opposition to the practice of holding ex-Presidents legally responsible for the wrongdoings, legal of otherwise, of their administration is as myopic and self serving as the best of propaganda. Such disinformation could only exist under the banner of "freedom of speech." I say "legal or otherwise" because his first historical example in support of his position is the Revolution of 1800, as if this "revolution" had anything to do with President Adams breaking the law. Mr. Adams did not leave office with the disclaimer "I'm not a crook" on his lips. Mr. Shribman never sees fit to explain what laws the Adams administration violated. Regrettably this editorial fails to shed any light on how Thomas Jefferson established the precedent of Presidential immunity. Perhaps Mr. Shribman believes his editorial enjoys factual immunity.
Another example he sites is President Clinton not pursing prosecution of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush in regards to the Iran-Contra affair. As I recall there were investigations and prosecutions, Col. North comes to mind. I can only wonder if there had been a more vigorous pursuit of the truth in that "affair" would the Bush administration have been so liberal in heir definition of torture.
Next he appeals to the American ego by reminding the reader that in America power is transferred from one president to another by the ballot, not the bullet! The unspoken he lectures us is: "Here presidents and parties do not criminalize the policies of their predecessors." The laws regarding torture were on the books prior to the Bush administration so the question is not "do we make his policies illegal" but rather "were his policies illegal?" If his policies are found to be illegal then do we not owe it to our future as a healthy democracy to prosecute? Does Presidential immunity trump the law of the land? Mr. Shribman goes on to say that "in the United States, sitting Presidents and winning political parties don't sit in legal judgment of their predecessors." Why not? Does this practice protect the America people of those in power who wish to perpetuate a custom that one day will protect them from prosecution? If their rule is just then why fear prosecution. If their rule is unjust yet they fear no prosecution is this not tyranny however subtle?
Mr. Shribman cites Nixon's failure to take on J. Edgar Hoover for the wiretapping of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as supporting evidence of the propriety of the ever widening custom of ruler immunity. He seems to think it's only natural that the President of the United States looks the other way when the Director of the F.B.I. breaks the law! Presumably since the President will expect the same customary courtesy when he breaks the law!
Mr. Shribman then points out that "politics is not an insubstantial factor, perhaps for the good of the system." His point being that if the Democrats pursue this legal review, than this assures that their successors will do the same. So let me get this straight. If the Democrats hold the Republicans accountable for breaking the law then we can expect the Republicans to hold the Democrats responsible for breaking the law. Oh my God! Where will it end? Our elected officials actually respecting the law, disabused of the notion that they are above the law. Poor President Nixon will be spinning in his grave over this invasion of privilege. Politics is never an "insubstantial factor" in government but the constitution is paramount and should never bend it's knee to politics. How is elevating politics over the System, e.g. the constitution, good for the system? What propaganda!
He claims Winston Churchill as having the greatest wisdom on the subject by quoting "If the present tries to sit in judgment of the past, it will lose the future." I should think that "he who forgets the past is doomed to relive it" is the greater wisdom here.

This being my first "blog" I thought it might be appropriate to explain myself and my motives. Why Publius? Why Poplicola? What's Latin for pretentious? I first encountered the name Publius in the biography of Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow. Excellent book by the way. Alexander Hamilton was one of the pioneers of blogging in North America and his medium was the newspapers of the day. Throughout his life he would blog his opinions on the events and debates of his time. These blogs, as well as those written by others, could be rather harsh and insulting to those who found themselves in the cross hairs. Such public insults could lead to a peculiar custom of the day called a dual. So these early day bloggers assumed allonyms or pseudonyms in order to avoid such unpleasantness. This practice was socially acceptable since it allowed the insulted party to ignore the insult as he could claim ignorance as to the author. Often enough everyone knew who the author was but understood the social dance being played out in order to avoid bloodshed. Given my aversion to dueling I thought it best that I assume an allonym as well.
I was so impressed by Alexander Hamilton and the life he led, as well as his roll as blogger extraordinaire in the formative years of our nation that I looked to him for inspiration. Mr. Hamilton used more than one allonym in his lifetime,though Pubius seemed to be his favorite. Pubius Valerius Pubicola was an immigrant to Rome who helped overthrow the last King of Rome. He was later accused of being a monarchist himself though he was able to convince the people otherwise and in so doing gained the nickname Publicola, meaning "friend of the people." Mr.Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison published the Federalist Papers under the group allonym Publius. Given my affinity for American history I thought I might pay humble homage to that great pioneer of blogging Alexander Hamilton.
My intent and desire is to add my voice to the ongoing debate that is America. If, through some informed argument, I can sway a few people's opinion then I will have achieved my goal.