Who wants New Hampshire to be more like Nevada?

Come on.... (4.00 / 2)

NH is not going to turn into Nevada if we pass gambling measures in the state.

Nevada has 2.5 Million people in it, so these numbers do not show an accurate reflection on comparing them to NH numbers.

And the reason why gambling is a success in NV is because of the weather, year round it is beautiful in Las Vegas, nice and hot. Unlike right now where it is 3 degrees average across the state.

And as for traffic deaths, you know what the minimum speed limit is on the highways there? About 75 MPH.

---

by: sdoyle @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 14:13:51 PM CST

The numbers are all "per capita' (0.00 / 0)

so they are normaized for population size.

The number 2, 3, and 4 gambling states are CT, NJ, and IL, not so different from us, at least in weather terms.  

---

by: Michael Marsh @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 15:11:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Fascinating, but I'm skeptical (0.00 / 0)

How does Nevada compare to Arizona?

---

by: JimC @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 14:25:01 PM CST

Ditto (4.00 / 2)

Likewise, how does NH compare with New Jersey or other northeast states?

The more I read these anti-gambling essays, the more I think gambling is a good idea because the reasoning against gambling seems to be based on specious evidence.

Maybe we can open a destination casino, maybe we can't, but if we can force any casino operators to avoid the tricks they use to help addict people to gambling, there doesn't seem to be an argument against it (if they don't get addicted to gambling, what would stop them to get addicted to alcohol or cigarettes or caffeine or heroin?)

If we truly wish to avoid gambling for one reason or another, instead of banning it, we should provide alternatives to reduce the demand for it. If there was no demand for it, Las Vegas would not exist, Super Bowl betting pools would not exist, Poker nights in people's garages would not exist, etc.

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 14:49:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Another Reason Why Nevada May Have All Those Ratings, Per Jim (0.00 / 0)

Human beings evolved on the savannas of Africa. Deserts are not seen as optimal climates subconsciously in the minds of the majority of human beings, otherwise more people would live in them.

The fact that it is a suboptimal climate and Nevada is nearly all desert if not entirely desert (i'd have to look for a Koppen scale map of the state) may provide a correlation to prove those ratings nearly as conclusionary as gambling.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 14:53:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Statistics are a funny thing (4.00 / 3)

Mike, you have said repeatedly that no one is talking about destination gambling in NH, and that NH's geogrpahy would not support it - yet you now are arguing against expanded legalized gambling by comparing NH to Nevada?

Okay, right back at you - do you want to live in, say, Alabama?

Casino gambling is illegal in Alabama pursuant to Alabama Code Section 13A, Chapter 12, Article 2 Alabama also does not have a state lottery, but allows pari-mutuel wagering and bingo halls that are known for their particularly high stakes.

www.gaminglawyers.net

Despite the lack of gambling, Alabama has ome problems.

Alabama ranks fourth nationally in divorce rates, behind Nevada, Tennessee and Arkansas, according to U.S. government statistics.

 www.divorcelawyers.com

According to the US Census, 16.1% of Alabamans are living in poverty, v. 11.1% in Nevada.

According to wikipedia, Alabam's crime rate ranked 17th in the country.  

To be fair, according to a Tuscaloosa paper, Alabama does pretty well with childrens health:

A recent study by the nonprofit research organization Commonwealth Fund ranked Alabama 14th nationally, higher than every other state in the Southeast. Tennessee ranked 30th, Georgia 38th, Mississippi came in at 49th and Florida came in 50th.

Since this is a hobby, not a profession, I haven't done a state by state comparison on each of your categories (plus you don't give much of a guide as to where your numbers are coming from?), but this proves the point - statistics are a funny thing. You can often find statistics to support pretty much any position if you are willing to be selective in the process of gathering statistics. Each of us have pulled a state - you one with lots of gambling, me one with very little gambling, to support our positions.  What have we proved? Not much, other than I don't want to live in either Nevada or Alabama.

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 14:56:13 PM CST

The statistics are real and ought to concern any Democrat (0.00 / 0)

Most of this data came from US census, Anne E Casey foundation, or federal crime statistics. Suicide and divorce stats are from national organizatios. Tax data is Tax Foundation, except they don't provide rankings, they just list figures and I ranked on that basis. The information is out there and readily available, and I spent perhaps 20 minutes getting it together. If you can find five ways that Nevada is better than NH (other than climate) I would love to see them.

A few years ago I was out in Las Vegas for a business trip, and I got tired of the casino action so I decided to drive around town. Once you get 2 blocks off the Strip or away from the convention center, the city reveals itself. It is a mash-up of pawn shops, check cashing operations, payday lenders, used car lots, etc.

I was in Reno last year and did the same thing. And saw the same desolation as well.

We are not going to have destination casinos here, but that only makes a difference in the revenues we will get because we are not going to get the huge influx of outsiders coming for a few days to live it up the way Las Vegas does. For the local residents, a convenience casino is just as bad as a destination casino.

---

by: Michael Marsh @ Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 09:53:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't doubt them (4.00 / 1)

It just seems a little unfair to compare the two states, because the differences are so vast. New Hampshire, for example, has a nearby economic engine -- Ahem! Massachusetts -- that provides employment. So I think comparing Nevada to Arizona, or perhaps New Hampshire to New Jersey (nearest gambling hub) would be more fair.

---

by: JimC @ Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 10:04:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Travel Tips (4.00 / 1)

Have you been to Houston?  I have, and in the land of no zoning, you have the same mashup - as you do in Phoenix.  And, again, you are insisting on comparing only Nevada and NH, not including any comparison to other states.  

Also, I have been to Foxwood and Mohegan, and it is very different from the way you describe the area around the Strip.  Which is not a description I am in total agreement with, but that is a question of perception.  

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 11:10:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Before This Becomes An "Official Democratic Party Position"... (0.00 / 0)

I'm still open to hearing the discussion about gambling, and I greatly appreciate the input of a good Democrat like Mike Marsh on this topic.  

But considering that we're hearing from good Democrats like Ray Buckley and Kathy Sullivan with their somewhat pro-gambling comments -- which is okay because we need that point of view too -- let's keep in mind that it is not an "Official Democratic Party Position" to support expanded gambling.  And never has been.

In fact, through the years other good Democrats like Hugh Gallen, Jeanne Shaheen, Arnie Arnesen, Terie Norelli, Martha Fuller Clark, and many other leaders of Democrats have strongly opposed expanded gambling, as has law enforcement, and many social service organizations on the front lines of helping our poor and needy in our state.

On the pro-side of the issue I can think of some lobbyists as supporters of gambling, the good Senator Lou D'Allesandro, and some others in the Legislature, but I'm on a blank wall thinking beyond that.  Maybe someone can fill in the gap for us.

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 15:25:39 PM CST

Ditto #2 (0.00 / 0)

I agree with Jim here as well, and I'm glad Mike continues to provide data for the anti-gambling side.

The more data we have, the better, regardless of the decision.

However, I still stand by what I said before, the more data I see, the more I think the addiction component to the argument, which seems to be the core of the anti-gambling side, doesn't hold up, but I'm happy to change my mind with the right data.

Right now I think from what I know and have seen that gambling won't be the silver bullet to all of our revenue problems, but it wouldn't hurt things if we allowed it responsibly.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 15:41:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

See you one governor and one former candidate (4.00 / 2)

Governor Shaheen did support a form of expanded legalized gambling, I think it was slots at the tracks.  Also, according to the Portsmouith Herald, I can match your former gubernatorial candidate (Arneson) with one of my own:

The argument that expanded gambling will change the New Hampshire way of life is fiction, according to Rep. Paul McEachern, who has supported and continues to support slots.

"I have been and am in favor of slots at the tracks," McEachern said. "The notion that gambling doesn't exist in New Hampshire hasn't been accurate since 1933 when pari-mutuel wagering came to New Hampshire."

I've probably told this story, but one of the funniest state convention moments I've seen was when Mark Fernald gave a speech in 2000, and in his remarks opposed expanded gambling, saying  something like "we'll see casinos all around the state", and the entire Manchester delegation stood up and cheered. It was classic.

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 15:51:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes, You're Correct About Paul McEachern... (0.00 / 0)

...and daily I'm trying to talk my good Portsmouth colleague into taking a more objective detached stance rather than his commitment for gambling.  However, in the early 1960s (his first term in the House was 1963) he worked at Rockingham Race Track, so I think he's just trying to relive his youth by supporting gambling now!  Don't tell him I said that, of course.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 16:35:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not so sure you are "open" (0.00 / 0)

Jim, I don't think you are all that open on this subject! :(

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 17:07:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Jim, you know better (4.00 / 2)

The NHDP is the "Official Democratic Party Position".

Trying to link my explanation of what average folks have told me how they view the issue of gaming in NH to my position as the chair of the NHDP is ludacris.

As I said to the other former district 24 senator, average folks cannot begin to understand why you feel you have the right to tell them what to do with their own money.

Until you are able to come up with an understandable explanation to them as to why you have that right, they simple will not listen to your points.

I am not advocating anything - I am simply stating that the moralistic argument doesn't connect with the average person.

Democrats solve problems, Republicans sit and say no.

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 18:35:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ray, you know better (0.00 / 0)

Overreaction Ray.  Take a breath.  I was pointing out what you have pointed out -- that you and Kathy aren't speaking for the NH Democratic Party on this just because you're speaking on this.  "We" don't have a position, and hopefully won't because a lot of Democrats are indeed divided on this.  And the "average folks" you refer to are those who I talk with every day too -- and many CAN understand why we have to be careful on this issue because gambling might well cost them money and hurt the state -- we have much to explore on that before jumping to conclusions.  Thanks to people like Mike Marsh and Burt Cohen, two very good Democrats, we're getting both sides.  Looking at both sides is what Democrats do well, and Republicans often don't.

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 20:21:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh Jim... (0.00 / 0)

"Jumping to conclusions?"

You already have jumped to a conclusion. You believe that you have the right to tell hard working folks what they can and cannot do with their own money.

"Average folks"?

Aleast admit that the "average folks" of New Castle are not the "average folks" of Manchester's Spruce Street. When I use the term "average folks" I am suggesting the generally accepted definition describing a working class person not the 'average" for a highly educated upper income community.

Democrats solve problems, Republicans sit and say no.

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 22:22:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't know (0.00 / 0)

if I count as average folks or not. I think of myself as pretty average, on average, and I agree with the contention you suggest of the average folks: why should the government be so concerned where I want to spend my money?

This, I think, is not an atypical view.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 00:36:49 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Corporations And Corporate Influence (0.00 / 0)

The corporate argument about casinos and other types of related expanded gambling is one I can relate with.  That, and the influence of big corporate money then "reinvested" into our state's political parties and candidates to buy favors are arguments on one side of this issue I'm evaluating as reasons to oppose expanded gambling.  A lot of money can be made by some people in this process.  

This is not an issue of telling "average folks" what to do with their money.  It's about whether to allow and encourage corporations -- they're the ones who build these things and are paying New Hampshire lobbyists big money to lobby New Hampshire politicians right now -- to let their gambling machinary into our state.  That's why the NH Legislature is involved in this.  It's not like a company coming in and building a factory.  It's about a company coming in and doing a business related by the state.  That regulation occurs for good reason.

Our citizens can, and some do, gamble.  They gamble here, and they gamble out-of-state on day trips or overnight vacations.  

But do WE want to have Nevada corporations put their equipment HERE?  That's the question.  Corporations make money off the top -- usually quite a lot and I guess it's called "profit" -- and they take that money out-of-state. In this case, it would end up at corporate headquarters in Nevada.  Our job is to be sure that if we say "yes" to this, most of that profit remains in-state to help New Hampshire people.  

To continue to do business here they'll want to further expand, perhaps in 2012.  Or 2016.  To do so, like other regulated businesses they'll make political contributions to selected candidates so they can have people elected who will be a bit more receptive of their argument.

They will want to keep more money for their profit, so they will hire lobbyists to lobby the Legislature to reduce the state take.  Gambling enterprises have done that for years in the Legislature.  It's fair game -- they want more profit.  It's a democracy, they can pay for lobbyists and make campaign contributions.  But do we want that industry here?  It used to be that the powerful and rich "railroad barrens" controlled State Government in the 1870s.  

And by the way, as a Democrat who appreciates and respects diversity, I would never ever say there is a difference between "average folks" anywhere.  There are those who are having trouble keeping their heads above water whether they live in Manchester or New Castle, Berlin or Portsmouth.  That class warfare is a game played by Republicans, and it should be above all of us.  We're all hurting. Will an expanded gambling industry make that hurt better, or worse?  That's where this debate should be centered.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 07:12:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You are not listening Jim (0.00 / 0)

but since you are my good friend, I will be patient and try again.

Nearly every resident of my home city, nearly every relative I have in NH (literally thousands spread from the Monadnock area to the Lakes Region to Strafford County and everywhere in between express the identical sentiment: "What right do they have to decide what I do with my own hard earned money?" They absolutely see it as a recreational choice. You can choose to ignore what I am saying but seriously it is like you are telling them "While we go eat at the Beford Village Inn (play the stock market) you dumb folks can't be allowed to even eat at McDonald's (gambling)cause you can't afford to eat out or make wise menu choices".

So Jim, put down your rocks and instead give me a response that I can give repeat back to those folks.


Democrats solve problems, Republicans sit and say no.

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 07:50:15 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Ray - You're My Good Friend And I'm Patient Too... (0.00 / 0)

On your opening sentence you are correct, and people should understand that and I sure do.  You and I go back many years to when you were young and I was younger, and on many "discussions," some more passionate than others.  We've agreed on the big-picture issues and on specifics many more times than disagreed.  Perhaps the percentage of agree vs. disagree hovers around 80% to 20%, and if it was more than that we'd have to consider a union of some sort, and I think both of us would like to avoid that news story.  I appreciate your comments, and know you appreciate mine. The adventure continues.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 10:16:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I Think The Corporate Argument Is Ok If There Is Poor Regulation, But (0.00 / 0)

Why not local co-op casinos, just like the local co-op grocery stores?

Or government owned casinos, like the Indian Tribes own?

Or, if we do regulate them and bring in safeguards to prevent the tricks they use to addict people?  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 09:32:30 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Government run (4.00 / 1)

It's how it's done by our neighbors to the north.

This how they do it:
http://www.iijcan.org/qc/laws/...

This is their reasoning:
http://www.casinosduquebec.com...

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 11:54:13 AM CST

[ Parent ]

reminds me of Office Space (4.00 / 1)

"Poetry is not an expression of the party line. It's that time of night, lying in bed, thinking what you really think, making the private world public, that's what the poet does." Allen Ginsberg

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 07:19:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm stuck (4.00 / 1)

When serious people discuss the idea of a democratic government funding itself with the profits from gambling it makes me nuts. Does anyone else feel as though they have been abducted by aliens? I care a lot about arguments. Some have said that I would rather argue than breathe. Could be true. On this subject, I don't see anything about which to argue other than we are so far down the moral chute that the rest is fatuous. You all know that the only feeble argument in favor of using this method of taxation is a combination of the diamond stud gambler, so common in movies, and the idea that this is free money from people who are willing to throw away money which is then appropriately collected and spent by government. Your ability to keep these ideas in your head and sleep at night gives me the Willies. Many of you seem to be thoughtful in other situations. Government has to be paid for. There is no sneak attack or magic.  

---

by: xteeth @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 17:19:01 PM CST

I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on here (4.00 / 1)

This is just not a matter of "taxation"; it is also a matter of recognizing that illegal gambling is going on every day in New Hampshire: uynregulated, fixed, criminally run gambling. If I thought that local and state government could or would eliminate illegal gambling, close down every bookie operation, and close down every video poker machine, and keep illegal gambling out of the state, I would feel very differently about expanding legalized gambling. So far, they haven't shown the ability to shut it down.  

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 07:50:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Insert Cohen's Argument about Marijuana here. eom (4.00 / 1)

Hope > Fear



Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 18:27:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Zoom (0.00 / 0)

Mike, you have a way of zooming in to the point.  Good job.

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 18:45:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Mike Gravel's Argument, too (0.00 / 0)

See also the same argument re prostitution, heroin, dog-fighting, and all other profitable and addictive evils.  

---

by: Tim C. @ Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 12:18:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Having controversially sparked the Nevada comparison on the other thread, (4.00 / 1)

I think it's important to point out that this isn't an attack on Nevada or Nevadans, but instead an attempt to avoid some of the problems that plague that state.  It's not to say Nevada as a state is bad.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 19:00:04 PM CST

how many of you (0.00 / 0)

have been to Lake Tahoe - and seen both the Nevada and the California sides?

Which side would you rather live on?

---

by: susanthe @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 19:31:01 PM CST

Nevada (0.00 / 0)

its a swing state

---

by: sdoyle @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 20:05:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Just A Question (0.00 / 0)

When you write and your title is given as "President, College Democrats of New Hampshire," are you still always only speaking for yourself?  Just would like to have that clarified, and why you do that if you don't speak for the College Democrats of New Hampshire when you write and that's the title you use.  Hope that's okay to ask.    

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 20:15:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Myself (4.00 / 1)

I put it in my sig for the same reason you have Rep. Jim Splaine on your username.

It is my elected title.

---

by: sdoyle @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 20:23:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Where's the problem? (4.00 / 3)

No one has ever questioned why Garth identifies himself as president of the YD's in his sig, and no one has ever questioned Mr. Doyle on using president of the college D's in his sig before. Their signatures, their choice.

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 21:12:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Criminy Jeepers, Kathy. (0.00 / 0)

Their signatures, their choice.

What the aitch-ee-double-hockey-sticks is that supposed to mean, Kathy?  That that horrible woman-hating Jim Splaine might as well be anti-choice if he's going to write cruel and terrible things like this?  Piffle.  

You know perfectly well what the issue -- not the problem, as you put it, but the issue -- is.  And if you weren't smart enough to figure it out yourself -- which you are -- Jim laid it out quite clearly and politely in his comment, to which Mr. Doyle responded simply, directly and properly.  You, on the other hand, responded inappropriately.

Intra-party poisoned umbrella jabs are, like, so last year.  If you think Jim Splaine's words here make him a suitable target for a smackback, I would suggest you shut off the coffeepot, brew a nice cup of chamomile, gaze out at the beautiful (if a mite chilly) winterscape, and smile as a warm, peaceful joy wells within you in anticipation of the arrival of wise and competent leadership at the White House and the State Department.

---

by: Tim C. @ Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 13:06:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

C'mon (4.00 / 2)

title or no, the guy can express his own opinion.

The whole title thing came about, as I understand it, as matter of full disclosure from campaign staffers so we could be transparent about peoples' biases.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 22:03:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

To quote myself.. (4.00 / 1)

"Jim, you know better".

Your crankiness is getting silly.

Democrats solve problems, Republicans sit and say no.

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 04:59:08 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Trying To Help Both Sides See The Other Here (0.00 / 0)

Ok. Just to make sure in case anybody thinks there's bad blood here. I don't think there is, but you never know who reads these blogs.

Jim:

Like you, Ray and Kathy and Sean and Garth are human beings, and human beings have opinions unless they don't think that much or don't care. I don't think anybody's like that here.

Sean/Ray/Kathy:

There's a reason why the Queen of England uses "We" instead of "I" sometimes. When you are the head of an organization, there is a risk of appearing to speak on behalf of the organization rather than on behalf of yourself.

The Queen says "We" are not amused rather than "I" am not amused because in theory, the monarch is the personification of the British nation.

It's probably up for debate whether or not the Chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party, the National Democratic Committeewoman for New Hampshire, New Hampshire College Democrats President and State Representative for Rockingham 16 is anywhere near "Queen of England" league and thus up to the same standards, but I can tell you right now if you were, you wouldn't be alone so don't feel too bad.

Most Of Us:

There are alot of reasons I do not like Party Platforms but this is one reason: when you get as many people together as the "Democratic Party of New Hampshire", it is unlikely all of them will agree on anything unless it is watered down to the point where it is meaningless.

We are a diverse and dynamic party, but that means there are people who are going to see things differently than we do. If we don't respect those differences for the most part, we will splinter and then lose elections, in which case none of our opinions will matter since Republicans will be making the laws.

P.S -- How can I put the tag brackets (< and >) without soapblox thinking they are actual HTML tags?

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 23:03:23 PM CST

pluralis majestatis (0.00 / 0)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
The majestic plural (pluralis maiestatis in Latin) is the use of a plural pronoun to refer to a single person holding a high office, such as a monarch, bishop, pope, or university rector. It is also called the Royal pronoun, the Royal 'we' or the Victorian 'we'. The more general word for the use of "we" to refer to oneself is nosism, from the Latin nos.[1]

The idea behind the pluralis maiestatis is that a monarch or other high official always speaks for his or her people.[citation needed] For example, the Basic Law of the Sultanate of Oman opens thus:

   On the Issue of the Basic Law of the State We, Qaboos bin Said, Sultan of Oman...[2]

Famous examples of purported instances:

   * We are not amused. - Queen Victoria (in at least one account of this quotation, though, she was not speaking for herself alone, but for the ladies of the court.)[3]
   * In his abdication statement, Nicholas II of Russia uses the pluralis maiestatis liberally, as in "In agreement with the Imperial Duma, We have thought it well to renounce the Throne of the Russian Empire and to lay down the supreme power."[4]

Another view[citation needed] of the form is that it reflects the fact that when a monarch speaks he speaks both in his own name and in the name of his function, office or status.

United States Navy Admiral Hyman G. Rickover told a subordinate who used the royal we: "Three groups are permitted that usage: pregnant women, royalty, and schizophrenics. Which one are you?"[5][unreliable source?] This was said as the subordinate was speaking for superiors without authority, as well as in an unofficial capacity.[citation needed] Mark Twain once made a similar remark: "Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial 'we.'" [1]

"Poetry is not an expression of the party line. It's that time of night, lying in bed, thinking what you really think, making the private world public, that's what the poet does." Allen Ginsberg

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 07:30:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Hate To Beat A Dead Horse (0.00 / 0)

John,

With the bold spot we can always go in there and say that Mark Twain said that about state reps and party leaders.

After all, George Washington Didn't Own Slaves.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 09:09:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Eh, Screw It. (0.00 / 0)

Vandalizing Wikipedia is like vandalizing the Berlin Wall. A generally pointless action symbolizing resistance against a tyrannical system.

Since they already know my main IP address, I guess I should have done this in the first place: John, now you are wrong, I went back in time to ask Mark Twain and here's what he now said, and since Wikipedia says it, IT MUST BE TRUE!!!!!!!!

P.S- I can't believe that pornographer Wales couldn't find enough server space to save Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. That was hilarious in the day. Well, you know the motto of that asshole and his minions.

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 09:25:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]

sorry Andy (4.00 / 1)

I went beyond WKPDA and answer.com quoted them so I defaulted... I forgot your peevishness with things pedia

"Poetry is not an expression of the party line. It's that time of night, lying in bed, thinking what you really think, making the private world public, that's what the poet does." Allen Ginsberg

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 10:08:07 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It's Ok (0.00 / 0)

I just have to stop making that a sore spot for me or present my opposition in a less passionate manner, but it's tough because it bugs me for the same reason many people think democracy is perfect.

If anybody thinks democracy is perfect, they should ask the lamb among the two wolves after the vote for dinner . Just like democracy, the same thing goes for Wikipedia.

Wikipedia or democracy can be great and beautiful things, but both have a serious capability for error.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 10:18:51 AM CST

[ Parent ]

"Vandalizing Wikipedia is like vandalizing the Berlin Wall" (0.00 / 0)

I know you have issues with Wikipedia, Andy (and I will not have that argument again), but that doesn't make it okay for you to deliberately degrade other people's hard work.  It is everyone's to edit and to use, but nobody's to destroy.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 11:58:34 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Don't Talk About Things You Haven't Experienced (0.00 / 0)

It isn't other people's hard work, because that implies ownership.

Nobody owns anything on Wikipedia except for Wales.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 17:43:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The Sad Irony (0.00 / 0)

In the end, Wikipedia and Casinos are similar.

If somebody said tomorrow that Wikipedia would be gone, the demand for information would still be out there. If somebody said tomorrow that all Casinos would be gone, the demand for gaming would still be there.

What matters is how the casino is run. If it can be done without the tricks that casinos use to create addicts, it's fine since that gambling is going to happen anyway.

P.S -- If you want to see Wikipedia the way I saw it, not just as an online encyclopedia, I can introduce you to a friend of mine from Ottawa. He never really seemed to recover after he was forced off Wikipedia and from the sounds of it on Facebook, i'm worried he might harm himself.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 20:03:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Don't pretend yours is the only voice of merit. (0.00 / 0)

Don't Talk About Things You Haven't Experienced

A ridiculous comment in a ridiculous context.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 20:28:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Enough Of The Punditry (0.00 / 0)

If I argued with you about the North End of Manchester and not admitting i'm wrong if I am, it'd be no different. I hope you eventually gain the maturity in time to realize you're not an expert at everything.

You have no clue what you're talking about regarding Wikipedia compared to me. Absolutely no clue. And i'm not saying this to try to be arrogant, but to say that I actually knew something about Wikipedia, unlike you.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 20:47:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You don't know what I know. (0.00 / 0)

And I would not presume that what I might perceive to be my own expertise precludes anybody who disagrees with me from knowing anything about or having a valid opinion on the subject.

Furthermore, I'm 19 and you're 27, and even if that were not the case, it would still be exceptionally small of you to invoke age that way.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 22:26:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

These wikipedia back and forths (4.00 / 2)

are kind of silly.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 22:28:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I agree. (4.00 / 1)

And I hate getting them started (see above, when I said I wouldn't engage in this one), but I found it difficult to avoid it when seeing a deliberate degradation of something useful that many people put a lot of time and effort into.

In short: don't make other people's lives harder just to entertain yourself.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 22:36:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I Agree As Well (0.00 / 0)

If you hate getting them started, Doug, you shouldn't have continued the topic. It had laid dormant for awhile.

I'll look the other way when you go into pundit mode on just about any other issue, but not this one. This is personal to me.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 08:25:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Adding: (0.00 / 1)

On the SWOT thread, I suggested a "1: Condemn/Very Strongly Disagree" rating in addition to the "4: Excellent" and "0: Troll" options.  This is a great example of when that would have been useful.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 22:43:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I Know You Don't Know As Much As Me On This Issue (0.00 / 0)

Yet you do presume that, without ever having known what you're talking about. You do this on most issues on this blog, and like I said last summer, that arrogance is going to come back and bite you someday.

I am that passionate about this issue, Doug. You see it as an encyclopedia, I see it as a drug. I am not going to let you get the last word unless I am physically unable to type.

P.S -- You brought up the fact that you're 19, kid. Not me. Be glad, it just means you have more future left than me.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 08:34:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Okay, Andrew, you win. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 14:17:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 14:39:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Like Nevada- above zrero ? yeah I want that n/t (0.00 / 0)

"Poetry is not an expression of the party line. It's that time of night, lying in bed, thinking what you really think, making the private world public, that's what the poet does." Allen Ginsberg

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 10:08:46 AM CST