If you missed my brief appearance on Issues with Jane Velez-Mitchell last night, I’ll give you a quick recap. I was part of a panel that talked about the Terence Watanabe case, which was news because his attorney talked to Good Morning America.
I’d prepared some factoids about a previous high-profile attempt to use “the intoxication defense” to get out of paying a marker, the Leonard Tose case. You can follow the link to read his obituary which has what I think is the most germane element of the case to this discussion–he lost.
I also reviewed my research into the proportion of bad credit decisions that casinos make. I’ll excerpt the appropriate blog post here:
For fiscal year 2008, gamblers wagered about $232.4 billion dollars in Nevada casinos. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the correct credit number is ten percent of all money wagered in Nevada casinos. In that case, we can say that Nevada casinos extended about $23.2 billion in credit during fiscal year 2008.
According to the Nevada Gaming Abstract, in that year casinos statewide reported a total of $132.1 million as “bad debt expense,” i.e., uncollected markers. That seems like a lot of money, and it is. Compared to annual gaming revenues of about $12 billion for that period, though, it doesn’t look so big (”only” 1.1 percent). Next to the estimated total credit play, $23.2 billion, it’s tiny: 0.56 percent. Just over one-half of one percent of casino markers end up as bad debts…. Only a small percentage of markers end up unpaid, and it seems that casinos do a pretty good job of due diligence before letting players sign markers. Of course, a few high-profile cases gives a much different impression.
I thought I was prepared to offer an intelligent contribution to the discussion. As it turns out, the conversation was more about feelings that facts. I got the first word–Jane asked me what I thought of the case. After acknowledging that problem gambling was a serious issue for many people, I offered that in this case, because of the amount of money lost and the length of time over which it was squandered, there was an element of personal responsibility involved.
I’d barely gotten the words out of my mouth when one of the other guests interjected, “I don’t agree with that at all! The casinos were pouring him booze! He was an addict!” and continued an emotional tirade. Then someone interrupted him with a screed for personal responsibility, while Jane chimed in that we’re “a nation of addicts.” It was more about expressing our emotions and a priori assumptions than talking about the legal merit of the case or the bigger economic and social questions it raises. There were a few good callers, though, including one who asked a sensible question: if Watanabe had won, would he have given the money back since he wasn’t responsible for his actions?
Anyway, I’m glad that the Internet provides a forum where someone like me who doesn’t like to argue can just put some research out there and let people use it as they see fit. I’d really like to see that bad debt estimate become more widely known, because it puts the whole issue into perspective. Unfortunately, we only hear about the most sensational cases, and usually without any context.
Its nice that you tried to start off by supplying facts concerning the duration of the events and personal responsibility but the show on which you appeared focuses on entertainment so interruptions and emotional statements get to be favored.
I didn’t realize you were going to be on that national program until after clicking this link and seeing that lady’s photo. My Gosh. She is one of the biggest propagandist news-personalities around (on a par with Nancy Grace)!
She attacks ANYONE who even slightly strays away from having a solid stance of: “let’s crucify the subjects in this topic”.
Her TV show favors extreme-dogmatic pontificators. Any other panel person (with half a brain or a slightly open mind) ends up being ignored, silenced or attacked.
I’m just glad you made it out alive.
I’ve never liked certain so-called news-talk-shows…especially the ones that use attorneys (like Nancy Grace) as experts. Lawyers are not always open-minded people. The nature of their job (usually, IMO) causes them to have limited views. They take a one-sided position and stick with it…no matter what.
They don’t think like scientists or researchers (who try considering ALL options before reaching a conclusion).
No. Most lawyers are too concerned with quickly forming a pro or con stance. They rarely try analyzing things fully. All the know is to defend or prosecute. (It’s a very child-like thought process at work….IMO).
I realize this Jane Valez lady isn’t an attorney (at least not that I’m aware of). But, she follows the ‘party-line’ thought-pattern of that show completely. And her personal addiction problems color all her utterings. It helps her sell her ‘addiction book’. She had a field day providing a lot of Michael Jackson Misinformation…back in July.
Her show is emotional and propagandistic journalism. I have zero respect for that lady. And one time I drove two of Nancy Grace’s producers and was glad to tell them how much I opposed Nancy Grace’s style of slanting every subject with either fake tears or outrageous, pit-bull, self-righteous indignation.
Yeah Dave. I’m just glad you made it out alive. I’m glad that the national news shows are asking for your input…but, please try staying off that one particular show. They DO NOT seek, want or expect rational thought.
Yeah, I don’t really watch those shows so I wasn’t so sure what to expect. I’m definitely not up there to push a viewpoint, which seems to be the agenda. I’d rather just talk about the issue and let people reach their own conclusions than telling them what they must believe and reacting with moral indignation to anyone who disagrees.
Unless you’ve got an agenda to push, there’s really no place for you in that kind of discussion.
The Morton Downey Jr. Show used to be a talk show that was on in the 1980′s which was pretty wild and out of control. Morton Downey Jr. would have guests on that had different opinions. They would disagree on something and Downey would provoke both sides to increase their arguing and would purposely agitate them.
There was a student audience that was allowed to ask questions (there were two podiums with microphones) and these people, along with the audience, were also wild and out of control which would add to the mayhem. Downey would walk around, talk to the guests, talk to the audience and smoke cigarettes. He was hilarious but also insulting and degrading. Morton Downey Jr. was quite the carnival barker and the show was his 3 ring circus.
In 1990 (or thereabouts) The Jerry Springer Show appeared on television. Guess where he got his idea from for his TV show?