This news source has long taken the position that legalized gambling is the answer to virtually all of our civic problems. If given the choice between Mellon Bank and a slots parlor, the latter would win out every time for reasons beyond the scope of this commentary. But until now, this news source has not taken sides as to which casino should be awarded Pittsburgh's lone gaming license because the considerable weight of our opinion is likely to have a disproportionate impact on any decision by the Gaming Commision. Recent comments by some well-meaning but woefully misguided Hill District ministers, who think having a casino in the Hill somehow would be a "bad" thing, have forced us out of the shadows to endorse Isle of Capri precisely because it is the only company looking to put a casino on the Hill. Note that the reasons compelling this endorsement have nothing to do with whether the Penguins should be given a new arena. We have long taken the position that, like spitting and public urination, hockey should only occur out-of-doors. Thus, the best venue for the Pens is, of course, PNC Park since no other professional sports team plays there.
Of the three locations under consideration, Station Square, the Hill or the North Shore, where would a casino do the most good? The answer is obvious: it's where the most disadvantaged live, the Hill.
You see, poor people, the economically and politically disenfranchised, need a casino more than anyone else. Despite all the hand-wringing of the liberal, egghead do-gooders, is there any place other than a casino where, without time-consuming education, without hard work, and without any capital investment, poor people can take what little money they have, invest it in a slot machine, and possibly be catapulted to the ranks of the wealthy with just one pull of the one-armed bandit? The question scarcely survives its statement. Let us be honest: The reason the eggheads are fearful of casinos is that they don't want "those people" to get rich and move into their neighborhoods.
What is the do-gooders' argument to refute this logic? For one thing, they claim gambling addiction afflicts poor people to a greater extent than the affluent. To this I say, so what? A gambling addiction simply means a person plays the slots more; but if he plays more, that just means he has more chances to win, which is a good thing. This is self-evident.
Or am I missing something here?
