Please sign the petition below to remove the statue of Jefferson Davis currently in Kentucky’s Capitol Rotunda, and replace it with a tribute to Muhammad Ali, “the Louisville Lip” and “the Greatest of All Time.”
I just heard from the Ali family: It is the Champ’s belief that Islam prohibits three-dimensional representations of living Muslims. Accordingly, I have adjusted the petition to call for a two-dimensional representation of Ali (a portrait, picture or mural) in lieu of a statue.
UPDATE (Tuesday, December 2, 2014)
In this interview with WHAS-TV’s Joe Arnold, Governor Steve Beshear endorses the idea of honoring Muhammad Ali in the State Capitol (although he disagrees with removing Davis). Arnold explores the idea further on his weekly show, “The Powers that Be.”
Click here to check out WDRB-TV’s Lawrence Smith’s coverage of the story.
And here’s my op-ed in Ali’s hometown paper, the Louisville Courier-Journal.
UPDATE (Saturday, June 4, 2016)
In the wake of the 2015 Charlestown tragedy, in which a Confederate flag-waving murderer united the nation against racism, all of the most powerful Kentucky policymakers — U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell, Governor Matt Bevin, Senate President Robert Stivers and House Speaker Greg Stumbo — called for the removal of the Davis statue from the Rotunda. Today, as we commemorate last night’s passing of Muhammad Ali, there is no better moment to replace the symbol of Kentucky’s worst era with a tribute to The Greatest of All Time.
UPDATE (Wednesday, June 8, 2016):
Great piece by Lawrence Smith of WDRB-TV in Louisville on the petition drive to replace Jefferson Davis’ statue in the Capitol Rotunda with a tribute to Muhammad Ali.
UPDATE (Thursday, June 9, 2016):
Excellent piece on the petition drive by Jack Brammer that was featured on the front page of the Lexington Herald-Leader.
Highlight of the article:
Miller said he has received a few “angry comments” on his call to honor Ali.
“One of them encouraged me to kill myself,” he said. “You can quote me that I have decided not to take their advice.”
UPDATE (Friday, June 10, 2016)
The petition drives continues to show the Big Mo(hammed): check out these stories from WKYU-FM public radio in Bowling Green and WKYT-TV, Channel 27 in Lexington:
UPDATE (Saturday, June 11, 2016):
Still not convinced? Check out this excerpt from today’s New York Times:
The RP referred in his Provocation to a recent market analysis sponsored by the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, a pro-gaming organization. Below is an excerpt from the report, as well as a link to its Executive Summary:
Based upon our assumed parameters, we developed a detailed market analysis and casino project assumptions that were based on site visits, the competitive landscape, owner interviews and our experience. Spectrum concludes that the eight Kentucky casinos as described in this report would produce the following statewide outcomes (first-year numbers are assumed to be for 2015):
• First-year full-time equivalent direct jobs of as many as 10,953, with a payroll of $289.3 million.
• First-year statewide total direct, indirect and induced jobs of 20,471 (non-farm, but inclusive of equine). This excludes any government jobs that might be created.
• The eight prospective casinos would generate first-year gross state product of $1.737 billion and first-year total personal income of $1.009 billion.
• The 30-month construction period would create 4,297 full-time-equivalent construction jobs with a total payroll of $338 million.
• First-year gross gaming revenue of $1.14 billion. • First-year gaming tax of $464.7 million, and total state tax receipts from all sources of
$541.3 million, including funds dedicated to horse-racing industry programs. • One-time license fees of $266 million. • First-year funds for horse-industry programs of $164.6 million:
o $152.5 million for thoroughbred and standardbred purses o $10.5 million for the Equine Breed Authority o $1.6 million for Quarter Horse Purse Program
• Funds dedicated to the racing industry would generate an average of 2,861 additional jobs in the equine sector each year over the first three years of casino operations, with an estimated 1,500 jobs created in the first year.
A RP Nation reader who opposes expanded gaming recommended the pioneering work of MIT Professor Natasha Schüll. An op-ed of Schüll’s from The Washington Post — written at the time that Maryland was considered expanded gaming — is excerpted below, and a link to her new book, Addiction by Design, is provided as well:
All forms of gambling are not created equal. Marylanders should take this into account when deciding how to vote in November’s referendum on slots.
My research as a social anthropologist has been focused on a dramatic turn that has taken place in recent decades from social forms of gambling played at tables to asocial forms played alone at video terminals. If voters endorse the proposal to alter Maryland’s constitution to allow slot machines at racetracks, residents will be exposed to devices that have been carefully designed to make them lose as much as possible.
It’s important for voters to understand how these machines work. Every feature of a slot machine — its mathematical structure, visual graphics, sound dynamics, seating and screen ergonomics — is calibrated to increase a gambler’s “time on device” and to encourage “play to extinction,” which is industry jargon for playing until all your money is gone. The machines have evolved from handles and reels to buttons and screens, from coins to credit cards, from a few games a minute to hundreds. Inside, complicated algorithms perform a high-tech version of “loading the dice” — deceptions no self-respecting casino would ever allow in table gambling. The machines are designed to exploit aspects of human psychology, and they do it well. In the eyes of the gaming industry, this may look like success, but it comes at great expense for gamblers.
Artur raises a crucial point, whether the money raised from gambling will really make that much of a difference, that I think deserves close attention.
As the proud product of parochial schools whose existence depended upon Bingo, I am well beyond worrying about the moral implications of using proceeds from vice to pursue virtuous ends. Considering how governments at various levels already derive revenue from other vices, such as tobacco and alcohol, as well as already existing lotteries, I view the moral debate on legalized and regulated gambling as forced and ultimately irrelevant. It is far too late for the brothel denizen known as the treasury to wish to regain its virginity.
I will say that I do not like the fact that the gambling industry has succeeded in re-christening (re-luciferizing?) itself as the “gaming” industry, which I consider a classic example of transparent mendacious marketing. It is supposed to make the activity appear somehow wholesome and entertaining, and to encourage us to avoid thinking about the whole, “most of the people who play lose their money” angle. Spare me. People play games like Missile Command (the greatest video game in the history of entertainment) for the fun of the game, and are happy to know that every quarter so spent is lost forever. Slot machines only exist because people are gambling on the hope of winning more money. To pretend otherwise is an insult to the intelligence of anything with a pulse.
I think Jonathan makes the progressive case for gambling probably as well as I’ve seen it made–its a substantial upgrade from the libertarian boilerplate that gambling is a vice no loftier, no more shameful, than say, cigarette smoking, and that it’s not government’s job to regulate simple vice; its better than the “low wage casino jobs beat no jobs” spiel that drives progressives to embrace gambling in high unemployment communities. The fact is that government has been in the business of outlawing sin for a long time, particularly those of the addictive variety. Meanwhile, the jobs case for casinos falters on the ground that heavy gambling counties, especially in the Deep South, have unemployment rates equal to or worse than the gambling free zones next door to them; if anything, the casinos seem to chase a class of low end retail jobs from certain neighborhoods.
Jonathan relies, instead, on a hard-core fact of politics: if raising taxes is untenable in most state capitals, and if massive service cuts are too draconian, gaming revenue is often the last option standing. If it sounds defeatist, its still proved powerful, and explains why conservatives in the Alabamas and Mississippis are torn over gambling, and rarely support banning it altogether, and why progressives are relatively untroubled by its regressive tendencies and the case that gaming dollars are a kind of extra sales tax on the poor.
So, without being an absolutist on the subject, I have two lingering doubts. One is that the gaming industry is a grossly inefficient market that uses its political clout to remain that way. In Alabama, rather than gravitate toward tourist destinations like the Gulf Coast, or the populous cities that could supply a steady labor base, it has concentrated in low end communities off the beaten path that have a much weaker core of employable adults. Even some of the communities that desperately want casinos struggle to get them or keep them. Ordinary rules of supply and demand don’t exist, and that means, invariably, that influence is be exercised to block some operators and to protect others. Its a lucrative prescription for corruption, and not surprisingly, the industry’s major benefactors found their way into a major, bipartisan public corruption prosecution last year.
By Jonathan Miller, on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 8:30 AM ET
Over the past three weeks, we’ve launched a new tradition at The Recovering Politician: a great virtual debate on the issues of the day among our recovering politicians; with provocations, rebuttals, responses, and defenses. Our first discussion focused on presidential leadership; our second on legalizing marijuana; and our third, Tim Tebow.
This week, the RP stirs up the mix with another controversial subject: the morality of gambling The RP starts off with his provocative article from The Huffington Post. Tune in every half hour to read what other RPs have to say.
It was one of those awkward, seemingly-endless moments that elicited pained winces from both secular liberals and those of us who believe that prayer is a sacred communication with God.
Rev. Hershael York stepped up to the Speaker’s lectern, before a televised joint session of the Kentucky General Assembly, purportedly to deliver the opening prayer. Instead, he launched into a blistering political diatribe, attacking Gov. Steve Beshear’s signature proposal to generate tax revenue by expanding gaming in the Commonwealth:
May [the Legislature] never resort to leveraging vice and avarice to pay our bills… May they not lead this state to share profits from an industry that preys on greed or desperation. Help us to foster salaries, not slot machines, to build cars and enable jobs, not license casinos and seduce the simple into losing what they have.
While York’s oration was as inappropriate as it was unsubtle, it certainly reflected a widely-shared worldview within the conservative Christian community: Gambling is immoral, and its creeping sprawl through Middle America should be contained.
Read the rest of… The RPs Debate Gambling: The RP Provokes
By John Y. Brown III, on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 12:00 PM ET
Know thyself.
Brutal self-honesty and continuous self-reflection are integral staples of a well-lived life in which we can be “True to ourselves.”
Last Friday I went by a trophy store in town and started asking myself some hard questions. It’s been a long time since I’ve received a trophy for anything. Or a plaque for that matter. And I really like receiving both and felt like it was about time to get something again that I could put on my shelf or wall and be affirmed by –and hope others notice and are impressed.
So I started thinking to myself, “Who says you can’t buy yourself a trophy or plaque?” I mean, maybe it’s an oversight that I (we) haven’t received any kind of award in a long time…and by giving ourselves a trophy all we are really doing is correcting the oversight.
More or less.
Anyway, I felt comfortable with my logic and got to wondering what on Earth would I get myself a personal trophy for. And I wanted to be brutally honest about what I should and shouldn’t give myself for a personally purchased award. Because without self honesty, all the awards are just meaningless decorations.
(I started by mulling an NBA MVP—but will back date it 12 or 15 years to be more believable. But I think I’m going to go with something that really could happen. “Best Intentioned Consultant on the Second Floor Bank Building off Ann St.” It’s not only believable ….it’s a really long title which always seems more impressive than short titles. Guess next I need to start working on an acceptance speech. ; )
By Zack Adams, RP Staff, on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 9:15 AM ET
The coaching carousel keeps on moving in the NFL – the latest hire was made by the Tampa Bay Bucs. They ending up signing Rutgers head coach Greg Schiano over Mike Sherman. The Bucs organization has made quite a few rounds while searching for a new coach, but Schiano outlasted the other candidates (including the ones that took other positions). [ESPN]
By John Y. Brown III, on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 8:30 AM ET
A friend, Don Marcum, asked about the possibility of a National Primary, and wondered if I had any thoughts on the matter.
As luck would have it, I have quite a few ready-made thoughts from a column I wrote 15 years ago when people cared about what I had to say about such things.
It was my first few months as KY’s newly elected secretary of state and a group of us were being interviewed on C-SPAN about the presidential primary system. Without much thought I proposed consideration of a National Primary….which went over like a lead balloon (aimed to land on my detractors!). Some of those who spoke up were professional election administrators and analysts who were well versed in the virtues of our current system not the least bit interested in considering new alternatives. And they made some good points.
But on the way home the more I thought about it the more I felt there was something to this idea…..And, I’ll admit, I was a little irked and challenged by the swift and impassioned rebuke I received and wanted to make a sensible case for a National Primary and prove it wasn’t “a crazy idea” as one commentator suggested.
I have dug up the article and post it below:
Read the rest of… John Y. Brown, III: A National Primary?
Blog this!
