Virtue, Vice & The Bimbo On The Billboard

"Men imagine that they communicate their virtue or vice only by overt actions, and do not see that virtue or vice emit a breath every moment."

Ralph Waldo Emerson
Source: Self-Reliance


OK, so maybe I live in a cave, but could someone please tell me who "Nikki Cox" is. Yeah, I get that she’s a babe, all right? Ordinarily, I wouldn’t know or care, but that was before "Nikki’s" image (seductively reclining on her side) was plastered on billboards all around the area last week "inviting" one and all to take a crack at winning a hundred large from some internet sports book. "Everybody Bets", shouts the ad, but as everyone knows, for every penny the house doles out, they’re yanking in a buck. Everybody knows another thing too: sex sells. If someone wanted to market horse manure, they could probably hire out "Nikki" (or some other voluptuous ingénue) in overalls and a pitchfork.


Hey, don’t get me wrong; I’m a red-blooded meat-and-potatoes guy. I appreciate looking at a beautiful woman just the same as the next guy (provided he’s attracted to females). However, when images of beauty serve only the ulterior motive of m-o-n-e-y, a woman’s beauty is debased and the image used to sell the product becomes a mere commodity, like a pair of shoes or a can of paint. Perhaps I’m in the minority here, but I consider the whole thing a waste of a gift.


…if we could fast forward about twenty-five years, we’d probably find "Nikki" with her ass parked on a recliner watching the soaps in a trailer park outside of Vegas in a bathrobe and fuzzy slippers sucking on a Kool with her teeth on the coffee table barking at husband #5 to go to the "Kwik Mart" for a pack of smokes, a Diet Coke and a bag of chips…


Rather than focusing on the Bimbo on the Billboard, my thoughts (reluctantly) turn to considerations of government and gambling. See what happens when you open with a stupid question? I go ‘round and ‘round on this but can’t fully arrive at a coherent or satisfactory conclusion. For purposes of this inquiry, I feel like treading down the old "Virtue and Vice" path that has confounded philosophers for thousands of years.


I do not advocate a government ban on gambling. I fully understand and appreciate that millions of people gamble, though I cannot fully comprehend the logic of why people would willingly exchange/risk their hard earned money for the highly remote possibility obtaining a greater return. Maybe wagering on the outcome of an event adds to the thrill and excitement of watching an event.


Look, I didn’t grow up in a monastery but in one of the most singularly corrupt communities in America. If I mentioned the name of the place, even if you’re reading this in North Dakota, you’d recognize it as synonymous with graft and corruption. The kind of town where newly married returnees from the War who wanted to place their families in public housing were required to join a private "club" which demanded an outrageous "initiation fee" as a precondition of "getting on the list." This was a time when neighborhood bookies would occasionally turn up in the weeds with "two in the hat" because they got caught "skimming". So yeah, I understand how things work in that respect. After all these years, I just have trouble figuring out the why, that’s all.


People are going to gamble, just as people were bound and determined to drink during Prohibition. It’s just something that a lot of people do. So the Government (needing taxation of revenues to function) decided that perhaps it would be wiser being a player in the rackets after the disastrous results of Prohibition (which enabled organized crime to develop a GDP rivaling the Fed).


My concern is the effect of government being in the gambling business. Shouldn’t government be more concerned with the promotion of virtue rather than deriving revenue from vice? Government already derives significant revenues from taxation on private liquor and tobacco sales. Additionally, the pari-mutuel industry is heavily regulated and is a source of tax revenue. However, government is not a producer or manufacturer of these goods and services.


When the states entered the lottery business years ago, it was a tacit acknowledgment that illegal gambling was a hugely profitable and untapped source of revenue. Why should Don Vito get all the action? So, the state became the bookie. The local corner convenience and liquor stores became bookmaking parlors. Keno games were set up in restaurants and smoke filled state line "keno parlors". The states developed various daily and weekly number games, created a bureaucracy and did distribute some of the take back to the municipalities. Then they came up with the most insidious money makers of all, "Scratch Tickets". When you stop for your morning coffee (another vice) at Buster’s Market, you’re lucky if you can find a spot to park.


You grab your coffee and endure interminable delays (while the cup is scalding your hands) while the man or woman in front of you is trying to score on one of the 599 different types of tickets available. "Gimme a number 7, oh, and a 23, and a 67…" Ten minutes later, you go back out to your car, and there they are, sitting in their cars, scratching tickets and mumbling to themselves. Such activities are far more prevalent in poor and working class communities than in the affluent suburbs. So who pays the freight? The people who can least afford it. But as long as everyone’s making a buck out there, who cares, right?


I am in the process of reading the Final Report of the National Gambling Impact Study Commission to further understand the societal implications of this phenomenon. In addition, I’m dusting off those old William James treatises to consider the philosophical perspective. I don’t expect to have an answer or a solution anytime soon. But that should never stop one from trying, no?


Meanwhile, Faithful Reader, what makes a song special? Hey, why does the sun rise in the east? Music (and I’m not talking about that crap you hear at the dentist’s office) is a pretty subjective term. In America, most folks tend to find their comfort level in a certain genre, and that’s ok with me. Folks who like country generally don’t go for classical or jazz. There’s a whole lot of snobbery among certain aficionados that tends to rub ordinary folk the wrong way. Teenage girls seem to prefer rather banal repetitive pounding noise loops punctuated by sickening saccharine plaintive wails which are patently designed to pound their parents into submitting to their every whim at Wal-Mart. Talk about wasted money, my goodness, the untold billions wasted on lip gloss and nail polish and all the assorted vanities…anyhow, in every genre of music, there’s a whole lot of forgettable, some of good quality and then there’s a precious few that can transport your spirit to an unimaginable plane of beautiful existence, the kind of place for which you long in dreams.


Among the most inspiring compositions of the 20th Century is Ralph Vaughan Williams’
"Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis" (1910) for double stringed orchestra and solo quartet. Imagine going from a drab, dreary setting filled with stress and people you wouldn’t sick on your worst enemy to a pastoral setting of rolling hills, where the clouds mingle with the hilltops on a cool, misty summer’s day. An idea complete unto itself, where there is no yesterday or tomorrow. The next time your head feels as if it’s in a vise, try a little of that, and experience how it makes you feel.


THE NFL Week 2:
The matchups for this week are atrocious. Talk about the Haves vs. The Have Nots. The schedule makers must’ve figured everyone was going to hit the road this weekend. Does New Orleans at Green Bay seem like compelling "must see tv" to you? I didn’t think so. There are three divisional rivalries kicking off at the 4:00 hour. Otherwise, NFL Sunday appears to be a stinkeroo of the first order. I’ll post my prognostications tomorrow.