The RECORD

By Marc Cooper

Can you win? Honestly, not for long. The one-armed bandit is one cold-hearted programmed machine. Still, you can dream.

The more you play slot machines, the more you will lose. It's common wisdom, but still it bears repeating.

I wasn't three minutes into one of the slot tournaments that can be found throughout this city when I swear that the woman competing next to me had broken out in a sweat. Furiously pounding the "Spin Reels" button, hunched over the screen and chanting, "Come on, big numbers! Big numbers!"

I was doing pretty much the same, except I was embarrassed enough to keep my praying silent.

So let's get right to the point about America's favorite gambling devices. Slots should be played only for fun and entertainment and absolutely never with any expectation of winning. Anyone who tells you he has a system to beat the slots is on tilt. There are no systems. There is no such thing as a hot or cold machine. And there isn't a single machine among the 800,000 in the U.S. that is "due" to pay out in the next five minutes or even the next five days. And when one does erupt, it might do it again two minutes later. Or maybe not for two more years.

Which makes the notion of a slot machine tournament absurd but clearly illustrative. To stand in front of modified slot machines that accept no money and for a full 20 minutes furiously pound that spin button and hope that at the finish bell one has racked up the greatest number of jackpot credits takes no skill, no decisions, no strategy. Just heavy shoulder-and-wrist action.

The steely, unforgiving heart at the center of each machine is a micro-processor called an RNG, a "random number generator." It's precisely programmed to determine how much of the gross intake the machine will return to the players and what the frequency of those payoffs will be. Even while the machine isn't in play, it's coldly clicking through an astonishing 200 million numerical combinations per second. The instant you pull the handle or push the button on the machine, your fate is sealed.

Forget about luck or even about loose gears in the reels. The mechanical reels or video readouts on the machine are but visual presentations of the internal computer's predetermined outcome of the spin.

So the only real choice is how you most prefer to lose your money.

At the swank Mandalay Bay, I found a variety of machines that fell roughly into two categories.

There were tickle-and-trickle penny machines, including the Munsters, Rakin' It In, Free Spin Mania, Shake Your Booty and Reel 'Em In. I chose a traditional three-reel spinner, the classic Double Diamond, 25 cents a pull, up to three coins at a time and with meaty jackpots of $2,000 or more. Twenty-five bucks and about 15 minutes later, I had hit exactly zip.

There are two basic categories of slots: machines that pay off more or less frequently. And remember: A payoff doesn't mean coming out ahead. "Winning" often means less than your total bet.

Low-hit frequency machines the classic one-arm bandits with three reels and a single payout line are the ones that deliver the biggest jackpots, sometimes "life-changing" amounts from thousands to millions of dollars if they are tied into a large, mounting "progressive" pool of other machines.

By contrast, I wheeled over to the Orleans casino. Like most lower-end "locals" joints, the Orleans has slots on which the payback tends to run a tad higher than in the Strip's mega-tourist traps.

I swallowed all pride and went right for the bottom end, taking a seat at what must be the biggest slot machine in the world. The multiplayer circular 1-cent Wheel of Fortune contraption sits in the middle of the casino floor like a just-landed UFO.

Seating nine players around its 12-foot diameter, it towers about 10 feet in the air. At its center is a mammoth wheel of fortune. I took seat No. 5. I could have played it for a mere penny but wouldn't have qualified for the $1,813,415.65 jackpot. The retired schoolteacher next to me explained that I could play at $4 a spin, but 80 cents would qualify me for any big handout.

Then she cut her tutorial short when she saw three images of Pat Sajak and Vanna White align, and the wheel began to spin in front of us, eventually stopping on 700. I was impressed until I found that it was 700 credits, only $7. I shelled out 20 bucks. Then another 20. And a few minutes later, 10 more. When I was down to my last $1.70 of credits, I hit the wheel like the teacher. It kicked back $50. A gigantic win, I thought, having lost a total of less than $20. Clearly my life hadn't changed.

The higher-frequency payout machines, like Vanna's, tickle and trickle. With complicated video screens, sometimes dozens of pay lines, armies full of animated bunnies and carrots, dancing doughnuts and jumping fish, they joyously announce you're a "winner" on an alarmingly frequent basis. And although they're presented as ridiculously cheap penny slots, to get full payoffs, you have to play 200, 300, sometimes 450 credits per spin. That's between $2 and $4.50 (though you can play up to $12 a pull). And if you pull 600 times an hour which is the estimated amount of play that these machines can process that means you're cycling through as much as $2,700 per hour.

As a rule, it's also generally better to play higher- rather than lower-denomination machines. Casino Player magazine, which tracks slot payoffs, calculates that the return on the average $1 machine in Vegas is 96% to 98%, whereas 25-cent machines are programmed between 93% and 95%, and the high-hit-frequency penny grubbers come in closer to 90%.

To put those percentages into context: Playing a lowly 25-cent machine with a 90% payback, a player's estimated loss will be $12 an hour. Bump that play up to $3 a spin, and you're calculated to lose $144 every hour. Now you know why fish are such a common image on these machines.

I made it back to Main Street Station just in time for my 4 p.m. slot tournament playoff. I was up against 15 determined competitors. As soon as the timer went off, I smashed away at that spin button so hard I could feel the impact in my bones. My shame had evaporated; I wanted to crush my opponents.

I finished fourth. First prize was $180. Second place got $90. Third place gets $50. I got a small shoeshine kit. Once again, a winner.

From the April 11, 2007 edition of the Los Angeles Times.

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is reproduced for non-profit educational purposes only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

By Lorne Gunter

Global warming? Do the math
National Post
Mon 09 Apr 2007
Page: A13
Section: Issues
Byline: Lorne Gunter

"UN Report Proves Canada Must Act Now On Climate Change," trumpeted the headline of a Liberal party press release on Friday, timed to correspond with the release of yet another alarmist UN summary on climate change.

"Canada must act aggressively now to avert the destructive consequences of climate change," the Liberals insisted.

"Canada must be ready for a carbon-constrained future," said party leader Stephane Dion. "Human beings can't continue to use the atmosphere as an unlimited and free dump¦ It is within our power to prevent the worst of the effects of climate change."

This, of course, marks the second alarmist release by the UN this year, both coming before its own scientific report on global warming is even out.

Just why would the UN release these teaser summaries before its actual scientific findings are available? It could it be that the science is becoming less alarming as scientists learn more, so the UN wants to maximize the public hysteria before its catastrophic forecasts for the future can be checked against the more moderate scientific truth.

We already know that the coming report -- the fourth by the UN in 15 years -- will say that maximum projected temperatures over the next century will not be nearly as high as projected in the last report in 2001; that man has contributed less to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than originally thought; and that sea level rise will be only a few inches, rather than the several feet once thought.

Yet the so-called "summaries for policy makers" are becoming more shrill each time: Species will be wiped out, crime will rise, starvation will kill hundreds of millions, disease will become rampant, islands will disappear beneath the waves, deserts will consume entire continents.

Science goes down, UN hysteria goes up. Curious, isn't it, how that plays into the UN's desire to be at the centre of a global effort to plan human activity?

But let's look at just what the global-warming theory implies and at Mr. Dion's charge that humans, Canadians included, are dumping massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Think of the atmosphere as 100 cases of 24 one-litre bottles of water -- 2,400 litres in all.

According to the global warming theory, rising levels of human-produced carbon dioxide are trapping more of the sun's reflected heat in the atmosphere and dangerously warming the planet.

But 99 of our cases would be nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%), neither of which are greenhouse gases. Only one case -- just 24 bottles out of 2,400 -- would contain greenhouse gases.

Of the bottles in the greenhouse gas case, 23 would be water vapour.

Water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas, yet scientists will admit they understand very little about its impact on global warming. (It may actually help cool the planet: As the earth heats up, water vapour may form into more clouds and reflect solar radiation before it reaches the surface. Maybe. We don't know.)

The very last bottle in that very last case would be carbon dioxide, one bottle out of 2,400.

Carbon dioxide makes up just 0.04% of the entire atmosphere, and most of that -- at least 95% -- is naturally occurring (decaying plants, forest fires, volcanoes, releases from the oceans).

At most, 5% of the carbon dioxide in the air comes from human sources such as power plants, cars, oilsands, etc.

So in our single bottle of carbon dioxide, just 50 ml is man-made carbon dioxide. Out of our model atmosphere of 2,400 litres of water, just about a shot glassful is carbon dioxide put there by humans. And of that miniscule amount, Canada's contribution is just 2% --about 1 ml.

If, as Mr. Dion demands, we honoured our Kyoto commitments and reduced our current CO2 emissions by one-third -- which would involve shutting down all the coal-fired power generating plants in Canada (and living with constant brownouts and blackouts); or taking all the cars or all the commercial vehicles off the roads; or shutting down the oilsands; or some combination of all these -- we would be saving one-third of 1 ml-- the tip of an eyedropper.

And somehow, that is supposed to save the planet from warming; the tip of one eyedropper out of 2,400 bottles of water.

That might be true if carbon dioxide were the most toxic substance ever discovered by man. But it is not. We each expel it every time we exhale.

It's hard to imagine how such a tiny amount of a benign substance could cause the end of the planet. Maybe Mr. Dion could explain that in his next press release.
____________________
Lorne Gunter
Columnist/Editorial Writer,
National Post
Columnist, Edmonton Journal
Tele: (780) 916-0719
E-mail: lgunter@shaw.ca
Fax: (780) 481-4735
Address: 132 Quesnell Cres NW
Edmonton AB T5R 5P2

_____________________
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is reproduced for non-profit educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

By Myrl Allinder

It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience... Massachusetts Bill of Rights

Separation of church and state is one thing. Separation of faith from home, family or work is quite another. After the Admiral soundly cursed everything and everyone within earshot... including me...I smilingly asked, "Admiral, may I ask you a question?"

"Well, what the blankety-blank is your question, you blankety-blank Marine?"

"Sir, do you believe in freedom of speech?"

"Freedom of speech? You better blankety-blank-blank know I believe in freedom of speech!"

Whereupon I raised both arms in the air, and shouted at the top of my Marine Corps lungs, "Praise the sweet lovely name of Jesus my Redeemer! Alleluia!", then politely assured the Admiral that in future I would have least ten public "Praise the Lords" for every one of his public blankety-blanks.

For a businessman, a working man, any man, to have a Biblical worldview, it stands to reason that the man must have read the Bible through from Genesis to Revelation at least once. Unfortunately, this is not the case with the majority of Christian men; less than 10% have read the Bible through even once. Consequently, 90% of Christian business/working men (and, of course, 100% of non-Christian business/working men) have a worldview at variance with a Biblical worldview.

There is to be no separation of faith and work; faith in God is to permeate work, family, worship, all that we do in word or in deed. (Col 3:17, 22, 23)

Standards and measures are to be consistent. It's eight hours of labor for an eight hour pay check, it's also 16 oz. of meat per pound charged. (Prov 20:23)

A non-religious English butcher, out of curiosity, went to a Billy Graham crusade in London. His wife began to be concerned -- they lived on the 2nd floor over the shop -- when 11 p.m. came, and the husband had not returned. At last she heard the front door unlock, but instead of coming directly upstairs, the husband bustled around the butcher shop below. At last he came trudging up the stairs with a dazed look. "Where have you been all this time?"

"At the Graham meeting."

"Well, what did Mr. Graham say?"

"I'm not really sure."

"You look strange, what happened to you?"

"I don't really know."

"Well for heaven's sake, man, what have you been doing in the shop just now?"

"I put the honest weights back on the scales."

The Ten Commandments give instruction regarding relationship/duty/worship toward God; for relationships and duty toward parents and family; and duty towards fellow men in the work place. The problem: most Christian men cannot write down the Ten Commandments. They do not remember them, if they ever read them. Christ told the rich merchant that only reading Moses (Ten Commandments) and the Prophets would increase the faith of his five rich brothers...not miracles. (Luke 16:28-31)

And there's the problem again: neither the rich merchant burning in Hell nor his five alive rich brothers, all sons of Abraham, none of them read/studied/ remembered Scripture.

Scripture is written for believers, not unbelievers. (2 Tim 3:16-17)

Remembering Scripture is so important that Jesus promised He would send the Holy Spirit to cause believers to remember all things that He said to us. (John 14:26) It is rather difficult to remember Scripture one has not read.

God desires to be in partnership with farmers in all their labors; but in Georgia they say, " God don't plow; He's in charge of rain, lightning and sunshine."

There are three words for manin the Hebrew: adam, ish,and zechar. Interestingly, zechar has a second meaning: remember. The inference is, the true man remembers; he remembers what Scripture has to say regarding daily life in vows, work, commerce, duty, government. Solomon searched for the true man, couldn't find him. (Prov 20:6) Christ repeats the puzzle question of Solomon, and then answers the question in John 7:18 ...the true man seeks the Glory of Him Who sent him¦ If there is a true man, it follows there is also a false man. In fact, Scripture indicates that most men are false men. (Matt 7:13) The false man seeks his own glory (John 7:18), seeks his own profit ...... and does not/will not remember the Biblical worldview and way of life, family, commerce.

Psalm 15: "Blessed is the (true) man, who keeps (remembers it, does it) his word, even to his own hurt". Thank God, He remembered... and kept His Word, even in the market place, even to His own hurt...the Cross.

Myrl Allinder is married to the former Martha E. Smith of Augusta, GA since 1956. They rejoice in 4 children, and in 5 grandchildren. Myrl retired as a Colonel of Marines in 1986 after 29 years, 375 combat missions, and command of 3 squadrons. He served on the staff of the Secretary of Defense for 3 years, and as a Strategic Planner for the Department of the Navy at the Naval War College, Newport, RI for 4 years. His final job was Chief of Plans, Joint Deployment Agency, Joint Chiefs of Staff, developing Logistics War Plans for all Theaters, including the Middle East.

Upon retirement he served as a missionary in Africa, Asia, Europe and South America from 1987-2000. Today he volunteers in the Pinellas County Jail (4,000 prisoners, 1000 arrests per week), in the Suncoast Haven of Rest rescue mission (7,000 homeless); and as a Gideon distributes thousands of Bibles each year to students and foreigners in the Tampa Bay area. He is an usher at Bayside Church of God in Safety Harbor, FL, serving on the Missions Committee.

By Michael Heath

Todd Benoit writes in favor of cleaving the sacred and the secular in his March 10 column, "Make marriage's benefits accessible to more people." He allows that churches should be free to create whatever marriage rules they want, while the state "a thoroughly secular institution" should simply create a "legally binding civil contract neutrally available for heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals and noncommitalsexuals." He says this is a conservative ideal.

He suggests that the legally binding civil contract that will replace the traditional definition of marriage in this brave new world will improve society. He suggests that the possibility of a civil contract will lead to family cohesiveness.

Benoit's argument is seductive because it envisions the possibility of a peaceful public square. Everyone will enter the public arena silent about their most deeply held beliefs as they relate to the common good, and everything will run along just fine.

Scandinavia, and much of Europe, has moved further down this road of moral relativism than the United States. It is, therefore, possible to put Benoit's ideas to the test.

In 2004, writer and researcher Stanley Kurtz observed, "Marriage is slowly dying in Scandinavia." Kurtz did extensive research on Norway and Sweden before writing his now-famous article "The End of Marriage is Scandinavia."

Kurtz reported sadly that most children are now born out of wedlock in those countries. A fair reading of the Kurtz finding does not allow one to conclude that a legally binding civil contract is going to lead to family cohesiveness. Just the opposite is what actually happens. Willful ignorance of the real definition of marriage (one man, one woman, one lifetime) destroys family, devastates children and ruins society.

While Benoit's Orwellian redefinition of terms has hurt the Scandinavian family, Kurtz believes that it will devastate America. "In the American context," he writes, "this would be a disaster. Beyond raising middle class family dissolution, a further separation of marriage from parenthood would reverse the healthy turn away from single-parenting that we have begun to see since welfare reform. And cross-class family decline would bring intense pressure for a new expansion of the American welfare state."

Ominously, Kurtz concludes his report, "By the time we see the effect of gay marriage in America, it will be too late to do anything about it."

This year Maine has another chance to begin pushing the camel's nose out of the tent to avoid reaching the point of no return. A bill to expand the reach of Maine's bizarre definition of domestic partnerships is bottled up in the Labor Committee. To avoid the ire of 47 percent of Mainers who saw through the lies of sexual orientation theorists in the 2005 vote over marriage, the Roman Catholic Chancery and Maine's most radical homosexual rights group have teamed up to promote domestic partnerships again. They created a same sex registry in 2003, and now they are promoting an expansion of the homosexual partnership definition they enacted that year.

The Chancery, and Maine, is between a rock and a hard place. The Chancery is promising to fight same-sex marriage. I'm not sure what their position is on civil unions. The radical homosexual lobby owns the Maine Democratic Party and a good chunk of the Maine Republican Party. This gives the so-called gay lobby a lock on the State House.

It appears that political forces within Maine's largest religious group, the Roman Catholic Church, and Maine's most powerful immoral group, the homosexual lobby, struck a deal. Everyone wanted to avoid a political war over same-sex marriage after 2005's brutal ordeal. To avoid the fight, the Catholic Chancery and the gay lobby decided to become domestic partners.

Don't believe me? Read the press release from the misnamed radical pro-homosexual group "EqualityMaine" (They think children should be raised without a mother in some cases, and with a father in others. That obviously has nothing to do with equality). They saved the best for last in their list of endorsements of their highest priority this year "LD 375, An Act to Amend the Family Medical Leave Act." They list the Roman Catholic Diocese last in their list of endorsees.

Maine's binding civil contract called marriage will continue to be defined as one man, one woman, one lifetime or Maine will lose family cohesiveness. Benoit wants society-wide family cohesiveness, and the opportunity for everyone to live however they want sexually. Europe shows that won't happen. I want family cohesiveness and sexual normalcy. While we can easily have both, those who want same-sex marriage will have to choose one or the other.

At least we can agree on the desirability of family cohesion.

From the March 19, 2007 edition of the Bangor Daily News.

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is reproduced for non-profit educational purposes only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

By Michael Heath

Maine appears to be equally divided on the question of homosexuality.

The emphasis here must be put on "appearances." Maine is not as divided as voting over the past few decades makes it appear.

While Maine people, like all people, feel compassion for victims, they also feel either ambivalence toward immoral sexual practices or outright disdain. Nobody thinks that unhealthy, immoral sex is good.

Political activists, their friends in academia and all forms of the media have brilliantly manipulated our ambivalence. They have persuaded many of us to feel compassion for something we dare not think about.

It is fascinating how this sleight of hand has been accomplished. It is breathtaking to witness its success.

A case in point is playing out in the Maine Legislature right now in the form of L.D. 375. This bill appears to be a benign expansion of an obscure law known as the Family Medical Leave Act. But this seemingly innocent bill attracted strong support from the radical homosexual lobby.

My interest turned into anguish when I learned that Maine's largest and most powerful Christian congregation had thrown its support behind the bill.

But Maine's Roman Catholic Chancery flatly rejected our offer to join a partnership in defense of traditional marriage in 2005. Nevertheless, working nearly alone against overwhelming political odds, we attracted 47 percent of the electorate to our side.

For some reason there appears to be a great deal of synergy between the chancery and the so-called "gay" lobby. LD 375 is one more example on a growing list of sad incidents that will culminate in the final battle over "same-sex marriage." It is only a matter of time.

While the chancery promises to fight "same-sex marriage," we need look no further than two states to the south to see what that means.

Massachusetts is the only state in America that has legalized same-sex marriage, and it is where faithful Catholics suffered greatly from sexually abusive clergy. Words are cheap, and their actions obviously ineffective, in this matter.

LD 375 gives homosexual activists something they must have to gain what they must not get (for their own good). Their relationships gain the coveted title in law of "family."

A judge sometime in the near future is going to put Maine's domestic partnership definition (which includes homosexual partnerships) together with the recently enacted sexual orientation law and force either civil unions or same-sex marriage -- and there will be nothing anyone can do about it.

When Maine joins Massachusetts, know that it didn't happen simply because politicians caved into the demands of a vocal minority. Maine's Christians gave up. They stopped practicing their freedom to speak out and consequently lost their civilization to the oldest religion in the book -- paganism.

This sad tale of loss, pain and difficulty doesn't mean that Maine people agree with the homosexual apologists. They do not. They feel compassion for people. We are, most of us, good and decent citizens.

It does appear, however, that we may have lost our courage and independence.

We also seem to have lost something more basic for Christians, and that is, an interest in simple righteousness. The Bible and all of human history are full of examples of men and women taking a stand for it.

In this matter, such a stand would simply uphold marriage as the chief building block of civilization.

Leaders taking this stand would proactively work to make marriage the only warm hearth for sex. They would do this by teaching in a million ways that sex outside of marriage is immoral, it is wrong.

Hearts would swell while children frolicked in their restored innocence. Schools would be organized around parents, instead of against them. Communities would become strong as families grew in stature.

This is the future all of us want. Why settle for less?

From the March 19, 2007 edition of the Portland Press Herald.

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is reproduced for non-profit educational purposes only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml