It's All (Morally) Relative

Slot Machines bills passed in both the Maryland House and Senate! Awesome! Well, actually it is. No, I'm not a fan of slot machines in the state. Not because I'm against gambling, but because it seems like a political cop-out. Leaders can't balance the budget and continue to waste taxpayer money, so of course they are all too attentive when gambling lobbyists and their money come calling. More importantly, slots is a classic example of NIMBY. Republicans in Maryland support their governor and his slots bill, because it puts slot machine parlors in already-economically struggling areas with higher populations of poor people.

So the House bill that was so successfully engineered to pass - by the thinnest of margins - by House Speaker Michael Busch exposes this hypocrisy; it names Frederick as one of the 4 counties where slots are allowed. Frederick is a relatively wealthy Republican-leaning county, far from Baltimore City and Prince George's counties, and our beloved governor has already said that he'll fight to remove Frederick from the list of counties. It's a good strategy, in theory - it makes sense to place an addictive enterprise such as slot machines as close as possible to those low-income communities that help to keep slots in business. Fortunately, Ehrlich and his allies won't have the opportunity, as Busch has ensured that any negotiated bill that varies from the House bill won't have any chance of passing.

The quote of the article comes from Delegate Richard Madaleno Jr. of Montgomery County, and I think it sums up what's backwards about the conservative movement in this country:

Madaleno read a passage from the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, and said social conservatives worried about family values should vote against the bill. "Otherwise, it is just another wonderful example of the moral relativism in American politics."

Moral relativism, what a fabulous term! Is that like when conservatives talk about states' rights for such issues as gun control, congressional re-districting, environmental regulation, and - back in the day) - segregation, but want the Feds to crush gay unions, abortion rights, and entertaining television? (we'll miss you, Michael Powell!) Or maybe it's when they pour more money into incarcerating non-violent drug offenders, while at the same time cutting after-school programs for urban kids? Maybe it's when they attack the country of an oppressive dictator with no WMDs, and all but ignore countries with actual WMDs like North Korea, or other oppressive regimes like the one in Burma?

Not that liberals are immune to this theory, (pro-choice, anti-death penalty comes to mind) but it just seems much more evident on the conservative side. Especially these days.