A missing part of the story re: the Gaming Commission
Did you notice that Wynn’s casino was declared “suitable” (ie not corrupt), with the condition being that they were approved so long as there wasn’t actual Macau corruption?
What is the point of approving a casino under the guise that they’re not corrupt if all the questions surrounding possible corruption are ignored?
From the SHNS on it yesterday:
The five-member commission held a hearing in Boston on Monday to determine Wynn’s suitability to hold a casino license in Massachusetts. Background investigators recommended to the Gaming Commission that Wynn be found suitable on the condition that he explain his company’s business practice in Macau, an administrative region in China and lucrative new frontier for gaming operators.
Wynn later called Macau the “squarest place I’ve ever been.” Macau!
What the heck are these “background investigators” doing if they can’t bother to do the actual background checking that could really determine suitability?
[from Ernie's thread.]
… And did you catch this delightful morsel?
“The issue is: Do we allow illegal activity in our casinos?” Wynn Resorts chairman Steve Wynn told the commission. “The answer is no.” He pounded the table. “No.”
He actually pounded the table, folks. Pounded that damn thing like a cheap steak, I’ll bet. It was John Bonham vs. Keith Moon. There’s a guy who believes what he’s saying — BAM!