Emphasis mine (with the exception of the italicized “one” – that’s his).
It is widely recognized in the policy process literature that academic policy research is only one input into the policymaking process and, therefore, it is only one of the many sources of information that decision makers take into account when making public policy decisions. Social scientists, legal scholars, and policy analysts, however, are more likely to believe that their research findings and recommendations should command special attention from policymakers because of their scientific or empirical basis. While the findings of academic policy researchers are not infallible, they are generally something more than mere opinion, but in the policymaking arena, academic policy research often appears to the decision maker as simply one more opinion to be processed and weighed in the course of decision making. The public policy arena is always crowded with noisy ideas and chatter, including the views of constituents and clients, heart-rending anecdotes and testimonials, personal letters, testimony to committees and task forces, ant the minute-by-minute interpretations of “the chattering class,” i.e., talk radio, headline television, newspaper editorials, and the Internet blogosphere.
Hear that, everyone? The man who’s become media-quote numbah one, Mass pundit extraordinaire, is calling constituents, journalists and trained political scientists from his own university (me), “the chattering class.” Sadly for Barrow, as the links above indicate, when it comes to issues surrounding slots, his critics often deal only with the facts — casting a critical eye, as all academics and other pursuers of the truth should, on an industry masked in deception and bias, lobby dollars and uncomfortable facts. It is, after all, part of the scientific method. Clyde Barrow, on the other hand, deals with flawed science in coming up with numbers that please the (casino) industry he came from.
His “chattering class” is really just a way of belittling those who disagree with him. Note how he fails to include the academics who denounce casino profiteering at the expense of society, such as Bob Goodman, author of The Luck Business, or Dr. Hans Breiter of Harvard, who found that, “Monetary reward in a gambling-like experiment produces brain activation very similar to that observed in a cocaine addict receiving an infusion of cocaine.” He’s actually trying to create a medication to suppress that urge. Are they, too, a part of “the chattering class?” If not, why doesn’t Barrow include a single reference to their work – as any good political scientist normally would?
The truth is Barrows isn’t a serious academic, not when it comes to casinos. He’s part and parcel of the industry, the personification of the flawed Spectrum Gaming “study” Patrick paid for as means for “independent” analysis – a report that issued exactly what you’d expect… coming from the industry. Given the facts, it takes a lot of audacity for Barrow to label us skeptics as dealing in “pseudo facts.” The base rule of “the chattering class” that Barrow mocks in page one of this report at the very least submits to the paramount of ethical standards — report conflicts of interest. What does it say, then, of a very serious academic who’s the Director for Policy Analysis at a major Massachusetts public university when he not only fails to divulge his conflicts of interest, but actually covers them up when they matter the most? It seems to me, once again, Barrow fails to be the skeptical scientist his profession is supposed to be all about.
Update: Is the fact that Clyde Barrow took $15,000 in 2008, under the guise of “Pyramid Scheme Associates,” from Maine’s Yes on 2 Campaign — a failed campaign for casinos in Maine – a conflict of interest? How does that befit a very serious academic? Will someone ask Clyde Barrow about these “chattering class” “pseudo facts” at Monday’s hearing?
Crossposted at www.RyansTake.net
I have read some of Clyde Barrow’s other nearly impenetrable readings on different Marxist interpretations of state power, and it is almost impossible to reconcile his stated views with his behavior. For example, one of his articles goes into exhausting length about how social analysis reveals that capitalists and corporations with powerful hidden financial interests almost always end up penetrating and controlling the agenda of government, even in democracies. Of course, we know that the number one example of this kind of behavior — which Barrow seems to condemn — are the massive dollars used by casino and business tycoons to hire lobbyists and bend the legislative process with the distortion that there are public benefits to their schemes for private enrichment. But Barrow himself is a leading advocate for the “all benefits, no costs” approach to predatory gambling, a man who seems to have financed his own “center” with monies from one of the most rapacious industries in the world. Is this an example of simple hypocrisy, or does he have a deeper theory about intensifying the contradictions of capitalist society so that it collapses more quickly? Or has he just sold out? In any case, I think that Marty Meehan, as Chancellor, should publicly release all the funding for Barrow’s “center” so that we can see who is paying for the butter on Barrow’s bread.
I meant, Lowell – jeez! Sorry
Senator Spilka who is a bright woman in a shiny new Chair post of the Economic Development and Emerging Technologies committee decided to have a joint hearing on the matter of expanding gambling (slots, slot parlors, racinos, casinos, mega-casinos, leverage your progeny to the seventh generation establishments) in the Commonwealth. Her counterparts in the House declined to participate.
<
p>She found herself in a bind. Move forward with her boss’s (Therese Murray not the constituents in her district) agenda or call it off and wait til the fall, which was what her boss had actually publicly stated would happen. Hmmm, what’s a bright woman with mixed allegiances to do? Senator Spilka is a member of the Framingham League of Women Voters, sympatico with union leadership and then, of course, there’s her boss Ka-Ching Murray (not to be confused with Slot Parlor Cahill ) who told us this issue would be taken up in the fall, now her hand-picked Chairperson’s actions are making the Prez look, well let’s say, not in charge. Or, maybe the Chair was not paying attention?
<
p>The conundrum continues with the facts that the Senator’s office released the pro-casino (with the exception of maybe two panelists of ten) speaker list, denied access to the panel for anti-slots/casino experts and did it on a Friday before the biggest holiday week of the summer for a meeting on Monday, June 29, 2009 at the State House. Yah.
<
p>So, the little people (like most of us guys) do not get a chance to speak at what will likely be a well publicized (albeit Senate only) “informational hearing”. Yup, the little people and the under-funded grassroots groups that are not keen on slots/casinos will not have access to this important committee or the media.
<
p>Wasn’t there a lot of chatter about ethics, transparency and open government lately? Maybe there will be another legislative indictment to test the newly declared, although hardly evident ethics reform?
<
p>I for one, do not have any confidence that the same people who brought us the Big Dig can manage the historically corrupt slot/casino industry.
<
p>Senator, you have a lot of good qualities. Don’t sell your integrity for a chair’s bonus.
What is it with these recluses who hide behind their blogs disparaging anyone who disagrees with them? I appreciate the facts rather than a diatribe that is short on facts and full of innuendo and insults. The facts are unassailable — no matter how you cut it, we’re spending a ton of $ at the CT casinos and RI slot parlors, and we’ve been doing it for about 17 years. The real irony is that we have these recluses living in a fantasyland who refuse to accept any empirical evidence whatsoever. They know what they know, or at least what they think they know, and they won;t be swayed by empirical evidence, no matter how substantive it is. So let’s just say that instead of accepting Barrow’s estimates, $1 billion a year, we’re spending, just 50% of his estimates. Okay, is that reasonable? Then, since the casinos and slot parlors have opened, we’ve spent about $5 billion there, and generated about $2 billion in tax revenue to the CT and RI state treasuries. And, instead of spending about $1 billion annually at the casinos and slot parlors, we’re only spending $500 million. So what’s the problem? Any liberal Democrat knows that the state lottery is the most regressive form of gambling — scratch tickets, keno, lotto — that exists. It attracts those with the least education and the least disposable income. That’s why, per capita, communities like Chelsea, Lawrence and North Adams spend more on lottery products than residents of most other cities and towns. Slot parlors are one-step up from the lottery. But resort casinos are different. They attract both gamblers and non-gamblers. In fact, they attract better educated people who earn more. Even studies by anti-gambling zealots show that upwards of 40% of resort casino patrons do not gamble. So if we can have resort casinos that serve to generate more tax revenue, create thousands of private-sector jobs, and grow our tourism and hospitality sectors, then that’s a public policy that we ought to take a serious look at this legislative session. Of course, we’ll continue to hear from these uninformed critics who predict the end of western civilization. They’re no different than the zealots who populate the evangelical right. They have the same kind of outlook. Both the politically correct liberals and the far-right evangelicals believe they know what’s best for the rest of us. Funny, though, how they both refuse to accept any truths counter to their beliefs, and disparage as immoral and unethical those who disagree with them. Ryepower12 and his ilk should feel right at home at a National Rifle Association rally or Southern Baptist convention!
breaking your points up into paragraphs. It’s just a trick I learned when I was in grammar school… In addition, you may not want to go on a blog and label bloggers a recluse… it’s not exactly a good way to win over the audience.
<
p>BTW: I will not deny that Massachusetts residents spend money in Connecticut gambling. However, the benefits of adding casinos and getting that money ‘back’ is nothing compared to the detriments and costs that come along with slots, which kill local economies and destroy human lives — and not just those who gamble, but those around or touched by them, as well. It could be you.
Ryan, I was just reading your comments and the banter with the other subscriber. If, as you say, casinos are a detriment to local economies, could you please cite research which proves this? I know you follow the casino issue closely, but I thought that economic costs are outweighed by economic benefits and “social costs” are something researchers have yet to quantify. Thanks.
<
p>-CS
The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston did a study a few years back and showed that up to 75% of what casinos and slot parlors bring in as revenue isn’t new revenue — it was already in the system. That means the revenue is going from the local economy to the casino. People only have so much money to spend — when a casino moves in, suddenly a great sum of it is then spent at the casino. It doesn’t take a lot to put many restaurants and clubs out of business – making for a less dynamic or interesting community.
<
p>Further, we know from various studies that money spent in the local system bubbles and stays in the system, which has a large multiplier effect, impacting more people – whereas money spent in casinos tends to be sucked into the void, going to out of state major shareholders.
<
p>We can see this in practical terms by looking at where casinos have moved in. Let’s look at Atlantic City. It went from being a vibrant city with over 225 restaurants, pubs, clubs and other, similar venues, to having less than 60 after casinos went in. Small businesses can’t compete — and casinos take 5% of the population right out of the economic equation, because that’s the rate of people who become “problem gamblers.” They can’t possibly contribute to the local economy — any of their excess time and money is spent entirely at the casino. You see the same phenomenon in Detroit; as tough as that economy’s had it for years, they’ve lost more than 20% of their small businesses across the city since they allowed casinos in.
<
p>I recommend checking out the casino tab over at my blog. You’ll find all this information at length and well sourced over there.
“And who are you?”
<
p>”Ryepower” links to his blog and discloses his name. You do not disclose your name at all.
<
p>Rye is active, involved, and NO recluse at all – that is if you actually read his post and follow the links.
<
p>I don’t oppose slot parlors and gambling from a “Holier then Thou” perspective.
<
p>I oppose them because they are legalized theft from the weak minded AND in my home town of Detroit casinos killed whole neighborhoods – that is before they went bankrupt, see: c http://www.wwj.com/pages/22826…
<
p>Before you go into gloat mode about those money-sucking pits known as casinos, maybe YOU need to do some research.
Are you really going to blame the casinos for neighborhoods in Detroit being “killed”. I spent a fair amount of time working in Detroit pre and post the opening of those casinos – those neighborhoods weren’t thriving before the casinos.
<
p>That’s not to say opening them is a positive in the long run. However, given that they’re some of the only businesses opening up in Detroit; that they employ hundreds of people (in relatively good paying, union jobs) and that Greektown is filing for Chapter 11, not chapter 7 and we don’t know if they won’t come out much stronger, I’m not sure you’re facts can hold the high ground here.
I agree that somebody would need a lobotomy to endorse the course of action the Enterprise and you would recommend.
I’m not going to get into a debate with a bunch of “armchair activists.” I don’t know Barrow, but I called him two years ago and had a few questions based on his study. He took 15 minutes to walk me through the study’s conclusions and how he and his researchers gathered the empirical evidence that was cited. He told me he gets calls like mine all the time — from legislators, media, and from both supporters and opponents of gambling. He knew I had some skepticism regarding some of the findings. I suggest Ryepower, rather than slandering the guy, pick up the phone and call Barrow like I did and ask ask him the questions he feels he needs to have answered, or actually ask to sit down with him and go through it. When Ryepower says he’s done so, then I’ll give him some credence. Until then, Ryepower will remain, at least to me, a reclusive blogger who is more intent on slandering and belittling those who don’t agree with him than he is in actually learning the facts. Like I wrote previously, Ryepower will fit in just fine at a National Rifle Association rally or Southern Baptist convention. They’re moralists who abhor the truth — or the facts — as much as Ryepower does when the facts don’t comport to their personal morals and beliefs. By the way, I’m not an armchair activist. I’m actually too busy trying to help our Democratic party remain the majority party. And that’s also why I don’t like it when allegedly progressive Democrats start acting and sounding like right-wing Republican evangelicals. Considering the way the Republican Party stands for nothing and is certainly the party of obstruction, am I really preaching to a Republican-in-Democratic clothing? How about it, Ryepower? Are you really one of those libertarian Republican types whose moral hangups compel you to rant against everything and anyone in which you disagree?
I run elections, sit on two boards of progressive organizations and spend my spare time – what’s left of it – organizing the blogosphere, putting on events like the netroots/electronics workshop at the state party convention for the past two years.
<
p>You don’t know me. If anyone should stop slandering, it’s you.
<
p>By the way, my cousin was shot in the head, murdered. If you say I’m akin the to NRA one more time, I may just lose my fucking mind. How dare you?
We all know and support your hard work for social and economic justice. Do not waste your valuable time responding to silly distractions.
I am sorry hear about your cousin and the painful reminder thrown at you by the vilest of trolls we have seen on BMG for some time. I appreciate all of the amazing contributions you make to the Democratic party and your leadership on vital issues like the casino debate. You always back your work with research and passion.
<
p>mr23257 has contributed two mean-spirited posts since “it” registered on BMG about 1 1/2 years ago….pathetic.
Yeah, right. I’m not going to bother listing my CV like the ridiculous CV you’ve listed…just that, unlike you, I’ve worked in the political trenches. And just so you understand something, when I say I’ve worked in the trenches, that means real trenches, such as having a Nicaraguan contra hold an AK-47 to my right temple. So don’t give me that BS that an NRA reference is incendiary. And what’s with Judy Meredith’s reflexive dogma and a bite of arsenic attacking me for simply challenging your lack of empirical argument? Dude, you and Judy are exactly what’s wrong with the volunteer liberal activist wing of our party. Tack as far to the left that you want, but don’t make it a litmus test for someone’s Democratic principles if they disagree with you. That stunt is why we always have so much trouble attracting people from the middle-right. And then you attack other Democrats who don’t agree with you. I’m to the left of Fidel, but I’m willing to compromise if I can get 75% of my Democratic policies enacted. You are the exact opposite. If someone’s not with you 100%, then they’re traitors. All this blather I read hear about Deval not being a progressive. Give the guy a break. He’s a first-term governor who learned some hard lessons early and he’s evolving into a pragmatist who has to deal with political reality. You sit out there in the blogosphere posting these incredibly naive postings. You and the Judy Meredith’s of Massachusetts’ wacked-out wing keep it up and we’ll have a Republican governor for another 16 years. Like I said before, call Barrow like I did. He had the class and courtesy to take my call and have a discussion with me for 10 minutes. Or are you not really a political scientist? Are you a wannabe political scientist? Just a gadfly? What, exactly, is your rant all about? Dude, all you do is vent. You make no sense whatsoever. This crazy line in the sand regarding casinos is a case in point. You’d think western civilization is at risk. And you attack Barrow as if you’re a rabid dog. So the two of you disagree. I don’t see him impugning your morals and ethics. Ease up. Move out, get an apartment or condo of your own, and grow up. Life’s too short to spend it the way you do. The best way to make a difference is to build coalitions from disparate groups. Your strategy is the exact opposite. Like I said, you’d fit far more comfortably in the schizoid-wing of the Republican Party. That base is becoming so small because they’re haters and impugn everyone who is not 100% ideologically pure. Sounds like your cup of tea!
From the Los Angeles Times, Jan. 18, 2008 –
<
p>
<
p>Perhaps unintentionally, the tone of your posts are much more strident than someone with a “pragmatic” approach to politics usually would take.
<
p>But if you are genuinely interested in getting a clearer picture why more and more people feel that state-sponsored predatory gambling is “a line in the sand,” I’ll buy you a coffee to talk about it. My email is in my profile.
<
p>Les Bernal
Sorry Les, but I always have trouble with people who wear their morals on their sleeves. I’m sure you believe casinos are bad. That’s your right. But to read this vitriol attacking anyone ethics, morals and integrity of people who disagree with the anti-casino crowd is quite unsettling.
Don’t you get it. These zealots like ryepower12 who attack people like Barrow are not far removed from the same mentality that stands outside of women’s health centers trying to prevent young women from gaining abortion counseling. Disagree with Barrow all you want. They’re so consumed with their personal and moral beliefs that they believe they can verbally assassinate someone who disagrees with them. Disagree with Barrow but challenge him on the facts. That recluse, ryepower12, blogging all this incendiary crap actually hurts the anti-casino argument. If anything, it’s helped move me from a disinterested observer to someone who actually took the time and effort to examine both sides of the issue, and I’m quite comfortable, thank you, with resort casinos being approved in our state. And I’m a liberal Democrat, an activist, a longtime convention delegate, and no fan of zealots, left or right. That’s why, when I read Harshbarger, or Tucker, or Bosley, or the League of Women Voters’ president, all attacking the messenger rather than offering substantive empirical evidence refuting the pro-casino argument, I dismiss them as the gadflies that they are! .
Do you have a name?
<
p>–Leo
You’re another one of those “all or nothing,” politically-correct, “psuedo-liberals” who are all for free speech until someone disagress with you. Then you and your ilk impugn and attack their integrity. You never speak to the specifics of the issues. You’re like Dan Bosley who makes all these sweeping statements on gambling like “studies show” or “my research on this issue showed,” and then, like Bosley, don’t cite any specific studies or research. Bosley’s such a fraud. He has about as much expertise on gambling impacts as he does on other economic issues. Or have you forgotten his economic stimulus bill, pushed by soon-to-be incarcerated former Speaker Sal DiMasi, which only gave tax breaks and concessions to big business, under the guise that those corporations would move more R&D into the commonwealth and hire more residents. The only people who made out in that were Bosley and DiMasi, whose campaign coffers were fattened by the CEO’s and lobbyists who pushed the legislation. And have you forgotten Bosley’s energy deregulation bill? The one that’s destroyed competition in the commonwealth and resulted in our state now having the nation’s fourth highest electric rates? That’s another Bosley-DiMasi masterpiece that ended up fattening their campaign coffers at the expense to you and me and, yes, the tax-paying nurses of the Massachusetts Nurses Association. But keep fooling yourself that because someone “says” they’re a liberal Democrat that they are, in fact, a liberal Democrat. If anything, our party is becoming polluted with a narrow, self-serving interest base — just like the Repub Party — which brooks no dissent, that attacks those who disagree, that avoids an honest debate of the issues, and that results in voters asking “what’s the difference?” But keep it up, Leo. Keep enjoying life in the Happy Valley and pretend that lies, disinformation and personal attacks will enhance public policy discussion in our state. If you had any moral and political courage, you’d oppose casinos by offering forth a tangible fiscal and economic development plan that will generate tax revenues, grow jobs, and bolster tourism and hospitality growth. But you don’t; none of you do. You just tell us what won’t work — again and again and again. But you never offer forth a tangible, realistic plan as to what will work — and back it up with specifics that could be incorporated into legislation. Your serve.
not psuedo. I corrected — was driving me nuts. đŸ™‚