Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Betraying the American Promise

By

Because if he did, he’d wave off “destination casinos” simply as a political frame (the term polls significantly better than “slots at the racetracks”) and say this debate is about slot machines which make up 80% of casino gambling profits. Then he’d ask why would the state promote slots, which in the words of MIT Professor Natasha Schull, are designed to be so effective at extracting money from people it is “a product that, for all intents and purposes, approaches every player as a potential addict — in other words, someone who won’t stop playing until his or her means are depleted”?

Oakes also knows very little about the central role predatory gambling plays in America’s debt culture because if he did, he would ask why in these difficult economic times is government actively promoting products that encourage people to get into more debt rather than helping them save money, like it did during the Great Depression, so they can accumulate the capital they need to live the real American Dream?

And lastly, Oakes has not considered how predatory gambling squares with America’s core democratic principles because if he did, he’d ask the question how can a country where everyone is considered equal allow its government to actively promote a product that renders some of our fellow citizens as expendable in the name of getting someone else to pay our taxes?

An interview with these questions might add a spike to this week’s WBUR fundraising drive. It would also significantly elevate the public understanding about an issue that defines who we are as a people because it betrays the ideal of the American Promise, a central theme of President Obama’s campaign poignantly captured here:

Les Bernal

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Sen. Murray was using step one in the old expanded gambling playbook.  I blogged about this last May, which just happened to mark the beginning of my third year battling an industry which tried to convince me that a Native American casino in my neck of the woods was inevitable (it wasn’t).  This is the short version.

    <

    p>    1.) Create a sense of inevitability.
       2.) Wave inordinately large amounts of money in front of our most vulnerable citizens – State legislators.
       3.) Inflate the numbers.
       4.) Employ union “influence”.
       5.) Wheel out Prof. Clyde Barrow (still widely believed to be a policy analyst rather than an industry operative)  at least once a month to insist our State pockets are being picked by Connecticut casinos.
       6.) Blow off all casino opposition as bible thumping bleeding hearts without a clue as to how the big boys balance budgets. Employ copious eye rolling here.
       7.) Avoid mentioning any associated costs. Deny them if necessary.
       8.) If step 7 is not possible, with a serious face, insist mitigation will contain any conceivable costs.
       9.) If discussing costs does become painfully necessary, try to make such cost sound like a benefit (e.g. the beneficial stimulation effect of slot machine noise on otherwise shut-in seniors.)
       10.) Remember – it’s not gambling, it’s ‘gaming’ – but more importantly, it’s always just “entertainment.”
       11.) When studies are required, leave out those pesky “social costs” by insisting they are too difficult and cumbersome to measure – and therefore don’t exist or are, at a minimum hard to prove.  Better yet, imply “social costs” = nothing of great importance to the rest of us.
       12.) If these steps fail, return to step 1.

    <

    p>Rinse. Repeat.

    <

    p>Actually, step 1 is a valuable tool in Sen. Murray’s hands because people will tend to think she ‘knows something’ that can only be a mystery to those of us outside the Statehouse.  This serves you well if you don’t want people to put up a fight – because that sort of thing can lead to a definite lack of inevitability.

    <

    p>Another thing Sen. Murray has going for her with the inevitability device is that the majority of the public doesn’t have confidence in the folks at the Statehouse not to cave to the desires of a powerful and well funded industry.  In other words, it is inevitable in both the public’s and Sen. Murray’s mind that she and others in our legislature lack the necessary backbone to defy a powerful lobby and call for an independent blue ribbon panel to carefully study and weigh real costs and benefits before making an irreparable decision that could effect the quality of life here in Massachusetts.

    <

    p>My experience with this issue is that the only thing inevitable about it are the consequences.

    <

    p>  

  2. Bob Oakes is a competent and capable journalist who falls down in the face of the INEVITABILITY steam-roller or the Senate President’s Ca Ching gesture and pot o’ gold fairy tale.

    <

    p>A mighty roar!  

    <

    p>And OMG! Isn’t that grossly over-stated few hundred million going to go far with the $$$ she’s short?

    <

    p>In fairness, the rest of the media is eating out of the hands of Big Gambling, repeating the party propaganda, too lazy to either consider the non-answers they receive, do their homework — readily available or review the experience of other states or countries.

    <

    p>The best part of the entire charade is the careful orchestration to avoid factual debate of the issues.

    <

    p>Is that why gambling proponents and the media have carefully avoided any of the forums that have been offered?

    <

    p>The more issues I have examined that surround casinos, gambling, racinos and slot parlors, the more horrified I am that anyone would promote this as a state revenue source. But then, Ca Ching will be out off office when the consequences of her endorsement are apparent won’t she?

    <

    p>It’s always easier to pass along stupid decisions to the future and find excuses.

    <

    p>

  3. I don’t like her position on this, but it has consistently been her position since Deval unveiled his casino plan two years ago (possibly before then). So I give her some credit for sticking to her guns.

    • in her backyard?

      <

      p>Has Plymouth County been excluded from the legislation?

      <

      p>If we’re being fed media hype about “DESTINATION RESORT CASINOS” can anyone think of a better RESORT location than Nantucket? And the Cape?

      <

      p>

        • Let’s take the last natural beauty of Mass and give it to the hookers,pimps and cokeheads.  Brilliant.  Low life people just are not into government.

        • Do you mean Salisbury, at the Salisbury Beach State Reservation? I can perhaps manage a chuckle about the prospect of giving a thumb in the eye to our neighbor to the north. Maybe folks can pick up a few cases at the nearest rest area on their way to the casino after a vacation in the north country. Or do you mean the Newburyport and Ipswich marshlands — among the most fragile ecosystems of the state? Perhaps you meant Crane’s Beach? Or perhaps Plum Island?

          <

          p>I can’t believe I’m landing so close to Lasthorseman.

          <

          p>If there’s to be an “inevitable” casino, then let it be in downtown Plymouth — the home of our esteemed Senate President. Let’s take the neighborhood around Spooner Pond, where the new “inevitable” casino can have convenient commuter rail access — it can stimulate sales at the Cordage Park Marketplace Shopping Center.

          <

          p>Or, for that matter, let’s locate it in Milton, say at the intersection of Capen and Eliot Streets. That’s under-utilized open space, it’s just a ball field. Again, it offers patrons convenient public transportation access from the Capen Street Red Line stop.

          <

          p>Let the leaders who are convinced that this terrible idea is so good and necessary volunteer their own neighborhoods.

          <

          p>And yes, I am being sarcastic.

          • Though I’m not familiar enough with the area to suggest an exact location.  I just figured that being in an area that already attracts visitors, and yes, close to NH would make it a good location.  I do live within the 50 mile radius of this that is often cited.  It’s not inevitable and I don’t care if we never get them, but I think I have a pretty clear record of not buying a lot of the premises that opponents suggest.  I agree with the Governor that they are “neither panacea nor the end of civilization”.

            • I strongly encourage you to do a bit more investigation before encouraging ideas like this.

              <

              p>You suggested “the beaches region near the mouth of the Merrimack”. That’s more than “exact” enough! You’re talking about

              <

              p>1. The Salibury Beach State Reservation Barrier Beach (emphasis mine):

              Salisbury Beach is a complex barrier beach system, comprised of coastal beach, coastal dunes and salt marsh. Within the Salisbury Beach barrier beach system is the Salisbury Beach State Reservation, which is managed by DCR. The Salisbury Beach State Reservation is concentrated at the southern end of Salisbury Beach adjacent to the Merrimack River, and extends in a northerly direction along 3.8 miles of the Atlantic Ocean to the New Hampshire border as shown in Figure 1. The Merrimack River enters the Atlantic Ocean at the southern end of Salisbury Beach, and the western sector of the Reservation is bordered by adjacent areas of salt marsh. This extensive barrier beach system plays a critical role in the protection of the Merrimack River estuary, along with associated salt marsh habitat, dune preservation, and habitat for threatened and endangered species and other wildlife.
              …
              Coastal beaches, including their tidal flats, are significant to the public interests of storm damage prevention, flood control, and the protection of wildlife habitat. Where tidal flats are present, they are presumed significant to the protection of marine fisheries and, where there are shellfish, to land containing shellfish.

              <

              p>2. The Parker River/Essex Bay Area of Critical Environmental Concern

              <

              p>3. The Great Marsh:

              The “Great Marsh” extends from Cape Ann into New Hampshire and covers over 17,000-acres.

              Salt marshes are found in coastal areas. These unique ecosystems are formed within protective estuaries and support numerous plants and animals. Salt marshes are among the most productive lands on earth, out-competing even the best-managed farms. Two-thirds of all marine fish and shellfish depend on salt marshes during some portion of their lives.

              <

              p>Of all the places in the state, you’ve identified one of the least suitable and most vulnerable regions. Our coastal fishery is already near collapse, and you propose destroying salt marshes — for a casino?

              <

              p>I hope you’ll reconsider.

              • All I meant was the general area that’s relatively easy to drive to from the beaches.  I’m certainly not advocating the negative impacts on the ecosystem that you describe.

                • It doesn’t sound like you’ve spend much time in the area you describe.

                  <

                  p>There aren’t roads to drive on (other than I95) that don’t already impact the ecosystem, you’d have to build more and widen the ones that are there. You’re talking about a huge facility with enormous parking lots, high volumes of automobile traffic in and out — the whole point of the exercise is to attract people from all over New England.

                  <

                  p>It shouldn’t be built at all, never mind the awful social policy it symbolizes. If it’s going to be built, put it the middle of Plymouth, Milton, or the town where some other outspoken proponent lives.

                  <

                  p>Failing that, I suppose there’s always Fort Point, after all a ton of people wanted a stadium there.

                • …that I had personally conducted a thorough feasibility study.  I was just throwing out an idea that seemed to make sense from an economic standpoint.  Don’t take it as any more than that.

                • I usually do think to the appropriate extent and try not to come across as flip most of the time.  As I recall this part of the thread started by asking if there were other ideas.  This is just what popped into my head.  I would certainly think harder before filing legislation or even writing a letter to the editor, but in the context of a blog I think I’m well within bounds.

                • If you’re going to “just throw things out” you can’t be offended and defensive when people who’ve thought the issue through take umbrage.

                  <

                  p>It’s like asking the blog instead of google.  Sure you’re within bounds, but you’re also not advancing the discussion.

                • I intend it to signify that I appreciate that the person is articulating a well-reasoned argument that advances the discussion even though I do not agree on the substance.

                • (in the case of the 5 I most recently gave you) I sometimes use it as an acknowledgement that a question was answered or concern addressed, a short-hand and lazy way of saying thank you.

                • It doesn’t take a “thorough feasibility study”, that’s not the point. The point is that you appear to join the proponents in paying far more attention to the economic aspects then to the impact on people of this plan.

                  <

                  p>Organized crime offers LOTS of rackets that make sense “from an economic standpoint”, gaming being just one of them.

                  <

                  p>It is the social impact we should be paying attention to. The fact that our misguided casino proponents ALWAYS want them somewhere other than their own towns should offer a clue about why they’re a bad idea.

                • At least take a look at what’s there. That is the mouth of the Merrimack. Traffic on the roads in that area on Summer weekends rivals that on the Cape. Putting a casino in that area would be a bad idea.

            • Let’s build casinos in the sky, on solar space ships with no emissions or negative impacts.

  5. You, and all of the other anti-casino/nimby lobbyists. Aren’t you worried about health insurance reform, cuts to education, and other much more pressing issues.  

    <

    p>When you’re done stopping a resort casino from coming to the state, you can start addressing the issue of shopping addiction.  Let’s fence off everyone’s right to shop
    so we can make shopping addiction history.

    • Opposing them and their side effects is more than nimbyism.

      <

      p>If all you’ve got as a counter is snide remarks about shopping addiction, you ain’t got nothing.

  6. I get a great laugh out of listening to these Stop Predatory Gambling zealots, especially when their argument is reduced to quoting right-wing evangelical academics like Professor Earl Grinols of Baylor University and Professor John Kindt of the University of Illinois.

    <

    p>A little caffeine jolt for all you politically-correct liberals who buy into Stop Predatory Gambling’s rant and the anti-gambling doctrines espoused by Grinols and Kindt.

    <

    p>Grinols is the founder of the Association of Christian Economists.   He believes that economic development — in HIS words — “should be based on biblical interpretation.”   He is also a founder of Evangelical Economists for Bush, having  been a principal of the group in 2000 and in 2004 when the evangelical group endorsed George W. Bush for president because of Bush’s “substantive economic views and his proposed economic policies.”   Huh?

    <

    p>Okay, so the so-called “academic experts” that Stop Predatory Gambling and all the other politically-correct liberals are citing are evangelical economists who believe that economic development should be based on biblical scripture, and who endorsed Bush for the presidency in 2000 and 2004.   And Kindt, by the way, is cut from the same cloth and was a protege of Grinols when Grinols was a professor at the University of Illinois.

    <

    p>The world has gone crazy when the politically-correct liberals who are anti-gambling zealots are quoting evangelical economists who championed Bush’s disastrous fiscal and economic policies.

    <

    p>Next thing you’ll be doing is embracing Pat Robertson’s view of environmental policies and regulations.

    <

    p>The world’s round folks; it isn’t flat.   No matter what your evangelical experts tell you!

Archives