Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

They won’t use their own product but they will sing their own theme song

By

The Boston Herald reports

Foxwoods Resort Casino in Connecticut is looking for a new voice to resurrect its catchy “Wonder of It All” theme song and has launched an online “American Idol”-type contest.  

The contest is open to professionals and amateurs. To attract the younger clientele that Foxwoods has been targeting since the MGM Grand expansion opened last year, the casino is encouraging contestants to think outside the box, according to director of advertising Roy Colebut.

Here are some themes that will likely not appear in the new song:

“Play to extinction”, the phrase used by the predatory gambling trade to describe the intent behind the design of electronic gambling machines which is to get people to use it until all their money is gone;

“We miss you”, which is how Foxwoods began a direct mail letter to a New York woman after she already had written the casino twice asking to be taken off their marketing lists because she was a problem gambler;

“Casino capitalism”, the term commonly used to describe our economic crisis which stands for using predatory practices, financial gimmicks and something for nothing schemes to promote an illusion of free money, all at the expense of unsuspecting Americans.

The biggest wonder of it all is this is the only product or service where the people who own it and promote it, don’t use it. But they will do all the singing they can to get everyone else to use it.

Les Bernal

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. I saw nothing in your diary or links to elaborate on that assertion, let alone back it up.  I’m still convinced most of your objections are regulatable rather than reasons to ban outright.  Another possible regulation I just thought of (in addition to those I’ve suggested previously) is that slot machines be subject to inspection by a state Department of Weights and Measures like gas pumps are to prevent what the Post article refers to as loading the dice in a way no self-respecting casino would tolerate at table games.

    • to click SPG’s links –

      <

      p>From the first link:

      He [Wynn] told [Charlie] Rose the only way to win in a casino is to own one, “unless you’re very lucky.”

      And he says, even when people are lucky, they usually gamble away their winnings.

      “You have never known in your entire life a gambler who comes here and wins big and…walks away?” Rose asked.

      “Never,” Wynn replied.

      “You know nobody hardly that over the stretch of time is ahead?” Rose asked.

      “Nope,” Wynn said.

      The customer’s loss is Wynn’s gain. He’s a billionaire, but he isn’t all that interested in gambling: his passion is creating the resorts.

      From his third link:

      As treasurer, Cahill is statutorily prohibited from buying lottery tickets, and won’t be able to gamble at whatever casino is inevitably built. But that’s OK with him.

      “I don’t gamble,” Cahill said. “I never have.”

      As for the second link, I confess that I don’t want to buy the book from Amazon and read it.

      <

      p>I do think SPG’s point is made, if it wasn’t already self-evident. The people who know the most about the gambling industry don’t risk their own money gambling.

  2. your comments, Christopher, as well as those of Senator Pacheco, much of my testimony before THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES on October 29th addressed this issue.

    <

    p>Although 3 minutes is a short time to accomplish what needs to be said, allow me to address the fallacies of your beliefs.

    <

    p>I am an anonymous volunteer who has reviewed the reports, the costs, considered the experiences of others and found that we simply cannot afford to subsidize wealthy investors. The more I have read in the last almost 3 years, to more I recognize how expensive this proposition is for the taxpayer.

    <

    p>

    The state, as regulator becomes promoter – an unattainable conflict.

    Once approved, there is no way to rid oneself of these monsters that remove ALL discretionary income from local economies and destroys small businesses, the economic engine of new job creation.

    Professor Grinols examined sales tax records over time and proved that point.

    The predators move in with great promises of: loss limits, smoking bans, job creation, local control. When revenues fail to materialize, promises are discarded in the thirst for ever increasing revenues to cover the costs that gambling addiction drives, in a downward spiral.

    Don’t think you’ll be different. It’s in the Casino Handbook.

    Canada increased their loss limit to $500,000 per year to increase tax revenues.
    How many of us could afford that?

    They also cut funding for gambling addiction — which was assured when legislation was approved.

    They removed the ban of alcohol consumption at slots because it increased revenue.

    Riverboats floated down the river for 2 hours of gambling.
    Now, they’re tied up to the docks to allow for continuous gambling.

    Twin River closed at 2 AM.
    In bankruptcy court, they’re seeking 24 hours gambling which the host community soundly opposed in a referendum.

    Any belief that predatory gambling can be controlled and limited has been tried elsewhere and failed.

    Once approved, it’s an ever expanding monster that doesn’t pay for its costs. Taxpayers do.

    When a business model is based on creating addiction and “playing to extinction,” the customer base is quickly exhausted.

    90% of revenues are generated by 10% of patrons.

    Those patrons play to extinction – until they have exhausted their bank accounts, retirement plans, re-mortgaged their homes, borrowed or stolen from friends, relatives and employers.

    This is no longer entertainment.

    We need jobs that provide hope for the future, offer skills that are transferable, offer advancement and opportunity, jobs we can be proud of.

    Casinos offer low wage, unskilled jobs and plenty of them.

    Most don’t require high school diplomas.

    What is regulation, oversight, enforcement, investigation, prosecution, auditing, incarceration going to cost? And the social services costs of family destruction, child protection?

    And what of the local impacts? Crime, traffic, public schools, infrastructure, public safety, the WMCAT report.

    Reasonable casino revenue projections equal projected lottery losses. A net net.

    Since lottery revenues represent direct returns to cities and towns, this reduction is simply not acceptable.

    I forwarded the link to each member of this committee to the recently released Australia Gambling Report that indicates the social and economic flaws of predatory gambling.

    The effect of widespread gambling machine availability on the economy can be seen in Australia, where gambling losses are now 3.1 percent of household consumption, 6.3 percent in Northern Australia (page 2.3).

    We have the benefit of the experience of many others before we follow this “something for nothing” path.

    I’m an average anonymous voter who sees the gross flaws in the fictitious job figures and revenue projections that have been publicized, just as you should.

    A recent BSU study over more than 20 years found an employment increase of about 1% with a decline of local wages.

    I expect the best of my elected leaders that they will question and examine available information and respectfully insist that an impartial cost benefit analysis is prepared, just as our New Hampshire neighbors are doing.

    Leadership is not about allowing yourself to be blinded by the glitter of Fool’s Gold or to hear only the voices of well paid lobbyists.

    ‘In summary, casinos have inflicted pain where ever they have been built, Atlantic City, Detroit, Connecticut and Rhode Island.

    It is bad public policy and bad economics.

    I recommend the members of this Committee do some homework, read the National Gambling Impact Study Commission Report, visit those failed gambling sites and insist on an independent cost-benefit analysis before you vote to inflict the pain of casinos on the most vulnerable citizens of the great state of Massachusetts”

    <

    p>There is a great deal of information available on the United to Stop Slots in Mass site –
    http://www.uss-mass.org/

    <

    p>I am truly humbled to be associated with Les Bernal and many others who have formed the coalition of gambling opponents.

    • I refuse to believe that it is inevitable that a state must change the law to kowtow to either the industry or its own thirst for revenue.  In logic class we were taught that a slippery slope is by definition a fallacy.  I have also seen and read contradictory information regarding the job situation, and no, not all from industry sources.

      • I refuse to believe that it is inevitable that a state must change the law to kowtow to either the industry or its own thirst for revenue.

        <

        p>You are aware that Coakley has written legislation she considers indispensable if the Commonwealth is going to host resort casinos?

        • I just think that whatever actions ever jurisdictions have taken does not forordain that we will automatically go down the same path.  I don’t doubt that it will be TEMPTING to do so, but we are not talking about Fate or predestination; we are talking about decisions made by people who will not be voting with a gun to their heads.  If you want to link to or summarize the Coakley legislation I might be able render an opinion thereon.

          • “that it is inevitable that a state must change the law to kowtow to either the industry or its own thirst for revenue,“

            <

            p>and I am pointing out the Coakley’s legislation is evidence to the contrary.  

            • The only thing I can infer is maybe her legislation doesn’t contain these regulations at all, and if that’s the case I might not go along with it.  I have no idea whether it is evidence to the contrary or not without knowing the content.  Plus just because legislation is proposed doesn’t mean it has to pass.

  3. right, Christopher, and I would appreciate the names of the states or countries that have avoided the predictable pattern of ever expanding gambling since you have obviously read a great deal and are well versed in the matter. If you believe that predatory gambling can be controlled, please site your source because I must have missed those articles.

    <

    p>Rhode Island just agreed to allow 24/7 gambling, ahh! But they’ll stop serving alcohol!

    <

    p>

    [Lottery Director Gerald Aubin said]”…[we] realize there is a lot of revenue that can be generated as a result” of all-night gambling.

    The current hours of operation are 9 a.m. to 3 a.m. Monday through Thursday, and round-the-clock on weekends and holidays, with liquor service cut off between “12:30 – 12:45 a.m.”

    • They’ll stop serving booze for 15 minutes? How will they be able to sustain that reduction in revenue?

      • …keep alcohol off the premises (or at least out of the casino building itself in the case of a resort facility) entirely.  It impairs judgement and can easily lead to compulsive behavoir and even more of the trouble opponents are concened about.

  4. you’ll find that most of us referred to the known business model in which 90% of casino revenues come from 10% of the players.

    <

    p>This business model was included in the book that Les Bernal linked to in his comments.

    <

    p>As a consequence of Mr. Bernal calling it to the attention of the committee that NOT ONE MEMBER questioned any industry member that testified last week, one committee member asked that question and received a response to the effect “I never heard of that business model.”

    <

    p>Didn’t that person work for Harrah’s? Wasn’t the book referring to Harrah’s?

    <

    p>Christopher, in my logic class, I was taught “If it smells bad, it’s probably rotten.”

    <

    p>Discretionary income is declining while unemployment is rising. Home heating costs will rise this winter because we have failed to promote a labor intensive market — energy retrofitting of homes on a large scale.

    <

    p>Gambling is simply bad public policy.

    • …you didn’t have a good class.  We were definitely taught that you must prove every assertion on its own merits, not just on past practice.  My professor would have had a fit if I had told him, “If it smells bad, it’s probably rotten.”  I’ve heard that 90/10 ratio thrown around as if it were gospel, but I just have a hard time believing that to be the case.  People I know who go take maybe a couple of trips per year.

      <

      p>In reference to your other comment about whether other jurisdictions have resisted the temptation, I don’t know.  What I don’t like, though, is treating this like a hard science where for every action there is always the same reaction.  We’re not talking about something like gravity where if you let go of something while standing on earth it will always drop.  People have the potential to think for themselves and just because “everybody’s doing it” doesn’t mean we have to.  There is always a first time for everything.

        • Though I suspect he’d want more actual proof that 90/10 is a hard number than I’ve seen so far too.  Although in my defense I’m not sure I’m under quite as much burden to prove a negative.

          • I mean, he says it’s true, so it must be right?  All I’ve gotten from him about the 90/10 split is a page number for a book I have no intention of buying from Amazon just to back up a claim some anti-gambling zealot made on BMG.  It’s a case of “Les says she said the Harrah’s management said”.  No mention of whether it was a back of the envelope calculation given off the top of the head by the Harrah’s guy, a systematic and well-run study by Harrah’s, or a number pulled out of the hat.  No explanation of why the Harrah’s number diverges from similar studies so significantly.  The number appears to be “too good to check” in Les’s mind because it fits his narrative so well.

            <

            p>For logic class fans, Les’s last response to my question over 90/10 (a thread here in April) was an “appeal to authority,” insinuating that I thought the journalist was lying.  When asking to see the data provokes as many red herrings as we’ve seen, the credibility of the statistic is really called into question.  

            <

            p>I take a post with the phrase “Predatory Gambling” as seriously as Lasthorseman’s latest antivax screed.

              • Christopher, I have focused on the conduct of the predators once they establish facilities.

                <

                p>Canada initially forbade alcohol at slots. Desparate for additional revenues, they now allow it.

                <

                p>Every restriction put into place is evenutually eliminated.  

                • That proves absolutely nothing about what WE can/must/might do.  Let’s cross that bridge when we come to it.

  5. I am sympathetic to the cause, and would rather not see any legalized gambling business in the state, but I am getting really tired of getting hit over the head every other day with these repetitive hyperbolic attacks. Why are you wasting so much time posting this? Everyone here has gotten the point a long time ago.

    <

    p>

    • Great question.  You “get it” and I “get it”, but it is rather apparent that many Legislators and the Governor do not “get it”.

      <

      p>There is a group in the Legislature including Senate and House leadership who  continue to spout misinformation about jobs and revenues with no balanced discussion of costs; short-term and long-term.  

      <

      p>Is it not wrong for the Senate President to repeatedly state that $1 billion dollars of gambling revenue goes out of state while not informing the public that less than $100 million would be retained after expenses and taxes?  That 80% of the above (< $1 million) “revenue” would be the off-set for the lottery losses and that the cost of a regulatory commission, mitigation for municipalities, education, public safety, court, corrections, addiction, bankruptcy, etc…would be in the hundreds of millions of dollars?  Should we not expect the Governor, Senate and House leadership to speak to the comprehensive matter at hand?  Should we not expect media to boldly question 30,000 construction jobs touted by the Governor and statewide leaders?  Should we not expect media to track the continued down-shift of projected jobs, salaries and revenues and the lack of an independent cost-benefit analysis?  

      <

      p>Since our paid officials whose duty it is to perform due diligence are betraying the public trust what avenues are left to pursue dialog and debate on an issue that impacts all other matters before the people of the Commonwealth?

      <

      p>When people don’t have access to lobbyists and deep pockets for statewide promulgation of misinformation what do we have?  Blogs, letters to editors, emails, phone calls.

      <

      p>I am as sick of this issue as the next person.  I will not retreat, as long as I am able, from exposing the fallacies, lack of transparency, influence of special interest groups and money upon elected officials and the public.

      • There are literally hundreds of worthy causes that we could lobby our legislators to address. We don’t need to be nagged about this every other day. It does not accomplish what you think it does. It attracts already-convinced anti-gambling zealots and pushes everyone else away. Is that what you really want?

        • You will not shut people up who are exercising their first amendment and civic engagement on this blog.  The posts by the anti-slots activists have included copious amounts of data-based information and are of value perhaps to others.

          <

          p>I see people blog repeatedly on their pet issues and would not nor should I suggest to them to stop.  Your criticisms are your own and I do not discount your perspective.  To say that my research and conclusions on this issue are “spam” is an insult.  Don’t read the topic if it is not of interest to you.

          <

          p>I responded to your post with respect and substantive information on why blogging is used as one of the tools for the people without money, power and influence.  Media, Legislators and their staff read BMG.  

          <

          p>I will not retreat, as long as I am able, from exposing the fallacies, lack of transparency, influence of special interest groups and money upon elected officials and the public.

          • I am strongly suggesting that you should not post so frequently on the same topic without adding anything new to the discussion. It’s boring and makes me want to tune out, even though I am genuinely sympathetic to what you are trying to do. If I had absolutely no interest in the topic, I wouldn’t read any of your posts. But because I am interested, I keep reading only to find that you just say the same thing over and over and over and over again. It’s like the boy who cried wolf. Some day you will have something new to say but no one will notice because we stopped reading.

            <

            p>Of course, if my comments don’t interest you, feel free not to read them. 😉

            • which is why I replied to you respectfully and with explanation of my perspective on the need to blog frequently on a legislative issue that is under current consideration…the Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies voted to approve simulcast at two tracks this week and there will be a full House vote next week.  This is clearly a “placeholder” for the larger issue of slots.

              <

              p>The proponents have spent close to a million dollars on lobbyists this year to have their way with the Commonwealth.  The urgency is created by the power of the proponents to manipulate the legislature and the people of the Commonwealth.

              <

              p>I will take your comments under advisement as your sincerity is clear in your last post.  Thank you.

              <

              p>

        • That’s really uncalled for.  Is the spamming for other committed activists you have repeated posts…equal rights, fernald, etc?  Newsflash- his is an open forum, not your personal in box.  

          <

          p>I really don’t understand your and Christopher’s big beef here, almost seems like it’s personal.

          • …I just get tired of hearing the same thing over and over again with seemingly no new information or fresh news “hook” to bring it up.  Les Bernal has made his feelings on this abundantly clear and I doubt those feelings will change, but I don’t see why he has to constantly repost the same arguments differentiated only by wording.  It’s not spam, but I share HR Kevin’s weariness of the subject.  If/when an actual bill comes up again to legalize slots THAT would be the time to say something, but for now it just feels like we’re beating a dead horse.

            • But it’s a little hard to understand why you guys are so concerned with the timing and effectiveness of arguments that you clearly don’t agree with.    

              <

              p>And while the merits of many arguments are debatable, your statement about the timing couldn’t be more off base.  There was a hearing last week, and the legality of casinos/slots in MA is likely to be determined in the next couple months.  If anything, this is a time for lot more discussion about the effects of this potentially tremendous and permanent change for the commonwealth.    

              • It just seems like we hear every couple of weeks from the same people rehashing the same arguments.

          • This forum is not exclusively for committed anti-gambling activists. Nor are they even in the majority here. No doubt activists love to get fed their daily dose of outrage, but many others here aren’t so excited about it.

            <

            p>Of course, the poster can do whatever they want. If they want to post this stuff every hour on the hour, they can do that. But you should not delude yourself into thinking that the frequency of this type of post is really helping the cause.

      • …some of us do get it in the sense that we understand the arguments and the rationale behind them, but have nevertheless drawn different conclusions from them.  THAT’s my principle objection to this discussion – the attitude I sense from casino opponents that reasonable people cannot disagree on this issue.  This includes the legislature and Governor.  I’m getting tired of the idea that if you don’t see casinos in the apocolyptic terms that some do you are either ill-informed or badly motivated.

  6. to invest in a book, you might try your local library system. If you haven’t experienced the system of borrowing books from the library, I highly recommend it!  😉

    <

    p>I would like to offer my rather simple explanation to those who are ‘tired of listening’ to discussions of the issue.

    <

    p>Predatory Gambling is wildly profitable.

    <

    p>The industry buys the best marketing, best psychologists, best studies, best colleges and universities to provide endorsements, much as the tobacco industry did. In short, they monopolize the conversation in case no one had noticed.

    <

    p>Surely, there are some in this forum who remember when Big Tobacco “bought” credible scientists and professors to publicly defend smoking as “safe.”

    <

    p>The Predatory Industry conducts polls to determine what phrases, sound bytes and names reduce public objection.

    <

    p>To me, a slot parlor is a slot parlor, regardless of glitter and lights. Or the “Wonder of it All”

    <

    p>Last year, they were called Destination Resort Casinos. Sounds benign?

    <

    p>According to a recent email from Salem Mayor Kim Driscoll,
    resort-style entertainment complexes. Wow!

    <

    p>The false sound bytes are, among other things  —

    <

    p>overstated job creation
    unsubstantiated revenue projections
    false economic multiplier effect

    <

    p>Although the final figures are not yet available, it is believed that the predators spent in excess of $35 million promoting the misleading information in Ohio to gain an affirmative vote on their 5th referendum.

    <

    p>After almost 3 years of reading about this predatory business, reading reports and research, most of us continue to find new and surprising things that reinforce our opposition.

    <

    p>In gambling, follow the money.

    <

    p>

  7. ….we get nowhere very fast.  

    <

    p>The  Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound activists have been working hard to fight against a certain green energy initiative in the bay state.  Are their arguments valid?  Probably so…to a certain degree and to a certain group of motivated and passionate citizens.  Is there always some argument against any proposal?  Of course, passion for causes abound everywhere.  Do they always provide a good service to the state and country, no, I’m afraid not.

    <

    p>

    Nantucket Sound may get new status

    In a letter released late in the afternoon, Brona Simon, state historic preservation officer, said she believes that Nantucket Sound is so culturally important to two Wampanoag tribes that it should be eligible to be listed on the National Register as a traditional cultural property. Her decision conflicts with an earlier conclusion by the Minerals Management Service, the federal agency that led the environmental review of the Cape Wind project.
    …..
    Wind farm supporters said the tribes’ concerns are a delaying tactic. They say the Native Americans’ claims, aided recently by publicity efforts by Cape Wind’s main opposition group, the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, have delayed the project more than six months.

    <

    p>I think one or two resort casinos in Massachusetts is not going to hurt anything.  I think slot parlors on every corner would be damaging to the state. We can meet in the middle on this.  One or two resort casinos in Massachusetts is that compromise.  

    • …to many opponents are not willing to meet in the middle.  They see the fight as all or nothing and they clearly prefer nothing because they see (a free-for-)all as the only alternative.  Not that enforcement is perfect in this regard, but I still contend that if you can legalize and regulate alcohol, through zoning, licensing, age restrictions, purchase limits etc.  there’s no reason it can’t be done for gambling.  As for the conflict concern since the state has a revenue stake I’d be curious about alcohol regulation in NH.  I don’t know the details, but I’m not aware of enforcement being lax due to to the fact that the state owns the liquor stores.

  8. Christopher, of all of your arguments, you’re insisting that you’ve read all about predatory gambling but failed to indicate a state that has successfully limited the expansion of gambling.

    <

    p>Since you continue to insist that predatory gambling CAN be regulated and controlled, please indicate WHERE?

    <

    p>On the United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts site, you will find a page filled with reports.

    <

    p>Why do you believe that if no one else has limited or controlled predatory gambling, Beacon Hill that did a miraculous job of the Big Dig, will miraculously succeed?

    <

    p>What I seem to see is someone who insists “logic should prevail” where none has before.

    <

    p>The social cost of state promoted gambling are staggering. How do you value the social services costs of abandoned children?

    <

    p>It took me 2 years to recognize the COST of gambling addiction because I failed to understand that it was the lowest self-referred addiction and had the highest suicide/attempted suicide rate.

    <

    p>With gambling addiction, comes crimes, prosecution, court costs, incarceration.

    <

    p>Realistic estimates of slot revenues equal the loss of lottery revenues.

    <

    p>The lottery returns 25 cents of every dollar wagered to cities and towns. Do you know what the math is of slots?

  9. Christopher, you have indicated in your numerous posts that you’ve done extensive reading about predatory gambling and can provide the answers.

    <

    p>You seem to indicate from your extensive reading that Massachusetts can avoid the pitfalls of other states, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.

    <

    p>I’m waiting for your wisdom. Surely, you can share that with us.

    <

    p>Otherwise, I have no choice but to believe you are simply a casino shill masquerading. Or shall I label it “math-querading” ?

    <

    p>In your comments, you fail to address the economic folly of predatory gambling that targets 10% of patrons to exploit gambling addiction.

    <

    p>In your comments, you have repeatedly failed to address the flawed business plan.

    <

    p>In your comments, you have failed to address what studies have proven —

    <

    p>For every $1 in tax revenue, the cost to tax payers is $3.

    <

    p>You claim “opponents” are unwilling to meet in the middle.

    <

    p>When will you address the actual costs and reality of expanded gambling in the Commonwealth?

    <

    p>To me, this is an economic equation.

    <

    p>

Archives