The Book of Adam

Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.

--Steve McCroskey, Airplane

Last week a post appeared on Blue Mass Group, where I also blog, announcing that former Middleboro selectman Adam Bond is running for State Rep as a Democrat, in the 12th Bristol district.  In addition, I also learned that Bond was poised to be added to Lakeville's newly formed casino task force.

Folks, it remains an utter, inexplicable mystery to me as to why, after all that has occurred in these past five years, that anyone, including Adam Bond, thinks he has the right stuff to hold public office, or that he actually possesses a clue about Indian law or the negotiation of tribal contracts.

Let’s review:

- In the summer of 2007, Bond participated in negotiations with the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and their investors to produce an intergovernmental agreement for an off-reservation tribal casino and sovereign nation. During these negotiations, he helped develop language, in section 22B of that agreement, to compel sitting and future Selectmen to support and actively work to assist the tribe to obtain any and all approvals needed to complete the casino project. Bond responded to public outcry that the clause might compel selectmen to forward the Tribe’s agenda over the towns’, with blatantly misleading comments.



- The first time the Tribe rejected a contract proposal, Bond quickly folded and developed a proposal much more favorable to the Tribe, and not to the town.

- The final proposal Bond helped negotiated required that the Tribe pay the town only an annual payment of $20,000 toward the mitigation of gambling addition. This and other aspects of the intergovernmental agreement severely under compensated the town for potential impacts.

- Bond and his fellow selectmen never made any effort to present a balanced debate on the casino issue to the public. The few public forums that were held consisted only of selectmen, casino interests and/or Indian gaming lawyers. During these public forums casino opponents were routinely gaveled to silence or ridiculed.

- Bond aggressively rushed the timeline for a referendum vote on the casino, deeply limiting the amount of time that Middleboro’s own hand-selected casino task force had been given to study and report back on the issue, and giving voters only a few days to study the final agreement before voting on it.

- During this time, Bond’s abrasive behavior did not help an already tense situation in Middleboro or surrounding communities. His many notable public comments, such as referring to casino opponents as ‘braying mules’ displayed a decided lack of diplomacy. He also managed to alienate other towns in the region with statements such as, he didn’t care the casino trash went, “as long as it didn’t stay in Middleboro.”

- Bond’s focus then and after, was always on ‘the deal’ – the intergovernmental agreement between the Tribe and Middleboro. He was content to believe that ‘mitigation’ could salve any wound the town might suffer due to a casino, seemingly unable to understand that many of the same people he was elected to represent did not put a price tag on their quality of life.

- Despite his self-styled image as an experienced attorney and savvy negotiator, boasting of bringing ‘sophisticated business practices’ to Middleboro, Bond repeatedly neglected opportunities to educate himself on many important aspects of the issue.

- Prior to the town vote on a casino, an 84 year old Mashpee Wampanoag elder named Ameila Bingham attempted to warn the Board of Selectmen about then-tribal chairman Glenn Marshall’s suspicious financial dealings. The board and Bond managed to strenuously ignore Mrs. Bingham’s warnings (and her) to it’s eventual detriment, because Marshall would eventually would be charged with making illegal campaign contributions and embezzlement. But in 2007, Bond dismissed the tribal elder’s warning and the writing on the wall as irrelevant. “We all have skeletons in the closet,” he said. “I still trust the man.”

- Bond’s various ascertains about aspects of Indian gaming law and Federal Indian policy have repeatedly been proven inaccurate. Despite this, and even while much of the town still was still against hosting a casino, he continued to wear a baseball hat around town, with the words, “It’s Coming”, referring to a casino.

- At the now-infamous outdoor town meeting, Middleboro voters, convinced by Bond that they could get a casino anyway, voted in favor (although by slightly less than a 2/3rd majority) of signing an agreement with the Mashpee Tribe, while in a 2nd non-binding vote, voted “overwhelmingly” (to quote the Town Moderator) that they didn’t want a casino at all. However, when residents asked if this information could be communicated to the Dept. of the Interior, Bond lead the charge to declare the vote as “irrelevant”.

- He would later, on his professional web site, actually write that he’d handled “the political marketing of the casino concept”, claim to be an expert in gaming law, and was willing to provide a service called “political engineering”. This was all while he was a sitting selectman for the town of Middleboro.

- In May of 2008, Mass Highway held a meeting in Middleboro regarding plans to make much needed safety improvements to Rte. 44, where it was revealed that in the previous three years alone there had been over 100 accidents along the Middleboro stretch of 44. Still, Adam Bond asked if there was anyway these improvements could be delayed to accommodate the Tribe’s construction time line. In fact, the reason I attended to this meeting was because I knew Adam would be there to represent the Tribe, not the better interests of the Town or surrounding communities, and therefore wanted offer my support for the safety improvements.

- In 2007, Bond officially 'sanctioned' anti-casino bloggers at a selectman's meeting, and CasinoFacts.org on Town letterhead.  

- While still on the Board of Selectmen, Bond started a blog, responding to criticism of his role in the casino issues by comparing his critics and their tactics to racists, Nazis and the mafia.

But don’t just take it from me. The Editorial Board of the Brockton Enterprise had made it’s own insights on Bond’s character.

What is Adam Bond’s problem?

The now former Middleboro selectmen chairman who has long had a thin skin and a “my way or the highway” attitude took his ball and went home at Monday’s meeting, quitting the Board of Selectmen with no notice. It was a strange performance, even by Bond’s standards.

Bond has been the biggest proponent in town government of bringing a casino to Middleboro. He led the charge to sign a deal with the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe to build a $1 billion gambling complex and then, when Wampanoag leadership was in disarray, tried to reopen the deal to get even better terms.

But Bond’s behavior lately has been unconventional and inappropriate for any town official. The outspoken Bond, apparently not pleased with his fellow selectmen, started writing a blog in which he was critical of selectmen and what was happening in town. These cheap shots were unfair and unacceptable. Bond claimed his Web musings were written as a private citizen, but that is nonsense. A town official doesn’t cease to be a public figure when the meeting ends. Selectmen everywhere know that, like it or not, they are on the job 24 hours a day and they cannot speak from the podium one moment and then write commentary on the Web the next and expect the public to differentiate which comments come from Selectman Bond and which come from Private Citizen Bond.

- In the ensuing years, Adam Bond has claimed that his stance on the casino issue was driven by his steadfast belief that a tribal casino in Middleboro was inevitable. Clearly, it was not.  What's also clear is that Bond should have done his homework, like some of us did, instead of gulping the Kool-Aid.

And so it's equally inexplicable as to why Bond continues to offer his advice on the casino issue.  He's rarely been right about any aspect of it, and while in office was ever eager to give the tribe advantages over the very people he was elected to represent, conveniently covering his backside with Section 22 of the IGA - that he also conveniently helped negotiate.  And the whole quality-of-life thing - Bond never got it.  So I ask, how do you mitigate something you don't understand in the first place?

Oh... but Bond is an attorney.

A common misconception is that if a person is an attorney or has some sort of other professional credentials with regards to casinos or Indian policy, then they must be an expert. But that's not the case. In fact, many so-called 'experts' in these areas are paid to provide a positive spin.

Take Clyde Barrow, a professor of public policy at UMass Dartmouth, and one of the most quoted 'experts' on casinos.  Thing is, Clyde Barrow has shilled for the gambling industry.  Feel free to read more about the veracity of various 'expert opinons' and behold the maze of mutually beneficial expert-promoter relationships that have become the cottage industry of casinos and slot barns here.

That's why it's vital to consider your source of information when it comes to casinos or Indian gaming.

If the Lakeville Casino Task Force is really looking for solid advice on Indian Gaming and Federal Indian policy, they are fortunate to have several great grassroots volunteer resources nearby, backed up by nation-wide networks.  Just give me a holler.

Likewise, there is NOTHING to prevent Bond from helping the citizens of the 12th Bristol.  But he doesn’t have to do it from the State House.

I think Adam Bond enjoys being perceived as a leader, but his words and actions have repeatedly demonstrated that he is utterly unsuited to public office.

Take the recent events in Foxboro. While experiencing the casino issue for themselves, Foxboro selectmen did not encourage casino proponents to harass and ridicule casino opponents. Bond, on the other hand did - with enthusiasm.  He attended to parties with them, had ‘secret meetings’ with them, and even brought some of them on his radio show so they could do it for a larger audience.

Foxoboro selectmen did not become cheerleaders of the casino project, despite the fact that they may have been in favor of it. Bond, as you can see, was the ‘biggest proponent’ of the project, rushed it unnecessarily, refused to listen to opponents, called the 2nd casino vote irrelevant, lied on public television about a clause in the IGA that he personally helped to write, and in the process caused a lot of toxic stress for the residents not only of Middleboro, but surrounding towns as well. There are folks in Lakeville, Halifax, Carver,and Plympton and beyond who can tell you the same things that I have about Bond.

And when things got tough, he resigned in typically dramatic style – something he then bizarrely tried to spin into some sort of portrait in courage.

An anonymous person, responding to the negative comments Bond received to the Blue Mass Group posting, implied that I was 'bashing' Adam, that I was throwing stones from the safety of my computer, that I should meet and talk with him first hand to get to know him, and that I lacked Adam's courage, having never run for office myself.  He or she referred to Bond as a 'great American.'

Oh brother.

Ok, here goes.  In Bridgewater we don't get Middleboro selectman's meetings on TV.  So, night after night, I drove down and found myself with a front row seat to Mr. Bond's drippy condescending contempt for the democratic process.  So I was writing what I actually saw and what I heard.  And, as you can see, occasionally Adam's "charm" was even captured on video.

As far as talking to Bond in person, first, I've observed that a visit to Bond's office often turns out  much like a move to Stepford.  Perfectly normal, intelligent fellow witnesses to Bond's behavior and actions suddenly start wanting to re-visit the IGA, or begin to suggest that Adam's decision to step down from the board actually had something to do with helping the town in his capacity as a private citizen.

I don't believe I'm susceptible to Bonds suspect powers of persuasion, but nevertheless, speaking with him face to face, after everything I've seen and heard would be a meaningless exercise.  As if the the Democratic party leadership were to sit down with Rod Blagojevich to get his advice.  With some people, there is a point where you realize that you've already learned all you really need to know.

As far as never having the courage to run for office myself, no, I haven't run.  Instead, I've spent the last five years volunteering virtually all of my time to trying to help folks in Middleboro as well as citizens across the state, the Mass. Legislature, the Governor and his cabinet understand the myriad complexities of predatory gambling and federal Indian policy, as well as writing about, commenting on and otherwise illuminating the political process and the work of activists at all levels. Sometimes to music.

I do realize that a lot of it fell of deaf ears, but then, a lot of people have also told me that it helped.

But, unlike Bond, I've never felt my work entitles me to an elected office, a state paycheck or pension for life.

I don't know why he does.

As far as courage or being brave goes, I don't know about that.  But I do know that, for years, I put up with a lot of abuse from a guy who sponsored Bond's radio show and personal agenda.  It was an incredibly stressful time, not only for me but also for my family.  But, when the same guy ultimately turned on Adam, Bond crumbled like a block of feta cheese.

Oh, and 'great American'?  

A brief synopsis of the Book of Adam:  Without due dilligence or debate, Bond decided a casino was right for Middleboro (and himself), rushed full speed into vote, dividing the town and straining relations with surrounding communities, all while using the bully pulpit to censure and intimidate his critics. Then, when the writing was on the wall, he changed sides, invented a reason to re-open the IGA that would, by no accident, benefit him personally if successful, and was set upon by the same people he'd once gleefully set upon others, the resulting anxiety thereof causing him to pee his pants, resign his office, and attempt to convince the rest of the world he is Gandhi - only to forget all this several years later, and subsequently run for an even higher office for which he is even less suited.

God Bless America.

So like I've said, Bond is free to help the people of the 12th district - without subjecting them to his peculiar form of democracy.

Private citizen Bond, may or may not be, and depending on the individual, a great guy and terrific advocate for the public good - or a slippery thin-skinned self-serving snake charmer.

But Bond in public service would be, and HAS BEEN a proven disaster.

Therefore, good citizens of Lakeville and the 12th Bristol, proceed as you see fit, you are free to think and believe and say whatever you want about Bond.  But don't ever say you weren't warned.

The Other Side of Life

This morning I noticed a lot of hits on this blog, all coming from Foxborocasino.com.  For those who might have missed it, that's the site that got in a little bit of hot water recently after posting 'racy ads'.

BTW, thank you to Jobs for Foxboro and Wynn Resorts for doing the right thing, right away, by denouncing and distancing yourself from the web site and it's owner.  Everyone else, take notice.

The existence of the Foxboro website, with or without the racy ads will come as no surprise to those of us who successfully fought to keep a casino out of Middleboro.  The owner of the site, a former Raynham small businessman, once had a forum called Middleborocasino.com (sound familiar?) where he maintained an entire page devoted purely to yours truly, with photoshopped pictures of me, some in various stages of undress.

The original, fully-dressed photos of me were obtained by the web site owner who held a contest, offering a prize for the best Photoshopping job of me, which included a free limo ride for the winner and a group of friends down to Foxwoods casino and back.

This is despite the fact that, while I've done my fair share of PhotoShopping, as you can clearly see here, I never did so by objectifying people sexually.

As my long term readers, both pro and anti can tell you, I kept my focus on the real players in the casino chronicles - rude, condescending, uniformed elected officials with the ability to sign multi-billion dollar intergovernmental agreements and legislate an industry renown for corruption - who used their votes to serve their own interests.  Indian gaming lawyers who worked both sides of the street and maintained that an Indian casino in Middleboro was a 'done deal', when clearly, it was not.  Tribal chairmen who spouted 'inevitability' and made empty promises.  Committee chairmen who overstepped their assigned roles.  Gambling industry owners and lobbyists who'd say or do or spend anything to expand into Massachusetts.  And a certain public policy analyst who pretended to be neutral while taking money from the gambling industry.

In other words, I practice political satire.  The last bastion of the ignored and powerless.

What I didn't do was to go after the people like me (as satisfying as that might have been.)

But back to the web site in question:

When asked about the Foxborocasino.com link on the release, alarm bells immediately were set off with spokesman Scott Farmelant, principal of Mills & Company.

“This website has no affiliation with Jobs for Foxboro or any related entity,” said Farmelant, who sent off a “cease and desist” email to the Foxborocasino gmail account.

A spokesman for Wynn Resorts also stated it has "no relationship whatsoever" with foxborocasino.com and has "taken action" to have its logo removed from the site.

Ah, how many times I would have loved to have had the resources available to to merely summon an attorney or PR person who'd send a cease and desist order to the web site owner.   Not only then, but also when he took out the web site domain for my real name - MaryTufts.com - often posting very bad things about me there.  You can still visit the web site, though he's recently removed all the previous content and the link to the Foxboro casino site.

On the Middleboro casino site, my fellow casino opponents and I were frequently referred to, by name, as terrorists and and pedophiles.  I remember once the front page of the site, for an entire weekend, read that I and another anti-casino blogger wanted him killed.

In fact, if you were to read the official record of the Bureau of Indian Affairs public hearing in Middleboro in 2008, you would see that this same web site owner referred to me as a terrorist and a liar in front of an entire gymnasium full of assembled onlookers.

Before that hearing he claimed to have visited police stations in several towns trying to have some anti-casino bloggers arrested (we're not sure why.)

The web site owner filled the hours between delusions by joining with other pro-casino advocates on various public forums and comments sections and pretending they were me or other anti-casino bloggers, or making stuff up about us or using our kids names in hurtful ways - you know - the usual family-friendly pro-casino stuff.

They did this for years, by the way.

Years.

In fact, for years, the web site owner and others obsessed over a pair of shorts I once wore to a demonstration, concocting the most vile imaginings and posting them to public forums in an endless pursuit of anti-casino character assassination.  

Then there was the time that the web site owner left a comment on my blog, just as I was heading out to the wake of a relative, threatening to come to my house and do me harm.  This created a great deal of toxic stress and anxiety for myself and my family.  Later I would discover that the web site owner had been previously incarcerated, and had a history of drug abuse and violence.  And yes, I have copies of the police reports.

He once got the worst reporter in the world to write an article - an actual article - about how those mean and nasty anti-casino bloggers were harassing and cyber bullying him - the biggest harassing cyber bully of them all.  Insanely, the article also mentioned that he and "a small group of concerned citizens recently held a meeting to discuss the potential for devising a bill, one that would hold people liable for making slanderous comments on Internet message boards and blogs."   Unbelievable.

The web site owner would frequently post his real name with his comments on our blogs, which he said he did proudly, then would launch into a frenzied verbal conniption fit demanding to have them removed - which is why I'm not which using his real name (but which you can find in the article).  It was always attack-and-blame. Attack-and-blame.  As if he were some sort of victim!  Or perhaps merely a gentle jokester who just happens to run contests to solicit mocked-up 'racy photos' of a mom in the next town he can post to make her feel bad.

Oh wait, don't forget the big Halloween party in Middleboro, held at the town hall, where he dressed up as one of the (married) male anti-casino bloggers, and had his then-wife was dress up to look just like me in a 2007 photo that ran in the Boston Herald.   Then they made out in the middle of the dance floor.  I know this because he had someone take pictures, which he then posted on his Milfordcasino.com web site.  At least I think it was that site.  He has so many just like it.

So, what did I do about this guy who pretty much stalked me for a couple years making my life a living hell? Except for the death threat, I ignored him.  That's what you're supposed to do.  If you don't give them the attention they seek, they'll go away, right?  But it didn't matter, because he was always supported by local pro-casino faction.

But eventually, even they slunk away, watching as the Mashpee Tribe systematically reneged on their promise to build them the 'world's biggest casino', stopped making required payments to the town, and ventured all over Southeast Mass. in search of other places to erect their edifice to greed.  The web site owner drifted off, losing his wife and his business, one might presume, to his casino obsession.  Believe it or not, I quietly wished him well, hoping that he'd get the help he obviously needed and stopped seeking validation in an industry that neither wants nor needs him.

But I stuck around and helped found the largest and most vocal opposition group against expanded predatory gambling in Massachusetts.

My blog will be five years old this year and records my journey -   with photos, videos and lively commentary. I can be proud of that.  Prouder than I could be had I spent my time misrepresenting myself on forums on comment sections, labeling my opponents as pedophiles and terrorists, and pretty much justifying anything I wanted for the benefit of a casino.

Early this year I discovered that the web site owner was at it again - this time in Foxboro.  So I warned at least one of the anti-casino group's leaders about him.  And I didn't even mention all of it.   I hoped that this time he'd behave himself.  I would hate for someone to have to go what me and my family did.  Fighting billionaires, misinformation, and political influence is hard enough without the psychopaths this industry attracts.

I cannot stress how much toxicity this guy and others brought to my life.  I am only now just really starting to feel a little like my old self again.  I am not a politician. I cannot enact or vote on legislation that will lead to things like addiction, bankruptcy, child neglect, domestic abuse and suicide.  I am also not one of the many paid employees of the gambling industry.  I am only a woman who tried to do the right thing.

And, for a time, it seemed like things were going to be better in Foxboro.  But I guess some people never change.  He has been told to cease his connection with the Foxboro casino advocacy groups - something that, in my case and that of my fellow bloggers, would have been nice to hear from the Middleboro board of selectmen (when they weren't hanging out with him) or Tribal leadership.

The sad part is, this guy wasn't the only horrific jerk promoting a casino in Middleboro.  There were others too.

And today, the Foxborocasino web site reads,

'After six years of promoting Resorts in Massachusetts I've been told to "Cease and Desist"  OK!'  

wait a minute...  "OK!"  ??????????????

Yeah right.  This guy links to my blog from that site, as if he is some sort admirer of mine, and hasn't, in actuality tormented me and my family for years.  Using me to look legit.  As if it makes what he did with the Foxboro site "OK!"  

Then, out of curiosity, I Googled my name, discovering that he still owns the domain to the web site in my name - for what reasons I can only imagine - until 2014.

Enough.  I'm done pretending that he doesn't exist.

He exists, he is deeply delusional and he won't go away.  Be advised.

The Myth of Inevitability: Middleboro

It was July, 2007, and a young man I'd met at an early gathering of CasinoFacts.org had mentioned in passing that he'd made some calls and had actually found some places across the country where they'd fought a tribal casino - and won.

I begged him for more information.  Where are these towns?  Was it the same situation as in Middleboro?  Did the casino threat really go away?  How'd they do it?  I wanted so badly to believe that a tribal casino wasn't as inevitable as they said it was - but I hadn't been able to find anything.

There's danger, I knew, in wanting to believe in something so much. It's tempting to grasp at straws, but I'd decided to never accept anything but concrete evidence.  I wouldn't base my hope on just more hope.

Because they told us it was a done deal.  Inevitable.  Sign on the dotted line.  It was as if we were a patient given 18 months to live and well-advised to get our affairs in order.

It never sounded right to me.  It never even sounded American to me.

The next week the man handed me a paper with some notes on it, and I started doing some checking on my own.  I And sure enough, there it was.  The tiny town of Plymouth, California.  I wrote a post about it - The Myth of Inevitability - Part 1.  My readers seemed to sigh in unanimous relief.

Years later I would meet one of the grassroots activists that helped stop that casino in Plymouth, but for that moment, in and around Middleboro, everything was right with the world.

The war was still long from over, but for now, there was even more reason to fight.

We may have been overwhelmed, anxious and frightened.  But we weren't stupid.

Inevitable.

We'd all heard it said so many times.  Attorneys, investors, selectmen, tribal members, media types, legislators, people on the train, and at the podium, and waiting in line at the counter.

Once, on the floor of Massachusetts House of Representatives, we were even called 'deluded' for believing it wasn't.

Well, Mr. Calter, I've got your 'deluded' right here.

Apparently, a month and a half ago, the Federal government rejected the Tribe's application for land in trust in Middleboro.

And I've waited a long time to type the title of this post.

Growing up in the 60's, in a world of hippies and riots and protest I heard it all the time:  'Question Authority'.

I guess some of the most useful lessons in childhood aren't the ones taught in school.

If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.  If something doesn't sound right, it probably isn't.  And if you want something so badly that it blinds you to the truth, forces you lie, clouds your judgement and makes do bad things - it's called greed - and when it comes to casinos, greed is the one truly inevitable thing you can count on from the start.

And the Rose Goes to...

The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, led by Chairman Cedric Cromwell, have finally concluded their Southeast Massachusetts reservation shopping spree - and, as predicted - have settled on a patch of ground in Taunton, reportedly near Rtes. 24 and 140, off the same exit as the Silver City Galleria.

And I, for one, cannot wait to hear how this property once thrived under the vast reach of Cromwells Mashpee Wampanoag ancestors, when they weren't busy greeting the pilgrims and living on Cape Cod, and perhaps even more recently by former chairman, and steward of the orange jumpsuit, Glenn Marshall himself - who no doubt hunted wabbits in Taunton before shipping off to Vietnam where, as we know, he became a great war hero and eventual savior of the Middleboro economy.

(For those who don't know me, this is sarcasm.)

Well, folks the waiting's over.

Now the Tribe just has to submit a new application to the Federal government, wait for it to show up in the National Register, come up with a proposal, negotiate a local mitigation agreement, manage to convince 2/3's of the city to vote in favor of it, sit through several public hearings put on by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, allow the federal government to perform a complete environmental impact study, bypass two recent Supreme Court rulings, have the Dept. of the Interior take the land into trust and reach a compact with the State, all by July 31, 2012.

By the way, just for demonstration purposes of how likely this is, the first public BIA hearing in Middleboro occurred more than 7 months after the town vote.

But then, there's always the wild card.  It has been revealed that the the Tribe recently budgeted $6 Million of it's 2012 budget for 'gaming predevelopment' - and that could translate into a lot of political Ambien when it comes to keeping Cedric's dream alive in the halls of Congress - not to mention behind those perpetually closed doors on Beacon Hill.

So be careful Taunton.  Don't be in such hurry to rush down the aisle with someone you barely know...

Remember, even the most beautiful rose is doomed to shrivel and fade.  Then all you're left with are the thorns.

Let's Get Real

In Foxboro, where they're waging the all-too familiar war of the missing 'No Casino' sign, they're are also fighting the battle of the 'For Sale' Sign.

Whose data is more accurate when it comes to casinos and property values? 

Is it the gloomy report from the towns around Foxwoods citing millions lost in property values on roads leading to the casino, or perhaps the report with sunny statistics to show how property values actually go up around new casinos?

And is any existing property value data inconsequential to Foxboro if it involves only rural or urban communities?

And whose report is less independent. Whose is more reliable?

What's the answer, and who has it?

An apparent lack of substantive data from independent, peer reviewed sources, suggesting a correlation between home prices and casino development in New England towns like Foxboro, Bridgewater and Plainville has become a sticking point in the current debate.

But does it matter?

The first thing many people worry about when they hear a casino might be coming to their neck of the woods is how it would effect their property value.

Of course, they wouldn't be worrying about their property values at all if some instinctive impulse hadn't kicked in to let them know that there was probably something to worry about - even if that impulse had yet to encounter all the hard facts, disputable reports and sunny statistics that would be waiting to support or contradict it just a few mouse clicks away. 

Because property value is a real concern.  People are concerned about it.  And if owners are concerned, why shouldn't buyers be as well?

I mean, there are young people these days, just starting out, without a lot of money and a ton of debt, who nevertheless feel that stainless steel appliances and granite countertops are their birthright. Certainly the looming presence of a nearby casino would be enough to furrow their brows as they scanned the local listings.

Now, I'm not a realtor, but I have searched for home. And so I know, when you're concerned about something, like the fact that the home inspector says there are signs of termites and water damage, there's no way you want to pay full price for termites and water damage. You're going to want the owner to fix the problem or drop the asking price substantially.

As for me, I live on a road near a state prison. Originally, this was a major concern.  Why did I ultimately chose to build my home there? Well for one thing, because I got a sweet deal on the land. 

Years later, when I learned they wanted to build a casino down the street in Middleboro, I once again became concerned.

And I was not alone.  In fact...

Asked what type of development project they’d most like to see in their community... The most unwanted projects are a landfill (74 percent opposed), a casino (72 percent) and a quarry (59 percent).

 --Executive Summary: Toplines & Trends from the 2010 Saint Index

In the world of real estate there are many causes for concern, not just those about a casino, but also for things like nearby high tension wires, poor school systems and skyrocketing crime rates that do not translate into increased buyer confidence.

And the transformation of a college town or bedroom community once viewed as bucolic and family-friendly, into a little slice of Sin City, is absolutely positively going to lead to an eventual decline in property values, and probably a change in residential demographics and traffic patterns as well.

Face it, casinos are a stigma. Now, to be sure, stigmas can be overcome, but not without a price. And I can guarantee you it's a price that won't be paid by mitigation, the state of Massachusetts or any billionaire casino investors.

It'll be paid by property owners in casino host towns and surrounding communities.  

Thanks Deval.

Not for nothing, but I've watched just about every episode of House Hunters that HGTV has ever aired.

And here is something you will never hear on House Hunters:

“We've decided to go with House #2 – the one next to the casino!!.....”

Unless it is immediately followed by

“because it's priced $100,000 less than the other 2 similar houses in other towns!!”

The mere fact that Massachusetts gambling legislation requires an agreement in place for 'community mitigation' - a phrase that essentially means 'money to help lessen the impact of some of the bad things that are definitely going to happen to your town' – before a casino can be built should be enough to give anyone with an investment in their community – whether it's in property, business, family, or quality of life - a reason to question the shiny sparkly promises of casino investors and their self-interested local operatives.

“Will a casino lower my property value?”

It's the first question I asked, it's the first question everybody asks.

So fight the battle of the 'For Sale' Sign if you will.   Dissect every word, distill every phrase in those reports. Debate the whole thing to death on Facebook and blogs, on web forums and in comment sections.

But let's get real. Isn't the fact that people on both sides are currently scrambling to prove that it does or that it doesn't, while others merely search for an answer at all, enough for us to agree that the age-old question of whether a casino will decrease property values is, at the very least, a genuine, valid, de facto concern.

And if that much is true, then couldn't the current debate very well mirror a tomorrow where skeptical home buyers wonder the same question out loud, and local realtors assuage their concerns with offers of sweet deals and scores of sunny statistics?

An Uneven Playing Field

In response to several recent casino proposals, my town council recently suggested the formation of a “Gaming Mitigation Committee'.

So OK, here we go, Bridgewater, listen up.

From now on I need you to think of every casino proposal as if it were a football field.

Imagine that the company wanting to build a casino is at one end of the field. 

The town without a casino is at the other.

Now the second, the moment, the instant a town starts officially using the term 'mitigation', one of those teams moves up to the 50 yard line.

That's because, to the company wanting to build a casino, mitigation means there's a price tag a local government is willing to place on the safety and quality of life in that town.  

And that's music to their ears.

Because now they know they're just haggling over the price.

And 'Gaming'?

'Gaming' is a marketing term the gambling/casino/slot/corruption/political/lobbying industry uses to whitewash/soften/sanitize/glamorize/legitimize it's justifiably dirty image.

They want you and a two thirds majority of everyone else to believe that 'Gaming' implies a mostly harmless form of entertainment.

Well, certainly. 

A mostly a harmless form of entertainment that requires vast amounts of money to pay for the application of influence to assist it's passage into law, and for the expensive regulation, dedicated law enforcement, special interest umbrellas, and perpetually underfunded addiction treatment that follows. 

Not to mention 'mitigation' and tax rates high enough to avoid those tough legislative questions forever, whatever, Amen.

Look folks, Baseball and Football are games. Candy Land and Clue are games. Call of Duty and Mario Kart are games.  Sudoku, Mahjong, Poker and Blackjack are all games. Even Roulette is a game - of chance.

But the 'game' that the gambling industry makes the overwhelming bulk of it's money on – slots – is a deceptive, fixed and predatory 21st century form of loaded dice.

The only real game on the slot floor is the one being played by the casino, figuring out which players they can take, and for how much.

So, for the record, when someone who doesn't work for it starts using the term the 'gaming' industry, it's because they're  either new to it, or because a strange pod-like thing recently showed up in their living room.

Like the pods themselves, the term 'gaming' can be highly dangerous. So don't forget to use quotation marks to keep it safely contained.

And stay alert.  Always use the actual scientific term – gambling – to describe an industry that wins only when individuals, families, businesses and communities lose.

Furthermore – it's not 'The Casino' – it's the 'The Proposed Casino'.

And it's not a resort.  Don't even think of calling it a resort.  It's a casino that may happen to have a resort.  But it won't be a resort that just happens to have a casino.  Resorts don't need their own regulatory bureaucracy.

If you do talk of 'Impacts', keep in mind that the most important of those 'impacts' can never be quantified.

Listen, if you want a level playing field going into this, it's going to be up to you to keep it that way. 

So remember, the best offense is always a good defense.

Form a committee if you must, but call it what it is, a 'Casino Impacts Study Committee' or something of that nature.

Because if the gambling industry really wants to build a casino in your town, they need to prove to you why that would be such a tremendously good idea.

And not just wait for you to hand over the ball.

Breaking News: 4,000 Year Old Desiccated Egyptian Mummy and King Midas Explain How Gambling Can Save Humanity

When I first saw the enthusiastic Foxboro casino protesters on TV, the scene was so hauntingly familiar that I couldn't help but be reminded of the sign beside my front door.  It reads, "Welcome Friends".

I then made the following prediction:

This is their one day.

After that, they will be ignored by the media, which will focus only on the much more glamorous (albeit withered, sundried and botoxed) casino players (in this case Steve Wynn and Bob Kraft) and search out the most vocal folks in town who do want a casino - so as to create an exciting sense of conflict.

Then there will be talk of how much money the town can get.  Yay!  Money!  Who doesn't like money?!

And the excitement!  Newscasters will gush about the possibilities.  Every news outlet will create it's own clever attention-getting 'Foxboro Casino' graphic.

Then there will wild projections about how many jobs will be created.  How a casino will fit right into the community, provide the very manna from Heaven, and assurances that any potential negative effects, no matter how slim the possibility thereof, can be successfully mitigated by that supreme global humanitarian organization - the gambling industry.

The protesters will be quietly and progressively painted as anti-community and worse, anti-job creation.  They are moralists, while casino proponents are realists.  They will be reminded that a majority of Massachusetts residents approve of casinos, though no one will mention that this statistic is reversed when people are asked if they would approve of a casino in their own town.

But besides, it's not like we don't already have gambling here anyway.

Protesters will be accused of being hypocrites because they don't also use their limited resources to protest the lottery.

They will be forced to come up with solid numbers to defend every possible criticism, while their counterparts need only keep saying the words 'jobs' and 'money' to anyone who'll listen.

They will endure personal attacks by neighbors who mistakenly believe the gambling industry actually needs their help.

It will only be a matter of time before a guy named Clyde Barrow slithers into town, pretending to be neutral, but presenting inflated figures of the billions Foxboro can 'recapture' from Connecticut and Rhode Island, all  painstakenly gathered by counting licence plates on holiday weekends in casino parking lots.

At some point there will be some sort of scandal, perhaps even a criminal charge, but no matter, 'tis only a flesh wound, and the project will barrel on in spite of it.

Back in town, decision makers and local power brokers will be the recipients of vague promises whispered in their ears, and soon, headlines will tout that Foxboro is actually in favor of a casino.

By the time it comes down to a vote, the gambling industry will have quietly dropped so much of it's own manna from heaven in the form of propaganda that it will be difficult to cross the street without tripping over it.

The community will be torn in two.  Just like it was in Middleboro.

When it's over, the original protesters will still have their signs, ignored now by the TV cameras, and, tucked under their belts, the sad experience of knowing what it feels like to have a Governor, State Legislature, Attorney General, media and a once-kindly corporate benefactor pretend you don't exist.

And of attempting to participate in a democracy that only serves itself.

Gosh I hope I'm wrong.

Except... on the day of the protest the media did find one woman to say she didn't mind gambling so much.  That it would bring money to the town.  And besides, if you go to the schools and churches, you're gonna find it anyway.

Yes, of course, because church bingo is EXACTLY the same as a multibillion dollar predatory industry that buys political access, employs deceptive digital and ergonomic technology to reap the majority of it's profits, and can, with a single swipe of your credit card, gain access to your entire financial portfolio, then send over a free drink to encourage you to lose it.

The next day on TV they were interviewing some rosy-cheeked football spectators outside Gillette stadium for their point of view, which ranged from delighted to jubilant over the prospect of a free-drink-selling slice of Las Vegas a mere footbridge away.

There was no mention whether or not these folks were actually residents of Foxboro or nearby towns.

Then came the nauseating interview with Kraft and Wynn, elaborating on their plans to save the world through the fabulous, painless, odorless, risk-free, God-ordained gift of gambling.

They promised that the new casino wouldn't be one of those garish, neon-spattered monoliths you can find on the strip in Vegas, but more on the lines of an unobtrusive, cuddly, gentle little casino, nestled in the woodsy heart of the deepest forest where an Ewok might feel at home.

Or perhaps not unlike the gingerbread covered cottage stumbled upon by Hansel and Gretel.

Ah, another town, another poor bunch of folks getting steamrolled by promises, lies, ignorance, greed and neglect.

Just another day in Casino World, where it's all downhill from there.

Welcome Friends.

No Thanks

Devaluation

Perseverance, Triumph, Nosedive

Massachusetts Prehistory
Massachusetts Indian Tribes
Pilgrims
Minutemen
Gloucester Fisherman
54th Massachusetts Regiment
Bread and Roses Strike
Boston Marathon
John F. Kennedy
2004 Boston Red Sox
Political Corruption
Expanded Gambling

(Click on image to enlarge)

The Good Fight

Gambling and politics is about winning or losing. Our Coalition is about doing the right thing, win or lose.

-- Tom Larkin, President
 United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts

April 2009

Gazing up Beacon Hill, it might as well be Kilimanjaro.

For some reason, Frank had dropped us off in the middle of Park Street, which tilts up toward the State House at what feels like a 45 degree angle, leaving Judy and me to hold what we now realize are the world's heaviest signs.

We were supposed to have a nice day for this event, but it's early.  Right now it's still dark and cold and drizzly and all of Boston is lacquered with a depressing coat of fog. Worse, for me anyway, today is what people with a chronic pain condition politely call, 'a bad day.'

Earlier this week my son and I had made the signs with six sheets of poster boards and a new pack of sharpies. I'd bought some tall wooden stakes to nail to the back, and Judy had volunteered her husband, a retired carpenter, to add some sturdy wood frames so they wouldn't curl up.

It sounded like a good at the time. And the signs do look great - but now each of them weigh about a ton. Maybe more. And they're all different sizes, making the bunch of them even more awkard and difficult to hold.

We tried putting them down on the sidewalk, but it wasn't much wider than the signs, and they were blocking pedestrians. Just then a cop car went by and we decided we couldn't chance it. The putting down and lifting up were worse than the holding on to, so we just stood there trying not to look as desperate as we are.  I try to hide the wince from Judy. Nobody needs a buzz kill.

We each call Frank about six times, but either his phone is off or he's parking the car in Worcester.  He should be back here by now.

I don't have the cell phone numbers of any other folks who might be here already. So I send a text message to a friend who's always early, a colleague with the brawn to carry maybe three of these signs up all by himself.

Need your help.

And, for the first time in about two years, he doesn't text me back. Which is how I learn he's not coming out anymore. He's done.

And why shouldn't he be? How many times can people learn how little their efforts translate into Beacon Hill currency before they give up? You only get noticed if you're part of a crowd. You'll only be recognized if you're wealthy or well positioned. And you'll only be listened to, it seems, if you if you can do something for them.

It's been getting harder and harder to get people to come out.  I've got some 'maybes' for today, and I'm grateful for that.  I know it's hard to juggle life.  Thank God for Judy and Frank.   I think it's coming down to us. Even so, I've told them I'm done at the end of June - of course, before June we have about a million things to do. Seems like it, anyway.

It's been a good stretch. A year and a half more than I thought it'd be. Now I'm tired, I'm sick. Let someone else do it.

We don't even have the luxury of broadcasting our events to get more people here. We have to get the word out over the network, or else the union will call out the troops, all in matching t-shirts and lunch vouchers, to shout us down.

And if not the unions, then the flying monkeys - the squadron of fellow locals motivated more by venom and vendettas than a social conscience - all frothed up and seething on comment sections and message boards to anyone who'll listen.

But you have to believe you can make a difference, don't you? I mean, what's the alternative?

So I stick around, I show up, I beg people to come out, and, I guess, l carry some heavy-ass signs up a perpendicular sidewalk when they don't.   Just another adventure in activism.

A guy walks by with his hands in his pockets, glances up at our signs, and gives me a look that says he'd rather be giving me the finger.

In the last two years, if there was ever a moment I thought I could just quit, just drop it all and go back to my old life, to leave the whole damn thing in the rearview mirror, it was that one.

But I know someone's waiting up there on the Hill for us. And I think, hey, maybe this is the one that'll do it. This is the one.

So I hand Judy four of the signs, and help prop her up against a parking meter, then take the remaining two under my arm. The pain is unreal. It slices me in two. But what choice do I have?

This started out being about a casino.  Now it's about so much more.  It's about what's right and wrong.  About whether you fight or you give up.  It's about letting the greedy stupid bastards with all the money and power push you aside, or showing them that, even if they do, you're never, ever, going away.

Just then, on the sidewalk at the top of the hill, through the fog and the gloom, is a familiar silhouette. The silhouette of someone who's never come out with us before, someone who I'd asked, but didn't think actually would.

But there she is. And sure, she's a senior citizen with her own chronic pain condition - but hey, I can work with that.

In my world, one person can still make a difference.

And usually does.

Together We Scam!

While experts from MIT and Harvard have testified repeatedly at legislative gambling hearings about the potential for addiction engineered into today's slot machines - touched on earlier this year in an episode of 60 Minutes - a colleague who works in the field of Business Intelligence recently shared a letter he wrote to Governor Patrick explaining other predatory practices the gambling industry employs to separate slot players from their money.

Keep in mind that slot machines account for two-thirds of casino revenue.

Like many other industries, the gambling industry collects information about their existing and potential customers to increase sales, encourage customer loyalty, develop marketing strategy etc.  However, because casinos are 'financial institutions', they

have access to all of an individual's financial information. They leverage this specialized status and "loyalty programs" to gain specific knowledge about how much cash and credit a patron has access to, when they use their credit cards in the casinos. The industry calls this Total Cash Availability.

Additionally, they will also be able to find out how much equity a patron has in their home, car and other assets; this is called Global Cash Availability. These can and will be taken as equity in exchange for credit. Casinos will also extend what amount to payday loans at high interest rates. These will be offered to patrons who are under the influence of alcohol, alcohol, that the casinos will be able to offer free of charge.

The casino industry uses all of this information along with real-time game-play data to make targeted offers to specific people. They are also able to alter the payout rate and the "near-misses" seen by each person to increase their rate of play and the amount per play.

The letter provides three links which demonstrate "how the casino industry collects and uses the financial and game-play data to identify patrons who can be tapped for more revenue."

The first, GCA Casino Share Intelligence

shows that casinos have access to all of your financial information as well as transactions outside of the casinos as soon as you use your credit or ATM card in one of their machines.

The second is a promotional page for GameVIZ Software 

which brags about this software's ability to identify "the most profitable customers and those which can be 'tapped' for additional revenue and profit." This software identifies these gamblers while they are playing and helps identify them for promotions. This software targets people to ply with free liquor.  It is not a random offering.

The third is a link to a patent for a method and system for dynamically awarding bonus points

which describes in detail how machines can be dynamically reconfigured to generate more revenue while they are being played by increasing the rate of play and reducing payouts.

Let me be clear. The methodology is as follows:

1. The casinos identify their patrons and prospects according to their potential value to the casino.

2. The casinos monitor the play of those patrons and determine when to offer them free alcohol to maximize their spend on the games.

3. The casinos then dynamically alter the speed at which the machines play and the rate at which they pay out to increase the profit they are making on a specific player.

4. When the player has exhausted his or her resources on hand, the casinos extend them credit.

While it's convenient to dismiss gambling as a mostly harmless form of entertainment, effecting only a small percentage of people, fact is, the gambling industry is increasingly engaging in furtive, predatory practices that can quickly deplete an individuals or an entire family's financial resources, for substantial profit - a large chunk of which it will share with the State.

It's not like putting the milk at the back of the supermarket to get people to buy more Captain Crunch.

After everything Americans have endured at the hands of corporate predators in preceding years, is it really advisable for our State to partner with them at this stage in the game?  In an age when people have mobilized in outrage over debit card fees, imagine how they'd feel about the State-sanctioned shell game casino billionaires get to play with our bank accounts.

All that this market fundamentalism is about is letting people's consciences off the hook. If the market is “just,” none of us is responsible for the havoc it may wreak. But the invisible hand of the market need not be free of ethical values, and ought not be. 

Deval Patrick wrote that, in his memoir.  And I couldn't agree more. 

My iRobot Vacuum Cleaner is More Sentient than Greg Bialecki

I think this editorial in the Globe by Citizens for a Stronger Massachusetts articulates one of the problems with Greg Bialecki, Deval Patrick's Secretary of Housing and Economic Development:

Now, in seeking to minimize his role in the gambling bill, Bialecki claimed in an interview that he was never Patrick’s “lead person’’ on casinos and instead describes himself as “the spokesperson for the administration’s position.’’ On the day that he testified, he said, he was handed “a three-page document’’ that was “prepared by others, without my input.’’

He paints a damning picture, both of his own lack of sensitivity to appearances, and of an administration that appears to be so committed to its gambling deal with legislative leaders that it would put words in the mouth of its own secretary of housing and economic development.

If Bialecki doesn’t know what’s going on with his personal finances or what’s going into the public policy he promotes, maybe he isn’t the best person for the job of secretary of housing and economic development..

Unless by "best person for the job" you mean "mouthpiece for the gambling industry", and by "economic development" you mean "an unvetted economic policy that has never solved any state deficit, has already opened the door to political corruption here in Massachusetts, and is poised to trigger a gambling arms race to the bottom here in New England," then... yeah.  Definitely.

Attack of the 50 foot Egos

This year's recipient of the Stan Rosenberg Award for Unwarrented Hubris in a Legislative Role is none other than Joseph Wagner (D-Chicopee)!

Wagner, who sits on the six-member gambling bill conference committee believes that a one-year ban on government officials from working in the gambling industry - which originally started as a five year ban - is still way too harsh, because:

“It’s my sense that this matter is so important that we should not preclude the best and the brightest from being eligible even if those people would be in government presently,”

Following this statement, the Committee once again quickly scurried to safety behind closed doors.

Not surprisingly, Stan Rosenberg, (D- Amherst) the senator for whom the Unwarrented Hubris award's was created, also serves on the committee, a prerequisite for which would appear to be narcissistic personality disorder.

Earlier this fall, during the Senate 'debate' on the gambling bill, an ammendment to create a five year ban on legislators from working in the industry compelled Rosenberg to notoriously argue that:

"passing such a no-revolving-door amendment would actually contribute to public cynicism about lawmakers by creating the impression that such a restriction was necessary to protect the public trust and ensure integrity.”

After convening that discussion behind closed doors, the Senate decided to drop the ban from five years to one.

It remains to be seen as to whether, following the current closed door session, the Conference Committee will, in the best interests of the industry, reduce the one-year ban even further and mandate legislators a guaranteed full year of casino employment upon leaving office, to include a lifetime pension and an automatic MacArthur Genius Fellowship.

Trickle Up

BOSTON – Both House and Senate leadership announced today that they've agreed to go back to work in order to add a new amendment to the same gambling bill which passed through both houses in the preceding months.

But in what is perhaps an odd coincidence, the announcement came directly on the heels of a Commonwealth Magazine op-ed which cited several studies which would indicate that expanded gambling disproportionally harms  minorities and the poor - "especially blacks and specifically black women" according to the op-ed.

Research suggests that while most people who gamble can do so without a problem - the majority of casino profits, to the tune of  70% – 90 % - are derived from patrons who are problem and pathological gamblers.

When asked about the timing of the amendment, the Senate's "casino-guru” Stanley Rosenberg (D – Irony) insisted that the amendment wasn't intended to take advantage of any particular demographic for the purpose of increasing revenue, but rather to provide what is obviously a popular entertainment attraction in regions of the state where they have been previously unavailable.

“Since most people can game responsibly, this amendment actually helps those members of the poor and minorities who might otherwise be unable to afford transportation to gaming opportunities in distant areas of the state” said Rosenberg.

Senate President Therese Murray responded to questions about the studies by stating that, “These studies are clearly elitist and don't show the whole story. This amendment has nothing to do with taking advantage of the poor and minorities. On reflection, senate leadership merely realized that casinos and slot parlors should ideally be located in areas where people have given up hoping for a job that pays a living wage."

When asked asked if he felt the studies were cause for concern, House Speaker Bob DeLeo dismissed the idea, stating that research also suggests that “rich white men have also been negatively impacted casinos... casino investors haven't been immune from the recession, you know.”

When asked to comment about the new amendment, Governor Patrick responded “I think it's a move in the right direction, one that actually offers more protection to the poor and minorities.”

Patrick, a self-professed practitioner of social justice, continued, “Locating casinos in predominately white or affluent neighborhoods across the state would just impact the poor and minorities even more. Look, we all know that they're the ones who'll be stopped and harassed by local police on their way home through the suburbs."

The Governor added, "I mean, it's bad enough to lose your shirt at a casino, but then to wind up with an expensive ticket or jail time - now that's a real economic hardship.”

The Back of the Bus

A salvo in the war on slots was fired the other day, and was, as usual, serially ignored by the Governor, the Mass. Legislature and the media.

Of course, if the news had been something positive about casinos and slot barns, the Governor would have mentioned it on a  talk radio program, the Mass. Legislature would have enshrined it as proof they had done due diligence, and, without a doubt it would have aired on the evening news along with stock footage of flashing lights, roulette wheels, and acres of slot machines.

In fact, if either Professor and part-time casino shill Clyde Barrow or his parent company, UMass Dartmouth had put their names on it, it would suddenly be considered a piece 'public policy'.

But no.  It was produced by a mere former State Attorney General and a cadre of  learned volunteers, and failed to paint a sexy rosy unblemished picture of the future of gambling - oh I mean gaming - in Massachusetts.

So it went unnoticed.

See a pattern here?

It's not just us.  People across this state, from Progressives to Tea Partiers to Occupy Bostonians to middle-aged moms from Bridgewater are getting fed up with our inability, no matter what we do, to be heard by the people with the power.  Or heck, even acknowledgment that we exist.

As far as the media is concerned, black bears who beat up backyard bird feeders get more attention these days than Massachusetts citizen volunteers working hard to present a balanced view of an issue that will effect us all.

Four and a half years ago, I could tell myself it was all a fluke, that the folks in government, the journalists, are so busy, so overwhelmed with information and with requests to be heard... that we just needed to try harder.  But we have tried harder.  We've tried for years, and when you watch the Senate do things like repeal the Happy Hour law for casinos, it feels like it's all made little difference.

And what does that say about a democracy by and for the people?

Perhaps Senator Stan Rosenberg (D -Amherst) holds the key:

“What lobbyists and interest groups buy is access,’’ Rosenberg said. “They don’t buy votes.’’

Yeah, Stan, but it buys access.

And that does buy votes.

Listening to one side all the time can do that to a lot of people.

It's like when my mother started watching Fox news all time, then started believing that Obama was a practicing socialist Muslim who was born in Kenya.

For the record, here's what they're all ignoring about the gambling issue - a press release containing a new analysis of potential economic impacts of casinos and slot barns that was issued by Citizens for a Stronger Massachusetts. If you're a Massachusetts citizen, you might want to take the time to read it:

“The public is being sold a bill of goods and our new analysis should blow the rose-colored glasses off proponents and force them to rethink this poor excuse for economic development and local aid,” said Scott Harshbarger, president of Citizens for a Stronger Massachusetts. “Those lining up behind this bill must be doing it to support some other constituency because the numbers being thrown around by proponents simply don’t add up.”

The new analysis shows:

• Proponent job estimates are at best, wildly optimistic. The U.S. Department of Commerce estimates that, for every $1 million diverted from household spending in Massachusetts, the state loses 8.2 jobs. Casino supporters estimate they will produce between $300 million and $450 million in tax revenue. That revenue will come from diverting between $700 million and $1.3 billion from household spending to casinos, killing between 5,700 and 10,600 Massachusetts jobs – approximately the same number of permanent jobs claimed by casino supporters.

• Local aid will be hurt, not helped, by casinos. The consensus of all studies predicts a 5 percent to 10 percent decline in Lottery revenue after the arrival of casinos. At the House estimate of $1.2 billion in taxable gaming revenue (nearly double what state residents now put into casinos), that means a potential loss of $90 million or more in local aid to cities and towns.

• Revenue estimates are, at best, rosy and completely out of date. The Governor said state residents already drive to Connecticut casinos and “spend $1.5 billion dollars . . . right now”. The House said casinos would generate $1.2 billion. The Senate now claims $1.8 billion to be had for Massachusetts.

The back-up for these figures appears to be based on “pre-recession” reports that are extraordinarily outdated. The most recent data from UMass/Dartmouth’s 2011 study shows that the amount gambled and lost by Massachusetts residents in Connecticut casinos was merely $486 million (and $613 million overall). At the proposed 25 percent casino tax rate, this equates to only $121 million in gaming tax revenue, of which only 20 percent to 25 percent is going to local aid. Recapturing all of this revenue would produce only $30 million in new unrestricted local aid to cities and towns.

• The giveaways in this bill are stunning in an era when confidence in Beacon Hill is at an all-time low. The bill puts tens of millions of dollars at the disposal of the unaccountable political appointees of the Gaming Commission, in perpetuity, to spend in its discretion without legislative oversight. Hundreds of millions of dollars more will be dedicated to other unspecified state projects each year. This bill is a feeding frenzy for special interests.  

Oh... and get this new chart - which follows the money as per the new gambling bill, currently being debated by the senate.

Click the chart or here to make it bigger

Kinda hurts your head doesn't it?

But heck, I'm sure that the Governor has already tossed it in the circular file, that the Senate has hit the delete button, and that the media is busy putting together a much more important story about a Kardashian sister or a funny new viral video cat video.

In the meantime, here's one for the 'irony column'.

Senate President Therese Murray dismissed opponents’ concerns about job creation as "elitist," contending that any new job created by a casino would be welcomed by someone who is without a job.

Yes, the same Therese Murray whose behavior at last year's gambling debate compelled me to create this:

Yes, the same Therese Murray who, during the current debate, shooed her Senate brethren behind closed doors where, away from prying eyes, they peeled 4 years off an amendment banning them from going to work for the casino industry after leaving office.

And yes, the same Therese Murray whose actions, after returning to the Senate podium afterward compelled someone  in the chamber to yell, "Let them eat cake!"

Yes, that's the same Therese Murray who thinks that gambling opponents are elitist.

And her main minion, Stan Rosenberg?  Remember last year when, after coming under fire for using taxpayer money to fund a benefit only report, he said,

United to Stop Slots should commission its own independent study on costs. “Go do it,” he said. “But they have no intention of doing it.”

So look, now expanded gambling opponents have our own study.  It's not exactly 'independent'.  But then, neither is Stan's.  So what's the legislatures 'casino guru' got to say about it?  Apparently nothing.

Maybe he just can't hear us from the back of the bus.

I don't know if Progressives or Tea Partiers or Occupiers will be able to bring about real change on Beacon Hill or Wall Street - but I hope so.  If I've learned anything these last few years, it's that predatory billionaires gaining more and more access to a tone-deaf government and a failing fourth estate just makes the world a crappier place for the rest of us.

But in the meantime, don't overlook the potential contributions of us middle-aged women.  I mean, a lady named Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a bus and sparked the civil rights movement.

Come to think of it, I think Madame DeFarge was a middle-aged woman too.

Integrity

We're knights of the round table

We dance whene'er we're able

We do routines and chorus scenes

With footwork impeccable.

We dine well here in Camelot

We eat ham and jam and spam a lot.

STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, SEPT. 27, 2011…..Senate leaders lashed out Tuesday over a proposal issued by a gambling opponent that would have restricted lawmakers from working for casino operators for five years after they leave office.

After a heated debate in which three senators ripped the proposal as an unfair indictment of all public servants, Senate President Therese Murray called a sudden Democratic caucus in her office.

After an hour behind closed doors, members emerged and quickly voted to support a scaled back version of the amendment, barring lawmakers from working for a casino applicant for one year after leaving their posts.

The amendment passed 36-1 with only Sen. Michael Rodrigues (D-Westport) dissenting.

On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.

Getting Played

Do you suppose that local TV news stations know when they're getting played?

See, I watch a lot of news over the course of a day - mostly Channel 7 (WHDH) at morning and midday, and Channel 5 (WCVB) in the evening and late night.   Usually, the news is just background noise while I work, but naturally, when there's some sort of gambling story it gets my attention.

So imagine the battle for my attention as I watched, over the course of one 24 hour news cycle, the same story running, nearly word for word, on both of my favorite TV News stations.  Over and over and over again. Only the co-anchors seemed to change.

The story?  Well, apparently, the day before the Senate sat down to debate the latest gambling bill, a poll was released!

The poll was conducted by...  wait for it...  UMass Dartmouth Center for Public Policy (which needn't bother sending my 11th grader a college brochure) which indicated... you'll never guess...  that a majority of Mass. residents want a casino! Yay!!

Wow, what an incredible coinkydink.

UMass D (for D), the taxpayer-funded rock under which licence-plate-counting resort-casino-evangelist, Clyde Barrow remains coiled for most of the year, releases a pro-casino poll, at the very moment when our state senators are suddenly remembering that they've forgotten to do their annual two minutes worth of homework on the casino issue, just hours before deciding whether to sign the worst gambling bill in a decade into law, and shoots it off in an e-mail, on college letterhead and in tightly written text, to all the local news outlets.

My, what a godsend.  Like Cliff Notes with video.

Why is it that none of TV news stations mentions a similar poll, performed by Western Mass. College from  two years ago?  A poll that produced exactly the same figure as UMass D - 56% in favor of a casino.   Could it be that the results of this particular poll also revealed that 57% of respondents opposed a casino where they live.

Which is kind of funny when you remember that map, the one with the 3 circles encompassing a 50 mile radius around 3 hypothetical casinos, illustrating the area where all the negative impacts from one casino tend to settle.

Ok, sure, if you want to quibble, you could argue that the black dot where Middleboro is should now slide southwesterly and park itself in either Fall River or New Bedford.  But still, when you add Deval's concessionary slot parlor in Raynham or Plainville to the mix - you're still looking looking at a triple whammy for Central and Southeastern Mass, the North Shore and the Cape.

Now, let's just say, hypothetically, that 100% of all Mass residents were aware of that map - which in reality, only a fraction of a fraction of a half a percent actually do - and then a pollster from UMass called a random sampling of folks from across the state and asked if they were feeling all sunny and positive about a casino in Massachusetts.

Would you suppose that particular statistic would still be hovering around 56 %.  Or even over 50%.

Because if you do, you're dreaming.

But what do any of these pesky factual nuances matter to the journalistic heroes of TV news, when they can get a free pre-digested news story, along with an academic stamp of approval, and an opportunity to roll all that neat casino stock footage.

Maybe I'm a little sensitive, because last week members of the USS-Mass coalition sat down with Greg Bialecki, Secretary of Housing and Economic Development and his staff, to discuss the current gambling bill and later issued this press release titled:

GAMBLING OPPONENTS QUESTION ADMINISTRATION’S GRASP OF EXPANDED PREDATORY GAMBLING ISSUES.

Which the media ignored entirely.

It reads:

…coalition leaders were dismayed by the absence of answers to questions about revenue, regulations, jobs and social impacts.

“We were shocked to learn they did not have answers to simple questions”, stated Tom Larkin, President of United to Stop Slots.

• How much revenue is expected, short and long term?

• How many jobs are expected short and long term?

• What are the financial costs to the state to set up the regulatory structure?

• What will be the effect on the State Lottery?

• How are projections derived to estimate gambling addiction and money spend or lost in Connecticut?

• What plans do the Administration have to constrain political corruption?

• How much gambling revenue will come from “new” money as compared to the redistribution of existing money?

“An independent cost-benefit analysis has never been done by the Administration, therefore, they cannot provide straight answers to basic questions”, concluded Larkin.

Now I ask, would you rather get played by a taxpayer-funded strategically-timed story written by pro-gambling interests, running on all news outlets that simply reveals how little people still fully grasp about casinos.

Or be informed by a real story about a major piece of legislation, promoted by our Governor, that will create a new tax-payer funded bureaucracy, increase crime and social costs, that won't solve our fiscal woes or create as many jobs as promised, and which the Governor's own top adviser fails to even remotely grasp?

We're just sitting here waiting for your call Heather Unruh...

Still accepting interviews, Adam Williams...

C'mon and help us Hank!