The Great American Job Scam

In a few minutes, House Speaker Bob DeLeo is going to announce his plan to file a bill promoting a combination of slot parlors and resort casinos. Mr. DeLeo has also refused to agree to a fresh, independent cost-benefit analysis of expanded gambling in the Commonwealth, which would take into account the current state of the economy, and new data coming to light about slot machines, jobs, costs of regulation and crime.

Governor Deval Patrick, Attorney Martha Coakley, and the Mass Chiefs of Police Association have called for this cost-benefit analysis.

But not Bob.

And so, in honor of Bob's enlightened and transparent approach to gambling legislation, I'm publishing these ironic excerpts from The Great American Job Scam, by Greg LeRoy.

The Great American Jobs Scam is actually a collection of scams that have evolved over the past half-century and especially over the past three decades. These scams both rely upon—and reinforce—several factors.They rely on taxpayer confusion about the causes and effects of job creation. These scams thrive when the purported benefits — especially jobs benefits — of tax cuts and other subsidies are played up, so companies must exaggerate the positive impact while the business basics of location behavior are played down. They rely on taxpayer costs being kept vague, understated, or hidden. They need program rules to stay loose and unaccountable so that when a company fails to deliver, it suffers no consequences. They flourish when governments fail to monitor the real outcomes on jobs, wages, and other benefits. And most of all, these scams are built upon a corporate-controlled definition of “competition” that prevents government officials from cooperating in taxpayers’ best interests.

Those who peddle and those who buy into these corrupted definitions salute the corporate bottom line while thumbing their noses at common sense, social science, and good government.

Blindfolded public officials practice job creation guided by wolves posing as Seeing Eye dogs.

It would seem that a ray of hope exists, however.

Fortunately, despite the siege of disinformation, there is a rich bipartisan history of reform that has created proven precedents for dismantling the scam.The most important of these is disclosure.When more information is available about the costs and benefits of the scam, many more people will get involved—and that’s the scammers’ darkest nightmare.

But with his stubborn stance against an independent study, the intention to rush the gambling bill as fast as he can, and gambling interests paying $2 million in 2009 to buy influence in this debate, it would appear that Mr. DeLeo is well on his way to penning the first chapter of someone's future book.

Maybe they can call it, The Great Bay State Slot Scam.

Rude & Ruder: The Kathi-Anne Reinstein Story

I don't know if any of you have ever tired to get your elected representatives to actually listen to you, but I have.

Once, as I stood with my NO CASINO sign on the sidewalk, my State rep pulled up in his boat of a car, bellowed something mostly unintelligible out the window, then sped off into the distance waving his cigar as I called and motioned - to no avail - for him to return and have a conversation.

When I went to see him at his office at the State House, his contemptuous slimeball of aide left me in tears.

I have repeatedly, and with little success, requested that a selectman from my town attend meetings of the 17 Town Regional Task Force on Casino Impacts.

Last year, my ardently pro-slots state senator made a brazen attempt to stop a public meeting of this same task force in Carver.

This task force, which represents a quarter-million people in Southeast Mass., has yet to have been granted an audience with the Governor - though he frequently meets with the 1,500 member Cape Cod Indian tribe which wants to build the world's biggest casino there.

Back in 2007, after writing to my congressmen (members of the same governing body which made suburban tribal mega casinos a reality) about my concerns regarding the Middleboro casino project, I received a brief, and utterly clueless, letter from Ted Kennedy's office thanking me for my interest in immigration reform.

And I'm still waiting to hear from John Kerry.

Sad thing is, I've actually voted for these guys. Many times over the years.

And it's not just the big guys. I've also been gaveled to silence in my own town hall, and witnessed similar gaveling in Middleboro whenever concerns were raised about having the world's biggest casino as a neighbor.

A ballot vote by residents there opposing the casino project was unanimously deemed "irrelevant" by local selectmen and as a result not forwarded to the Secretary of the Interior.

And, thanks to a labyrinth of regulations seemingly modeled after the game of Battleship, the fact that my community is not a host community, even though it would potentially abut a newly created sovereign nation and the world's largest casino, the Federal government denies my town so much as a say-so in the matter.

But what does any of it matter anyway since I'm frequently reminded by the media that my representatives and I are completely powerless - because the only one who does matter in Massachusetts is whoever is currently filling the shoes of the Speaker of the House.

So I shouldn't even bother trying.

But I do try. I've held my sign, done lots of research, collected signatures, given testimony, written letters, blogged, made videos, built web sites, given interviews, attended myriads of meetings, participated in events across the state, arranged educational forums, written fact sheets, sent out mailings, maintained databases, and have put up with pro-casino abuse ranging from having F-bomb's hurled at my children to receiving a threat on my life.

And I'm just one member of the team.

Thankfully, in the second half of last year, we started seeing our efforts start to make a difference. We managed to get the facts out to the Mass. Democratic Party convention - which then adopted a resolution opposing slots.

The Attorney General's top staff, the Governor's top staff, and even the Governor himself let us make our case about the real costs of slots and casinos - after which both the Governor and Attorney General endorsed having the Commonwealth perform a fresh, independent cost-benefit analysis of expanded gambling.

But despite the compelling facts and recent inroads, it still amazes me how little understanding there is about our message among legislators and the general public.

Pigeon-holed as 'moralists', or painted as an axe-wielding, fun-stealing cadre of Carrie Nations whose mission is to deprive individuals of their private liberties and the State of much needed jobs and revenue - a characterization aided and abetted by the media and assorted anonymous comment section hoopla - our message is lost.

And so, in an attempt to more clearly define that message, to frame it in easy-to-understand, graphical, economic terms, we managed, last Thursday, to pack a room at the Statehouse with reps and their aides to present "A Mathbook for Beacon Hill".

More than a dozen people volunteered their time, expertise and resources to the project for over two months. Many of us took the day off from work and drove in from across the state to be available to answer questions at the presentation - which countered the inflated figures for jobs and revenue we keep hearing about, along with the invariably non-existent costs that accompany them.

But what do the efforts of a bunch of concerned taxpaying volunteers matter when a solitary, paid legislator and big-time slot cheerleader like State Rep. Kathi-Anne Reinstein (D - Suffolk Downs) can mosey down from her office, sit through the meeting like a fidgety 5th grader who'd sold her last Ritalin for a snickers bar, then proceed to hijack the Q & A as her own personal pro-slots soapbox?

After purposely having framed our presentation to specifically address economic impacts - partly in response to accusations by Kathi and others like her who've repeatedly tried to characterize the opposition's message as one of moral imperative over financial reality - Kathi proceeded to use our meeting to bend the message back to addiction and social costs.

And before long, Kathi-Anne the pro-slots cheerleader becomes Kathi the slot-wielding human bullhorn, dripping with sarcasm, reeking of indignation, dismissive, bombastic and rude.

Attempts to reign her in, requests that she phrase her comments in the form of an actual question were utterly ignored. This was "a public meeting!" after all, she insisted! She had the right to be heard.

That's right, because just like those of us who worked hard to set up this meeting sans a staff, who don't get to vote on expanded gambling legislation, who've been repeatedly ignored by many of our own elected leaders in favor of track owners, lobbyists and others, who are outspent by gambling interests $2 million to one and are invariably regulated to the last quote on the second page of virtually every news article on the subject, Kathi-Anne appears to actually be afraid that someone won't hear her.

Actually.

Which, from what I've seen of Kathi-Anne Reinstein, is downright impossible.

After pontificating for a good fifteen minutes (and at least a quarter of our allotted time) on just about everything from license plates to cigarettes to adopting thoroughbred horses, Kathi-Anne finally asks that all too familiar and predictable question:

"If not gambling, what other ideas do yoooooooooou have for coming up with new jobs and revenue."

Okay, look. I've heard this same question from everyone from small town selectmen to Sen. Marc Pacheco, to that slimeball in Dave Flynn's office.

And really, I don't hold it against Kathi that between her horse-based life experiences and limited intellectual abilities, she can't wrap her head around better, creative solutions that won't end up helping the gambling industry more than citizens of Massachusetts.

Or that she, who at an October 2009 hearing referred to her constituents as "not exactly rocket scientists" with an existing array of gambling problems, is in favor of creating future generations of addicts in her district in order to save them all a bus ride to Connecticut.

Or that the woman who once championed making the fluffernutter the official sandwich of Massachusetts isn't perhaps incapable of comprehending the serious ramifications that legalizing slots could have for other communities and taxpayers outside the confines of her district.

Heck, after three years of observing a certain percentage of the people who make up the Massachusetts legislature, including Kathi-Anne, you won't catch me holding my breath waiting for them to come up with a better solution than expanded gambling.

No, the thing that really gets me is that State Rep. Kathi-Anne Reinstein had the unmitigated, sanctimonious gaul to face a group of unpaid citizen volunteers, including health educators and web designers and demand that they - they - provide her with alternative revenue sources.

Because heck, isn't that her job. Isn't that's what she's paid to do. Paid by us?

We all have jobs to do. So, are we free to call Kathi up and ask her how to do them?

Should medical doctors stop to confer with Kathi-Anne when stumped for a cure for their patient?

Perhaps demolitions experts should keep Kathi on speed dial in case they have to ask "should I cut the blue or the red wire."

Of course not. But this isn't the real world, it's the Commonwealth of Kathi-Anne - where she gets paid to try to make you look bad for not being able to do her job.

Which begs the question, aside from ignoring constituents, failing to perform due diligence, pretending not to fawn over special interests, supporting bad ideas, promoting unhealthy sandwiches to school children, talking too much, listening too little, collecting pensions for life and expecting other people to do their job, what is it, exactly, that today's legislators do?

I can tell you this - most of them haven't even taken the time to look at this website.

Why do you suppose that is? Perhaps we should add "being busy already knowing everything there is to know about slots" to that impressive legislative job description?

Because the more people know about this industry, the more they're likely to oppose it. Or, at least, more likely to demand a deeper look.

Which is why people like me wait patiently for the Q & A session at the end of another long meeting, if they allow one at all, and then carefully phrase our comments in the form of a question. We wait for a year to give 5 minutes testimony to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and two and a half years to testify for 3 minutes at the State House. We wait our turn, for 13 hours, folded up like a human lawn chair in an over-crowded auditorium, to speak for less than a minute.

We work, unpaid, and play - if you can call it that- by the rules.

And that's the real problem, isn't it. It's why lobbyists spread around big money behind the scenes, and why legislators make quiet deals with the devil behind closed doors. Why unions pay their members to pack halls in distant towns, and why policy analysis turned industry shills label us, without grasping a shred of irony, the 'chattering class'.

Kathi wasn't afraid that her peers at the State House wouldn't hear her - she was terrified that, for once, they might actually hear us.

___________________
UPDATE:  January 2, 2014  -  Kathi-Anne Reinstein resigned from the Massachusetts legislature to take a new job as Lobbyist Government Affairs Manager for Boston Beer Company  (which brews Sam Adams beers).

The Gift that Keeps on Giving

Quick - how is having your region targeted for an Indian casino like contracting a herpes virus?

Because, aside from having to endure regular and irritating flare ups, you'll need to remain eternally vigilant to prevent it from spreading.

To be sure, the Supreme Court of the United States did present the afflicted with the closest thing to a cure with it's decision in Carcieri v. Salazar - but this hasn't stopped certain forces from working behind the scenes to bring on a relapse.

And so, once again my friends, we are called upon to pick up our pens, our telephones and our laptops and contact our representatives in Congress.

And we have to do it quickly! There's no time to waste!

Several bills and devices designed to create an end-run around Carcieri are being debated as we speak.

These are:
Cobell v Salazar, settlement
S.1703 (Carcieri fix)
H.R.1711 (Akaka bill)
H.R.3690 (The Indian Tribal Federal Recognition Administrative Act - Section 14)

Write your Congressmen immediately and tell them to oppose these bills.

Explain what living with the threat of a tribal casino has meant to you and your family. And, what the potential of living next door to a tax-free sovereign nation could mean for your community, economy and environment.

If you'd like to include more information, please read what Governor Carcieri has had to say about the bill that carries his name, including

• Why the IRA was never intended as, nor has it been, a blanket authorization for trust,
• How amending the IRA to permit the secretary to take land into trust for all federally recognized tribes could undermine numerous Indian claims and settlement acts - including those here in Massachusetts,
• And why a one-size-fits-all amendment to the IRA ignores States' unique political and geographic circumstances

Here are the mailing addresses for our State senators.

---

Senator John Kerry
218 Russell Bldg.
Second Floor
Washington D.C. 20510
(202) 224-2742 - Phone
(202) 224-8525 - Fax
E-Mail

---

Senator Scott Brown
Senate Russell Courtyard 1
Washington D.C. 20510
(202) 224-4543

---

To find your Congressional district representative and his or her contact information
click here

---

And hey, if you voted for any of these guys, let them know you did!!

Plese find a more detailed description of each bill below. And most importantly, never forget to stay vigilant!!

---

Cobell v Salazar, settlement

Cobell v. Salazar, one of biggest class-action lawsuits ever brought against the United States, was litigated for a full 15 years before it's parties reached a hurried settlement on Dec. 8th of last year to the tune of $3.4 billion dollars - a settlement which must be approved by Congress before February 28th 2010.

Our objection to Cobell isn't the settling of historic accounting claims by Individual Indian Money (IIM) Account Holders - it is the unnecessary addition of truly objectionable, non-related issues to the “Settlement”.

Addendums have been added to the settlement which appear to eviscerate established constitutional separation of power and states rights while making an end run around 50 years of congressional acts (Dawes Act, IRA, ILCA) and Supreme Court settled law (Sherrill, Carcieri, Hawaii and Navajo Nation).

These added Addendums actually increase the scope of the federal mismanagement of Indian Trust Obligations.

In other words, it's your classic "end-run" plus a sucker punch for good measure.

So, quickly contact your Congressmen asking that he or she definitely not rubber stamp this "settlement" - and to DEMAND there be full disclosure to the public and to Congress before considering action it.

THE “SETTLEMENT” PROPOSES:
· Executive Branch removal of the legislative authority from the fee to trust process by inserting amendments into the settlement which have nothing to do with the original lawsuit. These amendments must be perceived as a new land acquisition program creating a major change in Federal Indian land policy, which establishes new authority in the executive branch (DOI, DOJ, White House), while removing that authority from the Congress.

· Unlimited power granted to the Secretary of Interior for the transfer of land status from state jurisdiction placing it under Federal control of the Executive Branch.

· Expansion of a seldom used congressional program which allocated 2 Million dollars of federal money per year for purchase of land for Indians to 2 BILLION tax dollars. In addition, the oversight and authority of the expenditure is removed from congress and placed under the sole discretion of the Secretary of the Interior.

· A panicked rush to pass this “Settlement” by the end of 2009 in response to a court case that has been 15 years in litigation is inconceivable. Incorporating schemes which were never an original part of the case into its’ “settlement” not only lacks transparency but also nullifies the current trust process and evades all accountability to the People and Congress while establishing unlimited Secretarial discretion.

· The court approve this Settlement in its entirety before revealing the full details to congress or the public.
　

---

S.1703 (Carcieri fix)

Title: A bill to amend the Act of June 18, 1934, to reaffirm the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to take land into trust for Indian tribes.

Sponsor: Sen Dorgan, Byron L. [ND] (introduced 9/24/2009) Cosponsors Akaka, Baucus, Bingaman, Franken, Inouye, Landrieu, Tester, Udall. Related Bills: H.R.3697, H.R.3742

SUMMARY AS OF: 9/24/2009--Introduced.
Amends the Act commonly known as the Indian Reorganization Act to apply the Act to all federally recognized Indian tribes, regardless of when any tribe became recognized. (This effectively overrules the Supreme Court's decision in Carcieri v. Salazar, which held that the Secretary of the Interior could not take land into trust for a specified tribe because that tribe had not been under federal jurisdiction when the Act was enacted.)

Latest Major Action: 12/17/2009 Senate committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee on Indian Affairs. Ordered to be reported with amendments favorably.

(Note-- 27 States attorneys’ general are opposed to this bill.)

---

H.R.1711 (Akaka bill)

Title: To express the policy of the United States regarding the United States relationship with Native Hawaiians, to provide a process for the reorganization of a Native Hawaiian government and the recognition by the United States of the Native Hawaiian government, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] (introduced 3/25/2009) Cosponsors Bordallo, Faleomavaega, Hirono, Kildee, Moran, Sablan, Young. Related Bills: H.R.862, H.R.2314, S.381, S.708, S.1011 (Akaka bill passed out of SCIA committee Dec. 2009)

Latest Major Action: 3/25/2009 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.

SUMMARY AS OF: 3/25/2009--Introduced.
Establishes the U.S. Office for Native Hawaiian Affairs (Office) within the Office of the Secretary of the Interior.

Requires the Attorney General to designate a Department of Justice official to assist the Office in the implementation and protection of the rights of Native Hawaiians and their political, legal, and trust relationship with the United States.

Establishes the Native Hawaiian Interagency Task Force to:
(1) coordinate federal policies or actions that may significantly or uniquely affect Native Hawaiian resources, rights, or lands;
(2) assure that each federal agency develops a policy on consultation with Native Hawaiians; and
(3) assure the participation of such agencies in the development of an annual report on the Task Force.

Establishes a process for development of a membership roll for organizing a Native Hawaiian Interim Governing Council and for election of a Native Hawaiian government. Recognizes the right of the Native Hawaiian people to adopt organic governing documents.

Extends federal recognition to the government as the representative governing body of the Native Hawaiian people upon election of officers and certification by the Secretary.

Permits the United States, upon federal recognition of the Native Hawaiian government, to enter into an agreement with the state of Hawaii and such government regarding the transfer of lands, resources, and assets dedicated to Native Hawaiian use.

Prohibits the Native Hawaiian governing entity and Native Hawaiians from conducting gaming activities as a matter of claimed inherent authority or under any federal law, regardless of where the gaming is located. Related bills.
H.R.862, H.R.2314, S.381, S.708, S.1011

---

H.R.3690

THE INDIAN TRIBAL FEDERAL RECOGNITION ADMINISTRATIVE ACT --

Title: To establish a Commission on Recognition of Indian Tribes to review and act on petitions by Indian groups applying for Federal recognition, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Rep Faleomavaega, Eni F.H. [AS] (introduced 10/1/2009) Cosponsors Abercrombie, Hirono, Rahall.

Latest Major Action: 10/1/2009 Referred to House committee on Natural Resources.

RED ALERT: A "Carcieri Fix" is quietly tucked into this bill at section 14.

SEC. 14. INDIAN REORGANIZATION ACT.
The Act of June 18, 1934 (25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.; popularly known as the `Indian Reorganization Act'), is applicable to all tribes recognized by the Commission, without regard to whether such tribe was under Federal jurisdiction as of June 18, 1934.

---

And Justice For All

Yesterday, in Philadelphia, 13 people, ranging in age from 25 to 72 had their day in court.

Last September, as part of a larger protest, the 13 had locked arms, refusing to move away from the entrance of the Sugar House casino construction site in their city.

The Sugar House 13, as they are now called, included "several grandparents, two members of the clergy, and a few public school teachers, and veterans of the civil rights movement".

And at least one guy I know personally.

Jethro Heiko, a member of CasinoFreePhila, made me feel like family at the 2008 National Stop Predatory Gambling Convention just outside of Washington DC. The lone member of CasinoFacts.org and CasinoFreeMass at the convention that day, I was encouraged to join the party at the CasinoFreePhila table, to watch the presidential debates with them that evening, and to otherwise hang out and connect. In 2009 Jethro came to Boston to offer his help, as an organizer, in our fight. I still carry one of the "little casino factbooks" he left with us in my purse, and I've taken him up on his generous offer to reference his organization's website for anything I may need more times than I can count.

I've been following the Sugar House protest with interest, not just on account of Jethro, but because it occurs to me that this is where we'll end up in Massachusetts, that other Commonwealth, if the doors swing open to casino interests. Because that's where that road does lead, make no mistake. Standing in front of a judge because you had the audacity to stand up for the safety of that place you call home. The place where you live and work and raise your children.

Standing up to bulldozers. Becoming insignificant pawns in a political shell game. Watching your world tipped on it's side while everything you learned about democracy is gambled away in the middle of the night on the 4th of July.

But yesterday, in perhaps what may be a turning of the tide, the SugarHouse 13 were aquitted on all counts.

At one point in the trial, the prosecution tried to "prevent community members from presenting documents on predatory gambling,". The judge, however, allowed them.

Another familiar face of CasinoFreePhila, Daniel Hunter, said, "We do direct action not because we want to, but because the system has become illegitimate and corrupt," - which just may be the truest statement I've ever heard about why we begin and why we continue to fight predatory gambling.

I don't want to be here fighting, still, after almost 3 years. As USS-Mass president Kathleen Norbut likes to say, "It's not like I needed another hobby". But when something is this wrong, you either stand up to the bulldozers, or you allow them roll over you.

Fortunately, here in Massachusetts, we still have a choice. We can still prevent a day when the mere act of protecting our homes, our families, our communities - and even our democracy - lands us in front of a judge.

Individually, we can act now, with the smallest of noble acts.

Or, we can wait, and do nothing, with the hope that there will be others willing to lock their arms with ours when it's our turn to stand in front of the gambling industry's relentless bulldozers.

Which will you choose?

---

S I GN
T H E
P E T I T I O N!

Bob DeLeo Hears Gambling Opponents “loudly and clearly”

The speaker told host Emily Rooney that he has heard gambling opponents “loudly and clearly” and plans to fund addiction recovery programs through funds reaped from the gambling expansion.

--Statehouse News Service 2/10/10

Sigh...

Therefore Be It Resolved

I thought my readers would like to know about this. (Emphasis mine.)

The following excerpt from a 2009 Winter Conference Resolution of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians of the United States, can be expected to be replicated across many regional tribal entities, and incorporated into the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) platform:

From briefing paper: Clear Views of the Department of Interior,
Bureau of Indian Affairs And Various Tribal leaders
by Elaine Willman, Citizens Equal Rights Alliance

---

“THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians calls upon Congress to hold summits and hearings to address the following issues:

Reaffirmation of the Indian Reorganization Act.

The need to address taxation of fee lands owned by tribes and individuals which are within the exterior boundaries of the reservation and the need to alleviate jurisdictional conflicts of such lands.

Expediting the process of federal transfers of lands to Indian tribes.

Establish a congressional process to document the loss of individual trust allotment that occurred through the establishment of Competency Commissions beginning in 1914 and the use of forced fee patents beginning in 1906, whereby thousands of allotments which were lost during the aforementioned processes, be returned to trust status upon reacquisition without the current requirement of state and/or county comments.

Provide for adequate fee to trust staffing and training for BIA and Tribal Realty offices responsible for completion of the fee to trust application process.

Enforcement of the moratorium on acceleration and foreclosure proceedings by the USDA enacted in May 22, 2008 provided in P.L. 110-234, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.”

While you're busy chewing on that, here's another little tidbit you might enjoy. The following comment was made by Cheryl Andrews-Maltais of the Aquinnah Mashpee Tribe at a July 8, 2009 consultation session conducted by the Department of Interior. Three such sessions were held across the country at various locations.

Cheryl Andrews-Maltais: I would like to invite everyone up to Massachusetts and/or the New England states because…it’s very difficult to really comprehend the totality of the impact of 400 years of encroachment when you are a tribe in the northeast.

Frankly Cheryl, I'd like to invite everyone up to Massachusetts, too. What better way to witness first-hand the impact of 400 years of assimilation and cultural ambiguity. Better yet - to witness what happens when failed federal policy has permitted encroachment upon homes, schools, places of worship, small businesses, areas of historical significance, vital watersheds and environmentally fragile eco-systems, by certain middle-class casino-obsessed Massachusetts tribes, so laser-focused with greed that they can't see the forests for the slots.

Bizzaroland

What week it's been. Wampanoags in Fall River and Freetown. Pocassets in an uproar. A rare Jack Healey siting. Town employees insisting "No comment". And quotes from tedious and mercifully ex-selectman Adam Bond. I felt like I was living in a little place called Bizzaroland - because what was up, was down, and what was down, was up. What was right was wrong, and what was wrong, well that was actually what was right for the economic benefit of... somebody.

So what's going on? Well, let me try to help clear some things up.

1.) Wampanoags scouting casino property in Fall River, Freetown and possibly other Southeastern Mass locales.

It's no secret that gambling expansion is once again on the table. And lets' face it, when you toss chum overboard, who shows up? Sharks. What you are currently witnessing is a feeding frenzy among sharks and bottom feeders alike to get the best bite out of the Bay State should casino legislation be passed. This happens every single time the battle heats up, but this time, with gambling cheerleaders Bob DeLeo and Therese Murray pushing hard, and gambling opponents like Sal DiMasi out of the way, the fish are particularly whipped up.

The Mashpee know they're not going to get a casino in Middleboro, so they're looking for greener, less federally frowned upon pastures, or as Cedric Cromwell might say, "conducting due diligence". And so, they are welcome to abandon their quest to "come home" to Middleboro and "come home" to somewhere else they've never been, and once there, to file another application and go through the process again.

They are also free to buy land and vie to purchase a license, if one were to become available, for a commercial casino. Which the Governor may let them have - if he hated the people of Massachusetts. The Mashpee tribal leadership hasn't demonstrated that they could lead a marching band, let alone their 1,500 member tribe, not to mention a separate sovereign nation harboring potentially one of the world's largest casinos.

2.) The State Indian Affairs Commission may be 'giving' the Mashpee Tribe land for a casino.

Ain't gonna happen. First, the State, including the Indian Affairs Commission can't give the tribe land on which to conduct gambling operations. There are strict federal regulations in place controlling this sort of thing. It is a federal issue. Period. If the state ever did, for whatever perverse reason, attempt to transfer land to a tribe which then attempted to 'game' on it - it would be lawsuit a-go-go. Personally, I think the reporter went looking to the commission for a quote and found someone who wanted to seem much, much more important than he actually is.

3.) But wait, it looks like Jack Healey is involved again!

Jack, with his vast misunderstanding of both federal regulations and the concept of cost benefit, may indeed have invited a tribe or two behind closed doors. But my guess is that it's a nothing but a big fat cokinydink.

4.) Why is the Middleboro planning director is saying "no comment" in the press?

Planning Director Ruth Geoffroy has, in recent years, built her hopes and career on a Middleboro casino. Sailing with her three sheets to the wind across the Kool-Aid sea, Ruth has, perhaps, suddenly found her ship of dreams scuttled on the rocky shores of reality. She's obviously in a state of shock. Let's all give her a moment.

5.) "Mr. Bond said he believes the state will approve slot machines at the Raynham dog track and will also consider offering the track owners a commercial license if they make plans to build a casino resort in the future."

The fact is, there will likely be several gambling bills put forth this month, including those that provide for racinos only, casinos only, and a combination of both. This is no surprise. In a display of unabashed hypocrisy, many pro-casino enthusiasts, such as AFL-CIO's Bobby Haynes, and gambling industry lobbyist Clyde Barrow, have begun mysteriously seeing eye-to-eye with racetrack interests like speaker Bob Deleo. Sure slots, don't bring jobs, but that's ok with Clyde and Bobby. They just want to help that vampire get his foot in the door. That's all.

I haven't observed Mr. Bond's presence at any State gambling hearings, so I'm unclear as to why he is quoted in the Middleboro Gazette as if he has some sort of special inside knowledge. If seeking an actually knowledgeable opinion on the issue, the reporter could easily have contacted Frank Dunphy, president of CasinoFacts.org, and/or Kathleen Norbut, president of United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts, either or whom would have been happy to go on record. But, if accuracy is unimportant, and the issue of predatory gambling nothing but a joke to the Gazette, then by all means, do keep printing everything Mr. Bond pulls out of his butt.

And one more thing. Regarding the statement, "Mr. Bond abruptly resigned from the board last January after colleagues rebuffed his assertions that the board should try to renegotiate it's contract with the tribe in light of the resignation and later imprisonment on federal charges of former tribal council chairman Glenn Marshall." Since we're clearing up fact from fiction, let's get this straight. Mr. Bond resigned in a weird hissy fit after throwing his various Board colleagues under the bus, in an anxious attempt to deflect personal and professional liability for his part in the casino chronicles - which might have lead to possible federal charges. And should, in my opinion.

Mr. Bond has repeatedly tried to re-write his history, and now it would appear, he has help.


6.) But what about the Pocassets? Can't they build a casino on their land?

No. This is not trust land, or Indian land, or federal land. And don't forget about SCOTUS. No casino.


7.) But why do I keep hearing that work "inevitable" again?

According to Steven Smith of SRPEDD "There is an inevitability about a casino in Southeastern Massachusetts." Well, I'm sure glad Mr. Smith wasn't fighting on our side during the American revolution - or we might have been scarfing down tea and crumpets during the Superbowl last night.

The fact is, the 'inevitability' card is drawn over and over again on this issue because the other reasons to legalize it are weak. The industry relies on inflated job numbers and salaries, along with other gimmicks to dupe the public. Lobbyists harangue legislators. The truth gets lost.

A colleague of mine who sat through the Oct. legislative hearings admitted to me that, after listening to Mashpee Wampaonag chairman Cedric Cromwell's testimony, even he was unaware of all the major impediments to a Southeast tribal casino.

Other people just believe that everything they hear in the papers is the gospel truth. I know I did before this issue opened my eyes.

And that's what they count on. So don't let them get away with it. Fight ignorance with facts.

The inevitability card is drawn for one reason only - it stops the most powerful foe and scariest thing the industry knows - us.

8.) So what are the real facts?

The facts are that there is a still a SCOTUS decision preventing land in trust for Indian Tribes federally recognized after 1934 which includes both federally recognized tribes in Massachusetts, and would include the Pocassets were they to be federally recognized in the future. This decision has yet to be overturned or "fixed".

Level III gambling is still illegal in Massachusetts.

The truth is, YOU can personally help stop both a "fix" and prevent the expansion of gambling in Massachusetts with just a few minutes of your time.

More on that in a day or two.

Unfriending Obama

Mayor of Las Vegas Oscar Goodman, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D - Nevada), and Nevada republican candidate Danny Tarkanian are steaming mad and demanding an apology from President Obama for excessive Las Vegas Bashing. The bashing in question?

"When times are tough, you tighten your belts," the president said. "You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don't blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you're trying to save for college."

--President Obama, speaking at a New Hampshire town hall meeting yesterday

"You can't go take that trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on taxpayers' dime"

--President Obama, criticizing Wall Street excesses last February

This is probably just some misunderstanding. I'm certain that what President Obama was trying to say was, if you're going to blow your kid's college fund, or take a pleasure trip on the taxpayers dime, there is no better place to do it than beautiful and economically depressed Las Vegas, and not at your local or State sponsored casinos.

Or maybe he was trying to say that only completely irresponsible idiots blow their cash at casinos during tough economic times.

Yeah. That was probably it.

Meanwhile, completely irresponsible idiots are demanding an apology.

Selective Hearing

DeLeo said finding resources for job creation initiatives will be "difficult" and described himself as both opposed to new taxes in the budget and "open to every idea that could generate state revenue and jobs." Regarding expanding gambling legislation he plans to roll out in February or March, DeLeo said, "The debate over the destination gambling issue is not a philosophical one. It is about a fight for job creation. It is a fight to expand our tourist attractions which in turn help to drive our economy. It is a fight to get shovels planted in the ground. To win this fight, I will make sure that any gaming legislation will require the creation of permanent jobs." Gambling bills are under review by the Economic Development Committee, although DeLeo is taking the lead on crafting a single bill.

-- From Statehouse News Service Jan. 28, 2010

Didn't take long for House Speaker Robert DeLeo to hone right in on President Obama's mandate to spur job creation, twisting 'job creation' to imply that casinos would create 'permanent jobs', spur tourism, and get those darned 'shovels in the ground.'

Back away from the Kool-aid, Bob.

Ok, boys and girls, let's review:

To create 30,000 jobs casino developers would have to spend 16.7 billion in construction. The most expensive casino in the world cost $2.7 Billion to construct.

Casino Resort jobs pay less than half the Massachusetts Median Income.

83% of retailers went out of business within the first 7 years of legalized gambling in Cripple Creek Colorado.

"A study commissioned by the New York Governor concluded that 1,208 more jobs would be lost rather than gained with gambling expansion due to a change in residents spending habits."

Source: Jerry Zremski, -- Doubts Raised on Casino Job Gains” The buffalo News, 8/18/02

Primary customers of casinos live locally - they are NOT tourists - and they spend less of their money locally.

"Gamblers spend 10% less on food 25% less on clothing, and 35% less on savings."

--Professor John Kindt. University of Illinois. Diminishing Or Negating the Multiplier Effect: The Transfer of Consumer Dollars to Legalized Gambling: Should a Negative Socio-Economic "Crime Multiplier" Be Included in Gambling Cost/ Benefit Analyses? 2003 Mich. ST DCL L. Rev. 281-313

78% of Local Businesses have shut down in Atlantic City since the opening of the first Casino.

"The prosecutor in Ohio and Dearborn County also warns that the economic development that was promised with the casinos has never really happened in that community and very little money is generated outside of the casino. That seems to be a similar issue with prosecutors in other communities as well."

--Indiana State Prosecutor Karen Richards
In a letter to the Mayor of Fort Wayne
describing her conversations with prosecutors in casino communities

"The local money will be diverted from the normal business purchases to the casino for everything from restaurants, refrigerators, automobiles, mortgages, and even college educations."

--Nicholas Mullane
First selectman of the town of North Stonington, Connecticut before, during and after the building of Foxwoods Casino.

Because the areas could not support the low wage jobs the casino was looking to fill in Connecticut, it brought in workers that would work for minimum wage.

-- Source: “Mayor: Casino Costly”: Sun Journal. Lewiston ME 10.22.08. By Leslie Dixon

“We were very disappointed in the economic spin-off. It just hasn’t come…When you bring in a development like [Casinos] it’s all about the money.”

-Mayor Susie Mendenhall-Ledyard County CT

According to the National Compensation Survey, Casino Resort employees make a Median annual salary of only $13,179, less than half the Massachusetts median income.

“… People were looking for jobs that paid the type of wage they had been making in the past,… but they realized those were not the jobs at the casino.”

-Grace Horne former employee in hiring department at Mohegan Sun

And those are just a few of the non-philosophical reasons legislators should stop promoting casinos - for the good of our Commonwealth.

Let's face it, Bob, you're latching onto the 'job' bandwagon to advance your private agenda of expanding gambling in the Bay State because you represent a racetrack district.

So tell me, despite all the non-philosophical evidence to the contrary, have you learned nothing from the lesson of Scott Brown? Enough with the special interests. Listen to the people, Bob. The people.

33%:support resort casinos
3%:support slots at tracks
16%:no pref
38%:don't want expanded gambling in the state at all

-- Source: Boston Globe

Art Imitates Blog

Thanks to the technological wizardry of the DVR, I was able to catch an episode of CSI: NY that I had inexplicably missed when it aired originally. Inexplicably because the entire episode revolved around an obscure but federally recognized East Coast Native American tribe, questionable Land into Trust acquisitions, and a little subject I just happened to bring to your attention two years ago on this very blog - sovereign nation internet gambling server farms.

Server farms, unlike mega resort casinos, I pointed out, can rake in millions of dollars in the space of a small warehouse. And, thanks to their tiny footprint and austere requirements, nary a tree needs to fall, nor an endangered species be pushed closer to oblivion in order to accommodate them.

Of course, the Mashpee Wampanoag tribal leadership inexplicably continues to pursue an edifice to greed, in a town they don't live in, despite an economic downturn, a Supreme Court decision, and common sense. No, they want the stained glass waterfall. They want to meet Bobby Flay and Emeril Lagasse and show up at conventions wearing expensive nouveau tribal haute couture, comparing casino sizes with the other tribes. "Ha Ha! Mine's bigger than yours!"

And they're not going to let a little addiction, crime and environmental devastation stand in their way.

But back to CSI: NY... upon discovering the server farm on a sliver of sovereign property, one member of the CIS team wonders out loud why their chairman, who "was all about preserving the integrity of his tribe" would engage in gambling operations.

The ensuing gag-inducing response, uttered by an actor playing an African American doctor no less, was as follows.

Yeah, but why not? Even if running gambling operations were hard for him to swallow at first, in this day and age, it can go a long way in promoting pride, especially prosperity, for all kinds of Native Americans.

Jeekers. I don't even know where to start with this.

Hard to swallow? As in, 'yeah, so what, you have principles, now get over it, there's big money involved!'

In this day and age? Meaning, 'in this age of titanic ponzi schemes, wall street avarice and predatory mortgage lending, are values really all that important anymore?'

All kinds of Native Americans? What, like fat ones? Skinny ones? Real ones? Fake ones?

And, in light of the fact that some TV writer thought these words were best uttered by an African American, I'm trying to imagine what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would say, had the U.S. government said to him, "hey doc, instead of all this marching and peaceful demonstrating and content of your character stuff, why don't all you black folks move onto this big stretch of land, we'll call it a 'reservation' for lack of a better term, and that can be your country, and the rest of it will be our country, and you can have casinos to give you pride and prosperity, and that will make us all equal and we can pretend that whole slavery thing never happened. Whaddaya say??"

Hey, speaking of the U.S. government, here's something I bet you don't know. The United States once had a Native American vice president.

Yup, it's true. From 1929 to 1933, Charles Curtis served as vice president to Herbert Hoover. Curtis, who spent his childhood on a reservation, went on to serve several terms as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, and also in the Senate, including terms as both Senate Majority Leader and Whip. Time magazine featured him on it's December 1926 cover. Curtis, who is noted for proposing the first version of the Equal Rights Amendment, left office just in time not only for the depths of the Great Depression, but also for the Indian Reorganization Act.

And there's never been another Native American VP since.

But then, why reach for the stars, when all that glitters, is gold?

The People's Seat

Congratulations to Massachusetts Senator-Elect Scott Brown, one of the few republicans I've ever voted for. In the coming years I hope he will stay true to his words and be the Independent voice of the people.

Even before the casino debacle I'd become increasingly disillusioned by political candidates of both parties. Despite the fact that our State and nation are becoming more moderate, politics continue to grow more partisan.

I'm pleased to note that my town of Bridgewater (a college town at that) voted for Brown 68% to 31%. Middleboro, 70% to 30%.

In fact, the same region of the State that was taken to hell in a hand basket by casino interests, intimidated by unions, gaveled to silence by their elected leaders, and mostly ignored by their their state and local reps went for Brown in a big way.

I hope that this message isn't lost on those leaders who put racetracks, casino lobbyists and other special interests ahead of the people they represent.

This tribe has spoken.

VoteShock

Long time readers of this blog know that I'm both a democrat and a feminist, and that I'd love nothing more than to help elect a democratic woman candidate as our next senator. But long time readers will also recall that I've sometimes voted my conscience rather than the ticket.

Yesterday, my husband told me that I was really an independent. "No." I replied. "I'm a democrat. I believe in what our party stands for... I just wish they'd send us better democrats."

Last year I had the long awaited pleasure of voting for a better democrat when I colored in the circle next to Alan Khazie's name. He was a candidate with what, to me, are values truer to what our party stands for. Khazie, it should be noted, is supporting Martha Coakley in the special election.

The truth is, I know some wonderful fellow democrats, holding signs on sidewalks for hours in the cold, making call after call after call to strangers, in support Martha Coakley, and I truly respect them for it - and hope they will likewise respect my decision not to.

From what I understand, I'm in good company. The fact that Ted Kennedy's seat (I mean 'the people's seat') might go to a republican has left many in shock. It shouldn't. Ted had a good run.

I'd been voting for Ted Kennedy as long as I can remember. But, in early 2007, upon learning that the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe along with a self-purposed cast of international billionaires, indian gaming lawyers, lobbyists, legislators and autocratic yokels were attempting to foist the world's biggest casino on my part of the world I wrote to both senators Kennedy and Kerry about my concerns.

Kennedy's office responded by thanking me for my interest in immigration reform. Kerry's office never responded at all.

Now, this wasn't some dog complaint or random rage against the machine that I'd penned. It was a legitimate, heartfelt letter from a long-time resident of Massachusetts, expressing my fears of a sovereign nation with a daily revolving population the size of Plymouth on 500 some-odd acres just a few minutes from my front door, and of being steamrolled by a system that had been conceived and constructed by the very political body to which they belonged.

I have no idea how either Martha Coakley or Scott Brown feel about expanded gambling in the Bay State - an issue I've come to use as my criteria in judging a candidate's intelligence, character and leadership potential because I am so intimately familiar with it - because despite being repeatedly asked, neither candidate felt the public needed to know where they stood on it.

But I'm supposed to vote for Martha because she will vote for Obama's health care bill. The thing is, I don't want to vote for Obama's health care bill. I want Obama's health care bill to go back to the drawing board. I want Obama's health care bill not to give the State of Nebraska almost as many rights as a federally recognized Indian tribe. And I don't want Obama's health care legislation to be pushed through faster than a tribal casino on an unsuspecting public.

I've heard that making legislation can be like making sausage. But from my experience, when legislation is rushed through, it comes out sort of like Swiss cheese - it has a lot of holes. Holes which will invariably be stumbled upon, then manipulated by, lawyers and various corporate interests whose main concern is decidedly not the better good of the American people.

I also realize that there's supposed to be 'a window' of time that Obama can realistically push through any health care plan, and that he's trying his best to do it, even if it means that the plan might not be the best effort. But I don't believe it. I believe that universal health care is here to stay and that refining and retooling it won't kill it for good. And I'm not alone.

And that's why the Kennedys and an onslaught of other big-name democratic paratroopers are currently falling out of the sky to remind Massachusetts voters how we're supposed to vote.

And it's worked. I'm reminded that I'm supposed to vote for a senator who will vote for legislation that is being rushed through and that when I, or someone I love is negatively effected by it, I can expect a letter thanking me for my interest in immigration reform. If I get one at all.

Listen, I'm not a Scott Brown fan. I think he's probably as big a doofus as Tim Cahill.

But I'm not a Martha Coakley fan either. Once again, a female democratic candidate has me wondering if we were even born on the same planet.

When I hear her tell us she 'stands up..' for people, I can't help but visualize a thought bubble above her head that says - '...at least when it works for me.'

I'm also weary of democratic hypocrites who paint republicans as war mongers while they, themselves, proclaim victims of state-sponsored gambling addiction and their families as 'acceptable losses'.

I'm tired of democratic leadership like that of Therese "Ka-Ching" Murray who has stated that she doesn't even read anything predatory gambling opponents send her.

I'm tired of the Kennedy family mythos deciding elections for us every time things might not go the way they want it. Like Ted, they've all had a good long run in this State, not to mention this entire nation. And, while I appreciate the Kennedy family's unrivaled sacrifices and contributions to public service, frankly, their emotionally-tinged support for the current democratic place-holder, without regard for her record, just continues to perpetuate the unhelpful, out-dated fiction that the democratic party always support the 'little guy'.

And I really would prefer that Obama stay in DC to celebrate his wife's birthday and concentrate on helping Haiti and our troops in Iraq of Afghanistan instead of coming here to Massachusetts to tell us how to vote. I like President Obama but let's face it, he wouldn't actually care so much about how we voted in this election unless his health care plan weren't threatened. He doesn't want to have to send that plan through again.

But the President forgets - this vote isn't a national referendum on health care - it's about whose voice will define the future of Massachusetts. And, we already have one of the best state-run universal health plans in the nation. In fact, the president's current plan will cost us all extra in this state because of it. And way more than it will cost the state of Nebraska which, in the true spirit of equality, will pay nothing. But pay no attention to that feeling of disparity you're having, because the democratic party will take care of you.

Incessant television ads may paint Scott Brown as a health care blue meaney, but he's said he's not against universal health care. He just wants to bring it back to the table.

If elected, I believe that a Massachusetts republican Senator will be forced to stay on his toes, while a member of the tired and true democratic machine will continue to bask in the comfort of a complacent electorate and toe the party line.

In the absence of a political miracle, a republican shake up could be the best thing that could happen to my party. It might actually save it from it's own machinery, it's own assembly line, it's own unwittingly manufactured obsolescence.

And, of the two of candidates, Brown strikes me as more likely to listen to my concerns.

That ability to listen - that rare trait, the lack of which many in my party share with the American Auto and Lending Industries

And, as long as we keep voting for them, because we're supposed to, because they know what's best for us, they'll continue in that fine tradition. Just like the Auto and Lending Industries did. And, ultimately be will good for America. Right?

When it comes down to a race between two candidates you don't like, and neither of whom probably care about what's important to you, it's going to come down to making a statement. In the past, that statement, for me, has included voting for candidates with no possibility of winning. But, this time around, I find myself with an alternative.

Despite the arguments of my friends who are supporting Coakley, I don't necessarily think that a vote for her, because she is a democrat, is automatically superior to a vote for a republican. Especially since it offers us the opportunity, at last, to send the Massachusetts democratic party a message: Send better democrats.

If Martha is elected, she could screw up royally and still stay elected for life. If Scott screws up, he'll be a one-term senator and the Massachusetts democratic party might actually be forced to care about your next senatorial vote. Wouldn't that be something?

I mean, how long is our state going to be dismissed as an impenetrable blue blob on the map? Can't we protect a woman's right to choose and have better health care legislation?

The insiders suggest Coakley will squeak out a victory, which will no doubt then be touted as a victory for the democratic party - the party of the little guy.

Nevertheless, on Tuesday, this little guy will be voting for the candidate most likely not to push her to the sidewalk should she have the audacity to ask them a question they don't want to answer.

Thank You Falettinme Be Mice Elf Agin

Yesterday, I wasn't feeling very good. So I took a sick day.

Now, when you're a mom, you can be sure that a sick day means that you still have to make breakfasts and lunches and dinners, do the dishes, pick up the kids from after-school activities and help with homework. But other than that, I took a 'sick day'.

Now, normally, when I take a 'sick day', I would be obsessing over all the work I wasn't getting done or should be doing or responding to my e-mails and making lists or coming up with storyboards or manipulating graphics , and wondering what was going on in the world. So, essentially this would still qualify as a 'work day', just with more guilt.

But yesterday was a little different. I refused to obsess. Instead, I rested. And, around 2:00 yesterday afternoon, the strangest feeling came over me. It was quite an unusual feeling and therefore took me awhile to identify.

Peace.

I felt 'at peace'. It's true. And then I realized why I felt 'at peace'.

I felt 'at peace' because at that moment, I was 100% positive that there were other people out there, good, smart, hard-working people, the other members on my team, getting things done.

In other words, I felt 'at peace' because I wasn't 'needed'.

Now, I realize that the majority of the human race enjoys, to some extent, being 'needed', at home or at work or in the community at large. It's natural, I suppose, since being needed affirms one's relevance, one's importance in the world.

But, it's not like I'm in any danger of irrelevance. When your presence is apparently crucial in pointing out when the garbage smells, or when a head of hair needs washing, or that a project is due tomorrow, or that someone needs a hug or lunch or dinner or that we're out of toilet paper... you'd be hard pressed to not to feel pretty important.

But yesterday I was on Cinderella liberty from the war on slots. And it was OK. Because everything was getting done. And done well. Probably more than I could even imagine, too. I knew that, somewhere out there, calls were being made, meetings arranged, letters written, strategy formulated... things. Stuff. Out there, people were remaining motivated and immune to the forces of inevitability with absolutely no input from me.

And I can't tell you how good that felt. I haven't felt that way in a very long time. I've not only felt 'needed' every second of the day, I've felt 'overwhelmed' beyond the point of emotional exhaustion over this cause.

The work, the worry, the indignation - it never goes away. Not for a moment. It invades your sleep. It comes with you on vacation. It speaks to you when you're at the movies and or trying to read a book. And always, you feel like you should be doing something to make it go away.

Earlier this year I was out collecting signatures a few days before surgery. Before that it was an early morning direct action event. A couple of weeks later I was driving two hours each way and an hour in between for a traffic simulation. After that it was the Democratic convention. In between were other events, the ever present blog and my sad attempts to have a life. And I did it because I felt I had to. Someone had to. If someone doesn't do these things, they can't get done.

After the July 2007 Town Meeting From Hell, a lot of people who had been up to then, really, actively fighting did something that was referred to as 'stepping back'. No one could fault them, they'd done a tremendous amount of work in a very short time.

These weren't professional organizers but homeowners, parents, just your average concerned citizens. It was an emotionally wrenching time for many people - so naturally they needed some time to rest and regroup. But the thing is, most of those people never 'stepped back in'. Despite some bright bursts of activity here and there in the ensuing years, I've watched that original momentum, that incredible heartbeat, slow to faint pulse.

Until now. Now I could take an actual 'sick day' because I'm part of this great team - not a big team to be sure - but a great one. And that's the thing about being on a team. You're not out there by yourself, being chased by 300 lb. linebackers, just trying to get the ball to the other side of the field without being killed. You're playing to win. There's someone there to catch the ball when you pass it.

Because it really sucks when there isn't.

I met this guy last year at the CERA conference and was telling him how much I admired the work his organization was doing, and I'll never forget what he told me.

"When it started out, there were a lot of other people doing this with me," he said, "but one by one, they dropped out or didn't do anything, and after awhile it was just me. And that was just as well I guess..." Then he rolled his eyes.

And I finished his sentence, "...because you know you can count on you, right?"

"Yeah." he said, smiling. "Yeah."

This guy had become pretty much an anti-casino army of one in his part of the world. He'd almost single-handedly done what some think is the unthinkable - prevented a tribal casino from being built.

I've been luckier than him, though, because I've never been completely alone on the field. There have been a brave, passionate, stubborn few who who show up, who speak out, who volunteer, who are always doing things on their own, and trying mostly in vain to motivate others to do the same. I'd be lost without those few folks and I want them to know that.

And that's the thing about being an activist, I suppose. You're either on a football team or you're a long distance runner. And frankly, having worked the Boston Marathon and seen runners collapse at the finish line, I'd rather take my chances with the linebackers. At least you know your team is still playing as you're being taken off the field in a stretcher.

The other day I was at a party for some nice people I'd met way back in the beginning of the casino debacle. In fact, the house was filled with faces I remembered so fondly from those early days, though some I hadn't seen in years. Why hadn't I seen them? I wondered, not without a touch of resentment. Don't they want to stop casinos, too?

Later, I wondered if some of them hadn't once felt about some of my colleagues and I, as today I feel about USS-Mass.

"At peace".

At peace, and grateful, because because they knew someone was still there fighting, getting things done, and because they were exhausted and overwhelmed and sick and they just needed to 'step back'.

And if that's so, I want them to know that there's never been a better time to 'step back in'.

USS-Mass is a fantastic team, with inspired leadership, making real, viable, headway in this battle. And because right now there are people on Beacon Hill with maps and thumbtacks trying to figure out where to put casinos and how many. And because a conga line of lobbyists is making it's way through the State House at this very moment. Because State Senator Stan Rosenberg, the 'point-man' on casinos drinks Kool-aid and thinks a 6% addiction rate is a small price to pay. And because pro-casino-yet-anti-circumcision champion Michael Morrissey sits on the Economic Development and Emerging Technologies Committee. Because the current Speaker confuses Attleboro with Rhode Island, and because the Senate President has privately admitted that she doesn't read anything predatory-gambling opponents send her. And because the smell of slots will brings out the greed in some people and in some Indian tribes, too... And in investors and flying monkeys and Indian gaming attorneys and inept small town leadership, and we all know where that leads.

Like I've said, the work, the worry, the indignation - it never goes away. So write a letter to the editor today. Write or call your legislator tomorrow. Send a check. Volunteer. Show up. Hold a sign. Stick a bumper sticker on your car. There are so many ways to help and to be part of this team.

Will it be a winning team? I honestly don't know. But I do know that with you there, our chances just got better.

Stan Rosenberg Thinks of Nothing But Casinos All Day

After reading "Inside Man: An interview with Stan Rosenberg, the State House’s casino expert," I had to double check that the article was actually published in the Globe, and not in The Onion.

Observe:

Among the lawmakers who will be deciding the issue, no one knows more about this side of gambling than state Senator Stan Rosenberg. For the past two years, the Democrat from Amherst has been the Senate’s gambling guru, traveling to casinos in Nevada, Louisiana, New Jersey, Connecticut, New York, Iowa, and Canada to study the industry from the inside.

He has spent time with casino developers and money changers, walking windowless rooms full of noisy slot machines in an effort to understand what casinos would mean to Massachusetts - and how the state should handle them.

Ok, so... Rosenberg's been to a lot of casinos and spent some quality time with gambling industry insiders. Oooookaaay... That's nice. But the article fails to mention whether Rosenberg has spent any time listening to predatory gambling opponents. Which I don't think he has, since I would have heard about it. And, in my book, you can't really go around considering yourself a casino 'expert' if you've only studied them from the inside.

That just reminds me of those folks who frequent comment forums or message boards insisting that they've never had any problems with gambling... they've never seen any increase in crime... they've been to casinos and everything is super dee duper... bring on the promised embarrassment of riches! Recapture our god-given gambling revenue!

And I'm a little concerned about Rosenberg's taste level.

There’s waterfalls and all kinds of things. It’s a really beautiful venue, and you don’t even realize that you’re in a casino.

Um... Ok. If Stan can't tell the difference between stained glass rock formations and the real thing, maybe he needs to take some time off from the casinos and do a week or two of Outward Bound or something.

But why should you concern yourself with Stan the Casino Man and his rose-colored one-way superficial view of the gambling industry?

Well, not only is it possible that Stan will be a decision maker in upcoming expanded gambling legislation here in Massachusetts, but based on the vast empirical data he's gathered in the field, Stan thinks he knows where resort destination casinos would be best. And that might be near you.

There may be places in the Commonwealth where you could build things in the style of a Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun that don’t look out of place because they’re off on their own.

Stan's somewhat less-the-scientific assessment doesn't exactly take into account traffic or water availability or property values or environmental impacts or infrastructure improvements, and he obviously sports a misconception of what "off on their own" means, seeing as how there's not even one single solitary Massachusetts casino plan on the table that's nestled in the middle of nowhere.

But that doesn't bother Stan, because a.) he doesn't gamble (sarcasm) and b.) he knows that he's safe in Amherst, where a casino will never see the windowless artificially generated light of day.

But my favorite part of the article is when he was asked what he saw as the difference is between the lottery and casinos.

There’s nothing classy about playing the lottery. You’re buying a ticket. You may scratch it on the counter, in the car, at home....You’re just scratching and then you throw it away. You go into these gaming venues and you may see a show, go to a nice restaurant, you may walk around the mall and do your holiday shopping, and you may spend the night.

If Stan is really of the belief that 'casinos' imply 'class', I know some New Jersey housewives who'd like to make his acquaintance.

Repeat after me, Stan: Casinos are to Class as Spam is to Cuisine,

The only cache casinos can actually boast are when they're the places you can experience a private bacchanal with no lingering repercussions. 'What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas' has been the pragmatic marketing strategy keeping that city marginally afloat during the worldwide economic meltdown.

Swinging off the exit to squander a few hours playing slots (which account for 70-80% of casino revenue) is not classy. It doesn't even come close to classy. It doesn't touch classy's hem. It's classy's silicon-enhanced leopard-stretch-pants wearing tattooed third cousin, twice removed.

Oh, and that money going into restaurants and shops, Stan, that's money not going into local restaurants and local shops (aka the local economy).

I'm not really sure why Stan Rosenberg is "The State House's casino expert" except perhaps that he (insert raised eyebrow) was 'hand picked' (like a ripe pear?) by Therese Murray (insert wink) to 'study' the wonder of it all (hmmmm), so she could avoid looking like a killjoy to her friends in the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe, some of whom want to build the world's largest resort destination casino, not tucked away in the woods, but in the midst of homes, schools and businesses, and more importantly, in a town adjacent to her constituency.

But heck, you can't fault Stan for his humanity.

I have no doubt there will be more addiction, but I also am not one of those people who believes - I mean 94 percent of people can participate in slot machines without getting themselves in trouble. It’s hard for me to justify saying to 94 percent of people you can’t do what you want to do when 6 percent of the people can’t leave the machine when they’ve lost more than they should.

That's right Mr. Expert. It's that hard core six percent who support the industry. And we'll need them, won't we?

I’m not wild about gambling, but I don’t have this self-righteous attitude about gambling. My concern is that if we’re going to do it that it be a very strongly regulated system, that we address community mitigation, economic impacts, and the addiction.

Yeah, because the State does that so well now.

I don't know, folks... our man Stan may not be wild about gambling, but to hear him talk... it would appear that he does enjoy the drink.

No Soup For You!

Remember how, back in the good old days, whenever some 'issue' surfaced amongst the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe, paid spokesperson Scott Ferson would magically appear, perform the danse inévitable then slink back to his hidey hole?

Ah... good times, good times.

These days the Tribe is reduced to speaking for themselves, complete with threats and an utter denial of reality.

In yesterday's Boston Herald, Tribal Chairman Cedric Cromwell was quoted as saying,

If the governor refuses to deal with us and distributes licenses to other casino operators, we won’t give the state a cent when we build a gaming facility in Southeastern Massachusetts,”

The article failed to mention if Cromwell then put a hand on one hip, stamped his foot and stuck his chin in the air, but I suspect so.

“We know the governor is a busy man, but it’s very important for the administration to meet with us because we are a sovereign nation,” he said.

That's right, Ced, the Governor is a busy man. Just look at how long he took to meet with the expanded gambling opposition here in Massachusetts. Two and a half years.

Years, Ced.

And to accomplish that we had live through his three-casino agenda, witness the incarceration of one of your predecessors, survive a Supreme Court decision, experience an economic meltdown, extract a resolution from the Democratic party, form a new organization and wait for a shift in the political climate.

But of course he'll meet with you. Doesn't he always drop everything to talk casinos with you? He's probably met with your Tribe more often than he's met with his own staff. Frankly, I'm surprised you don't have him on speed-dial like Glenn and Sean did.

And, I mean, why wouldn't the Governor want to meet with a 1,500 member sovereign nation with a colorful reputation for corruption, political-infighting, violence, and whose members struggle, according to you Ced, with substance abuse, and whose apparent singular goal is to bring casino gambling, an industry well known for it's association with crime and addiction, to a large section of the State under the guise of economic development that even some members of your own tribe oppose.

Who wouldn't pass up an opportunity like that?

But hey, please keep threatening to leave the State out of your imaginary casino revenue as it certainly gives the Governor just one more reason not to pass slot legislation.

Oh, and don't forget, if by some unholy miracle your tribe did get a.) Carcieri fixed b.) land into trust for 'gaming' c.) a favorable EIS and d.) a quarter of a billion for infrastructure improvements, you would STILL have to negotiate a compact with the Governor. And I suspect it would not involve the State getting bupkiss for gambling revenue.

In that event, sure, I suppose you could work the court system for a few decades in an attempt to weasel out of a compact ...Which would just give this great country of ours more time to realize how truly out of control and 'inequitable' (your words, not mine) federal Indian policy is in this great big modern cultural melting pot. That works for me.

By the way, as an aside, Senator Byron Dorgan, who introduced the latest Carcieri 'fix' has just announced his intention to retire. As did Connecticut's Chris Dodd, one of the men who helped usher in the age of inevitability for tribal casinos here in New England. Don't let the door hit you on the way out, Chris.

And speaking of other 'fixes' that won't be forthcoming... The Brockton Enterprise (the same pro-casino daily which famously neglected to mention Article III from the July 2007 Middleboro Town Meeting from Hell) has gotten it wrong once again.

On the federal issue, Middleboro’s Richard Young, former president of the statewide anti-gambling group United to Stop Slots, said his group will lobby Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, a staunch opponent to tribal casinos.

For those who are unaware, Rich Young has never had any association with United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts, and should not be quoted by the media speaking for that organization.

Rich Young is the former president of CasinoFacts.org and of the now-defunct CasinoFreeMass.

Kathleen Norbut is the president of United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts and has been president of this organization since it's inception.

Frank Dunphy is the current president of CasinoFacts.org

Contact information for United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts is and has been clearly posted on it's web site for some time now.

USS-Mass, as many of you may know, is also the same organization which, in just the past several months has testified at the statehouse hearings on expanded gambling, met with the Mass. AG's top staff, as well as with the Mass. Secretary of Housing and Economic Development (twice), the Secretary of Health and Human Services (twice), Governor Deval Patrick, and held a large, well-publicized public Forum at Faneuil Hall featuring former governor and presidential candidate Michael Dukakis and his wife Kitty, Former AG Scott Harshbarger, Mass State Senator Sue Tucker, republican and former New Hampshire state senator Jim Rubens, and former democratic candidate for Ted Kennedy's senate seat, Alan Khazei.

And so, as you can see, it's perfectly understandable how the Enterprise reporter might have thought the group was too inactive and uninformed to be contacted.

But, for the record, I did personally alert the editor of Enterprise to the faux pas this morning (which remains uncorrected as I publish this post) but do continue to maintain complete faith that the paper will ignore the correction, repeat this and other glaring gambling-related errors, and continue to provide the public with similar exciting fiction in the future.

No Soup, one year!