The Globe’s Christine Wallgren reports that Casinofacts.org, which opposes the idea of a casino coming to Middleborough, has apologized closed its comment section after an anonymous poster made a lewd remark about casino supporter Selectman Adam Bond’s 2-year-old daughter.
Obviously way out of bounds. Of course, it would also be nice if Casino-friend.com would apologize for comparing casino opponents to the Ku Klux Klan, but I suppose that’s expecting too much.
Discover more from Media Nation
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Dan,I frankly don’t care whether the casino comes or not. But the site you mention, http://www.casino-friend.com/readercomment_6.html,would appear to be pretty clear about this whole “KKK” canard. Just because some internet newbie allowed an inappropriate comment to remain on their site temporarily, does that mean these guys are all wearing sheets? Sometimes people of ill will get through on this site too and that’s unfortunate. There are probably plenty of good reasons to reject the casino. This red herring about the KKK is not one of them, IMHO.
Anon 4:37: That is not what I pointed to. What I pointed to was this, an “editorial” by Hal Brown, the editor and publisher of Casino-friend.com, in which he issues a smarmy call for Casinofacts.org to “disavow” any association with a group that’s been likened to the Ku Klux Klan. The editorial is still there — nothing temporary about it.Brown writes: “While we recognize that CasinoFacts.org can’t control those who hold or espouse bigoted beliefs, we have yet to see an inequitable disavowal of them.” Please. Since when does failure to “disavow” something constitute approval? This is a classic attempt to divert attention from the real issues by putting your opponents on the defensive for something they have nothing to do with.Brown also contributes to the Web site Capitol Hill Blue. Here he smears casino opponents with more sleazy guilt-by-association insinuations.Did you think I hadn’t done my homework? Sorry. You’ll have to do better than that.
Brown issues this challenge:How many times and in how many ways do I have to state that I have never said members of the organized casino oposition were racists? The challenge is simple: go over the Casino-Friend archives and find one example of this.How about this, from the editorial in Dan’s link:This is typical CERA rhetoric. They seem to believe by just saying they aren’t racist makes it so. But the if you [sic] scratch the distrust and cynicism expressed in the sentences above the stench of racism rises forth.Brown is a coward, using guilt-by-association as Dan says, playing coy by protesting, I did not call these groups racist, but other groups such as Public Eye (in a private conversation thus unverifiable) and an opinion column in an Indian newspaper call these groups racist. I looked at the CERA site. They obviously have a complaint about the issue of tribal sovereignty, but that doesn’t make them racists. It can simply be a legitimately held belief and ought to be considered so unless specific evidence that the belief is based on racism is presented. Brown of course couldn’t be bothered to do that, beyond pointing to the opinion column by Dave Lundgren, which defines any group that opposes tribal self-governance to be a “hate group” per se. But it’s enough justification for Brown to leave the accusation hanging out there, so we can smell its “stench”.The editorial “A call for CasinoFacts to repudiate bigotry, prejudice and hate” is nearly incoherent. Try parsing this tangle:If there are a few who feel that strongly, how many others of them are they that have had their underlying prejudices, based on unwarranted fears, played upon by CasinoFacts’ material?Er, how many others indeed! That’s followed by the sentence calling for the “inequitable” disavowal. Does he mean unequivocal, perhaps? The mind boggles.
Also on Hal’s Capital Hill Blue blog – he “reported” on a newspaper article that had a local resident voicing concerns about drunk drivers coming from the casino.Hal’s analysis: “Does so-and-so subscribe to the stereotype of the drunken Indian?” Just one piece of “evidence” that Hal puts out there in his “forthright discussion about the pro and cons of a Middleboro Casino” ….. Uh huh.