Author: Dan Kennedy

Literally shocking

If you haven’t seen video yet of a University of Florida student being subdued and tasered by police during an appearance by Sen. John Kerry, well, here’s one of them:

Yes, it’s pretty shaky, and this package from MSNBC is clearer. But the amateur video captures the entire incident. It’s kind of astounding to hear Kerry droning on while the student, Andrew Meyer, is screaming from the electric shocks.

Meyer was being an obnoxious jerk, but I didn’t realize that was a criminal offense. As for Kerry — wow, talk about clueless.

More: Blue Mass. Group’s David Kravitz, who worked on Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign, links to an AP story suggesting that Meyer was engaged in some sort of stunt. Well, maybe. But I don’t think his getting electrocuted zapped by police was a stunt. And why couldn’t Kerry bring himself to say, “I want the police to stop that”?

Spending the same money twice

Gov. Deval Patrick may be conjuring up visions of casino riches for the state, but it’s not necessarily so. Numbers are slippery, of course, and a skilled advocate can make them stand up and bark on command. But state Rep. Dan Bosley, D-North Adams, a casino opponent who’s been studying the issue for more than a decade, makes a compelling case for why Patrick’s fondest desires are unlikely to come true.

At a forum this morning sponsored by the Massachusetts Institute for a New Commonwealth (MassINC), Bosley said that Patrick is depending on money that is already being spent for other purposes. According to various studies, between 30 percent and 70 percent of money spent on casino gambling is nothing more than an “economic transfer.” (David Kravitz live-blogged the event at Blue Mass. Group.)

“Even though you’ve created a new revenue source … it’s not new revenue,” Bosley said. “I think it is very disappointing that the governor has decided to do this.” Later, he added: “It’s not new money. It’s just rearranging money.” And money that is spent on casino gambling may be money that isn’t spent at local restaurants and other small businesses.

More than 100 people crowded into a function room at the Omni Parker House for the nearly two-hour event, with television cameras lined up in the back of the room. With the governor making his unfortunate announcement yesterday, casino gambling has become the top issue on Beacon Hill.

Nothing particularly surprising was said. Joining Bosley on stage were state Treasurer Tim Cahill, who repeated his well-known support for casino gambling, which he explained most recently in an op-ed piece for the Boston Globe today. The third speaker, the Rev. Richard McGowan, a Boston College economist and casino expert, offered analysis.

It was an in-depth, civil discussion of an issue that has often become obscured by the vehemence with which many of the combatants express their views. (I am definitely not excluding myself.)

Another challenge was raised by state Sen. Susan Tucker, D-Andover. After offering some numbers on the state’s already-high dependence on gambling revenues from the lottery (numbers that were disputed with surprising vehemence by Father McGowan), Tucker noted that there are two racetracks in New Hampshire just over the border from her district.

According to Tucker, New Hampshire legislators have told her that they currently have no interest in building casinos — but that they would seek to transform those racetracks into casinos if gambling venues in Massachusetts began eating into their business. Worse, she observed, New Hampshire might tax its casinos at a lower rate than Massachusetts, which could then force Massachusetts to do the same.

“The fact is that this is an industry that depends on addiction for its revenues,” Tucker said, expressing puzzlement over the argument put forth by Patrick, Cahill and others that money from casino gambling would be set aside to help chronic gamblers with their addiction. “If a medication harms three people, we take it off the shelves,” she said.

At one point, Cahill offered a familiar argument — that Native American tribes such as the Mashpee Wampanoags, who propose building an enormous casino in Middleborough — have a right under federal law to operate casinos, and that the state should get ahead of the issue in order to protect its own interests.

“Even if we’re saying no, we’ve got two Indian tribes that are pushing very hard,” he said.

But Bosley said he “disagree[d] strongly with that,” explaining that federal decision-makers must, under the law, take into consideration where the state stands on casino gambling. Bosley added that the state’s leverage to stop tribal casinos from coming to Massachusetts was undermined considerably by Patrick’s announcement. “We’ve just blown that,” he said.

Of course, in order to become law, Patrick’s proposal must pass muster with the Legislature. And though it seems likely to win approval in the Senate, there’s a good chance it will die in the House. Speaker Sal DiMasi is a longtime opponent of casino gambling, and Bosley is one of his lieutenants.

Bosley said the House would give Patrick’s bill — not yet filed — serious consideration. But his remarks suggested that he can’t wait to kill it, and that he’s confident he’s got the votes. “There’s nothing new in the governor’s proposal,” Bosley said, noting that previous gambling plans have also come with promises of endless wealth for the state, and that the House has defeated every one of them — and by increasing margins over the years.

No doubt the pressure to approve gambling will be greater this time, especially with proposals for steep transportation taxes (Globe; Herald) looming. But there are plenty of people and institutions who’ve come out against gambling, too. At the moment, there’s no reason to think that House members won’t stick to their principles.

Still standing: The Herald’s Dave Wedge reports that Mashpee Wampanoag tribal-council president Shawn Hendricks wants to discuss the troubled Middleborough proposal with Patrick. This past Saturday, I linked to an item by Cape Cod Today blogger/reporter Peter Kenney claiming that Hendricks and two other tribal leaders would resign later that day. Obviously that didn’t happen.

That’s the problem with predictions. In fact, on Saturday a newspaper reporter asked me to predict what Patrick would say. I declined the invitation; but if I had taken her up on it, I would have said that Patrick would probably say “no.” I’m glad I kept my counsel.

Disclosure #1: I write the “Mass.Media” feature for MassINC’s quarterly magazine, CommonWealth.

Disclosure #2: Just click here.

Original photo online at state Treasurer Tim Cahill’s Web site. From left, Bosley, McGowan, Cahill and CommonWealth acting editor Michael Jonas, the moderator.

Free the Times!

TimesSelect is dead. Mickey Kaus explains why he’s glad (actually, he throws a bunch of gibberish on the screen, but you’ll get the idea), and Dan Gillmor explains why it’s smart.

I don’t blame publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. for trying to get readers to pay for content. Nevertheless, the number of potential readers who were shut out had to be enormous. As Web advertising continues to grow, it makes sense for the Times to return to the wide-open Net.

Indeed, Sulzberger and company’s decision to open some of the Times’ archives shows that they’ve decided to embrace the future and figure out later how to pay for it. This is the right thing to do, and I hope this proves to be a risk that pays off. If it does, it will change the entire business for the better.

New Bedford’s loss, Middleborough’s gain

My first choice is no casinos anywhere in Massachusetts. My second choice is no casino in Middleborough. It’s my hometown, the process has been an utter disgrace, federal and state investigations are under way, and I don’t want to see the rural character of the town destroyed.

So even though I believe the proposed Middleborough casino is good and dead anyway, I’m pleased to see that both the Cape Cod Times and the New Bedford Standard-Times (sister papers) report that Gov. Deval Patrick’s plan for three state-approved casinos could further harm the Middleborough bid.

Stephanie Vosk reports in the Cape Cod Times that the troubled Mashpee Wampanoag tribe could find its Middleborough property wedged between casinos in New Bedford and Boston, which would make its own plans dubious at best. In the Standard-Times, Curt Brown and Steve Decosta write that New Bedford officials are ready to rock with a waterfront site, and that there are indications Patrick wants one of the three casinos in that city.

The Boston Herald and the Boston Globe round up Beacon Hill reaction. In an editorial, the Globe opines: “Massachusetts lawmakers who have opposed casino gambling in the past, including House Speaker Sal DiMasi, must come to terms with Patrick’s proposal or provide revenue ideas of their own.”

Well, actually, no they don’t. Doing the right thing does not require you to deal with the cost of sticking to your principles. The state’s revenue needs are a different subject that can be dealt with at another time.

But I’m certainly pleased that state officials, at least, seem to be leaning toward New Bedford rather than Middleborough. If the Mashpee tribe pushes for federal approval to operate a casino outside of state regulations, it’s likely to find itself competing with venues that are already up and running. That’s good news for my hometown.

My standard disclosure.

Patrick’s corruption tax

The Boston Globe’s Frank Phillips reports that Gov. Deval Patrick has decided to support three Massachusetts casinos. Under his plan, the state would put them out to bid, and the Mashpee Wampanoags would receive no special consideration. Given the avalanche of trouble under which the tribe’s proposed venue in Middleborough has fallen, I’ll stick with my prediction that that particular casino will never be built.

(Update: Or should I say backdate? Boston Herald reporters Scott Van Voorhis and Casey Ross had essentially the same story yesterday. An alert commenter called my attention to it, but for some reason Blogger ate it when I tried to post it.)

But this isn’t just a tragedy — it’s a tragedy foretold. Patrick and the officials around him have been watching as the Middleborough proposal has dissolved into corruption, investigations and recriminations. Three of the five selectmen who support the plan face a recall election, and the other two, also casino supporters, would if they hadn’t been elected too recently. Patrick knows exactly what he’s getting into; his eyes are wide open. He’s putting his entire governorship at risk, and he’s doing it strictly for money.

Will House Speaker Sal DiMasi stand in Patrick’s way? He’s a longtime opponent, and Phillips reports that DiMasi’s recent conciliatory rhetoric on the issue is nothing more than an attempt to avoid embarrassing Patrick. It shouldn’t take a huge amount of backbone on DiMasi’s part to stick to his principled position. He’ll have Cardinal Seán O’Malley, former attorney general Scott Harshbarger, former John Hancock chief executive David D’Alessandro and a host of other good people in his corner.

The governor must be stopped. Together we can!

My standard disclosure.

Beyond the FBI’s casino probe

First, an anonymously sourced blockbuster from a man who’s amassed an admirable track record in getting to the bottom of the mess involving the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe and the proposed Middleborough casino. Cape Cod Today blogger/ reporter Peter Kenney posted an item earlier this morning saying that the new tribal council president, Shawn Hendricks, and council member Desire Hendricks Moreno may resign this afternoon. This, of course, comes in the wake of news that the FBI is investigating the tribe’s finances, about which more below.

Now, then, back to my regularly scheduled post. The proposed casino — which would be the largest in the world, according to the Brockton Enterprise — has been dead since Aug. 23. That’s when Kenney confirmed his earlier report that Glenn Marshall, president of the tribal council, had lied about his military record, and had been convicted of rape in the 1980s as well.

The next day, the story was all over the media, and by the following week Marshall was gone. But only the casino’s most ardent supporters, joined perhaps by a few political naifs, failed to realize what had happened. The lid had been lifted off a barrel of sleaze, and practically every day has brought a new story. And there is still plenty more to come.

Now comes word, in today’s Boston Globe, Boston Herald and Cape Cod Times, that the FBI is investigating the tribe’s finances. Once again, I’m in awe of Kenney’s sources. He first got wind of this on Wednesday, and posted a more detailed story yesterday morning.

The crucial issue here is whether the probe is aimed at Marshall alone, or at the entire tribal leadership. Based on a preponderance of what we know, it would seem to be the latter. That, of course, would include Hendricks, Marshall’s handpicked successor, who would be removed if a recall effort being led by tribal elder Amelia Bingham and her son Steven succeeds (unless he resigns, of course).

For instance, here’s what Kenney reported yesterday: “Presented to council chairman Shawn Hendricks, treasurer Nelli Ramos and council member Desire Hendricks Moreno were formal demands for the council’s financial records as well as personal financial records from all three officials.”

In the Herald, reporter Dave Wedge has the same information and attributes it to an on-the-record source, tribal spokeswoman Amy Lambiaso. Lambiaso does describe it as “an investigation into Glenn Marshall,” but obviously the feds are seeking information that could reflect on other tribal leaders as well.

In the Globe, reporters Sean Murphy and Christine Wallgren offer a slightly different interpretation, writing:

Amy Lambiaso, a spokeswoman for the tribe, said the investigation focuses on Glenn Marshall, the former tribal chairman….

“It’s our understanding it is an investigation into Glenn Marshall and not any of the other tribe members,” she said.

Fair enough. But again, it does not appear that the feds can do their job unless they’re also looking at what the other tribal leaders knew and when they knew it.

The most detailed overview of what’s going on right now is provided in the Cape Cod Times by reporters George Brennan and Stephanie Vosk. Not only do they report on the FBI probe, but they also get into a separate IRS investigation of Marshall, as well as an inquiry launched by the state attorney general, Martha Coakley. Not to sound like a broken record, but Kenney has been all over these developments as well.

Also not to sound like a broken record, but how can Gov. Deval Patrick step up and offer his support for casino gambling given what’s going on in Southeastern Massachusetts? This is what you get when you embrace gambling. Nothing that’s happened is surprising, except that it all came out so quickly following the two votes by Middleborough town meeting (yes to a casino deal; no to a casino) on July 28.

This week The Pilot, the weekly paper published by Boston’s Catholic archdiocese, runs a terrific editorial on why casino gambling needs to be stopped, whether it’s in Middleborough, Palmer or East Boston. (Media Nation trivia: I worked as the production manager of The Pilot for a few months in late 1990 and early ’91.) A Middleborough resident who’s worried about the possible destruction of his town called it to my attention. Here’s a highlight:

Casino advertisements frequently depict casino gambling as a fleeting, joyous experience amidst a wonderland of entertainment and excitement. However, what is portrayed as an occasional weekend getaway all too often becomes an uncontrollable compulsion that can lead to broken families, bankruptcy and even suicide.

Studies show that instances of crime, prostitution and bankruptcy increase around casinos. Those living on fixed income, particularly the elderly and the poor, are easily lured by their promise of quick money and often spend money needed for essentials on gambling.

Gambling addiction is a self-destructive behavior that has dire consequences.

The fight against the Middleborough casino isn’t about mindless NIMBYism. The best possible outcome is to keep casino gambling out of Massachusetts — period. If people want to gamble in Connecticut or Rhode Island, let them. That’s not a reason for us to lower our standards.

My standard disclosure.

What Patrick meant

Gov. Deval Patrick did a decent job yesterday of deflecting criticism over his 9/11 remarks. “Let me be clear: I don’t think America bears any fault for the attack on us in 9/11, and I don’t think that any of the family members with whom I spoke that day heard it or saw it that way,” he said on the “Eagan & Braude” show on WTKK Radio (96.9 FM). The Boston Globe covers the story here; the Associated Press here.

Lest you forget, here is the section of Patrick’s speech that brought him to grief:

Because among many other things, 9/11 was a failure of human understanding. It was mean and nasty and bitter attack on the United States. But it was also about the failure of human beings to understand each other, and to learn to love each other.

At the time, those words struck me as odd, and he obviously opened himself up to accusations that he was being insensitive to the victims of 9/11. But it’s an exercise in intellectual dishonesty to suggest that he really, actually meant to say that Al Qaeda wouldn’t have attacked us if only we had demonstrated love and understanding toward the terrorists. Naturally, the Massachusetts Republican Party and the usual suspects on talk radio nearly injured themselves from the speed with which they leapt to that conclusion.

The Phoenix’s David Bernstein digs deeply, and shows not just the context in which Patrick made his remarks on Tuesday, but on other occasions as well. Here, most tellingly, is a long excerpt from the commencement address Patrick gave this past May at Mount Wachusett Community College:

The events of September 11, 2001 were horrific, you know that. They disrupted individual families and our collective sense of security and well-being. It was a “wake-up” call to our own vulnerability. And it represents a catastrophic failure of human understanding. In its wake, I believe we have been governed by fear.

Fear is what drove us to round up people of Arab descent, many of them American citizens, and to hold hundreds without cause or charge.

Fear led us to lose focus on a known enemy in Afghanistan and invade Iraq instead.

Fear justified what I believe to be the greatest assault on personal freedoms (in the Patriot Act) and the greatest aggregation of Presidential power in much of our history.

Fear created the Guantánamo detention center, where the very rule of law that has made our democracy an envy of the world has been set aside.

Just a few months ago in a radio interview, a senior Pentagon official, Charles “Cully” Stimson, named some of the law firms providing free representation to the Guantánamo detainees and suggested that corporate America make those law firms — and I quote — “choose between representing terrorists and representing reputable firms.” He attempted to mark these lawyers as enemies of society. There was no subtlety in his message.

Speaking about this post-9/11 phenomenon, former Vice President Gore observed that, “Fear drives out reason. Fear suppresses the politics of discourse and opens the door to the politics of destruction.” He quoted former Justice Brandeis, who said that, “Men feared witches and burnt women.”

The Vice President, I think, captured the spirit of the active citizen in the heat of danger when he said, “The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hanged as traitors. The very existence of our country was at risk. Yet, in the teeth of those dangers, they insisted on establishing the Bill of Rights.”

Like me, he wonders: “Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol?”

Fear is treacherous.

Now, I’m sure there are some conservatives who would disagree with those remarks, but they pretty much reflect what most liberals believe has happened during the post-9/11 era. Certainly no one would consider them to be particularly controversial. (Indeed, they’re now four months old and no one has said a thing.) Too bad Patrick didn’t express himself as clearly on Tuesday as he did in May.

Finally, have a look at Jay Fitzgerald’s post in which he links criticism of Patrick’s remarks to the idiotic brouhaha over MoveOn.org’s “General Betray Us” ad in the New York Times. Jay — a conservative, or at least someone who passes for one in Massachusetts — correctly notes that President Bush’s defenders are going berserk over these two issues because they can’t offer substantive arguments over everything that’s gone wrong in Iraq.

Personally, I thought Patrick’s remarks — or at least that one excerpt — were tone-deaf, and that MoveOn’s ad was silly and misdirected. But offensive? What’s offensive is the right’s knee-jerk response in attempting to turn everything into a attack on the other side’s patriotism.

If Patrick is guilty of anything, it’s failing to understand how the game is played. Too bad it’s a game, isn’t it?

Photo of Patrick (cc) by DoubleSpeakShow. Some rights reserved.

Kenney does it his way

After a slight lull, action is heating up once again on the casino front. Today’s highlights:

— In the Boston Phoenix, Adam Reilly profiles Peter Kenney (photo at left), the Cape Cod Today blogger/ reporter/ activist who was a key player in bringing down Mashpee Wampanoag president Glenn Marshall, and who continues to break important stories. I think Adam gets a little too hung up on whether Kenney is a “journalist,” but he’s got a lot of insight and some great quotes from the colorful Kenney. Here’s one: “Did I do it the way a traditional journalist would? According to journalistic ethics, if there are such things that are taught in school? No. Was I correct in what I said? Yes.”

— What will Gov. Deval Patrick say about casino gambling? We’re still waiting. Kenney himself writes that a source tells him Patrick has decided to punt and let the Legislature handle it. That would be good news, as House Speaker Sal DiMasi is a casino opponent. In the Cape Cod Times, Stephanie Vosk reports that whatever happens, casino gambling is likely to be the subject of a referendum on the state ballot.

— In the Brockton Enterprise, Michael DeCicco reports that the selectmen in Berkley have voted unanimously to fight against the building of a proposed casino in neighboring Middleborough. “We’re talking about transforming this area into something that will be unbelievable,” said chairman Robert Anctil. “It’s bad growth, not good growth.”

— In the Boston Globe, Sean Murphy looks at the plans for the proposed Middleborough casino and finds that it’s intended to “draw a national tourist clientele because of its proximity to Cape Cod and would be crammed with 4,000 slot machines, 180 table games, and amenities like a 10,000-seat auditorium for sporting events and shows.” Not that it would harm the rural character of the town or anything.

My standard disclosure.