The ProJo disavows conspiracy theories and tries to explain why it changed it’s mind on the casino:
The editorial speaks for itself, but we repeat here that the prospect of more jobs for Rhode Islanders, especially for hard-pressed low-income people, including immigrants, was the overwhelming factor.
That’s it. One run-on sentence of explanation as to why 12 years of previous editorials against a RI casino now mean nothing. The rest of the piece is a too-inside baseball explanation of “how an editorial is written.” In short, they devoted the meat of the editorial explaining to us ignorant rubes how really smart editorialists go through the process of editorializing.
That wasn’t the question, guys.
What we want to know is how a newspaper that has previously doubted that a casino will deliver high-quality, well-paying, economically stable jobs can now–after 12 years of making these anti-casino arguments–turn around and say “Vote Yes on 1” because a casino will deliver “more jobs for Rhode Islanders, especially for hard-pressed low-income people, including immigrants.”
What about putting our efforts into long-term economic development instead of a quick-fix casino? What about the damage that a large, economically dominant casino will do to the quality of life in Rhode Island? What about the burden to our government services (police, fire, roads, infrastructure) that haven’t been properly accounted for? What happened to all of these other concerns? Well?
Casino proponents want you to believe that the universe of casino gamblers is divided into two groups, “destination” gamblers, who want to make an event out of their gambling trips, and “convenience” gamblers, who are interested in more frequent but less expensive trips. Based on this hypothetical partition, casino proponents claim that a Harrah’s casino in West Warwick won’t cannibalize gaming revenues at from Lincoln Park or Newport Grand. Lincoln and Newport are convenience facilities, they say, and convenience gamblers won’t be interested in the things a destination gambling facility will provide.
It is difficult to look at Rhode Island’s gambling revenue numbers and take this argument seriously.
First of all, the term “convenience gambling” doesn’t really capture what goes on at Lincoln Park. According to the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth’s Center for Policy Analysis’ 2006 New England Casino Gaming Update (performed by the same research group who performed the pro-casino Rhode Island Building Trades study), the typical gambling visit of a Lincoln Park patron is a larger event (measured in dollars lost) than the typical gambling trip of a Foxwoods patron. The average Lincoln Park gambler from Rhode Island loses an average of $154 per visit; Foxwoods gamblers from Rhode Island lose only an average of $129 per visit. (Philosophical question: Should it still be called gambling when you know you’re going to lose over the long haul?). Does it make sense to associate the gamblers who spend more-per-visit with convenience-oriented behavior?
In addition to spending more money, Lincoln Park patrons also make many more trips per year to gamble than do Foxwoods patrons (or Mohegan Sun patrons). On average, the average Rhode Island-based Lincoln Park patron makes 18.45 gambling trips per year. By contrast the typical RI Foxwoods patron makes only 5.19 visits per year (and the typical Newport Grand patron makes only 5.68 visits per year). The large amount lost per visit to Lincoln Park times the large number of trips per patron means loss per patron at Lincoln is staggeringly high — $2,850 per patron per year.
Lincoln Park patrons aren’t “convenience” gamblers, they are “heavy” gamblers, looking for the nearest place where they can gamble very large amounts of money very often.
Another result from the 2006 Casino Gaming Update casts doubt that these “heavy” or “convenience” gamblers won’t choose to make frequent trips to a West Warwick casino instead of Lincoln Park. The study looked at what percentage of Lincoln Park/Newport Grand patrons had visited Foxwoods/Mohegan Sun and vice-versa. The study found that most (meaning numbers in the 80% range) Lincoln and Newport patrons have made a visit to Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun, but most Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun patrons haven’t visited Lincoln or Newport. The sensible conclusion is that the most significant partition of the gambling population is not between destination and convenience gamblers, but between slots-only players and more diversified gamblers. Diversified players are not satisfied by slots alone, so they go to the destination casinos (Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun). Slots players, on the other hand, will go anywhere where there are slots (Foxwoods, Mohegan Sun, Lincoln Park, or Newport Grand) regardless the other activities that might be available.
Since slots players are going to go anywhere there are slots, the idea that Rhode Island’s significant population of heavy gamblers isn’t going to take some of its many trips each year to West Warwick and reduce the state?s Lincoln Park’s revenue is self-serving speculation. And fiscally speaking, because Rhode Island has become so addicted to gaming revenues to balance its budget, it is potentially ruinous speculation.
The future of Iraq may now center around the Iraqi government’s response to a search for an American soldier in Iraq believed to have been captured last week by a Shi’ite militia. The U.S. military responded to the kidnapping by sealing off and aggressively searching the Sadr City section of Baghdad. On Tuesday, the Iraqi Prime Minister either ordered or convinced American forces to shut down the search. This is from various wire reports compiled by the Hartford Courant…
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki flexed his political muscle Tuesday and won agreement by U.S. forces to end their weeklong near-siege of Baghdad’s largest Shiite Muslim district.Prime Minister Maliki’s order follows an earlier statement that he does not consider disarming Iraq�s Shi�ite militias to be amongst his government’s top priorities. The Deputy Speaker of the Iraqi parliament has expressed a similar idea…
American troops departed, setting off celebrations among civilians and armed men in Sadr City, the sprawling slum controlled by the Mahdi Army militia loyal to anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Small groups of men and children danced in circles chanting slogans praising and declaring victory for al-Sadr, whose political support is crucial to the prime minister’s governing coalition….
There were conflicting accounts of whether the decision to lift the barricades was made jointly with Americans. U.S. officials insisted the decision was taken after consulting with them, but an Iraqi official said al-Maliki made the decision, then spoke to Americans.
Khaled al-Attiya, the Shi’ite deputy speaker of parliament, said militias were not the main problem: “All the militias will disband at the end of the day but these are not the main enemy of the Iraqi people,” he said.The more conspiracy-minded suggest that this may all be part of a plan to make the Maliki government look tough, allowing it to build the support necessary to eventually confront the militias. Whether that’s true, or just wishful thinking, if Prime Minister Maliki will not confront the violence originating with Shi’ite militias, the Bush administration needs to prepare itself for some domestic repercussions of its own.
“The main enemy are the Baathists and Saddamists who want to destroy the political process and the main principles of the constitution.”
Senator Jack Reed has offered a stern reaction to Prime Minister Maliki’s order (request?) to stand-down the search (h/t RightRI)…
This is yet another example of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and the Iraqi government yielding to sectarian pressure rather than providing national leadership.Senator Reed’s reaction will resonate with the traditions of American hawkishness in a way that standard Democratic statements on the war usually don’t. In America, popular support for sending troops into combat comes with at least one non-negotiable condition: that leaders who make the decision to go to war make an absolute commitment to victory. The American public will forgive a leader for making mistakes in pursuit of a noble cause, but they will not forgive — or follow — a leader who puts soldiers into harm’s way in the absence of a total commitment to winning. (This is all a part of what the historian Walter Russell Mead calls the Jacksonian tradition in American foreign policy.)
Our troops surrounded Sadr City, a major hot spot and a place where kidnappers may be holding one of our own soldiers, and Prime Minister Maliki is once again undermining efforts to rein in violence within Baghdad.
His on again-off again approach to disarming the militias is undermining efforts by both the Iraqi security forces and the United States military to provide basic security for the people of Baghdad.
Today, the critical issue in Iraq is whether the Maliki government can muster the political will to confront those who use violence to destabilize Iraq. If the Maliki government won’t stand up to them, then military efforts alone will not guarantee success.
If the mission in Iraq changes from pursuit of unqualfied victory over the enemy to just helping a foreign leader improve his domestic positioning, support for keeping our troops in Iraq — even for perhaps a smaller training-oriented force — will quickly erode, regardless of the consequences that a rapid American withdrawal from Iraq would bring. If Prime Minister Maliki does not make some kind of commitment to reining in the sectarian militias, whatever support his refusal to take action against them wins amongst Iraqis will come at the cost of undercutting the American support that remains for keeping American soldiers deployed in Iraq.
This is an area where the Bush administration must quickly overcome its famous tin ear (think Harriet Miers or the Dubai Ports Deal) when it comes to listening to its natural base. [Open full post]
Last week, Justin noted a Froma Harrop Projo column where she approvingly cited an organization who believes that the United States should actively work towards cutting its population in half…
Negative Population Growth (www.npg.org) thinks that the optimal number for sustaining a decent quality of life in the United States is 150 million. That is half of what we now have, but in case you think that it’s a crazy low figure, consider that the U.S. population was 150 million as recently as the 1950s, which many regard as a golden age of American contentment.Meanwhile, across the ocean, according to the Australian newspaper The Age, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would like to increase his country’s population to 120 million, believing that more people means more power for his government…
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for a baby boom to boost the country’s population to 120 million and enable it to threaten the West, as he boasted the country’s nuclear capacity had increased “tenfold”.I wonder how the central population planners of the West plan to address the central population planners in other parts of the world who intend to use increased population as a means of conquest. [Open full post]
Mr. Ahmadinejad told MPs he wanted to scrap birth control policies that discourage Iranian couples from having more than two children. Women should work less and devote more time to their “main mission” of raising children, he said.
His comments were an attack on policies sanctioned by senior Islamic clerics aimed at limiting Iran’s population of about 70 million. The Government backs birth control measures including female sterilisation, vasectomies and mandatory family planning classes for newlyweds. Iran also has a state-owned condom factory.
“Westerners have got problems,” Mr Ahmadinejad said. “Because their population growth is negative, they are worried and fear that if our population increases, we will triumph over them.”
He said he wanted to bring in legislation reducing women’s working hours based on how many children they had. Women could work part time on full-time salaries, he said.
The Coventry Courier tells the story of a woman laid to rest in West Greenwich in 1889, later mistakenly identified as a vampire…
The last and perhaps most widely known case of alleged vampirism in Rhode Island history is that of Mercy Lena Brown, buried at the Chestnut Hill Cemetery in Exeter….Fortunately for the sake of accuracy, there are reports that the deceased has returned to correct the record…
On Jan. 17, 1892 Mercy, like so many others throughout early New England history, succumbed to consumption, or pulmonary tuberculosis- a devastating and highly contagious disease widely misunderstood by rural townspeople at that time….
Two years prior on May 31, 1889 a young West Greenwich woman named Nellie L. Vaughn also died at the young age of 19, a victim of pneumonia.
Unlike Mercy, however, stories casting Nellie as a vampire did not surface until 78 years after her death.
In 1967 a Coventry High School teacher told students the tale of a young woman who, after her death in the late 1800s at the age of 19, was accused of being a vampire. The teacher divulged little more information other than to say the woman was buried in an old cemetery off Route 102.
Accepting the story as an invitation, the youths set off to find her.
The Chestnut Hill Baptist Church is located off Route 102 in Exeter. And while their teacher was undoubtedly speaking of the cemetery behind that church, of Mercy Brown’s resting place, the teens found another old cemetery off 102.
It was a cemetery that sits oddly out of place, guarded by a different white church and an aging stone wall.
Stepping within that wall and onto those sacred grounds they found something else. It was a gravestone that read, “Nellie L. Vaughn; Daughter of George B. and Ellen; Died in her 19th year, May 1889.” And at the bottom of her headstone was inscribed, “I am waiting and watching for you.”
The youths had found their vampire.
In 1993 a Coventry woman and her husband doing gravestone rubbings in the historical cemetery there, #WG002, heard a woman’s voice repeating, “I am perfectly pleasant. I am perfectly pleasant.”[Open full post]
The husband said he left the cemetery, never to return, with unexplainable scratches on his face.
His wife, however, did go back several months later where she happened to encounter a young, dark-haired woman who claimed to be a member of a local historical society. When their conversation shifted to discussion of Nellie Vaughn, the young woman became agitated and started repeating, “Nellie is not a vampire.”
Shaken, the Coventry woman turned to leave and when she looked back to ensure the disturbed woman was not following her, she found the cemetery empty.
(With the help of some creative editing) here is the true story from the July 3, 2004 edition of the Block Island Times of the most recent sighting of a mythical sea creature that may live in the briny deep off of Block Island sound…
URI Oceanographer: “It was a monster”[Open full post]
On Thursday, June 24, Callum Crawford and Rob Fell braved the chilly ocean near Grace’s Cove on an early-morning spearfishing expedition to secure a few striped bass for the dinner table….
They actually saw it from the shore: a blur of whiteness underneath the waves just beyond the break. The two waded back into the surf and, to their astonishment, found the coiled skeletal remains of an indeterminate undersea creature.
When unrolled, the remaining spinal column and skull reached a length of 18 feet….
In 1996, almost eight years ago to the day, local commercial fishermen Gary Hall and Jay Pinney pulled a similar looking and smelling thing to the surface. It became known as the Block Ness Monster and, after much fanfare, was lost to history in a mysterious carcass-napping….
Jay Pinney devoted much time and effort in determining the origin of the original Block Ness Monster, and was never satisfied with its identification as a basking shark. Pinney saw photographs of dead basking sharks that, to his eye, just didn’t look like what he and Hall netted that day. “None of them had a beak that long or flat,” he said. “Everyone had an opinion and no one was wrong”….
A team of scientists arrived on the 11:45 a.m. ferry Friday, June 25, and made for the 18-foot creature that by this time had been laid out on the stretch of beach between the ferry dock and the Old Harbor Bike Shop.
The group was led by oceanographers Jeremy Collie, Ph.D., and William Macy III, Ph.D….
But as of press time, we don’t know with certainty what Crawford and Fell found in Graces Cove last Thursday.
Prof. Collie said on Tuesday that “If you imagine the fish intact, it was a very large fish.” This echoes what he said when initially surveying the remains on Friday: “There was much more of this fish — it was a monster. Well, maybe I shouldn’t say that.”
One warning to the trick-or-treaters of South County tonight.
Recorded in the Bigfoot Field Researchers’ Organization database has been a Class-A sighting from Charlestown of the creature known as Bigfoot…
It had been raining earlier with thunder and lightning mixed in. Now it was just raining. We were rounding a corner on one of the roads that paralleled the Indian Cedar Swamp and as we started downward, we noticed the road was obstructed by a large blown down oak tree, the tree had green leaves (this makes me think it was summer or the early fall) on it so it had recently come down, we guessed maybe in the storm earlier(possibly lightning).[Open full post]
The road was very narrow and the brush along the side of the road made it difficult to back the car around to turn around. The rain was falling but not heavy, the wipers were on, the headlights on the car were on as well.
As my mother turned the front end of the car the lights cast on the left side of the road where the tree had been broken off from its stump. We were maybe 1 1/2 car lengths from the stump. Beside the tall fractured stump stood what looked like a large white(yellow white) ape. It was maybe 6 to 7 feet tall, its hair was long, face flat, long massive arms, its head appeared to be without any neck, its chest was broad.
My mother and I froze momentarily (5 seconds, maybe 10) and the figure remained still, staring at us…
I’m burnt out on this year’s elections, so it was by pure chance that I happened upon the tail end of the last debate between Senator Chafee and Sheldon Whitehouse last night. It’s really become an election by and for syllogistic simpletons, hasn’t it? Like most other Democrats, Whitehouse is running against BUSH. Like many Republicans, Chafee is running away from BUSH. That is really what their messages have become. Plus, both are bluebloods and to hear each tell it, the other is either corrupt and wishy-washy or inept and wishy-washy. You decide who is speaking about whom. I can’t tell the difference anymore. Truth be told, I never could. What a choice…
But there is a difference between them, I suppose.
You see, if I were to take off my ideological lense and go all pragmatic on your a**es, I’d have to say that the “average Rhode Island voter” (whover she may be) would probably benefit more by sending Senator Chafee back to Washington. Tenured incumbents really do deliver for their constituents, after all. As much as fiscal conservative’s hate to admit it, one persons “pork” is another’s “special project” and multi-term incumbents are the most effective purveyors of pork. And most of their constituents won’t take them to task for directing millions of dollars their way. In fact, and unfortunately, that’s exactly what many folks think a politician’s job is: to get other people’s money to help improve our backyard.
Another related argument, and one made by Senator Chafee, is that having at least one Republican in our otherwise Democrat-dominated national political delegation is smart politics. That way, Rhode Island will always have at least one elected official who will be in the party in power in Washington, D.C. Hard to argue with the technical logic, though what benefit can be accrued is directly related to the ability of said politician to “deliver” the goods when his party is in power.
Based largely upon the aforementioned pragmatic reasons, I’ve narrowed my decision down to “No-voting” in the Senate race or voting for Senator Chafee. But is pragmatism enough? Aren’t there any ideologically conservative justifications that can be summoned to legitmize supporting either Chafee or Whitehouse?
I’ve come to believe that, regardless of how this election turns out, any hope held by RI conservatives that we can somehow move the ideological ball toward us by electing or not electing either of these two candidates is unfounded. I believe that if Senator Chafee were to emerge victorious, he would be so politically tempered that it will be well-nigh impossible for anyone to beat him, whether in a primary or general election. That is bad news for conservatives.
By the same token, I believe that should Sheldon Whitehouse take the seat, the power of incumbency would serve him well and Rhode Islanders would get used to the idea of having an all Democrat delegation. Then there would be no turning back. Now, I suppose Mayor Laffey or even Governor Carcieri might have a shot in beating Whitehouse 6 years on, so maybe I’m being overly-pessimistic, but given the “navy blue” of the RI electorate (H/T: Maureen Moakley on the last Lively Experiment), I think my pessimism is justified.
Thus, electing either Chafee or Whitehouse will do nothing to help the conservative cause in RI in either the short or long term. Basically, we’re screwed on this front, kids, and will be better served to look elsewhere for any conservative movement opportunities.
But back to the reality of the senate race. Like it or not, conservatives simply can’t apply the standard set of ideological benchmarks to this race. If we’re going to vote, we need to put ideology aside and vote based on other factors. For me, right now, I still don’t know whether I’m going to swallow hard and vote for a liberal blueblood Republican or “check out” of the process and let the rest of the electorate decide who their (my) Senator is going to be. It will come down to me standing in the booth looking at that ballot and which decision will allow me to live with my conscience.
In today’s edition, the Projo runs its dueling articles on Patrick Lynch and Bill Harsch, this year’s candidates for Rhode Island Attorney General. Though other issues are discussed, each aricle devotes an ample amount of space to the Station fire and the Derderian trial.
On its face, Attorney General Lynch’s description of the events leading to guilty pleas by the Derderains continues to be different from the version given by Judge Francis Darigan in his final sentencing statement. Here is Attorney General Lynch’s description, current as of today, of how the final deal came about…
Lynch said that about 95 percent of the time, defense lawyers and prosecutors discuss and agree on terms and turn to a judge to approve the deal. But when that doesn’t work out, there are other options. He said in some cases when the prosecution and defense can’t agree, the judge can tell the defendant, if you plea to every count, I’ll give you the following and the state can enter their objection. He said, That’s what happened here.Judge Darigan described a different process in his sentencing statement, which is as about an official a version as is possible…
This Court was well aware that all parties desired to conclude these cases without a trial. As the structure of theses (sic) cases and the issues for the trial became clearer and more crystallized, the Court began to share this opinion.What exactly did the “parties” — which in legal terms usually refers to both sides prosecution and defense — ask the court for, if it wasn’t part of the AG’s office agreeing to deal? (Also, it is interesting to note that both Judge Darigan and AG Lynch make a point to emphasize that the state reserved a right to object to the final outcome).
As the date for the trial approached, the Defendants clearly indicated to the Court and the Attorney General’s Office that they wished to change their pleas.
It was at this time that the parties asked the Court if it would accept a change in the pleas and impose sentences to which the State, if it wished, could object.
I can come up with three ways to reconcile the disparate versions…
- When Judge Darigan talks about the “parties” asking for the Court to accept a change in pleas, he is referring to some technical legal procedure that is different from what the plain English might indicate. (But then what was the state formally asking for?)
- Judge Darigan was horribly imprecise with his description of events, e.g. he said “parties” when he really meant “Defendants”. (But then why tell us that the state reserved its right to object in the same sentence?)
- Patrick Lynch is telling a different version of events from what Judge Darigan experienced.
Dorinne Albright is running for State Representative in Rhode Island’s 14th District (Cranston), which is currently represented by Senate Representative Charlene Lima. Anchor Rising recently had the opportunity to interview Ms. Albright on the why she is running and what she thinks of her opponent’s recent performance in office…
Anchor Rising: What’s motivating your run for office?
Dorinne Albright: I think that everyone needs a choice when they go to the polls. Charlene Lima ran unopposed last time. She’s run unopposed a few times in the past. It’s not a real election unless people have a choice. Whether I win or lose, at least I’m on there for the people that don’t want to vote for her.
AR: What issues are most important to you?
DA: My biggest concern is taxes. I am a realtor and I see it in my business every day. People are losing their homes because they can’t afford the taxes. Our legislators are wasting a lot of our money. They voted to unionize the daycare providers, which is basically making them state employees — let’s pay for their benefits; let’s give them everything they want!
Daycare providers are independent contractors. As a realtor, I am an independent contractor. I’m not going to tell anyone they need need to pay for my health insurance and guarantee how much money I make. It was a risk I took when I decided to go into business for myself. The daycare workers need to run their businesses well and not rely on the taxpayers to support them.
AR: Your opponent, Charlene Lima, has been the House of Representative point-person on eminent domain reform. Any thoughts on this issue?
DA: Jim Davey had also proposed an eminent domain bill?
AR: …his was much better…
DA: …Yes! But hers was the one that started getting some action, because she is one of the Speaker’s friends. As I understand it, it was her refusal to compromise on the bill that prevented its passage.
The realtors I know were really unhappy with what happened. They were pleased she was going to support it and that she was putting this forward to prevent people from losing their homes to private businesses. But when it came time to make compromises to get the bill to pass, it was her pride, her saying it’s my way or nothing, that stopped action on the bill. So we got nothing. Sometimes you have to make compromises to get things done.
AR: Is there anything else you think people should know about your opponent?
DA: I think she has been a little duplicitous with a casino vote. She was quoted in the Journal as saying that Harrah’s isn’t going to be able to come in to do anything they want, because they would just get somebody else to do it instead. But after saying that, she turned around and voted against competitive bidding and she voted against the bill that would have prevented her as a legislator from working there and personally gaining from a casino. That’s wrong.
I think it was 44-25 when they took the vote on the personal gain bill. We have very few people at the State House who are willing to stand up and say I want to do best for Rhode Islanders, and not myself. We need to start getting the people who are just looking out for themselves out of office.
AR: Last question. Running as a Republican isn’t the easiest path to take into politics in Rhode Island. Why run as a Republican, and what does being a Republican mean to you?
DA: The biggest thing to me about being a Republican is the fiscal responsibility. We need to stop taking money out of taxpayers pockets, taking money away from people that are working hard to earn it and trying to get by, and saying let’s give it to all these other programs and things we can’t afford to be supporting. It’s great to want to help people, but when you are hurting some people to help others, there comes a point where you just have to stop. We’re driving businesses out of the state because we’ve got people involved with government saying they don’t want anyone to be running a successful business and making money. But it’s businesses that make money that provide jobs, that provide benefits to their employees and that build up our economy. We need to be working with them, not against them!