Casinos: ‘Happening here, staying here’ soon

By Jeff Trull

Recently, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick announced a proposal to license three casinos in Massachusetts. This came only shortly after the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe purchased land in Middleborough and announced their own plans to seek federal approval to build a casino on the site. New Bedford has also been mentioned as a possible site for the Wampanoag casino if the Middleborough deal falls through. According to WPRI-TV, New Bedford Mayor Scott Lang has heard several proposals from other developers for casinos within the city. With all the casino talk, big changes could be in store for Southeastern Massachusetts.

Patrick’s plan could bring big bucks to the state. The governor estimates that Massachusetts would bring in about $400 million a year in revenue directly from taxing casinos as well as $600 million in one-time licensing fees. This revenue would alleviate some of the current budget shortfalls as the state struggles to come up with funding to improve state roadways in the coming years. Patrick also point out the number of Mass residents leaving the state to gamble at casinos. Currently, Massachusetts residents head to other New England states to gamble. According to the Boston Globe, UMass Dartmouth Professor Clyde Barrow estimates that Mass residents spent approximately $1.1 billion in casinos in Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Maine in 2006. With the casino plan, Patrick hopes to keep residents gambling here.

Still, many are skeptical of the idea and predict that actual receipts will be much less. According to the Boston Globe, Michael Widmer of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation estimates that realistic revenue to the state could be less than half of the $400 million prediction. Widmer’s best-case scenario would bring in on $300 million. There are many variables to consider as to whether or not the proposed numbers as accurate. Certainly nearby competition to the proposed casinos here are of concern. What about existing casinos in Connecticut, or the other states, such as New Hampshire, that are considering new casinos of their own? Also, simply because casinos are built in Massachusetts does not necessarily mean that residents will stay within the state to do their gambling.

A newly formed Massachusetts casino opposition group, Casino Free Mass, argues there are several other reasons why casinos would cause more harm than benefit to our state. According to their website, Casino Free Mass believes that all of Massachusetts’ towns will notice a quality of life change if three casinos are built. This group does not believe that casinos are the answer to our budget issues, and that building the casinos will cause one out of twenty people to develop some form of a gambling addiction if the casinos are built. While I am skeptical of some of their claims, these issues are still of concern and should be further scrutinized.

Locally, the Wampanoag tribe’s proposal to the town of Middleborough was approved over this past summer in a giant, outdoor town meeting. Middleborough residents largely approved of the casino proposal by nearly a two to one margin. The deal would provide the town with $250 million in infrastructure improvements as well as payments to the town of approximately $11 million a year. While no changes as a result of the casino are expected for a few years, plenty of people are not impressed by the new deal. Still, this was a big step towards making a casino a reality in the area near our campus.

Adding a casino could drastically change not only Middleborough itself, but surrounding towns as well. For starters, traffic would undoubtedly increase in the area. This would require improvements to the roadways and bridges for not only Middleborough but other nearby towns as well. The town of Middleborough is located only 25 miles to the north of North Dartmouth, so changes could certainly be felt in the area around UMass Dartmouth. There are also concerns about increase in the demand for fire and safety support, as well as increases in crime.

With numbers and statistics flying everywhere, choosing which side to support on this hotly contested issue is confusing. For many residents, it comes down to whether the suggested positives outweigh the negatives, and there are certainly negatives to worry about. As stated earlier, increased traffic through towns is a concern. Gambling addiction cannot be ignored, either. With estimates of one in twenty people being affected by gambling addiction, what will this mean for family life?

Still, Massachusetts is losing revenue as residents go elsewhere to gamble. Other nearby states, such as Connecticut, have already built casinos ahead of us and are stealing away tax dollars that could be ours. There is potential for substantial monetary gain as a result of the casinos. But at what price is this extra money earned?

Overall, the casino is a tough sell with so many uncertainties surrounding the plan. The first casino in Massachusetts is likely to be built in Southeastern Massachusetts, maybe even without the approval of Patrick’s plans. Approval of plans for state licensed casinos will require some to take a leap of faith in hopes that Mass residents will truly benefit from three new casinos, built right in our backyards.

Why the libertarian right is wrong

By Lance Gagnon

If someone asked you what your political views were, you’d probably say either liberal or conservative. In a world where such binary thought is pushed on us by the media, those might be the only opinions you’ve ever heard of. Then again, you might have heard of this concept called “libertarianism.” With its combination of fiscal conservativism and social liberalism, its followers claim that it maximizes freedom for everyone. But don’t be fooled; it’s an ideology so phony even the name is a lie.

The word libertarian was originally coined as a synonym for anarchist in the 1850s by the anarchist Joseph Déjacque, using it in his periodical “Le Libertaire;” since then, many anarchists have called themselves “libertarian socialists.” Unlike the ideology that now calls itself libertarianism, this ideology calls for the elimination of the state and capitalism in order to maximize freedom. It wasn’t until the formation of the Libertarian Party in the 1970s that fiscal conservatives who didn’t want to be involved with the socially conservative Republicans began to push the word as representing their politics. Over time, they managed to trick so many people that they are the real libertarians that even many of their own don’t realize it’s not true.

This false libertarianism creates even more lies within the ideology itself. They claim that freedom will increase through the use of “free trade,” the elimination of all government regulation on business. This is far from true. Under such an extreme form of capitalism, worker’s rights will be utterly eliminated. Without coercion from the government, corporations, which care about nothing but profit, will lower wages, eliminate safety regulations, and forcefully eliminate unions.

Libertarians claim that the workers will simply not work for such employers, but in truth the poor won’t have a choice. With a very limited amount of jobs to choose from, the poor are forced to work for whatever employer is available to them regardless of its quality. Under a libertarian system, they would be forced into conditions no better than the sweatshops that many Americans want eliminated from our economic system.

But these pseudo-libertarians aren’t entirely against government regulation. They claim to believe in “small” government, not the elimination of government as truly libertarian anarchists do. With the government still around, the workers can be kept in line, as the police or national guard can be called in any time they attempt to rebel against this economic totalitarianism.

And this is not without precedent. If libertarians had studied labor history, they would know that their economic methods were already practiced around the turn of the twentieth century, the accurately termed “Robber Baron” era. As pointed out in Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States,” the government was used by corporations to assault non-violent protesters when they tried to change the unfair conditions resulting from such economic methods. This was most apparent in the case of the Ludlow Massacre, where the national guard attacked striking coal miners and their families, killing 66 people. This only increased opposition to capitalism, and the government had to begin regulating business or face a potential socialist revolution.

There are a few “libertarians” who claim that they would actually eliminate the government, calling themselves “anarcho-capitalists.” However, this theory is also so inaccurate that even the name is false. As the anarchist Albert Meltzer once wrote, “The philosophy of ‘anarcho-capitalism’ dreamed up by the ‘libertarian’ New Right, has nothing to do with Anarchism as known by the Anarchist movement.” Their theory claims that if the government’s monopoly on violence is in the hands of businesses we will have more freedom. Instead, what results is that the corporations will become the government, as all a hierarchical system needs to have the power of a government is a monopoly on physical force. What would be created would not be anarchism, but corporatism— a power structure which is most often associated with fascism.

If you want an ideology that really maximizes freedom, try the real libertarianism: anarchism. Anarchists believe that nobody has the right to rule over you, whether it is a politician or your boss at work. They don’t call for mere “small” government, which protects the wealthy to the detriment of the poor; they call for no government, as all oppression is ultimately a result of the hierarchical power that it holds. With the elimination of the government, the people would be capable of organizing society in a non-hierarchical egalitarian manner. True freedom would exist, as capitalism would be replaced by truly humane economic systems such as the gift economy and the wage slavery that capitalism creates would be abolished.

Anarchism creates the ideal society that right-wing libertarians can only falsely promise. It allows you to avoid government regulation of your private life while building communities based on compassion rather than the greed of capitalism. Other political ideologies seek to merely reduce fundamental political problems such as poverty, homelessness, political inequality, hunger, and institutional corruption; anarchism is the only ideology which proposed a method by which these problems can be eliminated.

This may sound like going a bit far, but consider how badly mainstream politics have failed us. The government reform pushed by liberals have always backfired once a conservative gets into power; for instance, after Ronald Reagan came into power, federal agencies such the FDA and EPA began only protecting us when business interests weren’t compromised. Thus, harmful chemicals are allowed in our food by the FDA, and the EPA made false statements about the safety of post-9/11 New York to allow business to carry on as usual. Likewise, mere liberalism creates a phenomenon that Zinn refers to as “reform and repress.” Once reforms are made, the government uses them to convince most of the population that the fundamental problems have been solved, allowing them to legitimatize acts of repression against the remaining radical element. Through this, none of the fundamental flaws of government truly changes for the better.

So if we are to be a truly free people, we can not rely on mere reformist ideologies such as libertarianism or liberalism. Libertarians may understand that government is detrimental to the people, but they still value it for the sake of the unfair power it gives themselves. If they really want to maximize freedom, they should switch to an ideology where freedom is for everyone, not just those who can afford to buy it.

Dr. Ron Paul has a cure for apathy

By Lee Lukoff

Today most college students don’t care about politics, don’t understand it or are simply too busy with life to pay much attention. The disease of political apathy is a serious problem in America. A lot of people are highly skeptical of mainstream politicians who are beholden to moneyed interests and who constantly change there political stances every time they find out the results of a new public opinion poll. Often feeling they have no voice in government, young people throw in the towel and decide not to vote. However, this year there is a presidential candidate with a cure for your apathy: Dr. Ron Paul.

One may ask why is Ron Paul different from all the other candidates? The answer is simple. Dr. Paul is attractive to voters because his stances are based on a consistent philosophy, and he does not waiver from his beliefs. Throughout his ten terms in the House of Representatives, Ron Paul has been the leading advocate for following the constitution, promoting individual liberty and smaller government. In his career he has voted against the Iraq war, The Patriot Act, all tax increases and any unbalanced budget. He votes for the least amount of spending in the entire congress, and he has voted against so many different programs and expenditures his colleagues gave him the nickname “Doctor No.”

Ron Paul doesn’t vote against most spending bills and programs because he’s a coldhearted man who has no concern for the American people. Instead of taking marching orders from lobbyists or special interest groups like most politicians do he takes his from the constitution. If something isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, he votes against it because he believes the duty of elected officials is to follow the Constitution, which they took an oath to uphold.

When his presidential campaign started out, Ron Paul was skeptical about whether his pro liberty anti-war message would resonate with Americans. At times Dr. Paul felt as if he was the only person left still advocating for the original principals of the Republican Party being an advocate for small government, individual liberty and anti-war. However, because of new mediums like the Internet, instead of burning out like so many presidential candidates have in the past, his campaign ignited like wildfire. Fanatical supporters of Ron Paul used tools like YouTube, Facebook and Meetup.com to organize. To date he has about 4.4 million YouTube subscribers, 23,000 supporters on Facebook and 1,500 Meet Up groups formed. Ron Paul was able to unite a new coalition of voters many of whom are registering Republican just to vote for him in the primary. His support is diverse ranging from anti-war hippies to second amendment activists. This broad coalition of support has begun to transform from an Internet frenzy into a formidable campaign operation.

Congressman Paul’s presidential campaign operation has been constantly growing since he showed up on the national scene. He routinely wins polls taken after debates and he has been able to go toe to toe with political heavy weights in the all important fundraising contest. According opensecrets.org, he at one point he had more cash on hand then Senator John McCain. According to Paul’s website, he was able to get donations from 37,000 donors in a 24-hour time period on November 5th, netting over $4.2 million dollars. And, acoording to USA Today, his campaign has received more money from members of the military then any other Republican presidential candidate.

Given his internet popularity and strong fundraising numbers, the mainstream media has begun to take notice. Congressman Paul has been a guest on Jay Leno, The Colbert Report, The Daily Show and Real Time with Bill Maher. These media heavyweights have noted Dr. Paul’s consistent integrity and honest political talk. Jon Stewart jokingly said “You appear to have consistent principled integrity…Americans usually don’t go for that.” Bill Maher complimented Dr. Paul’s political philosophy when he said, “You’ve never heard this logic before from someone who might actually run the country”. With his popularity amongst young people on the internet, his consistent voting record and his anti-war, pro liberty message Dr. Ron Paul should give you the medicine you need to cure your political apathy this presidential election.

INKLINGS

Why can’t every day be Thanksgiving (sans turkey)?

By Allison Reitz

Around this time next week, the campus will be quiet as students, faculty and staff head home to celebrate Thanksgiving with family and friends. For most of us, this means that visions of turkey, tofurkey or turducken are dancing in our heads. (Although I think turducken is a myth — like Bigfoot, but edible and hopefully not as hairy.)

Mounds of delicious, home cooked foods are just too seductive to not fill our daydreams. And, sure, we all know the “true meaning” behind Thanksgiving; the holiday’s name makes it kind of obvious, after all. But how many of us put that meaning into practice beyond thanking Stop ‘N’ Shop for the cranberry sauce?

I can see it now: We’ll sit down to eat and be thankful for the food and the individuals who prepared it (because we certainly weren’t going to sit around for five hours to watch a turkey roast). We’ll enjoy the company and conversation of those around us. We’ll be grateful for the time off from obligations such as work and school. Life will be one huge Normal Rockwell painting, where the gravy boat never empties and the sun is always shining.

Then real life will kick in. We’ll start to worry about the end of the semester, all the assignments we have to complete over the weekend, when we’re going to get holiday shopping done, what to wear to imminent holiday parties....

It’s easy to be thankful for the obvious things when we have a day designated to it, and it’s just as easy to forget about thankfulness when it’s time to clear the table. And while no one wants to unload a dishwasher filled with 100 pounds of fine china and silverware, why should that drive the thankful spirit out of us? After all, we’ll still have “A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving” to look forward to that evening.

Sometimes the small things (like cartoon specials about perpetually depressed, round-headed boys) seem too small for us to bother being thankful for them. Says who?! Personally, I’m thankful for all sorts of seemingly insignificant things, like having warm leather gloves on a chilly Dartmouth day and finding a parking spot outside of Ivy when I have a trunk filled with groceries.

Thankfulness doesn’t always need to be poetic or dramatic. In fact, it can stem from those menial, every-day occurrences. Thankfulness can even be triggered by something as simple as finding an empty washing machine in the laundry room. There’s no rule against that sort of thing.

And just because there’s a whole day dedicated to it, we don’t always need to express our thankfulness in eloquent words. Our families certainly don’t expect us (and probably don’t want us) to take full inventory of these tiny, life-affirming moments before they can dig in to the mashed potatoes. But sometimes a sigh of relief or a moment of silent recognition can be enough to give us that fuzzy-wuzzy feeling inside.

So, while I hope that all of you have plenty to be thankful for on Thanksgiving, I hope you won’t limit your appreciation to a single day. And I, for one, will continue to be thankful for “A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving.”

Allison Reitz is the editor-in-chief of The Torch. Send your questions, comments, concerns and turducken sightings to her at u_areitz@umassd.edu.

SOUL SIGHTINGS

Adventus: A closer look at hope in the holiday season

Living in New England, we are familiar with change. The old saying tells us if we do not like the weather, wait five minutes because it is sure to change. Just as seasons change, so do the liturgical season in the Church change.

In a few weeks on December 2, Christians who follow a liturgical year will celebrate the Church New Year with the season of Advent, which is a preparation for Christmas. The Latin word “Adventus” means “coming”. Advent is a four week period which begins on the Sunday closest to November 30, the feast of St. Andrew. The first two weeks are the time of remembering Christ’s coming in past time while the second two week looks forward to Christ’s second coming.

During the four weeks of Advent many Churches use an Advent wreath with four candles, three purple and one pink, as a reminder of the time the people waited for the coming of Christ. The pink candle is used on the third Sunday, “Gaudete”, meaning “rejoice”, only two more weeks before we celebrate the Lord’s coming.

As with other seasons in the Church year, Advent has a theme, which in this case is hope. The ability to hope is essential to being human. Animals do not hope. They do not think about the future or wonder what will happen tomorrow. Our ability to hope is one of the ways we differ from animals. Without hope we have nothing to live for. We become depressed and life seems to have no meaning and despair, loneliness and a sense of having no worth as a person becomes our companion. While we still walk around, little if anything gives us meaning.

However, for those who have hope life has meaning, there is a reason to get out of bed in the morning. Our hopes are myriad. We hope for a good job, for an education for our children, for security, and a better world without war are some examples. There is the hope that we as a species will learn from our mistakes. We are not doing too well with this one at the present moment.

From now until Christmas we will be bombarded by hard-core ads urging us to buy, buy, buy all with the promise that “stuff” somehow has the ability to make us happy or at peace. The campaign begins right after Halloween relegating Thanksgiving to a friendly wave in the drive to convince us we really need more things.

There is the story about a young child who wanted the “toy of the year” and pestered their parents for this toy. The parents finally bought this very expensive toy for the child. Christmas came and the child was all excited about having their very own “toy of the year” for about ten minutes and then spent the rest of the day playing with the box the toy came in.

As Advent approaches, perhaps all of us whether we celebrate Christmas or not, could benefit from a closer look at what gives us hope. What gives meaning to our lives?

Sr. Madeleine Tacy, OP
Catholic Campus Ministry