Email us!
LiL Fundraising for Elizabeth Warren!
Lowell Area Bloggers/Forums
- Art is the Handmaid of Human Good
- Blog from the Office of the City Manager, Lowell MA
- Captains Log (Paul Belley)
- Choosing a Soundtrack
- Corey Sciuto
- Downtown Lowell Blog
- Dracut Forum
- Dracut Musings
- Dracut Politics
- gerrynutter'slowell
- JackieDoherty.org
- Lowell Deeds
- Lowell Police Dept WebNews
- Lowell Public Schools Blog
- Lowellest Common Denominator
- lowellresident
- Middlesex Community College Blog
- MV Homlessness Blog
- RichardHowe.com
- Right-Side-of-Lowell
- Tewksbury Issues
- The New Englander
Lowell Politics
Mass Bloggers
- - Leftyblogs MA Blogroll - Almost all of my favorite lefty blogs in Massachusetts can be found here. Linking here keeps my own blogroll short but still up to date! Below are some other MA blogs which are not listed at LB.
- H2Otown (Watertown, MA)
- MargeBLOG (Williamstown)
- Michael Forbes Wilcox (Western MA)
- The Gazebo (Worcester area)
Media in Lowell
- Chelmsford Mass News
- Community Connections The online archive of many of WUML's radio shows.
- LTC :: Our community cable access channel (8 & 10). Excellent people, I've worked with them before.
- Open Source :: Chris Lydon's new show, broadcast on WUML and WGBH locally.
- The Lowell Sun :: Love it or hate it, it's the big newspaper in town.
- WCAP radio :: Talk radio in Lowell - still locally owned, and in transition.
- WUML :: The student- and community-run radio station of UMass-Lowell. Lynne hosts a radio show, Thinking Out Loud, 10am on Fridays.
Media in MA
Other Daily Reads
Politics Online
- City Council Agenda Past City Council agendas, posted in a mostly timely manner
- Lowellma.gov Official city website
Progressive Local Orgs
Snark and politics
The Arts in Lowell
- 119 Gallery - Art gallery with exhibitions of many local artists, interesting events, and living, breathing culture.
- Arts League of Lowell (ALL) - Artist community group, a recent but welcome addition to the arts scene in Lowell.
- Brush Art Gallery - Come and meet working artists in their natural habitats!
- Cultural Organization of Lowell (COOL) - Great local calendar of events.
- Lowell Opera Company - Community opera.
- Lowell Philharmonic Orchestra - Local community orchestra.
- Lowell Poetry Network
- Lowell Rocks - List of live music events
- Merrimack Repertory Theatre - A local theatre "presenting an exciting mix of contemporary and new plays in historic downtown Lowell."
- OUtlET - Paper and online 'zine making a splash locally with events in art, poetry, music, and everything in between!
- Revolving Museum Contemporary, local, public art space with a plethora of children's programs and art by and for the community.
- The Fine Print - Socially aware, themed, arts and issues periodic publication available throughout Lowell.
- The Image Theater - Theatre company which puts on all original works by local playwrights.
- Whistler House Museum - A great collection of contemporaries of Whistler at his historic birthplace.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Can I take by my vote for Patrick? Cowardly decision and he’ll be long out of office when the consequences hit. Cowardly.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Well-delivered argument, Lynne. I wish I could have said it as well!
September 19th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
I personally still support Patrick - I knew there would be things on which I disagreed with the Governor on (some vehemently), but honestly, would we even be having this discussion if the legislature had an actual honest debate on other revenue-helpful proposals? I’m guessing maybe those odds are 50-50.
Overall, this decision, should it come to pass, will bear the responsibility of the Governor AND the legislature…there’s a reason we have more than one branch of government. So, I’m hoping the legislature listens to the arguments, has an honest discussion, and then votes their conscience. And of course I hope their conscience agrees with me, but I’m fine so long as special moneyed interests aren’t dictating the terms of the debate.
Of course, reports like this do not make me feel better. I hope the Governor explains himself on this score, the sooner the better.
September 19th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Just to update: BMG has a fuller list than the Herald (gee, why aren’t I surprised…)
The bugaboo that still exists is that no outside experts were consulted. Which seems weird.
September 19th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Who am to judge how people want to spend their time and money?
They’re adults. Should we ban liquor? Nudie bars?
And this “character of our state” argument - last time I checked, Connecticut is still Connecticut.
September 19th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
After reading that Herald article, why do I forsee a number of Legislators and/or executives moving on to work for Trump or one of his associates in a few years?
September 20th, 2007 at 1:10 am
Character of the state?
Will we finally give up our title as Scratch ticket capital of the world?
September 20th, 2007 at 9:20 am
The Herald article was a little lopsided, truth to tell, but point taken, Shawn.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:44 am
I actually don’t like the lottery, and think it’s a great example of the state getting addicted to revenues that aren’t the best sort, frankly. So I’m against more of the same.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
What has happened to personal responsibility? It is not the governments job to baby its citizens. We shouldn’t ban all casinos because a small minority will be addicted to them.
The funny thing is, they already are. People drive to Connecticut all the time to gamble. And we certainly have our fair share of gambling already, so what harm will casino’s make? People that are addicted to gambling in MA already are.
The 3 casinos will bring in hundreds, if not thousands of jobs and will bring in tourists.
September 20th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Sure thing, I’m fine with people heading to Vegas. This is primarily about whether or not it’s practical for Massachusetts. And then afterwards, there’s also this moral issue of whether it’s a good idea for the state to get even more revenue than it gets now on something that causes so much pain.
Most people do not drive weekly to Connecticut to gamble. Most people don’t drive to CT at all to gamble. Most people do other things, because it’s not on their radar to gamble. Poorer folks don’t make the trip because it costs to much generally to make the road trip.
Stick a casino next to them, and you’ll see differently. And studies show that people who go to a casino are mostly people who live within an hour of it. There WILL be more people addicted to gambling by putting in three more casinos, and what’s worse, we pay for that. So mathematically, the revenue we might gain from casinos is, in practical terms, offset by the cost of helping those who become addicted, on top of more law enforcement, a whole new state department for regulation and enforcement, new roads, etc. There’s a very practical side to the moral argument here, which proponents completely ignore.
Also, yes, there IS an arbitrary line that needs drawing. The state could really pick up revenues if it legalized marijuana and taxed that too. Or hey, legalize meth production! But you would want to draw the line there, right, because of the harm drugs do to society, and the cost associated? Well, gambling is exactly like that, except worse, because drugs and their cost to society exist WHETHER or not it’s illegal, but gambling on the scale that you get with casinos is NOT.
September 20th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Lynne, you make some really solid arguments.
However, I disgaree with your comparison of gambling and drugs. We already have gambling in Massachusetts. I don’t think 3 casino’s will make much a difference. Not everyone that gambles has an addiction to it. I’m certainly no expert, but I would say that by far the majority of people that gamble at casino’s are not addicted at all, they just want to have some fun. Why should we ban an entire casino because some people don’t know how to control themselves?
It is not the governments job to baby people. If one chooses to gamble all of thier money away, then that is their problem. And there going to do that whether or not we have casino’s.
I view casinos kinda like I view alcohol and weed (im 19). Sure, both are fun and relaxing to do when used in GRADUAL amount. Casino’s are not evil- theu are a fun place to enjoy yourself and maybe even win some money. Not everyone is addicted to it- a very small minority is.
Your assessment of the actual revenue certainly makes on think, however, and you my in fact be right. It might not make the state that much money.
But I just don’t want to see the casino plan dropped simply because a small minority can’t control themselves.
September 20th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Everytime I hear someone blathering about regarding seniors on fixed incomes requiring some break or another (usually a property tax reduction that inevitably means my taxes will be going up to make up for it), I think of all those coach busses filled chock full of blue hairs on their way to CT to blow their SS check.
Sorry for the run on sentence.
September 20th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Lynne,
Stick a casino next to them, and you’ll see differently.
Thus demonstrating that people, I don’t know who, certainly not me, but some people, want to have a casino to go to.
All else being equal, it is good when people can do things they want to do. People enjoying themselves is a good thing, all by itself, without the need to show some kind of side benefit.
I’m not saying that it should trump all, just that the desire of some people to gamble in a casino - and enough of them for the “Indian Tribe” in question to make a huge investment with the expection of making big money - needs to be counted as an argument in favor of the casino as we weigh the costs and benefits.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:18 am
We all know people who spend time gambling at Casinos. I’d venture to say that a large majority of them go once in a while to have a little bit of fun. Gamble a little, go out to eat, and enjoy a show. What is wrong with that?? People have to maintain some self control. We can’t babysit everyone out there. People are already gambling in this state with the lottery, keno, and bingo halls all over the place. Those people may shift their current addiction to a casino. What’s the difference? The “social cost” is already there. All of the reports coming out of CT is that the parking lot is full of MA plates. Our MA residents are already gambling. If they’re experiencing an addition problem we’re already paying for the “social cost” without the corresponding funds from our own Casinos. It’s a big win for the State as I see it. It brings in more people in to spend money. Considering we’re the only state losing population we could use the boost in revenue. As far as infrastructure needs, I’ll take them whatever way we can get them. We’re not spending what we should now maybe this will force them to make some type of investment. I don’t see how that is a negative. They’ll have to spend some of the money they should have been spending on infrastucture but have diverted it to some social program.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Lynne, a cogent argument. Depending on location, current jobs will also be lost. Casinos can be addicting. I personally know people how travel to CT every weekend.
September 21st, 2007 at 2:55 pm
“I’d venture to say that a large majority of them…”
Are there any studies that quantify what the large majority of gamblers’ profile is. Anyone got a link?
September 21st, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Governor Patrick certainly has left me feeling betrayed. Lynne, I expected to disagree with him on some issues, as you have said, but this issue is going to shape our lives in Massachusetts for years to come. It is perhaps the biggest decision since the one to dump tea in the harbor. There will be no turning back for us once the effects of casino gambling set in. This is more than a small area of disagreement.
Why betrayal?
“Together we can” was an optimistic viewpoint. It meant to me that we could find fresh, new solutions to our fiscal and other challenges; that we would invest in human potential to move this Commonwealth forward.
“Together we can” meant that big money interests that do NOT represent the grassroots level would not be able to run fast and furiously over our policy. It has only been 6 months since the Mashpee Wampanoags, backed by international financial partners, began their aggressive campaign to site a casino in Massachusetts. Gov. Patrick apparently allowed this big money effort to set the agenda, pace, and timeline for discussion and debate regarding casinos.
“Together we can” implies that we will find positive, non-divisive ways to meet our challenges. The casino issue, along with questions of which towns will suffer the burdens for the rest of the state, is highly divisive. If the plan moves forward there is unlikely to be any truly rural land left to the middle class. That certainly alienates a good number of us who have tried to build our lives in rural communities.
“Together we can” implies that we will care about the impacts we have on small groups as we forge ahead with big policy. The rising rates of problem gambling–especially in youth–should be a warning. It should cause us concern that the Massachusetts Council on Compulsive Gambling notes that one of the proposed casino regions (SE MA) has emerged as an area with a population that’s particularly vulnerable to gambling problems. It should be a concern that some everyday people–folks like you or me–will innocently view casino gambling as entertainment, only to find themselves ensnared in addiction before they know what hit them.
We can expect that the number of problem gamblers will increase, but casino proponents have said that if anyone in the Commonwealth has a gambling problem, we should at least be the ones to profit from it. They are ignoring the fact that we, as a state, will be luring people into this trap. Governor Patrick tried to avoid this question in his interview with Bob Oakes on WBUR, claiming that it is a bit paternalistic to worry about the gambler who can’t afford the habit. He didn’t address the ethics of being involved in creating the problem.
Yes, candidate Patrick had a lot to offer, but I’m not sure he is the guy who became governor. That’s why I’m not so certain I can bring myself to support him in the future.
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Such a noble post, Anonymous. “Together we can!” Right! As if a political slogan really means anything.
Unless you’re 21 or younger, please don’t be so naive as to believe there are solutions to financial problems that aren’t divisive or don’t come with some costs. To run a governement or provide services, you have to make significant MONEY! That money comes in the form of either taxes or tremendous business expansion that necessitates acqiuessence to special interests. Those are your choices. YOU CAN’T HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT, TOO!
Express your disappointment at Patrick at the polls if you wish, but don’t be naive enough to think the cure-all exists with another candidate. If there was a painless way to feed this necessary monster we call government, I’m sure someone would have come up with it by now. Until they do, we’ll have to settle for less than perfect solutions like casino gambling.
Personally, this is one issue where I applaud the Governor for having the courage to try something different. (then again, it was inevitable anyway with the Indian tribes, so why not get a piece of the pie yourself) However, since other Governors and legislative leaders looked at the realities and still did nothing, Patrick gets full credit here.
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Well, Right in Lowell, obviously I’m bound to disagree with the at least some of what you had to say about my post (#18).
I don’t want to argue for the sake of being contentious. But I do want to respond to two of your points because it’s important to provide information that may help clarify this issue. Even if it dosn’t make you, personally, see this issue differently, I hope some undecided people will at least conider the facts below as they form their own opinions.
First point–
You wrote:
“(then again, it [casino gambling] was inevitable anyway with the Indian tribes, so why not get a piece of the pie yourself)”
That’s not exactly right. By Federal law, the type of gambling that is envisioned by the Mashpee Wampanoags **cannot** take place **unless** Massachusetts legalizes it. A state must allow class III gambling in the first place if a tribe is to run class III casinos. So, casino gambling is not inevitable. Bingo would be an option, but the chances of a bingo hall out-competing CT casinos seems slim.
By the way, by allowing casino gambling, we are not necessarily folding the tribal casinos into the deals we make. If the Mashpee Wampanoags (and any future tribal nation/tribe that may receive Federal recognition) opt out of applyng for the 3 licenses proposed by Governer Patrick, they can open up their own casino, anyway.
This is a possiblity which Treasurer Cahill has already acknowledged as a concern; although he believes some casino gambling in the state *will* be profitable, he sees the risk of saturation. (He actually thinks 2, not 3, casinos would be ideal.)
Second point–
You wrote:
“If there was a painless way to feed this necessary monster we call government, I’m sure someone would have come up with it by now. Until they do, we’ll have to settle for less than perfect solutions like casino gambling.”
Readers of this blog may find it informative that Citizens for LIMITED Taxation have stated their opposition to casino gambling in Massachusetts. Their analysis is twofold:
(1)we may actually stand to ***lose*** money from our venture into casinos. The League of Women Voters, who has studied this since 1981, agrees that the infrastructure and indirect costs are 3x what states take in.
(2) Even if we did bring in more money, it won’t resolve our fundamental issues of state spending. They remind us that the lottery was supposed to relieve property tax burdens; but has failed to do so, even after expansion. CLT reminds us that the Eastern states that currently allow casino gambling all have major fiscal problems to solve.
In short: There are practical, sound, economically based reasons to oppose venturing into a casino-based economy.
September 24th, 2007 at 11:09 am
You will not find an independant study on the financial effects of casino gambling that doesn’t show it as a money making proposition, even when the “costs” are factored in. I challenge you to find one state that’s adopted casino gambling and gone on to say they’re losing money because of it. The theoretical arguments and flawed studies are all well and good, but in the end, it IS a money-making proposition and has been everywhere. That’s a fact.
As for it not solving our fundamental spending problems, you’re dead on there. Our elected leaders can’t keep their hands out of our pockets. At least the lottery keeps them from digging so deep they get into our drawers. Casino gambling would ease our burden as well, therefore allowing the donkeys in this state to feed their socialist interests.
Who knows. Maybe they’ll even use it to fund health insurance instead of killing small businesses like they’re trying to do now.