Being just and just reality

I have received a few telephone calls over the recent incident at Little Bay involving the destruction of wetlands.  I have been provided some specifics including a name.  At this point I am told there is an ongoing investigations by the State Environmental Police,  I have been provided other information, but to this point it is strictly third hand, with nothing from any local or state official.

I bring this up for several reasons.  The first being that whoever is responsible should in fact be held responsible. Absent any attempt to save a person's life, given with what I do know, I can't see any rationale for the act.  

I am told it had to do with retrieving a Kayak (which I believe was part of the little blurb published elsewhere).  If the person responsible is held financially responsible for restoration of the damaged wetlands and coastal land, they are going to wish they had let the craft float out to sea.

With that being said, if and when things pan out so to speak, and there is an individual charged, or some official disclosure as to the particulars, if at that time I feel it warrants further "blog" attention I will give it.  

Until then, and this is another reason and a primary one, it is firmly in the rumor status.  There it will stay. I get a bunch of "tips" from sources that are usually pretty reliable.  But let's face it, this is not investigative journalism being practiced here.  It is an opinion exercise, plain and simple. 

While I appreciate the tips, unless time allows and it piques my interest, and I follow up on them to confirm, it is just on file.

The who may indeed be note worthy and sometimes naming names is needed for the piece.  When it is not, I do not.  For this little bit it is a "not".

On the issue of names ...

It is impossible sometimes to direct comments or offer an opinion on a matter without identifying the cast of characters.  Certainly referencing acts of public officials, when multiple ones are involved require this.  Identifying the players is at times warranted.

I try to keep it from getting to the personal level though.  Some may feel I don't always do that, yet I do my best at it.  And I expect the same from people commenting.

I want you to comment.  I want you to feel free offer honest opinions on the issues addressed or the comments made.  I also want the discussion to be about the issues and even about the people who may be mentioned in a piece, not a debate about the personalities of people who comment.  

It would certainly be a boost to the ratings to let people have free rein, but this blog isn't about that.  Please keep that in mind.

Shifting gears ...

The S-T opinion piece today about the proposed Melissa's law is worth your time.  From a personal perspective, I fail to see how such a law, especially in its most recent re-write should be objectionable, deemed discriminatory, or too costly.

Multiple violent crimes should in fact be dealt with in such a manner.  The only legitimate downside may in fact be the cost.  If we need more prisons, build them.  Put a cap on the legislatures, salary, eliminate their benefits and pensions, and you will have not only the money for a few more prisons, but you will institute by default self-imposed term limits. But it is a disservice to this needed law to tie it in with that issue.  

A "three strikes" law such as the proposed bill is not heartless, it is not inhumane, and it is not too costly in a society forced to pay the costs imposed upon it by the lack of such a measure.  I end this topic with the words ending the opinion piece:

We all grow tired with legislative inertia and, in frustration, throw up our hands and chalk it up to politics as usual. But this bill deserves better. Melissa deserves better. And so do the many other victims who had the misfortune to encounter criminals who are bad to the core. It's time to move Melissa's Bill forward.

While It might be appropriate to end today's discussion with that being noted, I nonetheless will comment on the legislature's vote to prohibit amendments to the casino pact.  Was anyone really surprised?

According to the S-T, the South Coast bucked the tide on the vote, with absolutely no avail (39 out of 160 against).  In the understatement of the year, Rep. Strauss stated that given the vote it is more likely than not the compact will pass.

I could have told you that after the initial gaming law changes.  The time for a time deadline in the "Indian Preference" was when you enacted the law authorizing it, not afterward.

Nobody in Boston will loose any sleep over the fact that any casino down in the South Coast will be years behind the other two that will operate.  

Indeed don't be too surprised if the Tribe is unable to get land in trust you never see one built down here (and given the current federal laws and the proposals for new federal laws, a definite possibility).  

You are talking about two years before the process winds it way through the federal regulatory process.  Then the inevitable appeals, and probably associated federal lawsuits, could drag it out more than double that.  

Even the gaming industry has a saturation point.  I can all ready hear the cries that the industry cannot sustain a third casino, that the numbers aren't there, etc., etc., etc.

Personally, I wouldn't see it as quite the loss others might.  I simply bring it up as another example of the South Coasts true place in the food chain.  

In the article, Rep Koczera said "The issue for me is not whether we have an Indian casino or a commercial casino, as long as we have a casino ... The real issue for me is jobs." The compact, he said, "lets our region down. It does an injustice to the people here."

The compact didn't let our region down.  The injustice to the people here isn't from the compact.  The compact is what the law allowing it authorizes.  The fact that the law was passed as it was is the true injustice.