Joshua's Journal
My Podcast Link
04/20/2006 14:17 #24632
Awesome!While sifting through the days news I ran across this story - a lady in CA wants to build a home out of spare parts from a 747 jumbo jet! Check out the article and the artist's rendition of the home.
04/20/2006 11:27 #24631
Why we do what we doA few months ago, a company (thankfully we weren't the one to visit this company) in Bangladesh had a fire. Because they locked all the doors and never did any evacuation training, 250 people died in the fire.
Fast forward to this week - we did visit a company in Haiti with the same problems. We aren't recommending them and I hope that they either change their ways or go out of business.
Fast forward to this week - we did visit a company in Haiti with the same problems. We aren't recommending them and I hope that they either change their ways or go out of business.
scott - 04/20/06 13:45
I'm pretty sure those businesses operate that way becuase they can. They're not moral entities, they're businesses and they exist to turn a profit. they have no interest in developing the country, developing the workforce, or anything except making a quick buck.
That used to be the USA a hundred years ago.
I bet their main buyer for their goods is a US company... like Walmart or Target, too.
I'm pretty sure those businesses operate that way becuase they can. They're not moral entities, they're businesses and they exist to turn a profit. they have no interest in developing the country, developing the workforce, or anything except making a quick buck.
That used to be the USA a hundred years ago.
I bet their main buyer for their goods is a US company... like Walmart or Target, too.
04/19/2006 16:50 #24630
News1. This first news story is near and dear to me, especially considering that it involves the worst airport in the United States.
2. This is a bit of a surprise for me, but to be honest I'm glad for him. I don't suffer fools easily and I don't know how Scott McClellan did for 2 years... the press corps are a bunch of blithering idiots.
3. Wal-Mart vows to continue growth despite opposition. What opposition? You mean the activists? Guess what - until its unprofitable for Wal-Mart to operate you aren't going to even phase them with rhetoric.
4. This one truly makes me sick, especially since West Coast tech companies have been complicit in getting political dissidents in China arrested, or possibly MUCH worse. Fuck China, and fuck their President. P.S. Bill Gates still looks like an 11-year old prepubescent boy.
5. Let me get this right. Mexico harshly criticizes the USA for wanting to enforce border security and deal effectively with illegal immigration, but Mexico itself doesn't want to follow its own advice? Fuck Mexico too.
2. This is a bit of a surprise for me, but to be honest I'm glad for him. I don't suffer fools easily and I don't know how Scott McClellan did for 2 years... the press corps are a bunch of blithering idiots.
3. Wal-Mart vows to continue growth despite opposition. What opposition? You mean the activists? Guess what - until its unprofitable for Wal-Mart to operate you aren't going to even phase them with rhetoric.
4. This one truly makes me sick, especially since West Coast tech companies have been complicit in getting political dissidents in China arrested, or possibly MUCH worse. Fuck China, and fuck their President. P.S. Bill Gates still looks like an 11-year old prepubescent boy.
5. Let me get this right. Mexico harshly criticizes the USA for wanting to enforce border security and deal effectively with illegal immigration, but Mexico itself doesn't want to follow its own advice? Fuck Mexico too.
04/18/2006 12:55 #24629
NewsI dislike making two posts in a short amount of time but there is some juicy stuff bouncing around out there today. Please check out my previous entry about the casino, read it, and let me know what you think about the casino issue - either through your own entry in your journal or by leaving a comment on my journal.
1. I find myself in the uncomfortable position of ALMOST agreeing with Shrillary on an issue. She and Senator Reid are championing a new program that would federally fund the morning after pill and programs designed to reduce abortions. The bill would also provide funding designed to support low income women that choose to carry babies to full term. You can read about it here -
My view on this is that abortion is the most barbaric thing our society allows. Therefore finding ways to reduce abortions is a good idea. The problem is, how do we go about that? One argument is that abortions wouldn't be as necessary if people simply were more responsible, so abstinence should be the focus. Another argument is that we should make access to contraception easier and more affordable, and the result would be a general decline in abortions. I think it would be hypocritical to support a ban on abortions and at the same time reject any realistic prevention initiatives. Ultimately the issue is, how do we go about prevention?
Handing out RU-486 isn't the answer, but I don't see why we can't come up with something that would make it easier for women to access birth control. I think that is a reasonable idea. Supporting women that choose to carry babies to full term though? We already do that - its called welfare, and there are ALOT of people out there that abuse the system and keep popping out babies because the more kids you have, the more govt. money you are allowed access to. I still have a few questions about this though, and I think no matter what there needs to be some abstinence programs also. Sex ed cannot be one-sided. Anyway, read the article and decide for yourself!
2. Purdue University grad student arrested for threatening to kill the Prez, his administration, Republicans, and also threatening to rape and mutilate American and British women. Cookoo!
The student's lawyer is suggesting that he is covered under the First Amendment because he never would have actually carried out the threats. Number one - how do we know that? Number two - First Amendment is not absolute and you cannot threaten to kill the POTUS and expect to hide behind the Constitution.
3. Al Gore is releasing a movie related to his lectures about global warming.
You lefties will like this one. Hell, I'll check this movie out whenever its available. This is supposedly an article about the movie, but Richard Cohen inevitably and predictably starts bashing Bush and suggests that Al Gore would actually be the perfect candidate for President in 2008!! This is alarming because I agree with Mr. Cohen. I would relish Al Gore running against someone like George Allen because all we'd have to do is drag out sound clips of Al Gore speaking over the past few years and the R's would win by a landslide. In particular I think Americans would be interested in the speech that Gore gave in Saudi Arabia, essentially bashing America and being paid by the Saudis for it. Thats it Mr. Gore - stir up the Middle East and talk trash about the USA, then run for Prez. I think Richard Cohen dipped into my ziplock bag of vegetables when I wasn't looking.
1. I find myself in the uncomfortable position of ALMOST agreeing with Shrillary on an issue. She and Senator Reid are championing a new program that would federally fund the morning after pill and programs designed to reduce abortions. The bill would also provide funding designed to support low income women that choose to carry babies to full term. You can read about it here -
My view on this is that abortion is the most barbaric thing our society allows. Therefore finding ways to reduce abortions is a good idea. The problem is, how do we go about that? One argument is that abortions wouldn't be as necessary if people simply were more responsible, so abstinence should be the focus. Another argument is that we should make access to contraception easier and more affordable, and the result would be a general decline in abortions. I think it would be hypocritical to support a ban on abortions and at the same time reject any realistic prevention initiatives. Ultimately the issue is, how do we go about prevention?
Handing out RU-486 isn't the answer, but I don't see why we can't come up with something that would make it easier for women to access birth control. I think that is a reasonable idea. Supporting women that choose to carry babies to full term though? We already do that - its called welfare, and there are ALOT of people out there that abuse the system and keep popping out babies because the more kids you have, the more govt. money you are allowed access to. I still have a few questions about this though, and I think no matter what there needs to be some abstinence programs also. Sex ed cannot be one-sided. Anyway, read the article and decide for yourself!
2. Purdue University grad student arrested for threatening to kill the Prez, his administration, Republicans, and also threatening to rape and mutilate American and British women. Cookoo!
The student's lawyer is suggesting that he is covered under the First Amendment because he never would have actually carried out the threats. Number one - how do we know that? Number two - First Amendment is not absolute and you cannot threaten to kill the POTUS and expect to hide behind the Constitution.
3. Al Gore is releasing a movie related to his lectures about global warming.
You lefties will like this one. Hell, I'll check this movie out whenever its available. This is supposedly an article about the movie, but Richard Cohen inevitably and predictably starts bashing Bush and suggests that Al Gore would actually be the perfect candidate for President in 2008!! This is alarming because I agree with Mr. Cohen. I would relish Al Gore running against someone like George Allen because all we'd have to do is drag out sound clips of Al Gore speaking over the past few years and the R's would win by a landslide. In particular I think Americans would be interested in the speech that Gore gave in Saudi Arabia, essentially bashing America and being paid by the Saudis for it. Thats it Mr. Gore - stir up the Middle East and talk trash about the USA, then run for Prez. I think Richard Cohen dipped into my ziplock bag of vegetables when I wasn't looking.
metalpeter - 04/18/06 18:51
All I want to say on abortion is that some people belive there are 2 movements in abortion the Prolifers and Prochoicers. There is actully a 3rd movement that to my knowledge dosn't have a name it is people who try to cut down on the number of abortions there are. Some of the things they may do is incurrage adoptions, better sex ed, I think that is an important movement and it shouldn't be over looked.
All I want to say on abortion is that some people belive there are 2 movements in abortion the Prolifers and Prochoicers. There is actully a 3rd movement that to my knowledge dosn't have a name it is people who try to cut down on the number of abortions there are. Some of the things they may do is incurrage adoptions, better sex ed, I think that is an important movement and it shouldn't be over looked.
04/18/2006 10:33 #24628
The CasinoCategory: local
Ugh. 6 martinis at Cecilia's last night did me in fairly harshly. Sorry (e:nejifer) (e:decoyisryan) and (e:ladycroft) - I hope I wasn't too much of a pain in SPoT last night! I was wobbly... and even now my body feels like its aching for hydration. You guys have been catching me on bad days - Timika will attest that I'm actually a very nice guy and I don't drink or go out all that often.
I'm glad to see some dialogue about the casino - (e:dcoffee) makes some points that I agree with, and it seems like I'm united with most people out there that think that this thing is a bad idea.
If you oppose the casino, or support the idea... why? I'm kind of curious about it.
For me, I see the casino this way - its good for the Senecas (tax free land in the city of Buffalo?) and for the developers but its horrible for the populace. Casinos are never investments in the traditional sense. This isn't something that is going to benefit our city in any meaningful way because a casino isn't like a mall. People go to casinos not to buy things but to risk things, and in most cases the money stays directly in the pockets of the people who build and run the casinos. Local dollars will not get recycled back into our economy... traditionally casinos are black holes for dollars. Usually this is tourist dollars, and this is what the supporters of the casino are arguing for and banking on.
My sentiment is this - WHAT tourists?!? People don't come to Buffalo to see Buffalo - people come to Buffalo to see Niagara Falls. Theres no guarantee that building a casino is going to bring in tourists when you already have two casinos 20 minutes away. We are arguing about building an attraction for the sake of tourism that has already been built twice over in other areas. In our case they would be local dollars being sucked in by the vortex, and I have a serious problem with that because our area cannot afford to waste the money. You might say, "Josh, I think that if people want to waste their money at a casino, so be it... if they don't want to waste their money than they shouldn't gamble." I tend to agree. However, if people don't want to waste their money gambling, then why bother to build the casino in the first place? Take a look at Niagara Falls. Do you see a city that is rejuvenated by the casino? That place is a ghost town... even more so than when the casino was simply the convention center. Here's a thought - if we want to attract tourists and compete against Niagara Falls, or possibly lure them away from NF to dump a few tourist bucks here, why not build something DIFFERENT than what you'll find in NF and that has a more tangible and realistic revenue scheme?
I completely object to what Mike Niman (my favorite non-journalist) said recently in the Artvoice. He and I agree that building this casino is a bad idea, but for different reasons. Mike Niman suggests that this casino would affect the poor the most because they can least afford to gamble. This is absolute baloney. When do you ever see poor people in ANY casinos? That suggestion is an absolutely hollow argument because there is no factual basis to be able to make that assumption on. Poor people as a segment of the population do not gamble that much, and if you don't believe me you can go ahead and spent a week in Niagara Falls to study the clientele.
What Mike Niman is really saying is this - "Poor people, we are trying to protect you from yourselves, because I, Mike Niman, believe that you are too stupid and irresponsible to be able to handle yourselves if a casino is built." This is a perfect example of the nanny state. I believe in personal liberty first and foremost. If you want to go bankrupt in a casino as far as I'm concerned that is your right as an American. Suggesting to hold off on building a casino because you think that the people can't handle the responsibility is absolutely ludicrous. It might be true, but we simply cannot begin restricting what we build or do because a select group of people think they are smarter than the poor people - "daddy knows best!"
I'm glad to see some dialogue about the casino - (e:dcoffee) makes some points that I agree with, and it seems like I'm united with most people out there that think that this thing is a bad idea.
If you oppose the casino, or support the idea... why? I'm kind of curious about it.
For me, I see the casino this way - its good for the Senecas (tax free land in the city of Buffalo?) and for the developers but its horrible for the populace. Casinos are never investments in the traditional sense. This isn't something that is going to benefit our city in any meaningful way because a casino isn't like a mall. People go to casinos not to buy things but to risk things, and in most cases the money stays directly in the pockets of the people who build and run the casinos. Local dollars will not get recycled back into our economy... traditionally casinos are black holes for dollars. Usually this is tourist dollars, and this is what the supporters of the casino are arguing for and banking on.
My sentiment is this - WHAT tourists?!? People don't come to Buffalo to see Buffalo - people come to Buffalo to see Niagara Falls. Theres no guarantee that building a casino is going to bring in tourists when you already have two casinos 20 minutes away. We are arguing about building an attraction for the sake of tourism that has already been built twice over in other areas. In our case they would be local dollars being sucked in by the vortex, and I have a serious problem with that because our area cannot afford to waste the money. You might say, "Josh, I think that if people want to waste their money at a casino, so be it... if they don't want to waste their money than they shouldn't gamble." I tend to agree. However, if people don't want to waste their money gambling, then why bother to build the casino in the first place? Take a look at Niagara Falls. Do you see a city that is rejuvenated by the casino? That place is a ghost town... even more so than when the casino was simply the convention center. Here's a thought - if we want to attract tourists and compete against Niagara Falls, or possibly lure them away from NF to dump a few tourist bucks here, why not build something DIFFERENT than what you'll find in NF and that has a more tangible and realistic revenue scheme?
I completely object to what Mike Niman (my favorite non-journalist) said recently in the Artvoice. He and I agree that building this casino is a bad idea, but for different reasons. Mike Niman suggests that this casino would affect the poor the most because they can least afford to gamble. This is absolute baloney. When do you ever see poor people in ANY casinos? That suggestion is an absolutely hollow argument because there is no factual basis to be able to make that assumption on. Poor people as a segment of the population do not gamble that much, and if you don't believe me you can go ahead and spent a week in Niagara Falls to study the clientele.
What Mike Niman is really saying is this - "Poor people, we are trying to protect you from yourselves, because I, Mike Niman, believe that you are too stupid and irresponsible to be able to handle yourselves if a casino is built." This is a perfect example of the nanny state. I believe in personal liberty first and foremost. If you want to go bankrupt in a casino as far as I'm concerned that is your right as an American. Suggesting to hold off on building a casino because you think that the people can't handle the responsibility is absolutely ludicrous. It might be true, but we simply cannot begin restricting what we build or do because a select group of people think they are smarter than the poor people - "daddy knows best!"
nejifer - 04/19/06 19:20
no worries...you were funny. however is it wrong of me that i only read the first paragraph of your post and said screw the rest?
no worries...you were funny. however is it wrong of me that i only read the first paragraph of your post and said screw the rest?
joshua - 04/18/06 13:13
Interesting perspective Vincent - thanks for responding.
I suppose that I wasn't clear with my comment about poor people gambling so I'll take the chance to be more clear. I'm not saying that poor people don't gamble, or that poor people seldom gamble. I'm saying that poor people (I don't consider middle income earners poor) aren't dominating the casino clientele and flooding the place, which in part is what Mike Niman is talking about when he is suggesting that poor people would be most vulnerable. Poor people that gamble ARE NOT victims.
I actually didn't know that people could use their BLUE NYS cards to gamble. This to me is absolutely outrageous and should be prevented.
Personally I don't judge gamblers by their clothes - people go buy Ferraris while wearing t-shirts and blue jeans. Still though, working in a casino would be a great opportunity to do a sociology experiment.
Interesting perspective Vincent - thanks for responding.
I suppose that I wasn't clear with my comment about poor people gambling so I'll take the chance to be more clear. I'm not saying that poor people don't gamble, or that poor people seldom gamble. I'm saying that poor people (I don't consider middle income earners poor) aren't dominating the casino clientele and flooding the place, which in part is what Mike Niman is talking about when he is suggesting that poor people would be most vulnerable. Poor people that gamble ARE NOT victims.
I actually didn't know that people could use their BLUE NYS cards to gamble. This to me is absolutely outrageous and should be prevented.
Personally I don't judge gamblers by their clothes - people go buy Ferraris while wearing t-shirts and blue jeans. Still though, working in a casino would be a great opportunity to do a sociology experiment.
mrmike - 04/18/06 12:56
The idea of the Buffalo Casino has never suited me very well. As is evident in the falls, a casino by itself is not a neighborhood silver bullet that will make everything alright. The notion that it will transform the cobblestone district makes me chuckle. The most compelling side effect of all of this is the amount of politicians who are hopping the fence to get themselves back on the right side of what was very bad deal for the municipalities. What leaves me frustrated as a longtime Elmwood-ite is that the big projects like this don't solve all that ails an area and our "leaders" never want to grasp that concept.
Elmwood Village is the neighborhood it is because of incalculable little things. Plopping a casino downtown will not do that for that area. Interesting that Giambra has flipped because his first idea was actually userful. He came out and said the second casino should go in the Falls as well. That actually made sense to me. That could actually grab ahold of tourists dollars as well as make an attempt to compete with the goings on across the border.
The idea of the Buffalo Casino has never suited me very well. As is evident in the falls, a casino by itself is not a neighborhood silver bullet that will make everything alright. The notion that it will transform the cobblestone district makes me chuckle. The most compelling side effect of all of this is the amount of politicians who are hopping the fence to get themselves back on the right side of what was very bad deal for the municipalities. What leaves me frustrated as a longtime Elmwood-ite is that the big projects like this don't solve all that ails an area and our "leaders" never want to grasp that concept.
Elmwood Village is the neighborhood it is because of incalculable little things. Plopping a casino downtown will not do that for that area. Interesting that Giambra has flipped because his first idea was actually userful. He came out and said the second casino should go in the Falls as well. That actually made sense to me. That could actually grab ahold of tourists dollars as well as make an attempt to compete with the goings on across the border.
vincent - 04/18/06 12:10
Unfortunalty I have worked @ the casino almost since it opened. I am against the Buffalo Casino. It's possibly that I'm a little biased and am not too happy with that place, but building a casino in Buffalo is not a good idea. People that are compulsive gamblers will gamble more when it is a shorter distance, thus getting themselves into more trouble.
Gamblers are not typical people. If a guy goes on a run on a blackjack table and is up 3,000 he is not going to go to the Galleria and drop a grand in Hugo Boss, he's going to come back the next day or week and play again and most likely give it all back and then some. I have seen a guy at a $500 minimun tables with holes in his shoes and ripped clothes, in comparison people @ the city missin look better than him. Was he thinking of going out to dinner @ the chop house after his big score? He's just thinking about the next hand.
>>>>>When do you ever see poor people in ANY casinos? That suggestion is an absolutely hollow argument because there is no factual basis to be able to make that assumption on. Poor people as a segment of the population do not gamble that much, and if you don't believe me you can go ahead and spent a week in Niagara Falls to study the clientele.<<<<
In response to that just spend a day at the Penny Slots. When I worked on the floor we have people come up to the cash machines and take money off their BLUE NYS Benefit cards to play the slots. They would ask us to give them an advance on the next half of the month's payment, NO SHIT. Poor people do gamble more than they ever should.
Casino's are not built on the high rollers that you see on the travel channel, but the middle to income class. Just to go Atlantic City or Vegas, the profit center is built on slot machines are there are always more of those than any glamorous poker or table game.
The way I see it the expansion of casino's are to keep the nanny state financed. The nanny state wants you to blow your financial brains out at their place. They will collect everything you own eventually than any income or property tax they could level. This is especially true since those impoverished "Poor People" do not pay any income tax in the first place. You have to be making money and producing to pay taxes. Remember when we first got our first Casinos in Canada it was the SOCIALIST government at the time in Ontario that give us Casino Windsor and Niagara.
We will never have the Libertarian Nevada way of gambling in which the profits form the hicks that fly in and dump everything pay for the cost of government. Our version is just to take the profits and pay off the interest on government bonds and make pension payments to retired government workers. It's a suck everything dry mentality.
Casino's would be great if it meant no state income tax and a real economic boom. That is the fantasy that they sold us. Just now we live in as my one friend and I coined from the movie "Back to the Future 2" -The Biff Future-
Unfortunalty I have worked @ the casino almost since it opened. I am against the Buffalo Casino. It's possibly that I'm a little biased and am not too happy with that place, but building a casino in Buffalo is not a good idea. People that are compulsive gamblers will gamble more when it is a shorter distance, thus getting themselves into more trouble.
Gamblers are not typical people. If a guy goes on a run on a blackjack table and is up 3,000 he is not going to go to the Galleria and drop a grand in Hugo Boss, he's going to come back the next day or week and play again and most likely give it all back and then some. I have seen a guy at a $500 minimun tables with holes in his shoes and ripped clothes, in comparison people @ the city missin look better than him. Was he thinking of going out to dinner @ the chop house after his big score? He's just thinking about the next hand.
>>>>>When do you ever see poor people in ANY casinos? That suggestion is an absolutely hollow argument because there is no factual basis to be able to make that assumption on. Poor people as a segment of the population do not gamble that much, and if you don't believe me you can go ahead and spent a week in Niagara Falls to study the clientele.<<<<
In response to that just spend a day at the Penny Slots. When I worked on the floor we have people come up to the cash machines and take money off their BLUE NYS Benefit cards to play the slots. They would ask us to give them an advance on the next half of the month's payment, NO SHIT. Poor people do gamble more than they ever should.
Casino's are not built on the high rollers that you see on the travel channel, but the middle to income class. Just to go Atlantic City or Vegas, the profit center is built on slot machines are there are always more of those than any glamorous poker or table game.
The way I see it the expansion of casino's are to keep the nanny state financed. The nanny state wants you to blow your financial brains out at their place. They will collect everything you own eventually than any income or property tax they could level. This is especially true since those impoverished "Poor People" do not pay any income tax in the first place. You have to be making money and producing to pay taxes. Remember when we first got our first Casinos in Canada it was the SOCIALIST government at the time in Ontario that give us Casino Windsor and Niagara.
We will never have the Libertarian Nevada way of gambling in which the profits form the hicks that fly in and dump everything pay for the cost of government. Our version is just to take the profits and pay off the interest on government bonds and make pension payments to retired government workers. It's a suck everything dry mentality.
Casino's would be great if it meant no state income tax and a real economic boom. That is the fantasy that they sold us. Just now we live in as my one friend and I coined from the movie "Back to the Future 2" -The Biff Future-
joshua - 04/18/06 11:50
I haven't seen anything Carey, but thats not to say its non-existant. While Jay and I were driving home for Easter we were listening to WBEN, and they had "The Financial Guys" on. They were talking about the casino, and both were definitely pro-casino. Their argument was basically, "lets build SOMETHING for God's sake, instead of do nothing." While I can understand that point, for me that is basically selling ourselves short for the sake of desperation. I'm tired of our city being sold short and having to take the scraps we are given, rather than take an innovative approach and really think it through. I'm not convinced that the people that are pro-casino are really thinking it through.
I'd be interested if anybody comes up with a link. I'm sure there has been something in the Snooze about it somewhere along the line.
As far as the projects being near the casino is concerned Terry, and I have to admit that I don't remember seeing large projects near the casino when I went by it two weeks ago - I think that has more to do with land value around the casino more than anything else. That land out there hasn't been worth shit for a long time. It is interesting to think about though.
I haven't seen anything Carey, but thats not to say its non-existant. While Jay and I were driving home for Easter we were listening to WBEN, and they had "The Financial Guys" on. They were talking about the casino, and both were definitely pro-casino. Their argument was basically, "lets build SOMETHING for God's sake, instead of do nothing." While I can understand that point, for me that is basically selling ourselves short for the sake of desperation. I'm tired of our city being sold short and having to take the scraps we are given, rather than take an innovative approach and really think it through. I'm not convinced that the people that are pro-casino are really thinking it through.
I'd be interested if anybody comes up with a link. I'm sure there has been something in the Snooze about it somewhere along the line.
As far as the projects being near the casino is concerned Terry, and I have to admit that I don't remember seeing large projects near the casino when I went by it two weeks ago - I think that has more to do with land value around the casino more than anything else. That land out there hasn't been worth shit for a long time. It is interesting to think about though.
theecarey - 04/18/06 11:40
I'm tossing out some *very* general thoughts here..
I am with you on personal liberty. I hear/read arguments (too many ad hominem) regarding the effects of casinos on peoples lives-moneys risks-good/bad etc etc-- It is their personal choice.
The effect of the casino in Niagara Falls hasn't rejuventated the area, but it now has a pulse, a weak one, but its there. Haven't determined if this is a short term effect that will eventually stagnate (such as people have been staying in the casino/hotel for all of their eating, drinking needs-not venturing outto use money elsewhere) or if in long term will have a positive impact (uhhh..).. I just need to keep watching,asking questions and eating/drinking at new places that have been popping up. I am skeptical.. I wont start on my wrath towards NF politics.
But thats the difference, Buffalo has a heartbeat--Sure, local people will go to the casino, and local money will be spent in the casino at the price that is is taken out of where it was being spent-- local business. From here, my thoughts revolve around that--the majority is a similar sentiment.
Out of curiousity, perhaps I'll dig for the posititives-- are there any educated links in support of?
I'm tossing out some *very* general thoughts here..
I am with you on personal liberty. I hear/read arguments (too many ad hominem) regarding the effects of casinos on peoples lives-moneys risks-good/bad etc etc-- It is their personal choice.
The effect of the casino in Niagara Falls hasn't rejuventated the area, but it now has a pulse, a weak one, but its there. Haven't determined if this is a short term effect that will eventually stagnate (such as people have been staying in the casino/hotel for all of their eating, drinking needs-not venturing outto use money elsewhere) or if in long term will have a positive impact (uhhh..).. I just need to keep watching,asking questions and eating/drinking at new places that have been popping up. I am skeptical.. I wont start on my wrath towards NF politics.
But thats the difference, Buffalo has a heartbeat--Sure, local people will go to the casino, and local money will be spent in the casino at the price that is is taken out of where it was being spent-- local business. From here, my thoughts revolve around that--the majority is a similar sentiment.
Out of curiousity, perhaps I'll dig for the posititives-- are there any educated links in support of?
terry - 04/18/06 11:27
i just want to say that the casino is seriously within feet of about three separate housing projects, including the ultra-massive one complosed of like 5 12-story buildings. Coincidence?
i just want to say that the casino is seriously within feet of about three separate housing projects, including the ultra-massive one complosed of like 5 12-story buildings. Coincidence?
Wow. To my surprise, it actually looks pretty cool. Ahh to be crazy and rich...