Seagull Musings for February 22, 2004
A recent article appearing in the Kansas City Star reported, “Peter F. Herschend, founder of Silver Dollar City in Branson and an ardent gambling foe who once likened casinos to skin cancer, said Wednesday he has approached casino industry leaders with a deal. If they will back legislation to cap the number of casinos statewide, Herschend said, he and at least some other anti-gambling forces around the state are prepared to support the industry’s longtime goal of repealing Missouri‘s “$500 loss limit rule.”
Incredulously, the article further quotes Herschend as saying, “You build the Great Wall of China around the Missouri and the Mississippi rivers and allow only the existing licenses.” It further reported that “He wouldn’t stand in the way of proposals for two new casinos in the St. Louis market. But Herschend acknowledged that his plan could put an end to plans for a casino in Rockaway Beach, on Lake Taneycomo near Branson.”
As the Ole Seagull read those words, almost with disbelief, he wondered, how anyone who believed that something was a cancer, could sacrifice the people and families in a given area to save themselves? If it was “skin cancer” with a “$500 loss limit” what does it become when there is no limit? Won’t the same thing happen, in those areas where casino gambling is concentrated, that happens to the body if cancer is not only not treated but permitted to grow untreated?
If one truly believed that gambling was inherently immoral and evil how could they make a deal that virtually sentences a large part of Missouri’s population, living behind the plans “Great Wall of China,” to not only live with that evil but at increased levels? Does this plan make it easier or harder to get the “evil” of casino gambling completely removed from Missouri?
How does morality enter into making a deal with “evil?” The obvious answer is that it doesn’t. The “deal” appears to have very little, if anything, to do with what is moral. Indeed, if you had to bet on whether or not this deal was based on moral or economical considerations which would be the more prudent bet?
The reader who sent the Ole Seagull the email informing him of the article summed it up pretty well, with one exception,when they said, “The title on the article is “Loss-limit proposal has an unlikely source”…..are we hypocritical? Let everyone else blow more money but keep it out of the Ozarks!” The exception is that it is not “we.” According to the article “Herschend acknowledged that his plan [Underline added] could put an end to plans for a casino in Rockaway Beach, on Lake Taneycomo near Branson.”
“Now Seagull, you could be wrong, the community might very well endorse the ‘Herschend Plan.'” That wouldn’t surprise the Ole Seagull one bit.He remembers well, when, at the request of Herschend, like lemmings going to the sea, hundreds in this community stood up in support of the Ozark Mountain High Road or what the Ole Seagull must honestly call, “Pete’s Pike.”
Regardless of who endorses it, will it make the “Herschend Plan” any less hypocritical or any more moral? Will it help in eradicating casino gambling from the state of Missouri any more than the building of the Highroad solved Branson’s alleged “economic emergency” and eliminated traffic congestion?
The Ole Seagull doesn’t think so.
That aside however, whether the Ole Seagull agrees with Peter or not on this issue he would be remiss not to acknowledge that he is one of our community’s true leaders. His political, financial, and social clout; articulate and passionate, although sometimes elitist and seemingly arrogant, method of presentation; the ever present “Mabel,” and his personal accomplishments and community involvement are the things that legends are made of. But like Ole Seagulls even legends aren’t right all of the time.
Gary Groman is an independent columnist and the editor of the Branson Courier and may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.
