---

Premier Dr. Ewart Brown's dogged attachment (addiction?) to gambling shows up in his post-debate press release, which was clearly an attempt to offset the shattering defeat of parliamentary objectors to institutionalised gambling outnumbering proponents by almost five to one.

The entire press release was a gratuitous and condescending statement that itself begs for comments. Here are a couple.

Dr. Brown wants us to "try to open our minds".

But let's not forget that when we have asked questions, the stuff of which open minds are made, his response has been to shut down debate, refuse to answer parliamentary or media questions, or denigrate the questioners.

Dismal

It is almost laughable to hear the Premier calling for people to "disagree without being disagreeable".

While the concept is laudable, the practice of it by the Premier and those closest to him is dismal.

People who have disagreed with the Premier have been typically treated most disagreeably.

Dr. Brown's call not to give "negative characterisations to each others' intents and feelings" also rings hollow - he and his closest supporters and hirelings seem to have had free rein to refer to critics in the most egregiously negative ways, including "racist dog", "house nigger" and "lynch mob".

By not having reined them in, the Premier exhibits a double standard - it's okay for his crew to denigrate and victimise others but not okay for them to be on the receiving end.

Personally, I agree with the Premier's call but he cannot have it both ways.

If his calls for civility are to have credence, he and his minions must exemplify that conduct.

The most unbelievable comment in the Premier's post-debate press release is his declaration on how we "could" structure gambling.

His tempting 'structures' include:

* Bermudians owning the majority stake;

* Some people being prevented from gambling or restricted;

* The gambling action has low or no visibility;

* It is not 'flashy';

* It has transparent Bermudian ownership.

While all of these are possible, none of them resemble Dr Brown's historic style.

Bermudians were moved out of tourism positions in favour of foreigners, overseas consultants are not held accountable and insignificant events are elevated to high-profile photo opportunities.

'Flashy' is almost a hallmark of the Premier's activities and transparency is turned on its head for things like the Coco Reef lease and the ownership of the company constructing the Court building.

Of course, we could surround a casino with a patina of wholesomeness but no one I have spoken with expects this to happen under Dr. Brown's regime.

It is getting progressively more difficult to trust the Premier's words and actions. An example right up front of deceptive practices in this ongoing gambling saga was the hiring of gambling industry-led "consultants" to examine gambling's feasibility.

Their report overstated the advantages and downplayed the liabilities.

An example of deceptive words was the Premier's promotion of the absolute, best-case, pipe dream possibilities almost as though they were guaranteed.

Then there is the use of the euphemism "gaming", which is intended to sugarcoat gambling as some sort of harmless board game and hide the fact it is not a game of skill against skill but a flat-out gamble where most people lose and the house and its owners win.

Murky

Let us start with laws that make the unethical illegal, with policies and practices that make what is currently murky transparent and with utterances that elevate the crassly political to the elegantly statesmanlike.

Meanwhile, enough already. Give gambling a break.

---