What is this?

Just some random musings .

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Big Props to Tommy!

Tommy Remengesua Jr. Recognized by Time Magazine as and Environmental Hero

More Lies & Disception From the Pro-SCA Folks

So they went from this : http://www.tinasablan.com/forum/?p=21

to this:

So I guess they have been backed so far into a corner that they have nothing left to do then pretend to be me.

If you happen to see a comment posted anywhere in the blogsphere that doesn't Jive with what I have been saying on my blog then simply click on the name link "pragmatic plato". If it doesn't link back to this site then it is a proponent of the SCA masquerading as me. Fitting it is Halloween after all.

It is easy to tell the fake Plato he is posting the same idiotic BS that Bruce has been spewing.

Happy Halloween All!

Boycott Porky's!


Best Blog Comment of the Day!


Pete on 31 October, 2007 at 8:42 am Comment ID #419

"I’ve been tempted to vote “Yes” on the Casino Initiative solely because I abhor the pontificating of Ambrose (I love me; I think I’m grand. When I go to the movies, I hold my hand) Bennett.And while I think that La Fiesta would be an ideal spot for two upscale casinos - one at La Fiesta 1 and 1 at La Fiesta 3, with restaurants and other non gaming activities in the middle- this current initiative is so full of holes it’s making my swiss cheese jealous.So I’ll be voting “NO” to this initiative and “YES” for Tina Sablan on November 3."

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

A Call for a Boycott of Porky's!

BOYCOTT PORKY'S! The only thing right about this place is the name. None more fitting could describe the peice of shit bruce bateman is.




Glen, Lil, Jeff, et al ... that have said that I was being harsh, yes I am!

This is infuriating.

FROM THE PORK'S MOUTH: When it comes time to mark your ballot inside that closed voting booth, you must vote for those persons and initiatives that have the best chance to improve your lot in life and that of your family and country. “No” doesn't improve anything. “No” is just a blind cry against change. I will vote “Yes” for the Saipan Casino Act because I think it is in my family's best self-interest to have a better economy. I believe it is in your families' best self-interest to do so as well so I ask you to please vote “Yes” this coming Saturday.

And not one attempt to address even one concern or question.


I will boycott you on priciple and I will encourage other to as well.

Sunday, October 28, 2007

"Yes, I passed that terrible bill. Why? Well, why not?"

“I really didn't have too much time to review the bill and submit my comments because I was told that it would be calendared one day before. It was a crammed review. .I'm sure if I had more time I would've come up with more but there were pressure-internal and external pressure-to try and get that bill out,” he said.

Are you kidding me? Should this be a satisfactory explanation for pumping out crap legislation. If more time is needed then demand more time. What the hell is going on up there.

“I don't feel very comfortable with the bill. But with my amendments, I feel a lot better. I'm still not satisfied that it's the product that we need to put out, simply because there are so many contradictions on the bill, so many flaws, so many things that I do not subscribe to,” he said.

But he will give it the thumbs up and send it to the House and hope that they review and ask to sit down and discuss it. If they decide to just go with it and pass it then to the Gov's office it goes. We will never learn.

Read the whole story here: AND WE PUT THESE PEOPLE UP THERE?!

Best Headline of the Day

"Atalig stabbed Senate in the back"

So sad it is almost humorous. So let me see if I get this straight.

  1. Reyes dealt with Atalig when drafting legislation to extend but limit the number of non-resident contract workers that CUC can hire. It appears that he dealt with him under the pretext that Atalig's company would do the manpower logistics.
  2. Atalig did not agree with Reyes and the Senate lowering the number of non-res that CUC could hire.
  3. Reyes and Atalig spoke about the issue and they arrived at an understanding that 8 non-res would be allowed under the Senate legislation.
  4. Atalig decided to try his luck with the House and wrote a letter to the House requesting that they amend the Bill when it arrives on the floor.
  5. Reyes found out about Atalig going to the House and cried foul. How dare Atalig approach the House in an attempt to get his way?
  6. Reyes now irate adds a provision into the Senate bill to exclude any manpower agency with pending claims against them (Remember this excludes any company with claims against them. Not convictions). Obviously Reyes does not believe in the innocent until proven guilty philosophy.

So what is it the makes me so upset? The fact that Reyes was so tight with Atalig when drafting up legislation that should have been focused more on the plight of CUC and their needs? The fact that Atalig's company it appears was already given the manpower contract as implied by this statement from Reyes (where is the opening bidding process):

“I talked to him before we went to Rota and also talked to him on Rota informing him that we already consented to authorize not 20 of his employees, as we we're going to limit it to just eight, and he agreed. He wanted nine but I told him 'no.' He said to add one more, but I told him 'no!' The limit is eight and he consent[ed] to it,” said Reyes.

The fact that they would act so petty and with such a direct personal attack (on one company) when drafting up our public laws? The fact that he openly admitted all of this to the Tribune reporters?


Learn Something New Everyday

It has been brought to my attention that I was not thorough enough on my initial readings of the SCA. I seemed to have overlooked a major caveat.

I have mentioned before that should this Act pass it could only be amended or repealed in the future by the same process that brought it into law (Local Initiative and a 2/3 favored vote within the third senatorial district).

Perhaps I was so steamed byt hte time I got to Article X of the Saipan Casino Act that my vision was blurred and my mind was overheated.


If this Saipan Casino Act becomes law (garnering the necessary 8,300 or so yes votes) it can only be amended by approval of NMD registered voters in the Third Senatorial District.

Article X, Section 8. General – Amendment. Any proposed amendment to the “Saipan Casino Act” shall be approved or disapproved by the NMD registered voters only in the Third Senatorial District through local initiative.

You hear that Bruce? That mean if you vote yes on this and then feel something should be amended you are Shit outta luck. You would not be allowed to vote on it.

Furthermore, at the moment the Election Office does not have a listing of registered NMD voters. This information is not gathered when an individual registers to vote, nor should it be. How on earth would we even be able to verify NMD of 12,500 registered voters? Genealogy studies of each and every individual? Just take their word on it and only check into one that people question? One of your grandparents would have to have been domiciled in the CNMI prior to 1950 and have been a TT citizen. Good luck with the paperwork on that.

I wonder how much it would cost to put that list together. I wonder how much it would cost to defend this clause in courts.

This Act gets better as each day goes by.

Be sure to tune in tomorrow morning for Harry's Show on the various aspects of the provisions contained within the SCA.

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Boycott? Is It a Form of Freedom of Speech?

I have been mulling over another thing in regards to the Saipan Casino Act. Specifically, Bruce Bateman's Pro stance on the issue and his weekly preachings in support of it without ever once addressing the many concerns with the Saipan Casino Act itself.

Rather than analysing the Act and putting out any concerns that have been raised (Public Land, Unregulated Monopoly, Initial Funding, Legal Problems with the Act itself, etc) he has opted to continue spewing the same old propaganda in support of the Act and continued attacking those with questions and concerns on a personal level.

So that being said, should I try and start a Boycott of his Bar?

I first heard this the other day from a friend. I was headed out to have a few drinks and places to hit were being thrown out. Porky's came up and a person I was with said, "Hell No! I am boycotting that place." I was thrown aback.

I am a staunch supporter of freedom of speech. Having grown up in Saipan it was very disturbing to me that people who spoke their minds would often times be penalized with some sort of ostracizing on a personal or business level. I quickly told the group I was with that this may not be the "right" thing to do. I told them just because Bruce has a different stance on a public issue then you do should not be cause to inflict financial harm on him via a boycott.

I argued my position well and they all resolved not to boycott the place but reiterated the fact that they were upset with his position on the SCA.

After thinking on the matter a bit more and after posting numerous comments on Bruce's blog regarding his stance on the SCA I have begun to wonder if I was right in not endorsing a Boycott of Porky's.

Perhaps it was the premise for the Boycott that was wrong and not the boycott itself. What I mean is, Why not Boycott Porky's, not for the fact that Bruce supports the SCA, but Boycott it until he allays the public concerns and questions regarding the many facets of the Act that appear to be extremely detrimental to Saipan.

I mean he is publicly supporting it in his weekly columns, at debates, in conversations, and so forth and yet he never tackles the heart of the matter.... the Saipan Casino Act itself. In doing so I believe he is directly threatening the well-being of myself and those living in Saipan. Would I ever offer dinner to a burglar that was looting my house?

This is a very interesting conundrum.

In my opinion Bruce had jumped the gun and blindly embraced Casinos in Saipan before ever reading the Act (Just as Mr. Turbitt had). I believe he came under attack from those opposed to the Saipan Casino Act and lashed out in defense. He may now have so embraced his stance in favor of it that there (in his mind) is no going back. If this is the case then he is putting the island at risk and jeopardizing all those living in Saipan by spewing his propaganda. Why should I in turn assist him financially while he continues to harm me financially (taking my tax dollars to pay for this commission, taking our land at $1/year, etc.) without ever feeling obligated to explain away the many concerns or at least let us see what he sees in regards to these concerns. The "let's take a gamble" argument is crap.

What do you think?

PP (on the fence.... to Boycott Porky's or not to.)

Do I hear a "YES"?

Lil Hammerhead pointed something out the other day that has been really getting to me. She said that it is so odd that as soon as a conversation regarding the Casino Act starts to focus on the provisions of the act itself all of the Proponents quickly tuck tail and run.... usually tossing a few choice personal stabs before ducking out.

Why is this?

This blog actually started out indirectly because of the Saipan Casino Act. I had posted a comment on Mr. Turbitt's blog after he ran his column praising Casinos. to make a long story short, he banned and censored my comments when i told him that the public may infer that he was in support of the Saipan Casino Act. I also asked him if he had even seen the Act before running the column in the local paper. His response was unprovoked personal attacks resulting in him censoring my comments and banning me from his blog. My only point I was trying to get through was that he may want to specify that he is in support of Gambling and not the SCA if that was the case. Turns out a month later he seems to be singing that tune now... go figure.

I still don't understand why he lashed out in such a manner. If he ever posts the deleted comments the public can read through them and see that he was overly defensive and was reacting like a cornered cat.

But let me get back to my initial point. It appears that no matter what blog I hop onto that is dealing with the subject of the Saipan Casino Act, the proponents keep pushing these false promises in support of the act. As soon as I post a concern or question directly related to the provisions contained within the Casino Act they shell up and all goes completely quiet.

Here are a few blog examples:

http://www.saipanwriter.blogspot.com/ (multiple instances on this blog)

Many other blog chains exist online and they all follow the same trend.

The only explanation I have is that those in support of the Act blindly embraced it without ever reading it. After coming under heat and trying their darnedest to argue their points they read the Act and found out that they were completely off-base in supporting it. Rather than come forward and just admit that they no longer support the Act itself they stick their heads in the sand like an ostrich. A few from time to time will shoot out nonsensical comments still preaching support but with no factual basis and still with no acknowledgement what-so-ever to the concerns and questions that have been raised.

Their is another possibility. Perhaps they did change their tune and decided to speak up and inform the public that they were no longer in support of the Saipan Casino Act. Perhaps that news go out to the NMDIC Mafia and they have bound and gaged them and thrown them into the back of a truck and driven them out to Marpi.

I guess what I am trying to get at is can anyone at all that is still in support of voting Yes on the Saipan Casino Act please step forward and address the numerous concerns that have been raised by myself and many others? Can any one of them address the damn Act itself?

I Love a Good Analogy

Just read a comment post that compared the citizens of our commonwealth to a bunch of individuals running in circles through the jungle blindfolded. I love to use analogies and this one is spot on:



Thursday, October 18, 2007

Your Computer Minute - Tech Talk - II

Ok this one is more like a Computer Second.

Just found this kewl Google BlogSearch Engine:


I am having loads of fum searching blogs from all over the world. It is cross blogform (will search a variety of differnt blog sites (blogspot, wordpress, etc.) .


Monday, October 15, 2007

The Saipan Casino Act Conspiracy

So I have for a few weeks now been wondering what is going on in regards to this Saipan Casino Act and the heated debates we are seeing on both sides of the issue. I was not very surprised that when mentioning Gambling in the CNMI it will rouse up a good debate. What has surprised me the most is the way these debates have gone.

I have read the letters tot he editor, visited the PRO and CON web blogs, read comments and posts on various forums, personally spoken to people on both sides of the fence, etc. The thing that surprised me the most (and was the most alarming to me me) was that the PRO side almost never referenced or acknowledged any clause or provision actually contained within the SCA itself. Even more ludacris they would shun any debate dealing with exact provisions or the SCA initiative. They instead have been staunchly touting the SCA passage as a way for the CNMI to gain extreme wealth. They also speak loudly about how the passage of the SCA will kill the poker industry. They also speak of how this will save Govt Jobs and so on and so forth. Never once have I seen any of the proponents reference any clause within the Act that spells these benefits out.

How can people so blindly support something? I understand that their maybe a few people who will personally gain from the passage of this Act (7 Commissioners and Employees of NMDIC) but what of all the others?

Why would they purposely avoid looking at the SCA itself and instruct the voting populace to just blindly vote "yes" based on unproven, unfounded claims?

Why would they shun any question from a concerned voter that references any part of the SCA itself?

Why would they not want people to read and understand fully all of the provisions of the SCA?

I thought at first it was due to a strong influence by a few connected individuals who have already been given the head nod to have a Commissioners Seat ($4k/month and then readjust it themselves personally after 4 years) or perhaps one of the people who are connected personally to the relatively unknown NMDIC (Who is NMDIC? Does it exist?). I thought that perhaps their lobbying efforts were garnering so much public support and blind faith. I have seen this in the past. But I still was not conviced that this would be the root cause of a cluster group to so strongly and vehemently defend the SCA against any type of challenge or questioning.

There must be more to the SCA than I first saw (a few fat cats wanting my hard earned tax dollars to go to their mansions on the hill and fancy SUVs).

I think I have found it:

The PUBLIC LANDS PROVISION in the Saipan Casino Act. This provision has the strength and power to justify NMDIC pay top dollar to ensure that the SCA passes.

Here is the section in it's entirety:

ARTICLE XII - Section 8. Public Land. The Department of Public Land (DPL) or any future entity responsible for the administration of public lands in the Commonwealth, upon this Act becoming law and at the request of the NMDIC, shall issue public land to NMDIC. NMDIC shall hold leasehold interest to all public land issue by DPL and pay one dollar ($1.00) per year for the land or lands issue by DPL for as long as NMDIC is in business. The land or lands issue to NMDIC shall not be transferable. Upon dissolution of NMDIC, the land including all improvements shall revert back to DPL or its future named entity without cost.

If the SCA passes it will give NMDIC the rights to ALL PUBLIC LANDS at $1/year forever. That is right ANY AND ALL PUBLIC LANDS can be given to one for-profit corporation. The SCA does not state what the land can be used for. It does not state that it can not be sublet. It does not bar the NMDIC from doing anything at all with the land.

This is huge. There is no saving clause in the SCA that gives DPL the power to deny any request for land from NMDIC.

NMDIC can request ALL/ANY PUBLIC LAND in ANY DISTRICT. Yep Tinian and Rota too. There are no safeguards in place what so ever.

NMDIC will be the the sole lessee of ALL PUBLIC LANDS if they choose to request them. Why wouldn't they? They are a for-profit corporation. They will issue requests from the get go. They will amass all the public land. They will build whatever they want on the land and they will pay $1/year forever for it.

You may say that the this is no big deal. We can pass the SCA and if they do try this we can have the legislature amend the SCA to prevent this.

WE CAN'T. The legislature can not in anyway alter this Act once it is passed. In order to change it it would have to be through legislative initiative. The same drawn out process it is going through now.

This is INSANE.

Someone stop the madness.

Saturday, October 13, 2007

You Are Gambling With My Children's Lives.

I have stumbled across what must be the most hot forum regarding the casino act online. Please Click on this link to it :


I will weigh in with more on the subject in the next posts. I have posted comments on the forum above. I encourage everyone to ask questions and use this forum and mine to create dialogue.

Let the people talk.