Hey, there! Log in / Register
Ballot questions
By adamg on Tue, 11/04/2008 - 9:26pm
Channel 5 is projecting:
- No income tax repeal.
- Yes pot-possession changes.
- Yes on banning dog racing.
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Pot backers thanks voters, send out for munchies
Wicked Local reports, well, not about the munchies.
In other words...
...we'll all be paying income taxes, but about 60% of the state will be too baked to care.
Sounds good to me.
I wouldn't have minded if question 3 had not passed, but I'm better at picking winning horses than dogs so I'll get by.
Aw, Snap!
That's Snap, my friend Emilie's greyhound.
Vote for the dogs
FUCK
Thanks to the terrorists at Grey2K. You just killed a bunch of dogs and put people out of work. You should be proud of yourselves, you disgusting wastes of life.
Have a drink and think of
Have a drink and think of some poop jokes, Will. You'll feel better.
Why do dogs lick themselves?
Greyhounds
I think it's sad that people's jobs are sacrificed for warm fuzzy feelings. Where are these folks going to find work in the economic climate today. It's real easy to be dismissive of contrary opinions, but I can't help but think that if greyhound racing had not existed, that breed of dog would be extinct today.
To the people who are heading for the unemployment line I just want to say I voted to support you. To the people who advocated the ban, this is on you. Although I kind of think that these people's dilemna is no problem for you.
Funny
Anyone else find it strange that just 2 years ago, the state rejected expansion of wine sales in grocery stores but now overwhelmingly approves decriminalizing pot?
Walking the dog at about 10PM last night, I smelled an aroma that indicated that someone was celebrating the passage of Q2 :)
Nope. Not at all.
First of all, I think that more people cause big trouble for themselves and others while drunk on excessive amounts of alcohol.
Secondly, there's no free lunch. The too-harsh criminalization of marijuana and the resulting jail sentence has been replaced by a $100.00 fine
If the people working the
If the people working the tracks are so concerned about losing their jobs, they probably shouldn't be working in an industry that's destined to go out of business in a few years any way.
Yes and No
I'm guessing most of the people working at the tracks that are going to lose their jobs didn't go get a degree just to work at the dog track. Their "industry" doesn't really exist as a career path, but if they were working with dogs, there are places they can still do so elsewhere, if they were maintaining a facility they can still do so elsewhere, etc.
However, you're very right that MA dog racing was in a tremendous down slope anyways. Wonderland basically had given up and offered itself to Suffolk Downs as a Casino To Be Named Later and I read that Taunton's books were down about 60% from the previous year. As my friend put it: better that they know their termination date now as set by law and plan on finding something else than to toil on until they get their pink slip and a week's notice that the track is closing.
I voted no but not necessarily for the workers but for the ugly precedent this sets for how we handle problems. The problem here wasn't dog racing but how the dogs were being treated. There is absolutely no reason why dogs can't be treated humanely and raced safely and people wager money on which one will win. There are dog racers in the UK and Australia who take their racers home as pets when they're not running at the track. The animals are family animals that then also race.
Making dog racing safer would have been like NASCAR in a way. The cars were getting too fast to be safe for the drivers...but we didn't outlaw race tracks. The governing board put on restrictor plates, introduced the Car Of Tomorrow design to reduce top speeds, and added a ton of mandatory safety equipment in the driver's seat. Did everyone stop watching NASCAR? Hardly, and some even say it's more exciting to watch now. There are ways to make dog racing both safe and healthy for the animals and still something worth going to bet on. This law change doesn't do that, it just says you can't bet on dogs (not even that the tracks themselves are illegal). It's a sledgehammer for the problem being described and a messy solution to the problem. It goes back to puritanical "no gambling" style affects that I thought we were getting away from to our benefit as a whole. Oh well, congrats dog lovers, you've managed to take away another liberty rather than address the issue at paw.
I voted no but not
I voted NO because racing does not cause inhumane treatment. Like you, I want a referendum question that fixes the problem as opposed to eliminating it at the cost of all the incumbent collateral damage.
Do you think dog rentals for profit should be prohibited? If so, why?
Regarding Question #3:
I voted "No" on Question #3, first, because I don't want to see or hear about still more people being thrown out of work, especially during these difficult economic times, and, secondly, because I believe that finding more humane ways to treat the greyhounds would've been the better way to go.
Town-by-town results on the ballot questions
The Globe provides the numbers - also, results of local ballot questions, including one in Cambridge on Palestinian rights in Israel.
Somerville too
The 'Palestinian rights' question was on the ballot in two state rep districts, Alice Wolf's in Cambridge and Denise Provost's in Somerville.
The Somerville district also rejected, by a 3-1 margin, a proposal to replace the entire state legislature by 100 randomly-selected citizens.
Thanks
Left on
animal rights, right on Presidential politics.
Do you know what they have in common? If you clap once hard within earshot, they pee ;-P
OK nonnie, show me where
OK nonnie, show me where I've taken a position one way or the other on the issue apart from simply identifying the dog as my friend's and providing a link to the follow-up picture.