Of course, as with anything this cynical and irregular, the bludgeon they keep hitting themselves with doesn’t stop. Among those sweet, kind-hearted videos on the Youtube site are a few claims that are flat out wrong. In fact, the very title of the ad – “Adopt a Greyhound, Vote No on 3” – is misleading, at best. Adopting Greyhounds and voting no on 3 have nothing to do with each other.
But it only gets worse from there. The first text to pop up on the featured ad is, in fact, false. The ad claims that the Greyhound adoption rate in Massachusetts is 100% – all Massachusetts Greyhounds are placed in a loving, caring home. Not exactly. According to the Massachusetts State Racing Commission, only 14% of track dogs end up being adopted in Massachusetts. For the math-challenged among us, that means the lobbyists are off by a whopping 86% – 65% of the dogs in Massachusetts are just sent to a new track, out of state and out of mind, where we can’t keep track of them. Perhaps those are states that don’t have such strict regulations as Massachusetts in terms of reporting what actually happens to Greyhounds at Wonderland and Raynham.
The second number that pops up in the same ad is a claim that can only be described as misleading. The ad claims that the state’s race tracks have “contributed” $1.34 million to Greyhound Adoption agencies from 2000-2007. In fact, that’s false. In 2001, a law drafted by Grey2K was carried by State Representative Pat Jehlin, establishing the Retired Greyhound Care and Adoption Council. Under this law, a portion of the taxes that the state was already collecting from gamblers spending money at Raynham and Wonderland was redirected to this council: that was the funding mechanism. So, in essense, it’s the people who gamble at these tracks who have “contributed” these funds, not the tracks themselves.
Moreover, if the money weren’t redirected to this Council, it would have been sent directly to the state’s coffers. So let’s not confuse this money with a generous donation that’s being handed down from the industry to the adoption agencies in anyway, whatsoever. While it’s good that the state has directed some funding to adoptive services, it’s a small bandaid on a gaping wound. The very reason for the fund’s very existence would evaporate if we began to phase out Greyhound Racing in Massachusetts.
So let’s try to get this all straight: the dog tracks are currently in the process of setting up their campaign to defeat Question 3. Their chief tactic appears to be confusing the voters, making them think that voting no on 3 will help Greyhounds. Furthermore, their campaign is currently violating OCPF campaign finance regulations in Massachusetts. I guess this all this shadowy mess is par for the course with the dog track industry – it’s not as if they haven’t tried to mislead and lie to the voters before.
Just out of curiousity, did you dig all this stuff up yourself or are you getting fed by the anti-dog track group?
This story really just builds off of the work I’ve been doing all summer on the greyhound issue. So if facts and tips are being “fed,” maybe, but that seems to have a negative connotation. I guess I’m “fed” information on marriage equality, health care and dozens of issues, too. I’ve done nothing a real reporter wouldn’t do, including taking painstaking efforts to back up all of my claims, from numerous sources across the state, as well as news articles and census/government figures.
I guess I’ll take that as a yes, some of the info was fed from the anti-track group.
<
p>If you’re getting fed negative info (or positive info) from the anti-track group, and then putting it here, you should have disclosed it up front. BMG ethics aside, in this case you have an extra tactical reason to be completely honest and up front-you’re trying to make a case about lack of disclosure on the part of the pro-track group and wouldn’t want to risk the appearance of hypocrisy.
<
p>Anyways, you’re clearly acting as an advocate on this issue, not just a reporter of facts. That’s fine, but it’s dishonest and silly to posture as the other.
I am not a part of the Committee to Protect Dogs. I have various sources on these stories. You can take that as a “yes,” if you’d like, but the rules of the road does not equal the revelation of sources. Who my sources are, honestly, is purely conjecture on your part. But let me ask this – what did I post that was factually innaccurate? What did I post that wasn’t sourced or linked? I pointed to a public youtube account, a public website, a public website in development and another, well, public website. I went above and beyond following the Rules of the Road. My biases are obviously clear and everything was backed up.
<
p>If I were a member of the organization, I would have to say that up front. In fact, I WOULD have said that up front. I’m not a member, not now, not gonna happen. I wouldn’t have the time to get that heavily involved in another cause. I have a bumper sticker though. I also have two dogs – I guess that should be disclosed as well. Any other pets you’d like to know about? There’s a cat. Am I missing anything here?
<
p>I blogged heavily in favor of Sonia Chang Diaz, but wasn’t a part of her campaign. I’ve blogged heavily in favor of passing Question 3, but I’m not a part of that campaign. I’ve blogged heavily in favor of civil rights, but have never donated money to MassEquality. Are you sensing a trend here?
<
p>I care about this race track issue. Duh. Do I really need to disclose that? Was there any part of my writing that didn’t make that clear? Next time, just ask if I’m a part of the organization and I’ll be glad to tell you – because this back and forth was truly a waste of time, especially when the links and true sources to the information were painstakingly included.
Did you get fed some of this info from the anti-track group?
<
p>“So if facts and tips are being “fed,” maybe, but that seems to have a negative connotation. I guess I’m “fed” information on marriage equality, health care and dozens of issues, too.”
<
p>I guess I thought this was as defensive yes, but maybe I was mistaken- it was just defensive.
<
p>If the track-group is giving you stuff personally, and then you painstakingly link it here, you’re a de facto part of their operation and you need to disclose that- especially since your trying to make an ethical argument against the tracks.
<
p>
Not trying to make one.
<
p>It’s there to see, plain as day.
<
p>I’m waiting for when you demand the Boston Globe reveal all its sources, for every time someone tips them off. I assure you, if they didn’t have access to their sources, the vast majority of their articles would either not be published or be completely unhelpful.
<
p>Honestly, given the fact that bloggers don’t have editors to vouge for them, if I weren’t backing up everything I say, you’d have a point. Except, you don’t have a point, because each thing I’ve said is TRUE, backed up, linked to and factual. So, in this case, no, you can’t have my sources.
<
p>People have to make a decision for themselves on the ethics of dog tracks. I’m providing evidence, very well backed up, but it’s still each individual’s choices on whether to use that evidence and say that these dogs are being mistreated. Some people will disagree, thinking dogs are little different than cars and if they crash and burn, so what. I think those people are turds, but there’s nothing I can do about it. I also think people who make demands of me that they wouldn’t make on anyone else are turds, too, but there’s nothing I can do about that – either. Except, of course, to say “shove off.”
thing you’ve said in this entire exchange in that your biases are clear. Also clear is your intellectual shallowness, hypocrisy, and insecurity.
<
p>You really think you should be able do dump dirt given to you from one campaign onto another, without disclosing that you’re doing a campaign’s dirty work? And anyone who asks you about it is a turd?
<
p>I guess another thing that is clear is your passion, I do applaud you for that. If, one day, you combine that with growing up, maybe you’ll be worth listening to.
<
p>
<
p>I didn’t dump dirt. You’re being obtuse, perhaps intentionally so. I dumped facts. That’s all the difference in the world.
<
p>If I had just said all these things and didn’t link to their sources, then you’d be right. I’d be dumping dirt and doing “dirty work.”
<
p>The difference, which you seem incapable of understanding, is that none of this was just hearsay. They were facts. I went so far as to prove all my facts, beyond any reasonable doubt, backing up whatever assertions I made. The videos were real videos, the OCPF law (which, btw, came from my own research) is the OCPF law, etc.
<
p>What I printed here, with a few minor alterations (taking out my minor and unapologetically biased commentary), could have been the basis of a hard news article.
I should know, I’ve written many before. I don’t write news anymore, but I do know how to maintain standards in writing. I’ve done that here – the only person that’s been in the wrong in this conversation is you, but I’ll blame it on ignorance.
<
p>Bottom line: if you don’t find me “worth” listening to, by all means, stop reading. 100,000s have read what I had to say, there’s plenty of other fish in the pond for me to be terribly worried about your absurdly high expectations and lack of understanding on what it means to source and have sources – in other words, to do the research necessary to produce competent and newsworthy writing.
Is there any requirement that a new committee not use a name that is confusingly similar to an already existing committee?
but i’m admittedly not an expert.
I don’t particularly care for greyhound racing; I have never been to a track, never bet on a race, and when I was in the company of those who were, while at Ladbrokes, Paddy Power, and other betting parlours in the UK and Ireland, I was genuinely creeped out. However, I am still going to vote “No.” The best way to end greyhound racing is to have people vote with their feet instead of through a government mandate.
<
p>The simple solution would be to defeat the referendum, not patronise the dog tracks, and let them go under on their own. Why can’t we let the market handle this? That seems like the best option. Its popularity is going down, so just let the industry in the Commonwealth die.
with that philosophy. However, the Commonwealth has seen fit to outlaw several other animal contests because they’re cruel. Cockfighting, bullfighting, and dogfighting are all illegal here. Greyhound racing, while not overtly bloody like those others, is not benign to its animal workers.
<
p>So long as there are gambling addicts, there will probably be enough customers to keep dog tracks functioning, if they’re legal. The people who are “creeped out” aren’t supporting the tracks anyway, so those foot-votes don’t mean much.
<
p>Also, today is not a great day for advocating a free-market solution to any problem.
There are innocent dogs at stake. While you’d wait for the industry to die on its own – which could take forever and, if the tracks have their way (with their powerful lobby) it could be extended forever if they get slots. Kill this thing now so the dogs don’t suffer longer than they need to. If you think it’s wrong, then vote yes. Any other conclusion is just plain old bizarre.
<
p>Like voters should not dare ask about the socilaist party’s connection to Mass Alliance and candidates and reps asking for Mass Alliance endoirsement and support.
<
p>You do your best Gerbels in insulting our intelligence by not allowiung the question to be asked.
________________________________________________
Off Topic
<
p>Ryan, I didn’t know you graduated. Do you have a job? Are you lookingh for a job? What do you do for $$$
<
p>That’s none of your business. I’ve put too much of myself on the internet, already. Suffice it to say, I’m doing nothing that would need to be disclosed within the context of this conversation. If there’s ever a conversation where I would need to disclose, I promise I will.
<
p>
<
p>Voters should demand to ask whatever questions they want, Ernie. If they’re curious about that “connection” then they should ask. I’d only hope that after it’s been explained dozens of times to them, they’d then stop asking about it. Though, I’ll fully admit that I have no control over that. You’re wrong on MassAlliance and way, waaaaay too fixated on it – but I’ve never said you don’t have the right to be.
I was just asking.
No harm in asking. I’m just trying to maintain a slightly lesser public profile on BMG and would rather my work remain seperate from my blogging.
if you have a job? paying taxews, non proft?
<
p>more like what is your new perspective?
<
p>not to reveal
Surprise, surprise…today’s Globe and politckerMA.com have the good people at the pro-question 3 group peddling the same stuff and making the same arguments that you were making here last week. What a coincidence!
<
p>http://www.politickerma.com/je…
<
p>http://www.boston.com/news/loc…
<
p>It’s fine for you (or anybody else) to be part of the pr effort of this campaign (or any other), but if you don’t disclose that you’re pushing their stuff- you’re nothing but a shill.
<
p>And if what you’re trying to shill is an argument that the other side is being deceptive or dishonest in their campaign tactics- well, then you’re pretty much an text book hypocrite too.