As you know, a few weeks ago we learned of the existence of a group that is attempting to undermine the will of the voters on Question 3. Thankfully, it now appears that this group will not only lack support in the legislature, but also among editorial boards.
Late last week, the Brockton Enterprise editorialized against the efforts of this so-called “Protection of Working and Handlers, Inc. (P.O.W.A.A.H)” Their editorial addresses the issue in a forceful and direct manner:
A new group called Protection of Working Animals and Handlers Inc. has sent a letter to 1,600 people, seeking funds so it can mount a campaign to “reverse or invalidate” the November ballot question.
It is a quixotic quest, at best, and a cynical money-raising ploy, at worst, that raises false hopes and plays on the fears of the remaining track workers who might fall for the group’s propaganda.
The president of this group’s board of directors, Linda A. Jensen of Connecticut, seems to know little of Massachusetts’ political landscape and it is hard to take seriously anything in her plea for support.
She said the group plans to lobby the Legislature (a lost cause), file an election fraud suit (on what grounds?) and sue for “defamation of character” (whose character was defamed?).
It would all be so silly if the group wasn’t seeking money from people who are facing unemployment and very uncertain futures. If this group really wanted to be helpful, it would join the efforts to transition track workers into other careers, not try to reverse a fair vote that didn’t bring their desired results.
This editorial is even more powerful because it comes from the Enterprise, the largest newspaper in Bristol County and a long-time supporter of greyhound racing. Meanwhile, this morning the MetroWest Daily News joined the chorus of opinion leaders who support upholding the will of the voters.
The message being sent by these editorial boards is clear: whether dog racing supporters like it or not, the debate is over. The people have spoken.
UPDATE: This morning, the Raynham Call editorialized in favor of upholding the will of the voters on Question 3.
This comes shortly after the Enterprise wrote a love letter/”profile” of Raynham track owner Carney, the same guy who has denied access to guidance for workers transitioning to a new field. Bonus mention of how those nasty, icky Western Mass. voters decided he had to close his animal sanctuary/dogtrack.
<
p>And it’s the Globe that’s struggling. Go figure.
. . . but the voters have spoken?
<
p>
Thanks, Carey, for keeping us posted.
<
p>Track owners are betting on getting their slots handout–just the latest handout of many–from the state legislature.
<
p>The legislature needs to say “no” to slots and “no” to dog racing–a cruel industry that deserves to die.
<
p>–Leo
Oh really? What happened when the people spoke on the tax rollback? I think the answer is that it was blown off for what the left would consider the “greater good.”
<
p>I little intellectual honesty goes a long way.
“The voters have spoken”. When they lose: it’s “See you in court”
The gentleman’s post says the following:
<
p>
<
p>Couldn’t someone have said:
<
p>The message being sent by these editorial boards is clear: whether tax rollback opponents like it or not, the debate is over. The people have spoken.
<
p>
But just so.
<
p>I predicted that this ballot measure would find a way to be undone back in November, and collected quite a few zeros for my cheek.
It is you.
<
p>You are pretending the issue here is really “obeying the will of the people” rather than stopping greyhound racing. In any case, I don’t see why the fact that the legislature has not always stuck to the will of the people in all cases means that no one is no longer allowed to use that line of argument.
<
p>
When the left finds it inconvenient to ignore ballot initiatives it does not speak up. Remember the tax rollback? When it is in their interest to ingore the “will of the people,” the left rationalizes non compliance based on some greater good.
But doesn’t this line of logic work both ways?
<
p>I take it you were outraged when the tax rollback vote was not honored.
<
p>Are you equally outraged by attempts to undermine the will of the voters on Question 3?
My position is that as long as we have a referendum process, the will of the people is to be honored.
there was a referendum that eliminated all taxes and simultaneously required the state to fully pay for everyone’s medical costs and college education? I would argue that it would be impossible for the government to follow the will of the people in that case. The referendum process does not ensure that referendum issues be feasible in order to make it onto the ballot. So as a general principle, I don’t think that referendum items must be upheld at all costs.
<
p>Furthermore, in many instances ballot initiatives often do not originate from citizens but from industry. Does anyone believe that the deregulation of the electric utilities (which ended in higher bills rather than the smaller ones that were promised) was really enacting the “will of the people”?
<
p>BTW, I am not specifically arguing any particular position on the tax rollback issue.
We do not get to pick between laws that we like and dislike and decide based upon our personal opinion if the referendum result will be followed.
<
p>That is what the referendum process has become. Amend the constitution if you wish to pick and choose what results you want to follow.
<
p>And yes, if it is the will of the people to do away with all state income taxes then so be it.
Who is this “the left” that you speak of? What does opposing greyhound racing have to do with “the left”? What does Carey Theil’s opinions on this matter have to do with the tax rollback?
<
p>Your comments make it crystal clear that you have absolutely no intention of engaging in an intellectually honest debate, and are only interested in taking cheap shots at your strawman version of “the left”.
<
p>
Why’s that? The left did not support the tax rollback. It was ignored. The left wants the dog referendum result followed inspite of the reality that jobs will be lost. How is that dishonest.
<
p>I say roll back the taxes and no more dog racing. That is honest.
As I said, what is dishonest is your characterization of this post as some sort of evidence of left-wing hypocrisy.
Were you OK when the tax rollback initiative was ignored? Would you be pissed if the greyhound initiative were reversed in favor of those interested in allowing racing and retaining the few hundred jobs?
<
p>If you are Ok with ignoring the rollback and have a problem with allowing the greyhounds to run, then that would make you intellectually dishonest. Since I do not know you, let’s broaden the discussion to include anyone that believes its OK to avoid one initiative and not the other.
<
p>Pretend this is not about you.
hint: the tax rollback was not ignored.
(an appropriate name by the way)
<
p>Did you even bother to read my post? Apparently not. I took no position on the merits of the tax rollback, and still do not. I also don’t get all steamed about the perceived hypocrisy of others as you do (while being oblivious to your own hypocrisy). I also made it clear that I do not believe that there are legitimate arguments for the Legislature to override a referendum based on the merits of the individual cases. I think the Legislature should try not do ignore the “will of the people” as expressed by referendum issues, but it is not an absolute rule. I am sorry you are having a problem understanding this point.
you the man
Call me a skeptic, but this guy has the same posting style and obsessions as JQAdams, Ethics Man, etc. Troll city.
.. . So you believe that Prop 8 should stand in CA because “the people have spoken”.
<
p>And when Prop 2 1/2 overrides fail and towns cut services that’s ok because “the people have spoken”.
<
p>
it’s not clear if the people spoke on something they’re allowed to speak on… if the question wasn’t asked correctly, the people haven’t spoken legally.
I believe that when the state constitution includes an initiative petition process it is there for a reason. I also believe that if a community badly in need of additional revenue decides to vote against a 2 1/2 override that vote stands. Thats the ugly part of democracy. I believe that dog racing should not be allowed just as I believe that taxes should have been rolled back to 5%. I also believe that the clean elections petition victory should not have been ignored by Finneran et al. I believe that the people in the community of Saugus have horrible local services because they did not pass an override. That is the will of the people.
<
p>By the way, if you live in a community that is not providing services you can always move.
I am a Libertarian who believes that dog racing is damn stupid. It is not entertaining and it is probably cruel, not because the dogs are not suppossed to run, but because that are run into the ground. The “sport” is cruel in my opinion.
<
p>I also admit to enjoying the beauty of watching a magnificant horse run a race. I admit to having some feelings that my position is inconsistent.
<
p>Help me sort this out. Is there a difference between dog and horse racing?
The fact that horses require such a substantial investment of money and time, over a longer time span, ensures that they are treated as investments, not disposable goods. This rational behavior by the owner ought to make you feel better about supporting horse racing, because the treatment of animals is far better for economic reasons.
I would like to see horse racing end as well, but I am sure that is a minority view. At least when a greyhound breaks a leg on the track, he may actually survive to enjoy retirement; a horse would almost certainly have to be put down.
<
p>One thing is for sure. Neither type of racing would be economically viable without gambling. There simply aren’t enough people who will pay money to watch a race just for the sake of the sport.
<
p>
If dog racing is bad is horse racing bad?
Horse racing is not bad because dog racing is bad. There is no cause and effect. It is a nonsensical question.
<
p>Racing is bad to the extent that it is harmful to the animals and is done merely for our entertainment. The question with both horse and dog racing is quantifying this harm in each case. I don’t have a good answer to this as to which may be worse, but it is definitely true that taking care of a horse is a lot more expensive than taking care of dog, so owners would have a greater incentive to protect their investment in the case of horses.
<
p>
and of course not all animal owners treat their animals well.
<
p>But if you’re interested in total pain and suffering of animals, horse racing is laps behind dog racing because horses are treated much better between birth and the race itself. Heck, hunting and fishing induce far more pain and suffering on animals than horse racing. Are you looking to ban those too? How about livestock? I’d bet there’s far more pain and suffering by broilers, hogs, or turkeys than dogs even. You might say: those industrial farms are needed to feed Americans. Hogwash. Americans eat about 270 lbs of meat per person per year; Western Europeans about 70% of that, Japanese about 35% of that, Indians about 3% of that.
<
p>I’m not arguing in favor of banning or not banning dog racing or horse racing or hunting or the large scale raising of livestock. I’m merely pointing out that if I were interested in minimizing total animal cruelty, I wouldn’t go from dog racing to horse racing — I’d look in other directions first.