"Bid to ban dog racing succeeds on 2d try" by Stephanie Ebbert, Globe Staff | November 5, 2008
Massachusetts voters yesterday embraced a ballot question to end greyhound racing in the state, rejecting track owners' arguments that the ban would cost jobs at a time of economic hardship in favor of protecting dogs from harm.
The contentious ballot question passed amid emotional ad campaigns by both sides. Proponents used images of sad-eyed greyhounds that they say are caged inhumanely and raced to injury, while opponents put the spotlight on the employees who would be out of work if the ballot passed. A similar ballot question was narrowly defeated in 2000.
The ban, which takes effect in 2010, passed by a vote of about 56 percent to 44 percent, with more than two-thirds of the precincts reporting.
So the dogs still have two more years to suffer? I say FREE THEM NOW!!!
And why excise this next paragraph, Globe?
"It's not fair to the dogs," said Dulce Fajardo, 41, a Roxbury Democrat, who voted for the ballot question. "I love animals. And for me, this is something cruel. They can't defend themselves, so we have to do it for them."
Yeah, wouldn't want to pull on those heart-strings unless it was for a Jew, huh, Zionist MSM?
The Committee to Protect Dogs
MORE CUT:
argued the racing dogs are treated inhumanely -- kept in cages for most of the day and often injured when they are forced to run for sport.
WTF? Why censor that, Globe? See: Who Let the Dogs Out?
The campaign used data kept by the State Racing Commission since mid-2002 showing injuries to more than 800 greyhounds. Formed by Grey2K USA, the Humane Society of the United States, and the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals-Angell Medical Center, the committee spent nearly $500,000 through Oct. 15, campaign finance reports show, and received about $144,000 in in-kind contributions.
The Massachusetts Animal Interest Coalition - funded by the Raynham track - had argued that the ballot question would put the needs of dogs before the needs of people - among them, some 1,000 employees of the state's two dog tracks who would lose their jobs. It said the dogs are treated well, that the injuries reported include minor ones, and that the dog tracks are following the regulations passed by the State Racing Commission after the last ballot question failed.
Those arguments resonated with many voters. "I think that it's trying to regulate an industry that's already highly regulated," said Maria P. Marotta, 32, a Suffolk law student from Jamaica Plain who voted against the ban. "It's a deeper issue."
No, it is NOT a "deeper" issue; dog racing is BANNED, ENDED, ELIMINATED!!!
Unless, of course, "the Legislature could amend or repeal the new law, as they have done with prior initiatives passed by the voters."
That's MASSACHUSETTS TOTALITARIANIS... I mean, DEMOCRACY for you, America!
The rest of the article was a total rewrite from my paper. If you want to read pro-tax whining, go here
Notice how they censored Wonderland, readers?
It is IN my printed paper, but I don't have time to keep hand-typing.
