Question 3, if approved, would ban greyhound racing in Massachusetts. I’m going to vote no on Question 3, but not for the same reasons as most of its opponents.
Opponents of Question 3 tend to argue that closing down the state’s two dog racing tracks would put people out of work and would decrease the state’s tax revenues, and only mention as a side note that racing really isn’t bad for dogs. I don’t think this is a very good strategy. If greyhound racing actually harmed dogs, then I would want it to be banned regardless of its impact on people’s work and government revenues. It’s wrong to imply that people’s jobs are more important than dogs’ lives.
But I oppose Question 3 because greyhound racing, in itself, doesn’t hurt dogs. Take a look at these statistics if you’re not convinced. Sure, racing can lead to dogs being hurt if individual people decide to mistreat them, but this need not be allowed to happen. Mistreatment of dogs is what should be banned, not racing itself. The law should require trainers and owners to give their greyhounds adequate space, food, and medical care, and not to physically hurt them in any way. That way, dogs can have great lives and enjoy running, and people can enjoy the sport of dog racing.
The government only has the right to ban things that are immoral in themselves or that violate rights. Dog racing falls into neither of these categories, and the government cannot ban things merely because they could have bad consequences.
Did you know that Barack Obama once said there were 57 states in the US?
I didn’t either, until this week when I saw it briefly mentioned in the Metro. Obama made this gaffe way back in May. At a rally during the primaries, he said…
“It is wonderful to be back in Oregon. Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it.”
None of the media have made a big deal out of Obama’s misstatement at all. I watch the news and read newspapers pretty often, and I never heard about it.
On the other hand, you’d have to be living under a rock not to have heard about Sarah Palin’s comment that “you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska.” In fact, Palin’s comment was not inaccurate, as there are Alaskan islands from which Russia can be seen.
So when Palin makes a comment that is not even inaccurate, the media relentlessly exploits it in an attempt to make her look stupid. When Obama says something that most kindergartners would know was wrong, the media ignores it. That, more than anything else, shows how biased the mainstream media is toward Obama.
So far, the presidential and vice presidential debates have not been very exciting. Both Obama and McCain want to help the middle class, revive the economy, make it easier for people to get health insurance, make the country more secure, cut government waste, and protect the environment. Neither of them have said much of anything that is new or different, and their views are essentially the same on many issues.
I think it would be great for American voters if the presidential debates were open to all the candidates, not just those from the two major political parties. The unfortunate result of a two-party system is that only two sets of views get publicized. Voters who do not agree completely with either the Democratic or the Republican platform are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils because the candidate they truly support has no chance of winning.
If third-party candidates such as Bob Barr and Ralph Nader were allowed to participate in the debates, voters’ eyes would be opened to a wider variety of opinions. Barring (no pun intended) these candidates from the debates is just another way to silence minority views and reinforce the political duopoly.
On TV, on the radio, on the Internet, and in newspapers, I have heard way too many people criticizing Sarah Palin for having too little experience. What makes it even worse is that these are usually the same people who gush about how much they love Barack Obama.
Let’s compare the two in terms of experience:
Palin:
- Wasilla city council (1992-1996)
- Mayor of Wasilla (1996-2002)
- >Ethics Supervisor of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (2003-2004)
- Governor of Alaska (2006-present)
Obama:
- Community organizer (1985-1988)
- Directed Illinois Project Vote (1992)
- Taught constitutional law (1992-2004)
- Lawyer (1993-2004)
- Served on board of directors of various organizations (1993-2002)
- State legislator (1997-2004)
- Senator (2004-present)
Their levels of experience seem about equal to me, but I think Palin has a slight edge. She’s served in government positions since 1992, while Obama got his first government job in 1997. Also, being a governor is better preparation for the presidency than being a senator. Governors are basically in charge of a state, which is a mini version of what presidents do. Senators are just one member of a large body that drafts legislation and votes on laws.
Plus, Obama’s running for president, while Palin is only running for VP!
So if you have to criticize Palin for not being experienced enough, be consistent and criticize Obama too.
Thanks to Wikipedia for the facts used in this post.
I had honestly never heard of Sarah Palin before today. But after reading more about her, I think John McCain made a great decision to pick her as his running mate.
The choice of Palin is historic in several ways. She is the first female Republican vice-presidential candidate, the second female on a major party ticket, the first Alaskan on a presidential ticket.
Palin may not be the most right-wing running mate McCain could have chosen, but she is still a solid conservative, and I like most of her political views. A quick check on Wikipedia shows that she is pro-life, anti-gay-marriage, and a lifetime member of the NRA.
I also applaud that McCain chose a woman as his running mate. It seems like he is trying to get the votes of women who supported Hillary Clinton and are angry with Obama for snubbing her. Palin’s age (44) and her gender will definitely help McCain appeal to a wider range of voters. Whatever the reason behind the choice, I think it’s great that there is a female on the Republican ticket! Hopefully the fact that the Republicans have a woman on their ticket and the Democrats don’t will help to dispel the myth that Republicans are sexist and opposed to gender equality.
This morning, Barack Obama chose Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware as his running mate. I’m not going to vote for Obama anyway, and Biden doesn’t really change my opinion.
What I’m really looking forward to is when John McCain announces his choice. I think he should pick a truly right-wing Republican to bring some balance to the ticket. If he picked a moderate-leaning running mate like Mitt Romney, Michael Bloomberg, or even Joe Lieberman, a lot of conservative Republicans would feel that their party’s ticket did not represent them. Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty or Mike Huckabee could be a good choice. Although there’s absolutely no chance of it happening, I still think McCain and Ron Paul would make a cool ticket. He would definitely balance out some of McCain’s views.
Speaking of Ron Paul, did you know that he’s holding a Rally for the Republic? It will take place from Aug. 31 to Sept. 2 in Minneapolis, to coincide roughly with the Republican National Convention. I hope there’ll be a lot of media coverage of it. I can’t make it there myself, but it sounds like it’ll be really cool.
Bob Barr is the Libertarian candidate for president, but according to a Boston Globe editorial, his name may not appear on Massachusetts ballots this November. George Phillies, the chairman of the state Libertarian Party, was put on the Massachusetts ballots as a placeholder of sorts before the Libertarian National Convention took place. The party says they were told by MA election officials that they would be able to replace his name with the name of the nominee when one was chosen.
The state officials seem to have reversed themselves, however, as they are now saying the Libertarian Party cannot substitute Barr’s name for Phillies. In the past, the state has agreed to allow substitution for vice-presidential candidates and has reportedly promised other parties that they could substitute presidential candidates, too.
I agree with W. James Antle III, the author of the editorial, that Barr should not be barred from the ballot. It is especially important during this election, where the Republican candidate leans moderate, for people to be able to vote for a right-wing, small-government candidate.
