Reason #20 to VOTE NO on ISSUE 3
CLICK THIS TEXT TO VISIT THIS BLOG'S CURRENT SITE
Because if Kevin O'Brien and I agree that it's a bad idea, then you can be pretty damn sure, it's a bad idea.
I almost never agree with Kevin O'Brien of the Plain Dealer. He's got a great grin in that op-ed page picture. And he's a vibrant debater - I respect and admire that, no matter what someone is preaching. It can be scary, but nevertheless, it's like Bill Clinton-haters admitting that the guy has charisma. Might be kind of slimy or something you don't want to have touch you necessarily, but you understand its value, when possessed and turned on.
Well, yesterday, Kevin O'Brien had this to say in the Plain Dealer about Issue 3:
Issue 3: This one would finally bring slot machine parlors, and maybe even casinos, to Ohio. Heck, we'd have some big winners even before the first one opened: Forest City Enterprises Inc., developer Jeff Jacobs and the owners of Ohio's seven horse-racing tracks. I have no objection to Ohioans gambling, and I wish they didn't have to take their money out of state to do it. I'm all for businesses making money and creating jobs. But even if I believed this scheme would make college more affordable - which I emphatically don't - I detest the idea of the state picking economic winners and losers, and doing so in the Constitution. No.
Now, what I really want to know? (kind of like how I really want to know just how unprepared the editors were for Regina Brett's column yesterday)
How did O'Brien's column go over with the five masthead men who endorsed Issue 3 on Sunday? Did they discuss? Did they argue? Do they actually care? Or do they, like so many writers, write in a state of isolation and thus were unaware of what other editors at the paper think?
The whole process is mystical to me, but in the worst ways. I cannot find a rhyme or reason for the endorsements this year - the ones I like or the ones I don't like. But, I will say, it feels as though the ones I like are well reasoned, and the ones I don't like make no sense.
That's a joke.
Previous reasons to vote no on Issue 3:
Reason 21
Reason 22
Reason 23
Reason 24
Reason 25
Reason 26
Reason 27
Reason 28
Reason 29
Reason 30
Reason 31
Reason 32
Reason 33
Reason 34
Reason 35
Reason 36
Reason 37
Reason 38
Reason 39
Reason 40
Reason 41
Reason 42
Reason 43
Reason 44
Reason 45
Reason 46
Reason 47
Reason 48
Reason 49
Reason 50
Reason 51
Reason 52
Reason 53
Reason 54
Reason 55
Reason 56
Reason 57
Vote no on Issue 3.
I almost never agree with Kevin O'Brien of the Plain Dealer. He's got a great grin in that op-ed page picture. And he's a vibrant debater - I respect and admire that, no matter what someone is preaching. It can be scary, but nevertheless, it's like Bill Clinton-haters admitting that the guy has charisma. Might be kind of slimy or something you don't want to have touch you necessarily, but you understand its value, when possessed and turned on.
Well, yesterday, Kevin O'Brien had this to say in the Plain Dealer about Issue 3:
Issue 3: This one would finally bring slot machine parlors, and maybe even casinos, to Ohio. Heck, we'd have some big winners even before the first one opened: Forest City Enterprises Inc., developer Jeff Jacobs and the owners of Ohio's seven horse-racing tracks. I have no objection to Ohioans gambling, and I wish they didn't have to take their money out of state to do it. I'm all for businesses making money and creating jobs. But even if I believed this scheme would make college more affordable - which I emphatically don't - I detest the idea of the state picking economic winners and losers, and doing so in the Constitution. No.
Now, what I really want to know? (kind of like how I really want to know just how unprepared the editors were for Regina Brett's column yesterday)
How did O'Brien's column go over with the five masthead men who endorsed Issue 3 on Sunday? Did they discuss? Did they argue? Do they actually care? Or do they, like so many writers, write in a state of isolation and thus were unaware of what other editors at the paper think?
The whole process is mystical to me, but in the worst ways. I cannot find a rhyme or reason for the endorsements this year - the ones I like or the ones I don't like. But, I will say, it feels as though the ones I like are well reasoned, and the ones I don't like make no sense.
That's a joke.
Previous reasons to vote no on Issue 3:
Reason 21
Reason 22
Reason 23
Reason 24
Reason 25
Reason 26
Reason 27
Reason 28
Reason 29
Reason 30
Reason 31
Reason 32
Reason 33
Reason 34
Reason 35
Reason 36
Reason 37
Reason 38
Reason 39
Reason 40
Reason 41
Reason 42
Reason 43
Reason 44
Reason 45
Reason 46
Reason 47
Reason 48
Reason 49
Reason 50
Reason 51
Reason 52
Reason 53
Reason 54
Reason 55
Reason 56
Reason 57
Vote no on Issue 3.
JBlog Me
4 Comments:
The Plain Dealer's Thomas Suddes and Sam Fulwood have also written columns against Issue 3.
You should really think about going to two columns for that list.
PS - Voted against it today, and although I don't remember, I suspect for a reason you've illuminated.
Thanks, Daniel. I'm pretty sure I've caught the Fulwood one, not as sure abotu Suddes - oh yes, I have now that I think of it. He's written a couple.
Thanks, Jason. I can't believe I've written almost 40! Wow. I'm actually thinking of a few ways to show them now, but I don't know if I'm technically apt enough. We shall see I guess!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home