Proud Member of The Moms Clean Air Force
Print This Post
Oct
16
Because the Plain Dealer says to vote yes. How many times over the years have I heard people say, I just vote opposite of what the paper says?
Now, I need to resist getting too emotional, but I’m dropping the Plain Dealer subscription I’ve had longer than I can even remember (at least 13 years) as a result of the endorsement. However, I cannot emphasize enough that I’m doing so, not because the PD supports Issue 3. I’m doing so because their endorsement is insupportable, just on the basis of what it states.
The paper has no excuse for not being harder on this state. Those five men named on the mast head, including a chief marketing person, are the brains of the paper and people look to them. If the reasoning represented in that editorial is the best the PD editors can do, then their opinion of what readers should buy from them – as to why to vote a certain way, and the low threshold that the paper is willing to construct for why an issue or a candidate should be supported, or not supported for that matter, have both sunk below what I expect, even at a minimum, from a paper its size in a city that needs strong leadership and brave reporting.
Yesterday, in a tailspin over the failings of the endorsement’s reasoning, I spent quite a while reading the entire Issue 3 amendment. It is an absolutely horrifically drafted thing. Parts of it are just unenforceable because they conflict. For example, in the very beginning, it says the Regents will be the sole arbiters of who is eligible for the money, and then it goes on to outline very specific criteria. What’s with that?
So, I asked my husband if it was okay to drop the PD subscription. He of course didn’t care – I’m the one who reads it. And I really do read the paper. I’m going to miss it. I’ve defended it. I’ve wanted to make it better by just writing letters to the editor or getting an op-ed in. But the endorsements this year have failed to demonstrate any consistency in how they are reasoned.
Endorsements should be where the brains of the paper shine and show why the editors are the editors, are leading and should lead. The Plain Dealer has failed me as a reader on all accounts.
Previous reasons to vote no on Issue 3:
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 (Ohio Learn and Earn).
By Jill Miller Zimon at 1:06 pm October 16th, 2006 in Politics
Comments
3 Responses to “Reason #23 to VOTE NO on ISSUE 3”
Voted into Top 25 Political Mom Blogs
Now on sale-WLST essay included!
Posts About Pepper Pike City Council2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
That PD editorial really is PU.
Somewhere along the way, I hope “someone” points out that the slots will have to have lower payouts than other states to leave the owners with enough money after the pay their 30%-plus to the state. Many hard-core gamblers will avoid playing OH, especially those near the borders or for whom the drive is about the same (i.e., Youngstown, Canton to PA and WV, Toledo to Michigan and Canada, SW OH to Indiana, etc.).
I think there are plenty of reasons others will avoid playing Ohio anyway and one of them we witnessed on Friday – SNOW. Of course, if we keep easing up on environmental restraints and let global warming take its course, oh well. (How did I get to be a conspiracy theorist from an idealist I will never know.)
[...] October 15, 2006, as part of my 57 Reasons to Vote No on Issue 3 (aka Ohio Learn and Earn, aka another casino ballot [...]