This past Saturday, the Globe declared the South End was overrun with Yuppie rugrats even though, as Michael Pahre pointed out, the thesis contradicted a Globe story just seven months earlier that said Yuppie parents had fled Boston en masse.

Today, on Blue Mass. Group, David points out a similar "huh?" in a Globe story that quotes the owner of the Raynham dog track as saying a ban on dog racing would cost 6,000 to 8,000 jobs at the state's two dog tracks. In January, the Globe reported Raynham only employs 350 people. As David notes, it seems unlikely that the smaller Wonderland track employs several thousand more people.

The Outraged Liberal explains why we're no longer all that highly taxed and why the ballot question to end the state income tax will actually accelerate the number of people fleeing Massachusetts.

Chris Lovett gives it good odds of passage in part because this year has some parallels to 1980, when Prop. 2 1/2 was passed: An economic slowdown, a presidential election and, in Boston, a seeming mayor for life.

Mike Mennonno dissects the state's new health-insurance law, the one the Globe loves to bits.

Jay Fitzgerald dissects the argument that legislators are doing the right thing by breaking their constitutional responsibilities.

Mass Marrier analyzes the defeat of the three statewide ballot questions; he says 2 and 3 were just too confusing for most people. As for 1:

... Voters bought into Chicken Little-style claims of bodies on the highways and drunken teens in an updated version of Reefer Madness. ...

Talonvaki was glad to see Question 1 defeated, but for a different reason:

... The small liquor stores have something the supermarkets don't have: character. I have grown to love the local packies. The one near my house, where I've been going for 6½ years, and they know me (the woman remembers when I moved in!), the shop on Mass Ave., where until recently Dixie the cat lived, the shop in Southie with the autographed photo of Bobby Orr in midair (and a story to go with it), the store across from the Star Market on Beacon in Somerville that's a shrine to firefighters ... every time I go into one, it's not just to get booze, it's to connect with the neighbourhood and have a conversation.

You can't do that in the supermarket. And now that you can buy liquor on Sundays, there's really no need to. ...

Same for Onward Charles:

... I live in Mission Hill, so the booze runs plentiful, and already having a plethora of liquor stores and bars doesn't really elicit a reaction of "omfg we need Stop & Shop to have crap wine too!" The scare was that bringing wine and beer to convenience stores would have been big trouble for little mom n' pop shops.

Ed. note: You can buy wine in a few supermarkets; if you really want to pick up some wine with your Stouffer's, try Omni Foods on Rte. 9 in Chestnut Hill. Also, does anybody know if Melvin Drugs on Comm. Ave. in Brighton still sells hip-flask bottles of hard liquor?

Question 3 going down to defeat.

Packies beat supermarkets on Question 1.

Fusion voting wins goes fishin'.

John Daley pokes holes in various arguments against letting supermarkets sell wine:

... This is about business, trade and reasonable regulation, not a referendum on the dangers of drinking. It it were, the liquor stores would be arguing against their own existence.

Question 2 would let a candidate for statewide office run on the ticket of more than one party. Question summary and pro/con statements.

Jesse Kanson-Benanav explains in detail why he supports the measure:

Beacon Hill Wines and Spirits has a blog and uses it to explain why Question 1 backers are lying about who would be able to sell wine should the measure pass and why it matters.

However, the author also says he has yet to see a single Vote No on 1 ad on TV, which means he is either the only person in the entire state who hasn't seen the ads about blood running in the streets or he only watches Channel 2.

Question 3 would let private child-care providers unionize so that they could bargain collectively with the state in negotiating reimbursement rates (who knew this was a constitutional issue?).

The Secretary of State's office provides a summary and pro/con arguments (scroll down past the similar info for Questions 1 and 2).