democracy

Keep the Government Off My Moose River Plains

Some of the Tea Party activist-types have been known to hold signs up that say “Keep the Government Off My Medicare”. Liberal commentators gets a kick out of that, by pointing out that Medicare is a government program and would not exist without the government. That is logical, but that is not the implied meaning — that government is something different then the public as a whole and functions the government is supposed to provide to the public.

Government doesn’t always serve the public interest. Indeed, in many cases it does not serve the public interest because of citizen apathy and because certain insiders have more power then average citizens. Laws are often written in smoke filled rooms, and are used to justify policies decades later that are not supported by the majority, but instead the small minority of special interest groups that originally got them passed.

Stop Barrier Ahead

Few examples could be clearer then Indian Lake Road, now closed at the bottom of the hill below Squaw Lake. This road went to Indian Lake prior to 2008, a beautiful wilderness lake that was great for paddling and fishing. It was closed due to Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan Act, and because the DEC wanted to “bank” 2.5 miles of Moose River Plains Road to use for then they acquired the Nature Conservancy parcels to add to the Vanderwhacker Wild Forest.

You can still walk those 2.5 miles. The road is in decent enough shape to allow you to bring a kayak back on wheels. And at least for now, you can still backpack in a campsite along the road. But then it makes Horn Lake and other places even farther back, and makes the back country even farther back. And it begs real questions: why is the government taking our public lands from us?

Tea Party folk are right to question why the government is taking things from us. the public that they should be providing things to and not taking away from us.

Should Police Be Allowed to Restrict Who Votes?

After the wake of many close elections, one has to wonder if we need more restrictions on voting, to ensure that dangerous people, who don’t fully understand the consequences of voting don’t vote. It’s quite possible that George Bush won in 2000, not because of his abilities to lead our country, but because voters were just plain stupid.

Some have proposed to give local police forces the unilateral authority to decide who gets to vote and not vote on election day. It could be a very simple and straightforward procedure — the chief of police in every town could sign a sheet of paper to make it unlawful for anyone to vote whose name appears on the list.

135 Cornelia St

Why have tough evidence based standards to keep people from voting? Why bother to get a court order, showing a person is mentally unfit to vote? Or if we insist on requiring court involvement, shouldn’t courts be able to keep anyone they want to from voting?

Certainly requiring evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt of a crime committed or about too be committed is too high of a standard. That could allow a lot of people who are of questionable mind to vote in elections. Indeed, even one voter, throwing an election could lead to a totalitarian regime to take over our country. We certainly don’t need any more tragedies like George Bush getting elected.

People make similiar arguments about gun control, so why not voting? Doesn’t this sound very democratic and fair to give government lots of arbitrary control over who can vote?

… and yes, I think this an awful idea.