Some Radical Election Thoughts (But No Endorsements!) | Musings of a Mountainman
by Jack Pera
May 24, 2007 | 329 views | 0 0 comments | 5 5 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Will the real environmentalists please stand up? Not all at once, please. I’m talking about the preservationist type, not those who practice conservation. Town of Telluride ballot question 2A asks voters whether to indirectly proceed with confiscating a huge portion of the valley floor from the San Miguel Valley Corp. for “conservation easement” purposes. Notice nothing about preservation of the Valley Floor is mentioned. Conservation and preservation are two entirely different things. I can’t vote on the issue, but if I could I would vote for preservation in a heartbeat, but not conservation. Be honest, the Town of Telluride and the so-called “environmentalists” (conservationists) in this region no more intend to preserve the Valley Floor than the man in the moon. 2A is going to pass. Whoopee! Watch out, Valley Floor recreation and municipal development, here we come. Maybe, that is, assuming annexation is successful. It ain’t over until the fat lady sings.

Those who argue against acquiring the valley floor for conservation purposes, stating the money spent on the acquisition could have been better spent on items like affordable (subsidized) housing are pissing in the wind.

So where, exactly, would all this eternal affordable (subsidized) housing that everybody wants built be built? Hmmm...would that be on the Valley Floor? What problems does affordable (subsidized) housing generate?

For starters, hundreds more people would mean that more subsidized athletic fields, subsidized recreation centers and other subsidized recreation amenities would have to be built. I wonder where, and I wonder who pays for it. Anybody have a clue?

More affordable (subsidized) housing also means more subsidized schools and associated facilities will have to be built. Anybody know where that might be done, and again, who will pay the bills?

More affordable (subsidized) housing means our local governments will groan and grow and enlarge and engorge. Anybody have any idea where all that subsidized expansion will take place and wtih whose dollars? I sure don’t.

Vote for 2A. Vote for subsidized “conservation” projects. Vote against 2A and get more subsidized growth in its place. As usual, voting has become an exercise in voting for the lesser of two evils. A no-win trap. 2A is no different. I’ve got an alternative to 2A. How about voting to give Neal Blue a grand community thank you for leaving the Valley Floor untouched for over twenty years? Oh well, what the hell. A deviation of Murphy’s Law dictates that all good things must come to an end. Let’s get it over with and get on with our stupid ways.

Since I began writing a newspaper column, I don’t publicly endorse candidates, and I’m not about to start now. Having said that, there is no way I’ll vote for Bob Beauprez for governor of Colorado. Why is that? Because I’ve had my fill of Republicans who refuse to protect the environment. This happens to be about 98 percent of all GOP politicians.

The votes by Democratic Congressman John Salazar and Democratic Senator Ken Salazar to continue torturing prisoners in violation of Geneva Convention accords is unconscionable and unacceptable. No moral and responsible Democrat would ever vote that way. The Salazars should be strongly targeted for defeat.

On to a few other ballot issues-Amendment 38, which proposes giving more power to the people. Is this a good idea? The argument against this amendment proposal is that special interests will have more power to introduce self-serving laws, thus weakening representative government. So? Aren’t both the federal and state governments now almost entirely controlled by special interests? Aren’t special interests and representative governments at high levels one and the same? Bottom line on this one: Representative government (politicians) have a horrid fear that their constituents might figure something out once in a while and have a way to revolt against the entrenched system.

I support weakening the power of (representative) government by special interests. What I don’t support is giving ordinary people who are dumb enough to continue to allow (representative) government by special interests the power to be influenced by stupid political ads that come from powerful special interests. I know, this all gets very confusing, but no more so than expecting ordinary people to be able to figure out that our system of government isn’t working very well anymore and there’s more than only one way not to be able to change it.

Huh? Of course it takes a lot of time to study myriad ballot issues and vote intelligently. It’s always a whole lot easier to put and give your trust to a lying and special-interest controlled politician, isn’t it?

Amendment 41, which concerns putting a tad of ethics in government. This one is a no-brainer, right? In other words, money and politics will always be inseparable in America. Don’t waste your time on this one.

Amendment 42, raising the minimum wage. As always, this issue is controversial. I know how to totally solve this one. Drop all opposition and proposed amendments to illegal immigration, open the border between the U. S. and Mexico, and the market will eliminate minimum wage laws. Slave labor is worth its weight in gold. Gold, that is, that the slave owners collect through the sweat and off the back of their slaves.

Amendment 43, allowing homosexual marriages. Rightwing Christians believe homosexuality is a threat to marriage. Homosexuality is less of a threat to marriage than is divorce. Fifty percent of American marriages end in divorce. Are 50 percent of Americans homosexuals? You do the math. Homosexuals are no greater a threat to society than are heterosexuals. Obviously life isn’t perfect and never will be. Homosexuality and divorce are here to stay. Bottom line: 1. There’s a huge difference between actual societal threats and moral opinion.

Amendment 44, legalizing a bit of pot. How many times do I have to say this: Marijuana is to beer as cocaine is to hard liquor. All are used for and accomplish the same purpose. Make all alcohol illegal and we’ll talk, hypocrites. I know, been there, done that and it failed miserably. So has the war on drugs on which we waste so much money. Just think: If we didn’t have to spend so much of our tax money on the drug war, we could spend it on booze! Not that the liquor establishments are exactly going broke or anything.
Comments
(0)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
No Comments Yet