Politics & Other Mistakes: Addicted to bad ideas

6 mins read
Al Diamon
Al Diamon

I’m not opposed to bold concepts and fresh thinking. Without creative types stretching their imaginations in new directions, we wouldn’t have fine craft beers, dozens of channels of satellite radio and venison cheeseburgers cooked over a wood fire. These advancements in civilization have made life more pleasant.

But not all innovation produces such positive results. Technological breakthroughs have also given us pop-up advertising and robo-calls. Advanced placement chemistry classes resulted in bath salts and meth labs. Artistic experimentation is to blame for “Hot Tub Time Machine 2” and Iggy Azalea.

The lesson here is that we must be vigilant in our assessments of minty-fresh approaches. This is particularly true in politics.

On June 13 (was there something in the water that week?), the Bangor Daily News ran an article suggesting Maine should consider instituting online voting. “If people could vote from the comfort of their couch,” author Erin Rhoda wrote, “it stands to reason that voting rates would increase.”

Rhoda cites the example of a town in Ontario that put such a system in place in 2003. Since then, turnout has jumped 300 percent.

Mostly due to Chinese hackers.

Online voting allows for all manner of mischief, including manipulating the results, revealing how individuals cast their ballots and crashing the system when the outcome doesn’t appear to be going the right way. Given what we’ve learned about how porous the government’s cyber-security is (Susan Collins’ identity got stolen, but was quickly returned to her when the thieves discovered that no one believes anything a U.S. senator says) and how easy it is to scam e-voting programs (the fan-selected members of this year’s Major League Baseball All-Star Team are mostly women’s soccer players), it’s only sensible to be skeptical about allowing computers to take over this task.

On June 18 (you know, the water did taste funny around that time), Portland Press Herald columnist Alan Caron proposed amending the state constitution to allow recall elections of governors. Caron, a centrist independent, made clear his plan wasn’t aimed at Republican Gov. Paul LePage’s current round of irrationality. “This is an issue that transcends partisan interests and personalities,” he wrote. “It’s a vital safeguard that will help ensure that future governors don’t exceed their authority.”

Never mind that Maine already has such a safeguard in its constitution. It’s called impeachment. Also, we have periodic elections that allow us to express our opinions as to how our governors are doing. Even though LePage can’t run again due to term limits, you can weigh in on his temper tantrums in next year’s legislative races.

Given these protections, a recall amendment wouldn’t accomplish anything except to give the losers in the last campaign a do-over. That greatly diminishes the importance of regular elections, since their results would never really be final.

Then, there’s the over-the-top reaction to the possibility the Legislature might pass a bill allowing law-abiding Mainers to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. In a June 11 blog posting (I knew it – that was the week the Chinese must have dumped hallucinogenic drugs into the water supply), liberal commentator Ethan Strimling called for a People’s Veto campaign to overturn that measure at referendum.

According to Strimling, the legislation (which, at this writing, still hadn’t won final approval) would make it “legal for criminals and people with no safety training to carry loaded handguns into crowded malls, movie theaters and booze-filled bars.”

Current Maine law doesn’t allow criminals to possess guns, let alone carry them around in public. Nothing in this bill changes that. And it’s already illegal to bring concealed weapons into bars, even with a permit. Getting rid of the permit requirement doesn’t alter that.

Before we go through all the bother of a People’s Veto campaign, maybe we should see if this change causes an uptick in the crime rate. Based on the experience of other state’s that did away with permits, there’s a reasonable chance we’ll never notice the difference. If we’re suddenly hit with an outbreak of previously law-abiding citizens shooting up malls, movie theaters and bars, I’ll be happy to assist in reinstituting the old restrictions.

Finally, there’s the Legislature’s insistence on banning the sale of powdered alcohol. LePage vetoed that bill, but as with most of his ineffectual vetoes, it was overridden. Powdered alcohol is just like regular liquor except it contains no water.

Wait. Why would they want us to drink the pre-watered stuff, unless they know there’s something in it?

Absurd ideas may be emailed to me at aldiamon@herniahill.net, and I’ll forward them to your legislators.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

5 Comments

  1. Running a legislature costs money. Each and every day the legislature meets is an expense. Each and every bill regardless of it’s scope, viability, benefit or consequences, is an expense. Beyond the obvious expense of the lawmaker’s salary, there are clerks who write and do research, make copies, distribute. There are support staff, there are lawyers, there are cleaners, housekeepers, grounds people- all sorts of jobs that go into making the laws and the budget to keep the state running.

    A bill such as the one to allow concealed weapons- cost the taxpayers of Maine. I don’t know how much.But I bet it’s more than most inhabitants of Franklin County make per week, or even per month.
    When you have people outraged that a school budget has increased by a percentage rate roughly equal to inflation- then I should think people would want to pinch every penny there is to pinch.
    What good will that law do for most Mainers? It may, possibly help prevent a crime from time to time. Statistics show however, that it will be only a very few instances and Maine has a relatively low rate of crime.

    But, making our roads better would save far more lives.
    More help to stop smoking.
    More money to prevent drunk driving.
    Funding to help drug addicts and fight drug addiction would not only save lives, but reduce crime. This has been conclusively proven in multiple studies.
    Better healthcare.
    More at home healthcare for seniors.
    More after school programs for kids.
    All these are viable, proven ways to save lives, help Mainers, help Maine, reduce expenses, reduce crime.

    The time and expense that the legislature spent considering the concealed weapons bill, the switchblade bill, the seat belt bill, the raw milk bill, the state dog bill, the stickers on car windows for teens bill, pink hunting jackets, Amish hunting gear…. it all cost money. YOUR money. Our illustrious governor, who was elected by a majority of those who are reading this, has gone ahead and deliberately spent even more of your money, by keeping the legislature in session for no reason other than his own immaturity. How’s it feel, to have someone stick their hand in your pocket, pull out your money, take a match to it and laugh in your face?
    That, is just what our governor did, and what some of the lawmakers in our state government did.
    While you people have vehemently opposed spending money to educate our children, you applauded a government that wasted your money.
    You get what you pay for- or rather who you elected.

  2. Yo, Al. A couple corrections are in order.

    1) Maine law does not bar people from carrying concealed into bars. A bar may post “no guns allowed” (as with any private business), but it is not illegal, as you state above. See page 28 of http://www.maine.gov/dps/msp/licenses/documents/Weapons/CFP%20Booklet.pdf

    2) Convicted criminals can own and possess guns. If you have a felony, you are blocked. But everything else is fair game including certain types of assault, stalking, vandalism, theft, sex offenses and OUI’s (now there’s a good idea, let’s give the guy with multiple OUI’s free reign to cc!). Currently, only the permit process blocks folks with these offenses from carrying concealed.That goes away should LD652 become law. You can check the same document as above.

    Hope to see you at the ballot box, assuming LePage doesn’t veto this one!

  3. Ethan — You’re right about your second point. I should have said convicted felons. On the first one, though, you’re splitting hairs. Most bars take advantage of the law to ban all guns, concealed or otherwise. Their insurance company makes sure of it. And it’s not true that concealed weapons can be excluded in every other business. Current law bans employers from forbidding employees to have properly stored concealed weapons in their vehicles.
    Cheers,
    Al

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.