The 'labor shortage' is due to the lack of 'positive work cultures', not laziness

The Lake George Mirror newspaper had an interesting interview with Lisa Ochsendorf, director of the Warren County Employment and Training Administration. She pointed out that higher unemployment benefits had little impact on the available labor pool in the county.

"We saw only about 300 people rejoin the workforce in August and September," when jobless benefits ran out, she said. 

She pointed out that the workforce is roughly the same size as in September 2019, prior to the pandemic, and that the size of the full-time workforce has been "remarkably stable for the past two decades." 

"We keep hearing that people don't want to work but that's not really the case," she pointed out. "COVID is an issue. Child care is an issue."

She added a point that is common sense among workers but seemingly controversial among the pundit class: in order to attract and retain workers, employers must create "positive work cultures."

NYS ballot proposals

As an odd-numbered year, it's only local offices up for vote here in New York. But voters in the Empire State will have a number of statewide propositions to vote on. All would amend the state constitution.

The exact wording of all amendments can be found at the website of the state Board of Elections.

PROPOSITION 1 - GAMBLING - NO
The most controversial of the amendments would authorize up to seven non-Indian casinos in the state. Governor Andrew Cuomo has come under fire for manipulated the wording of the amendment after passage by the legislature, a move of dubious legality. Further, it makes one suspect that makes one suspect that accusations of him being in the back pocket of gambling interests might be true; revelations that he and other pro-casino legislators have taken large brib... I mean, "donations" from the industry add to the appearance of sleaze. Many New Yorkers think the amendment would cause far more problems that it would solve. The process has been so rigged that I can't have any confidence in supporters' claims.

PROPOSITION 2 - CIVIL SERVICE CREDIT FOR DISABLED VETERANS - YES
Current law gives state workers credit for being disabled and credit for being a veteran, but not both. This change would allow them to get credit for both.

PROPOSITION 3 - MUNICIPAL DEBT AND SEWAGE - YES
The change would allow municipalities to exempt debt incurred for sewage facilities from their constitutional debt limit.

PROPOSITION 4 - TOWNSHIP 40 - YES
This amendment would settled disputed land claims in the Raquette Lake area. The change has been negotiated by the state and landowners. It is supported both by local officials and by all the major environmental groups. There isn't any known opposition.

PROPOSITION 5 - NYCO AMENDMENT - NO
This is another amendment regarding state land but is more disputed than Prop 4. The mining company NYCO is offering to swap some of its land for state owned land. It would mine the land and then return it to the state forest preserve. Not surprisingly, this is supported by the business community and most local officials, but it has divided the environmental community. The Adirondack Council and Adirondack Mountain Club support it. Protect the Adirondacks and Adirondack Wild oppose it. I think both sides' arguments have merit but it seems to me that if public land can be handed over the private interests for open pit mining, then it's not really 'forever wild.'

Note: North Country Public Radio has a more in-depth look at Props 4 and 5.

PROPOSAL 6 - JUDICIAL AGE LIMIT - NO
Prop 6 would increase to 80 the maximum age to which some state judges could serve before mandatory retirement. This is a good idea in theory but poor in execution. It does not apply to all judges and has some many exceptions as to defeat the purpose. This amendment should be rejected and the legislature instead should raise the retirement age of ALL judges.

The curious intersection of journalism, editorial agenda and loss of faith in the media

It's pretty clear from anyone reading Post-Star editorials is that the paper's agenda is devoted to making people believe that Adirondack Park Agency regulations are suffocating the (human) life out of the Adirondack Park. This is despite the statistical fact that the Park's population is growing *faster* that New York's population as a whole.

However, that agenda is also reflected in its supposedly objective news coverage. I've written about this before so I won't belabor previous points. But more recently, reporter Jon Alexander described Hamilton County as 'on the endangered list.'

Now, this was tagged as 'analysis' (ie: opinion) but it does give some insight into his point of view, which happily corresponds with the editorial board's agenda. In a column in Adirondack Almanack, John Warren took serious issue with Alexander's 'analysis.'

Yet in a purportedly objective news story yesterday (doesn't seem to be available online), Alexander notes that Saratoga County's population is growing while Most of the North Country continues to hemorrhage population...

(Again, don't forget the data you'll never see the daily report on)

But the graphic accompanying the article showed that from 2010 to 2011, Hamilton County lost 0.8% of its population, Essex County lost 0.3% of its population,Washington County lost 0.2% of its population and Warren County actually *gained* population. (And even Saratoga County's 'boom' was a modest 0.4%)

While these numbers aren't stellar, they hardly constitute a 'hemorrhage.' But when there's a narrative to conform to...

Additionally, Hamilton County lost 42 residents last year. If the county continue losing that many people every year, it would take 115 years for the 'endangered' county's population to run out. And there's no indication yet that this decline is a long term trend. Hamilton County *gained* population in every census from 1950 to 2000. And since the county was founded, its population has increased in 14 out of the 20 censuses. The county's population has had modest ups and downs in its history, but mostly ups.

But this is not the only seeming intersection of editorial agenda and journalism.

Another of the daily's agendas is its crusade against school spending, which it attributes to malefic and greedy teachers unions.

In an article on Friday (also not available online), education reporter Omar Ricardo Aquije described a meeting between the Glens Falls school board and residents regarding the district's proposed budget.

According to the article, both in text and graphic, the overall tax levy would remain identical from the current fiscal year to the next.

And yet, the jump headline on the inside page B5 blared "Residents question raises, tax increases."

I questioned this discrepancy in an email; the reporter indicated that his figures were correct and that the headline (typically written by layout people... or copy editors, assuming they still have any) was incorrect. The reporter wrote the story honestly. But the headline writer's mistake, was it incompetence or outright deceit? Neither reflects well on the paper's declining standards.

A correction ran in the following day's issue, as usual in print significantly smaller than the original wrong headline.

I don't have any evidence that this was intentional deceit on the part of the paper's backroom staff (I don't blame the reporter, since his text was correct). But this is a very significant error, given how sensitive a topic school budgets are in this area. It certainly undermines what's left of the paper's credibility when these sorts of significant 'errors' in purportedly objective articles just happen to oh so conveniently jive with the paper's editorial crusades.


But for its faults, at least The Post-Star isn't stealing material from regional blogs and writers. More on that later this week.

Update: Today, managing editor Ken Tingley tells us that credibility is key to what they do. No wonder they're in so much trouble.

Almanack, Explorer to partner

Two of the leading Adirondack media outlets, the Adirondack Almanack website and the Adirondack Explorer magazine and website, have formed a partnership. 


The agreement will integrate their online operations. [Almanack founder] Warren will continue to run the Almanack, which will now fall under the Explorer rubric, according to a release published in the Almanack.

Irene: much ado about a lot in the Adirondacks

There were a lot of snarky comments on Facebook and Twitter by people who expressed disappointment in Irene, even boredom. They seemed to think that more should’ve happened given all the media coverage. ‘Witty’ comments like ‘hurri-lame’ were prolific. Even the normally reliable Howard Kurtz expressed his “great relief that the prophets of doom were wrong about Hurricane Irene.”

This may be true of those cocooned in comfortable offices in Manhattan or DC but I don’t think anyone living in upstate New York’s Adirondack region, an area more used to heavy precipitation of the colder variety, would agree with these clueless assessments

Those ignorant enough to still think Irene was much ado about nothing ought to visit North Country Public Radio’s website. Their news page and news blog both have extensive coverage and photos of the massive devastation caused by this ‘non-event.’ Adirondack Almanack also has a good report and a compelling first-hand account.

Adirondack Local Government Review Board overrides local governments

A few weeks ago, I published an essay about controversial attempts by the Adirondack Local Government Review Board to meddle in the New York state’s purchase of two tracts of land, which is not part of the LGRB’s taxpayer-funded mandate. The purchase was approved by every single one of the municipalities affected. Any one of them could’ve vetoed it and a few towns did, which forced the deal to be re-worked. The LGRB, without consulting the towns affected, wants to override the localities in question. The LGRB’s purpose is to represent local interests against top-down imposition from the state and yet top-down imposition is precisely what the LGRB wants in this case.

I’m not the only one who’s noticed this hypocrisy. In something else you’d never read in The Post-Star Duane Ricketson wrote a good essay in Adirondack Almanack explaining the recent history of state land purchase inside the Blue Line and brought some-much needed illumination of actual facts regarding the process. He also noted that LGRB executive director Fred Monroe is a member of a hunting club that would be displaced if the purchase went through.

Taxpayer funded local government group misrepresents its members, exceeds its mandate

The Adirondack Park Local Government Review Board (LGRB) is a taxpayer funded group whose statuatory objective is to provide oversight of and feedback to the Adirondack Park Agency (APA), purportedly as the voice of the Park's local governments.

In reality, the LGRB's main objective is to lobby on behalf of development interests and against conservation efforts. A look at the Board's Our Issues webpage looks more like the writings of a private advocacy group than a public oversight board. Except private advocacy groups aren't funded by taxpayers.

The Board is chaired by the rabidly anti-conservation Fred Monroe, who is also the town supervisor in Chester and was, until recently, the chairman of the Warren County Board of Supervisors.

The LGRB recently passed a resolution urging the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to not go ahead with the planned purchase from the Nature Conservancy of Follensby Pond and the former Finch Pruyn lands in the Adirondacks. The Board argued that with the state facing dire financial circumstnaces, this was not the time for it to keep its promise to the Nature Conservency.

The resolution caused quite a stir for two reasons.

First, the LGRB was created by the legislature to provide oversight to the APA (which acts as a Park-wide zoning board for private land). As the LGRB's own website describes its mission: We work to insure that the interests of the people of the Adirondack Park and their local governments are protected as the Adirondack Park Agency carries out its duties set forth in the Adirondack Park Agency Act, the Freshwater Wetlands Act and the Wild Scenic and Recreational Rivers Act.

And yet this taxpayer funded board was trying to block the actions of the DEC (which manages state-owned land), which is outside of its mandate.

As North Country Public Radio investigation pointed out, the way state law on land purchases is written, any town can single-handedly nix a land purchase paid for by the Environmental Protection Fund. All the towns involved okayed the deal, including Fred Monroe's town of Chester.

So how did the LGRB pass a resolution opposing the Finch and Follensby land deals?

The NCPR investigation explained: But an investigation by North Country Public Radio found that in fact no local government leaders from any of the towns affected by the Finch deal voted on the Review Board’s new resolution.

What’s more, Monroe now acknowledges that most town leaders involved in the Finch project weren’t consulted about the resolution before it was passed.

Monroe said, “Did I specifically go to all the towns that voted to approve these deals? No, that’s a valid criticism," but then went on to suggest that the opinions of the towns involved don't matter because he personally thinks it's the wrong time to be expanding the Forest Preserve.

NCPR also spoke with the town supervisors of Minerva and Indian Lake about the LGRB's resolution. They both re-iterated their towns' support for the deal.

Monroe dubiously claimed that the all the towns involved agreed to the deals under duress. A rather flimsy explanation was offered by member of the Saranac town board, though one wonders if such 'duress' was complained about at the time. But numerous other local elected officials quoted by NCPR involved disagree and cite the process as a model for how such deals should be done.

The Nature Conservancy, for its part, pointed out that that they also canceled plans to expand the forest preserve in two communities, Fort Ann and Long Lake, because town boards there objected. Even Monroe doesn't deny this.

Fred Monroe has some explaining to do. Why is the LGRB not only ignoring the wishes of its elected government members but to openly campaign against them? Why is Monroe having the LGRB using tax money to agitate on an issue outside its legal mandate?

If Fred Monroe wants to advance his personal anti-conservation agenda, that's his prerogative. But he ought not to falsely claim he speaks for town governments who actually oppose his position and he ought not to use taxpayer money to do so.

Further de-bunking of the hit job against The Nature Conservancy

Another follow up to my original piece about The New York Post state editor Fred Dicker's smear on the Nature Conservancy (TNC)...

The Adirondack Daily Enterprise's editorial page, a venue not typically sympathetic to environmentalists, blasted Dicker's hit job.

Additionally, North Country Public Radio's Brian Mann filed a report noting that it appears that the land sale included a series of checks and balances designed to insure a fair deal.

The report also pointed out that (shock!) Dicker's trash omitted several key facts. It noted, for example, that the state used five separate appraisals before agreeing a sale price.

When asked by NCPR if he had concrete proof of an unethical working relationship between TNC and the state, Warren County Board of Supervisors Chairman Fred Monroe (Dicker's main source) admitted, "Do I have any evidence? No."

So much like The Post-Star's Will Doolittle, The Post's Dicker parroted serious allegations of (likely criminal) collusion between the state and TNC without insisting that the accusers offer a single shred of evidence. To call this merely irresponsible would be a huge understatement. I'm surprised TNC hasn't filed a lawsuit.

And journalistic big wigs think that you have to be a Fox- or MSNBC-loving ideologue mistrust the mainstream news media.

Another anti-green group hit job debunked (corrected)

Earlier this year, The Post-Star's anti-Adirondack Park Agency journalist Will Doolittle did a controversial pair of stories on the workings of the APA which uncritically relayed alleged, but completely unsubstantiated, collusion between the Agency and the non-profit Nature Conservancy.

The story was later accused of having many holes in it on the basis of some excellent follow up reporting by North Country Public Radio's Brian Mann. But that didn't stop The Post-Star from editorializing for the abolition of the Agency the day after the series ended.

It seems to be Groundhog Day.

Earlier this week, outspoken conservative New York Post state editor Fred Dicker ran a story claiming that the DEC "gave environmental org. [the Nature Conservancy] absurd $3.7M profit for forest."

The little-noticed green giveaway of taxpayer cash occurred in October 2008, as the state Department of Environmental Conservation paid The Nature Conservancy nearly $10 million for 20,000 acres of Adirondack wilderness that the group purchased for $6.3 million just a few years earlier, reported Dicker in The Post.

The article quoted Fred Monroe, chairman of the Warren County Board of Supervisors, Executive Director of the Adirondack Park Local Review Board and loud critic of all things related to environmental conservation.

As with the Doolittle story, it was left to NCPR's Mann, who doesn't seem to have an agenda except one of fair journalism, to provide the rest of the story.

In this piece, Mann pointed out that the appraiser quoted in Dicker's story claimed he was quoted out of context and that the appraiser said up front that he hadn't done any investigation into the specific case.

The New York Post quoted someone out of context? Shocking!

Further, NCPR's Mann points out that Dicker, like Doolittle, has been very critical of green groups and the state's management of Adirondack Park land. Crucially, Mann also notes that: The Post article also appears to confuse the collapse of the national housing and real estate market with the very different market for timber tracts.

I think it's a black mark that the Glens Falls' daily can be mentioned in the same breath as Rupert Murdoch's temple of yellow journalism.

We are very fortunate to have a responsible, play-it-straight journalist like Brian Mann who is willing to further examine these dubiously constructed stories and set the record straight where needed. This is why I continue to support NCPR and encourage others to do the same.

Note: Another myth debunked by NCPR reporting: the one that claims that the Adirondacks would see an economic boom if not for the 'fascist' regulations of state agencies. It cites statistics showing that counties in the Adirondack Park have comparable employment and poverty rates, household incomes, housing values and so on when compared to the rest of rural New York.

Journalist continues to poke holes in questionable Post-Star anti-APA series

Another followup* on the controversial two-part series on the Adirondack Park Agency (APA) written by The Post-Star's Will Doolittle.

(Note: I've offered Doolittle the opportunity of a rebuttal to be published here but he's so far not done so.)

North Country Public Radio's Brian Mann has continued to fill in a lot of the holes that plagued Doolittle's pieces. Mann, a reporter without an open, long-standing contempt for the APA, has provided depth and context that was sorely lacking in the original piece. Mann asked questions where Doolittle accepted answers uncritically from anti-APA interviewees.

Mann's latest piece is definitely worth a read.

Maybe this is why I'm a paid member of NCPR but no longer subscribe to The Post-Star.

**

Update: When I questioned the wisdom of assigning Doolittle (who's well-known for his outspoken and regular criticism of the APA) to do this purportedly objective story about the APA, most people, including Brian Mann himself, dismissed my concerns. These concerns which were less about overt bias (at least at the time... now I'm starting to wonder) but about less conscious decision making based on the assumptions and preconceived notions of someone who's firmly established that he's one on side of the issue. I remember explicitly wondering if Doolittle had failed to ask follow up questions or pursue further, perhaps not consciously but because he assumed that any accusation against the APA was in and of itself credible, because of his own notions about the Agency and what it represents. The excellent follow up reporting done by Mann makes me feel completely vindicated in my concerns. I know self-appointed watchdogs generally bristle at anyone watching them, but I'm glad NCPR's Mann is performing that service to the public. It's just unfortunate that the excellent journalism in NCPR's blog will get only a fraction of the audience as the daily's piece.

Further update: I've refrained from using the phrase 'hit job' to describe the original piece, but some are less circumspect. One anonymous poster at NCPR's blog writes:

While I'd like to commend you on excellent investigative reporting on this post, the sad fact is that this contradiction to Douglas's claim should have been paragraph 2 in the original Post-Star story. And not so hard to dig up, at that.

What disturbed me all along about the series in the P-S was how thoroughly orchestrated it was: first the series, then the story about reaction to the series (with no reaction from the organization the original story had defamed); then the editorial; then the online poll: "Should the APA be disbanned (sic) ?" Even that peculiarly emasculated Don Coyote had something to say. So over-the-top, you half expected Mark Trail to chime in from the funnies page.

This was a crusade, pure and simple. It left me feeling like I'd been bludgeoned by a Pulitzer medallion.

Thanks for exposing the rot at the core.

Anonymous should be reminded that the paper's Pulitizer was not for journalism, but for editorial writing.

**


*-OTHER PIECES ON THIS BLOG ABOUT THE SAME SERIES
-My original critique of the series and the journalistic ethics involved;

-The piece in which the Nature Conservancy refuted accusations of criminal collusion in a letter to The Post-Star;

-Questioning why the daily's website has exceptionally failed to publish an online version of said letter.

Nature Conservancy refutes accusation of collusion

Last week, I reported and commented on a two-part investigation of the Adirondack Park Agency by Post-Star projects' editor Will Doolittle.

In the first part, one of the parties who felt aggrieved (probably with some justification) by the APA claimed that there was a secret conspiracy between the APA and the Nature Conservancy to steal his land. Doolittle passed along this accusation without evidence or further investigation. North Country Public Radio's Brian Mann DID do further research and reported categorically that he found no evidence of any collusion and plenty of belief (even by anti-APA folks) that the secrecy needed for such collusion was be virtually inconceivable.

What's interesting is a letter appeared in today's Post-Star. In it, the executive director of the Keene Valley chapter of the Nature Conservancy Michael T. Carr claimed that in a phone conversation made shortly before the articles were published, Doolittle told him that he'd "found no evidence of collusion between The Nature Conservancy and the Adirondack Park Agency" (the part in quotes are Doolittle's words according to Carr). As usual, the big story is featured prominently on the front page while the rebuttal is buried in a tiny side column of A5 between a big news article and ads. (Curiously, this appears to be the only day for which letters to the editor are not available on their website.)

Yet, Doolittle did not mention this very relevant piece of information in his story.

If Carr's attribution is correct, it is grotesquely reckless journalism by Doolittle and only reinforces my assertion that he, with his harsh and longstanding anti-APA position, was not the right person to do this particular article. How can you publish an unsubstantiated accusation of criminal wrongdoing by a prominent state agency by someone with an obvious ax to grind, knowing you have no evidence to believe the truth of said accusation and, in order to give sufficient context to the reader, at least not mention the fact that neither you nor the accuser had no evidence of this serious accusation? Doolittle did include the Nature Conservancy's denial but while an observant reader would've noticed that no evidence for the accuser's accusation was presented, the author did not point out this glaring omission explicitly nor is it clear if the journalist even asked for it. Still, if you're going to publish a serious accusation of criminal wrongdoing without evidence, you should at least mention the fact that you found no evidence or that the accuser refused/failed to provide it.

I've offered Doolittle the opportunity to publish a response here to my original piece, but he's so far not done so.

Post-Star series on the APA and NCPR follow ups make waves

"Never attribute to malice what can easily be ascribed to incompetence."


Post-Star projects' editor Will Doolittle recently published a pair of pieces regarding the Adirondack Park Agency (APA) and two cases in the town of Black Brook.

(Part one is here and part two here)

The choice of Black Brook was unusual, as it's in Clinton County, far outside the Post-Star's circulation area. The choice of Doolittle, who has a long history of publishing harsh anti-APA columns, to do a purportedly objective investigation into the APA was also questionable.

The title of part one: 'Under attack by the protectors.'

When I raised this issue, Doolittle defended his ability to be objective despite his point of view. Doolittle is a good journalist, but I maintain that an important, purportedly objective story about the APA should not have been assigned to someone with a open, public contempt for the APA. If the Adirondack Council's John Sheehan had done a purportedly objective report for the same paper on the exact same cases, its appropriateness surely would've been called into question too.

Anyways, Doolittle's first piece uncritically echoed claims by one of the aggrieved parties that the APA and Nature Conservancy were colluding but did not offer a shred of evidence to that effect.

North County Public Radio's highly respected Brian Mann further investigated some of the claims reported in Doolittle's pieces and came to a different conclusions.

Mann's research conclude that 'No, the APA did not conspire illegally with the Nature Conservancy'.

Additionally, Doolittle reported on a four year enforcement case by the APA on a John Maye, a former forest ranger and Clinton County landowner. The case dragged on but was dropped abruptly after a meeting between APA and Black Brook officials in which the latter accused the former of colluding with environmentalists.

The unwritten implication is that the threat of 'exposure' caused the APA to drop its patently unfair case.

Another piece by NCPR's Mann suggested otherwise. During the meeting, town officials shared a key piece of information with the APA rep. The APA claims that it was because they received that key piece of information that they dropped the case.

They claimed that Maye had refused to allow APA officials onto his property and failed to respond to APA inquiries. Both of these are his legal right but it's a bit dubious for him to then claim that the APA was prolonging the case simply to harass him.

I suspect Doolittle was guided, perhaps even subconsciously, to fail to ask the questions and investigate further that Mann did.

Mann wrote, Will Doolittle has expressed a firm opinion about this episode. He thinks the APA mistreated the Mayes and was then suspiciously eager to drop the case.

For my part, I'm just not sure.

The APA had been asking for a chance to look at that foundation for four years and they finally got it. That's a significant fact.

The accounts by Doolittle paint a portrait of a power hungry bureaucracy out of control, opposed only by heroic Clark Kent-like property rights defenders. Mann offers a more nuanced picture; his pieces reflect an agency whose real failings in the case seemed more about understaffing and general bureaucratic inertia.

And this perfectly illustrates the difference between pieces on the APA written by an openly anti-APA journalist and those written by one with no apparent agenda.

There are very real issues with the APA.

The fines it can impose should have a cap or at the very least, should have some kind of explicit structure. The Agency's defense of exorbitant fines ($2.9 million in one of these cases) is that it never actually collects the huge amounts; this is unpersuasive. Perhaps, fines above a certain amount can only be imposed by a court (see below).

There should be some legal obligation of responsiveness by the Agency to inquiries from property owners and municipalities. Perhaps there should be an independent ombudsman to address complaints where such responsiveness was not forthcoming or other unfair treatment alleged.

The APA board should comprise entirely full-time residents of the Park. Localities and counties should have some input into the Agency's staffing and board composition.

Most importantly, there should be some sort of judicial review available of the Agency's decisions, within the context of state constitution's Article XIV ("Forever Wild"). The APA is described by some as the zoning board for the Adirondack Park. But most zoning boards have zoning boards of appeal and this one should too. One of the reasons for the very real resentment of some Park residents is that the APA is viewed as judge, jury and executioner. Judicial review would help alleviate this.

I believe in Forever Wild. And I believe that the APA should play an important role in maintaining this. The Agency has its faults and should be reformed. And Doolittle's pieces really did expose a few disturbing facts that should be a addressed. I believe that in trying to protect the little guy from abuse by a government agency, we shouldn't go too far and expose the little guy to abuse from big developers who can do much more long-lasting damage.

But The Post-Star's inexplicable decision to assign this legitimate story to its most adamant anti-APA reporter to do this investigation was a journalistically indefensible, one clearly illustrated by the omissions that Mann revealed.

I urge you to read Doolittle's and Mann's pieces and judge for yourself.

Correcting Sen. Little

Following the recent coup in the New York senate, North Country Public Radio ran an interview with local Sen. Betty Little, who has apparently returned to the majority (unless there's a countercoup).

At the very end, she was asked about the anticipated closing of Camp Gabriels, a minimum security prison in Franklin County, northern New York.

She said it was possible Camp Gabriels might re-open as something like a drug rehab center, "but not as a correctional facility" (prison).

Now some has been made of the prison-industrial complex and its unfortunate economic prominence in the Adirondacks, a topic I've long intended to research and write about but haven't quite gotten to.

But it's a rather telling illustration of Sen. Little's fealty to the prison industry that she considers a place where you lock people up and throw away the key to be "a correctional facility" but not a place like a drug rehab center, where they actually try to correct people's behavior.

See the Adirondack Park while you can

USA Today had a piece listing "10 great places on Earth you don't want to miss." They were chosen by Holly Hughes, author of Frommer's 500 Places to See Before They Disappear.

The third place listed:

Adirondack State Park

Upper New York state

Established in 1892, this 6 million-acre park encompasses more than 3,000 lakes and ponds connected by 1,500 miles of waterways. "The effects of acid rain, encroaching development and harmful invasive species are taking a toll here," Hughes says. "But much of the park's heart has been kept inaccessible to vehicles, preserving a slice of wilderness. The best way to appreciate it is to canoe through its quiet rivers and forested lakes. You'll see white-tailed deer, beaver, and, if you're lucky, you may spy a red fox or even a moose." 518-846-8016; adirondacks.org

"The Adirondacks" documentary to air tonight

Tonight, PBS will air a documentary entitled "The Adirondacks" which takes a two-hour look at the largest protected park in the continental US.

Preserved primarily due to the protection of a visionary clause New York's state constitution enacted in the late 19th century, the Adirondacks are the most amazing natural wonder in the eastern United States.

I may be biased, but watch the documentary and judge for yourself!

Note: Adirondack Almanack points out that this will premiere tonight on PBS stations across the country, not just locally.

Threats to Adirondack water

If you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.

Adirondack Almanack has a piece on the Adirondack Council's report on The Biggest Threats to Adirondack Water Resources.

Some of them have been at least moderately covered by local media, such as: acid rain, mercury, aquatic invasive species and of course, global climate change.

Others haven't really been covered by the local media at all or in a case-by-case, rather than systematic, way. These include: inadequate sewage treatment, suburban sprawl and the increased water pollution it causes, the diversion Adirondack waters abroad by for-profit companies and the water pollution caused by road salt.

Almanack's piece is particularly important as organizations around the world have been warning for several years that access to water will increasingly be a source of international tension.

Top Adirondack stories of the year

True to its local focus, Adirondack Almanack blog offers its top ten Adirondack stories of the year.

NYS citizens to vote on clean water for Raquette Lake

In odd-numbered years, municipal and county races are the only offices on New York state's ballots. There is generally very little media coverage of all but a few races, perhaps because so many are uncontested. State referenda questions get even less coverage.

For example, Adirondack Musing blog helpfully points out that state voters will get to vote on whether residents of Raquette Lake will be allowed to have clean water.

Residents of Raquette Lake want to trade 12 acres of forest for 1 acre of state-owned "forever wild" land where they will build their badly needed village water supply but since it's within the constitutionally-protected Adirondack Park, this must be approved approved in a statewide vote.

Please remember to vote on this issue tomorrow.