Letters to the editor (2/24/09)

Now that the federal stimulus bill is signed into law and the money is being offered to states, our administration is analyzing the various funding streams to determine how Alaskans can benefit without creating new or expanded programs that eventually we can't pay for.

Suddenly, though, Sen. Mark Begich has raised the specter that I would reject all of the stimulus money and hurt Alaskans in the process. Alaskans should rest assured that where the stimulus money will help our private sector economy and provide a genuine safety net for individuals, we won't hesitate adding it to a fiscally sustainable spending plan.

I must also set the record straight on Sen. Begich's false claim that he has not been informed about my stance on this bill. I wrote to our congressional delegation twice on this subject, the first time solo on Jan. 7, and later joined by House Speaker Mike Chenault and Senate President Gary Stevens. My D.C. staff was in frequent communication with the senator's staff, including face-to-face meetings and written communications.

Furthermore, Sen. Begich did not solicit our comments about the final package, and some of the changes he helped broker actually reduced federal spending in areas where we would have preferred increases -- for example, a $70 million reduction in highway funds.

Alaskans expect the delegation and the administration to work together.

-- Gov. Sarah Palin

Healthy people will heal economy

Healthy people will help our economy recover sooner. People who are opposed to universal health care need to explain their rationale. Obviously employer-based insurance can't do the job, as too many companies are failing. It's not the workers' or even the business owners' fault if they could not be successful under the current system. It does not make sense to think we can help our country while people suffer just because they can't afford insurance.

-- Hugh Brown, III

Anchorage

Proposed crime lab is too big, way to costly for Alaska's needs

While there is no denying that Alaska's 17,000 square foot crime laboratory is too small, the Department of Public Safety's plan to spend $106 million constructing an 83,000 square foot facility is ill conceived and fiscally irresponsible. The proposed laboratory is far larger than what is needed to provide high quality forensic science support for Alaska's limited population. It's hard to understand just how ridiculous this proposed project really is without comparing it to other, recently constructed laboratories.

Alaska's proposed crime lab would cost twice as much as Iowa's public health lab, medical examiner lab, agriculture lab and crime lab combined. In a laboratory significantly smaller than what the Department of Public Safety has proposed for Alaska, the Iowa State Crime Laboratory is currently processing four times the workload.

Alaska's proposed crime laboratory would cost more than the recently opened Los Angeles County Regional Laboratory. The new laboratory's price tag is $8.8 million more than the combined costs of the recently opened laboratories of the Missouri Highway Patrol, the Arizona Department of Public Safety, the Phoenix Police Department, the Oklahoma Bureau of Investigation and the State of North Dakota.

If allowed to continue, this overblown project will cost the people of Alaska tens of millions of dollars more than it should. It is unfortunate that so much money has already been paid to the consultant and the architect, but it would be a travesty to allow the project to continue.

Let's design and build a facility that is consistent with Gov. Palin's stated expectation that all state departments will be fiscally responsible.

-- Chris W. Beheim

Anchorage

The writer is the former director of the Alaska state crime lab.

Patkotak column narrow-minded

The column by Elise Patkotak, dated Feb.18, was insulting and narrow-minded. Her fury was aimed at the stars of the show "The Girls Next Door" and Mr. Hugh Hefner. She referred to these women as unable to "successfully fill out an application for Hooters."

She should do her research before hurling insults at three intelligent and successful blond bombshells. Bridget Marquardt has a masters degree in communication and now hosts her own show on the Travel Channel. Holly Madison has directed many pictorials for Playboy Magazine. Kendra Wilkinson is engaged to a football player for the Philadelphia Eagles. They are more than giggling "dumb blondes." These are intelligent women with opinions and aspirations beyond the Playboy Mansion.

In regard to her opinion about Hugh Hefner, his relationships may not be "traditional," but he and the staff at Playboy have done more to liberate women and expand our ideas about women's roles in American society than Ms. Patkotak and her misguided articles have ever done.

Any magazine that publishes Kurt Vonnegut in its pages in addition to beautiful young women is just tops in my book. Perhaps Ms. Patkotak should re-examine her views on women's roles in the world. We don't all have to be like Hillary Clinton or hold powerful positions in society to be liberated and successful. Women like her are a part of the problem. If I, as a woman, do not fit her narrow view of what a woman should be than I am unintelligent and unworthy of my sex. Dream on sister. I am a real woman.

-- Aurora James

Elmendorf AFB

Energy funding appreciated

On Feb. 16, the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee approved $95 million to fund 77 renewable energy projects statewide. On behalf of the Alaska Center for the Environment, representing over 6,000 individuals, I am extending our sincere thanks to those legislators who have taken this timely and proactive step toward providing affordable, reliable energy to Alaskans. We are thrilled these legislators have taken action toward achieving Gov. Palin's vision of producing 50 percent of Alaska's electricity from renewable sources by 2025.

-- Toby Smith

executive director, Alaska Center for the Environment

Anchorage

Millett legislation is misguided

Article XI, Section 1 of the Alaska Constitution says, "The people may propose and enact laws by the initiative. ..."

Newly elected state Rep. Charisse Millett, just one month into her first term as a state legislator, has co-sponsored legislation which would render this constitutional liberty meaningless.

Among other things, it would require public hearings in 30 of 40 state house districts and would disallow an attempted initiative after a previous initiative had recently failed, even if barely.

The public should not be fooled by the apparent reasonableness of these amendments. They serve to gut the state constitution and the Supreme Court has declared that the right of initiative is to be liberally construed. Rep. Millett would work to do the opposite -- gut the right and remove the power from those that elected her to make changes they believe the Legislature refuses to make.

Perhaps Rep. Millett should recall that it was largely progressives of her own party that invented the power of initiative about a century ago.

If she and her colleagues wish to make this change, offer a constitutional amendment. At least this would acknowledge that Article XI, Section 1 will be manifestly different if their legislation passes.

-- Andy Josephson

Anchorage

Lincoln's goal was to save union

If one reads all of Lincoln's statements on the subject of slavery it is apparent he was opposed to it.

But, he was prepared to appease the secessionist states by allowing them to continue the practice of slavery if war could be averted. He was prepared to permit Maryland to continue as a slave state if they would stay in the union.

He opposed expansion of slavery into new states admitted to the union. In Lincoln's first inaugural address he stated: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

He believed he was elected to protect federal property and when Fort Sumter was attacked by secessionists, it ignited the Civil War. Could the war have been averted? We can speculate. To a large degree the war was fought for economic reasons. The southern states were dependent on the production and export of cotton. Slave labor made it possible to compete in the world market.

Many believe that as economic conditions changed secessionist states would have abandoned slavery and the war could have been averted. Certainly people of conscience believe that for one human to enslave another and treat them as private property is wrong.

-- Wiley Brooks

Anchorage