Prisoners should live like the poor, not in Taj Mahal jails
I heard the other day, that the state needed more jails. Wow. I would like to recommend to our big money spenders, legislators, building contractors, lobbyists, and all the others who will benefit from the construction the following: Jails do not have to be built to better specifications than the worst structures poor people live in, like some huge Quonset-style buildings. They are roomy; with insulation, they are as warm as the Taj Mahals, which have been built around the state and better than most jailbirds now live in; they would feel right at home. Just my wee mind working overtime.
— Paul D. Morrison
Kenai
Taking land for Keystone is classic federal overreach
How can our Alaska congressional team be taken seriously when railing against federal overreach here at home while supporting the Keystone XL pipeline? The taking of 88 parcels of private property in Nebraska alone by eminent domain for dubious American benefit is the definition of federal overreach. As reported in Forbes magazine, eight years ago, President George Bush issued an executive order that stated the federal government must limit its use of taking private property for public use with just compensation for the purpose of benefiting the general public, wording mirrored in the U.S. Constitution. Bush's order No. 13406 limits the use of eminent domain so it may not be used for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property.
As I understand Sen. Murkowski's comments shipping oil from Canada to sell overseas is advancing the economic interests of a private foreign company, potentially at Alaska's expense. How is this not federal overreach? Is she in particular saying federal overreach is acceptable in Nebraska?
— Sarah Wright
Eagle River
Homeless are rescued from consequences of behavior
In response to the Tuesday ADN article concerning the problem of homeless alcoholics in Anchorage, how much responsibility do individuals have for their actions in society?
We allow that any person who commits unlawful harmful acts against their fellow citizens can be punished for those actions. But as the article points out: "Alaska is one of just a few states in which being drunk in public is not a crime, and the law directs police to help, not arrest, people incapacitated by alcohol."
Taking an intoxicated person to a sleep-off center and then releasing them back to the streets to continue their destructive lifestyle does little to help that individual. The chronic alcoholics that live in our streets and tent cities suffer misery and danger on a daily basis, whether it comes from exposure to weather or violent assaults, including rape and murder. Most people in our city would agree that we should not let inebriated people die in our streets. But some would also protest any form of curtailment of the freedoms of those individuals who, due to their addictions, are either unable or unwilling to take responsibility for their own welfare.
If we allow someone the freedom to harm themselves, but then rescue them from the life-threatening consequences of their actions, where does the responsibility lie?
— Kim Daehnke
Anchorage
Sen. Murkowski is wrong on Keystone XL helping Alaska
People seem to be a little bit confused about the Keystone XL pipeline. I read Shannyn Moore's article and I read Sen. Murkowski's article about it. Sen. Murkowski needs to answer one question. How much of the Canadian oil will be sold in the U.S.? That answer is zero. There was a bill to require it but it was defeated. That oil will do nothing to help Alaska. You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.
— Jay Cross
Big Lake
Murkowski should do some serious soul-searching
We can draw three conclusions from Lisa Murkowski's statements during the past week or so as printed in the ADN:
1. Our senior senator will not admit that human behavior is a significant part of climate change, thereby avoiding the bedrock conservative principle: We must take responsibility for our actions. She will not use her energy committee to deal with climate change, though it is the single most important problem facing the planet.
2. Our senior senator is dedicated to pursuing a policy of "abundance," in spite of the fact that abundance has already occurred. She wants "abundance" while the energy industry is shutting down rigs and energy costs drop. She also implies that Alaska suffers from a shortage of available oil fields, which is manifestly not the problem.
3. Our senior senator has retained the partisan viewpoint of the past, noting that the Senate has been "restored" because of the ascendancy of the Republican majority. She should note that Congress has a 16 percent approval rating (Gallup), caused mainly by a right-wing House and an obstructionist Senate. On the other hand, Obama's approval rating is 34 points higher than Congress, at 51 percent (Rasmussen Report). This calls into question Murkowski's enthusiasm about how the Republicans have "restored regular order" in the Senate. It would certainly be instructive for her to note that her approval rating is 4 points lower than Obama's at 46 percent (Public Policy Polling), which looks particularly bad when you consider that the poll was taken in our red state, not nationally.
What we can really expect from her energy committee is absolutely nothing, unless she does some serious soul-searching.
— Clarence Crawford
Anchorage
Read the driver's manual
The rant about police not enforcing speed limits (ADN, Thursday) brought to mind my pet peeves about Alaskan drivers. The author of this letter demonstrated her lack of knowledge of the state driving regulations.
I agree that the speed limits should be observed and enforced. However, may I point out that the Alaska Driver Manual, pages 57-58, shows that slower drivers are required to operate their vehicles in the outside lane of a freeway. It also states that when entering a highway, the acceleration lane must be used to merge with traffic. Drivers must yield to freeway traffic they are about to enter. If necessary, drivers must stop to yield, but be cautious of vehicles behind. I too do not like speeders and tailgaters; the manual gives good advice on this as well.
— Martin Carlson
Anchorage
Cruiser not required to yield to merging driver
Susan Connell's letter (ADN, Thursday) with respect to traffic enforcement on the Glenn Highway was fairly well written until the last paragraph when she bemoaned the fact that an unmarked APD cruiser "refused to yield" to her as she was merging on the Glenn Highway.
Connell, like an unfortunate number of drivers, seems to be under the impression that they have the "right of way" when merging. Put simply: Traffic laws provide that the vehicle already on the road has the right of way and merging traffic must yield to those already on the highway.
The driver of the cruiser in the interests of courtesy might have moved into the adjacent lane if it was safe to do so, but is under no obligation to do so. Nor was he obligated to slow or speed up to allow her to merge at her leisure. The merging driver must slow and come in behind the traffic already on the roadway or, if safe to do so, speed up and merge in front of that traffic. Bottom line is she did not have the right of way.
As a frequent driver on the Glenn I can attest that Connell's obvious ignorance of this traffic regulation is rampant among Alaska drivers. I move over to allow merging traffic to enter the highway safely when I can but have lost track of the number of times other drivers have exhibited their anger when I could not do so. I wonder what happened to their "courtesy." Oh yeah, I forgot they own the road and their trip or day is much more important than anyone else's.
—Dave Kaiser
Eagle River
Stop repeating the misconception of papal 'infallibility'
One has to wonder whether ADN also puts the headers on the syndicated columns that they publish? The header for Leonard Pitts' Jan. 19 column reads "Pope not infallible when it comes to expression." But Pitts never uses the word "infallible" in this column.
As most Catholics know, popes are not "infallible" when they're out and about, traveling and talking with folks around the world. There have been only a few infallible (ex cathedra) pronouncements made by popes over the history of The Church, concerning the interpretation of the Scriptures (the teachings of Jesus).
Pitts' focus here is defending free speech in the aftermath of the recent terrorist attacks in France. In the process of building his case, he indicates that he disagrees with Pope Francis, whom he quotes as saying: "You can not insult the faith of others." While Pitts may choose to conclude that the pope is trying to restrict free speech, I prefer to believe that Pope Francis is focused on fostering moral, peaceful behavior in all peoples, and I believe his message is: "If you wish to walk in the footsteps of Jesus and help bring about peace in the world, you can not insult the faith of others."
— Jim Lieb
Palmer
The views expressed here are the writers' own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a letter for consideration, email letters@alaskadispatch.com, or click here to submit via any web browser. Submitting a letter to the editor constitutes granting permission for it to be edited for clarity, accuracy and brevity. Send longer works of opinion to commentary@alaskadispatch.com.