Letters to the Editor

Readers write: Letters to the editor, Feb. 5, 2015

UAA’s ouster of Tanaina a mistake

The ousting of the Tanaina Child Development Center from the UAA campus is the latest example of UAA's poor student services and community support. My son is a graduate of both Tanaina (1997) and UAA (2014). Administratively, the Tanaina experience was far superior to the UAA experience.

Student-friendly colleges across the country support student and faculty families by having on-site child care. In addition, the center provides a high-quality program for early childhood majors to observe children.

When my son attended Tanaina, I served on the board during a time when the university was supportive and enjoyed having little ones moving about the campus. "Community partnership" between UAA and Anchorage has reached an all-time low with the closing of Tanaina. Where is the human factor in this decision, UAA administrators?

It's hard to believe with all of the construction that's occurred in the last 10 years at UAA, there isn't enough space for a top-notch child development center.

Deb Ward

Anchorage

Some free speech a danger to public

David A. James' thoughtful comments on my recent letter, in which I condemned the authors of the Charlie Hebdo debacle, are welcome. In response, I would make two points.

ADVERTISEMENT

First, legal opinions on freedom of speech, without exception, allow for the possibility of acts of speech so heinous they should in fact be considered criminal. Ideas of what this might entail differ from era to era, but nobody has ever been willing to argue such limits cannot exist.

Second, I am unable to include the two policemen who died as a result of vulgar cartooning among the "millions who have died … to defend … Western civilization." I think they were straight-out victims of French "not-in-my-backyard" paranoia in the face of new threats to what they perceive as their time-honored culture. That, and a sagging magazine circulation.

Diane Pleninger

Anchorage

Begich’s ANWR impact minimal

David Ramseur (Letters, Sunday) would have readers believe if only his former boss were still around, none of the anti-Alaska moves made by President Barack Obama last month would be happening. That's a fascinating argument.

The adoption of a comprehensive conservation plan for ANWR has been years in the making. Public comment on this plan was collected in 2011. If Sen. Mark Begich convinced the White House to stave off the plan, it would have only been until after the election. Apparently, Begich failed to convince the president to listen to the Inupiat people of the Arctic Slope region and the broad coalition of Alaskans who wrote in opposition to this plan.

Regardless of the victor in November, this plan was going to be brought forward. To argue otherwise is to claim that our president is rewarding and punishing citizens in this state based solely on whom they voted for in a U.S. Senate race. That's close to political malpractice. It's an accusation that sounds more like the ranting of a talk radio host than the considered analysis of a political professional.

Begich might have negotiated a temporary reprieve between the national Democrats and Alaska's resource development, but the voters decided the concessions were too great. They felt that negotiating from a position of weakness with those who would do us harm is a strategy for losers. If they hadn't, Begich would still be a senator.

— Joe Balash

chief of staff

Sen. Dan Sullivan

Washington, D.C.

Patkotak loves hating Koch brothers

Don't you just love the linguistic legerdemain liberal progressives use to attack anything conservative or religious? Elise Patkotak lamely attempts to tie the Koch brothers' wealth to attacks on President Barack Obama's ineptitude (ADN, Wednesday). In the process, she insults all Alaskans by claiming they would "like more free cash … for nothing." The terrible Koch brothers want to contribute campaign donations of "untold amounts" to candidates only they can control. Now comes a perhaps unintended subliminal confession when she admits that she can be had for a ridiculously small amount. She then veers sharply into more liberal progressive talking points about a "white male landed gentry" dominating the voting.

If, as she maintains, we vote based on ads, TV programs, magazines, etc., she fails to mention they are mostly dominated by liberals and progressives themselves. She doesn't even realize she shot herself in the foot while trying to draw against conservatives. She totally fails to mention liberal progressive megadonors (Gates, Katzenberg, Kennedy, Kerry, Turner, etc.) and the people and policies they endorse.

Instead of complaining about money donated by terrible conservatives, why doesn't she focus on the real problem — ignorance? Look at the standard man-in-the-street interviews; irrespective of age, gender, ethnicity or even education level. (UC Davis students heckling Jews with "Allahu Akbar.") These folks are not only low-information voters, too many of them are stone-cold stupid. Worse than that, they breed and they vote.

Elise opined, "I think," but that's debatable, as she morphs all things into a diatribe against those terrible "Koch brothers and their ilk." What wonderful logic.

Chuck Orr

ADVERTISEMENT

Anchorage

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.

ADVERTISEMENT