This session is not business as usual: Fix the fiscal crisis
The governor has shown great courage in proposing a comprehensive fiscal plan to close our $3.5 billion yearly budget hole.
Where is the Legislature's plan? Are they going to kick the can down the road again because it's an election year?
Alaskans desperately need the Republican leadership to stop listening to the lobbyists and start representing the people.
We need a fair and comprehensive solution this session. Business as usual is not an option. This is an election year and Alaskans are going to be watching you very carefully.
— John Johnson
Anchorage
We can feel safe and protected in the US without carrying a gun
Indeed, a gun is a tool. It is assuredly a tool for killing; that is a gun's sole purpose.
The conversation I aim to have is not about killing animals for meat. I eat and enjoy meat myself.
My letter of Jan. 8 concerned the group traveling to a rural part of Oregon with deadly weapons in a show of power against our existing government. My intent was to remind us there are, in a civilized society, other tools better suited to solving land-use rights issues than brandishing guns.
I personally do not go to gun shows because I have other priorities for my money. Guns as a hobby are pretty darned expensive. I also know owning and carrying a gun is a huge responsibility. Alternatively there are police, a justice system, an Army, a Navy, an Air Force and a host of other institutions supported by our tax dollars to ensure some kind of protection for all of us. Further, all disputes do not need to go so far that a tool for killing is necessary, and that was my point in my previous letter.
It is up to Mr. Koskovich (Letters,
Jan. 10) to decide why he needs a gun. Hunting for meat needs no defense in my opinion. In terms of personal safety I hope neither he nor a member of his family is so endangered by people or persons that he needs to be armed to function. A gun may feel necessary where law enforcement is too often barely accessible.
Even were he and every member of his family armed there is no guarantee of safety. Circumstances can change on a dime. Mortality is inescapable. Having mechanisms beyond personal sidearms to insure safety and protection for everyone is a big portion of the beauty and privilege of living in this country.
Facts are that guns used as tools usually end up in a tragedy whether in San Bernardino or Anchorage. Guns do not rewrite a constitution, or a real estate contract or water rights. Armed revolution is not a good solution and threatening armed revolution is gravely dangerous.
— Gwenn Jester-Haslett
Anchorage
PFD loss is peril for middle class
Alex DeMarban's (ADN, Jan. 12) analysis of the PFD, which showed a family of four will lose $15,000 over the next three years, should be alarming to Alaskans who depend on the PFD to cover basic expenses. While no self-respecting American is in favor of "wealth redistribution," the odds are simply overwhelmingly stacked against the middle class.
The highlight for middle-class America was the 1950s, when President Eisenhower built the interstate highway system; a middle-class worker supported his wife and three kids in their own home and the average CEO earned only 20 times the salary of the average worker in the corporation. By the way, the highest marginal income tax rate was 91 percent.
Now in a middle-class family, both parents are working, their wages have stagnated and the average CEO is paid 200 times (low estimate) the average worker's salary. At some point, despite having no lobbyists, fundamental fairness to the lower-earning members of our society has got to be a paramount consideration. Maintaining the current PFD for those who are less affluent (e.g., families earning less than $75,000) is the right thing to do. Our elected representatives are going to have to cut positions/services, impose taxes and lead by example. I am not convinced the budget has to be disproportionately balanced on the backs of the middle class.
— William Maxey
Anchorage
Obama droned on and on
Anybody out there besides me who heard nothing but a whiner give his State of the Union address? My goodness, someone please give him a participation trophy and just maybe he will stop.
— Rolf L. Bilet
Anchorage
Does Obama's grief cover US bomb victims in Middle East?
Thank you Christine Flowers for your article on the reality versus fabricated expression of sorrow by President Barack Obama about the murder of children and teachers at Sandy Hook. I found your thoughts very informative and thought-provoking. For that I am grateful.
I am coming from 40 years of racist perceptions and 44 years of anti-racist perceptions. Thus it was with enthusiasm and hope that I approached Obama's campaign with money, support and high expectations for peace, openness, transparency, justice, changes that I can believe in and better government. After five years of his presidency I began to realize my expectations were a tad too high, particularly given our Congress and the degree of racism in America.
My point is while I agree with Flowers that his sorrow regarding the horrible murder of children in Sandy Hook is real, I think I understand why many fellow Americans question the credibility of his sorrow. I too love children and was sickened by the murders of the children at Sandy Hook. I also cried when I looked into the eyes of the many homeless children in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria we have bombed and think of the many who experienced terror; those who have been killed by our bombs and drone strikes. The recent pictures of children starving in the Middle East and drowning while trying to escape the chaos in the Middle East we helped to create is more sickening. As commander in chief, where is Obama's grief for all of those children and adults?
— Hugh R. Hays, Ph.D.
Veteran for Equality, Peace, and Justice
Soldotna
Feds are right to ban Alaska's methods for predator control
Finally, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is resisting the state's attempts to severely reduce wolf and bear populations on federal wildlife refuges (ADN, Jan. 9). This follows earlier, similar actions by the National Park Service. Both agencies have attempted to cooperate with Alaska's wildlife managers for many years, but state overreach on federal lands has become intolerable.
The state's record of improperly trying to extend state management policies onto federal lands is well known. Bear baiting, aerial shooting, night hunting with lights, den hunting and excessively long hunting and trapping seasons are perfectly fine with the Alaska Board of Game but have no place on federal land. Park Service and wildlife refuge managers deserve credit for pushing back, but the job is not yet finished. Now it's time for the Bureau of Land Management to step up. It has been much too compromising in allowing improper predator control on BLM land. Now is the time to act.
The ADN article suggests hunting and trapping ethics are not part of federal decisions, but many people think ethical considerations must be included. Failure to implement ethical guidelines in recent years by the Game Board has allowed practices long prohibited like trapping of bears, same-day airborne hunting, gassing of wolf pups, and helicopter transport of hunters. Whether through biological justifications or ethical considerations, banning these practices on federal land is necessary, smart and lawful.
— Vic Van Ballenberghe
Anchorage
Young has no respect for others
It just stymies me how Rep. Don Young can continue to be returned to Washington in each election by so many Alaskans. Does statesmanship not matter? Does decency in language not matter?
How about treating others with respect, whether it be the president, high school students, fellow lawmakers, or anyone who may disagree with him (including educated scientists)? If indeed he does believe he is in Congress to represent Alaskans (at least those who voted for him), how could he not care how he is perceived by them? Why does he act like the "Lone Ranger," doing only what he wants to do? I should have looked up his salary, but I already know he is way overpaid, including benefits many Alaskans do not have.
Enough already. At least I got that off my chest. I just couldn't help it.
— Diane Crawford
Anchorage
Lauesen relies on false prophet
I enjoyed Elstun Lauesen's Jan. 13 commentary "… Step away from the dark side" through the first half. I agreed with his assessment of Alex Jones and his like as "snake oil salesmen."
Then he invoked that snakiest, oiliest salesman of them all, Deepak Chopra. He shares Chopra's warning that campaigning in 2008 against Obama was "an assault on the fundamental principles of hope and idealism, the anchors of candidate Obama's appeal." The fact that Chopra didn't see Obama for what he really was and is, proves to me he is a false prophet.
By the end of Lauesen's article, I got the sense the dark pall, all the troubles we are going through, can be blamed on anyone who supported McCain-Palin in 2008 against Obama. Does he really believe what Chopra hints at, that we who were against Obama in 2008 and 2012 created the legendary Golem that is stealing all our hope and joy?
Yes, I step away from the dark side of false prophets like Chopra and his ilk.
— Mary A. Sells
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 under 200 words 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.