Changing Barrow’s name illogical
I went to Barrow as a tourist because they were advertising as a place to see. Changing the name now makes no sense. Besides, they mostly hunt not gather roots. When I last looked whaling was the main event.
— Sarah Hope
Wasilla
Boy’s death ‘top of the iceberg’ for pot
According to recent ADN articles, a 16-year-old Palmer-area boy recently helped murder another 16-year-old boy in a dispute over marijuana. I think that all those who voted to legalize marijuana in Alaska should take note of this incident.
Sorry to say, but marijuana is not a benign drug, for its sale and use can have lethal consequences, and this latest tragic murder is just one good example of that. In fact, I suggest that 16-year-old David Grunwald's tragic, grisly death is just the "tip of the iceberg" in this respect, for now that marijuana is legalized in Alaska, it is likely that more and more children will gain access to the drug, and will come to grievous harm as a result of dealing and using the supposedly "harmless" drug, marijuana.
— Stephan Paliwoda
Anchorage
Trump Master of the Twitter-sphere
We once had a president's wife, "Lady Bird" and now have a president-elect, "Tweety Bird."
The image of the Master of the Twitter-sphere's little fingers diddling the tiny keyboard does not inspire confidence.
— Ken Flynn
Anchorage
ADN columnists on right track
An amazing event occurred Dec. 4: I agreed with every ADN columnist. Both conservative Paul Jenkins and sometime-liberal Kathleen Parker pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court has made its ruling on flag burning. Though our pesident-elect tweeted that burning the flag should be punished, flag burning is constitutionally protected speech.
I also agreed with Steve Haycox who wrote, "Electoral College is overdue for the dustbin." It is more clear in this presidential election than any other because Hillary Clinton got 2.5 million more popular votes than Donald Trump did. Though other presidential candidates lost even though they had more popular votes than their competitor, no one has lost the Electoral College with such a large popular vote as Hiliary Clinton has.
The most interesting column was by Shannyn Moore who said she knew a year ago that Hillary Clinton couldn't win against any Republican because sexism is deeply ingrained in American society, more deeply than racism. She knew this because many states including our own have Republican legislators who want to get rid of Supreme Court ruling Roe vs. Wade, which gave women the right to make choices about their reproductive lives.
I started the first feminist group in Anchorage, the Anchorage Women's Liberation, in December 1970. I thought that people would quickly recognize the need for equality of opportunities in employment and education. For example, there were no female police officers in Anchorage in 1970 and women had to fight for a chance to study to be a doctor or attorney. We got opposition from women and men, and ridicule from some men. This was true, even though Alaskans had already voted to legalize abortion and the Legislature passed the state equal rights amendment as well as the national equal rights amendment, which barely missed being ratified by three-quarters of the states.
My hope for the future came from the fact that one group of men supported our feminist group: fathers of girls. I was surprised when a few men contacted us about the fact that girls didn't get a chance at competitive sports. When I went to high school in 1954, the gym teacher taught the boys how to play basketball in one half of the gym and gave us girls a ball to play with — no instructions. Today, note how often girls and women are featured on the sports pages of the ADN. Perhaps there is a small hope that sexism will diminish.
Re: Shannyn's column, I am surprised that Hillary lost the likely Electoral College vote because Hillary was qualified for the presidency and she won every debate. One hope for our democracy and to avoid nuclear war is that there is a chance that electors could go to the Electoral College on Dec. 19 and vote for someone other than the candidate they are pledged to.
— Amy Bollenbach
Homer
Hope other educators don’t teach Haycox’s view
In his ADN op-ed on Dec. 4, Professor Steven Haycox argued the Electoral College is "overdue for the dustbin." He claims "we are schooled that we live in a democracy" and argues the college is an "undemocratic mechanism that frustrates the popular will." I certainly hope, and have reason to believe, the professor is wrong about what most schools are actually teaching. But, in any event, there certainly appears to be widespread misunderstanding about the nature of our government, and I fear that the professor's editorial contributes to that misunderstanding.
The U.S. Constitution expressly does not create a national government that sways to the popular will, but rather is characterized by an elaborate system of checks and balances that operate to moderate democratic passions and encourage compromise.
As a friend commented to me recently, we are the "United States of America" — not the "United People of America." We are a federation of states, guaranteed a republican form of government by the Constitution. As a republic (as opposed to a direct democracy), the people do not directly make or execute federal laws, but select representatives (on a state-by-state basis) to govern, and the 10th Amendment provides that the states retain all authority not expressly granted to the federal government. Under the great compromise, each state is guaranteed two senators, regardless of population, while each state's representation in the House of Representatives is proportional to the national population. Thus, the allocation of presidential electors merely parallels how legislative power is apportioned among the states in Congress.
The "undemocratic" allocation of federal lawmaking power to the smaller states, along with the exercise of judgment by the elected representatives of the people, can operate to "frustrate to popular will"— in the sense that any particular law favored by a majority of the American people at any given time may not be passed by Congress (let alone survive a presidential veto). Likewise, the disproportionate allocation of presidential electors to smaller states provides a check on the power of larger, more populated states by requiring a candidate for president to gain support in a cross-section of the states, large and small.
Does the professor also believe limitation on the ability of federal law to infringe upon the reserved authorities of the states and the allocation of two senators to each state are "anachronisms" that should be eliminated by constitutional amendment because they "confound the will of the majority of the American people?" I hope not. The compromises and checks and balances of the Constitution, including the allocation of presidential electors in proportion to each state's congressional representation, continue to serve us well. I hope our schools and the media do their part in teaching the true nature, virtue and reasons for our form of our government.
— Mark Worcester
Anchorage
Name-calling so typical, yet shameful, liberal tactic
In his ADN letter Dec. 5, Stephan Paliwoda said Donald Trump was xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic, racist, and now even a viper? Is there any name your liberal writers haven't used to call our new president-elect? I know it is an acceptable liberal tactic to call your perceived adversary names when you lack a lucid argument to his political positions. The progressive Saul Alinsky, in 1971's "Rules for Radicals," teaches such.
I was a member of the Democratic Party for most of my adult life. I bailed, primarily because it finally occurred to me that liberal policies did not hold up against either facts or reason. But I also recognized the only tactic left to the liberals for selling their weak positions was to attempt to diminish the arguments of their competition, by scurrilous methods, including name-calling. Honorable people refrain from this tactic, I think.
Therefore, although Paliwoda is the writer of the letter claiming Trump is a viper, it would be disingenuous of me to call him a nasty name — like the several bouncing around in my head. So, suffice to say, when the Democrats adopted their mascot, that four-legged, long-eared, donkey critter, it turned out to be a truly remarkable representation of much of their membership.
— Ron Michelson
Wasilla
Alaska needs to move on
I am writing in response to the
Dec. 3 ADN letter from the writer who insists Lisa Murkowski continue attacking Trump and his appointees, or our senator is for the birds.
It is my opinion, and I believe the opinion of a lot of other Alaskans, that Sen. Murkowski made a big mistake during this campaign. She supported Hillary Clinton by attacking Donald Trump. Clinton would have done nothing to help Alaska. At this point, Murkowski should not continue to attack Trump. She has done enough damage to Alaska already.
Trump will be our president for the next four years. Continuing to attack him or his appointees will only hurt Alaska. We all must understand this. Disagree if you must, but we need to move on.
— Kenneth P. Jacobus
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.