Trump did a U-turn on Assad
Trump now feels "different" about Assad after the nerve gas attack this week. He didn't think Assad was so bad last week when he said Assad should stay in power. Wasn't Trump aware that Assad had used chemical weapons multiple times in the past? Didn't he realize that his comments may embolden Assad to use chemical weapons?
The difference now is that Trump is president. Trump viewed Assad's chemical attacks in the past only as a sign of Obama's weakness. Trump takes it as a personal affront that Assad would dare use chemical weapons when he is in charge. He does a complete 180 on his Syria policy simply because he is afraid that Assad's actions will make him look weak. Trump is a very insecure person.
— David Strait
Anchorage
Thought experiment led to shift in father-daughter conversations
I'm a scientist, educator, citizen, wife and daughter. Although my parents and I vote differently, we share some deep agreements. One is that it's our responsibility, as humble human beings, to live in Earth — the whole and holy creation — with skillful love. Another is that science and religion are powerful ways of understanding our interrelations, world and places within it. A third agreement, harder won, is that science and religion weave together today in ways orienting us to face climate change and do something about it.
A few years back, my father and I argued fiercely about the scientific claim of anthropogenic climate change. I asked if we could do a thought experiment: If global warming is taking place because of human causes, then, what that we care about feels threatened? Individualism, freedom of faith, jobs and money, justice for black and brown people, the lives of other species, land health, the welfare of future generations and many other things were on the table.
Our conversation had shifted. Neither of us was a climate change denier. We knew that scientists have been studying Earth's atmosphere and climate for generations. When measurements of greenhouse gases — which scientists have known for centuries have a warming effect — showed concentrations quickly rising (along with global average temperature), to understand, they had to consider the range of imaginable causes. Of these, the cause that has not been refuted, but is supported by authors of close to 100 percent of thousands of international, peer-reviewed global warming studies, is humans' activities — primarily rapid fossil fuel burning.
We weren't arguing about science, we realized, but about if and how we can express our values while keeping climate change at bay. We still have strong differences, yet we have far more in common — including love for each other — than what a yawning political divide seems to suggest.
This is why I'm Marching for Science and participating in Earth Day events (and celebrating my dad's 75th birthday) — April 22 — and Marching for Climate — April 29. These are peaceful, community-building events, likely to be seriously uplifting. Everyone is welcome.
— Julianne Lutz Warren
Fairbanks
Income tax is progressive but income has been redistributed
Jim Lieb (Letters, April 5) correctly points out that the very wealthy paid more than their proportionate share of income tax, compared to those who earned much less. But that's the point of the income tax: It's progressive. This was widely understood when the income tax was implemented after the 16th Amendment (not coincidentally, during the Progressive Era), but it now seems to have been widely forgotten.
But what Lieb ignores is that — because of a variety of "trickle down" policies implemented by Republicans since Reagan — the share of income going to the very wealthy has vastly increased since 1980. That is, there has been massive redistribution of income from the poor and the rapidly disappearing middle class to the wealthy.
Another way to look at this problem is that everything we — especially the wealthy — receive in our "paychecks" (or report — or don't — on our income tax returns) is not actually "our" money, but rather money we've been given in trust, with which we must pay our "bills" for the commonwealth that we share: for schools, roads, parks and all the other public goods that mark a modern civilized society. Without that civilized society into which we were born, we wouldn't be able to produce anywhere near the income that we like to think of as "ours."
— Rick Wicks
Anchorage
Column on home defense doesn't belong in Sports or Outdoors
To Mr. Meyer and his editor,
While I am always thrilled with the diversity of topics in our ADN Sports (and Outdoors) section, the "outdoors" seems recently to be narrowly defined as a place for shooting. That's not to say the columns do not have a place, but maybe not in the frequency we find them. I find some interesting — thank you for the conversation about the use of lead shot, and appreciate the editor's decision to include them in the Sports and Outdoors section.
I do not understand or appreciate the editorial decision to include a piece about why and how to shop for a gun for defense against "two-legged predators," an activity that takes place, presumably, inside. This, Steve Meyer and editor, is neither "sport" nor "outdoors." If you feel compelled to fuel a need for more handguns with shopping recommendations, please do so in some other section.
Make room for an article about a baseball game, the return of migratory birds, a profile of a high school coach, the best dry suit for kids on paddling adventures, a first ascent of an unnamed peak, track and field standings, the state of our caribou herds, the curling scene in Anchorage, fly patterns in Southcentral, the youth biathlon program, the hare population, Arctic Man updates, or even about target shooting with your Colt Commander, anything sporting or outdoors.
I appreciate your circumspect commentary on gun safety, but I disagree, Mr. Meyer — we do not have "every reason to fear a drug-crazed individual may enter their home and relieve them of the burden of existence." We do have every reason to fear a life spent inside waiting to shoot at things, real or imagined, that may or may not come through our door. Instead, let's continue to encourage and profile lives spent outside whether in sport or contemplation.
— Ted Stille
Eagle River
No more support for income tax
Dear governor and representatives,
I am a lifetime Alaskan. I remember paying Alaska state withholding tax.
I was until today in favor of reinstating the state income tax.
Gov. Walker proposed a tax of 15 percent of what our federal tax bill was.
You as my representative supported that proposal.
Now the proposal is for much more than that with a higher percentage for higher income.
If a percentage of the federal tax bill is not an option, then I can only support the tax bill and your re-election if the percentage is equal for all income levels.
Heads up! Example: 2 percent of $200,000 is still twice as much as 2 percent of $100,000.
Increasing percentage for higher incomes is not something that will retain my support for the bill or your future elections.
The sliding scale also adds administrative costs. More government.
The governor and you suggested and proposed one thing and are trying to deliver another at the last second.
I no longer support this action in present form.
— Ricard Frost
Homer
Join the fight against deadly, costly and incurable Alzheimer's
I just returned from Washington, D.C., where I participated in the Alzheimer's Advocacy Forum along with 1,300 advocates in the fight against Alzheimer's and other dementias.
For every $100 currently spent on research for Alzheimer's disease, our government spends $16,000 through Medicaid and Medicare.
In 2017, it is estimated to cost our American society $259 billion caring for those with Alzheimer's and projected to be $1.1 trillion by 2050, not counting all the wages lost due to caregiving for someone with Alzheimer's and the productivity of those with early onset Alzheimer's or other dementias.
There are 250,000 Americans under the age of 65 living with early onset Alzheimer's.
There are over 5 million people in the United States living with Alzheimer's today and 7,100 of that number right here in Alaska, along with 33,000 caregivers in our beautiful state.
Alzheimer's is the sixth leading cause of death in the United States.
It is the only disease that does not have a cure, a preventative or anything to slow it down.
It kills more people than breast cancer and prostate cancer combined.
If we don't take action now, by 2050 as many as 16 million people will have the disease.
Many families will be financially devastated and the cost will overwhelm Medicare and Medicaid.
Please visit www.alz.org/facts and consider in joining me in the fight to end
Alzheimer's.
Contact your senator or representative for action on these issues today.
— Cindy Harris
Alzheimer's Association
Alaska ambassador
Soldotna
Protect home with bear spray
I read with some interest Steve Meyer's thoughtful column about selecting a gun for home protection. Unfortunately the whole discussion rests on the assumption that you need a gun, which is simply not true.
What about bear spray? Research has demonstrated conclusively that it is more effective than a gun as protection against bears. Anything that stops a charging brown bear certainly will stop a burglar.
Bear spray is inexpensive, easy to use, requires little training and doesn't even have to be carefully aimed, since the pepper cloud disperses into a pattern much bigger than a bullet.
True, the stuff would be messy to clean up inside a home, but not as messy as patching bullet holes in the wall and trying to mop up a pool of blood that had soaked into the carpet. And therein lies the key factor: Bear spray is not fatal. If one playful child shoots another, or a jittery homeowner opens fire on someone — possibly a confused neighbor, a kid playing a prank or a genuine burglar — no one dies.
If the panicky resident in the recent Oklahoma incident had shot bear spray rather than his handy AR-15, three boys would be in trouble but alive, three families would not be suffering the worst possible grief, and one young man wouldn't have to wake every day for the rest of his life remembering that he killed those boys.
— Terry Johnson
Anchorage
Don't play 'Dirty Harry' at home
I would like to thank Steve Meyer for his commonsense approach to the question of selecting a firearm for home protection. I hear far too much "gun fighter" advice from so-called experts in the field, advice that might be suitable for bear protection, drive-by shootings or the battlefield — but not for a household.
And I would re-emphasize one point that Steve made: If you go "Dirty Harry" with a .44 Magnum, or your moose rifle, or your AR15, that bullet is like the Energizer Bunny — it'll just keep on going. It can go through your intended target into your kid's bedroom, through your walls and into the house next door. It can kill your neighbor's cat, and your neighbor too. I would be very uncomfortable if I thought my own neighbor had a high-powered firearm for home protection.
I like the idea of a medium-powered revolver, preferably equipped with a laser sight, or a shotgun loaded with birdshot. You will be held responsible for whatever your bullet hits — keep it in your own house and be prepared to live with the results.
— Don Neal
Anchorage
Murkowski set precedent; governor should refuse salary
I was happy to read in the Alaska Dispatch News the article by Annie Zak on April 5 that ex-Gov. Frank Murkowski will follow a lead set by President Trump to serve without pay as "special envoy" to negotiate building a Canada-Alaska rail extension. We certainly do not yearn to spend more money on yet another megaproject that has no hope of being built. This may portend an imminent announcement of closure of the Alaska Gasline Development Corp., and may serve to distract the public from such an embarrassment.
May I suggest that Gov. Walker and our representatives follow this leadership by refusing their pay also? A salary of nothing would match their accomplishments. No?
— Daniel N. Russell
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.